Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T07:22:06.770Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The NAC's Organizational Practices and the Politics of Assisted Reproductive Technologies in Canada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2005

Francesca Scala ,
Éric Montpetit  and
Isabelle Fortier
Francesca Scala
Affiliation:
Concordia University
Éric Montpetit
Affiliation:
Université de Montréal
Isabelle Fortier
Affiliation:
École nationale d'administration publique
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. As the formal “carriers” of the goals and agendas of social movements, social movement organizations (SMOs) are committed to both institutional and identity politics. Given this dual engagement, SMOs must attempt to reconcile their intraorganizational strategies for representation and mobilization with their intergroup strategies for instrumental action in the policy process. In this article, these tensions are explored in a case study of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women (NAC) and its involvement in the policy debate on reproductive technologies over 15 years. The article reveals how the NAC's capacity to influence and participate in the formulation of policy on reproductive technologies was challenged by its inability to resolve competing demands: those of institutional politics, which called for professional advocacy; and the internal demands emanating from its grassroots member groups, for deliberation and participation. The article also attributes the NAC's diminished effectiveness in the policy process to broader changes in the relations between the Canadian state and social movement organizations.

Résumé. Les organisations qui se situent au coeur des mouvements sociaux se distinguent par leurs préoccupations qui sont à la fois institutionnelles et identitaires. Étant donné cette double préoccupation, ces organisations doivent constamment tenter de concilier leurs stratégies internes de représentation et de mobilisation et leurs stratégies externes d'intervention dans le processus de production des politiques publiques. Ces tensions sont examinées dans cet article grâce à une étude de cas qui porte sur le Comité canadien d'action sur le statut de la femme et son rôle dans le débat sur la procréation assistée au cours des 15 dernières années. L'article révèle que la capacité du Comité à participer à la conception des politiques canadiennes en matière de procréation et à l'influencer a été mise à l'épreuve par le tiraillement d'exigences divergentes : les exigences institutionnelles d'intervention professionnelle et les demandes internes de délibération et de participation émanant de la base du mouvement. L'article attribue aussi la réduction de l'efficacité du comité dans le processus de production des politiques à des changements dans les rapports qu'entretient l'État canadien avec les mouvements sociaux.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 38 , Issue 3 , September 2005 , pp. 581 - 604
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bashevkin, Sylvia. 1996. “Losing Common Ground: Feminists, Conservatives and Public Policy in Canada during the Mulroney Years.” Canadian Journal of Political Journal XXIX: 211–242.Google Scholar
Bashevkin, Sylvia. 1998. Living Through Conservative Times: Women on the Defensive. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Callon, M., P. Lascoumes and Y. Barthe. 2001. Agir dans un monde incertain: essai sur la démocractie technique. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
Canada. Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. 1990. Transcripts of Hearings, Submissions and Related Material. Ottawa: The Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies, RG33–154.
Canada. Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. 1992. Information Kit. Ottawa: Minister of Government Services.
Canada. Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. 1993. Proceed with Care: Final Report of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. Ottawa: Minister of Government Services Canada.
Canada. Standing Committee on Health. 2001. Assisted Human Reproduction: Building Families. Ottawa. Report presented to the House of Commons.
Chappell, Louise A. 2002. Gendering Government: Feminist Engagement with the State in Australia and Canada. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
Corea, Gena. 1986. The Mother Machine: Reproductive Technologies from Artificial Insemination to Artificial Wombs. New York: Harper & Row.
Dobrowolsky, Alexandra. 2000. The Politics of Pragmatism: Women, Representation, and Constitutionalism in Canada. Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Eichler, Margrit. 1995. “Frankenstein Meets Kafka: The Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies.” In Misconceptions: the Social Construction of Choice and the New Reproductive and Genetic Technologies, eds. Gwynne Basen, Margrit Eichler and Abby Lippman. Hull: Voyageur Publishing.
Fischer, Frank. 1990. Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Jenson, Jane and Susan D. Phillips. 1996. “Regime Shift: New Citizenship Practices in Canada.” International Journal of Canadian Studies 14: 111–135.Google Scholar
Lippman, Abby. 2001. “Presentation for the Standing Committee on Health: Speaking Notes.” Ottawa. Presented to the Standing Committee on Health.
Majone, Giandomenico. 1989. Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process. New Haven: Yale University Press.
McCarthy, John D. and Mayer N. Zald, eds. 1987. Social Movements in an Organizational Society: Collected Essays. New Brunswick: Transaction Books.
