‘You Never Thought about Me, Did You?’ Cloning and the Right to Reproductive Choice in Eva Hoffman’s The Secret (2001)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I'm not sure this paper is really about the initial claim that "it is always women's bodies that bear the consequences of these new technological developments" as the abstract and intro paragraphs suggest, and I think that's a good thing. I think this paper has a secret thesis. A much stronger and more original focus emerges later in the paper with the introduction of Haraway. In the author’s close reading of Iris's dawning realization that she is hybrid, “new” human, “new” woman, and the result of human evolution (327-271), Iris becomes a eutopian figure standing on the precipice of ironic liberation. 

Yet, this eutopian glimmer of the potentials of NRTs to propel humanity closer to Haraway’s vision of a cyborg world "without gender, which is perhaps a world without genesis, but maybe also a world without end” isn't foreshadowed in the introduction sections of the paper and vanishes soon after its mention later in the paper, reducing the power of the novel to a somewhat conventional dystopian warning of the risks of NRTs and cloning within neoliberal, patriarchal contexts.

I suggest a reframing of the paper that draws out and expands the discussion of Iris as a manifestation of Haraway's ironically liberated monstrous cyborg and includes this vision in the introduction and conclusion sections. 

I’m also wondering if Hoffman’s choice of cloning as the NRT featured in the novel challenges, or maybe complicates, the author’s assertion that “it is always women’s bodies that bear the consequences of these new technological developments.” Is the body that bears these consequences Elizabeth’s or Iris’s, or both?  It seems, based on the author’s descriptions, that one of the reasons Elizabeth chose cloning was to free herself (her body) from a “biological time constraint” (133), waiting until her 40s to become a mother. It doesn’t seem that the mother’s body—Elizabeth’s—is bearing the consequences of cloning. Is the cloning process used in the novel displacing the usual site of ART/NRT consequences away from mother-twin bodies and onto the bodies of the daughter-twins? If so, is the novel then suggesting that one woman’s reproductive freedom comes at the cost of another woman’s bodily autonomy?

The hazards of cloning within neoliberal contexts is clear and well argued, and well framed within "choice feminism" discourses. My one suggestion here is to include a brief discussion of intersections of race as well with a nod to negative eugenics histories and discourses. Examining how class and wealth historically and currently work to restrict access to ARTs (which the author does well in this paper) echoes historical positive eugenics movements/programs, and speculative fiction featuring NRTs often repackages the spirit of these movements and projects them into the future. The fact that "wealthy white women" (162), as the author points out, have the most access ARTs now and are most often the demographic given access to NRTs in The Secret speaks to ways positive eugenics undergirds ART bioeconomies. The corollary is not just denying poor people and people of color access to ARTs and NRTs, but also erecting systematic barriers to reproduction (negative eugenics), working in both directions simultaneously—encouraging the “right” kinds of people to reproduce while actively working to decrease birth rates among the “wrong” kinds of people. Cloning in The Secret, especially if access is limited to wealthy white women, seems especially vulnerable to positive eugenics impulses, literally replicating the “right” kind of person. However, echoes of negative eugenics and the possible uses of cloning to those ends also haunt the novel in places and might be worth pulling out.

I recommend pulling in Sherryl Vint’s work on cyborgs and biopolitics.

1)    A brief summary (one short paragraph) outlining the aim of the paper and its main contributions.  

Aim: The aim of the paper is to read Eva Hoffman’s 2001 novel, The Secret, as an expression of cultural anxieties about the far-reaching implications of new reproductive technologies (NRTs) to women’s freedom, specifically when NRTs are pursued within neoliberal and patriarchal societies. The author highlights ways the novel challenges assumptions that NRTs will, by default, increase women’s reproductive freedom and bodily autonomy. The author also stresses that notions of personal choice within these contexts are fraught, that proponents of neoliberalism have co-opted the rhetoric of personal choice, and that women’s reproductive “choices,” even choices made by women with socioeconomic privileges, often align with hegemonic ideologies.  

Contributions: I’m not sure the stated aim of the paper (introduction, thesis, conclusion) adds anything to scholarship on reproductive technologies in recent speculative fiction; however, about 2/3 of the way in, a compelling reading of the protagonist as an ironic eutopian figure emerges, resulting in a fresh and interesting take on the novel.  

