Globally, the World Health Organization (World Health Organization, 2023b) estimates that one in six people experiences infertility at some point in their lives. Infertility is a disease of the reproductive system that affects both men and women: “infertility does not discriminate” (World Health Organization, 2023a). It is defined as the inability to achieve conception after 12 months or more of regular, unprotected sexual intercourse. Diagnosis of infertility can result in considerable distress culturally, economically, mentally, and physically, and socially (including stigma). Childlessness has often viewed as two distinct categories: “voluntary” and “involuntary.” The latter is often associated with unsuccessful infertility treatment (Hadley, 2019). Similarly, parental status was viewed as a binary of childless vs. parent, but contemporary scholars argue for a “continuum of parental statuses” (Albertini and Kohli, 2017) reflecting fluidity in family practices (Morgan, 2011). The continuum includes various reproductive identities: biological parents, childless-by-circumstance, childfree, chosen childless, incel, infertile, involuntarily childless, mediated childless, social, or stepparent (Letherby, 2016; Athan, 2020). People's locations on this continuum may change at any time during their lives, depending on a range of factors: environmental, macro socioeconomic, and/or micro personal (Blackstone and Stewart, 2012; Power, 2014). For example, some people choose not to have children to avoid passing on hereditary conditions or chromosomal anomalies (Kelly, 2009) while involuntary celibates (incels) view the “mating market” as anxiety inducing, with the cost of rejection outweighing any benefit (Whittaker et al., 2024).

In the UK, the National Health Service (NHS) ART service acceptance criteria are geographically variable, leading people to move to access treatment (Wilkinson et al., 2023). Many people draw on their economic resources (often tens of thousands of pounds) to access private treatment. ART is portrayed as a highly effective treatment, despite substantial evidence that gamete loss and miscarriage are extremely common (Littleton and Bewley, 2019; Tsigdinos, 2022; Van Balen and Inhorn, 2002). In the UK, 76% of IVF embryo transfers did not result in a live birth (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, 2024). Many individuals with prenatal and natal loss experience grief, mental and physical ill-health, poor wellbeing, and social and economic stress (Bueno, 2019; Jones et al., 2019). Historically, fathers have been excluded from miscarriage studies (Oakley et al., 1990) and recent studies have demonstrated the impact of prenatal, pregnancy, and neonatal losses on men (Bueno, 2019; Hadley, 2021a; Jones et al., 2019). These are significant in reflecting the sociocultural disenfranchisement of childless people: many involuntarily, circumstantially, and chosen childless people report feeling outsiderness, shame, and stigmatized (Exley and Letherby, 2001).

Globally, there is a wide range of workplace protections and provisions related to maternity and parenting, although they vary and are not always observed. In the UK, for example, “pregnancy and maternity” is a “protected characteristic” under the Equality Act (2010), providing various rights, including protection from discrimination. By contrast, few countries have protections and provisions for those undergoing ART with Wilkinson et al. (2023, p. 6) arguing, “employer ART-related supports usually rests on business case cost-benefit calculation.” A minority of employers have developed policies and provisions for employees undergoing ART. However, when policies are in operation, only certain types of workers are covered; they often fail to consider the needs of partners and diverse family identities and fail to account for the temporalities and diverse outcomes of complex fertility journeys (Wilkinson et al., 2023).

To understand the complex social dynamics surrounding participants' experiences of ART and work, we utilized Bourdieu's (1977; 1984; 1986; 1987; 1996; 2002) theoretical tools of capital, habitus, and field which allow for analysis at both the structural and individual levels while highlighting issues of inequality, power, and social norms. Bourdieu (1986) identified four types of capital: economic (income, wealth, assets), social (networks, relationships), cultural (education, speech, taste), and symbolic (prestige and status). Cultural capital manifests as institutionalized (education), materialized (arts, books), and embodied (behavior and thoughts). Habitus refers to internalized social structures that shape individual dispositions and identities (Mullins, 2018a). It links social structures with personal emotions and shows internalized practices (Reay, 2015, p. 21). Elliott (2009, p. 147) argues habitus includes “cultural tastes and social preferences” as power and class demonstrations. There is a dynamic relationship between habitus and embodied capital—“embodied cultural capital” (Garrett, 2016, p. 82)—highlighting distinctions in accent, gait, gaze, gesture, and posture. “Fields” are social spaces for interactions to exchange capital (artistic merit, skill, money, prestige), power, and status, reflecting cultural, economic, political, and social contexts (Kilvington-Dowd and Robertson, 2020, p. 21). As a field, the workplace can create social capital that offers emotional, financial, and practical benefits (Urry, 2007, p. 198), yet it may “enable or constrain choices on identity expression in specific cultural contexts” (Simpson, 2013, p. 297; Sharma and Samanta, 2020). For instance, in China, the social capital of “guanxi” (work-based intimate relationships, Qi, 2013) features strategies for material benefits (Tang, 2020).

