Religious Axiological Ideal vs Axiological Reality in the Concept of Surrogate Motherhood
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2026.3.3201Keywords:
post-secular society, traditional family, childbearing, assisted reproductive technologies, surrogate mothers, biological mothers, axiological ideal, axiological realityAbstract
In a post-secular society, the Church's position on socially significant issues retains its normative status. The official documents of the Russian Orthodox Church contain an elaborated value system (axiological ideal) that regulates the attitude of believers toward assisted reproductive technologies (ART); this system is transmitted through official church documents and pastoral practice. The aim of this study is to identify the degree of correspondence between the axiological ideal of the Russian Orthodox Church and the axiological reality reconstructed on the basis of interviews with direct participants in surrogacy practices. The study was conducted in two stages. At the first stage, methods of categorical-textual and linguoaxiological analysis were applied to the material of official documents of the Russian Orthodox Church, homiletic texts, and publications in Orthodox media. At the second stage, a sociolinguistic and linguoaxiological analysis of in-depth semi-structured interviews was carried out for two groups: women who have used the services of a surrogate mother (n = 9), and surrogate mothers (n = 16). The biological mothers are women aged 37 to 56 years, holding higher education (predominantly) or secondary specialized education, and are married. The surrogate mothers are women aged 20 to 36 years, primarily with secondary specialized education. The study shows that the axiological ideal formulated by the Russian Orthodox Church regarding modern reproductive technologies is based on traditional religious values: the purpose of the family is joint spiritual growth in God and childbearing. According to the Church, technological intervention in the process of conception and childbirth is justified only within the family, without causing harm to embryos. The Russian Orthodox Church sees the use of modern reproductive technologies as a threat to the spiritual integrity and physical health of the individual and considers surrogacy and in vitro fertilization impermissible. The analysis of in-depth interviews reveals that informants do not perceive the official position of the Church as a guideline when making decisions about the use of modern reproductive technologies. None of the interviewed groups (surrogate mothers and biological mothers) consider the use of surrogacy and in vitro fertilization (IVF) a sin, justifying themselves by the high goal of giving birth to a child. The current situation regarding the use of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) shows that the axiological reality comes into contradiction with the axiological ideal. High abstract religious values in post-secular Russian society give way to pragmatic aspirations of women based on basic biological instincts.
References
Баркова Л. А. Духовное видение семьи и материнства в творчестве В. В. Розанова // Вестник Тверского государственного университета. Серия: Философия. 2016. № 1. С. 114—122.
Barkova L. A. (2016) The Spiritual Vision of Family and Motherhood in the Works of V. V. Rozanov. Bulletin of Tver State University. Series: Philosophy. No. 1. P. 114—122. (In Russ.)
Вепрева И. Т. Инновационные методы исследования аксиологического содержания речевого быта семьи // Cross-Cultural Studies. Education and Science. Т. 3. 2018. № 3. С. 107—113.
Vepreva I. T. (2018) Innovative Methods of Research of the Axiological Content of the Speech Life of the Family. Cross-Cultural Studies. Education and Science. Vol. 3. No. 3. P. 107—113. (In Russ.)
Ильиных С. А. Влияние гендера на картину мира: опыт социологического исследования // Социология: методология, методы, математическое моделирование. 2009. № 28. С. 66—86.
Il’inykh S. A. (2009) The Influence of Gender on the World Picture: The Experience of Sociological Research. Sociology: Methodology, Methods, Mathematical Modeling. No. 28. P. 66—86. (In Russ.)
Ильиных С. А. Образы мужчин и женщин в зеркале гендерных представлений // Вестник Бурятского государственного университета. 2008. № 14. С. 120—125.
Il’inykh S. A. (2008) Images of Men and Women in the Mirror of Gender Perceptions. Bulletin of Buryat State University. No. 14. P. 120—125. (In Russ.)
Ильиных С. А. Фамилистика: введение нового понятия «семейное сознание» // Известия Тульского государственного университета. Серия: Гуманитарные науки. 2013. № 3—1. С. 231—240.
Il’inykh S. A. (2013) Family Studies: Introducing a New Concept of “Family Consciousness”. Proceedings of Tula State University. Series: Humanities. No. 3—1. P. 231—240. (In Russ.)
Келер А.И., Ицкович Т. В., Семейные ценности в христианских молитвах // Молодые голоса: Сборник трудов молодых ученых / Министерство образования и науки Российской Федерации, ФГАОУ ВО «Уральский федеральный университет имени первого Президента России Б. Н. Ельцина», Уральский гуманитарный институт, Департамент «Филологический факультет», Кафедра русского языка, общего языкознания и речевой коммуникации. Вып. 9. Екатеринбург: Ажур, 2020. С. 11-16.
Keler A. I., Ickovich T. V., (2020) Family Values in Christian Prayers. In: Young Voices: Collected Papers of Young. Iss. 9. Ekaterinburg: Azhur. P. 11-16. (In Russ.)
