Descripción de las actividades de la cadena de valor de la empresa:

In his article The Subject and Power Michel Foucault sought to theorize “how human beings are made subjects” and the particular ways in which power/knowledge functions in the creation of self. Foucault understood power to be “the multiplicity of force relations immanent in the sphere in which they operate” (1978: 92). That is, power is not situated in one place or with a particular institutional body (government, prison, hospital) but is rather, “exercised from innumerable points in the interplay of nonegalitarian and mobile relations” (1978:94). These innumerable points of interplay can also be understood as ruling relations, as described by Dorothy Smith (1987, 1989). In a series of lectures entitled The Birth of Biopolitics, Foucault adapted his theory of power to reflect the rise of neoliberalism in society. What distinguished post-19th century modern societies was an economic system that positioned individuals within a marketplace, and positioned the marketplace in relation to the state, and in particular, to governance. The

economic foundation of neoliberal societies necessitated for Foucault an understanding of “man as an economic subject” (Read, 2009: 27). In other words, neoliberalism positions “economic activity [as] a general matrix of social and political activity” (Read, 2009: 27). He argued that the neoliberal subject differed in fundamental ways from the legal or juridical subject which he had previously written about extensively. Specifically, neoliberal subjectivity entails recognition of

“one’s body, brains and genetic material” as human capital (Read, 2009: 28). This recognition is particularly applicable in the context of pregnancy, given the literal production of human capital involved in reproduction. Other scholars have since referred to this as the commodification of reproduction (Fletcher, 2006). While Foucault understood there to be natural limitations to the improvement of human capital (i.e. one cannot simply change their race or physical abilities to reflect a desired subject position) he argued that many limitations could be overcome through technologies (Foucault, 2008). Foucault was working with a particular definition of technologies (of power, of the self, of the market) which I will explain later in this section.

However, it is interesting to think about the technology of ultrasound in relation to human

capital. In particular, the ways neoliberal subjectivity can be exercised through one’s engagement with technologies designed to build upon, or transform human capital. Participants’ descriptions suggest that ultrasound functioned as a transformative technology: meaning the image produced by ultrasound had the effect of bringing their abstract understanding of pregnancy into concrete or tangible terms. In particular, the flutters and movements participants like Jamie, Kelsey and Ainsley were feeling prior to their elective ultrasound sessions, were put into perspective by way of a visual representation. The visual, or technological, representation prompted participants to relate differently to their pregnancies. For instance, the visual image of Chelsea’s fetus initiated a shift in her understanding of her pregnancy, which meant she no longer felt in possession of a “belly with a baby in it” but instead, began to position herself in relationship to her child-to-be. The fact that this shift occurred from the deployment of ultrasound in an elective, rather than medical setting, is a manifestation of the neoliberal position that “economic activity is a general matrix of social...activity” (Read, 2009). In this case, the social activity can be thought of in relation to both the ultrasound session itself, (in that Chelsea described having numerous family members present for the screening), and in relation to pregnancy and motherhood as a social practice (Dubriwny, 2010).

The consumer identities and practices made possible in neoliberal societies necessitate individual action. Foucault positioned neoliberalism as a form of governmentality which emphasized the governing of the self. In order for neoliberalism to function as a governing of the self, “subjects must have a great deal of freedom to act - to choose between competing strategies” (Read, 2009: 29). Freedom to act within a capitalist economy can be understood as the freedom to purchase, or

to consume. Engaging with elective ultrasound businesses as consumers represented for many participants their “freedom to act - to choose”. Participants like Monique and Rachelle described being grateful for the opportunity to choose to engage with the elective ultrasound industry. In their decisions to purchase, they were acting as consumers, and making choices which reflected the kind of information and experience they desired from the deployment of ultrasound

technology. However, according to Foucault, this “freedom” cannot be understood as outside of the relations of power that produce rights and obligations. He suggests that “liberalism must produce freedom, but [that] this very act entails the establishment of limitations, controls and forms of coercion and obligations relying on threats” (2008: 63). For this project, coercion and obligation comes from the relationship between ultrasound and the institution of motherhood as a ruling relation. The obligation to embody a certain type of maternal identity (under threat of being viewed as a bad mother) functions as a coercive element in decision making around the purchase of elective ultrasound. To illustrate this point, I will draw on the work of Dorothy Smith (1987) in order to situate the institution of motherhood, as articulated by Rich (1977) and others (O’Reilly, 2004; Green, 2004; Dubriwny, 2010) as a ruling relation, before returning to Foucault and a more detailed discussion of governmentality as it relates to women’s experiences of elective ultrasound.