Bourdieu (1996, p. 23) argued that “family” and “the centrality of the mother” were key in cultural capital through sustaining “social order through social as well as biological reproduction.” Therefore, the family was both a universal norm and virtuous privilege that allowed the accumulation, transmission, and utilization of capital between and across generations. Reay (2000, p. 570) explained the importance of family in cultural capital by highlighting how the emotional capital contained in familial social capital provided “the link between individual and class trajectory” (Reay, 2004, p. 59). Emotional labor is an important aspect of family involving an individual (usually women) “carrying” reproductive decision-making and family life in their specific socio-economic context (Hall, 2022). Cottingham (2016, p. 452) defines emotional capital as a “tripartite concept composed of emotion-based knowledge, management skills, and capacities to feel,” and outlines that emotional capital is not exclusively feminine or gender neutral. The possession of capital gives one legitimacy, recognition, and status, and can be converted, exchanged, transacted, and transferred from and between different arenas (Crew, 2020). Capitals are therefore, “not fixed nor determined but relational” (Burke, 2016, p. 8).

Critics assert that Bourdieu's view of embodiment reinforces or denies social class distinctions (Neveu, 2018). Conversely, other scholars (Skeggs, 2001; Schwarz, 2010; Thatcher et al., 2016) argue that Bourdieu's typology acknowledges the embodied dimensions of capital and the interplay between individual and social structure, encapsulated by the phrase, “The body is in the social world, but the social world is in the body” (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992, p. 73). Various capitals account for the complexity of intimate relationships: “bodily,” “erotic,” “corporeal,” “sexual,” and “physical” (Bourdieu, 1984; Shilling, 2004; Martin and George, 2006; Hakim, 2010; Schwarz, 2010). Bourdieu (1977) emphasized the study of both habitus and “bodily hexis”—the experience of living in one's body (Inhorn, 2007, 39). Martin and George (2006, p. 125) argue that bodily hexis can yield social capital, noting that “sexual capital is wholly a matter of the body and its bearing or hexis” (Martin and George, p. 128). Hakim's (2010) concept of “erotic capital” is an exception and consisted of beauty, sexual attractiveness, social skills, liveliness, social presentation, sexual competence and fertility. Hakim characterizes the latter as “reproductive capital,” as solely applied to women and less valued in “modern” societies than “agricultural” ones (Hakim, 2010, p. 501). Critically, Hakim only referred to RC once and did not explore its intersection with all other forms of capital or habitus. Acknowledging Hakim, Hadley (2015, 2021a) identified RC (including aging and biological capital to the four original capitals) as a way to understand the complex intersection of factors in male childlessness over the lifecourse. Chen (2025) offers RC (formed by economic, cultural, social and symbolic capital) as a way of understanding Taiwanese gay fathers and fathers-to-be investment in TCS. In this piece we further develop RC as a concept by examining the relationships and intersections among capital(s), habitus, and hexis.

The global marketization of “sex cells” (Almeling, 2011) has been identified as a form of neoliberal eugenics (de Melo-Martin and Goering, 2022) through the reinforcing of the commodification and exploitation of low-income women by high-income consumers (Pande, 2015; Rudrappa, 2015; Manali and Avishek, 2020; Smietana et al., 2021; Pande, 2022; Tober, 2024) and the increase in infant and surrogate trafficking (United Nations, 2019; Crawshaw and Van Den Akker, 2021). Gammeltoft and Wahlberg (2014, p. 201) reason newer reprogenetic techniques (e.g., gene selection/manipulation, Coco, 2014) do not treat infertility but, “prevent or allow the birth of certain kinds of children.” We argue that not fulfilling the pronatalist norms of social, cultural, and symbolic capital results in a form of symbolic violence. Not only is this “an affective violence” (Threadgold, 2020, p. 103), but it also includes eugenic, euphemistic, and obstretric violence. Using Bourdieu's (1987) concept of “symbolic power” (including symbolic violence), Link and Phelan (2014, p. 25) argue that “stigma power” is concealed in “taken-for-granted aspects of culture and thereby hidden or “misrecognized” by both the people causing the harm and by those being harmed.” The inherent sociocultural and structural forces of stigmatization on health behavior and access to healthcare are well-established (Stangl et al., 2019).

