All Reproduction is Assisted

cri_000000274380

Louise Bourgeois, 2008

Belatedly announcing the fact that I am part of a forum at Boston Review, Issue 7.43(3), Once and Future Feminist, sharing space with the likes of Silvia Federici and Andrea Long Chu while responding to an article by the brilliant writer Merve Emre that surveys American infertilities.

The gender of gestating is ambiguous. I am not talking about pregnancy’s deepening of one’s voice, its carpeting of one’s legs in bristly hair, or even about the ancient Greek belief that it was an analogue of men’s duty to die in battle if called upon. I am not even thinking of the heterogeneity of those who gestate. Rather, in a context where political economists are talking constantly of “the feminization of labor,” it seems to me that the economic gendering of the work itself—gestating is work, as Merve Emre says—is not as clear-cut as it would appear.

Read it here.

A response to Julie Bindel (at the Verso blog)

1991

In what I can only hope is the last time I ever dedicate my precious time and energy to parsing the worldview of RadFems(TM), SWERFs/TERFs (and SERFs – surrogate-exclusionary radical feminists)… I recently wrote a new piece: ‘Not a workplace’: Julie Bindel and the school of wrong abolitionism.

Published a month before the tragic death of veteran sex-working activist Laura Lee, whom it villainises, Bindel’s book The Pimping of Prostitution: Abolishing the Sex Work Myth excludes trans women from womanhood, LGB rights, and feminism, even going so far as to speculate that Sylvia Rivera was not at Stonewall. Indeed, it systematically paints trans women as enemies of feminism, accusing Janet Mock – among many others – of ‘celebrating’ the connection between trans women and sex work (p.282) as part of an “attempt to merge the identities [?] of prostitution and so-called ‘gender-queer’” (p.279). Not content to blame queerness for calls to decriminalise sex-working lives, Bindel then turns around and levels the claim that trans women are overrepresented in sex work for essential reasons: “part of the whole trans woman identity is about presenting as hyper-sexualised” (p.287). We are ultimately presented with a sinister “pact between trans and ‘sex workers’ rights’”, presumably to foist sexual slavery, organised rape and dehumanisation on the (‘natural’) ‘rest’ of womankind.

Most of the piece is not a review of The Pimping of Prostitution, however. It’s a response to a specific article, published in The Guardian. When Bindel came out with the column in question – “Prostitution is not a job. The inside of a woman’s body is not a workplace” – my friend and comrade Petra Davis suggested on Twitter that it might be fun to take it apart word by word, i.e.:

  • The INSIDE of a woman’s body is not a workplace.
  • The inside of a WOMAN’s body is not a workplace.
  • The inside of a woman’s BODY is not a workplace.
  • The inside of a woman’s body is not a WORKPLACE.

So that’s what I did. It’s up at the Verso blog. Here is an excerpt:

For those of us who aren’t fans of work (most workers) it might seem encouraging to see someone sticking it to workplaces. Unfortunately, Julie Bindel doesn’t actually have a problem with jobs per se, far from it; she just thinks that some of them go too far. She names a number of biomarkets – Ukrainian hair selling, “the breast milk trade in Cambodia”, “blood banks in India”, and gestational surrogacy “in the global south” – as examples of what she most abhors, namely, prostitution: “the practice of using human bodies as a marketplace”.

The first thing to note here is the selection of ‘workplace’ and ‘marketplace’ in this context (rather than, say, ‘worker’). We should stop and ask ourselves what ends it serves to suggest that a gestational surrogate, blood donor, or prostitute, in particular, becomes a place – more so than a mother, athlete, call-centre worker or restaurant critic – under capitalism. It’s easy enough to see where bioethical concern is coming from: intimate labours, sexual labours, clinical labours, gestational labours all intuitively demand especially robust frameworks of worker control.

