Embodying Other Bodies -

"...the body is simultaneously a physical and symbolic artifact,...both naturally and culturally produced, and...securely anchored in a particular historical moment...[Yet] we take scientific discourse about human biology to be not simply a narrative but a universal truth...we assume that it applies anywhere and anytime and transcends time   and place"

Fabien Gautier de Agoty

Margaret Lock 1995 Encounters with Ageing: mythologies of menopause in Japan and N. America


I have always relied on the above quote to challenge the notion of taking scientific knowledge from one specific, politically dominant culture and applying it as "fact" in a global context to every human being on the planet. It becomes particularly useful when trying to think of ways to structure arguments against the idea of health and social policy universalism, such as that touted by the World Health Organisation. Over the last few years I have devoted so much thinking  and writing time to this argument that I am comfortably in a place where I can believe scientific (or in fact any) knowledge is firmly rooted in the place, space and time where it was first thought up, and in that way generally also only applies to that very place, space and time.


Whilst I have found it so easy to throw this argument at anything that annoys me, makes me feel uncomfortable, or that has a relevance I wish to negate, I have committed the grave mistake of not applying it to my own arguments.


At the end of the day if I say it applies to everything, then it must include the knowledge I produce and the lens through which I choose to view the world. In other, more simple words - I can only ever understand the world around me through the way that I have been conditioned to do so by the place and time that I have existed and exist in. It is only now that I can comprehend how wrong I have been in the past to declare what I think is wrong. The world cannot be reduced into what is wrong and what is right, no matter how uncomfortable that can feel. 


I am finally beginning to come to terms with the objective in what is a deeply subjective research topic. Being objective has nothing to do with the denial of emotional intellect - it just means that it should never be taken for granted as the truth  of the situation. When carrying out research with human subjects, about an embodied and personal experience, as a researcher I cannot become detached from the process of which I am part of. I must examine my subjective involvement and the affect this will have on how the data is interpreted. In regards to my current method of collecting narratives in order to analyse unconscious thought and action, I am constantly reminded of a comment I heard this year in a seminar I attended. A thoughtful and and dare I say wise, anti-psychologist (Dr Ian Parker) brought forward the argument that the unconscious should not be thought of as something pre-existing inside someone's head, that can be extracted at any time by a psychoanalyst or budding researcher. Rather, the unconscious is something that is constructed between two people via the dialogue they have - a contribution is made by more than one person to create an unconsciousness specific to a certain time and place. The subjectivity of the researcher, who sets the storytelling in motion, has a major to part to play in the creation of the unconscious thread behind the story that gets told. In this way, the researcher becomes part of the narrative and becomes further invested in the interpretation of it. This helps greatly when dealing with the tricky question of what or whose truth the narrative contains, and even more importantly in terms of research data - what relation it has to (if any) to the world at large.


In trying to form an academic and moral argument that medical knowledge, situated in a specific culture and period, is inappropriately placed upon a another culture, time, place, environment etc. I have to come to terms with the fact that my own argument can only ever be a narrative, a possible version of a truth as well - and so equally as untrustworthy as the knowledge I am arguing against in the first place. What I observe is only ever true in the moment that it happens, after that it only becomes my narrative - a version of a possible truth, and therefore something that can be later questioned by someone else.

Edvard munch: Weeping Nude

As long as I remember that.... then everything should be just fine! 

La Dignidad Rebelde?

"For many in Mexico today the world seems, indeed to have gone mad. It is a world where politicians funnel eighty four million dollars from the national coffers into Swiss bank accounts, where protesters sew their mouths closed with black nylon string in politically motivated hunger strikes, where students take to the streets in angry riots, and where policemen slaughter dozens of campesinos and hide their bodies in shallow graves. Divorces and homicides are up, literacy rates and education down, and so many young people seem more engaged with what's happening in Friends than in their own back yards"

R. Lester, 2005

   Since the early 1980’s a slow, yet steady rebellion has been taking place throughout Los Altos of Chiapas, the body count of indigenous women, children and men as a result of supporting this rebellion or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time has crossed into 4 figures. Political prisoners are into the hundreds and Chiapas remains a militarized state away from the media gaze. Just like the recent public uprising and rioting in various countries, the Zapatista movement only made the world press when they appeared armed and used violence  (whether symbolic or physical) to get their message across. Since they put down their arms to continue in a non-violent struggle in the face of an uber-violent State one has to search them out to find them in terms of media coverage.

