Lina Du Week 6
In the era of increasing attention on cutting-edge reproductive technologies, pregnancy is brought into light with Tsipy’s Ivry comparative illustration of the pregnancy experiences within the Israel and Japanese cultures. Through a “contrast-oriented comparative” methodology and ethnographies collected through participant observation and in-depth interviews, Ivry suggests two distinct forms of power structures shaping the perceived responsibilities as well as emotions of ob-gyns, pregnant women, and their partners in respect to pregnancy; she argues that while Japanese take a “environmentalism” approach to pregnancy, focusing on nurturing environment for optimal fetus growth, Israelis are rather fatalistic in a way that more attention is brought to the pre-determined, or genetic qualities of the fetus. It is only through viewing cultures as irreducible and through comparison of the two sociocultural whole could such powerful argument be generated. And within this socio-cultural play of power in these two countries, biotechnology is more or less introduced as a tool, of which it’s fate is determined by the “truth regime” of the culture itself and thus serves to reinforce the already existing cultural notion.
Ivry begins her account with doctoring of pregnancy in the Israel culture, raising questions derived from a macro perspective of national policies and statistics, and answering them with her following microscope analysis of the observations and conversations. Ivry represents ob-gyns as “purposeful agents who continuously negotiate and rethink their professional standards of practice among themselves and with their patients.” In other words, they serve as the central roles of this socio-cultural play on pregnancy; rather than informing patients of universal medical knowledge, they pass on certain cultural perceptions to them. The common notion of the “Jewish disease,” and the phenomenon of “hysteria of patients” perceived by the physicians prelude a sense of fatalism and high risk in the Israeli view of pregnancy. When pre-natal diagnosis (PND) is introduced in this country, it is therefore considered as “risk reducing” or even “anxiety reducing” to women, rehearsing the fatalistic ideologies of threat.
Presented in similar structure, pre-natal care in Japan focuses on “Gamburu,” or to “make an effort.” Thus, ob-gyns are viewed as the coaches to guide women in developing spirit for pregnancy rather than the directors of genetic tests in the Israeli context. The focus of Japanese culture is to nurture the child with environmental care from the mother, as mothers are viewed as “ohukuro,” or respectable bag of the children. With this perception in mind, premature birth and miscarriage are viewed primarily as the women’s responsibilities. Thus, the introduction of PND, weakening the cultural ideologies of environment with it’s emphasis on genetics, is often treated with lack of enthusiasm.
Ivry’s depiction of the direct experiences of pregnant women then add another distinctive layer to the socio-cultural play; women, in this context of power structure, are the receivers, resistors, cultivators of this culture prevalence of “geneticism” and “environmentalism.” Through descriptions about their classes, pregnancy guides, weight record keeping habits, and even the perception of pain, Ivry demonstrates how Japanese women focus on the the maternal-fetal bonding whereas “a range of emotional strategies is used to limit bonding between pregnant women and her fetus (222)” in Israel. Ivry further analyzes the distinction of these culture through gender power dynamics and notions of selfhood and disability. Ivry thus illustrates the schemes on which pregnant women draw to interpret their fetus is similar to that on which medical doctors rely for directions – the agencies shaped by power structure of the cultural ideology as “in the Japanese setting women are caught up in a ‘somatic agency:’ a collaborative enterprise of disciplining their bodies as a form of pleasure and a display of an ethical pregnant maternal self. In the Israeli setting, women are intimidated by the idea of reproductive catastrophe and are caught up in an ‘agency of choice’ and heavy reliance on the use of diagnostic technologies (243).” The cultural ideologies that shape the power structure have permeated the layers of medical professions to the pregnant women themselves, to some extent unconsciously forming their schemes of thinking regarding their pregnancies as well as biotechnologies.
With the argument of “Environmentalism” and “Geneticism” presented in the two cultures from a range of perspectives of both the care providers and the care receivers, Ivry reflects on the emotional postures comprehensible in ones’ culture seen in the event of pregnancy. She suggests that a culture affecting pregnancy as well as any biotechnology could be viewed on a spectrum from “Environmentalism” to “Geneticism,” and calls attention to the socio-cultural schemes of thinking regarding biotechnologies, with a focus on pregnancy which adds emotions and powerful meaning to reproductive politics.