Киященко Л.П., Майленова Ф.Г., Брофман С.А. Status praesens: проблема духовного, религиозного и этического в биомедицинских технологиях помощи пациентам с бесплодием // Вестник Русской христианской гуманитарной академии. 2018. Т. 19. № 4. С. 145—157.
Kiyashchenko L.P., Mailenova F. G., Bronfman S.A. (2018) Status Praesens: The Spiritual, Religious and Ethical Aspects of Biomedical Technologies in Support of Patients with Infertility. Bulletin of the Russian Christian Humanitarian Academy. Vol. 19. No. 4. P. 145-157. (In Russ.)
Купина Н. А. Гуманитарные ценности текущего времени // Известия Уральского федерального университета. Серия 1: Проблемы образования, науки и культуры. 2022. Т. 28. № 3. С. 86-96. https://www.doi.org/10.15826/izv1.2022.28.3.048.
Kupina N. A. (2022) Humanitarian Values of the Current Time. Proceedings of Ural Federal University. Series 1: Problems of Education, Science and Culture. Vol. 28. No. 3. P. 86-96. https://www.doi.org/10.15826/izv1.2022.28.3.048. (In Russ.)
Леонтьев Д. А. Ценность // Человек: философско-энциклопедический словарь. М.: Наука, 2000.
Leont’ev D. A. (2000) Value. Man: Philosophical-Encyclopedic Dictionary. Moscow: Nauka. (In Russ.)
Лосский Н. О. Ценность и бытие: Бог и Царство Божие как основа ценностей. Париж: YMCA Press, 1931.
Losskii N. O. (1931) Value and Being. God and the Kingdom of God as the Basis of Values. Paris: YMCA Press. (In Russ.)
Матвеева Т. В. Категориально-текстовой анализ речевого произведения: обоснование и применение метода // Quaestio Rossica. 2024. Т. 12. № 3. С. 901—920. https://www.doi.org/10.15826/qr.2024.3.915.
Matveeva T. V. (2024) Categorical-Textual Analysis of a Speech Work: Rationale and Application of the Method. Quaestio Rossica. Vol. 12. No. 3. P. 901-920. https://www.doi.org/10.15826/qr.2024.3.915. (In Russ.)
Нечаева Н. А. Патриархатная и феминистская картины мира: анализ структуры массового сознания // Гендерные тетради. СПб.: Санкт-Петербургский филиал Института социологии РАН, 1997. Вып. 1. С. 17—43.
Nechaeva N. A. (1997) Patriarchal and Feminist Worldviews: Analysis of the Structure of Mass Consciousness. In: Gender Notebooks. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg Branch of the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Iss. 1. P. 17—43. (In Russ.)
Пазио-Влазловская Д., Ицкович Т. В. Супружеские ожидания в религиозном контексте: католические и православные брачные объявления // Quaestio Rossica. 2021. Т. 9. № 2. С. 702-714. https://www.doi.org/10.15826/qr.2021.2.604.
Pazio-Wlazłowska D., Itskovich T. (2021) Marital Expectations in a Religious Context: Catholic and Orthodox Marriage Advertisements. Quaestio Rossica. Vol. 9. № 2. P. 702—714. https://www.doi.org/10.15826/qr.2021.2.604. (In Russ.)
Парсонс Т. О структуре социального действия / Под общ. ред. В. Ф. Чесноковой, С. А. Белановского. М.: Академический Проект, 2000.
Parsons T. (2000) The Structure of Social Action. Moscow: Akademichesky Proekt. (In Russ.)
Петрикова А., Ицкович Т.В. Католические и православные венчальные проповеди: аксиологический аспект // Русин. 2025. № 80. С. 147-165. https://www.doi.org/10.17223/18572685/80/9.
Petrikova A., Itskovich T.V. (2025) Catholic and Orthodox Wedding Sermons: Axiological Aspect. Rusin. No. 80. P. 147-165. https://www.doi.org/10.17223/18572685/80/9. (In Russ.)
Петров А. В. Пересечение понятий «добро» и «зло» в этике и праве // Наука, общество, человек: Вестник Уральского отделения РАН. 2008. № 3. С. 28—31.
Petrov A. V. (2008) The Intersection of the Concepts of “Good” and “Evil” in Ethics and Law. Science, Society, Human: Bulletin of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. No. 3. P. 28—31. (In Russ.)
Тарабрин Р. (2020) Этические дилеммы суррогатного материнства: христианский дискурс в современном социокультурном контексте // Государство, религия, церковь в России и за рубежом. 2020. Т. 38. № 4. С. 123—144.
Tarabrin R. (2020) Ethical Dilemmas of Surrogacy: Christian Discourse in Contemporary Socio-Cultural Context. State, Religion, Church in Russia and Abroad. Vol. 38. No. 4. P. 123—144. (In Russ.)
