What's so troubling about 'voluntary' family planning anyway? A feminist perspective.

IF 2.5 2区 社会学 Q1 DEMOGRAPHY Population Studies-A Journal of Demography Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI:10.1080/00324728.2021.1996623
Rishita Nandagiri
{"title":"What's so troubling about 'voluntary' family planning anyway? A feminist perspective.","authors":"Rishita Nandagiri","doi":"10.1080/00324728.2021.1996623","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Voluntary family planning is a key mainstay of demographic work and population policies. The 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) signalled a decisive shift away from fertility reduction and target-setting to an emphasis on voluntary family planning as intrinsic to reproductive health and women's empowerment. Yet, criticisms of voluntary family planning programmes persist, interrogating how 'voluntariness' is understood and wielded or questioning the instrumentalization of women's fertilities in the service of economic and developmental goals. In this paper, I reflect on these debates with the aim of troubling the notion of voluntary family planning as an unambiguous good that enables equitable empowerment and development for all. Drawing on literature from cognate disciplines, I highlight how voluntariness is linked to social and structural conditions, and I challenge the instrumentalization of voluntary family planning as a 'common agenda' to solve 'development' problems. Engaging with this work can contribute to key concepts (e.g. 'voluntary') and measurements (e.g. autonomy), strengthening the collective commitment to achieving the ICPD and contributing to reproductive empowerment and autonomy. Through this intervention, I aim to help demographers see why some critics call for a reconsideration of voluntary family planning and encourage a decoupling of interventions from fertility reduction aims, instead centring human rights, autonomy, and reproductive empowerment.</p>","PeriodicalId":47814,"journal":{"name":"Population Studies-A Journal of Demography","volume":"75 sup1","pages":"221-234"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Population Studies-A Journal of Demography","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00324728.2021.1996623","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

Abstract

Voluntary family planning is a key mainstay of demographic work and population policies. The 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) signalled a decisive shift away from fertility reduction and target-setting to an emphasis on voluntary family planning as intrinsic to reproductive health and women's empowerment. Yet, criticisms of voluntary family planning programmes persist, interrogating how 'voluntariness' is understood and wielded or questioning the instrumentalization of women's fertilities in the service of economic and developmental goals. In this paper, I reflect on these debates with the aim of troubling the notion of voluntary family planning as an unambiguous good that enables equitable empowerment and development for all. Drawing on literature from cognate disciplines, I highlight how voluntariness is linked to social and structural conditions, and I challenge the instrumentalization of voluntary family planning as a 'common agenda' to solve 'development' problems. Engaging with this work can contribute to key concepts (e.g. 'voluntary') and measurements (e.g. autonomy), strengthening the collective commitment to achieving the ICPD and contributing to reproductive empowerment and autonomy. Through this intervention, I aim to help demographers see why some critics call for a reconsideration of voluntary family planning and encourage a decoupling of interventions from fertility reduction aims, instead centring human rights, autonomy, and reproductive empowerment.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“自愿”计划生育到底有什么麻烦?女权主义的观点。
自愿计划生育是人口工作和人口政策的主要支柱。1994年国际人口与发展会议(人发会议)标志着一个决定性的转变,即从减少生育率和制定目标转向强调自愿计划生育,认为这是生殖健康和赋予妇女权力的本质。然而,对自愿计划生育方案的批评仍然存在,质疑如何理解和运用“自愿”,或质疑将妇女生育作为经济和发展目标的工具。在本文中,我对这些辩论进行了反思,目的是对自愿计划生育的概念提出质疑,认为这是一种明确的好处,可以使所有人获得平等的权力和发展。根据相关学科的文献,我强调了自愿性是如何与社会和结构条件联系在一起的,我对将自愿性计划生育作为解决“发展”问题的“共同议程”的工具化提出了挑战。参与这项工作可以促进关键概念(例如:“自愿”)和措施(例如自主),加强对实现人发会议的集体承诺,并促进生殖权力和自主。通过这种干预,我的目的是帮助人口统计学家了解为什么一些批评者呼吁重新考虑自愿计划生育,并鼓励将干预与减少生育率的目标脱钩,而不是以人权、自治和生殖权力为中心。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
4.20%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: For over half a century, Population Studies has reported significant advances in methods of demographic analysis, conceptual and mathematical theories of demographic dynamics and behaviour, and the use of these theories and methods to extend scientific knowledge and to inform policy and practice. The Journal"s coverage of this field is comprehensive: applications in developed and developing countries; historical and contemporary studies; quantitative and qualitative studies; analytical essays and reviews. The subjects of papers range from classical concerns, such as the determinants and consequences of population change, to such topics as family demography and evolutionary and genetic influences on demographic behaviour.
期刊最新文献
Party penalty or party premium? 'Party Swedes' in Norway and their income before, during, and after migration. Estimating adult mortality based on maternal orphanhood in populations with HIV/AIDS. Intergenerational transmission of fertility in Great Britain: A parity-specific investigation using the 1970 British Cohort Study. Estimating age-specific mortality using calibrated splines. Infant and child mortality in the Netherlands 1935-47 and changes related to the Dutch famine of 1944-45: A population-based analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1