Unit 6: Kiraney Zhang
Embodying culture: Making comparisons in Technology and Culture
This week’s reading is Embodying Culture: Making comparisons in Technology and Culture by Tsipy Ivry. She is an anthropologist at the University of Haifa. Her research in the book is focused on comparing and contrasting pregnancy culture in Japan and Israel. She presents this book to other anthropologists by showing how she conducted the research through in-depth interviews. The comparative method she used effectively brings together two distinct ethnographies. Her purpose is to show that “although similar prenatal tests exist today in both arenas, they occupy different “spaces” in terms of frequency of use and the importance attached to each” (Ivry 12). It is fascinating to see that Japan and Israel, two highly developed countries, have very different views and cultures surrounding pregnancy. Her findings also suggest that “large-scale flows of information are restricted by national political and cultural loci of power” (Ivry 15). In general, there are two different kinds of medical information on prenatal care that are provided to Israeli and Japanese women. No matter what class background, Israeli women have far greater access to information about prenatal diagnosis than Japanese women.
The book has three main parts: the doctoring of pregnancy, experiencing pregnancy, and embodying culture: toward an anthropology of pregnancy. Part one is focused on Israeli doctors’ perspectives toward pregnancy and the Japanese prenatal care system. I agree with Israeli doctors that pregnancy is a risky business. In the last century, when the modern technology had not been developed, many women died from giving birth, and many newborn babies were dead soon after birth. Therefore, prenatal diagnosis is very important to decrease the risk to both the mother and the fetus. Ivry mentioned a story about herself during the pregnancy. In Japan, the triple marker—”a screening test that uses a biochemical analysis of maternal blood to estimate the probabilities of chromosomal abnormalities in the fetus”(Ivry 20) It was viewed as a non-urgent test, so she did not get it. However, when she went back to Israel, Israel doctors were very nervous to see that she did not have this screening procedure done. This shows that Israeli doctors view pregnancy as very risky and should be well taken care of, but Japanese doctors view it as a natural process. It is more important to not make mothers worried during pregnancy. Part two mentioned two paths: the path of bonding and the path of ambiguity.
Through many interviews, Ivry found out that “in Japan the “socialization” of the child in utero is given weight equal to its genetic composition”(Ivry 120). This means that fetuses are viewed as babies in Japanese culture. However, in Israel the genetic makeup of the child is a primary concern for pregnant women, their partners, and their doctors. This means that fetuses are not called babies until after delivery and being accepted into the family. Despite this huge difference, there are some similarities toward pregnancy between Japan and Israel. “In the case of pregnancy, one of the most notable similarities between Japanese and Israeli practices is that pregnancy is medicalized in both. Many of the “activities” of pregnancy are framed within medical institutions and orchestrated by medical professionals trained in conventional (i.e., Western-style) medicine”(Ivry 75). Most Israeli and Japanese women will go to see ob-gyns when they become pregnant and go through a number of similar procedures such as having her blood pressure and weight measured, and having the doctor examine her physically. Nevertheless, while in Israel the doctor or the nurse takes the woman’s blood pressure, in many Japanese clinics the woman is expected to check her blood pressure herself before entering the doctor’s office. Although checking pressure is a simple activity, it reflects that the subtle difference.
All in all, Ivry’s study based on data collected through more than one hundred in-depth interviews and long hours of participant observations provides a convincing finding to show that Israel women exposed more prenatal diagnosis information than Japanese women due to the cultural difference toward pregnancy.
Hi Lina,
Overall I thought your blog post was very well written, and you did a very good job both summarizing the reading for this week as well as analyzing it. I thought your explanations about environmentalism and geneticism were easy to follow and well articulated, and I liked the way you talked about all the different perspectives that Ivry provided for the reader. There were a couple questions that crossed my mind during this week’s reading, and I thought maybe you could have linked this week’s reading to past weeks’ readings and or to issues we’ve already talked about in class.
For instance, while I was reading Ivry’s article, I realized that we could revisit the discussion we had about abortion. Specifically, revisiting the discussion about the difference between honoring a life despite abnormalities and preventing a potential life of suffering. Because genetic testing is highly recommended and practiced in Israel, I wonder if the debate over abortion is more prominent than in Japan, simply because the access to genetic material through testing opens up the flood gates to abortion.
