‘Fighting Science with Social Science: Activist Scholarship in an International Resistance Project’

Abstract

This paper draws on a socio-historic case study of the Feminist International Network of Resistance to Reproductive and Genetic Engineering (FINRRAGE) in order to consider the ways in which activists create and develop knowledge in movements around complex emergent technologies. Using documentary and interview data, and an analytic framework drawn from Eyerman and Jamison's cognitive praxis paradigm, the paper outlines certain conditions under which activists may be able to create both social and social scientific knowledge in support of their claims. The paradigm itself is also interrogated, and suggestions made for extending and refining the framework through incorporation of theories of knowledge drawn from science and technology studies.

Keywords

Social Movements Knowledge Cognitive Praxis Reproductive Technologies Feminism Activism

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Akhter

(1995) Resisting Norplant. Dhaka: Narigrantha Prabartana.

Arditti

, Klein

and Minden

(eds) (1984) Test-Tube Women: What Future for Motherhood? London: Pandora Press.

Arthur

M. M. L.

(2009) ‘Thinking Outside the Master's House: New Knowledge Movements and the Emergence of Academic Disciplines’. Social Movement Studies 8 (1), p.73–87. [doi://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/14742830802591176]

Attride-Stirling

(2001) ‘Thematic Networks: An Analytic Tool for Qualitative Research’. Qualitative Research 1 (3), p.385–405. [doi://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1177/146879410100100307]

Bodmer

(1985) The Public Understanding of Science. London: Royal Society.

Bowles

and Klein

(1983) ‘Theories of Women's Studies and the Autonomy/Integration Debate’ in Bowles

and Klein

(eds) Theories of Women's Studies. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, p.1–26.

Casas-Cortes

M. I.

, Osterweil

and Powell

D. E.

(2008) ‘Blurring Boundaries: Recognizing Knowledge-Practices in the Study of Social Movements’. Anthropological Quarterly 81 (1), p.17–58. [doi://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1353/anq.2008.0006]

Collins

(2004) ‘Interactional Expertise as a Third Kind of Knowledge’. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 3 (2), p.125–143. [doi://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1023/B:PHEN.0000040824.89221.1a]

Collins

H. M.

and Evans

(2007) Rethinking Expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [doi://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.7208/chicago/9780226113623.001.0001]

10.

Corea

(1985) The Mother Machine: Reproductive Technologies from Artificial Insemination to Artificial Wombs. New York: Harper & Row.

11.

Corea

and Ince

(1985) ‘IVF a Game for Losers at Half of US Clinics’. Medical Tribune, 3 July, p.12–13.

12.

Corea

and Ince

(1987) ‘Report of a Survey of IVF Clinics imn the Usa’ in Spallone

and Steinberg

D. L.

(eds) Made to Order: The Myth of Reproductive and Genetic Progress. Oxford: Pergamon Press, p.133–145.

13.

Corea

, Klein

, Hanmer

, Holmes

H. B.

, Hoskins

, Kishwar

, Raymond

, Rowland

and Steinbacher

(eds) (1985) Man-Made Women: How New Reproductive Technologies Affect Women. London: Hutchinson.

14.

Coy

P. G.

, Woehrle

L. M.

and Maney

G. M.

(2008) ‘A Typology of Oppositional Knowledge: Democracy and the U.S. Peace Movement’. Sociological Research Online 13 (4), http://www.socresonline.org.uk/13/4/3.html. [doi://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.5153/sro.1739]

15.

Crowe

(1990) ‘Whose Mind over Whose Matter? Women, in Vitro Fertilisation and the Development of Scientific Knowledge’ in McNeil

, Varcoe

, (eds) The New Reproductive Technologies. Houndmills: The Macmillan Press, p.27–57.

16.

De Saille

(2012) From ‘Death of the Female’ to ‘Life Itself’: A Socio-Historic Examination of FINRRAGE. PhD thesis submitted to Sociology and Social Policy, University of Leeds.

17.

