HEGEMONIC AND COUNTER HEGEMONIC DISCOURSES IN THE

CONTEXS OF GLOBALIZATION

THE POLITICS AND POLICIES POPULATION

IN THE GLOBAL HISTORY (1950-1994)

MSc. Romina Guadalupe Perez Ramos

University of Copenhagen

1. INTRODUCTION.

Discourse deals with the dimension of analysis of every social fact or

phenomena, such as the politics and policies of population. Today, this phenomena of
Population among many other discourses is a major global issue more than in the past.
This discourse has three major “paradigms” with articulating principles that have
influenced social, political and economic action in a “global context”

The first paradigm was the “reproductive paradigm” or “ pronatalism, that developed
in the 18th century when large populations were considered an unconditional good
thing and competitive advantage in many of the nation states.

The second paradigm is the “eugenics” or “improving the genetic quality of

the human race”. The paradigm started by 19th century, when Sir Francis Galton
(1822-1911) in a conference on hygiene and demography (1892) implored fellow
scientists to help improve race quality and health all over the world through
interventions into fertility1. This led to the launching of the international eugenic
movement in the 20th century, with the slogan “breed a global race of peaceful citizen”
that formed an international governmental organization (IGOs), and international
Federations to represent its interest in the global arena. It also promoted eugenic
sterilization around the world, and defined policies to sterilize those defined as ´unfit
´ . This ideas and policies promoted by eugenic movement were adopted by 16 countries
before World War II including Adolf Hitler while he was still in power. After World War
II, the policy was considered morally reprehensible and at the end of 20 th century and
the beginning of the 21st century the eugenics paradigm has continued to grow as a
“scientific and humanitarian mission”2.

The third paradigm was spurred by Mathus´writing3 during the 20th century
where population growth was described as an “explosion” and “contraceptives to
prevent overpopulation” under which the foundation of the third paradigm was
established4. The power of the contraception discourse inspired a social movement
known also known as Neo-Malthusian, which formed an association in 1900 after their
first international conference, that resulted “to disseminate information about population
growth and exact methods to limit family size”. The association partnered with IGOs to
facilitate their cause and “scientized” their agenda into a special Committee of the
League of Nations.

The Committet worked at the Office of Population Research (Princeton) and

produced, “demographic transition theory […] a theory that shaped the field of
demography as well as global population policy”. The theory was brought by Frank
Notestein to the UN. On this, UN formed commissions, elaborated data and organized
the World Population Conference in 1954 to examine the global demographic trends.
Activities and experts around the world, have contributed to redefinition of
populations growth as a potentially destructive force5.

Therefore, the Malthusian link between population and resources influenced by

the 1950’s international policy. In 1966, 33 countries signed the UN Declaration on
Population claiming that population growth was an important global matter. Since then
a global policy “population control” was emerged “decreasing the rate of population
growth, particularly in poorer and less development countries· This slogan was built
over the paradigm of and became thought of as humanitarian step in alleviating a cycle
of poverty.

In the late 20th century, demographic policies became an expected part of

national statehood and UN asserting that planned families were good for national
development. The linkage of population and development in the global arena paved the
way of discourse on individual rights to reemerge. In 1994 activist introduced in the
International Conference of Population and Development “a platform of women´s
reproductive health and right”, which was ratified by 180 government and influences
policies around the globe6.

At the beginning of the 21th century, while population continues to increase,

rated of population around the world has lowered, and this trend expects to continue 7.
Some countries are experiencing zero growth, and in Europe many are even negative.
Thus despite the fact that world population is all time high, there may be a resurgence in
pronatalism in development countries with renewed attention to genetic quality, as
scientists map the human genome and further develop reproductive technologies.

1.1. SUBJECT TO WRITE A PAPER.

In the temporality that establishing the incursion global history 8 from 1950 to
1994 the third paradigm (as discourse) is regarded as an object of study to
measuring two dimension (both ideological/discursive, and sadistic) of the impact of
hegemonic policy of the “population control” promoted by USA as hegemonic actor;
vs. “reproductive health and rights” promoted by Global Women’s Health Right
Movement (GWHRM), the community of human rights, and others counter
hegemonic opposed actors, such a global south bloc of states.

QUESTION

a) What was the impact of the hegemonic, and counter hegemonic discourse in
the ideological and discourse field? What is the difference between both of them?

b) What was the impact of the hegemonic, and counter hegemonic policies
materialized by family planning programs on women fertility?

DATA
 a) Primary sources, analysis of texts and documents of the World Population
Conferences, Worlds Human Rights Conferences, and United Nations of Word
Women’s Conferences (Decade of Women’s) from 1950 to 1994.
To measure the effects of power of the politics and policies through of the
discourse analysis of the hegemonic and counter hegemonic actors.

DATA

b) US Census Bureau - International Data Base (IDB).

Unites Nations (2005), World Population Prospects

To measure global “Total Fertility Rate” (TFR)

METODOLOGY

a) Qualitative: In depth politics and policy discourses analysis

b) Quantitative: Secondary Data Analysis using EXCEL

2. UNDERSTANDING THE DEBATE BETWEEN “POPULATION CONTROL”

vs. “REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH AND RIGHTS” AND THE DATA STATICS AS
RESULT.

2.1. The Hegemony Game as an Abstract.

This section will investigated the complex relationships between translational

actors such nation-states, agencies, international organizations, social movements and
the structure of international power in the processes of global history Their relationship
is characterized -by many researchers- as relations of conflict and interest when they
-driven by their own ideology- define policies from politics decision.

The main police to be analyzed is the “population control” defined by US.

Related with this, there were opposed actors which action changed the police;
such the Group of 77 (G77) consisting in developing countries, the Human Right
Community, and the women’s social movement called “Global Women’s Health Right
Movement” (GWHRM) and its demand “reproductive health and right”.

Therefore, both “population control” vs. “reproductive rights” were two

principles opposes each other in the debate, and also were linked with health,
security and publics issues. The issue helps to understand the hegemony game in the
context of globalization, and let me interpret the data and “statistic evidence”
about “population control” vs. “reproductive right” as output.