Another point I thought was interesting that you didn’t address was regarding “common knowledge” in each culture. One example was the universal fact in Japan that it was harmful to the baby to ride on a bus when pregnant. I thought it was interesting that there was no evidence supporting this idea, yet it was a common fact not to ride busses in Japan. I wonder, is something true because a population believes it to be true, regardless of scientific data? If so, what “common knowledge” is found in our society that may not be supported by data, yet people still believe it to be true?
-NB
Saeyoung Lee: Week 6
Embodying Culture: Pregnancy in Japan and Israel
Tsipy Ivry, one of the ethnographer of reproduction, reproductive medicine, and biotechnology, who conceived this study of pregnancy as a cultural and social phenomenon in Japan and Israel, as she became pregnant in Japan as an Israeli woman. She focuses on “low-risk” or “normal” pregnancies, using cultural comparison to explore the complex relations among ethnic ideas about procreation, local reproductive politics, medical models of pregnancy care, and local modes of maternal agency. She uses the voices of pregnant Japanese and Israeli women, their doctors, their partners to collect data. In addition, she utilizes various clinical encounters such as ultrasound scans, explanatory classes for amniocentesis, birthing, and special pregnancy events.
First, she starts the book by stating how surprised she was when her Japanese friends used the notions of “mother” and “baby” constantly. She “hardly imagine Israeli women and men, religious or nonreligious Jews, speaking of “babies” in the very early stages of pregnancy: “fetus” seemed to be a more appropriate word” (Ivry, 2). In fact, she found that the Japanese medical regime is oriented to managing the woman to maximize fetal health, whereas the Israeli medical regime is oriented to diagnosing the fetus directly. She “discovered that the difference between the Japanese and the Israeli realms of pregnancy was that medicalization, supervision, monitoring, and disciplining developed in keeping with different theories about pregnant bodies and the women who are “in” them” (Ivry, 4).
Furthermore, Ivry calls Japan’s orientation of pregnancy “environmentalism” which captures somatic and emotional responsibilities of Japanese pregnant mother for their management of their bodies, which serve as the environment of the fetus, since it is crucial for the creation of a healthy baby. In contrast, she names the Israel’s orientation of pregnancy “geneticism” which captures “a fatalistic theory that explains fetal health through genes and chromosomes that are independent of the pregnant woman’s willpower” (Ivry, 11). This means that even though the responsibility to bear a healthy fetus rests with the mother, she must rely on diagnostic technologies to fulfill this responsibility. However, one thing we have to make sure is that this is not to say that Japanese are unfamiliar with genetic explanations, but to stress that they tend to emphasize environmental factors more. At the end, pregnancy in Japan turned out to be at least as medicalized, supervised, and socially manipulated as in Israel.
In one of her examples, she talks about the different reactions between the Japanese and Israeli ob-gyn about amniocentesis for potential Down’s syndrome. A young Japanese ob-gyn had offered amniocentesis to a forty-year-old patient, who refused the test and reacted positively about having Down’s syndrome baby. The practitioner was deeply impressed by her, and since then he stopped suggesting this test anymore. In contrast, Dr. Wolli, an Israeli ob-gyn, who had the same story, remembered it as “weird” and did not alter his attitude to medical practice. Here, due to the different cultural perspective of pregnancy, environmentalism versus geneticism, the doctors or the professionals have different point of views.
However, even though the emergent pictures suggest the experiences of pregnancy in Japan and Israel differ, the pregnancy itself in both cultures is “an energy-consuming project of meaning-making, and it emerges as a key site for understanding wider dimensions of the embodiment of culture” (Ivry, 256).
Lina & Kiraney,
I thought both of your posts were strong and provided excellent summarizing information of Ivry’s book. I think you both could have made your posts stronger by doing a little more “big picture” analysis, whether that be a connection to previous class material or maybe a second comparison to prenatal testing/ART in the US. In each of your posts I found something that I think can be discussed/analyzed a little further:
Lina – In your post you specifically mentioned the social role of OB-GYNS in both Israel and Japan. You said that in Israel, OB-GYNS “pass on certain cultural perceptions” to expecting mothers while Japanese OB-GYNS are more of a coach like figure. Although I can acknowledge what you are saying here, I think it is naive to blame Israeli physicians for promoting the cultural norm. The way you made this argument, I felt, gave a somewhat negative connotation to the influence of the Israeli OB-GYNS. I believe that doctors, regardless of their speciality, around the world are guilty of doing this. Especially in fields like OB, plastics, sports medicine, etc., many doctors will promote the medically safe but also culturally acceptable treatment plan for their patient. To be specific to this book, Japanese OB-GYNS are equally as guilty of promoting socio-cultural norms by encouraging the environmentalism approach over the more medical, “genetic” approach. Overall, I think it is really important to fully consider specific cultures and how they are shaping the medical practices of OB and fertility doctors.
