داليا أحمد عبد الرحيم مصطفى
21/03/2007, 03:47 AM
موضوع رائع كان على رأس قائمة الموضوعات التي أرشحها لرسالة الدكتوراه التي لم أستقر بعد عليها، و أذكر أنني مررت بالمصادر التالية أثناء قراءاتي في الموضوع (أعرض منها هنا ملخصات لبعض مقالات كتبت من منظور أنثروبولوجي/اجتماعي + بيبليوغرافيا لمن يرغب التبحر في هذ الموضوع))
ارجو أن تجدوا فيها فائدة
محبتي و أمنيات صادقة و تقديري لكل أم و لكل امرأة بمناسبة يوم المرأة
تحية أمومية
داليا
===========================
JENdA: A Journal of Culture and African Women Studies
ISSN: 1530-5686
Discourses of Motherhood Among Group of White South African Mothers
Lisa Jeannes and Tamara Shefer
The motherhood myth is the myth of the ‘Perfect Mother’. She must be completely devoted not just to her children, but to her role. She must be the one who understands her children, who is all-loving and, even more importantly, all-giving....We believe that she alone is the best caretaker for her children and they require her continual and exclusive presence. She must embody all the qualities traditionally associated with femininity such as nurturing, intimacy and softness. That’s how we want her to be...
Forna (1999, p.23)
Whilst the past century has seen many changes in terms of woman’s rights, with particular regard to education, employment opportunities and indeed female representation in the economic sector, it seems little has changed regarding motherhood. Popular culture is clinging to the notion of the 'perfect mother', insisting that this is one domain of womanhood that cannot be and never has been different.
Television media in South Africa often reinforces the western motherhood discourse, portraying career women as childless or succumbing to their maternal instincts if they do become mothers, choosing to sacrifice their careers for the ‘joys of motherhood’. The implicit message is that a women’s place is in the home. Accordingly, her role is to nurture her children and ensure that the home and her family are well cared for. It is further assumed that she finds this role fulfilling, meaningful and central to her identity.
Print media similarly makes a major contribution to perpetuating these discursive truths of motherhood: entire magazines published in South Africa target woman exclusively, and are dedicated to mothering. In a critique on the image of women portrayed by Living and Loving magazine, Kate Skinner (1994, p.63) suggests that ‘[m]agazines help define the position of women in society: they shape both a woman’s view of herself and society’s view of her.’
With this in mind, it is noteworthy that implicit in these multiple and ultimately similar representations of women is the fact that motherhood comes naturally to women, is instinctual and biologically ‘right’ (Woollett & Phoenix, 1991). The ‘insistence that a certain style of motherhood is “natural” leads women to question every aspect of what they do, think and feel and to measure their own experience against an impossible and rigid standard.’(Forna, 1999, p.23). This may result in excessive guilt and the denial of one’s needs that conflict with those of the child (even though these needs are often not clear). Oates (1986) reports that research in the United Kingdom, has ‘demonstrated that up to 50% of mothers with small children (under age five) have symptoms of intense emotional distress on a regular or continual basis’ (cited in Knowles & Cole, 1990, p.4). Furthermore, this biological determinism alienates men from the experience of nurturing by suggesting that they are not adequately equipped for the tasks of motherhood.
This study aims to explore the motherhood discourses employed by the participants, and how these contribute to their experiences of motherhood. A key intention of the study is to explore participants' perceptions regarding themselves as mothers and the sense they make of their experiences of motherhood. The purpose is to interpret these from a feminist perspective to ultimately empower women to create a notion of motherhood that suits them. The study is therefore fundamentally located in a feminist paradigm. In addition to the feminist influence on the analysis of the data and the purpose of the study, it is deemed a suitable paradigm in that the approach in itself fulfils a purpose of the study: the nature of a feminist methodology suggests that women be 'given a voice' (Gordon, 1990; Burns, 2000). It is assumed that women are used to being told how motherhood should be experienced and embodied, with input from family, friends, media, medical professionals and even strangers being the norm. It was hoped that it would be an empowering experience for participants to share their own experiences and opinions regarding motherhood.