The correlation between ill health, low income, social inequalities, and structural disadvantages has been widely recognized (Kelly and Green, 2019; Yopo Díaz and Watkins, 2025). Kriznik and Kelly (2016) described the intersection of health and social inequalities with social factors (class, poverty, pollution) and biological mechanisms (epigenetics: controlling gene expression via deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) modification) as “biological capital.” The relationship between biology and biography is demonstrated through the strong connection between life-course development, health inequalities, wellbeing, epigenetics, maternal environments, and reproduction (Kriznik, 2016; Vineis and Kelly-Irving, 2019; Yopo Díaz and Watkins, 2025). During neonatal, adolescent, and adult stages (Tomova and Carroll, 2019), reproductive and health problems can influence fertility through “exposed biologies” (Wahlberg, 2018) where DNA damage is caused by the toxic effects of harmful environments (Tomova and Carroll, 2019; Vineis and Kelly-Irving, 2019).

The working environment is one in which individuals and organizations negotiate the intersection of informal and formal pronatalist structures—from an individual's identity, self-identity, and way-of-being-in-the-world to everyday accepted and expected socio-cultural norms, such as maternity and paternity laws and policies. Mccracken et al. (2017, p. 60) emphasizes the importance of social capital in the work environment: “the bond which ties all other forms of capital together.” RC intersects with various combinations of economic, social, and cultural capital that facilitate or inhibit ways of being-in-the-world, including the field(s) and subfield(s) of the workplace and wider social arenas with their discrete, diverse, distinct, and dedicated conventions, practices, and sociocultural norms. Having established the relationship between inequalities, social distinctions, and biological and other forms of capital, the next section details the methods used in this study.

Participant recruitment was through open calls on social media via professional, personal, and fertility-related organizations and networks and included snowballing by participants. The definition of complex fertility journeys was intentionally broad, leaving it open for participants to decide what it meant to them. The recruitment material referenced “deciding if/when to try for children; trying for children; fertility tests; fertility treatment; pregnancy loss; secondary infertility and involuntary childlessness.” The study was open to any nationality and participants could work (or have worked at some point during their fertility journey) in any sector or occupation. The participants could be at any point in their fertility journey. Exclusion criteria were anyone under the age of 18 years and those who were not proficient in English. Given the 2-year length of the study, the aim was to recruit 60 participants, as this was deemed sufficient for an exploratory study of this issue and also reached the criterion of data saturation. However, the response was greater than anticipated. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, most interviews were conducted using Microsoft Teams or Zoom. Using theoretical sampling, 80 biographical narrative interviews (67 women and 13 men) were conducted. Consequently, the sample was predominantly women (see limitations), which is a common bias in fertility treatment studies (Lloyd, 1996; Inhorn et al., 2009; Hadley and Hanley, 2011; Lohan, 2015; Hadley, 2024). Seventy-three lived and worked in the UK, with the remainder coming from Australia (a married couple), Cyprus (one), Luxemburg (one), the Netherlands (one), and the USA (two; unrelated). The sample included 69 people in heterosexual partnerships and six people in same-sex relationships. Five women pursued solo motherhood (one bisexual, one lesbian, and three heterosexuals). At the time of the interview, 37 participants were accessing ART treatment, and 43 participants had completed the treatment: 21 with children and 22 childless. Some participants did not pursue treatment because of age, cost, IVF effects, and/or perinatal loss. All participants quoted in this piece received ART treatment. Table 1 details their social characteristics, points in their fertility journey, gender, sexual orientation, job (sector, role), and Standard Occupational Classification (SOC; Office for National Statistics, 2023). SOC indicates the participants' socioeconomic grouping at the time of the interview and identifies the level of education and skills required for a job. Some participants in the UK initially received NHS treatment, although most were either paying for or paid for treatment. Phil (Australia) and Donna (USA) had treatment through health-insurance. The ethics committee of the Manchester Metropolitan University approved this study (case 20547). Informed consent was obtained prior to the interview; pseudonyms were used to ensure confidentiality and are used in this article.