Kiraney – In your post you mention birth mortality, both in regards to the mother and child. You say “In the last century, when the modern technology had not been developed, many women died from giving birth, and many newborn babies were dead soon after birth. Therefore, prenatal diagnosis is very important to decrease the risk to both the mother and the fetus”. I don’t agree with this at all. I do not believe that the high birth morality rate of the past century has anything to do with prenatal diagnosis technology. I think that more women are surviving childbirth to due improved delivery techniques and medical tools, not improved ART or prenatal testing. In other words, I do not see how testing a fetus for genetic and chromosomal abnormalities decreases the risk of death for the mother or the fetus during childbirth. Definitely think about how you have worded your argument and maybe make some adjustments? Otherwise, I think your post provides great comparative points on Israeli vs. Japan.
Nice work!
Grace
Lina and Kira,
Like my peers have previously stated, I also believe that you both had good summaries that included key points of the reading. I thought your descriptions of both geneticism and environmentalism were well thought out and easy to follow as the reader. I think you both could have expanded your analysis and connected the readings to outside sources. Other readings we have done this semester would have given good insight to this week’s reading.
I think a discussion about abortion, and the different opinions surrounding the subject would be key information in understanding more of Ivry’s book. Knowing the cultural differences between Japan and Israel give insight into their views about topics like abortion. Kira you wrote, “fetuses are not called babies until after delivery and being accepted into the family.” Does this then imply that abortion could be considered moral throughout pregnancy in the Israeli culture? I don’t think the answer is yes, however the wording of this sentence makes one believe that personification of the fetus is what denotes life. This makes me question the role of ART within the two countries, and how that affects mortality of children born.
Lina, I thought you commented on an interesting point. “A range of emotional strategies is used to limit bonding between pregnant women and her fetus in Israel.” This relates back to my question from earlier regarding moral implications of abortion in Israel. Overall, I enjoyed reading your two responses this week, well done!
Lina,
I thought your blog post this week was a really great summary of the reading. You did a great job of addressing the stark differences between ideas around pregnancies in both Israel and Japan. One thing that I wished would have been talked about more, not in your blog but in the actual book, was the history of these two cultures and how their histories have shaped their pregnancy ideals. In America we are a very diverse mixture of people and as such our ideas surrounding pregnancy vary greatly, but Ivry presents the argument that all Japanese women see pregnancy in an environmentalist light and all Israeli women see pregnancy in a more “trivializing” sort of outlook. I think this was a great way to frame her argument but I think it also weakens her argument, in a way, by not recognizing that there might be major historical events that could have shaped these differing ideals. I think this could have best been done by specifically researching topics like abortion and abortion ideals/views among the differing cultures, I agree with Madison in her comment that Ivry’s lack of addressing this topic raises questions about the ethicality and morality of cultures.
All in all I thought your blog was a really great insight into the important points and ideas about pregnancy in these two cultures. I would only challenge you to ask more questions and be more critical of the reading and Ivry’s account.
Kiraney, I strongly agree with you that it is important to lessen the stress of mothers during pregnancy. From Ivry’s novel “Embodying Culture” it is clear Japan and Israel have different cultural ways to alleviate stressors. In Japan, doctors focus on fetal environment and maternal nutrition; In Israel, doctors focus on genetic and chromosomal factors determining fetal health (11). In my opinion, Japan’s model gives the mother much more perceived control over maintaining the health of her fetus than Israel’s model. This could result in a less stressful pregnancy for the mother, even though less prenatal tests are suggested.
In our last class we watched the film, “The Burden of Knowledge: Moral Dilemmas in Prenatal Testing” which was produced in the 1990s in the United States. Based on the film we saw how women are largely pressured and influenced by their physicians. This held true in Japan and Israel. Patients usually look to the expertise of their doctors and will seek the measures they are given information.