2.2. United Stated and its hegemony in “population control”.

To start it will be noted that throughout the global history a succession of
hegemonic nation states have consolidated and benefited from the process of
globalization; such United States of America, which has been instrumental its power in
promoting itself policies. The role played by this actor indicates that policies is
fundamentally shaped by human agency, and hence politics, around which are
defined and implemented policies based on the hegemonic interest in conflict with other
actors, as it will be development in this work paper regarding within “population
policy”.
After War II, with a clearly defined strategy which can be named –following
Gramsci- as a “war of positions”9, USA have constructed its hegemony through
“coercion and consensus’. With a growing military power compared to others counties
devastated by the war, by ensembling postwar institution, and working bilaterally
and multilaterally USA under the “liberal ideology” underwrote the reconstruction of
a generally liberal international economic order, and its political regimens to be held
and protected it. Both, promoted USA interest and facilitate global economic
integration, and also -with political regimes- building the health governance through
the institutionalization and legitimating of different apparatus of hegemony.

In this process, interpellated by Neo Malthusian ideas, USA become interested

to responded at the emergency or crisis of what they have called a global problem
“overpopulation, poverty and lack of development” (Sen et al 1994: 1) 10 and with
interpellating capacity articulated a discourse institutions and apparatus to manage it
under the guidelines of the neoliberal ideology and the international economic order .

One important issue from decisions makers focused in population growth in the
development and developing word, and the politics output produced the policy of
population control. Therefore, “population control was propagated as the main norm
guiding global population policy from 1965 until 1994” (Paige 2004: 1)11.

The politics hegemony of US defined the policy and norms about “population
control” and
with agencies such United Stated Agency for International Development
(USAID/19961), United Nations Funds for Population Activities (UNFPA) 12,
Rockefeller Foundations and epistemic community (demographers and economist)
imposed policies that affect people, especially women’s right and their health. At that
time, in the 1960’s “women’s movement’ in development world weren’t a counter-
hegemonic actor to oppose it, neither any nation states in developing world.

The “control population” such hegemonic discursive principle has emerged in

a context of demographically changed know as “population explosion”.

GRAPH N 1. Demographic Change and World Population 1800-205013

In 1820 world population reached 1 billon and
increased to 3 billon in 1959. From 3 billon in 1959 to 6 billion by 1999
Source: US Census Bureau - International Data Base (IDB)14
To USA governments and the American demographic community the change
significantly affecting world geopolitics, because 95% of all new population growth
was occurring in the developing world’s (Richard Jackson et al 2008) 15.

FIGURE N. 1. Map of World Population affecting World Geopolitics

The map shows that world population distribution is uneven. Some areas have a high population density
while others have a low population density
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Countries_by_population_density.svg

On de basis of this results the neo Malthusianism gained converts and USA
would become the leadership of the “population control”. The police has materialized
by “international family planning programs (IFPP)”16 and resources around the world.
Following politics and policies of US the United Nation become involved and by it,
member states have contributed to its implementation.

According Visaria and Chari (1998: 53), India was the first country in the
developing world to initiate family planning program. In 1959 government accepted
sterilization as one methods of family size limitation, and the total fertility rate
decreases from 6.0 in 1950’s to 3.5 in 1994. In many countries such India the program
and incentives was succefully as the statistic evidence is showed illustrated in the
graphs below.

GRAPHS OF DECREASING ‘TRENDS IN TOTAL FERTILITY RATES’

GRAPH N 2. TFR DECREASES FROM 6.O IN 1950’S TO 3.5 IN 1994
Graph elaborated with Data from United Nations (2005), World
Population Prospects
GRAPH N3. Decreasing Trends in TFR

Graph elaborated with Data from United Nations (2005), World Population Prospects

GRAPH N4. Decreasing Trends in TFR

 Graph elaborated with Data from United Nations (2005), World Population Prospects

GRAPH N5. Fertility trends by selected countries in Asia (1950-2005)

Source: United Nations (2005), World Population

Prospects: the 2004 Revision,ST/ESA/SER.A/245,
New York. Cited by Bhakta Gubhaju (2006: 3). In:
Overview of Population and Family Planning in Asia;
and e-learning on Population and Family Planning.
 GRAPH 6. Fertility trends by major region of the World (1950-2000).

Source:United Nations (2005), World Population Prospects: the 2004

Revision,ST/ESA/SER.A/245, New York. Cited by Bhakta Gubhaju
(2006: 3).

So, as well the statistic evidence illustrated in the graphs decreasing trends in
TFR, it’s possible to affirms that the policy and IFP were succefully from the decade of
1950’s to 1990’s. However during the process of the global history the policy has
changed ending the 1960’s, starting 1970’s passing by 1980’s and to get 1990’s. The
main change was that the politics and the policy of “population control” discourse
that has linked with “draconian family planning programs” was disarticulated and
displaced by of the counter hegemonic “reproductive health and right” discourse that
gives new content and form of articulation at the “family planning programs” that
allow the downward trends in TFR with legitimacy and consensus because of the
actions and practices of the counter hegemonic actors, as will see below.

2.3. The counter hegemonic actors: and news counter hegemonic

principles: “New Economic Order” and “Reproductive Rights”.

There were at least tree main actors opposed to the policy. First, the socialistic
block, to whom the overpopulation does not depend only on the size or density of the
population, but on the ratio of population to available sustainable resources, therefore
depends on the way resources are used and distributed throughout the population (John
F. Besemeres 1980)17. Second, the “South block” constituted by developing world
which -by group of 7718-, claim a “New Economic Order” NEO (Encyclopedia of
Globalization 2007: 553-555)19 to attend policy population. Third, it was the called
feminist movement and has been organized concerned with women’s right, women’s
health, and women’s lack of voice in the public and private spheres (Wendy Harcourt
2006)20. For them, many of the programs through population control policies were
coercitives. So they acted organizing and legitimizing their own apparatus of
hegemony, denounced the abuses that were committed by dismissive of individuals’
human rights.

Therefore these tree actors acted against politic and polices of US (and its
agencies) and began to articulate counter hegemonic discourses which have linked
“population control” with ideological elements or enunciations such “imperialism,
racism and genocide to disqualify the population control policies” (Paige 2004: 42).
Around this discursive battle with opposing players possessions and identified with
their own principles hegemonic discourses, the politics and policies of “population
control” were debated in World Conference on Human Right Tehran (1968) and in
World Population Conference in Bucharest (1974).

