A quick Google search will tell you that the capital of Israel and the capital of Japan are over 5,600 miles apart. One might think that an unrealistic bridge must be created to make a connection between the two countries. But, as Tsipy Ivry states in the introduction of her book “Embodying Culture: Pregnancy in Japan and Israel,” the two countries have both quite a bit in common and in difference; both are non-Western and have medicalized pregnancy/birth practices, and yet both countries have different historical positions vis-à-vis eugenic ideas and contrast culturally in conceptions of life and death, where Japan has polytheistic traditions and Israel is based on the monotheistic traditions of Judaism (Ivry 21).
Tsipy Ivry, an Israeli, was a research student at Tokyo University when she became pregnant for the first time. Her interactions with Japanese people early on in her pregnancy, and what little knowledge she had of (generally) the experience of pregnancy of Israeli women, sparked Ivry’s interest in studying pregnancy in both Israel and Japan. The first part of her book describes the narratives/practices of Israeli and Japanese OB-GYNs. The second part explores the pregnancy experiences of Japanese and Israeli women while incorporating viewpoints of “outsiders.” Lastly, part three connects the data presented in part one and two and uses comparison to re-address the meta questions of this study (pg. 32).
There are important distinctions to draw between how Israeli and Japanese OB-GYN’s approach pregnancy, especially in regard to pre-natal care. On the one hand, Ivry depicts that Israeli OB’s focus on fetal treatment and idolize pre-natal care in part due to the collective experience of historical catastrophe, such that those experiences have prepared them for “reproductive catastrophe” as well. Ivry’s research suggests that Israeli OB’s provide this type of care because their people have a history of suffering, from exile to annihilation, and therefore place extreme importance on healthy fetuses for the prosperity of the future. With such “fatalistic conceptions of threat in mind, genetic fatalism makes much sense” (pg.76). If they do not, then “the fetus comes to represent danger itself, the one that women and ultimately society should defend themselves against” (pg. 60). This is not the only reason that Israeli OB’s treat pregnancies the way they do, but it is important to note that it is a significant factor. Japanese OB’s, on the other hand, are concerned about the pregnant woman’s well-being as part of their attempt to secure the fetus (including but not limited to nutrition and body weight), and generally hesitate to use invasive pre-natal diagnostics. This treatment style is linked to political schemes to improve the extremely low birth rate in the country. Ivry’s research suggests that Japanese OB’s provide this type of care in part due to a link drawn to pre and post war Japan. Prewar, the government implemented strategies to make motherhood an important patriotic obligation of women, leading to a population increase. This focus on the mother was effective and ended up deep rooted as a cultural norm. After the war, Japan had been totally devastated, and “the national goal now was economic recovery;” this economic recovery consisted of campaigns for less children. If there are less babies, there are less people which is a temporary fix to economic struggle (pg.80). In short, and in general, Japanese OB’s generally tried to improve birth rate by focusing on the mother’s health in addition to the baby’s, and less on invasive pre-natal testing that could lead to higher abortion or miscarriage rates.
But what about Israeli/Japanese pregnant women? What are their experiences? Ivry’s research demonstrates that the connection between mother-baby during the gestational period is more emotionally involved with Japanese women compared to Israeli women. For example, in the context of the workplace, Japanese women are extremely likely to quit their jobs during pregnancy (even in cases of planning pregnancy) as a way to make their life one that agrees with the pregnant version of themselves, a notion that Israeli women would interpret as indulgence according to Ivry’s research (pg.134). In other words, pregnant Japanese women believe that their pregnancy is “replacing or changing one full-time job for another” (pg.138) whereas Ivry illustrated that “the perspective of Israeli women…tend to see pregnancy as a physical state they can hardly influence” (pg.143). Another example of the difference between the ways pregnant Japanese and Israeli women experience pregnancy involves speaking to the baby during the pregnancy. Ivry describes that it is very commonplace for Japanese women to speak to their child in the womb, a partial by product of media influence and humanization of the fetus, whereas Israeli women very rarely ever did so, a partial by product of social and historical anxieties about catastrophe (pg. 146-148). The hesitant approach to the idea of bonding between the Israeli pregnant woman and the fetus not only reflects Zionist ideas involving gender equality, but also reflects the woman’s hard work to block possible ideas of “catastrophe from bursting into her experience” (pg.226); “the fear of worst-case scenarios seems to reside at the heart of Jewish folk religion and…medical worst-case scenarios are merely a recent incarnation of these anxieties” (pg.228).
