Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T13:09:01.363Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Maternal relations, feminism and surrogate motherhood in the Italian context

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2018

Carlotta Cossutta Open the ORCID record for Carlotta Cossutta [Opens in a new window]
Carlotta Cossutta*
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici, University of Eastern Piedmont, Vercelli, Italy
*
*Email: carlotta.cossutta@uniupo.it
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the surrogacy debate that has developed within contemporary feminist and LGBT movements in Italy, following the approval of the law on civil unions at the beginning of 2016. This debate has been marked by a deep fracture between those who see in surrogate motherhood a chance to imagine new forms of social bonds and those who consider that women’s wombs and newborn children can never be the object of an economic ‘exchange’. I will first analyse the most controversial positions held by some feminists who have participated in the debate, which revolve around the centrality of the maternal figure. Then I will outline a brief history of the social construction of pregnancy, linking it to changes in the marketplace and the birth of biopolitics. Finally, with the help of Angela Putino’s philosophical thought I will advance a potentially different feminist approach to the issue of surrogate motherhood.

Italian summary

In questo articolo prendo in esame il dibattito italiano sulla maternità surrogata che si è sviluppato all’interno dei movimenti femministi e LGBT a partire dalla discussione sulla legge sulle unioni civili all’inizio del 2016. Questo dibattito è stato attraversato da una profonda frattura tra chi vede nella maternità surrogata una possibilità di immaginare nuove forme di legami sociali e chi considera che gli uteri delle donne e i neonati non possano mai essere oggetto di ‘scambio’.

Nel testo analizzo le posizioni più discusse di alcune femministe per mostrare come ruotino attorno alla centralità della figura materna. In seguito propongo una breve storia della costruzione sociale della gravidanza e le metto in relazione ai cambiamenti nel mercato e alla nascita della biopolitica. Utilizzo, infine, il pensiero di Angela Putino per mostrare un possibile diverso approccio femminista al tema della maternità surrogata.

Keywords

surrogacyfeminismbiopoliticsreproductionmotherhoodsexual difference
Type
Research Article
Information
Modern Italy , Volume 23 , Special Issue 2: Special Issue: Sexuality and Power in Contemporary Italy: Subjectivities Between Gender Norms, Agency and Social Transformation , May 2018 , pp. 215 - 226
Copyright
© 2018 Association for the Study of Modern Italy 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