2)    Broad comments highlighting areas of strength and weakness. These comments should be specific enough for authors to be able to respond.  

1. Strengths:  
1. The hazards of cloning within neoliberal and patriarchal contexts are clear and well argued, and well framed within "choice feminism" discourses. 
2. The discussion of linguistics (lines 214-242)—how NRTs might necessarily push us to adapt and evolve our language, in turn giving us a vocabulary to better conceptualize relationships and identities that emerge outside of heteronormative notions of family—is particularly compelling.  
3. The Haraway/Roy section (lines 327-371): In the author’s close reading of Iris's dawning realization that she is hybrid, “new” human, “new” woman, and the result of human evolution, Iris becomes a complex eutopian figure standing on the precipice of an ironic liberation.  
2. Weaknesses:  
1. The introduction, thesis (lines 36-39), and conclusion are the weakest parts of the paper. These sections limit the analysis to a dystopian reading, reducing the power of the novel to a somewhat conventional (within speculative fiction studies) warning of the risks of pursuing NRTs and cloning within neoliberal and patriarchal contexts. However, the body of the paper is much more nuanced and compelling, moving beyond dystopian warnings and towards a reading of Iris as a dystopian figure shot through with eutopian potential, gesturing towards a brighter, off-page future through NRTs. I suggest a reframing of the essay that better previews the discussion of Iris as a manifestation of Haraway's ironically liberated monstrous cyborg. My main revision suggestion is to revise the introduction, thesis, and conclusion to include the novel’s eutopian glimmers alongside its dystopian warnings, better representing the author’s multifaceted and fresh arguments that emerge later in the paper. 

3)    Specific comments referring to line numbers, tables or figures. 

1. Claim on lines 40-41: “Although fears and concerns over new technologies have developed more rapidly in recent years…” Is this really true? I would like to see a sentence or two pointing to specific examples of today’s growing anxieties and where/how we see them manifest. Also, the novel is 22 years old. I would like to see the author acknowledge and address this. While the novel might continue to speak to current anxieties, the gap in time should at least be acknowledged.  
2. Claim on lines 28-30: “yet it is always women’s bodies that bear the consequences of these new technological developments. Therefore, the female body is a fundamental site for the manifestation of issues surrounding reproductive choice.” This claim is made in the introduction section of the paper. I suggest that the author take a moment (1-3 sentences should do the trick) to preview how these bodily consequences play out in the novel since Hoffman’s choice of cloning displaces the usual site of ART/NRT consequences away from mothers’ body (Elizabeth) and onto the body of her daughter-twin (Iris). Later in the paper, the author demonstrates how the novel suggests that one woman’s reproductive freedom (Elizabeth) comes at the cost of another woman’s bodily autonomy (Iris). I suggest previewing this analysis in the introduction.  

Author Response

Firstly, I would like to say thank you for the thought-provoking and considered review comments. They really got me thinking about the scope of the article, which had been adapted from a previous research project and perhaps, as pointed out, the most original focus had been lost as a result.

I have reworked the article to address many of the suggestions. I have reframed the abstract, introduction and conclusion to take into account the adapted shift in focus, and I have also pulled in some of the recent work by Vint (2021, 2022). I have chosen not to include a discussion on eugenics histories and discourses as I feel that this would detract somewhat from the intended remit of the paper, but I have updated that particular section with some brief references to Vint’s work. I have also outlined below how I have addressed the specific comments:

- Claim on lines 40-41: “Although fears and concerns over new technologies have developed more rapidly in recent years…” Is this really true? I would like to see a sentence or two pointing to specific examples of today’s growing anxieties and where/how we see them manifest. This has been slightly rephrased and linked to Vint’s work (lines 41-42). Also, the novel is 22 years old. I would like to see the author acknowledge and address this. While the novel might continue to speak to current anxieties, the gap in time should at least be acknowledged. Please see lines 61-64.- Claim on lines 28-30: “yet it is always women’s bodies that bear the consequences of these new technological developments. Therefore, the female body is a fundamental site for the manifestation of issues surrounding reproductive choice.” This claim is made in the introduction section of the paper. I suggest that the author take a moment (1-3 sentences should do the trick) to previewhow these bodily consequences play out in the novel since Hoffman’s choice of cloning displaces the usual site of ART/NRT consequences away from mothers’ body (Elizabeth) and onto the body of her daughter-twin (Iris). Later in the paper, the author demonstrates how the novel suggests that one woman’s reproductive freedom (Elizabeth) comes at the cost of another woman’s bodily autonomy (Iris). I suggest previewing this analysis in the introduction.  I have addressed these comments within the new introduction.