Chiapas remains within the top 5 most marginalized states of Mexico, alongside neighbouring Oaxaca it has a high indigenous population, is rich in natural resources and has an inconceivably huge class and racial divide resulting in a burgeoning middle class who appear apathetic to the abject poverty and starvation that surrounds them. 

My experience of this place over eight years has taught me that an imagined vision (and language) of a 1^st and 3^rd world (who ever got to be the 2^nd??), is nothing but a constructed concept. Break these concepts down and what do they mean any way? Perhaps just another label imposed by powerful governments to say “you are down there, and there you will stay”?... after all has anyone heard of a country that gets relegated to 3^rd or upgraded to 1^st?

What does poverty mean when you have no running water or electricity but you have a mobile phone and cable tv??

The force known to many as neoliberalism no longer has a distinct definition, not one that can be easily fitted into a sentence and applied willy nilly to any situation. It is better to think of neoliberalism as a phantom that haunts society and nation at every level. It is a creature that changes, morphs and reinvents so quickly that its hard to know where it will turn up next. Neoliberalism seeps into every aspect of if social and individual life. It is easy to look at the large scale political and economic actions that are rooted in the free market philosophy of survival of the fittest. The decrease of state funded services, universal benefits and praise of privatisation as the best option are apparent to even the most ignorant of shopping channel souls.  The commodification of everything from body parts to feelings – from those breasts that will make you a winner, the designer foetus that grows into a flawless success, to the happiness that can be bought in any shopping centre or online paradise – now that’s a little harder to pin down.

It’s the emotional and cognitive effect on the individual that is intrinsically linked to the collective social world, and vice versa which can only be tackled through theoretical analysis. Perhaps that is why the effects of neoliberal/free market/neo-capitalist forces on the emotional human being defy an understanding in the common world. If you can’t get hold of something, pin it down, give it a name, catch the phantom at work – how does it become part of the general consciousness?

We blame our unhappiness on whatever our media devices tell us is causing it. The strongest will survive, free market mentality tells us that unhappiness is caused by not having enough – it doesn’t matter what of, you just don’t have enough of it. This translates into the individual a feeling of never quite getting there, never being satisfied and always wanting better. Those who commodify the phenomena of health will tell us that this is depression, a chemical imbalance and that there’s a pill that can fix it and a good therapy or holistic religion for those that can afford it. Your diagnosis can then be traded to earn particular benefits and acceptance in the world you live in. 

Pedagogic theorist Peter Mclaren writes that our feelings are attached to the shimmering surface effects of signs and simulations, and the dull radiance that illuminates the spectacles of everyday. In other words, our feelings have been made external in order that we may recognise them only as emotions accepted by a particular society, at a particular time. This separation between internal and external feelings leads to social confusion. When there only exists a language to explain the socially constructed external emotions we receive on a superficial level, our profound internal emotions are alien to us, we have no way to explain them to ourselves and therefore no understanding of how we should react. As social and emotional beings we do react, and do so in an automatic sense, in ways that seem irrational and violent precisely because there is no other way to understand action that has no constructed meaning. We have lost all ability to recognise our internal repulsion and coping mechanisms to the world around us.

Whether it is Mexico, Egypt, Spain or the UK the world seems to be a mad place for no one dominant reason in particular. Perhaps the phantom neoliberal effect on the individual via the fetishism of commodification has reached its limits of subtlety, and the world is finally waking up to the madness it has caused. No longer can a shimmering surface effect explain away the levels of inequality and injustice that exist in the one world we all live in.

Bordering upon womanhood

Two years on since the last post I'm back to visit where I left my heart, back to see if its still beating strong.

Reading the post below highlights 8 years spent completing tramites, it appears to be one aspect of international relationships that never changes. After having spent two years dealing with being away from my children for most of the day and generally feeling guilty as hell, I now find myself back in my husband's country, alone with both of my babies,whilst he is stuck in my country waiting for a bloody visa!!! I'm getting a mountain of quality family time with the hitch of not getting to share it my the father of my children, the love of my life.

These moments leave back in an ontological wrestle with the meaning of borders, as physical spaces and psychological boundaries at the mercy of political and financial whim. In their essence borders exist where a government or individual has decided to draw an invisible line that only certain people can cross. As a physical entity borders only exist because of the methods used to control them. It is only by trying to explain the nature of borders and migrating through them to my 3 year old daughter that it becomes clear just how unexplanable it is. It truly brings forth the well sought after philosophical discourse surrounding the notion of freedom.

