Disciplining Reproduction: Modernity, American Life Sciences, and "The Problems of Sex" (review)

Disciplining Reproduction: Modernity, American Life Sciences, and "The Problems of Sex." By Adele E. Clarke (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1998) 421 pp. $45.00.

This is a book both broad in focus and focused within its breadth. With careful detail, yet never losing sight of the larger context, Clarke analyzes "the formation and coalescence of the reproductive sciences as a disciplinary enterprise in the United States" (259).

At the turn of the century, industrialization set the tone of work. Rationalization, professionalization, and specialization dominated the profiles of the biologists, medical reproductive scientists, and agriculturists who were studying issues of sex and reproduction. Industrialization had its costs in this arena as in all others: The disciplining of reproduction meant making sex, procreation, and contraception "scientific." The most dramatic consequences, and most troubling, can be seen in the fate of contraception. Safe, effective barrier methods fell by the wayside as research focused on the high-tech end. The interests of the scientists in their research dominated over the interests of women in safely controlling births. As has been well documented elsewhere, in addition to this book, political compromises placed "population control" issues over issues concerning the control of conception for and by individual women.

Most of Clarke's book is devoted to a careful history of the work in reproductive sciences between 1910 and 1963. The penultimate chapter, which, she suggests, readers may want to read first, offers an argument that is clearly important to Clarke, but remains unconvincing nonetheless, despite its interest. She argues that the scientific work in reproduction is "illegitimate":

The reproductive sciences have been and continue to be viewed as illegitimate. For some groups, this reputation is due to their association with sexuality and reproduction; for others it results from their association with clinical quackery and problematic treatments (from rejuvenescence to des to contraceptives' negative side effects). For yet others their association with controversial social movements (eugenics, birth control, abortion, population control) make them anathema. But it is their association with "brave new worlds" in which nature itself is manipulated . . . that has drawn the most opposition to date. In consequence, reproductive scientists have received no Nobel Prizes for their work; they have received fewer awards and, many would assert, lesser rewards. (264)

True enough, but this lack of recognition makes sense only in the context of "relative deprivation." Compared to social scientists who study not just sexuality but virtually anything, reproductive scientists seem both well honored and well rewarded! Clarke acknowledges the point immediately by stating that the success of the reproductive scientists has had "the sustained support of highly prestigious scientific organizations, philanthropies and individuals who have provided funding, legitimacy and many other kinds of support for the better part of a century" (264).

Reproductive science has indeed been associated with quackery, as has virtually every other area of medical care, and the various social movements to which it has contributed--and which have sustained it--have indeed been suspect at times. But these social movements have also been widely accepted and respected at various times by different segments of the social world. The field is not without controversy, but is it appropriate to call it illegitimate? I would suggest that interested readers review the data, which is thoughtfully and fully presented, and come to their own conclusions.

Barbara Katz Rothman
City University of New York

...