Footprinting the Tentacular Womb

Here is the recording of my presentation at the AAG Annual Meeting in New Orleans (April 11th, 2018): Footprinting the Tentacular Womb. This talk was part of the excellent full-day stream “From the Anthropocene to Postgenomics: New Configurations of Body-World“. I’m hoping I manage to make it more or less comprehensible (at least, for people who have some familiarity with the scholarship of Michelle Murphy and Donna Haraway) – although, I now realise, listening back, it ended up very dense. I’m still learning how to give presentations effectively and not cram too much in, but I’m happy that I got so many laughs.

footprint cover image.png

 

footprint image 2footprint image 3

Amniotechnics

This essay of mine was published at The New Inquiry two months ago. Better late than never to log it on my blog, right? It’s called AMNIOTECHNICS, which is the name of the concept I’d like to explore in a book.

Amniotechnics is the art of holding and caring even while being ripped into, at the same time as being held. It is protecting water and protecting people from water. I want a generalized praxis of this, which doesn’t forget the importance of holding mothers and thwarted mothers and, yes, even wannabe “single fathers,” afloat in the juice; breathing but hydrated; well-watered but dry. I hope it is possible even for fantasists of ectogenetic progeny, like Frankenstein, who have dreamed of a birth unsullied by a womb, to become capable amniotechnicians in time. Their worldviews may not hold water, but I think they too have to be held. It is possible for any of us to learn that it is the holders—not the delusional “authors,” self-replicators and “patenters”—who truly people the world. “Water management” may sound unexciting, but I suspect it contains the secrets to the kinmaking practices of the future.

amnios-social-490x352

If this grabs you, go read the rest of it over at TNI, email or tweet at me with your thoughts and criticisms, and watch this space for a longer version.

(Why We Can’t) Let the Machines Do It: A Response to Inventing the Future

(Why We Can’t) Let the Machines Do It: A Response to Inventing the Future

Source: (Why We Can’t) Let the Machines Do It: A Response to Inventing the Future

Head’s up: the excellent blog The Disorder of Things is currently hosting a symposium on the new book by Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams, Inventing the Future.

I co-wrote (with the wonderful David M Bell from the University of Nottingham) an essay that responds to the book:

“(Why We Can’t) Let the Machines Do It: A Response to Inventing the Future”.

While you’re there, definitely also read the other, prior post that the symposium posted, which focuses on the ecological angle more exclusively. (“Postcapitalist Ecology: a comment on Inventing the Future“.) It is from a fellow member of the Out of the Woods writing collective (Joseph Kay) and it is fantastic.

Oh, and finally, weigh in – and watch this space. Conversations are happening on social media about the strengths and limits of ‘automationist’ anti-work. Out of the Woods will be posting a separate head’s-up and introduction to the two perspectives it helped produce on the type of analysis Srnicek and Williams offer.

 

How Will Surrogates Struggle? (at The Occupied Times)

How Will Surrogates Struggle? (at The Occupied Times)

Earlier this year The Occupied Times (which is consistently excellent) published a second – different – piece I wrote on gestational workplaces. Flagging this here so you can check it out. It’s called: How Will Surrogates Struggle?

Excerpt:

Surrogate struggle by no means demands a technophobic attitude against assisted reproductive technologies, which should surely rather be reimagined – made to realise collective needs and desires. Because, actually, those who work as surrogates are the technology profitably controlled by others. They embody not only the form-giving fire but the partially conscious primary components. And the woman who stood up to her boss, with whom this article began, points the way to a revolution that begins simply with naming the labour of surrogacy as labour; naming the not-fully-conscious, not-fully-human, body, in which the commissioned baby resides, as synonymous with the labourer herself. We might imagine this struggle as one aiming to overthrow all conditions of life that stratify and impede the flourishing and re-growing of already-existing humans. Starting, certainly, with global markets in reproductive tourism as they currently exist, intensifying patterns of neocolonial inequality. But doubtless also including the nuclear family, based, as it is, on genetic heredity, inheritance, and oppressive divisions of work that prop up the tangled relations of nation, gender and race. Surrogacy, in short, has the potential to make palpable to us how co-produced, worldly and interdependent our bodies are. In the years to come, a form of radical cyborg militancy is to be expected in the gestational workplaces of the world.