The biographical narrative interview approach in Wengraf's Biographical Narrative Interpretive Method (BNIM; Wengraf, 2011) was used to comprehend both the individual and social contexts of the participants' experiences. Narrative interviews are an established method for understanding individuals' experiences on sensitive topics in latent, hard-to-reach, vulnerable, and/or marginalized groups (Liamputtong, 2007; Hadley, 2021a). Two important features of the BNIM approach are the emphasis on eliciting narratives by contextualizing experiences in relation to the past, present, and future. Second, focusing on the biographical narrative by keeping it within the participant's frame of reference. The interviewers (Mumford and Wilkinson) began each interview with an open question designed to generate narratives (Wengraf, 2011). Participants were asked to describe their experiences of their complex fertility journey and how this intersected with their employment, starting wherever they chose and taking as long as they needed. This allowed each participant to identify and explain important events and experiences. Following the opening narrative, participants were asked to elaborate on the elements of their story to provide more detail and/or ask additional questions, as appropriate. These covered things like the impact of fertility treatment on them at work, disclosure in the workplace, support desired and received, and financial issues. Focusing on the participants' stories, the researchers' subsequent questions formed participant-led narratives which revealed extremely emotional and moving accounts. Interviews were audio-recorded, typically lasting 60–90 min, and professionally transcribed.

Hadley undertook a qualitative analysis (hosted on Nvivo12), engaging in a latent thematic analysis (Braun et al., 2013) which focused on understanding each participant's experience in relation to a broader social context. Thematic analysis works both to reflect reality and to explore the surface of “reality” (Braun and Clarke, 2006, p. 81). Additionally, thematic analysis was inductive because the identified themes were closely connected to the data. The initial codes were generated through iterative coding rounds. Provisional themes were created by examining the initial codes, links, and themes. Provisional themes were used to shape candidate themes and structure the main themes (Braun et al., 2013). The analysis revealed five main themes: (a) economic capital; (b) cultural capital; (c) social capital; (d) symbolic capital; and (e) reproductive capital.

Reproduction is highly prized in most societies and is culturally reinforced. For example, in the field(s) of the workplace, “natural” pregnancy triggers the interaction of RC between habitus and biological and the four original capitals. Tony observes the dissonance between how men think and feel about fertility and fatherhood and the available social narratives:

Tony demonstrated how masculine stereotypes of invincibility and unemotionality restrict men's expressiveness of vulnerability, particularly in social environments (Daniels, 2006; Hadley and Hanley, 2011; Hadley, 2021a,b). Queenie illustrated how the RC of a pregnant colleague actuated rights and status which impacted Queenie's workload, but also reflected the non-recognition of her and others' ART fertility journey:

Queenie highlighted the primacy of RC at agentic and structural levels. Likewise, in undergoing ART, Rita explained how not being able to draw on biological and RC impacts the other capitals, fields, and habitus. Both Rita and Tony emphasized the feeling of being part of a process during their respective IVF and Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI) journeys:

Rita's and Tony's experiences demonstrated the challenge to identity and self-concept that ART treatment has: an existential question that permeates all settings and relationships. Infertility is linked to biological capital and intersects other forms of capital. The diminutive impact of not fulfilling personal and social status reveals how capital relates to the covert and overt dynamics of their interconnection. The following sections examine the relationship between RC and other forms of capital.

Bourdieu (1986) viewed family as central to cultural capital and explained that a person's cultural capital is limited to “appropriating capacities of an individual agent; it declines and dies with its bearer (with his biological capacity, his memory, etc.).” Although an individual's cultural capital ends at death (apart from legacy items), biological capital may continue through their offspring. In addition, cryopreservation provides an opportunity for a deceased person's stored gametes to create a child (Deech and Smajdor, 2007). Thus, biological capital interacts with RC and cultural, economic, social, and symbolic capitals. Biological capital can intersect with RC in several ways, with many people's reproductive resources being affected by hereditary genetics or other health issues. Kriznik (2016) demonstrated social factors such as class, environment, and diet can influence baby in-utero. The participants referenced the following underlying health issues:

Genetic predispositions and health issues not only affect biological reproduction and RC but also impact the future accumulation of cultural, social, and symbolic capital for individuals and families. Similarly, Gail's experience highlighted how the intersection between aging, biological, economic, emotional, social, and symbolic capital, and habitus impacted her mental health.

