Frames of everyday procreative discourse in modern culture
Philosophy «Problematization of the human: an ongoing project» (special issue)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17072/2078-7898/2021-3-342-351Keywords:
procreation, worldview frames, everyday discourse, polyphonic discourse, foreign discourse, pronatalism, antinatalismAbstract
The phenomenological tradition in humanities and social studies everyday life as a sphere where the norms of human existence are formed, tested, and consolidated. In this respect, procreative discourse is of interest because this sphere reproduces man as actor and creator of culture. In addition, this sphere is under the increased influence of modern biotechnology. Research in this field faces some difficulties associated with methodological diversity and interdisciplinary dialogue. The article attempts to structure contemporary everyday procreative discourse by identifying basic worldview frames. Frame analysis appears to be a productive research tool for dealing with polyphonic discourse in the field of procreation. The article identifies and interprets the systems of worldview frames: explanatory, axiological-normative and attitude-centered frames. The main content and semantic components of these systems are outlined in the article. The proliferation of institutional and theoretical discourses into everyday procreative discourse is shown, their creative interpretation by discourse participants is discussed. The paper puts forward an assumption that the idea of the value of childhood, characteristic of postfigurative (according to M. Mead) types of culture, is connected with antinatal frames of attitude. Emergence of new social practices, crisis of explanatory and axiological-normative systems of frames, as well as their competition for authority in discourse, create ethically tense zones. As such, the practices of ART, reproductive law and family-role relations stand out in contemporary society.References
Беляева М.А. Репродуктивная культура: тенденции развития и механизмы трансляции в современном российском обществе: автореф. дис.… д-ра культурологии. Киров, 2013. 44 с.
Голод С.И. Семья: прокреация, гедонизм, гомосексуализм // Журнал социологии и социальной антропологии. 2012. Т. 15, № 2. С. 20–38.
Гофман И. Анализ фреймов: эссе об организации повседневного опыта: пер. с англ. / под ред. Г.С. Батыгина, Л.А. Козловой; вступ. ст. Г.С. Батыгина. М.: Ин-т социологии РАН, 2003. 752 с.
Дейк Т.А. ван. Вопросы прагматики текста // Новое в зарубежной лингвистике. Вып. 8: Лингвистика текста. М.: Прогресс, 1978. С. 259–336.
Емельянов Н.Н., Забаев И.В., Павленко Е.С., Павлюткин И.В. Семья и деторождение в России. Категории родительского сознания / под ред. М.С. Ковалевой. М.: ПСТГУ, 2011. 222 с.
Исупова О.Г., Белянин А.В., Гусарева А.А. ВРТ — современность в помощь традициям // Демоскоп Weekly. 2014. №615–616. 20 октября – 2 ноября. URL: http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/2014/0615/demoscope615.pdf (дата обращения: 21.07.2021).
Клименко Н.С. Гендерные интерпретации репродуктивных стратегий в культуре современного российского общества // Вестник Санкт-Петербургского государственного института культуры. 2020. №3(44). С.41–45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30725/2619-0303-2020-3-41-45
Милохова К. Живи, чтобы рожать. Четыре истории репродуктивного насилия / Клооп. 2018 6 июн. URL: https://kloop.kg/blog/2018/06/06/zhivi-chtoby-rozhat-chetyre-istorii-reproduktivnogo-nasiliya/ (дата обращения: 13.06.2021).
Сидорова Т.А., Сандакова Л.Б., Жичина Е.Ю. Динамика границ прокреативных норм: из опыта участия в программе ЭКО // Медицинская антропология и биоэтика. 2016. № 1(11). URL: http://www.medanthro.ru/?page_id=2698 (дата обращения: 15.07.2021).
Тарусина Н.Н. Семья как общеправовая конструкция // Lex russica (Русский закон). 2020. № 4(161). С. 21–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17803/1729-5920.2020.161.4.021-033
Ткач О.А. «Наполовину родные»? Проблематизация родства и семьи в газетных публикациях о вспомогательных репродуктивных технологиях // Журнал исследований социальной политики. 2013. Т. 11, № 1. С. 49–68.
Тубалова И.В. Полифонический текст в устных личностно-ориентированных дискурсах: дис. ... д-ра филол. наук. Томск, 2016. 539 с.
Тубалова И.В. Специфика организации дискурсов повседневности // Вестник Томского государственного университета. Филология. 2011. № 4(16). С. 41–52.
Edwards J., Franklin S., Hirsch E., Price F., Strathern M. Technologies of Procreation: Kinship in the Age of Assisted Conception. Manchester; N.Y.: Manchester University Press, 1993. 185 p.
Entman R. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm // Journal of communication. 1993. Vol. 43, iss. 4. P. 51–58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
Strathern M. Reproducing the Future. Essays on Anthropology, Kinship and the Assisted Reproductive Technologies. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1992. 224 p.