To understand this kind of politics process, Gramsci wrote: in a “war

possession” once a counter hegemonic actor gained the discourse battle, and its
interpellation have been constituted such a “religion of people ” and “produced a moral
e intellectual reform”, the counter hegemony discourse has effects of power to
dismantling the dominant hegemony. According Mouffe (1980)- this also happened
because there have been produced material condition of possibility to decline the
discourse hegemonic, but the evidence of hegemonic decline and systemic crisis,
aren’t sufficient to displace an actor from the complex power game -as it will see
later in the case of US-.
In relation to these issues, it is necessary to say something about the
disarticulation and dismantling USA hegemony, also some of the counter hegemony
actors constituted by both historic blocks such South block (vs. North) and East (vs.
West), and some about social feminist movements -constituted from and by civil
society- and articulator of the most important discourse interpellant against population
control .

2.4. The dismantling and re-articulation of USA hegemony.

USA declined its hegemonic because of the collapse of Bretton Woods […] the
erosion of America’s industrial base, reflected in growing current account deficit
[…] the Soviet Union’s achievement of rough nuclear parity […] the
catastrophic American defeat in Vietnam […] the Global South […] empowered
[…] The success of the OPEC oil cartel in 1974 […] thus represented a further
challenge to US power. By the end of the 1970’s […] that growing international
economic instability was a result of the decline of US hegemony (Encyclopedia
of Globalization 2007: 567).

The evidence of hegemonic decline and systemic crisis of US, aren’t sufficient
to displace US as actor, because in the game of hegemony the ideological crisis allows
the transformation of the ideological field through the dissolution of the ideological
elements of the dominant ideology (or discourse). When its unity dissolves -in the
ideological field- diverse alternative speeches intervene to organize the ideological
elements under a new form and from another interpellation (another subject).
Therefore, that which modifies is the form (of articulation) and not the content (the
interpellations in dispute) of the ideologies. Therefore -playing with the lattes and
decade after of its crisis- US has again rearticulated its hegemony. To understand
this power game it necessary analyzing the “another subject” the women’s social
movement.

2.5. The articulation of counter hegemony. The women’s social movement

and the counter hegemonic principle “Reproductive Rights”.

The effect of power of the counter hegemonic discourse sets finally at the
decade of 1960’s. The scenario was the World Conference of Human Right (Tehran-
Iran 1968)1. There, according with Dixon-Mueller (1993: 3) 49 countries, both from
development and developing word, voted in favor of the following resolution

access to family planning was indeed a human right […] all couples had the right
to ‘freely decide the number and spacing of their children’ (Final Act. 1968)21.

Therefore the “Final Act (1968)” moves the “family planning” through
“population control programs” to “family planning” through “human rights”. On
this basis the ideological elements in dispute as “family planning” organized around
the principle “population control” will be reorganized into the new principle which
privileges at as symbolic interpellation at “human right”, and shall be legitimized at the
“ Bucharest World Population Conference” (1974) in a new context of a new power
forces correlation.

2.5.1. World Population Conference (Bucharest, 1974) and the articulation

of the new counter hegemonic Subject.

Bucharest […] demonstrate […] that the polarization of

population control policies reflected international politics
(Paige 2004: 69).

The Bucharest conference in 1974 was planned by the leaders of the neo-
Malthusian movement to be the international conference where consensus would form
around their agenda (Hodgson and Watkinns 1997: 489). United Nation, was the
powerful apparatus that has mobilized the whole process through UN Economic and
Social Council (ECOSOC) via Resolution No 1484/197022.

In Bucharest the main actors were represented by

a) The UN agencies under the conduction and direction of the leadership of

23
USA as well leaders of Neo-Malthusian movement with the demography and
epistemic community have played a role working on the “Draft World Population
Plan of Action” (WPPA) that it has socialized in a five regional pre conferences
organized to allows countries revisions it.

The Draft WPPA stresses the need to limit population growth through
implementing population and social welfare policies with direct effects of
fertility (…) embodied the convictions of those espousing the need for neo-
Malthusian population control measures (Paige 2004: 63).

b) 137 states, some of them from development world organized by the Group of 7;
and the developing world organized by the Group of 77 articulated such a counter
hegemonic historic block24. So, the North-South conflict permeated the population
debate25: the South block has altered the Draft WPPA, claiming for a ‘New
International Economic Order’ (NIEO)” and demanding that “socioeconomic policies
were also including within the WPPA (ibid).

1
 The Socialist states acted with them as an ant imperialist block against the
USA identified as the main political adversary and so leadership of the West vs. East
block in the context of the Cold War interested in realizing by consensus its “foreign
policy objective” (population control) and the resulting strategy called by them
“Global Population Strategy”. For the ideology of the communist international
“population growth” has been treated like a dependent variable, for them it has solution
if the resources of the society are been distributed socially, such as socialistic system.

c) International NGOs, that some of them have been articulating alternative

discourses to population control such family planning programs guided by a
reproductive right and health rationale. The game played by the Global Women’s
Health and Right Movement (GWHRM) -emerging in the 1970’s- and the right –to life
movement through ONGs, was significant in term that in Bucharest have affirmed the
right of individuals and couples to reproductive autonomy.

Within their own apparatus of hegemony the new actors (G77, socialistic
countries, the GWHRM and the right –to life movement) have been acting and
emerged on the international scene articulating the ideological elements in dispute over
a new discursive hegemonic principle which the main devices was “universal human
rights” linked to “national sovereignty”.

Because of the new forces correlation the “human rights” as a new principle
discursive has gained the debate e in Bucharest, the Draft WPPA was revised and
approved including both development aid and family planning programs 26. The lattes
have linked to “human right rather than population control” (Hodgson and Watkins
1997: 490), and concerning to sovereignty, the Plan didn’t not set any international
norm for family size or rates of population growth (Singh 1979: 3). Countries which
consider their birth rate detrimental to their national purposes, may consider setting
quantitative goals, implementing policies and implementing programs (Paige 2004:
67) “to be formulated al the national level within the context of specific economic,
social, and cultural condition within each country” (Singh 1979: 2). So, it set “the
right of individual countries in determining their own population policies in conformity
with local condition without any outside interference” (Boland 1995 27-28).