Whilst a feminist approach will be maintained, it is felt that feminist studies pertaining to motherhood have generally tended to adopt a deterministic approach, making very little allowance for motherhood or even marriage within a liberated woman’s world (Farganis, 1996; Ribbens, 1994; Everingham, 1994; Chodorow, 1978; Hollway & Featherstone, 1997). Whereas in the past decades major contributions were made by feminists in refuting the instinctual/biological link between female gender and maternal instincts, it appears there was little room for those women who chose to be mothers to also be feminists (Ribbens, 1994; Everingham, 1994; Chodorow, 1978; Hollway & Featherstone, 1997). In their efforts to generate alternatives to ‘domestic responsibilities defining women’s lives’, the work of feminists like Friedan was instrumental in laying the foundations for women’s employment in the public sector (cited in Kaplan, 1992, p.4). Although this work liberated women by allowing them the opportunity to partake in public life, the frequent vilification of domestic life effectively precluded women from being feminist mothers. In addition to the power of socialisation therefore, it is arguable that dominant voices in western feminism inadvertently contributed to the perpetuation of women's oppression by impacting on their ability to choose alternative life paths. Accordingly, Gordon (1990, p.2) states:
Equality appear[s] elusive within the constraints posed by children. These constraints still [seem] to weigh heavier on women than men in our society....we should aim for a society where the experience of having children could be a pleasure to all parents, female and male. But before that [can] be possible, it [is] evident that our society [will] need to change, and the model of equality [will] need to be questioned; a society where women [are] ‘pseudo-men’ [is] not one worth fighting for.
More recent developments in feminist theory and practice, particularly those drawing on post-modern and post colonial theories, have shifted the terrain of feminist argumentation with respect to childbearing and rearing. There is an increasing predominance of social constructionist accounts of gender which highlight the shifting, fluid and historically contextual nature of gender identities, including those of mother and woman. Lorber and Farell (1991, p.10) suggest a social constructionist notion of gender that is a ‘powerful ideological device which produces, reproduces and legitimates the choices and limits that are predicated on sex category’. Social constructionism, within the postmodern paradigm, is critical of the acts or knowledge that have thus far been taken as 'truth', such as the notion that all women are naturally mothers. This approach further assumes that our perception of the world is shaped by the historical and cultural specificity of our context (Burr, 1995). Accordingly, social interaction within a particular society is reflects and in turn generates (or perpetuates) the knowledge or facts that are held by that society (Burr, 1995; Gergen, 1999; Gergen & Davis, 1997). The 'truth' as we perceive it therefore dictates social process.
Postmodern feminism importantly highlights the diversity of women and their experiences of being women, particularly across difference such as class, colour, sexual orientation, culture, age and others. Literature falling within this paradigm acknowledges the uniqueness of the individual experience whilst undertaking to account for this experience of ‘reality’ as created and perpetuated through the particular discursive and material context. Every woman is therefore believed to have her own unique understanding and experience of motherhood, however these are inseparable from various social and political which, through discourse, she maintains and perpetuates (Burman & Parker, 1993).
Given that postmodernism posits a fragmented and multiple version of women's experiences, there are challenges for feminism in its historical attempt to unify women. The theoretical paradigm of postmodern feminism is to some extent fraught with contradictions, particularly at the level of struggle and intervention. However, feminism here, in a postmodern formulation, is a construct of which ‘personal change of some kind is crucial, ... a fundamental feature, ... distinguish[ing] it from ‘equality of opportunity’ politics’. For, whereas in the latter the framework of ideologies is challenged, in postmodern feminism, ‘only the right of people regardless of sex to find their location within it is emphasised’ (Gordon, 1990, p.38). In acknowledging subjectivity therefore, the purpose here is to explore the individual experience of mothering while acknowledging the relationship between subjectivity and discourse.