Ivry makes an additional point, with the chapter “Juxtapositions,” that not everything is black and white. The Japanese understanding of pregnancy in in of itself carries its own contradictions in addition to the difference seen when compared to the Israeli understanding of pregnancy (and vice-versa). For example, historically, western influence was so strong that the Japanese found themselves comparing their bodies to that of Westerners; Japanese eugenics wanted to create bigger bodies (pg.253). But these particular beliefs are also accompanied by the beliefs of over-nutrition, or gaining too much weight during pregnancy, which is believed to not only have negative effects on the child but also effect a person’s “Japanese-ness.” Similar body issues appeared around the same time with the Jewish population in Israel, and the concerns were similar; in the case of pregnant Israeli women, though, it was less about weight and more about “getting rid” of the old Jewish body, with its “Jewish” diseases (pg.254). Ivry summarizes this one example concisely, and goes on to provide more specific examples of these juxtapositions: “the Japanese launched gynocentric, ecosystemically oriented eugenic policies aimed at bearing a bigger and stronger generation while retaining its Japanese-ness; the Zionists, who became engaged in inventing a “new Jew” while symbolically and practically rejecting major aspects that characterized Jews for two thousand years, emphasized geneticist eugenic strategies of selection” (pg.255).
Ivry ends her book with a reminder of one of the purposes of this study; to prove and answer questions about pregnancy, such that “pregnancy is much more than reproduction” (pg.262). The experience of pregnancy is unique to different cultures, and not necessarily a conserved experience globally. Generally, depending on one’s degree of exposure to different cultures, pregnancy tends be oversimplified and reduced down to the idea of “simple reproduction”. But, as Price’s Atlas of Ethnographic Societies estimates, there are anthropological descriptions and records of over 3800 distinct cultures (actually an underestimate in fact). Prior to reading this ethnography, I believed that pregnancy was a generally simple (based on my biological studies and understanding of what pregnancy does to the body) yet strenuous process. I also believed that in most developed/industrialized places, the pregnant experience was about the same; with similar technology available, how could the experience be that different? But, after reading Ivry’s book, a little self reflection not only proved me wrong but made me further question my own understanding of pregnancy. I was born in the United States, and so were my five siblings. But my mother immigrated to the USA, never having been pregnant in her home country (Bosnia). And my father immigrated to the USA from Morocco, which is where he met my mother. Like Ivry previous to her research, my mother does not know much about the pregnant experience of Bosnian women, but can say some things about the pregnant experience in the States. From this perspective, and much like Ivry, I am curious about what the pregnant experience might be like in Bosnia compared to the US. Or even Morocco, had my mother moved their with my father. In the end, Ivry’s research shows that Japanese and Israeli women’s experience of pregnancy, from conception to birth, can have similarities and differences (motivated by a variety of historical and cultural norms) when compared to one another, and they can also contain their own internal juxtapositions.
Works Cited
Ivry, Tsipy. Embodying Culture: Pregnancy in Japan and Israel. Rutgers University Press, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/emory/detail.action?docID=871479.
Price, David H. Atlas of World Cultures: A Geographical Guide to Ethnographic Literature. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage Publications, 1990.
Fatima did a good job summarizing the book “Embodying Culture: Pregnancy in Japan and Israel” by Tsipy Ivry. In this book, Ivry demonstrates that both as non-Western countries with medicalized pregnancy practices, Japan and Israel differ in how they use the technology to assist and manipulate the pregnancy and the fetus, as a manifestation of the local culture.
In Japan, medical practices are focused on managing the woman to maximize fetal health while the Israeli medical regime primarily puts an effort on prenatal examination and diagnosis, with little emphasis on preventive measures. In Japan, pregnant women view the experience of pregnancy as a part of motherhood and have a sense of agency as mothers; however, in Israel, pregnancy is taken tentatively, with anxiety and “hysteria.” As Fatima states, Ivry shows that Japanese women are more emotionally involved with “the baby,” which is often referred to as “fetus” in Israel. Japanese women are more likely to treat the fetus as a human and establish a mother-fetus bond (e.g. talking to the children in the womb) whereas Israeli women seldom do so due to anxieties of potential miscarriages.
In the book, Ivry delicately explains how the reproductive catastrophe is socially constructed and conveyed to pregnant women in Israel. Pregnancy is perceived as a high-risk gamble and is even “terrorized” by Israeli healthcare professionals. In Chapter 1, Ivry shows that healthcare providers in the ultrasound unit especially stress the usefulness and limitations of ultrasound in detecting fetal abnormalities. Though the technology is described as providing “assurance” to the parents, the ultimate message got across is that no assurance can ever be given with regards to the health or abnormalities of the fetus until it is born. The perception of potential pregnancy catastrophe often drives pregnant Israeli women into a “hysterical” state where they are perfectionistically anxious about the (non-)disableness of the child. This perception is a manifestation of the national and societal anxiety about the survival of the Jewish ethnicity/culture. As Fatima mentioned, Israel especially attaches importance to pregnancy and birth due to their history of exile and annihilation, which is embodied in their national health policy, development and use of reproductive technologies, and so on. Moreover, medicalization adds to this tension and pushes society into an even more “mechanistic” and perfectionistic view of pregnancy and birth.