After Bucharest it was evident USA declined hegemonic. Both facts exacerbate
its crisis, but not displaced as actor from the complex power game, because has
been worked toward to re-articulation its hegemony and its national security in many
ways and scenarios. Population control was still a main issue linked with the
national security and “The President (of US) has directed a study of the impact of
world population growth on U.S. security and overseas interests” (NATIONAL
SECURITY COUNCIL, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506 )27. The study

should look forward at least until the year 2000 and use several alternative
reasonable projections of population growth […] should assess: the
corresponding pace of development, especially in poorer countries; the demand
for US exports, especially of food, and the trade problems the US may face
arising from competition for resources; and the likelihood that population
growth or imbalances will produce disruptive foreign policies and international
instability […] should focus on the international political and economic
 implications of population growth rather than its ecological, sociological or
other aspects (Ibid)

The study has been materialized in the National Security Study Memorandum 200
(NSSM 200)28 and following the courses of action the United States improve its
assistance in the population field through which agencies -bilateral, multilateral and
private agencies. In 1975 it was established “Ad Hoc Group on Population Policy”
articulating 18 departments and agencies. USAID addressed the population
problems in bilaterally and multilaterally agenda. UNFPA has contributed to
developing countries with funds for “populations assistance” from $54 millions in
1974 to $107 millions in 1976 (Singh 1979: 14). Finally, from 1975 to 1978 USA
has increased in its international population assistance29 successfully, because has
been adequate itself discourse incorporating the counter hegemonic principle
legitimized in Bucharest Conference, once that

the President's concern that population policy is a human concern intimately

related to the dignity of the individual and the objective of the United States is
to work closely with others, rather than seek to impose our views on others
(NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506 )30

Since then, at the end of the 70’ and through 80’ population control hasn’t
circulate in the political and ideological sphere, become an ideological elements
displaced, without capacity of interpellation and constitution subjects, it was a binary
word viewed as inappropriate within the UN discourse. In this context to improve
new policies with the new ideological elements put on in Bucarest, and always
concerned about “population problem” UN has declared the 1975-1985 “UN Decade
for Women” conducting global conferences31. Therefore USA and its agencies have
appropriated as well both, of the new ideological elements and of the new
principle ideological discursive articulating them under a new form of
interpellation.
It is important to note that the loss of hegemonic capacity of the U.S.A
government made strategy shift. U.S.A couldn’t act in isolation from the global
system and must have to respond to the counter hegemonic actors, mean the “others”.
That is the reason why has claimed that “population policy is a human concern
intimately related to the dignity of the individual and the objective of the United States
is to work closely with others, rather than seek to impose our views on others”32.

In the discourse the enunciation “work with the others” doesn’t mean that
they are not longer “population controllers”. To work closely with others, mean take
the opportunity to promote their own new agenda toward the new principle, and USA
did, taking advantage of one ideological issue from the US feminist: their notion of
rights (linked at the liberal ideology) in the sense that “White House” want to link
also the policy with “neoliberal economic policies”33 to curb population growth in the
developing world. So, rearticulating as “populations controllers” their demographic
rationale and their neoliberal economic policies with the new principle, they have
agreed “gave to women another option in fertility reduction” (Paige 2004: 90). So
the strategy shift has been successfully from 1975 to 1984 or better during the “UN
Decade for Women”.
 In World Population Conference (Mexico-1984), the USA has to readjust its
policy, but without affecting the core sense of the strategy, not “losing the will” to
work closely with others toward the fertility reduction, and possession in the global
sphere such a political leaderships

2.6. New changes and power relations

Adjustment in policy was given by the pressures and influence of the

Catholic Church as an power actor and its political support the anti abortion movement
in the World Population Conference (Mexico-1984). There, USA official position was
“funding will not be used to support abortion” and consequently USAID and UNFPA
suffered budget cuts, in a context where it was intensified the movement to globalize
the reproductive right and health, because the global process had already been
constituted and empowerment a new subject of social and political action: the Global
Women’s Health and Rights Movement (GWHRM) that have attended the first global
conference convened by the international “Campaign on Abortion, Sterilization, and
Contraception” (ICASC) in Amsterdam (July 1984) and re-named as “Women’s Global
Network for Reproductive Rights” (WGNRR) by pressure from Southern women’s
activists34 to express their “health and right agenda” (Cf. Correa and Reichmann 1994:
61)35.

So, both forces classed in Mexico, and USA not longer can’t ignore WGNRR
as an articulation/constitution of a new subject that have emerged partly in response to
political contestation under and by of the material social processes of the globalization,
and also because expressed a new modality of link between developing country
movements with individuals and groups in the developed world in an effort to foster
“transplanetary movements” within and across countries as a resource for “exchanging
information, articulating policy positions, and planning effective political action within
the broad boundaries of the (transplanetary) movements (Dixon-Mueller and Germain
1994: 213-214).

Consequently, a new adjustment of the policy must be done after Mexico,

because the subject GWHRM as powerful actor is interpellator with transformative
capacity to make change in the policy of USA. Its power expressed transplanetary
articulating women’s movements from North and South, human right community,
and variability of NGOs, and together have acted in Nairobi Conference (July
36
1985) increasing their power of interpellation on USA policy.

The alliance such a bloc with human right community was strategic. The
GWHRM has appropriated of the human right discourse because is powerful and as a
political language its makes oppositional claims in the transplanetary world, creating a
space through which political contestation and struggle over values, principles, and
norms can take place at the local, national and global levels.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s’ women in diverse countries took up the human
rights framework and began developing the analytical and political tool that
together constitute the ideas and practices of woman rights (Bunch and Frost
2000: 2)
According to Petchesky (1997: 576) women’s movement used the meta-discourse of
internationally recognized human rights norm to alter the agenda of a global forum.
Concerned with reproductive and sexual issues they began shifting their own discourse
from a health paradigm to a human rights frame partly due to the influence of women’s
human rights activist but also out of pragmatic necessity to counter the growing
fundamentalist and Vatican coalition.

Therefore, the framing of reproductive right, as an international human rights

was instrumental in moving global population policy away from population control to
reproductive right and health, and “the discourse of population control was replaced
by the language, norms, and policy prescriptions consistent with reproductive rights and
health (Paige 2004: 114).