Della Porta

(1992) ‘Life Histories in the Analysis of a Social Movement’ in Diani

and Eyerman

(eds) Studying Collective Action. London: Sage, p.168–193.

18.

Dickey

R. P.

(1986) ‘The Medical Status of the Embryo’. Loyola Law Review 32, p.317–336.

19.

Edwards

and Steptoe

(1980) A Matter of Life: The Sensational Story of the World's First Test-Tube Baby. London: Sphere Books Ltd.

20.

Edwards

R. G.

and Steptoe

P. C.

(1983) ‘Current Status of in-Vitro Fertilisation and Implantation of Human Embryos’. The Lancet 322 (8362), p.1265–1269. [doi://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/S0140-6736(83)91148-0]

21.

Epstein

(1996) ‘Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge’.

22.

Esteves

A. M.

(2008) ‘Processes of Knowledge Production in Social Movements as Multi-Level Power Dynamics’. Sociology Compass 2 (6), p.1934–1953.

23.

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (1989) Resolution of 16 March 1989 on Artificial Insemination ‘in Vivo’ and ‘in Vitro’; Resolution of 16 March 1989 on the Ethical and Legal Problems of Genetic Engineering (Doc. A2-372/88). Official Journal C 96, 17.4.89, p.165–173. [online].

24.

Eyerman

and Jamison

(1991) Social Movements: A Cognitive Approach. Cambridge: Polity Press.

25.

Fabricant

(1990) ‘International Law Revisited: Davis Vs Davis and the Need for Coherent Policy on the Status of the Embryo’. Connecticut Journal of International Law 6, p.173–207.

26.

Finch

and Mason

(1990) ‘Decision Taking in the Fieldwork Process: Theoretical Sampling and Collaborative Working’ in Burgess

(ed) Studies in Qualitative Methodology Vol 2: Reflections on Field Experience. Greenwich/London: JAI Press, p.25–50.

27.

Finrrage (1987) ‘Resolution from the FINRRAGE Conference, July 3-8 1985, Vallinge, Sweden’ in Spallone

and Steinberg

D. L.

(eds) Made to Order: The Myth of Reproductive and Genetic Progress. Oxford: Pergamon Press, p.211–212.

28.

Franklin

(1990) ‘Deconstructing ‘Desperateness’: The Social Construction of Infertility in Popular Representations of New Reproductive Technologies’ in McNeil

, Varcoe

, (eds) The New Reproductive Technologies. Houndmills: The Macmillan Press, p.200–229.

29.

Frickel

(2004) ‘Just Science? Organizing Scientist Activism in the US Environmental Justice Movement’. Science as Culture 13 (4), p.449 – 469. [doi://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/0950543042000311814]

30.

Fuller

(1988/2002) Social Epistemology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

31.

Gomm

, Hammersley

and Foster

(2000) ‘Case Study and Theory’ in Gomm

, Hammersley

, (eds) Case Study Method: Key Issues, Key Texts. London: Sage, p.234–258.

32.

Haas

P. M.

(1992) ‘Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination’. International Organization 46 (1), p.1–35. [doi://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1017/S0020818300001442]

33.

Habermas

(1969/1987) Toward a Rational Society: Student Protest, Science and Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.

34.

Harvard Law Review Association (1989) ‘Developments in the Law: Medical Technology and the Law’. Harvard Law Review 103, p.1519–1976.

35.

Jamison

(2010) ‘Climate Change Knowledge and Social Movement Theory’. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 1 (6), p.811–823.

36.

Johnson

M. H.

, Franklin

S. B.

, Cottingham

and Hopwood

(2010) ‘Why the Medical Research Council Refused Robert Edwards and Patrick Steptoe Support for Research on Human Conception in 1971’. Human Reproduction 25 (9), p.2157–2174. [doi://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1093/humrep/deq155]

37.

Klein

(1989) The Exploitation of a Desire: Women's Experiences with in Vitro Fertilisation. Geelong, Australia: Women's Studies Summer Institute, Deakin University.

38.

