Becker Gay, Butler Anneliese, Nachtigall Robert D
Department of Anthropology, History, and Social Medicine, University of California, Box 0646, San Francisco, CA 94143-0646, USA.
Soc Sci Med. 2005 Sep;61(6):1300-9. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.01.018. Epub 2005 Mar 23.
The normative folk model of kinship in the US continues to attach great significance to "blood" relationships. These implicit genetic links are commonly reinforced through observations about a child's physical similarity to parents or other family members, i.e., "resemblance talk". This paper explores the meanings of resemblance and resemblance talk for parents drawing on semi-structured interviews with 148 heterosexual couples who had used a donor gamete to conceive at least one living child. For parents of children conceived with donor eggs or sperm, resemblance talk represents the ongoing threat that comments about physical appearance could stigmatize their children or cast doubt on the legitimacy of their family structure. Furthermore, these concerns were present regardless of whether a sperm or egg donor had been used and irrespective of the parents' disclosure decision, i.e., whether or not their children were told of the true nature of their conception. Parents found that resemblance talk was not only ubiquitous, unavoidable, and uncontrollable, but it also had the capacity to exacerbate ongoing uncertainties about their disclosure decision (or lack of one), worries about establishing their child within the extended family, and apprehension that insensitive remarks could make the child feel different from other family members. As a result, many couples spent considerable energy developing a variety of strategies for managing resemblance talk that included genetic plausibility arguments, "passing", and strategic silence. We conclude that parents of children conceived with a donor address and contest normative definitions of kinship and family, including stigma and otherness, resist challenges to the family they have created, and, to some extent, rework their allegiance to cultural norms to suit their own needs. Because resemblance talk and disclosure decisions are frequently tied to each other, it is likely that if the public were more accepting of difference, parents would likely feel more comfortable with disclosure. Yet resemblance talk may make it more difficult for parents to disclose, not easier, as long as attitudes about the implicit primacy of genetic connectedness prevail.
美国亲属关系的规范民俗模式仍然非常重视“血缘”关系。这些隐含的基因联系通常通过观察孩子与父母或其他家庭成员的外貌相似性来强化,即“相似性话语”。本文通过对148对异性恋夫妇进行半结构化访谈,探讨了相似性及相似性话语对父母的意义,这些夫妇使用捐赠配子孕育了至少一个在世子女。对于通过捐赠卵子或精子孕育孩子的父母来说,相似性话语意味着一种持续存在的威胁,即关于外貌的评论可能会给他们的孩子带来污名,或者让人质疑他们家庭结构的合法性。此外,无论使用的是精子捐赠者还是卵子捐赠者,也无论父母是否决定公开此事,即他们的孩子是否被告知受孕的真实情况,这些担忧都存在。父母们发现,相似性话语不仅普遍存在、不可避免且无法控制,而且还会加剧他们在公开决定(或未做决定)方面持续存在的不确定性、对在大家庭中确立孩子身份的担忧,以及担心 insensitive remarks 会让孩子觉得自己与其他家庭成员不同。因此,许多夫妇花费大量精力制定各种应对相似性话语的策略,包括基因合理性论证、“隐瞒”和策略性沉默。我们得出结论,通过捐赠孕育孩子的父母应对并挑战了亲属关系和家庭的规范定义,包括污名和他者性,抵制对他们所创建家庭的挑战,并在一定程度上重新调整他们对文化规范的忠诚以满足自身需求。由于相似性话语和公开决定常常相互关联,很可能如果公众更能接受差异,父母在公开时可能会感觉更自在。然而,只要关于基因联系隐含首要性的态度盛行,相似性话语可能会让父母更难公开,而不是更容易。