Keskeytyksiä elämässä : Naisten toimijuudet aborttikertomuksissa

The present study focuses on the question of agency in the narratives of women who have experienced an abortion. The study scrutinizes agency by analyzing narratives and their context, that is, how narratives are entwined with cultural discourses and societal practices. The study thus addresses also the wider framework within which experiences and actions can be constructed in abortion narratives in the contemporary Finnish society. The women who wrote their stories or were interviewed were of different ages and had different social and religious backgrounds. Many variations of agency were found when abortion experiences were analyzed through the women s embodied and historically specific accounts. Independent and rational choices are entwined with emotions and choices made together with other people. Intimate relationships with family and friends have an important role in the choices regarding abortion. These relationships do not, however, simply belong in the private sphere but reflect the wider socio-cultural meanings of social bonds and family ties. Women s agency with regard to abortion is also constructed in encounters with the medical profession and within the wider framework of abortion legislation. The Finnish legislation grants women an abortion within certain parameters but not solely on the basis of a woman s wish to have an abortion. The data consists primarily of written narratives and interviews. All together 39 women shared their experiences with the researcher. The analysis focuses on decision-making regarding abortion, depictions of freedom and responsibility, emotions around abortion and expressions of values and religious views. The links between the women's experiences and the wider socio-cultural norms and institutions are analyzed through materials consisting of public debate on abortion in the media, ethical statements as well as literature and legislation on abortion. The analysis sheds light on the tensions apparent in the women's narratives between the legal status of abortion and more traditional views on abortion. The study demonstrates that the freedom linked to abortion is not solely to do with the right to have an abortion but also how abortion can be experienced, understood and where one can talk about the experience afterwards. The analysis reveals that Christian values shape women's experiences but that there are also new religious ways to deal with the ethical considerations brought about by abortion. Annually over 10 000 Finnish women experience an abortion, which is a situation involving ethical considerations. The study provides a nuanced account of the ways in which one can think and act when going through an abortion.

From Habits to Social Structures : Pragmatism and Contemporary Social Theory

Pragmatism has sometimes been taken as a catchphrase for epistemological stances in which anything goes. However, other authors argue that the real novelty and contribution of this tradition has to do with its view of action as the context in which all things human take place. Thus, it is action rather than, for example, discourses that should be our starting point in social theory. The introductory section of the book situates pragmatism (especially the ideas of G. H. Mead and John Dewey) within the field and tradition of social theory. This introductory also contextualizes the main core of the book which consists of four chapters. Two of these chapters have been published as articles in scientific journals and one in an edited book. All of them discuss the core problem of social theory: how is action related to social structures (and vice versa)? The argument is that habitual action is the explanation for the emergence of social structures from our action. Action produces structures and social reproduction takes place when action is habitualized; that is, when we develop social dispositions to act in a certain manner in familiar environments. This also means that even though the physical environment is the same for all of us, our habits structure it into different kinds of action possibilities. Each chapter highlights these general insights from different angles. Practice theory has gained momentum in recent years and it has many commonalities with pragmatism because both highlight the situated and corporeal character of human activity. One famous proponent of practice theory is Margaret Archer who has argued that the pragmatism of G. H. Mead leads to an oversocialized conception of selfhood. Mead does indeed present a socialized view of selfhood but this is a meta-sociological argument rather than a substantial sociological claim. Accordingly, one can argue that in this general sense intersubjectivity precedes subjectivity and not the other way around. Such a view does not indicate that our social relation would necessarily "colonize" individual action because there is a place for internal conversations (in Archer s terminology); it is especially in those phases of action where it meets obstacles due to the changes of the environment. The second issue discussed has the background assumption that social structures can fruitfully be conceptualized as institutions. A general classification of different institution theories is presented and it is argued that there is a need for a habitual theory of institutions due to the problems associated with these other theories. So-called habitual institutionalism accounts for institutions in terms of established and prevalent social dispositions that structure our social interactions. The germs of this institution theory can be found in the work of Thorstein Veblen. Since Veblen s times, these ideas have been discussed for example, by the economist Geoffrey M. Hodgson. His ideas on the evolution of institutions are presented but a critical stance is taken towards his tendency of defining institutions with the help of rules because rules are not always present in institutions. Accordingly, habitual action is the most basic but by no means the only aspect of institutional reproduction. The third chapter deals with theme of action and structures in the context of Pierre Bourdieu s thought. Bourdieu s term habitus refers to a system of dispositions which structure social fields. It is argued that habits come close to the concept of habitus in the sense that the latter consists of particular kinds of habits; those that are related to the reproduction of socioeconomic positions. Habits are thus constituents of a general theory of societal reproduction whereas habitus is a systematic combination of socioeconomic habits. The fourth theme relates to issues of social change and development. The capabilities approach has been associated with the name of Amartya Sen, for example, and it underscores problems inhering in economistic ways of evaluating social development. However, Sen s argument has some theoretical problems. For example, his theory cannot adequately confront the problem of relativism. In addition, Sen s discussion lacks also a theory of the role of the public. With the help of arguments derived from pragmatism, one gets an action-based, socially constituted view of freedom in which the role of the public is essential. In general, it is argued that a socially constituted view of agency does not necessarily to lead to pessimistic conclusions about the freedom of action.