Van de Kaa D. The Story and Findings of Half a Century of Research into the Determinants of Fertility // Population Studies. 1996. Vol. 50, iss. 3. P. 389–432. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0032472031000149546
Weinberg R. The Risk of a Lifetime: How, When, and Why Procreation may be Permissible. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. 280 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_465-1
References
Belyaeva, M.A. (2013). Reproduktivnaya kul’tura: tendentsii razvitiya i mekhanizmy translyatsii v sovremennom rossiyskom obschestve: avtoref. dis … d-ra kul’turologii [Reproductive culture: development trends and transmission mechanisms in modern Russian society: Abstract of D.Sc. dissertation]. Kirov, 44 p.
Dijk, T.A. van (1978). [Questions of pragmatics of the text]. Novoe v zarubezhnoy lingvistike. Vyp. 8: Lingvistika teksta [New in foreign linguistics. Iss. 8: Text linguistics]. Moscow: Progress Publ., pp. 259–336.
Edwards, J., Franklin, S., Hirsch, E., Price, F. and Strathern, M. (1993). Technologies of procreation: Kinship in the age of assisted conception. Manchester, New York: Manchester University Press, 185 p.
Emel’yanov, N.N., Zabaev, I.V., Pavlenko, E.S. amd Pavlyutkin, I.V. (2011). Semya i detorozhdenie v Rossii. Kategorii roditel’skogo soznaniya [Family and childbearing in Russia. Categories of parental consciousness]. Moscow: STOUH Publ., 222 p.
Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication. Vol. 43, iss. 4, pp. 51–58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
Goffman, E. (2003). Analiz freymov: esse ob organizatsii povsednevnogo opyta [Frame analysis. An essay on the organization of experience]. Moscow: IS RAS Publ., 752 p.
Golod, S.I. (2012). [The family: procreation, hedonism, homosexuality]. Zhurnal sotsiologii i sotsial’noy antropologii [The Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology]. Vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 20–38.
Isupova, O.G., Belyanin, A.V. and Gusareva, A.A. (2014). [ART — modernity to help traditions]. Demoskop Weekly. No. 615–616. Oct. 20 – Nov. 2. Available at: http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/2014/0615/demoscope615.pdf (accessed 21.07.21).
Klimenko, N.S. (2020). [Gender interpretations of reproductive strategies in the culture of modern Russian society]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo instituta kul’tury [Vestnik of Saint Petersburg State University of Culture]. No. 3(44), pp. 41–45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30725/2619-0303-2020-3-41-45
Milochova, K. (2018). Zhivi, chtoby rozhat’. Chetyre istorii reproduktivnogo nasiliya [Live to give birth. Four stories of reproductive abuse]. Kloop. Jun. 6. Available at: https://kloop.kg/blog/2018/06/06/zhivi-chtoby-rozhat-chetyre-istorii-reproduktivnogo-nasiliya/ (accessed 13.06.2021).
Sidorova, T.A., Sandakova, L.B. and Zhichina, E.Yu. (2016). [Dynamics of the boundaries of procreative norms: from the experience of participating in the IVF program]. Meditsinskaya antropologiya i bioetika [Medical Anthropology and Bioethics]. No. 1(11). Available at: http://www.medanthro.ru/?page_id=2698 (accessed 15.07.2021).
Strathern, M. (1992). Reproducing the future. Essays on anthropology, kinship and the assisted reproductive technologies. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 224 p.
Tarusina, N.N. (2020). [Family as a general legal structure]. Lex russica (Russkiy zakon) [Lex russica (The Russian Law)]. No. 4(161), pp. 21–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17803/1729-5920.2020.161.4.021-033
Tkach, O.A. (2013). [«Half-related»? Problematisation of kinship and family in print media discussing assisted reproductive technologies]. Zhurnal issledovaniy sotsial’noy politiki [The Journal of Social Policy Studies]. Vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 49–68.
Tubalova, I.V. (2011). [Official-business discourse as prototext environment of everyday dialectic text]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Philologiya [Tomsk State University Journal of Philology]. No. 4(16), pp. 41–52.
Tubalova, I.V. (2016). Polifonicheskiy tekst v ustnykh lichnostno-orientirovannykh diskursakh: dis. ... d-ra filol. nauk [Polyphonic text in oral personality-oriented discourses: dissertation]. Tomsk, 539 p.
Van de Kaa, D. (1996). The story and findings of half a century of research into the determinants of fertility. Population Studies. Vol. 50, iss. 3, pp. 389–432. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0032472031000149546
Weinberg, R. (2016). The risk of a lifetime: How, when, and why procreation may be permissible. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 280 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_465-1
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Perm University Herald. Philosophy. Psychology. Sociology
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