Ivry’s novel was published in 2010, nearly 20 years after the film. The timing of these two works shows the implications of prenatal testing are still an ethical dilemma in reproductive medicine. Additionally, the possibilities available for these tests is only increasing since both works were brought to the public. Ivry cites Rapp’s argument in “Testing Women, Testing the Fetus” that prenatal diagnosis and its possibilities transforms women into “moral pioneers” (12). Reproduction for much of history was one of the most natural processes humans engage in in their lifetime. I agree with you, Kiraney, how medicalized pregnancy has become, and this phenomenon has of course had many positive outcomes, such as the rates of infant and maternal mortality declining over time. Still, to lessen the stress of future mothers, we should remind mothers constantly throughout the pregnancy how wonderful they are for bringing any child into the world.
Hi lina,
I think you did a great job summarizing the reading. When I was confused by your quotes, you followed them with explanations of their significance. I feel as if the author, Tsipy Ivry, did a great job laying out a clear and convincing argument. In her book, Embodying Culture: Pregnancy in Japan and Israel, she presents two contrasting views of pregnancy from the point of view of doctors and pregnant women. She presented the views of technology use during pregnancy from the perspective of Japanese and Israeli doctors and pregnant women. The pregnancy in Israel is driven by “anxiety regarding the possibility of reproductive catastrophe”, which encourages the use of various diagnostic tools to ensure the best decisions are made for the health of baby and the mother. These decisions can lead to the continuation or the termination of the fetus. In contrast, Japan’s view is that a pregnancy is dependent on the mother’s decisions and little from chance. This emphasis is placed on balance diet, low stress level and no teratogenic agents. These two contrasting views, environmentalist and geneticist, are used to fuel Dr.Ivry’s entire argument. Her argument could have included views of people such as husbands, rabbi, and non-pregnant women. These perspectives would have showed the effect of pregnancy from a different view. In turn, strengthening or diminishing her argument.
Hey Lina,
I think that your post is really well written and summarizes the reading thoroughly. I think the dichotomy between environment and genetics is incredibly interested. In a class I am currently taking, we touch on this a lot. It is actually imperative to understand the influence and impact of both when trying to provide the best type of care. The point you make about ob’s passing on certain values and perceptions onto the patients, partially based on policy/law is important. I wonder if there is a way to really avoid doing so. I imagine when doctors go to medical school, regardless where they are they, will be taught from certain socio-cultural view points. Furthermore, where they work, and who they learn from, will also influence they way they approach their patients. Do you think there is a way of breaking this pattern in order to provide patients with a larger scope? I do not quite understand the point you make when you say: “It is only through viewing cultures as irreducible and through comparison of the two sociocultural whole could such powerful argument be generated”. What exactly do you mean by that?
I am curious to what your personal opinion about the various approache. In my opinion, depending on the culture of the family and their personal backgrounds, I assume determinants of stress vary greatly. While I understand that environment and nutrition are imperative to managing stress and supporting the mother through pregnancy, I wonder about the fear of the unknown inducing a potentially very heavy stress load. Because of this, I think prenatal tests are incredibly important. I perceive prenatal tests to be especially beneficial due to their nature of alleviating the stress of the unknown. In turn, this will allow mothers to make decisions that could be best for them and their family. In some aspects, I think the pressure on the mom that Japan’s culture puts on her could be very stress provoking. It seems they are molded to behave in a certain way and if they don’t then they face consequences. I am also curious on your thoughts about the general medicalization of pregnancies- in both Japan and Israel. I find the emphasis on meaning-making absolutely fascinating, especially because of how many disciplines come together to create all these emerging ideas.
Hi Kiraney,
You summarized the topics touched upon in Tsipy Ivry’s book well. I agree that Japan and Israel are two countries that are not often compared to each other. You presented the three main ideas of the book coherently. You also showed the difference between how Israeli pregnancies are treated versus how Japanese pregnancies are treated. However, there was one part which I thought was confusing about the birth mortality being linked to prenatal diagnosis technology. In the book Ivry does talk about how Japan holds the trophy for lowest neonatal mortality rate in the world while Israel is seeing an increase in their neonatal mortality rate. I believe that fertility treatments and prenatal care are linked to the mortality rate rather than prenatal diagnosis technology. After reading your analysis, I had to go back to the reading because I missed the part where women in Japan are expected to take their own blood pressure. I appreciate the detailed examples and quotes you gave in your analysis.