McCarthy, John D. and Mayer N. Zald. 1977. “Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory.” American Journal of Sociology 82: 1212–1241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montpetit, Éric. 2003. “Public Consultations in Policy Network Environments: The Case of Assisted Reproductive Technology Policy in Canada.” Canadian Public Policy XXIX: 93–110.Google Scholar
Montpetit, Éric. 2004. “Policy Networks, Federalism and Managerial Ideas: How ART Non-Decision in Canada Safeguards the Autonomy of the Medical Profession.” In Comparative Biomedical Policy: Governing Assisted Reproductive Technologies, eds. I. Bleiklie, M. Goggin and C. Rothmayr. London: Routledge.
National Action Committee on the Status of Women. 1990. The New Reproductive Technologies: A Technological Handmaid's Tale. Brief presented to the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. Toronto: The National Action Committee on the Status of Women.
National Action Committee on the Status of Women. 1994. Annual Report 1993–1994. Toronto: The National Action Committee on the Status of Women.
National Action Committee on the Status of Women. 1997. For Reproductive Rights and Social Justice: Regulating the New Reproductive and Genetic Technologies. Brief submitted to the sub-committee on Bill C-47 of the Standing Committee on Health. Toronto: The National Action Committee on the Status of Women.
National Association of Women, andthe Law. 1997. Setting Boundaries, Enhancing Health: Response to Bill C-47 and Working Document on New Reproductive and Genetic Technologies. Brief submitted to the sub-committee on Bill C-47 of the Standing Committee on Health. Ottawa: The National Association of Women and the Law.
Nicholson, Linda, ed. 1989. Feminism/Postmodernism. New York: Routledge.
Phillips, Susan D. 1991. “Meaning and Structure in Social Movements: Mapping the Network of National Canadian Women's Organisations.” Canadian Journal of Political Science XXIV: 755–782.Google Scholar
Phillips, Susan D. 1992. “New Social Movements and Unequal Representation: The Challenge of Influencing Public Policy.” In Democracy with Justice, eds. Alain–G. Gagnon and A. Brian Tanguay. Ottawa: Carleton University Press.
Phillips, Susan D. 1996. “Discourse, Identity, and Voice: Feminist Contributions to Policy Studies.” In Policy Studies in Canada: The State of the Art, eds. Laurent Dobuzinskis, Michael Howlett and David Laycock. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Pross, Paul. 1995. “Pressure Groups: Talking Chameleons.” In Canadian Politics in the 1990s, eds. Michael Whittington and Glen Williams. Toronto: Nelson.
Raymond, Janice. 1993. Women as Wombs: Reproductive Technologies and the Battle Over Women's Freedom. San Francisco: Harper.
Sapiro, Virginia. 1998. “Feminist Studies and Political Science—and Vice Versa.” In Feminism and Politics, ed. Anne Phillips. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scala, Francesca. 1997. “Pratiques discursives et savoir social: l'exemple de la Commission royale sur les nouvelles techniques de reproduction.” Politique et Sociétés 16: 105–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scala, Francesca. 2003. “Experts, embryons et “économie d'innovation”: la recherche sur les cellules souches dans le discours politique au Canada.” Lien Social et Politiques 50, Fall: 75–90.Google Scholar
Schmitter, Philippe C. and Wolfgang Streek. 1981. “The Organization of Business Interests: A Research Design to Study the Associative Action of Business in the Advanced Industrial Societies of Western Europe.” Discussion paper of the International Institute of Management-Labour Market Policies Division IIM/LMP 1981/13. Berlin: Wissencschaftszentrum.
Schneider, Ann and Helen Ingram. 1997. Policy Design for Democracy. Kansas City: University of Kansas Press.
Stanworth, Michelle, ed. 1987. Reproductive Technologies: Gender, Motherhood and Medicine. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Vickers, Jill, Pauline Rankin and Christine Appelle. 1993. Politics as if Women Mattered: a Political Analysis of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Vickers, Jill. 1997. “Toward a Feminist Understanding of Representation.” In In the Presence of Women: Representation in Canadian Governments, eds. Jane Arscott and Linda Trimble. Toronto: Harcourt Brace & Company.
Yeatman, Anna. 1993. “Voice and Representation in the Politics of Difference.” In Feminism and the Politics of Difference, eds. Sneja Gunew and Anna Yeatman. Australia: Allen & Unwin.
Young, Iris M. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.