In adopting a social constructionist approach, the intention is to explore the participants’ subjective experiences and so too assumptions regarding motherhood. The theoretical framework for this study therefore is feminist within a postmodern, social constructionist paradigm. In adopting this approach, the study hoped to ‘afford clarification of the interactional scaffolding of social structure and the social control processes which sustain’ the construct of motherhood (Lorber & Farrell, 1991, p.34). It is only within a context which acknowledges multiplicity and difference, across both individual and social contexts of meaning, that women may begin to define alternative and more progressive 'mother identities' and 'mothering practices'. The study intended to explore the multiplicity of discourses that frame participants' experiences of mothering, including dominant, popular ones as well as more critical and possibly marginalised discourses.
A Discursive Analysis
Participants
A group of five middle class, South African women in the city of Cape Town constituted the sample. In order to increase the value of the research, in spite of the small sample size, the participants were selected from similar socio-economic backgrounds (Kaplan, 1992). A middle class population was chosen for two reasons. Firstly, such a background corresponds with the primary researcher's own background and in this way power relations between participants and the researcher could be minimized. Secondly, it was assumed that women who are more affluent may have less material constraints and therefore more freedom to exercise choice and so shape their experience of motherhood. For example, these women may be able to make choices regarding whether to work or stay at home, childcare facilities and employment opportunities relatively free from the dictates of material constraints.
Participants were recruited using a sample of convenience and the snowballing sampling technique (Breakwell, Hammond & Fife-Shaw, 1995). All the participants had full-time professional careers prior to having children. All were in committed relationships at the time of falling pregnant, and at the time of the interview. None of the participants had a child older than three years. All participants resumed work after the birth of their children, after various periods of maternity leave. Given the salience of 'race' in South African history, it is important to clarify that the sample was predominantly white, with one participant formally classified ‘coloured’.
Interviews
A single in-depth, individual interview was conducted with each participant, with a duration of approximately one-and-a-half hours. The interviews were unstructured and as far as possible guided by the participant. Several broad areas of inquiry were identified and these were used to generate a rough list of questions. Whilst we were interested in what the participant’s experiences of motherhood were, we were also interested in how they expressed themselves in conveying these experiences, and consequently the meaning they attached to their experiences. We were therefore cautious in our approach to the interviews. The first author conducted all the interviews herself and attempted to create a conversational atmosphere in the hopes that the participants would feel free to convey what was important to them. Furthermore, as the interviewer she was open to sharing her own motherhood experiences, as part of the ‘give and take’ of a conversation. In so doing however, she was acutely aware of the discursive influence she might have on the interviews, by virtue of the power imbalance inherent in the research situation. She therefore decided to keep her contributions to the conversation to an absolute minimum. She felt uncomfortable withholding her experiences entirely however, so offered the participant the opportunity to enquire about her motherhood experience at the end of the interview. All interviews were audio-taped with permission of participants and transcribed verbatim.
Analysis
Elements of Parker’s (1992) and Potter and Wetherell’s (1987) approaches to discourse analytic data analysis were employed as outlined in Breakwell et al. (1995). The initial process involved coding of the transcripts, in order to identify broad discourses. Thereafter, an attempt was made to discern the functions of the relevant discourses. The intention was to identify the structures in each participant’s language created with regard to her subjectivity in describing herself as a mother. Once these structures were identified an attempt was made to unpack the functions such linguistic strategies served, such as to rationalise, legitimise or contest existing 'truths' about being a mother. Since the various structures may involve functions which are incompatible, and indeed conflictual, an attempt was made to elucidate these conflicting discourses and to account for their functions in terms of the 'truths' of the various societal groups to which the participant belongs. An attempt was further made to identify a variety of ideologies which underpin the participants’ social contexts, and to examine the conflicting representations these had in their discourse. In determining the functions therefore, the broader context was considered, specifically the political and social issues, which were made relevant by the text (Burman & Parker, 1993).
