Dr. Seeman’s Ethnographic Triangle: Social Structures and Cultural Features
I read and watched Swasti Bhattacharya’s Magical Progeny, Modern Technology: A Hindu Bioethics of Reproductive Technology, Michael J. Broyde’s “Modern Reproductive Technologies and Jewish Law,” in Marriage, Sex and the Family in Judaism, and the film Made in India in the listed order. Initially, after reading Bhattacharya’s book and Broyde’s “Modern Reproductive Technologies and Jewish Law,” I found myself leaning more towards the social structures and the cultural features corners of Dr. Seeman’s ethnographic triangle towards understanding the various religious perspectives on assistive reproductive technology. Religions shape many social structures and cultural features of most societies.
Bhattacharya starts off laying an overview that Hindu sacred teachings are effectively passed down through oral and textual traditions, and religious teachings like these play a huge role in societies. Hinduism is a religion that can be defined as polytheistic or monotheistic depending on different perspectives. Regardless of how Hinduism is defined by different followers or scholars, a multitude of traditions and numerous gods are present that provide a guideline for how individuals function, communicate, and make moral decisions.
Specifically, the story of Mahabbharata, as described by Bhattacharya, is of great significance to Hindus. In this story, the Kauravas (Dhrtarastra’s one hundred sons) and the Pandavas (Pandu’s five sons) are in a constant fight for the throne. The eldest Kaurava, Duryodhana, comes up with various schemes to prevent the success of Yudhisthira (eldest Pandava) and his brothers, and they end up commencing a war. Although the Pandavas win, everyone dies except for one embryo, the grandson of the third eldest Pandava. Yudhisthira and his family end up in hell, while Duryodhana and the Pandava brothers were in heaven. However, after purification, the Pandavas also attain moksa, which is commonly understood as enlightenment and liberation.
In Sanskrit, the title of this story, “Maha” and “Bharata” means “great/complete” and “Indian/human” in following order. Thus, it serves as an origin story for the that can bring Hindus into salvation. From Mahabhrata, Bhattacharya identifies six elements relevant to the discussions of gametes, IVF, and surrogacy: “1) an emphasis on the centrality of societal good; 2) a firm belief in the underlying unity of all life (Advaita Vedanta); 3) the expectations and requirements of dharma; 4) the multivalent nature of Hindu traditions; 5) a theory of karma; and 6) a commitment to ahimsa (no harm)” (Bhattacharya 113). Thus, Mahabharata serves as an origin story for many Hindus.
Additionally, Bhattacharta mentions multiple perspectives on assistive reproductive technology. He claims, “Responses within Hindu traditions also vary. As discussed in chapters 3 and 4, the attitudes expressed in the examined narratives of the Mahabharata would presumably support John and Luanne’s use of donor gametes, IVF, and surrogacy. However, we cannot say it enough: Hindu perspectives are neither simple nor monolithic.” (Battacharya 1222) Another perspective he mentions comprehend assistive reproductive technologies as abusive towards women, so it’s not the technology that is impermissible but the role of women that corresponds with it because it disagrees with the sixth element, a commitment to ahimsa (no harm) (Bhattacharya 1229). Although different applications of these six elements cultivate differing perspectives on permissibilities of reproductive technology, the significance and inevitable presence of these six elements remain the same because Mahabharata serves as an origin story. With Mahabharata, I became more aware of the inevitably significant roles religions play that impact the social structures and cultural features, thus perspectives of societies on assistive reproductive technology.
Similar to Bhattacharya, Broyde lays out different perspectives on assistive reproductive technology under the same principles of Judaism. Bryode’s article focuses on the case of cloning. Even though in the Jewish tradition, reproduction is an obligation, a number of halakhic doctrines restrict sexual activity. Reproduction itself could be perceived as controversial. Broyde discusses different cases regarding the permissibility of cloning. For instance, Broyde suggests that cloning could be permissible if the genetic makeup of the child born from a gestational mother is identical to the genetic makeup of the donors (Broyde 298). There seems to be no substantive violation of Jewish law that occurs during cloning, yet people are skeptical about it and arguments stating the cloning is not permissible exist.
As exemplified by both Bhattacharya and Broyde’s analyses, there are many gray areas that lie within the religious principles of both Hinduism and Judaism. These ancient religions don’t specifically indicate the permissibility of assistive reproductive technology but do provide guidelines that shaped social structures and cultural features of societies. Therefore, there will be contradicting views on assistive reproductive technologies. Followers of these religions may have different interpretations of religious guidelines and principles, but the significance of these guidelines and principles remain the same for followers regardless of their perspectives.
Dr. Seeman’s Ethnographic Triangle: Lived Experience
From reading Bhattacharya and Broyde, I initially put more weight on social structures and cultural features corners of Dr. Seeman’s triangle in understanding different perspectives on assistive reproductive technology and the how different interpretations cultivated such different viewpoints. However, Made in India brought into consideration the lived experiences corner of the ethnographic triangle.
Made in India portrays Lisa and Brian’s journey in hiring a surrogate from India with help from an organization called Planet Hospital. Even after the multiple contracts were signed, the surrogate, Aasia Khan, successfully got pregnant for nine months and gave birth to Lisa and Brian’s twin girls, Lisa and Brian were not able to have custody of the girls because legal regulations on international surrogacy were not yet established at the time. Eventually, Lisa and Brian were able to take their babies back to the States after DNA testing and many documented papers with help from the US embassy in India.
One thing I found interesting was the fact that Aasia was ashamed of and hid the fact that she was a surrogate. Instead, she told the people surrounding her that she was pregnant with her husband’s child and was planning to gift the baby to her sister. Aasia even converted from Hinduism to Islam.
Looking at Aasia struggles through the lens of social structures and cultural features of India, surrogacy does not seem to be accepted or scientifically understood well by the Indian society. But is it bad that she is going against the norm?
If we look at Asia’s case through the lens of lived experiences from Dr. Seeman’s ethnographic triangle, she is making income for her family and her own well-being through this process. Lisa and Brian are also benefiting off of this process as they had trouble reproducing on their own and were not able to afford surrogacy within the States. Though there were issues with Planet’s Hospital’s financial distributions as well as legal issues because surrogacy regulations were not yet established, no one was directly harmed in the act of surrogacy itself.
Made in India deepened my insight on assistive reproductive technology beyond the significance of religious principles that shape social structures and cultural features that Bhattcharya and Broyde’s taught me. It added a third dimension of lived experiences, specifically the aspect of choice, to the ethnographic triangle narrative with real life examples. In the case of Made in India, Aasia made the choice to become a surrogate and chose to convert to Islam. Lisa and Brian also made the choice to utilize the IVF and surrogacy technology during the time when international surrogacy regulations were not yet established. Social structures, cultural features and interpretations of traditions do no matter in world of applying assistive reproductive when a pioneering choice is not made.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I agree with Bhattacharya statement in the beginning of Magical Progeny, Modern Technology: A Hindu Bioethics of Reproductive Technology that dynamic conversations are cultivated through the considerations of diverse perspectives and that plurality and endedness are demonstrated through these conversations. I believe these heated discussions, regardless of what perspective, should continue so that more diverse religious perspectives that were once surpassed by secular, universal and philosophical voices marginalized by primarily Christian traditions could have a loud voice in academic discussions and a big influence in clinical and public settings. Also, especially after learning about lived experiences and the importance of choice from Made in India, I think that it is of high significance to establish, change, and raise awareness of regulations that are at the same pace with the modern day heated discussions cultivated by diverse perspectives.