Gail's reactions show how her reproductive capital intersects not only with economic, social, and symbolic capital, but also highlights her perceptions and dispositions toward reproduction. Bourdieu (1986) argued social capital was “a continuous series of exchanges in which recognition is endlessly affirmed and reaffirmed.” In Gail's example, we can see how not being affirmed impacted her self-view and her partner. The participants' personal stories support research findings identifying a wide range of factors that influence childlessness (in addition to biological and health issues), including choice of partner, relationship dynamics, and the timing of relationship formation and ending. Tony's experience reveals the dynamics between biological and other capitals. In a previous relationship, Tony had undergone vasectomy after becoming a father. In his current relationship, his partner wanted children. Consequently, Tony had an unsuccessful vasectomy reversal before ICSI resulted in successful IVF treatment:

Tony's fertility journey reveals the intersection between RC, biological, cultural, economic, social and symbolic capitals. His story shows the dynamic interaction between RC, fluidity in family forms (Morgan, 2011) and significance of relationships across time. The following section explores the relationship between social capital and other types of capital.

The workplace is a key site for the accumulation, exchange, transmission, and utilization of economic, cultural, social, and symbolic capital through social groups, networks, obligations, and individual relationships. Alongside the disadvantages faced by pregnant women and marginalized parents (Fox and Quinn, 2014; Tarrant, 2021; Owens, 2022), in interpersonal workplace interactions, childfree and childless workers can be viewed as “deviant to pronatalist ideologies that workers carry” (Mullins, 2018b, p. 165). Working fathers and mothers have a higher status and are more trusted by coworkers than those without children (Zhang and Soderberg, 2023). Everyday interactions reflect the nuances of the pronatalist agenda and the emotional depth of not accessing one's RC. Workplace announcements of pregnancy or birth had a deleterious effect on many participants. Gail, Karen and Felicity highlight the emotional labor involved in negotiating the social disenfranchisement of not fitting the pronatalist habitus (Exley and Letherby, 2001). In addition, Karen reflected on the pervasiveness of the “ideal” parental narrative and highlighted the ubiquity of childrearing as mainly associated with women:

Felicity observed that the response to COVID-19 had made working-from-home and video meetings acceptable working practice. However, virtual meetings became an opportunity for parents to include their children not only in the virtual workspace, but also in their homes.

For the participants, the impact of colleagues' familial demands on working practices highlighted a change in cultural and symbolic capital; the attainment of parental status resulted in a difference in working practices. This results in colleagues becoming familial support by proxy.

Other locations were sites where not converting to RC led to the diminution of other capital. Felicity explains how not being a mother affects her social network.

Felicity's experience demonstrates the dynamics between aging, emotional, RC, and social and symbolic capital in interpersonal social fields (Ramsay and Letherby, 2006). Changes in demographic trends have led to an increase in the number of grandparents and a decrease in the number of grandchildren (Timonen and Arber, 2012). Chris reflected on how disruption from the ideal life trajectory continues across the lifecourse.

Social relationships and social identity are intrinsically linked and are extremely important to health and wellbeing. Consequently, activating RC involves the accumulation, exchange, and utilization of social, cultural, and symbolic capital. Participants' experiences revealed the complex intersections between capital, habitus, and hexis when reproductive dispositions were disrupted. Those who experience unwanted parenthood also face similar difficulties. While this section focused on personal interactions, the next section focuses on the structural implications of RC.

The participants' narratives established the structural (legislation and policy) and interpersonal authentication (presents and parties) that fulfilled the pronatalist procreative imperative. Moreover, they clearly demonstrated the impact of not fulfilling this status. Thus, the utilization of biological (and, in some cases, economic and social) capital results in the accumulation of cultural and symbolic capital.