Does freedom exist? Can it be possible to be free, upholden to noone or no one thing? How loaded is a question of choice, and has anyone ever made a choice that is free from the influence of another human being?

"I am free to do what I want, whenever I like" - The Soup Dragon's cerca 1990ish

Not so tunefull with an added suffix of: as long as I don't break another man's law, or get caught doing so, or leave the house without ID or passport, attempt to cross an invisible line, or remain silent when asked who I am, where I am going, what I am doing, think about why I'm doing it, what my family, employer, friends, state or society will think of it......then I'm free.

Hannah Arendt argued that freedom does exist for those who take it, in whatever circumstance that may be. She was able to take that stance and argue it well through her discussion of natality. She believed that in birth a unique individual is created that is capable of creating something new in the world, able to make a change. In this way we are all free to act, our circumstances do not hinder us from doing so as unique individuals.

In a similar vain Michel Foucault argued that freedom is practiced by an individual, including one who is oppressed or submitting to a societal discipline. Falling in line with social or political behaviours that control movement of the body and mind happen because an individual is practicing their freedom to allow this to happen - in other words they would be just as free to go against it (if social conditioning had never happened to that individual). In this way a notion of freedom does exist but is limited.

A little factor going by the name of consequence is what creates those limits and puts a big fat stop on the idea that freedom exists. So perhaps the question has never really been Does freedom exist?, for this can only produce an answer without meaning. The question can only be:

Does freedom have to exist alone, in order for it to exist at all?

Answers on a post card please!

(Posthumous apologies to both Arendt and Foucault for totally oversimplfying their thoughts on the human condition)

Chipped and ready to go

So my little girl keep dancing
ID cards don't stop no hijack jet

Passports, visas, tickets… paperwork, all pretty expensive paperwork signed, sealed and delivered, we’re ready, we have lift off, thunderbirds are go! Well, just about anyway, the small fact of packing a house up and disarming ourselves of belongings has to take place as of yet, but, you know, we’re legally set.

Having spent the last few years on the other side of the fence, migratory speaking, I have begun to understand it’s not just the Mexicans who love charging for bits of paper, signatures and want countless photographs of me on file…. They’re all at it!!! and what a lucrative business it appears to be as well. An economic downturn will not be hitting the world of borders anytime soon, especially if one considers the amount of people trafficking currently happening, transmigrants going back home empty handed as their host countries fall flat on their faces. Returning costs money, they tend to forget that bit in the daily reports. Coming back home with a family in tow, increases the cost more so… no visa no entry, no visa fee or expensive sponsor’s evidence noooooo visa.

Thankfully offspring have full citizenship rights of both countries, Emilia can be oppressed, charged lots of tax in the future and generally messed about by TWO places at once!! Lucky girl..

She is now the proud owner of two passports, one saying she’s Mexican the other saying she’s British, will this cause an identity crisis later in life I ask myself?? I very much doubt it, just a confusing love of chili and overcooked vegetables.

With her British passport she has also entered the world of biometrics, Ooooh very space age, or in another’s opinion (i.e. her mother’s) a complete invasion of privacy for an 11 month old, her every toddle tracked by global surveillance systems. Apparently though, it will make her second country a safer place and stop the ever growing threat of baby terrorism. She’s now chipped and ready to go, there’s no slipping through the system for this little lady, or in fact ever actually finding out what info is kept on the bloody thing. Perhaps her taste in teething rings is essential to national security; maybe she’s classed as a subversive anarchist for using cloth nappies. Whoooo knows…. All I ask is: What’s the f###ing point people??!!?

It appears that I am the only member of my little family gang who isn’t biometric, somehow though, I’m not feeling left out and I don’t want to join in the game than you very very much.

When we journeyed north to Mexico City to apply for hubby’s visa, apart from many papers and big fee they also took scans of his eyes and fingers so he can join the biometric circus currently taking over the first world. Nonetheless, in true hypocritical style when humans get involved with the machines as they tend to do, the visa was sent back without any sign of chip, potato or otherwise. We do however assume that hubby’s iris and digit details are on file. It’s either that or like most things in this country, they haven’t been on the training course yet, don’t know how to use the machine and so just pretend to do something with it.