AA. VV. 2004. Un’appropriazione indebita. L’uso del corpo della donna nella nuova legge sulla procreazione assistita. Milan: Baldini Castoldi Dalai.Google Scholar
Almeling, R. 2007. ‘Selling genes, selling gender: egg agencies, sperm banks, and the medical market in genetic material’. American Sociological Review 72 (3): 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arena, F. 2013. ‘La maternité entre santé et pathologie. L’histoire des délires puerpéraux à l’époque moderne et contemporaine’. Histoire, Médecine et santé 3: 101–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ArciLesbica, Utero in affitto. Ai Pride si eviti la propaganda e si promuova un vero confronto, [online], available at https://www.facebook.com/Arcilesbica/posts/1216224618486004 (accessed 20 November 2017).Google Scholar
Balzano, A. 2014. ‘Preface’. In Biolavoro globale, by M. Cooper, and C. Waldby. Rome: DeriveApprodi.Google Scholar
Balzano, A. 2016. ‘Le conseguenze dell’amore ai tempi del biocapitalismo. Diritti riproduttivi e mercati della fertilità’. In Il genere tra neoliberismo e neofondamentalismo, edited by F. Zappino, 110–125. Verona: Ombre Corte.Google Scholar
Betta, E. 2012. L’altra genesi. Storia della fecondazione artificiale . Rome: Carocci.Google Scholar
Bonini, E., Berend, Z., Pozzolo, S., Cantore, L., and Danna, D. 2017. ‘‘Desires and Rights. Surrogacy at the Crossroads of New Ethical Dilemmas?’ Roundtable about GPA (Gestione per Altri), Second Round’. About Gender 16 (11): 398–409. https://riviste.unige.it/aboutgender/article/view/457/469 Google Scholar
Casalini, B. 2015. ‘Nel best interest dei bambini e delle madri surrogate’. Cambio V (9): 29–36.Google Scholar
Cooper, M., and Waldby, C. 2014. Clinical Labor: Tissue Donors and Research Subjects in the Global Bioeconomy. Durham, USA: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Corradi, L. 2017. Nel ventre di un’altra. Rome: Castelvecchi.Google Scholar
Courduriès, J., and Herbrand, C. 2014. ‘Gender, Kinship and Assisted Reproductive Technologies: Future Directions after 30 Years of Research’. Enfances Familles Générations 21: xxviii–xliv.Google Scholar
Cox, N., and Federici, S. 1975. Counter-Planning from the Kitchen: Wages for Housework: A Perspective on Capital and the Left. Bristol: Falling Wall Press.Google Scholar
Danna, D. 2015a. Contract Children. Questioning Surrogacy. Stuttgart: Ibidem.Google Scholar
Danna, D. 2015b. La madre dimenticata e censurata [online] available at http://www.danieladanna.it/wordpress/?p=663 (accessed 8 July 2017).Google Scholar
De Beauvoir, S. 1949. Le Deuxième Sexe. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
De Marchi, S. 2017. Mio, tuo, suo, loro. Donne che partoriscono per altri. Rome: Fandango.Google Scholar
D’Amelia, M., ed. 1997. Storia della maternità. Rome: Laterza.Google Scholar
D’Elia, C. 2015. ‘Gestazione per altri. Le figure in gioco’. Leggendaria 115: 10–13.Google Scholar
Di Masi, M., and Virgilio, M. 2017. ‘La gestazione per altri e il turismo riproduttivo. Tra proibizionismo e desiderio di responsabilità genitoriale’. MINORIGIUSTIZIA 1: 41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diotima. 1987. Il pensiero della differenza sessuale. Milan: La Tartaruga.Google Scholar
Diotima. 1990. Mettere al mondo il mondo. Milan: La Tartaruga.Google Scholar
Duden, B. 1993. Disembodying Women: Perspectives on Pregnancy and the Unborn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Duden, B. 2002. Die gene im Kopf – der Fötus im Bauch. Historisches zum Frauenkörper . Hanover: Offizin.Google Scholar
Fineschi, V., Neri, M., and Turillazzi, E. 2005. ‘The New Italian Law on Assisted Reproduction Technology (Law 40/2004)’. Journal of Medical Ethics 31 (9): 536–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forti, S., and Guaraldo, O. 2006. ‘Rinforzare la specie. Il corpo femminile tra biopolitica e religione materna’. Filosofia politica 20 (1): 57–78.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1998. The Will to Knowledge. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 2007. Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–78 . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 2010. The Birth of Biopolitics. New York: Picador.Google Scholar
Gramolini, M. C. 2000. ‘Arcilesbica perché’. In Independence gay. Alle origini del gay pride, edited by M. Consoli, 115–127. Bolsena: Massari.Google Scholar
Haraway, D. 1997. Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium.FemaleMan_Meets_OncoMouse™: Feminism and Technoscience. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Henley-Einion, A. 2009. ‘The Medicalisation of Childbirth’. In The Social Context of Birth, edited by C. Squire, 173–185. Abingdon: Radcliffe Publishing.Google Scholar
Hisano, E. Y. 2011. ‘Gestational Surrogacy Maternity Disputes: Refocusing on the Child’. Lewis & Clark Law Review 15: 517–553.Google Scholar
Huber, S., Karandikar, S., and Gezinski, L. 2017. ‘Exploring Indian Surrogates’ Perceptions of the Ban on International Surrogacy’. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work 1–16.Google Scholar
Lazzarato, M. 1996. ‘Immaterial Labor’. In Radical Thought in Italy: a Potential Politics, edited by P. Virno, and M. Hardy, 133–147. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Lonzi, C. 2010. Sputiamo su Hegel e altri scritti. Milan: et al.Google Scholar
Milan Women’s Bookstore Collective. 1990. Sexual Difference. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Muraro, L. 1991. L’ordine simbolico della madre. Rome: Editori Riuniti.Google Scholar
Muraro, L. 2016. L’anima del corpo. Contro l’utero in affitto. Verona: La Scuola.Google Scholar
Pande, A. 2014. Wombs in Labor: Transnational Commercial Surrogacy in India. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pateman, C. 1988. The Sexual Contract. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Perrotta, M. 2016. ‘Reframing Conception, Reproducing Society: Italian Paradoxes’. In Assisted Reproduction Across Borders: Feminist Perspectives on Normalizations, Disruptions and Transmissions, edited by M. Lie, and N. Lykke, 139–151. London-New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Putino, A. 1998. Amiche mie isteriche. Naples: Cronopio.Google Scholar
Putino, A. 2011. I corpi di mezzo: biopolitica, differenza tra i sessi e governo della specie. Verona: Ombre Corte.Google Scholar
Terragni, M. 2016. Temporary Mother. Uteri in affitto e mercato dei figli. Milan: Vanda.Google Scholar
Weeks, J. R. 2005. Population: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Zappino, F. 2015. ‘Sulla maternità surrogata’. Il lavoro culturale [online], available at http://www.lavoroculturale.org/sulla-maternita-surrogata/ (accessed 25 October 2017).Google Scholar
Zerilli, L. M. G. 2004. ‘Refiguring Rights through the Political Practice of Sexual Difference’. Differences 15 (2): 54–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuffa, G. ‘Guardare con i nostri occhi’. Leggendaria 115: 15–18.Google Scholar