Bourdieu argued that suffering caused by “social hierarchies and social inequality” (Schubert, 2008, p. 183) produced and maintained through social domination. One such form of domination was symbolic violence which “is only exerted through the communication in which it is disguised” (Bourdieu, 1977, p. 237). Bourdieu's concept of symbolic violence explains how social hierarchies are maintained, revealing how power acts through arbitrary culture to maintain dominance and exclude the dominated by inculcating ways of thinking, expressions, and ways of meaning in fields and habitus (Bourdieu, 2008; Grenfell, 2008). Not attaining the desired distinction (socially approved status) induces the soft power of symbolic violence. Symbolic violence is exercised in the microcosm of the everyday and is often misrecognized as natural and legitimate (Thapar-Björkert et al., 2016) compared with other types of violence, that is, economic and physical. However, it can be brutal and has serious effects on mental and physical health (Schubert, 2008). Consequently, Bourdieu (2002, p. 171) argues people are unconsciously compliant because “it is itself the effect of a power…beliefs which make one sensitive to certain public manifestations, such as public representations of power.” As noted previously, violences associated with reproduction (including “eugenic,” “euphemistic,” and “obstetric”) are more experienced by marginalized groups disadvantaged by age, class, ethnicity, gender, and race. The everyday workplace environment reinforces social and cultural hierarchies through the normalization of symbolic violence through the perpetuation of gender inequalities. Hannah highlighted inequalities in national policy and clinical practice through the discrimination of same-sex couples:

The power embedded in legislation and employer policies is also communicated through other forms of inequality. Although many participants had supportive line managers, others did not:

Iris's emotional distress uncovers one of the many challenges in everyday workplace interactions: the lack of understanding and accommodation of the losses experienced by people undergoing fertility treatment. Here, RC affected Iris's emotional, social, and symbolic capital. The emotional responses reported were frequently grounded in the microcosm of social interactions, where the ubiquity of parenthood generated feelings of exclusion.

Linda's experience highlight the impact of not attaining the desired social status, leading to a lack of cultural and social capital. The nuances involved in symbolic violence against those who do not conform to an ideal social status range from the macro (Hannah and Iris) to the micro (Linda). Although symbolic violence is latent within social interactions, Southerton (2011) asserts that once it is recognized, it ceases to become symbolic violence.

The participants' experiences highlight how the primacy of the biological imperative is structurally embedded in the socio-cultural pronatalist doctrine, discourse, and practice. Not achieving or declining to participate in an ideal symbolic status invokes consequences at the agentic and structural levels. The study reveals the complex ways RC and other forms of capital intersect, shaping workplace dynamics and individual behavior. This highlights the need for more inclusive policies and cultural shifts to recognize diverse reproductive journeys.

The substantial costs associated with ART procedures, combined with widespread misunderstandings regarding their efficacy, result in considerable financial and psychological challenges for numerous individuals and couples. Access to ART depends on many factors, including location, health delivery regime, policy, and personal situation. In the UK, ART is available on the NHS, although admission is not straightforward and varies from one area to another. Consequently, NHS ART treatment is often labeled as a “postcode lottery” (Meredith, 2022) and private ART treatment is extremely expensive. In countries with health insurance, ART options are a limited part of an employer package, a costly add-on, or not included. Following unsuccessful ART, Phil viewed the fertility sector as focused on capital accumulation (bio-capitalism):

The focus on quantity over quality of treatment exacerbates financial and other stressors on people's capital and habitus, who may pursue multiple costly rounds based on inflated expectations of success. It is well-established that people misrecognize the effectiveness of ART and many believe that IVF easily mitigates any delay in parenthood (Thompson and Lee, 2011; Daniluk and Koert, 2013). In addition to IVF, cryopreservation (egg freezing) has been promoted as a solution to prevent career disruption and/or find a suitable partner (Baldwin, 2018; Inhorn, 2023; Tober, 2024). The misconception that ART can easily overcome age-related fertility decline leads some to delay childbearing and become unaware of its potential financial, health, identity, and social implications. Sophie reflects on her colleague's view of ART:

