This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Cussins, C. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Ontological Choreography: Agency through Objectification in Infertility Clinics

Science Studies Program/Sociology, 0533, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0533, USA. Fax: +1 619 793 0476; ccussins{at}helix.ucsd.edu

This paper is about the interaction between patients and medical technology, and uses ethnographic data drawn from fieldwork in infertility clinics to question the humanist argument that selves need to be protected from technological objectification to ensure agency and authenticity. It argues that objectification is only antithetical to personhood in specific circumstances. Non-reductive manifestations of objectification make possible a notion of agency not opposed by, but pursued in objectification.

The dependence of science and technology on social, individual and political factors has been quite extensively worked out in the science and technology studies literature. The dependence of selves on technology has received less attention. In other literatures that take the construction of the person seriously, the role of technology in that process is typically under-emphasized. This paper attempts to link the initiatives of these literatures by adding an ontological connection between technology and selves. A notion of `ontological choreography' is developed to describe the processes of forging functional trails of compatibility that create and maintain the referentiality between things of different kinds — like persons and reproductive technologies.

Social Studies of Science, Vol. 26, No. 3, 575-610 (1996)
DOI: 10.1177/030631296026003004


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. Hunter Living documents: A feminist psychosocial approach to the relational politics of policy documentation Critical Social Policy, November 1, 2008; 28(4): 506 - 528. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. A. Hammons Assisted Reproductive Technologies: Changing Conceptions of Motherhood? Affilia, August 1, 2008; 23(3): 270 - 280. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Harrington, G. Becker, and R. Nachtigall Nonreproductive Technologies: Remediating Kin Structure with Donor Gametes Science Technology Human Values, May 1, 2008; 33(3): 393 - 418. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. Mamo Negotiating Conception: Lesbians' Hybrid-Technological Practices Science Technology Human Values, May 1, 2007; 32(3): 369 - 393. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Franklin The Cyborg Embryo: Our Path to Transbiology Theory Culture Society, December 1, 2006; 23(7-8): 167 - 187. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Latimer, K. Featherstone, P. Atkinson, A. Clarke, D. T. Pilz, and A. Shaw Rebirthing the Clinic: The Interaction of Clinical Judgment and Genetic Technology in the Production of Medical Science Science Technology Human Values, September 1, 2006; 31(5): 599 - 630. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Shildrick Genetics, Normativity, and Ethics: Some Bioethical Concerns Feminist Theory, August 1, 2004; 5(2): 149 - 165. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Berg The Politics of Technology: On Bringing Social Theory into Technological Design Science Technology Human Values, October 1, 1998; 23(4): 456 - 490. [Abstract] [PDF]