Again, I would like to thank you for your time and effort in providing these suggestions; I feel that the article is much stronger as a result.

Reviewer 2 Report

Humanities The Secret Hoffmann Review

General Comments

Overall, this is an interesting reading of Eva Hoffman’s The Secret with plenty of close analysis. I did feel that there could be more context given for the debates around NRTs/ARTs in feminism, as the article does not give a nuanced account of how these issues have been seen in different feminisms. I have given some suggestions for this in my specific comments below. I also think it would help the author to take a look at Vint and Buran’s collection Technologies of Speculative Feminist Fiction.  Finally, I think more could be done to convincingly link the reading of the novel to the issue of choice feminism. Given that the mother and ‘daughter’ are not clearly differentiated in the novel, it seems unclear whether the issue is usefully framed in terms of the mother making a choice at the expense of the daughter. The relevance of the wider argument needs to be made more clear at every stage of the reading through regular signposting and explicit links being made to the discussion of NRTs and choice feminism.

Specific comments

‘Given that women's reproductive capacity to bear and birth children is, traditionally, 22 the most defining feature of female biological difference, the issues surrounding repro-23 duction crystallize the contradictions about sexual distinctions and gender roles within 24 contemporary feminisms. Pivotal to this is the role of reproductive technologies, the mer-25 its and drawbacks of which are played out in the arena of feminist debate; proffering a 26 freedom from biological constraints they have the capacity to provide bodily autonomy 27 for women, yet it is always women’s bodies that bear the consequences of these new tech-28 nological developments. Therefore, the female body is a fundamental site for the manifes-29 tation of issues surrounding reproductive choice.’ The article opens with these claims. I would like to see more detail and acknowledgement of the complexities of feminist thought. Specifically, a source to back up the claim that reproductive capacity is the most defining feature of sexual difference; a reference to a discussion about the importance of ARTs (artificial reproductive technologies) in feminist debates; and an explanation of why the claim is made that women’s bodies ‘always’ bear the consequences of ARTs. An attempt to make these claims more specific would give nuance to the paper’s position and offer some much-needed context for its subject matter. Currently the paper does not give the reader a sufficient understanding of the two sides of the debate surrounding ARTs – on the one hand, the Shulamith Firestone approach which sees ectogenesis as potentially liberating women from the constraints of reproduction; on the other, a cohort of second wave feminists who see ARTs as extending patriarchal medical power over the female body (Barbara Katz Rothman’s article ‘Products of Conception’ gives something of an overview: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27716418). This would help to give more nuance to claims made later in the article, e.g. ‘rather than the liberating potential of new re-102 productive technologies (NRTs) that characterised much second wave feminist thought, 103 there is evidence of a certain discomfort that is more characteristic of current feminist at-104 titudes towards artificial reproduction’ (3). I think this claim is over-simplified and, in fact, there was significant criticism of ARTs in second wave feminism, perhaps more so than we see today.

‘exploring the practice of cloning may lead to a new 107 feminist politics’ (3). More explanation of Roy’s position is needed here – why does Roy argue that cloning has this potential?

‘how The Secret moves feminist conversations on from polarised thinking 109 about good versus bad choice towards a reflection upon the nature of the choices that are 110 available’ (3) This is over-reaching. While the novel might contribute to conversations, it is unlikely that one novel can change the direction of feminist debates. Just rephrasing a bit should solve this problem and give the article reasonable scope.

There are issues with the presentation of the longer quotations; there are gaps in the sentences and they need to be correctly formatted and displayed.

‘HRT’ is used instead of ‘NRT’ on page 8.

‘drawing 369 together pleasure alongside responsibility is crucial in exercising the individual right to 370 choice regarding NRTs.’ (8). More needs to be done in this chapter to clarify the importance of play – this sentence in particular was confusing, because earlier the paper sets up the problems that feminism has identified with the issue of ‘individual choice’ via Lola Olufemi’s work. What about the systemic pressures on women’s choices, how does play factor into this issue?