Sophie's observations highlight two factors. The first is the success of the fertility industry's campaign for mainstream egg freezing (Van De Wiel, 2020; Tober, 2024). Van De Wiel (2020, p. 307) argues that “egg freezing is both an infertility treatment for the fertile and a fertility treatment for the infertile.” The optimistic promotion of ART often clashes with the economic realities of those pursuing it. Second, the widespread belief in the efficacy of ART. The situations described above highlight the dynamics in the accumulation and diminution of and between aging, biological, cultural, economic, reproductive, and symbolic capital. Given the unpublicized high rate of unsuccessful treatment (“euphemised violence”), the invasive nature of treatment (“obstetric violence”), and inequalities of access to treatment, there is a compelling case for acknowledging the symbolic violence inherent in ART. The intersection of economic capital and reproductive choices is further complicated by socioeconomic disparities in access to and utilization of ART. Reay (2004, p. 58) argues that Bourdieu focuses on the middle and upper classes to demonstrate the various forms, distribution, and utilization of capital. In Italy, economic uncertainty (e.g., insecure first jobs) is a factor in fertility postponement by highly educated women and the lowest-educated men (Vignoli et al., 2020). Jensen (2016) identified how upper-middle-class men deliberated with their partners over the timing of the first birth for over a year. However, working-class men had few secure relationships, resulting in fewer discussions concerning parenthood. Moreover, young working-class solo parents are often stigmatized as “feckless” fathers and “irresponsible” mothers (Tarrant, 2021; Owens, 2022). The following accounts demonstrate how participants used their economic, cultural, and social capital to accumulate RC and symbolic capital:

Significant financial investments reflect both the desperation felt by many facing fertility issues, and the relationship between economic, cultural, social, and symbolic capital and habitus. Participants whose treatment had been successful reflected on the consequences if that had not been the outcome.

These participants' reflections on ART economics highlight how economic inequalities impact access to fertility treatment and reproductive choices. Illustrating how structurally embedded the disadvantages faced by minority groups are, Hannah relates how she and her partner struggled against gender bias in a heteronormative system:

Hannah's experience illustrates the intersection between biological, economic, social, and symbolic capital through the discursive restraints of heteronormativity, highlighting issues faced by marginalized and minority communities (Pande, 2015, 2022). In addition to the economic capital needed to afford treatment, there are costs involved in how people manage their paid employment environment before, during, and after the treatment. The costs involved are not only related to economic capital but also to cultural, social, and symbolic capital, including obstetric violence. Michaela outlines the pressure to balance economic capital and RC:

The participants' experiences demonstrate how RC directly intersects cultural, economic, social, and symbolic capital. For example, through the utilization of familial networks (social and cultural capital), for others, through their own economic capital.

The complex relationship between economic and reproductive capital reveals how misconceptions about ART's effectiveness can lead to not only substantial financial strain but also pressure social capital and challenge an individual's habitus and hexis. By incorporating the concept of reproductive capital into workplace policies, organizations can create more inclusive environments that recognize and value the diverse experiences and responsibilities of their employees. This approach not only promotes gender equality, but also enhances employee satisfaction, retention, and overall productivity. This section identified the intersection of RC with other capitals, and in relation to habitus and fields. The following section contains the discussion, limitations and conclusion.

The limitations of this study include the sample which was limited in terms of diversity in class, race, gender, and relationship status. There were more women (67) than men (13), and fewer people not in heterosexual couple relationships. This was despite many efforts to recruit as representative a sample as possible, especially for men. However, there are a number of factors that influence men's participation in sensitive research, including the historical focus on women, data collection bias, masculinity norms, and challenges in recruiting men on sensitive topics (Lloyd, 1996; Inhorn et al., 2009; Hadley and Hanley, 2011; Lohan, 2015; Hadley, 2024). In terms of class, race, gender, and relationship status, this may be linked to several factors, including the impact of COVID-19 on people accessing ART, the sample reflecting the research study's networks, the struggles identified in accessing ART in the UK, and the cost of private treatment for those who experience intersectional disadvantages. Although some participants were from overseas, the majority were White British, professionals in middle-class occupations, and residing in the UK. Consequently, the empirical data speak to a certain aspect of RC: white, professional, employed men and women negotiating their fertility journey. This study is the first to collect data on fertility journeys in relation to the work environment. The concept of RC was drawn from the data. Future research should consider gathering cultural, economic, historical, and social background data to illustrate the complex rhizomatic relationship between RC and other forms of capital. For example, Johnson et al. (2023) collected the number (density) and distinct types (complexity) of reproductive events throughout their lives. Future research could expand the use of RC to understand differently positioned childless people and parents, including black, disabled, indigenous, marginalized, migrant, and low-income people.