创作故事

Nora Levold, Marit Svingen, M. Aune
{"title":"创作故事","authors":"Nora Levold, Marit Svingen, M. Aune","doi":"10.5324/NJSTS.V7I1.3066","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses the Norwegian media debate on surrogacy from 2010–2013. The debate was initiated by the ‘Volden-case’ where a Norwegian woman who had travelled to India to have surrogate twins could not return to Norway because the Norwegian authorities refused to give the children passports. At that time in 2010, surrogacy was not explicitly regulated by the existing Norwegian Biotechnology Act. According to the Norwegian Child and Parents Act of 1982, the woman who physically gives birth is the mother of the child. It soon became clear that, because this case existed in regulatory limbo, it required a legislative solution. At the time there was an intense and heated media debate. This was resolved when a temporary law was passed in 2013, pending a more permanent Biotechnology Act. During the process of revising the new Biotechnology Act in 2017–2018, we anticipated a continuation of the intense debate that occurred earlier. Surprisingly, this did not happen. In this article we aim to explain why. By analyzing the original 2010–2013 media debate using Hajer’s concepts of ‘discourse coalitions’ and ‘storylines’ (Hajer 2003), we identified three discourse coalitions which gathered around three storylines: the ‘storyline of biological parenthood’, the ‘storyline of equality’ and the ‘storyline on human trafficking’. The analysis demonstrated that the ‘storyline on human trafficking’ gained strength during the 2010–2013 debate, ultimately becoming hegemonic at the end of this period. Surprisingly, the other two discourse coalitions did not appear much in the media debate prior to the new law. This article discusses the lack of these discourse coalitions and concludes that the hegemonic nature of the ‘storyline on human trafficking’ may explain why the new Biotechnology Act did not spark heated debate. ","PeriodicalId":91145,"journal":{"name":"Nordic journal of science and technology studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Stories of creation\",\"authors\":\"Nora Levold, Marit Svingen, M. Aune\",\"doi\":\"10.5324/NJSTS.V7I1.3066\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article discusses the Norwegian media debate on surrogacy from 2010–2013. The debate was initiated by the ‘Volden-case’ where a Norwegian woman who had travelled to India to have surrogate twins could not return to Norway because the Norwegian authorities refused to give the children passports. At that time in 2010, surrogacy was not explicitly regulated by the existing Norwegian Biotechnology Act. According to the Norwegian Child and Parents Act of 1982, the woman who physically gives birth is the mother of the child. It soon became clear that, because this case existed in regulatory limbo, it required a legislative solution. At the time there was an intense and heated media debate. This was resolved when a temporary law was passed in 2013, pending a more permanent Biotechnology Act. During the process of revising the new Biotechnology Act in 2017–2018, we anticipated a continuation of the intense debate that occurred earlier. Surprisingly, this did not happen. In this article we aim to explain why. By analyzing the original 2010–2013 media debate using Hajer’s concepts of ‘discourse coalitions’ and ‘storylines’ (Hajer 2003), we identified three discourse coalitions which gathered around three storylines: the ‘storyline of biological parenthood’, the ‘storyline of equality’ and the ‘storyline on human trafficking’. The analysis demonstrated that the ‘storyline on human trafficking’ gained strength during the 2010–2013 debate, ultimately becoming hegemonic at the end of this period. Surprisingly, the other two discourse coalitions did not appear much in the media debate prior to the new law. This article discusses the lack of these discourse coalitions and concludes that the hegemonic nature of the ‘storyline on human trafficking’ may explain why the new Biotechnology Act did not spark heated debate. \",\"PeriodicalId\":91145,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nordic journal of science and technology studies\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nordic journal of science and technology studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5324/NJSTS.V7I1.3066\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nordic journal of science and technology studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5324/NJSTS.V7I1.3066","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文讨论了2010-2013年挪威媒体关于代孕的争论。这场辩论是由“沃尔登案”引发的,一名前往印度代孕双胞胎的挪威妇女因挪威当局拒绝给孩子护照而无法返回挪威。2010年的那个时候,代孕并没有受到现行《挪威生物技术法》的明确监管。根据1982年《挪威儿童和父母法》,身体分娩的妇女是孩子的母亲。很快就清楚了,因为这起案件处于监管的边缘,它需要立法解决。当时有一场激烈的媒体辩论。2013年通过了一项临时法律,等待更永久的《生物技术法》,这一问题得到了解决。在2017-2018年修订新《生物技术法》的过程中,我们预计早些时候发生的激烈辩论会继续下去。令人惊讶的是,这并没有发生。在这篇文章中,我们旨在解释原因。通过使用Hajer的“话语联盟”和“故事情节”概念(Hajer 2003)分析2010-2013年最初的媒体辩论,我们确定了三个围绕三个故事情节的话语联盟:“亲生父母的故事情节”、“平等的故事情节“和“人口贩运的故事情节。分析表明,“人口贩运故事情节”在2010-2013年的辩论中愈演愈烈,最终在这一时期结束时成为霸权。令人惊讶的是,在新法出台之前,其他两个话语联盟并没有在媒体辩论中出现太多。本文讨论了这些话语联盟的缺乏,并得出结论,“人口贩运故事情节”的霸权性质可能解释了为什么新的《生物技术法》没有引发激烈的辩论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Stories of creation
This article discusses the Norwegian media debate on surrogacy from 2010–2013. The debate was initiated by the ‘Volden-case’ where a Norwegian woman who had travelled to India to have surrogate twins could not return to Norway because the Norwegian authorities refused to give the children passports. At that time in 2010, surrogacy was not explicitly regulated by the existing Norwegian Biotechnology Act. According to the Norwegian Child and Parents Act of 1982, the woman who physically gives birth is the mother of the child. It soon became clear that, because this case existed in regulatory limbo, it required a legislative solution. At the time there was an intense and heated media debate. This was resolved when a temporary law was passed in 2013, pending a more permanent Biotechnology Act. During the process of revising the new Biotechnology Act in 2017–2018, we anticipated a continuation of the intense debate that occurred earlier. Surprisingly, this did not happen. In this article we aim to explain why. By analyzing the original 2010–2013 media debate using Hajer’s concepts of ‘discourse coalitions’ and ‘storylines’ (Hajer 2003), we identified three discourse coalitions which gathered around three storylines: the ‘storyline of biological parenthood’, the ‘storyline of equality’ and the ‘storyline on human trafficking’. The analysis demonstrated that the ‘storyline on human trafficking’ gained strength during the 2010–2013 debate, ultimately becoming hegemonic at the end of this period. Surprisingly, the other two discourse coalitions did not appear much in the media debate prior to the new law. This article discusses the lack of these discourse coalitions and concludes that the hegemonic nature of the ‘storyline on human trafficking’ may explain why the new Biotechnology Act did not spark heated debate. 
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊最新文献
With microbes No rose on this one? construction of matches in dating platforms Money, time, or saving the world Incorporation work
×
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