Author Response

Firstly, I would like to say thank you for the thought-provoking and considered review comments. They really got me thinking about the scope of the article, which had been adapted from a previous research project and perhaps, as pointed out, the most original focus had been lost as a result.

I have taken a look at the suggested text by Vint (2021), as well as her more recent monograph. I have also reworked the abstract, introduction and conclusion, and have been through to check the signposting. I have responded to the specific comments, below:

• Given that women's reproductive capacity to bear and birth children is, traditionally, the most defining feature of female biological difference, the issues surrounding reproduction crystallize the contradictions about sexual distinctions and gender roles within contemporary feminisms. Pivotal to this is the role of reproductive technologies, the merits and drawbacks of which are played out in the arena of feminist debate; proffering a freedom from biological constraints they have the capacity to provide bodily autonomy for women, yet it is always women’s bodies that bear the consequences of these new technological developments. Therefore, the female body is a fundamental site for the manifestation of issues surrounding reproductive choice.’ The article opens with these claims. I would like to see more detail and acknowledgement of the complexities of feminist thought. Specifically, a source to back up the claim that reproductive capacity is the most defining feature of sexual difference; a reference to a discussion about the importance of ARTs (artificial reproductive technologies) in feminist debates; and an explanation of why the claim is made that women’s bodies ‘always’ bear the consequences of ARTs. An attempt to make these claims more specific would give nuance to the paper’s position and offer some much-needed context for its subject matter. Currently the paper does not give the reader a sufficient understanding of the two sides of the debate surrounding ARTs – on the one hand, the Shulamith Firestone approach which sees ectogenesis as potentially liberating women from the constraints of reproduction; on the other, a cohort of second wave feminists who see ARTs as extending patriarchal medical power over the female body (Barbara Katz Rothman’s article ‘Products of Conception’ gives something of an overview: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27716418) I have not given more details on the two sides of the historical debate from second wave feminism as I aim for the focus to be more about a current neoliberal context, and I felt that this would detract somewhat from the intended remit and line of argument. However, I have rewritten the introduction to provide a more nuanced position, as requested, and removed some of the statements that could be viewed as over-reaching; I have also included some reference to Vint to contextualise. This would help to give more nuance to claims made later in the article, g. ‘rather than the liberating potential of new reproductive technologies (NRTs) that characterised much second wave feminist thought, there is evidence of a certain discomfort that is more characteristic of current feminist attitudes towards artificial reproduction’ (3). I think this claim is over-simplified and, in fact, there was significant criticism of ARTs in second wave feminism, perhaps more so than we see today. I felt that this argument was substantiated with reference to Roy (2008), but I have attempted to make this more precise by rewording on lines 107-108.
• ‘exploring the practice of cloning may lead to a new feminist politics’ (3). More explanation of Roy’s position is needed here – why does Roy argue that cloning has this potential? I have added this on lines 112-114.
• ‘how The Secret moves feminist conversations on from polarised thinking about good versus bad choice towards a reflection upon the nature of the choices that are available’ (3) This is over-reaching. While the novel might contribute to conversations, it is unlikely that one novel can change the direction of feminist debates. Just rephrasing a bit should solve this problem and give the article reasonable scope. This has been rephrased on lines 115-116.
• There are issues with the presentation of the longer quotations; there are gaps in the sentences and they need to be correctly formatted and displayed. This was not my formatting and must have happened when the original content was transposed to the new template. I have corrected these.
• ‘HRT’ is used instead of ‘NRT’ on page 8. I have corrected this typo.
• ‘drawing together pleasure alongside responsibility is crucial in exercising the individual right to choice regarding NRTs.’ (8). More needs to be done in this chapter to clarify the importance of play – this sentence in particular was confusing, because earlier the paper sets up the problems that feminism has identified with the issue of ‘individual choice’ via Lola Olufemi’s work. What about the systemic pressures on women’s choices, how does play factor into this issue? I think that perhaps the intention of my original statement was unclear here so I have rephrased this sentence on lines 391-394. I have also drawn upon the work of Vint to extend this section further.

Again, I would like to thank you for your time and effort in providing these suggestions; I feel that the article is much stronger as a result.