About this site
Welcome to my site. My friends and I created this to share some of my work and - more importantly - to invite an exchange of ideas.
I've been a sociologist for a long time. and ventured into a number of different fields over the years: birth and midwifery (which I still think of as my home base); the new genetics and reproductive technologies; medical sociology; bioethics; issues in disability; adoption; race; and now I'm exploring food studies too. Some of you might know my work in one of these areas, others in a different area. What would be really interesting would be to have people talk, with each other and with me, across areas. I've tried, with some success over the years, to talk to midwives about genetics; to encourage people who do new reproductive technologies to think about home birth; to have bioethicists pay more attention to what medical sociology can offer; to get people in Food Studies thinking where midwifery issues overlap with their concerns. These are invariably the most fun and stimulating conversations I've ever been a part of. Connecting people, connecting ideas, weaving the webs that pull us together - nothing could make me happier. So this site, a gift from my friends, is my place to do this kind of weaving.
We've grouped my work by area - but please, if you're here because you have gotten anything useful out of my work in one area, do poke around for a minute in another. Bring your insights and wisdom and experience to a new place, a new issue. Let's see what we can weave together.
- Barbara Katz Rothman
The PsycCRITIQUES review can be read here.
Times Higher Education, July 4, 2016
"A sociologist in the world of midwifery is introduced to food studies, and spots parallels everywhere with the world of birth. Her wittily named study ranges insightfully from Julia Child to natural childbirth, and from Lamaze and Pavlov to labour times, Cesareans and kale chips as she considers how 'birth and food, once so profoundly part of women's world of production, ultimately came to be acts of consumption,.. framed inside a big machine, an industrialized, medicalized, and capitalist system'".
(Can be read here)
Huffington Post, August 29, 2016:
A review of BUN by Fabio Parasecoli, Associate professor and director of Food Studies Initiatives, New School - NY can be read here.
Times Literary Supplement, Sept 9, 2016:
This review does make me want to read the Ramaswamy book, and oh, what an interesting idea, maybe I should write a book about birth...
TLS review can be read here.
Please click here for more.
Thanks to Bitch Media for featuring A BUN IN THE OVEN on their Instagram page -- and calling it delectable!
...thanks also to Dr. Rixa Freeze of Stand and Deliver blog, for the mention!
Update: WNPR Radio Interview, May 23, 2016
Click here to listen to a WNPR interview with Barbara about BUN, if you'd like.
(The link above takes you directly to Barbara's interview - the whole program can be found here, with the BUN portion starting at 26.50 min mark)
The meeting was a success, thanks to the hard work of the program committee, headed by Vilna Treitler and the wonderful ESS headquarters team headed by Emily Mahon.
You can access a copy of the article here.
The other recent piece I have done on surrogacy is another book review. I reviewed Amrita Pande's WOMBS IN LABOR: TRANSNATIONAL COMMERCIAL SURROGACY IN INDIA. You can look at this one, and the older one on Teman's book listed below.
And if you really want a good, insightful, and deeply (and appropriately!) critical look at Indian surrogacy, see the just published DISCOUNTED LIFE: THE PRICE OF GLOBAL SURROGACY IN INDIA, just out from NYU press.
The Berger review can be found here, and the Smelser review here.
Click here to watch the video.
Prenatal screening for conditions which have no solution but abortion is routine. And routinely unacknowledged. People do an ultrasound scan for the joy of ‘seeing the baby.’ But the ultrasounds weren’t introduced for fun, aren’t paid for by insurance companies for fun, aren’t done as routine medical care for fun. Ultrasound, along with maternal blood tests, are being done to diagnose conditions in the fetus, and those conditions are not treatable.
Abortions following prenatal testing are nothing like abortions to get ‘unpregnant,’ abortions to just return oneself to normal after an accidental, unplanned and unwanted pregnancy. These abortions, abortions because this particular fetus should not become one’s baby, are experienced very differently. In THE TENTATIVE PREGNANCY I showed how painful this was for the women involved, women who were told how lucky they were to have choices, but often experienced themselves as horrifically trapped.
Two new books cast interesting light on all this from two very different countries. Germany recognizes the eugenic underpinnings of all prenatal screening. While Americans assure me that this has nothing to do with eugenics, it’s just about having healthy babies, Germans have been forced by their history to recognize that having healthy babies, or being ‘well born,’ is what eugenics means. Silja Samerski did a book on the DECISION TRAPS that people are facing when they have genetic testing. She asked me to write a preface, and it’s available below.
Tine M. Gammeltoft, wrote HAUNTING IMAGES: A CULTURAL ACCOUNT OF SELECTIVE REPRODUCTION IN VIETNAM, and my review of that book is also available below. The Vietnamese are in an interesting position because while Americans and Germans too can see ‘fetal defects’ as acts of god, of random cruelty in the world, the Vietnamese see them as war crimes, the ongoing consequences of Agent Orange, and it shapes their discussion.
Context shapes everything of course. But pregnancy is also a context: the nature of pregnancy as an intimate social relationship shapes women’s experiences of prenatal testing and selective abortion that Americans, caught in an absurdly fraught discussion of abortion, cannot afford to see. Until the trap is sprung.
If you missed the link to my preface in DECISION TRAPS, click here.
To access my review of HAUNTING IMAGES, click here.
To go to the general home page, click here.
To see my presentation, click here.
And why can I not seem to discuss this issue without constantly asking rhetorical questions?
HEALTH, RISK AND SOCIETY is a journal asking just these questions, or as it says on its home page: “Health Risk & Society is an international scholarly journal devoted to a theoretical and empirical understanding of the social processes which influence the ways in which health risks are taken, communicated, assessed and managed.” Andy Alaszewski, the editor of the journal, invited me to do an introduction to a special issue on the subject of pregnancy and birth. And Andy pointed out that my article was peppered with question marks, and that rhetorical questions are really not appropriate journal style. And yet, as we discussed the problem, he decided that my rhetorical questions were intrinsic to what I was saying and doing, so he let them stand.
What do you think? Is this an unnecessary rhetorical gimmick or flourish? Or do we need to keep asking ourselves these questions?
Click here to read my intro
Read my foreword to Ruth Deery and Lorna Davies, editors, Nutrition in Pregnancy and Childbirth, Taylor and Francis, forthcoming, here.