-SL
Your blog post was an interesting read. You did an excellent job at summarizing the readings but I felt that some of your points of analyzation were could have used more depth. In your first paragraph, I found (what I believed to be) your thesis statement concerning Ivry’s argument to be confusing as you did not clearly state the argument itself. Page citations for the usage of referenced information (not just quotations) would also have worked to strengthen this post.
You were effective in explaining the differences Ivry highlighted between Japanese and Israeli pregnancy cultures. Specifically, you unpacked the environmentalism and geneticism views. Environmentalism being the views held in Japanese culture and geneticism being the views held in Israeli culture. Looking at the comparisons in the cultural approaches to pregnancy in translation to technologies such as pre-natal diagnostics was interesting.
Greater discussion could have been had on the relationship between cultures of pregnancy, the approval of pre-natal diagnostics, and individual moral dilemma. The documentary we viewed in Week Five, “The Burden of Knowledge: Moral Dilemmas in Prenatal Testing” is relevant to this discussion and would have been practical to include in your post. The film focused on the moral dilemmas of the women with less significance given to the position of the overarching western culture on pre-natal diagnostics. I question the relationship between different cultures’ stances on pre-natal diagnostics and the complexity of individual moral dilemmas on the subject.
I would like you to unpack this a bit more.
Lina and Kiraney,
Great job on your blog posts. I really enjoyed reading them.
Kiraney, I especially appreciated your mentioning of the socialization of the child in utero within Japanese discourse. Not just Japan, but other Asian countries have similar views of the fetus being considered a baby from conception, which is why the child, once is born, is considered to be 1 years old. It might be interesting to explore further into this concept.
One criticism that I had of the book was regarding the lack of information on the women quoted in the book. Ivry does not provide much about the mother’s personal contexts other than her age and number of children that she had. Despite having the numbers to look into more specific factors, the subjects did not seem to be super diverse–were they from rural or urban communities?, what socioeconomic class, religion, etc? The lack of attention to the various nuances relating to each subject made me critical of whether Ivry was overstating important potential differences in her cross-country analysis.
Hi Lina and Kiraney,
I enjoyed reading both summaries of the book, and I felt that you both covered the reading very well. This was a unique reading, and I was glad to see that you both had different arguments as I feel that there is a lot that can be discussed about this reading.
First Lina, I believe we both noticed very similar themes in the book and I was glad to see that you emphasized different emotions behind what it is like to be a pregnant mother in each culture. It was interesting that you picked out the emotions of the Japanese woman, and how they emphasized the bond between the mother and fetus, and how that compared to the emphasis placed on the bond between the Israeli mothers and fetus. I think this ties in great with the question we had last class of when does a pregnant woman become a mother, or when does the fetus become her child? These are all very subjective, but you can glean an answer from the emotional importance of bonding like you mentioned. I would have liked to see a little more integration between your interpretation and other peoples blog post, but other than that I thought it was a fantastic read.
Kiraney, I enjoyed your analysis of the first part of the book the most. You could really see ideas from the last week’s discussion in this portion. The argument of irreducible contingency was handled dramatically different in the two cultures. In Israeli society, they try their best to get an understanding of just how much contingency there may have, where in Japan it felt much more as though they accepted that contingency was a part of pregnancy and then went on to work on a solution. I got the feeling from the first part of the book you were discussing that Japanese mothers looked at worrying about such things as another means to exasperate the irreducible contingency. Therefore, their solution focused on more well-known practices such as changing the environment around them to better suit a the fetus’s needs whereas the Israeli’s place more importance on a mother being as informed about the outcome of her pregnancy as possible.
Lina,
You wrote a very thoughtful blog post this week. First, I liked how you touched on the notion that OB/GYNs are agents in the sense that they perpetuation or reinforce cultural norms that give individuals a specific view on pregnancy. This reading was a good contrast to the other works we’ve read where we typically focused on the pregnant woman and not how other people influence their decisions. I think this brings last class’s discussion of agency to light, because some people’s agency may be limited by the information or perceptions they are given. This makes me wonder if agency is necessarily free will, or if it is inherently restricted by outside factors.