Семья: феноменология повседневности / под общ. ред. Е. С. Элбакян, Г. С. Широкаловой. Нижний Новгород: НГСХА, 2016.
Elbakyan E. S., Shirokalova G. S. (eds.) (2016) Family: The Phenomenology of Everyday Life. Nizhny Novgorod: Nizhny Novgorod State Agricultural Academy. (In Russ.)
Сюй Ш. Вербальные знаки ценностных предпочтений современной женщины (на материале брачных объявлений) // Научный диалог. 2016. № 11. С. 110—120.
Syui Sh. (2016) Verbal Signs of the Value Preferences of the Modern Woman (Based on the Material of Marriage Advertisements). Nauchnyi dialog. No. 11. P. 110—120. (In Russ.)
Тощенко Ж.Т. Общество травмы: между эволюцией и революцией (опыт теоретического и эмпирического анализа). М.: Весь Мир, 2020.
Тoshchenko Zh.T. (2020) Society of Trauma: Between Evolution and Revolution (A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis). Moscow: Ves Mir Publishing House. (In Russ.)
Черняк Е. М. Парадигмы исследования семьи // Современная социальная психология: теоретические подходы и прикладные исследования. 2011. № 1. С. 79—85.
Chernyak E. M. (2011) The Research Paradigm of the Family. Modern Social Psychology: Theoretical Approaches and Applied Research. No. 1. P. 79—85. (In Russ.)
Best M., Sleasman M., Hegedus E., Schlub T. E. (2019) Protestant Christian attitudes to ART. Human Reproduction Open. No. 3. Art. hoz018.
Deonandan R. (2020) Thoughts on the Ethics of Gestational Surrogacy: Perspectives from Religions, Western Liberalism, and Comparisons with Adoption. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics. Vol. 37. No. 2. P. 269—279.
Engelhardt H.T. (2000) The Foundations of Christian Bioethics. Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers.
Farid M. S., Tasnim S. (2023) Assisted Reproductive Technologies: Comparing Abrahamic Monotheistic Religions. Asian Bioethics Review. Vol. 15. No. 1. P. 53—67.
Fisher A. M. (2013) The Journey of Gestational Surrogacy: Religion, Spirituality and Assisted Reproductive Technologies. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality. Vol. 18. No. 3. P. 235—246.
Gavashelishvili E. (2018) Childless Women in Georgia: Between Religious Restrictions and Medical Opportunities. Anthropology of the Middle East. Vol. 13. No. 1. P. 24—42.
Ghane-Mokhallesouni Z., Askari-Nodoushan A., Nasrabad H. B. R., Sadati A. K., Firouzabadi R. D. (2022) Representation of Apositive Experience'of Surrogacy in Yazd, Iran: A Qualitative Study. International Journal of Reproductive Biomedicine. Vol. 20. No. 9. Art. 769.
Goffman E. (1953) Communication Conduct in an Island Community. Chicago, Il: University of Chicago.
Golboni F., Jalali A., Dinmohammadi M., Taghizadeh Z., Nouri P., Salahsoor M. R. (2019) Factors Affecting on Couple’s Decisions to Use Surrogacy: A Qualitative Study. Journal of Family & Reproductive Health. Vol. 13. No. 4. P. 202—214.
Haug S., Milewski N. (2019) Women’s Attitudes toward Assisted Reproductive Technologies — A Pilot Study among Migrant Minorities and Non-migrants in Germany. Comparative Population Studies. Vol. 43. https://doi.org/10.12765/CPoS-2019-06.
Kluckhohn С. (1962) Culture and Behavior: Collected Essays. New York, NY: Free Press.
Ladas I. (2024) Interreligious Perspectives on Surrogate Motherhood. Bioethica. Vol. 10. No. 2. P. 39—54.
Radmehr Z., Ghodrati F. (2025) Investigating the Motivations of Mothers to Volunteer for Gestational Surrogacy: A Systematic Review Study. Journal of Iranian Medical Council. Vol. 8. No. 3. P. 419—436
Rokeach M. (1973) The Nature of Human Values. New York, NY: Free Press.
Tarabrin R. (2026) Bioethical Issues as Triggers of Religious Transformation in Orthodox Christianity. Bioethics. Vol. 40. No. 1. P. 45-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.70006.
Tashi S., Mehran N., Eskandari N., Tehran, T. D. (2014) Emotional Experiences in Surrogate Mothers: A Qualitative Study. Iranian Journal of Reproductive Medicine. Vol. 12. No. 7. Art. 471.
Yıldız M., Felix E. O., Ademiju O., Noibi T. O., Gomes R. F., Tanimowo A., ... & Şengan A. (2023) Attitudes of Different Religions Toward Surrogacy: Analysis of 11 Countries' Situation Using Machine Learning Approach and Artificial Neural Networks. Journal of Religion and Health. Vol. 62. No. 5. P. 3230—3251.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Татьяна Викторовна Ицкович, Ирина Геннадьевна Полякова
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