Thus in Nairobi was linked with the ethical critique of the demographic
approach to population control programs advocating alternatives against the dominant
norm to bring and rearticulate a new one based on norms of human rights and
consequently policies as reproductive right and health globally. Toward this objective
the human rights community and the GWHRM have worked in the UN World
Conference on Human Right (Vienna 1993).

There reproductive right (and health) emerged as a human rights gained international
attention. The global network across countries and actors influencing each other, have
set a recognition that woman right were universal, inalienable, and indivisible,
consequently

reproductive right’ became globalized by framing it as an international human

rights norm […]The abuses of women’s human rights in coercitive population
control programs were deemed unjust and intolerable […] the acceptance of
reproductive right and health by the United nations, donor agencies, foundations,
and states would help ensure a more just, tolerable, and human rights oriented
world women. The framing of reproductive rights as an internationally
recognized human rights also gave human working within their governments,
public agencies, and even other individual who prevented women from
exercising their reproductive autonomy (Paige 2004: 114).

Therefore, the norms supporting population control were further undermined,

and women ceased to be treated as targets and acceptors of family planning programs
guided by the ideology emerged at the beginning of global history, but women’s after
Vienna have the right to control their reproductive capabilities or have a right to make
voluntary and informed choices about their reproductive and sexual health. They in the
material social processes of the globalization have articulated and constituted an
alternative oppositional ideology that change the norm of “population control” and
constructed a new one that changed the paradigm one on population policies. The
lattes has its main expression in the “Women’s Declaration on Population Policies”
legitimized in United Nations International Conference on Population and Development
(ICPD) that was held from 5-13 September 1994 in Cairo, Egypt.

2.7. A new paradigm changing policy.

2.7.1. The “Women’s Declaration on Population Policies”

 In the 1990’s the GWHRM is well-organized and legitimated as actor on the
global scene, its discourse expresses subversive language of changes materialized in
the “Women’s Declaration on Population policies” 37 elaborated by over 100 women’s
organization. The declaration has had a transplanetary impact with effects of power in
changing the discourse and norms of demographically oriented population policies.

It set new emphasis in reproductive health that is conceived as a condition that

facilities de completion of the reproductive process in full physical, emotional, and
social well being of reproductive rights with prerogatives and responsibilities on the
par of couples and individuals, and family planning.

One effects of power of the discursive effects was that Clinton Administration
must to rescind the Mexico policy, and supports reproductive rights and women’s
empowerment, because the decision maker have decided as a “to reassert the USA as a
leader in formulating, funding, and advising on global population policy” through
“global human’s health and rights”. Consequently,

The demographic rationale for population control was increasingly undetermined

and viewed as anachronistic by most actors who influenced this international
discourse. Instead, a focus on women’s individual well being and women’s
empowerment as decision makers in their reproductive health choices had
become the dominant ethos (Paige 2004: 128).

Therefore, the actors involved by the politics with policies population, were
introducing in the process of circulation of the discourse new intersubjective
conceptions of what constitutes appropriate global family planning programs linked
with reproductive rights and health services, and by this political process, and also a
new scenario of direct production of the discourse the “Women’s Declaration on
Population Policies” was legitimized in Cairo (1994), Egypt38, by the complex
transplanetary structure of power represented by 179 “national states” most of them
with new configurations in the structure of power rearticulating forces to respond at
the new challenges of the material process of globalization and its production of
ideology/discourses that swarms globality.

Therefore, the document was approved by actors of the a) the global world
north such the Union Europe (UE) as expression of the new constitution of regional
power; the and USA commanding the power of the transplanetary agencies and
financial organizations; the Group of 8, and the ODCD acting, balancing, and
interacting forces in the northern block. b) the global south block with a new
regional configuration. The Group of 77 has a new structure of power according
their insertion in the process of globalization that showed new alliances of political and
economic interest, such the Group of 33 and 21. c) With geographical membership
to both blocs but articulating voices of the transplanetary space it was the most
hegemonic social movement: the GWHRM trying to get consensus around the
“Women’s Declaration on Population Policies” supported by many ONGs.

Therefore “during two tense week period” diverse discourses were trying to
rearticulate at their own principles of “politics population’ the symbolic
interpellations such “reproductive rights and reproductive health” and although it was
hard to reach consensus in a conflictive “Chapter VII on Reproductive Rights and
Reproductive Health”39, the “world leaders, high ranking officials, representatives of
non-governmental organizations and United Nations agencies, finally agreed on a
Program of Action” (United Nations Conference on Population and Development
(ICPD) 5-13 September 1994 Cairo, Egypt) basis on the Declaration of GWRHM, and
the working definition of fertility regulation of the World Health Organization (WHO)
and its meaning and significance have changed the paradigm40, although human right
norms and sovereign rights were linked to guide Chapter VII by the principles (1-
15) contained in Chapter II.

First paragraph: sovereign rights

Countries insisted that the document start with reaffirming their sovereign rights
to implement the recommendations in ways that are consistent with “national
laws and development priorities” and with “full respect for the various religious
and ethical values and cultural backgrounds of its people.” (Jane Menken 2000:
7)41.

Thus, sovereignty of “nation states”, and human rights as well is known has
arisen tension in the “international relations”, but actors in a global planet are
constructing “transplanetary relations” and the societies needs political answers not
on the basis of international politics, but transplanetary politics even more when a
new paradigm is circulating in the global space and has undergone ideological
rupture.