Why are we just expected to trust the random servants of the state to take records of your bodily prints? Would we happily tell then the code to our house alarm, pin numbers and most secret fantasies as well? Due to the decisions of some crusty men in suits we are being expected to hand over bits of our bodies for governments to do what the hell they want with them. Volunteers for a secret human cloning project anybody? Bit farfetched maybe, but how the hell do I know what they want to do with this info if a) they brush it off as a detail of national security and b) nobody’s ever actually given the chance to ask!!

How many politician sex scandals or celebrity deaths were on the front pages whilst they were sneaking this law in???

Apparently iris and fingerprint scanning are at the low end of the high tech security market, body odour, face, voice, movement, vascular and personality scanners are almost ready to leave the lab, but aren’t seen as people friendly enough pass into public use…. yet.

Think think of a number
Think and chose a number one to ten
If five five five's your number
Times that five by two to make a ten
Cause I I aint no number don't need no ID round my neck
So Mr number maker
ID cards don't stop no hijack jet

(that lovely poet Ian Brown)

The head pecking truth is without this biometric intrusion together with the legally obliged carrying of a pretty little ID card where copies if the information is stored, my husband will have no access to visa protection, employment, social security or healthcare. Oooh and on top of visa charges they make us tramp to Liverpool to an Orwellian style building and pay 30 quid for the pleasure… bless them!! One cannot help thinking of the word governmentality in its true Foucauldian sense. One of the features of Foucault’s governmentality is the autonomous individual’s capacity of self-control (and in broader terms civil obedience) and how this is linked to forms of political rule and economic exploitation. My own shaky interpretation of Foucault’s work on this aspect of governmentality sees his placing importance on the differentiation between power and domination. He insists that:

“..we must distinguish the relationships of power as strategic games between liberties – strategic games that result in the fact that some people try to determine the conduct of others – and the state of domination, which are what we ordinarily call power. And between the two, between the games of power and the states of domination, you have governmental technologies” Foucault 1998.

It admittedly takes me a long time to get my head round this French philosopher dude, bless him and his long words, but I know he’s fitting in here somewhere. And, most certainly making the point a lot more eloquently than I ever could.

The governmentality of populations using biometric technology, isn’t exactly a new thing. Like most questionable practices highly open to abuse biometric identification came to the fore in colonial history. Our beloved (ahem…) colonial administrators suffered from the technical problem of having to identify lots and lots of people under their (ahem..) care and jurisdiction. Some clever colonial administration man in India, probably one with a big moustache, first came up with the concept of fingerprints as an identification tool. This in turn developed into a utopian concept of a secure society, the developing world’s reason for wanting to be identified, where if everyone is counted then everyone exists and well is counted for. I can’t quite see how this fits in with Mexico though, yes they’re very big on fingerprints and ID Cards (doubling as voting card), but rather than being counted as a citizen, its used as an excuse to rig elections and deny people from accessing just about any public service they’re entitled to, it being accepted in most cases as the ONLY form of identification. This happens because the Mexican notion of a secure society as per usual doesn’t take in to account the social factors of the people not having access to voting cards, the ridiculous bureaucratic procedure of obtaining one, and the ability of state slaves to say the phrase “I’m sorry this doesn’t look like you… NEXT!!” . Secure society by left buttock!!

If we take account of the timeline of biometric identity use, with the first use as control of the other in their motherland by the state, leading up to today and the control of the other as immigrants in new lands, by the state… can we see an issue of uummm control? Domination verses liberty? State surveillance verses autonomy and peaceful life? Cameras on the heads of pigeons? (little special birdy ones of course).

My family do have the right to live with me in my country of birth, as long as they’re chipped and pinned that is… BEEP!

Of course in the case of the UK, it’s not just an immigrant issue, but it’s the obvious political starting point, moving straight onto all UK citizens would be far to obvious and may even sneak onto perhaps Oooo page 2 of a national snoozepaper. So just immigrants and new passport holders for now... nothing for us other humanoids to worry about then?

Childbirth in Urban Chiapas (without footnotes)

The medicalization of pregnancy and childbirth, and the immeasurable dependence on technological knowledge rather than empirical has had grave consequences when filtered down through local systems, especially in areas of the world that are subjected to the “development” needs of the richer nations. Jordan in her explorations of obstetrical settings in lesser developed countries described a form of biomedical and technological imperialism that endeavours to replace local expertise (if it is recognised at all) rather than build upon it. In her cross cultural comparison of childbirth Jordan states: “Because of the substantial lag in the diffusion of innovation in medical practice, countries in the development backwaters of the Third World frequently practice a type of medicine that is outmoded in the very place where it was originated” (1993:185).

