The Politics and Policies of Reproductive Agency

This study examines the politics and policies of reproductive agency through a redescription of three Finnish policy documents dealing with the declining birth rate: the Government report on the future 'Finland for people of all ages' (2004), Business and Policy Forum EVA report 'Condemned to Diminish?' (Tuomitut vähenemään?) (2003), and the Family Federation's 'Population Policy Program' (2004). The redescription is done with the help of the notion of reproductive agency, which draws on Drucilla Cornell's concepts of the imaginary domain and bodily integrity. The imaginary domain is the moral and psychic space people need in order to form their personality, which is created in constant identificatory processes. The aim of the processes is imaginary coherence. As the personality is embodied, forming one s imaginary coherence always includes attempts for bodily integrity, also entailing attempts to arrive at an understanding of one's procreative capacities. Besides Cornell, I draw on Judith Butler's thinking and comprehend gender performatively as doing, and in relation to that agency as part of the performative process of one's personality. Reproductive agency is understood in this study as the possibilities to live differently the hegemonic forms of procreative life. I deal with three redescriptive themes: the family, economics and gender. The family is a central element in that it is considered the main location of reproduction. With regard to reproductive agency, the documents include problematic conceptions of the family. It is defined as a heterosexual, monogamous, conjugal relationship, which affects reproductive agency in that these notions do not allow for different modes of family life. The second prominent aspect, economics, features on two levels: the macroeconomic level of GDP, employment and competitiveness, and the level of family policies and concern about family finances. Macroeconomic-level argumentation is problematic in the context of reproductive agency because it implies that procreation is a duty of citizens, and thus has effects on values attached to reproductive potential. On the other hand, family policies may advance reproductive agency in supporting families financially. However, such policies also define how the family is understood, thereby affecting reproductive agency. The third theme, gender, intersects with many issues in the policy documents. All three texts consider the roles of men and women differently: women are primarily responsible for the family, and both men's and women's reproductive agency is affected in that the roles in the procreative process are predefined. EVA and the Family Federation see women as the main target of population policies, and consider it legitimate to try to change women s reproductive decisions. Implicit in the notion of reproductive agency is the idea that it should be possible to overcome and live differently the sex difference, but the three documents do not open up opportunities for that. The notion of reproductive agency makes it also possible to question the legitimacy of population policies in general and offers new perspectives on the vocabularies used in the three policy texts, providing insights into the values and logics that support the concepts.