2.7.2. As an Epilogue.

“There must be […] something subversive in the Cairo language” (Paige 2004: 150)

According with many researchers, Cairo conference has produced a paradigm shift.
The following paragraph can summarizes and expresses other studies

Discursive and normative change has occurred at Cairo […] represented

transformations in the ideology of the field […] is an unusual policy document.
[…] intended to establish norms guiding international population policy for the
next twenty years […] the phrase “population problem” is totally absent from
the ‘Program of Action’ (and) put away at the rationale undergirding population
control ( Hodgson and Watkins 1997: 469)

So, the empowerment of the GWHRM (Wendy Harcourt: 2006)42 made that
its discourse as an contesting expression of civil society has had the capacity to a)
articulate different and transplanetary voices; b) disrupt the opponent’s speeches and
delegitimized the discourse of “population control”; c) enter as social discourse
toward to the core of the state sphere as well and its result, made that reproductive
right become as an international norm that changed the politics and global population
policy; d) set a program where the new paradigm for family planning programs: d.1)
envisioned the practice of family planning as voluntary and free of the demographic
targets (Costello et al 2000: 302), d.2) the focus and objective were moved from
fertility reduction to the needs of individual women ensuring the condition that
encourage voluntary and informed choice about their reproductive and sexual health
(Forman an Ghosh 2000: 2), d.3) replaced the regulatory approach, backed by the
biomedical model, which saw increases in contraceptive prevalence as the best
solution to rapid population growth with a humanistic agenda centered on people, their
health and right (Piage 2004: 135) and finally e) made a “ethical and moral” reform”
when disqualifies that the use of coercion , incentives/disincentives, targets, quotas, or
any inducement used to affect fertility do not constitute appropriate behavior by states,
agencies, or other actor involved in international population policy. So stated that
governments ought not pursue and antinatalist or pronatalis agenda in their support of
family planning programs (Paige 2004: 160).

Consequently, it is possible to agree that the paradigm has changed. The

discourse of the GWHRM was subversive and consequently transplanetary counter
hegemonic because the change of the field was global and acted diverse counter
hegemonic actors from the global space, mean North and South; East and West, as
well Regional blocs. Therefore if the discourse as social practices changes behavior
and dialectically opposite, changes in discourse often will precede behavioral
change, powerful actors have had in Cairo an historical benchmark and the “nation
states” by their government have had to development a new public policies in regard to
women’s health and rights, because of the politics, the paradigm changed and needed
the new policies.

8. Conclusion.

As seen from the temporality in which researchers have defined as a global

history that start in 1950, U.S.A. was the hegemonic actor which guides international
population policy by “population control”, but after World Human Right Conference
(Tehran 1968) and specially with greater effectiveness of interpellation in Bucharest
Conference (1994) emerging counter hegemonic actors introduced further changes. The
ideas of the liberal individualism and the assertions of right in the sphere of
reproduction has effects of power to disarticulate the policy of “population control”
and articulate/constitute with power effects the policy of “Reproductive Health and
Rights” . So, dissident voices began questioning the demographic rationale and instead
proposed a health and right-based as the reason women should be afforded reproductive
rights and health services. This argument became incorporated in a transplanetary
social movement in the lattes 20th century, and today is socially accepted. Therefore
throughout the history from 1950 to 1994 the discourses and polices that arose to
contend with issues population has been changed.

The explanation of this paradigm change and nascent norm emergence is not a
domestic politics story, neither the United Stated was the only important actor in this
issue area. Although the US has been the key sate actor in this issue area since the
1960’s, and its hegemony has been rearticulated playing with the net of
globalization structure, gaining power by the international agencies, and also
possession in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD)43, there were input that change forces correlations, such as:

The G77 in the 1970’s which power was decisive to articulate the global south
vs. global north and acted successfully with east block system to constitute a
“historic block”. By the 1880s, the historical block has dissolved. The Group of 77 it
was regrouped as a result of different focus and interest inside them, that has been
differentiated by their economic standing in the global economy hierarchy as a result of
economic globalization44, but they were still acting as counter hegemonic actor. In
contrast, the socialistic system at the end of the same decade were disintegrated without
responsiveness to economic and political forces of globalization. In terms of policies of
health, it carried critical problems to faced in the transition of their sanitary systems.

The GWHRM was the main actor to move global population policy away
from solely focusing on population control most fervently in the 1980s and early
1990’s. As a global organization movement responding to the challenges posed by the
new stage of globalization, and demanding rights, reproductive right and health that
haven’t not only changed the ethics and rationale of population control, but also
changing norms and promoting policies over the “Decade of Women”. In the sphere of
right and reproductive right, it was significant the role played by “The National
Women’s Health Network, established in 1975 (Hodgson and Watkins 1997: 492) and
their claims that have materialized norms and policies to stop the oppression of
women in all its forms including the neglect of women’s health (McIntosch and Finkle
1994: 269).

Consequently, is possible set a preliminary conclusion in the sphere of the

discourse analysis:

First, there were two hegemonic principles, both in dispute that started
articulating, disarticulating and rearticulating in the time of the Global History; and
were “Population Control” vs. “Reproductive Right” which production of meaning
sense and significance were different because of its specific conditions of existence
and interest. Reproductive right” such a counter hegemonic principle discursive has
gained the battle in the ideological field, and shifted to the “population control”
which left to circulate at the level of the states actors and their civil societies of
development countries in the context of globalization. So, around the new hegemonic
principle the “family planning program” were been articulated and linked to “improve
health and expand women’s control over reproduction” and “look very different from
one whose main concern is to reduce birth rates as fast as possible” (Hartman 1995:
57)45.

Second, the effect of power of the principle were both reconceptualization of

family planning and -the most important issue- its capacity to achieved a “moral and
intellectual reform” and consequently it will be such a “population religious”, and
because of that also was adopted and rearticulated by the “adversary” to try conquer
again -in the hegemony game- the ideological and discursive battle.

Third, the hegemonic principle it will be adopted such as a new ideological

element that will be rearticulated toward a new principles of the discourses in the next
decades which it will emerge from the material conditions of production of sense and
meaning in the new and dynamic process of globalization. Around this principle,
-which is functioning as symbol of the other- the new elements ideological in
contention are going to be rearticulate by the actors through the game of hegemony.

Fourth, is in this game where the players has been rearticulating one of
the new hegemonic principle that it is going to be rearticulate at a transplanetary level
as a new ideological elements of the “Discourse of the Global Health”. So, the
reproductive right is linked with the health as a public good. Therefore the social
process of production of meaning have produced a new paradigm in the discourse.
1
9. NOTES

Cf. Kevles, Daniel. In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the uses of Human Heredity. Berkeley: University of California.
2
Cf. Kuhl, Stefan. Rise and fall of the international Movement for eugenics and race –Hygiene in the 20 th Century.
Frankfurt, Germany: Campus Verlag.
3
Tomas Malthus (1766-1834). “Essay on the Principle of Population”
4
Mc Laren, Angus. A history of Contraconception: From Antiquity to the present Day. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell, 1990.
5
Szreter, Simon the idea of demographic transition and the study of Fertility Change: A Critical Intellectual History”.
Population and Development Review, 1993.
6
Dixon-Mueller Ruth, Population Policy and women´s Rights: Transforming reproductive Choice. Westport, CT: Praeger,
1993.

