Furthermore, the surrogate women Rudrappa interviewed take pride in the lump sum of cash (usually US$4000) that they can earn from their work, an amount that the men in their families are not able to earn. They do not feel as though this income is as life-changing as the commissioning parents and surrogacy agencies who subscribe to the win–win discourse make it out to be. It is money that helps them and their families to have a modicum of economic security in the context of economic precarity. It is not that surrogate mothers feel as though this is unequivocally dignified and empowering work. For example, they condemn the fact that they are not allowed to breastfeed the newborns but are forced to use machines to pump their milk for the babies every 2 hours like cattle. And they know that the US$4000 they earn does not represent the full value of their work. Nevertheless, in weighing their options, they often conclude that it is a wise decision. Rudrappa’s ethnographic representations of parents from around the world who engage the services of Indian surrogate women also add to our understanding of what motivates people to engage in transnational surrogacy, despite the negative media representations of them. In some cases, however, these examples are culled from blogs of commissions parents. We are, therefore, not able to fully appreciate the broader sociocultural contexts of their lives that drive them to make this decision with the same kind of sensitivity that Rudrappa has shown when discussing Indian women’s comparisons between garment work and surrogate work. Furthermore, although she reflexively considers the ethics of conducting her research with the surrogate mothers, we do not find the same kind of reflexivity when it comes to her use of quotes from blogs and emails of commissioning parents which would have been helpful. Overall, Rudrappa’s book provides highly respectful and sensitive insights into the social-cultural context of the decision-making practices of surrogate mothers and others engaged in transnational surrogacy. Her approach leads her to aptly conclude that the discourse of reproductive justice with its emphasis on the need to address and transform structural constraints offers a better framework of analysis of transnational surrogacy than the discourse of reproductive rights with its emphasis on leveraging and celebrating individual choice. While the theoretical and philosophical distinction between justice versus rights could have been fleshed out more clearly and deeply, it is made evident through the compelling ethnographic examples provided throughout the book. Discounted Life is clearly written and is appropriate reading for both undergraduate and graduate courses. It makes an important contribution to the social science of reproduction, medicine, and gendered labor in the context of globalization and should be required reading for anyone involved in transnational surrogacy services and policy.

中文翻译：

---

书评：跨国再生产：印度的种族、亲属关系和商业代孕，黛西·德奥曼波

此外，Rudrappa 采访的代孕女性为她们可以从工作中赚取的一次性现金（通常为 4000 美元）感到自豪，这是她们家中的男性无法赚取的。他们并不觉得这笔收入会像订阅双赢论调的委托父母和代孕机构所说的那样改变生活。正是金钱帮助他们和他们的家人在经济不稳定的情况下获得了一点经济保障。代孕妈妈并不是觉得这是一项非常有尊严和赋权的工作。例如，他们谴责这样的事实，即不允许他们对新生儿进行母乳喂养，而是被迫像牛一样每 2 小时使用机器为婴儿泵奶。他们知道，他们赚取的 4000 美元并不代表他们工作的全部价值。然而，在权衡他们的选择时，他们经常得出结论，这是一个明智的决定。Rudrappa 对世界各地从事印度代孕妇女服务的父母的民族志描述也增加了我们对促使人们从事跨国代孕的动机的理解，尽管媒体对他们进行了负面报道。然而，在某些情况下，这些例子是从委托父母的博客中挑选出来的。因此，我们无法完全理解他们生活中更广泛的社会文化背景，这些背景促使他们以 Rudrappa 在讨论印度妇女对服装工作和代理工作之间的比较时表现出的同样敏感性做出这一决定。此外，尽管她反思性地考虑了与代孕母亲一起进行研究的道德规范，但当谈到她使用来自委托父母的博客和电子邮件的引述时，我们并没有发现同样的反思性，这会有所帮助。总的来说，鲁德拉帕的书对代孕母亲和其他从事跨国代孕的人的决策实践的社会文化背景提供了高度尊重和敏感的见解。她的方法使她恰当地得出结论，与强调利用和庆祝个人选择的生殖权利话语相比，强调解决和转变结构性约束的必要性的生殖正义话语提供了更好的跨国代孕分析框架。虽然正义与权利之间的理论和哲学区别本来可以更清晰、更深入地体现出来，但通过整本书提供的令人信服的人种学例子，这一区别变得显而易见。折扣生活写得很清楚，适合本科和研究生课程阅读。它对全球化背景下的生殖、医学和性别劳动的社会科学做出了重要贡献，任何参与跨国代孕服务和政策的人都应该阅读它。