Kira,
I like how you started off your blog post noting the author’s intention and her audience. Overall I thought you gave a very detailed summary, but now I’d like to attempt to tie it into our class discussions. I’m wondering what the implications are for a society with these two distinct views on pregnancy and if these views are consistent with other beliefs. I also wonder if the lower number of pre-natal tests in Japan has an effect on the way Japanese women see/appreciate their child after birth.
Lina and Kiraney,
I thought that both of your posts summarized the Ivry’s book well, and both posts drew out some of the differences between the two cultures quite well. However, there were a few points in both of your posts I would further address.
Lina – I thought your supporting arguments in your analysis that differentiated the medical pregnancy practices of Israel and Japan on the basis of “geneticism” and “environmentalism” were effective. However, I disagree with your position that the Israeli approach to pregnancy is a fatalistic experience, and instead point to an example in the reading that suggested the use of the genetic test promoted quite the opposite of fatalistic. On page 65, an Israel doctor named Dr. Schwartz recounts a story where a 27 year old woman requested to have an amniocentesis test during her first pregnancy. Although the doctor did not recommend the test because of her young age, the woman assured him that she wanted it because she did not want to risk the chance of raising a child with Down’s syndrome. In a rare case, it did end up that the fetus she was carrying had Down’s syndrome. I think this example demonstrates that the reproductive technologies utilized by this Israeli woman served as a means to take control of her own future, rather than using the technology as a means to satisfy the fatalistic destiny.
Kiraney – I thought it was interesting that you took a perspective to compare the similarities between Israeli and Japanese pregnancy medical practices in your third paragraph. However, although it is true that both countries utilize western-like medical procedures like taking blood pressure, I think the point Ivry was trying to drive home was that protocol for performing such procedure varied, and it was in the manner of variation that the different cultures distinguished themselves from one another. Furthermore, I would not say that both countries shared an explicit practice of weighing their patients, as Ivry mentions that she met a wide range of physicians who chose not to weigh their patients.
Dear Lina,
Great work with you blog response overall! Your writing style is very clear and precise. You CONVEYED major ideas of the text quite succinctly!
Your first two sentences do a great job of highlighting what Tsipy Ivry’s main focal point and strength of her book is: her focus on two distinct cultures. In our class thus far, the ethnographies we have analyzed have typically been situated within the context of one culture, i.e. Khan’s ethnography by conducted specifically in an Israeli context. In Embodying Culture, Ivry presents a unique comparative perspective of the experience of pregnancy in both Israel and Japan. In your opening sentences you mentioned the type of ethnography conducted- interviews and participant observation- and the perspective Ivry employs, her contrast-oriented methodology. Mentioning these early on help establish the main “meat” of her argument.
Your analysis of Japanese versus Israeli conceptions of pregnancy captures precisely what Ivry has demonstrated in the text. It seems that the general Japanese perception of pregnancy is one that demonstrates malleability and environmental circumstance; she demonstrates that the Japanese regard pregnancy as related to what the mother does. In the opening pages, Ivry recalls her own account of her pregnancy in Japan, during a conversation she has with a Japanese man. As soon as he realizes that she is pregnant, he reminds her to “eat good food,” amongst other actions that could potentially increase her baby’s wellness. Curiously, Ivry notes that back home in Israel, passerby wouldn’t typically refer to a pregnancy as a baby, but rather a fetus. Your employment of “fatalistic” versus “enviromentalistic” as key terms captures this difference in sentiment towards pregnancy, in the context of Israel and Japan. Perhaps a fatalistic view results in seeing the baby as a fetus because negative outcomes are considered plausible, on the basis of genetic determinism (i.e. no matter what the mother does, the fetus may develop into a baby with disabilities because it was determined by nature/genetics). While reading the text, I couldn’t help but juxtapose my own American biases (and understandings of pregnancy) with the understandings presented in Israel and Japan. It seems that Americans are a tad more divided in their conception of pregnancy as some (typically catholic/Christian) individuals would employ a more enviromentalistic perspective rather than fatalistic because they regard the fetus as a baby. On the other hand, liberal minded nonreligious individuals may typically refer to pregnancies as possessing a fetus rather than baby.