7
Richey Lisa Ann. Is over population still the problem?. Global Discourse and Reproductive Health Challenges in the
Time of HIV/AIDS. Centre for Development Research, 2002.
8
The Global history ( Mazlish, Bruce, and Ralph Buultjens 1993, “Conceptualizing Global History. Boulder, CO: West
View Press, 1993), it requires to take a look at multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary studies, because there are many
controversial questions to deal with. The focus in this paper is to understand ―how should global history (re)configure the
fundamental categories of space and time. Space invited to reflect how through a transnational networks a new geography is
socially constructed, while the traditional sovereignty, and national jurisdiction over territorial space, territorial autonomy of
the nation state, and others collapse. Time, invited to find out -following contributions and discussions of subject specialists-
a (new) periodization of global history into three epochs: preglobal, protoglobal, and global. First comes the time when not
all of the planet was known to humankind (preglobal, up to 1.500), then the period during which the revealing of the whole
face of the Earth became a Western priority (protoglobal, from 1.500 to 1950), and finally the time when the processes of
globalization increased by orders of magnitude and reached a critical mass (global after 1950) (Encyclopedia of
Globalization 2007:520). These aspects will help to set up the historical and social condition of production of the discourse
of population control in the context of globalization.

9
BUCCI GLUKKSMAN, Christine (1988) Gramsci y el Estado. México: Siglo XXI.
10
On the basis of Malthusian theory in which people multiply will grow at a rate faster than resources, Neo Malthusianism
belief that “too many people reproducing too rapidly retards economic growth, destroys the environment, overstretches
social services, exacerbates poverty, and fuels conflicts” (Sen et al 1994: 1).
11
Paige Whaley Eager (2004). “Global Population Policy. From Population Control to Reproductive Rights”. 2004,
University of Delaware, USA. Published by Ashgate Publishing limited. England.
12
UNFPA also was created to providing an organizational platform which the USA could propagate its ideas and cultivate
norms about how developing countries ought to deal with their population growth rate.(Johnson 1987: 164).
13
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf
14
The Census Bureau's latest projections imply that population growth will continue into the 21st century, although more
slowly. The world population is projected to grow from 6 billion in 1999 to 9 billion by 2044, an increase of 50 percent that
is expected to require 45 years. http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopgraph.php.
15
The Graying of the Great Powers: Demography and Geopolitics in the 21st Century. Center for Strategic and
International Studies (CESIS). In: http://www.amazon.com/Graying-Great-Powers-Demography-
Geopolitics/dp/089206532X

16 The family planning programs used incentives such offer monetary compensation to poor acceptors of sterilization and
other different methods of contraception, or abortions toward an anti-natalist policy (Visaria and Chiaria 1998: 54-60) “if
government in full exercises of its sovereignty chose to pursue a particular path toward the goal of reducing the population
growth rate” (UNFPA, cited by Paige 2004). This exercise of sovereignty in China was impressed such “one child policy”
by coercitive an imperative mandate as state policy and not just a government police Cf.
http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?itemid=128&catid=4&subcatid=15

17
John F. Besemeres (1980). “Socialist Population Politics: The Political Implications of Demographic Trends in the USSR
and Eastern Europe”. In: http://www.amazon.com/Socialist-Population-Politics-Implications-
Demographic/dp/0873321545/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1
18
http://www.g77.org/doc/
19
Encyclopedia of Globalization. In: The Group of 77 (2007: 553-555).

20
Wendy Harcourt (2006). The Global Women’s Rights Movement Power Politics around the United Nations and the
World Social Forum. Civil Society and Social Movements Programme. Paper Number 25 August 2006. United Nations
Research Institute for Social Development.
21
Cf. http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/pdf/ha/fatchr/Final_Act_of_TehranConf.pdf

22
Cf. Third World Population Conference (ECOSOC Res. 1484 (XLVIII) of 3 April 1970). In:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=es&tbs=bks:1&tbo=p&q=Third+world+population+conference+(ECOSOC+Res.+1484+
(XLVIII)+of+3+april+1970
23
USA brought as much influence both at formal and informal levels to planning and preparing the Bucharest Conference
within level of expertise, manpower, financial resources, and diplomatic persistence to approached and establishment
population control. Bucharest it was an opportunity to express what it viewed as a nearly complete consensus regarding the
rapid population growth and the advantages of countries adopting population growth reduction targets (Donalson 1990).
24
It has been constitute by United Nation in 1964 to provide “a forum for the developing world to articulate and promote
its collective interest relating to the global economy” and “demanded major changes in the rules governing the global
economy” (Encyclopedia of Globalization 2007: 553). According Finkle and Crane ( 1975: 92- 97 cited by Paige 2004:
65), there were social, political and economic conditions that helped to developing world acting together. Since 1964 they
voiced their dissatisfactions with the lack of progress in improving terms of trade, reducing trade barriers, strengthening
commodity agreements, and obtaining concessions from the rich countries in order to promote economic development. In
1973 the success of Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) was also an important factor in keeping the
developing world unified in negotiations. In 1974 their “Declaration on the Establishment of a New International
Economic Order” (NIEO) and its “Program of Action” had been adopted to rectify an unequal and unjust distribution in
global wealth, to restructure existing debt repayments and engaged in debt forgiveness, to make technology transfer to the
Global South, and to seriously address a host of others issues championed by the developing world.
25
The population debate: dimensions and perspectives : papers of the World Population Conference, Bucharest, 1974.
Volume II, compiled by United Nations. http://books.google.com/books?
id=_fnrAAAAMAAJ&dq=Third+world+population+conference+(ECOSOC+Res.+1484+(XLVIII)
+of+3+april+1970&hl=es&sitesec=reviews
26
The World Population Plan of Action, was adopted by consensus of the 137 countries represented at the United Nations
World Population Conference at Bucharest, August 1974.
http://www.population-security.org/27-APP1.html#Cover