The Discursive Context
In analysing the transcripts, we became aware that the majority of the discourses employed reflected gender inequality as inherent to the construct of motherhood. It became apparent that whereas Elvin-Nowak & Thomsson (2001) identified a discourse of equality within the context of their study, this study is located in a context of inequality. This is not surprising given the historical and current context of South African society, which has been and remains characterised by a pervasive discourse of inequality.
Until the first democratic elections in 1994, South Africa’s prominent official discourse was one of inequality. The past eight years have seen major amendments to the constitution in the direction of equality for all with the prioritising of gender equality. However, economic and other forms of inequality nevertheless persist, with a severe lack of employment providing little opportunity for the disadvantaged majority to alter their circumstances, thereby preventing a discourse of equality to find a foothold in South African society.
Within the discourse of inequality, gender becomes a ‘positioning or diverging factor’ (Elvin-Nowak & Thomsson, 2001, p.409). Accordingly, gender is socially constructed through difference, ‘which means that men and women as groups [do not] have the same qualifications for taking care of children and home-related responsibilities as well as for occupying higher positions in society.’ (Elvin-Nowak & Thomsson, 2001, p.409). The discourses of inequality, specifically gender inequality, therefore provide the context within which each participant experiences motherhood and constructs her individual meaning thereof. Consequently, the majority of the discourses identified can be seen to be constructed within a discourse of gender inequality.
The Discourses of Motherhood
Four broad areas of discourse pertaining to motherhood predominated in the narratives analysed. These included discourses relating to: mothers as the primary caregiver; working mother discourses; mothers as co-parents; and motherhood as empowerment. Within each of these broad themes, a number of discourses were identified.
Motherhood is Being a Primary Caregiver
One of the key findings of the study is that all of the participants in this study, notwithstanding their ideological backgrounds, ultimately constructed the mother as the primary caregiver of the child. Reflecting the dominant and popular discourse on women as the essential and natural caregiver within the heterosexual dyad, this set of discourses is founded on the assumption that the mother's constant presence and nurturing are essential to the child’s ongoing psychological well-being (Gabbard, 1990). It seems that within the chosen population, this is the dominant discourse about children. Within this general discursive theme, three discursive variations were employed by the participants as follows.
Inherent Motherhood
A primary discourse within the theme of mothers as the primary caregiver is that which reflects one of the most popular 'truths' about women and motherhood – that mothering is inherent in being a woman. The discourse of inherent motherhood clearly delineates different, gendered roles, and is generally, but not always, based on the assumptions of biological predisposition and notions of instinct. Accordingly, the mother is viewed as either biologically or psychologically/socially the natural, normal, and best caregiver to see to the child’s physical and emotional needs. The corollary to this is that women instinctively know what is right for their children and have an inherent nurturing ability. This discourse further constructs women as destined to be mothers and as unable to find fulfilment or achieve as great a degree of success in any other endeavour. All the participants employed inherent motherhood in constructing their subjective mothering experiences. Most seemed to agree that inherent motherhood was most powerful during the first year of a child’s life. The following two quotes reflect this biological determinist version of motherhood as inherent:
I think it is in our genes, partly, strongly actually mothering is in our genes and so is fathering in a father's genes, em, and there are different roles and they both important.[1]
(Julia)
The time that we spend with Andrew is not that much different you know, between the two of us but I'm obviously the one who does a lot of the practical stuff with Andrew. I do the dressing and the feeding and the bathing...kids generally go for the mom, because of the mom's involvement on that level, I don't know, maybe there's an emotional thing as well where kids respond differently to the mom than the dad, I don't know, it could be I mean dad's generally tend to be more, there's more I don't know I don't know, maybe it's instinct maybe kids just know ‘here's my mom’...