Fatima beautifully summated many of the focal details of Tsipy Ivry’s book “Embodying Culture: Pregnancy in Japan and Israel,” and prompted a well-written personal dialogue that echoed a lot of the same self reflection that I experienced while reading this book. I think the most striking point for myself, as explained by Fatima in her experience as well , is the automatic reduction of pregnancy and birthing to a biological fact. The ubiquity and obviousness of pregnancy in its relation to humanity often shrouds the nuance, juxtapositions, depth, and cultural variability that truly exists in pregnancy, as reflected by the differences between Japanese and Israeli pregnancy. For example, the ways in which national and ethnic history informs the physical embodiment of pregnancy in Israel vs. Japan reflects a few things. Firstly, are the ways in which the body, and developing bodies, are not solely biological facts but products of the amalgam of histories, culture, politics, and biology. Secondly, the eugenic standpoints behind reproduction reflects the cultural prioritization of certain bodies over others, and the ways in which privilege permeates even conception. Lastly, I was wondering what the implications of this shared reduction of pregnancy are? How does reducing pregnancy to a “biological” fact affect the role of women, or their hierarchal position in society? Great post Fatima!
Fatima did an excellent job summarizing and reflecting on Embodying Culture: Pregnancy in Japan and Israel. One point that stood out to me specifically was regarding the collective failure to realize the importance and effect of culture on pregnancy. As someone intending to pursue a career in women’s health, I considered myself well-versed in the biology regarding pregnancy and the appropriate routine procedures to ensure a healthy pregnancy. It had not crossed my mind that what I considered “necessary routine procedures” was a product of American culture. Embodying Culture: Pregnancy in Japan and Israel shifted my view in understanding the cultural differences responsible for attitude towards pregnancy. It is interesting to see how political agendas can heavily influence what is emphasized in healthcare. I was surprised to see how such external motivations can affect a woman’s experience in pregnancy. I am still contemplating the ethical presence of encouraging or not encouraging women to undergo prenatal tests and procedures from a health standpoint as well as considering the anxiety and emotional strain it can cause.
Both Embodying Culture: Pregnancy in Japan and Israel and Testing Women, Testing the Fetus were created in response to the author’s pregnancy which is a fascinating commonality between the two sources. I have a particular interest in this fact because Testing Women, Testing the Fetus caused me to believe that parents should be ready to welcome any child when they choose to reproduce. After envisioning myself working full-time in health care, I would be unable to dedicate the time to raising a sick or disabled child without sacrifices I don’t want to make. Thus, I am left thinking this is a reason to not have children. However, both of these authors conducted their research from the experience of being pregnant. This leaves me wondering if it would be strange to dedicate my career to women’s health without ever experiencing pregnancy or motherhood myself? Last class we briefly mentioned who intends to raise children. The sources we have explored since meeting have given me a lot to think about ethically in response to whether or not to have children. I am eager to hear whether my peers had similar experiences and whether they feel conflicted or have found an answer to this question that they feel confident about.
Fatima’s summary of ‘Embodying Culture: Pregnancy in Japan and Israel’ was very good and captured the the core similarities and differences between how both Israel and Japan approach pregnancy. Something very important that I took from this reading was the idea of Western culture creating a set of procedures that they deem necessary for a woman to comply with when pregnant. This set of guidelines is specific to American and Western culture seeing as many countries don’t engage in our level of medicalization. This also brings up the argument of whether or not prenatal testing in ethical. This question intersects with the study of disability and bioethics as well because pre-natal is becoming more widely used to monitor the health of a baby in both Western and non-Western culture. The disability community argues that conducting pre-natal testing is the near equivalent of stating that able-bodied people see disabled people as lesser and of a lower quality of life. The stress that can accompany pre-natal testing if often immense but many mothers do it because they believe it will produce the best outcome for their babies’ health.
In addition, Fatima and the reading do a great job of addressing the idea that pregnancy isn’t merely a biological process but it’s also a cultural one that varies across communities including that of Israel and Japan. Seeing as the reading came from the author’s experience as an Israeli woman pregnant in Japan was very interesting and gives a perspective on pregnancy and culture that only someone in her position could accurately assess. In her evaluation of pregnancy in these two cultures, I found the idea that Japan greatly focuses on the woman’s health and Israel focuses on pre-natal examinations to be very interesting. Both Japan and Israel’s focus on different aspects of pregnancy reveals a great deal about the differences in social construction.
Fatima’s post is effective in summarizing the central points of Making Comparisons in Technology and Culture: Pregnancy in Japan and Israel. The book highlights and compares two models of care: Israel’s technocratic model and Japan’s more humanistic model. These models of care are characterized and contextualized by historically and culturally relevant experiences, practices, and systems of value of belies. The way in which birth is handled speaks greatly to the overarching values of the society. These models determine the way that Mother’s experience birth: we see the differences of care in the book such as the emphasis of prenatal testing and whether the focus of the care is centered around the mother (seen more in Japan) or the baby (seen more in Israel). This differing focus is an example of the competing interests and variables throughout the birthing and labor process. But what model of care is better? It is important to note that there is no side or focus with 0 risks. How these interests and variables are understood and weighed greatly impacts the experience and outcome of the birth in all models. The over-medicalization of Western medicine is a prominent influence in many models of care.
The author’s positionality prompts us to reflect upon our own conceptions of birth and pregnancy and how it should be handled.Within my own reflection, I find the overmedicalization of pregnancy and the prenatal and birthing experience to be injurious, even beyond the physical.