Klein

and Rowland

(1989) ‘Hormonal Cocktails: Women as Test-Sites for Fertility Drugs Women as Test-Sites for Fertility Drugs’. Women's Studies International Forum 12 (3), p.333–348. [doi://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/S0277-5395(89)80010-X]

39.

Knorr-Cetina

(1999) Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge Harvard University Press.

40.

Koch

(1990) ‘IVF - an Irrational Choice?’. (Issues in) Reproductive and Genetic Engineering: Journal of International Feminist Analysis 3 (3).

41.

Kuhn

T. S.

(1962/1996) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

42.

Kurzman

(2008) ‘Meaning Making in Social Movements’. Anthropological Quarterly 81 (1), p.17–58. [doi://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1353/anq.2008.0003]

43.

Lee

and Morgan

(2001) Human Fertilization and Embryology: Regulating the Reproductive Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

44.

Leeton

(2004) ‘The Early History of IVF in Australia and Its Contribution to the World (1970 - 1990)’. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 44 (6), p.495–501. [doi://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1111/j.1479-828X.2004.00305.x]

45.

Leeton

, Trounson

and Wood

(1984) ‘The Use of Donor Eggs and Embryos in the Management of Human Infertility’. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 24 (4), p.265–270. [doi://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1111/j.1479-828X.1984.tb01508.x]

46.

Lentin

(1999) ‘Structure, Strategy, Sustainability: What Future for New Social Movement Theory?’. Sociological Research Online 4 (3), http://www.socresonline.org.uk/4/3/lentin.html. [doi://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.5153/sro.301]

47.

Mansbridge

J. J.

(2001) ‘The Making of Oppositional Consciousness’ in Mansbridge

J. J.

and Morris

(eds) Oppositional Consciousness: The Subjective Roots of Social Protest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p.1–19.

48.

Mccormick

(2007) ‘Democratizing Science Movements: A New Framework for Mobilization and Contestation’. Social Studies of Science 37 (4), p.609–623. [doi://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1177/0306312707076598]

49.

Melucci

(1985) ‘The Symbolic Challenge of Contemporary Movements’. Social Research, p.789–816.

50.

Mulkay

M. J.

(1997) The Embryo Research Debate: Science and the Politics of Reproduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [doi://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1017/CBO9780511520945]

51.

Pfeffer

(1985) ‘Not So New Technologies’. Trouble and Strife 5, p.46–50.

52.

Polanyi

(1962) ‘The Republic of Science’. Minerva 1 (1), p.54–73. [doi://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1007/BF01101453]

53.

Sheridan

(1990) ‘Feminist Knowledge, Women's Liberation and Women's Studies’ in Gunew

(ed) Feminist Knowledge: Critique and Construct. London: Routledge, p.36–55.

54.

Snow

, Rochford

E. B.

, Worden

and Benford

(1986) ‘Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation’. American Sociological Review 51 (4), p.464–481. [doi://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.2307/2095581]

55.

Spallone

(1989) Beyond Conception: The New Politics of Reproduction. Granby, MA: Bergin & Garvey Publishers.

56.

Spallone

and Steinberg

D. L.

(eds) (1987) Made to Order: The Myth of Reproductive and Genetic Progress. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

57.

Walters

(1987) ‘Ethics and New Reproductive Technologies: An International Review of Committee Statements’. The Hastings Center Report 17 (3), p.3–9. [doi://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.2307/3562251]

58.

Weikert

, Riegler

and Trallori

(1987) Schöne Neue Männerwelt. Beiträge Zu Gen- Und Fortpflanzungstechnologien. Vienna: Verlag fur Gesellschaftskritik.

59.

Welsh

and Wynne

(2013) ‘Science, Scientism and Imaginaries of Publics in the UK: Passive Objects, Incipient Threats’. Science as Culture 22 (4), p.540–566. [doi://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/14636778.2013.764072]

60.

Woll

(1992) ‘The Effect of Feminist Opposition to Reproductive Technology: A Case Study in Victoria, Australia’. (Issues in) Reproductive and Genetic Engineering: Journal of International Feminist Analysis 5 (1), p.20.