(Kim)
Julia and Kim both employ inherent motherhood to account for gendered role differences that they have observed and sanction. The participants clearly illustrate how gender here, and therefore motherhood, is socially constructed through difference. This is further evidenced in the following quote:
I would wake up, I would know it’s breastfeeding time and I’d jump out of bed with this eina [sore] scar and stuff and charge down the passage hunched over like a granny, and em knock straight into Jason being brought to me. I did it about three times (laughter). So I sensed him, that it was time [even] when he wasn’t there...
I had a lot of milk, for heavens sake I hadn’t carried these boobs around for 33 years without them being useful, eventually and they’d come into their own.
(Mary)
Mary reflects on breastfeeding in the early days of motherhood, relating her apparent innate ability to sense when her child needed to be fed. She could have attributed this to a physical engorgement of her breasts. However, Mary relates how she ‘sensed him’, suggesting that she possesses certain inherent abilities to nurture her child and see to his needs. Mary continues to construct motherhood as inherent in relating her experience of breastfeeding. She explains that she had persevered with breastfeeding even though ‘it was excruciating’ for ‘about three months’ because her breasts were eventually ‘being useful’. Mary illustrates here that an assumption underlying the inherent construction of motherhood is that women and women’s bodies are primarily and ultimately valued for their mothering functions and capabilities.
Amy illustrates the pressure that the discourse of inherent motherhood exerts on mothers to take on the role and responsibilities of primary caregiver when she relates the first day at home with her child:
...the next thing this child wees [urinates], on his own head (laughter) this fountain, and it all landed on his head. I said to Brett 'oh my God now we’re gonna have to bath him'. Brett says 'no you’re not', he gets a towel dries Martin’s head...it was brilliant I never loved him as much as at that moment, he just sort of gave me permission [not to bath him].
(Amy)
What is particularly significant is that Amy felt that the bathing of the baby was her responsibility and that her partner ‘just sort of gave [her] permission [not to bath the baby]’ (my emphasis). Julia reflects how she tends to take greater responsibility than her husband does for disciplining their children, perhaps ‘because [she] knows the children better’. She therefore suggests that it is legitimately her responsibility to discipline the children.
In all these excerpts the participants construct parenting as inherently the mother’s responsibility. They therefore take on the role of primary caregiver by virtue of the language they use when referring to the responsibilities of parenthood. In addition to the above, three related discursive positions were identified as arising out of the discourse of inherent motherhood. The impact of the discourse of inherent motherhood on many of the participants is a denial of any personal agency. This is reflected in their employing one or both of the following discursive positions, concerning choice and lack of control respectively. Finally a discourse concerning fatherhood and the meaning of fathering was identified. These shall each be discussed in turn.
i) Caregiving as a Choice for Men
Whereas mothers are obliged to engage in mothering by virtue of the fact that they bear children, fathering and consequently fatherhood is a far more elusive construct. In order to mother you have to bear, give birth, feed (preferably breastfeed), and continuously nurture. This entails both a physical and emotional commitment, compromising your own needs if that is what is called for. If you don’t do any of the foregoing sufficiently well, you are not a 'good enough mother' and you have failed your child in one or other way. In order to a father you have to supply a sperm. There appears to be no such thing as the 'good enough father' in popular culture.
The participants illustrated this gendered role division by constructing nurturing fathering as a choice for their male partners. Accordingly, men whose parenting involvement and commitment resembles that of mothers are viewed as parenting in this way out of choice. Furthermore, men who do choose to nurture in this way are deemed full of virtue and eternally respected and admired. The following quote illustrates this construction of fatherhood:
Adrian gets consistent adulatory sort of boot licking (laughter) . . . Affirmation you know he for being so wonderful ... and I sort of think no one comes prostrating themselves before me, worshipping at the altar that is my motherhood (laughter), because that's what you expect because because he is. And he is good father em but you know what I mean because it's not the classical role that he plays, boy I mean he is so admired for . . . His father, his stepmother his brother, my mother my father you know (laughs) Whereas, I mean it's not that I need the affirmation em but I suppose when the going gets rough you do. When I came home from the from the 3 party dilemma crisis of mine and I was looking, what I wanted someone to say to me was you're a good mother, that's all I needed and because he'd missed 3 parties solely I was a bad mother .Um, em, and ja I think just a little bit of jealousy that I a little bit of jealous little bit jealous of Adrian's consistent praise and affirmation he gets for his parenting em. Oh it’s a gender thing that, you know, gender thing. I'm a girl, girls are supposed to mother, so if they do it well it's just gewoonlik [normal], boys aren't supposed to so when they do it's like Oscars you know (laughter).