In all corners of the developing and industrialised world there has been a mass increase in the practice of caesarean section, more in Latin America than anywhere else, and particularly in urban areas of Mexico (Cardenas 2003). This increase falls in line with various neoliberal political economic and social factors such as more state control over individual life choices; increasing industrialisation; massive increase in urban migration (particularly in Chiapas since the mid-1990s) causing changes in customs and traditions; and unrestricted flows of information through media networks amongst other social influences. A statistical and literary study by Cardenas (2003) on the socio-demographic differentials and determinates associated with the use of caesarean sections in urban areas of northern Mexico, found that its regular practice in public hospitals may be connected as much to social political reasons as for medical pretexts: “The differential association between variables such as age, level of schooling, place of residence or ethnicity of the mother and the level of caesarean observed, such as an increase in its practice…suggest that the decision to carry [the caesarean] out doesn’t always respond to medical reasons” (Cardenas 2003:307). This observational analysis demonstrates that more qualitative research needs to be carried out with women and medical staff at all levels to shine light upon the decision making process and how this relates to political health strategy, education and human rights.

Chiapas, Reproductive Health and (Mis)Development

Chiapas has received much attention belonging to the traditional anthropological school occupied with such topics as indigenous kinship, ritual, belief systems and conflict; all essential information within its own realm but restricting discussion to a rural context and placing women as faceless, voiceless entities who are left abandoned in settlements whilst the movement and activity of men is understood through the human traffic of migration and employment statistics. Little attention (or funding) has been paid to understanding women in the rapidly increasing urban context, women of varying class and ethnic backgrounds, who, through place are experiencing access to the same health services, education and media influences. In terms of pregnancy and childbirth in Chiapas, much ethnographic information can be found about traditional practices of Mayan midwives and uses of the placenta in rural communities; but we know nothing about the urban experience of women, caught up in public health services, regarding the decision making process before and during parturition or the extent of material, physical and emotional support for the woman during pregnancy and labour (Jordan 1993). The repercussions of this lack of knowledge and misrecognition of women’s lives are played out on a grander scale through the political manipulation and misdirection of global health strategies which work to promote technological advancement as a way of population control and improving mortality statistics.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) define reproductive health as the opportunity for all people to live a satisfactory and safe sex life, and have the opportunity to reproduce to their full capacity: a couple can freely decide if they want to reproduce or not; when and how often to do so, and have access to services and appropriate healthcare so that the pregnancy results in the survival and well-being of the mother and infant (Rio et al 2003:182). This definition has been carried over to more localised development aims, such as the Panamerican Health Organisation’s Health Initiative for Indigenous Populations 1993 and National Health Programme introduced by each Mexican Federal government and that since the Fox government of 2001 has incorporated the global aim of reducing maternal and infant mortality rates related to pregnancy and childbirth. The objective of such programmes as Arranque Parejo a la Vida with its emphasis on early detection of complications through the use of technology have been translated and manipulated by health services on a local level to what is tantamount to what Castro and Erviti (2003) have described as serious violations of reproductive rights.

This narrow vision brought down from global analysis has quickly translated into coercive politics, numerous ethical violations and inefficient results for programmes (Rio et al 2003:181). The same reproductive health technology, such as foetal heart monitors and ultrasound, produce information used for analysis and over time to create ‘norms’ that women’s bodies (and the foetus) should conform to throughout the pregnancy and right up to the decision of birthing method. As shown through her comparative studies of childbirth in four cultures, in a North American hospital Jordan (1993) found through observations in labour rooms that such knowledge produced by technologies cannot be relied upon, and does nothing but work against experience knowledge of the (woman’s) body.

The focus on Caesarean Section in Urban Chiapas

In 2007 an explorative investigation into medical attention in childbirth affecting indigenous migrants to urban areas and public health policy was carried out by Nazar et al (2007). This study also makes comparison with mestiza women living in areas of social exclusion who are likely to be using the same health services. In the period of the study, alongside an increase in births attended by institutional medics, a decent in the frequency of vaginal births was registered in both the mestiza and indigenous population. Nazar et al state that in these two cities in Chiapas alone from the period 1979 - 2003 the practice of caesarean section has increased almost nine times (870.0%) in the mestiza population and almost four times (394.1%) in the indigenous population.

