Wallace and Gusterson brought us closer to the everyday life aspect of technology. I emphasized the struggling and the uncertainty that comes with being thrust in a world where tools and their requirements make new positions for human beings to inhabit, along with new dilemmas (what factory to build, how to handle one's relationship with an industrial employer) and contradictions (bombs as metaphorical babies).
Rapp focuses us further on the interactional consequences of technologies that directly touch our bodies.
Amniosynthesis and sonogram including
With reference both to
Rapp mentions the first one with insight, particularly when criticizing early feminism critiques (1997b: 33) but her basic interest is in the local interpretations as she stresses the multiplicity of the women's talk about the tests (along with a nice critique of the dangers of using the main official categories of people (1997a: 129-30). But her main interest is in the new constraints that have been placed on women by, above all the new technologies, and, though she mutes this somewhat, the shift in the State's role in controlling female bodies (by the legalization of some abortions.)
One may disagree with some of the more political statement that she produces in passing as if they were unproblematic, but one cannot fail to see that everything, every "reading" of a test or image, as well as every legal ruling, has a form (e.g. objectification of IT's body) and a consequence.
Note for example the implicit controversy about how to label IT: baby? or fetus? Each word has major implications for subsequent action, whether taken or not. Rapp's choice of "fetus" (the technical, medical world) both aligns her with the scientific hegemony (rather than various religious subcultures) and with a political choice.
Let's see how this might work during an actual labor.