27
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506.
http://www.nixonlibrary.gov/virtuallibrary/documents/nssm/nssm_200.pdf
28
National Security Study Memorandum NSSM 200. Implications of Worldwide Population Growth For U.S. Security
and Overseas Interests. (THE KISSINGER REPORT) December 10, 1974. In:
http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PCAAB500.pdf
29
The world annual population growth rate decrease from 2 (1965) to 1.5 percent (1976), and the annual population
increment had declined from 66 to 62 million in the same years.
30
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506.
http://www.nixonlibrary.gov/virtuallibrary/documents/nssm/nssm_200.pdf
31
Tree women’s conferences have been realized: Mexico (1975); Copenhagen (1980) and Nairobi (1985).
32
Cf. Supra.
33
Lead by so called “New Right Economists” (Paul Hunt 1989: 22-34)

34
In developing countries women’s struggle for their rights has linked less against patriarchal societies, and more
against of the police of “population control”, because they have been the targets of involuntary sterilization programs and
medical experiments regarding reproductive health matters in the development world. Cf. Forced Sterilization -
EUGENICS IDEOLOGY, AND POPULATION CONTROL - Women, Policies, World, Marginalized, Practice, and Laws
In: http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/articles/pages/6240/Forced-Sterilization.html#ixzz18qbvUCtS
35
Correa, Sonia and Rebecca Reichmann (1994), Population and Reproductive Rights: Feminist Perspectives from the
South. New Jersey: Zed Books Limited. http://books.google.com/book
36
In Nairobi Conference “the bloc of actors” claim a) that “fertility rates and population growth should be treated in a
context that permits women to exercise their rights to control their own fertility” (In. “The Forward Looking Strategies”.
Nairobi Conference, 1985. Cf. http://www.un.org/womenwatch/confer/nfls/ ; b) made “an ethical critique of the
demographic approach to population control programs it shifted the distribution of power in the population field away from
US, and consequently advocated alternatives to the dominant norm and bring its message (reproductive right ) globally;
and “made an attack (by influence of women of developing world) on neoliberal economic order defined by
“Washington Consensus” (Fraser 1987: 6). Washington Consensus was an structural adjustment programs, imposed by
USA to many developing countries. These were experiencing cuts in the health sectors. Programs providing family
planning, infant and maternal health services were faced with drastic budgetary reductions.
37
http://www.iwhc.org.wd.html
38
http://www.iisd.ca/cairo.html
39
Cf. Mona Zulficar , In: “FROM HUMAN RIGHTS TO PROGRAM REALITY: VIENNA, CAIRO, AND BEIJING
IIN PERSPECTIVE”.
40 Cf. Text paragraphs 7.2 to 7.4.

7.2. Reproductive health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well- being and not merely the absence
of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes.
Reproductive health therefore implies that people are able to have a satisfying and safe sex life and that they have
the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so. Implicit in this last condition
are the right of men and women to be informed and to have access to safe, effective, affordable and acceptable
methods of family planning of their choice, as well as other methods of their choice for regulation of fertility
which are not against the law, and the right of access to appropriate health-care services that will enable women to
go safely through pregnancy and childbirth and provide couples with the best chance of having a healthy infant. In
line with the above definition of reproductive health, reproductive health care is defined as the constellation of
methods, techniques and services that contribute to reproductive health and well-being through preventing and
solving reproductive health problems. It also includes sexual health, the purpose of which is the enhancement of
life and personal relations, and not merely counseling and care related to reproduction and sexually transmitted
diseases.

7.3. Bearing in mind the above definition, reproductive rights embrace certain human rights that are already
recognized in national laws, international human rights documents and other relevant United Nations consensus
documents. These rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and
responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and
the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. It also includes the right of all to make
 decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence as expressed in human rights
documents. In the exercise of this right, they should take into account the needs of their living and future children
and their responsibilities towards the community.

The promotion of the responsible exercise of these rights for all people should be the fundamental basis for
government- and community-supported policies and programmes in the area of reproductive health, including
family planning. As part of their commitment, full attention should be given to the promotion of mutually
respectful and equitable gender relations and particularly to meeting the educational and service needs of
adolescents to enable them to deal in a positive and responsible way with their sexuality. Reproductive health
eludes many of the world's people because of such factors as: inadequate levels of knowledge about human
sexuality and inappropriate or poor-quality reproductive health information and services; the prevalence of high-
risk sexual behaviour; discriminatory social practices; negative attitudes towards women and girls; and the limited
power many women and girls have over their sexual and reproductive lives. Adolescents are particularly vulnerable
because of their lack of information and access to relevant services in most countries. Older women and men have
distinct reproductive and sexual health issues which are often inadequately addressed.

7.4. The implementation of the present Programme of Action is to be guided by the above comprehensive
definition of reproductive health, which includes sexual health. . (Reproductive rights and reproductive health.
Basis for action)

“reproductive health implies that people are able to have a satisfying and safe sex life and they
have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so. Is
the right of men and women to be informed and have access to safe, effective, affordable and
acceptable methods of family planning, of their choice as well as other methods for regulation
of fertility which are not against the law” (Paiged 147)

41
Jane Menken (2000: 7). In: The 1994 Cairo Conference.
http://www.colorado.edu/ibs/PP/menken/courses/socy3012/LEC4-20/index.htm

42
The Global Women’s Rights Movement Power Politics around the United Nations and the World Social Forum Wendy
Harcourt
43
The OECD established in 1960, as international organization, brings together governments of developed countries of
Europe, North America and Asia. Articulating the most world’s rich countries, “was expressly constructed to promote
economic globalization”, “has been one of the main promoters of the liberalization of capital flows as well as a key source
of efforts to address challenging issues of taxation in global economy”, is “ one of the major sites of global economic
governance” and “constitute an important process of political globalization” (2007: 914-915, 917).
44
The regrouped also shows that the interest of the bigger developing countries within G77 are not always compatible
with the interest of least developing countries. This internal division is […] a product of globalization (and of) the different
levels of economic and political power […] the bigger countries [Group of 21] follows their own paths […] (Encyclopedia
of Globalization 2007: 555).
45
Hartmann, Betsy (1995), Reproductive Rights ad Wrongs: The Global Politics of Population Control. Boston. South End
Press.