The authors question the fact that WHO initiatives working towards decreasing maternal mortality rates, are having little if no impact on a local level due to medical practices and attitudes towards women of particular ethnicities and social background. The results of Nazar et al’s paper indicate that a huge increase in the use of caesarean section (which according to Cardenas follows medical trends in the ‘developed’ world) and increases in the use of Government Health Sector Services are actually counteracting any effort to improve maternal mortality. As such, if the practice of caesarean has been adopted as a strategy to curb mortality rates, this makes very little medical sense whatsoever, let alone the ethical debate of violating women’s bodies in this manner.

Caesarean birth carries great risks for both mother and infant. Risk of death (for the mother) is higher in the case of caesarean compared with vaginal birth…and the health of a newborn also can be negatively affected…Studies carried out in India (…), Malaysia (...) and Nigeria (…) show an increase in post-birth and neonatal mortality in infants born through this method (Cardenas 2003:303-05). The data analysed by Nazar et al adds to the essential debate over women’s rights over their bodies, treatment by the medical sector of indigenous women and women of deprived social backgrounds, quality of reproductive health education and attitudes to the cultural cosmology of birth within ‘development programmes’ and neoliberalistic attitudes of the body, self and what constitutes as natural.

One can argue that the WHO’s mission to achieve equality for all people through social, physical and mental wellbeing is a political project within itself and is open to varying cultural definitions on a local level. Or alternatively, open to varying social, political and economic consequences out of which is then created the ‘norm’ in that specific society; that is to say on a service provision level which often clashes with actual daily cultural behaviour. Global health initiatives have allowed scientific knowledge and its associated technologies to dominate local cultural values, effectively removing natural phenomenon and infringing seriously on women’s rights. The very nature of medicine as a science allows this discreet domination of the masses to take place, as stated by Latour: “Scientific knowledge purifies the mobilisation of cultural values whether they be religious, political or economic” (cited in Ayora 2002:116). Although development initiatives often have the public face of taking into account or respecting local cultural values, within health service provision this is counteracted by the ability of (western) medicine to transcend cultural values and be transferred to any given culture at any given time, placing its own values as dominant.

Medic v’s Midwife

In their analysis, Nazar et al noted a large shift in confidence leaning towards the medical attention for childbirth rather than the traditional use of midwives: “…it is important to emphasise that 94.1% of the mestiza women and all of the indigenous women who were attended by physicians said they did so because they had more confidence in the medical training of the physicians than that of the midwives, which in conjunction with the tendencies observed, shows evidence of a displacement of values towards allopathic medicine as much with mestiza women as with indigenous” (Nazar et al 2007:769).

Unfortunately there is no analysis available to suggest how and when the reputation of midwives began to take a backwards turn, or as to what opinion the medical profession have on midwives. Under political consideration midwives are openly accepted in rural areas where the government or NGOs fail to reach with institutional medical care. They are however in these cases given medically designed training by government programmes to bring their practices ‘up to date’, registered into the system and generally told to refer ‘complicated’ pregnancies to urban clinics (Jordan 1993; Ayora 2002). This toleration of traditional practices within certain spaces still reiterates that contemporary medical knowledge is paramount and that there exists a huge power imbalance between knowledge practices. To date I am yet to find evidence of midwives and their essential skills being employed alongside medics within institutional settings in Chiapas.

Conclusion: Women, Pain and Modernity

To conclude I would like to consider a very complex side to the increase in caesarean sections in Chiapas: the issue of women requesting this surgical procedure themselves. Even without empirical evidence, one would be safe to assume that as well as not every birth in urban Chiapas ends in a caesarean section, neither are many of those that do forced against their will. Many women in urban Chiapas (and Mexico) actively request birth by caesarean for a variety of reasons; an important question arising from this is what is the woman’s rationality behind making this particular decision? And as I mentioned in the introduction, in the many cases where women opt for caesarean section when a vaginal birth is preferable, at what level are they complying to the maintenance of the systems of power that oppress them? I am aware that this question in itself is worthy of discussion in much greater detail than I provide here, my intention is to bring forth questions for further consideration and attention to an aspect that I believe plays a role the increase in childbirth by surgical interference.