(Angela)
Ironically, Angela earlier, described her husband as ‘fantastic’ in terms of his parental involvement, herself constructing fatherhood in terms of choice.
ii) Discourse of Dyscontrol
In employing this discourse, a woman essentially denies her sense of agency, thereby allowing other/s to make decisions for her. Julia illustrates this discourse in relating the process of becoming pregnant:
I didn't really decide my well I suppose at some, subconsciously of course one must take, but my husband was very keen on having children, very very keen and because he was so keen I basically stopped, I was also tired of using contraception...
(Julia)
Julia here reflects how she took her husbands decision as her own. However, she indicates that, when she discovered she was pregnant she ‘couldn’t believe it’ and that she ‘was really quite upset’. Julia’s decision to have a second child was similarly made on someone else’s behalf. She reports that ‘[they] were convinced that children should have siblings’, thereby making the decision to have another baby for her first child and not for herself.
Another consequence of the construction of motherhood in terms of dyscontrol, is that women accept their inability to control their lives, trying to make the best of things. This is illustrated in the following quote:
I think the questions about choice, having children and making marriage come up more later, rather than at the time and it’s been propelled through having children
(Julia)
Julia relates the feeling that despite her initial misgivings regarding the pregnancy and pending motherhood, she then ‘really just accepted it, accepted [her] situation and enjoyed being pregnant and loved it'. Julia recognises having adopted the discourse of dyscontrol in reflecting on her feelings about marriage and children as indicated in the above quote.
iii) Discourse of Choice
Contrary to the discourse of dyscontrol was the construction of motherhood in terms of choice which was fairly well represented among participants, for example:
I wanted everything, ...I wanted to do my masters, fall pregnant and start my own practice.
(Mary)
I just had this plan you know, we got married in 95 and I wanted to have children in 2000, 2001 and that was just the plan I had for myself, working and you know and I just got this new job and I was absolutely delighted about it I never thought it would happen to me, em, and I, I was that was a major factor, ...I just felt this was not good for my future in the organisation em, so that was also a major factor.
(Angela)
...thinking actually how am I going to have two jobs. How am I going to be a good mother a good therapist and a good partner. I just couldn’t see myself doing it.
(Mary)
The average man enters parenthood without changing his employment status at all, Mary, here conveys the meaning thereof to the average women. Accordingly, parenthood entails choices for women and it is silly, indeed presumptuous for them to want ‘everything’. Mary’s concern with how she was going to combine her multiple roles reflects the degree of responsibility and consequent pressure she felt in making these choices.
Whereas all the women employing the discourse of choice express their decision to choose motherhood, the choice here is clearly constrained by the impact of inherent motherhood.
Mothering is Selflessness
A second major discourse within the broader theme of mothers as the primary caregiver is underpinned by the notion that the baby is primary and that the woman should be centred about him/her. The unquestionable supremacy of baby and baby’s needs is central to this discourse, constantly reminding women of the conflict between their needs and those of their offspring, and of their 'badness' in even having their own needs at all. Inherent therein is the assumption that a mother possesses saintly qualities, in this sense the ability to prioritise other’s needs at all costs. The following two quotes illustrate this discourse:
...a fight for your space with other humans, ...a competition for when you have time to yourself and when you give time to others...To put another individual’s needs before your own, and to be affected by what they feel and how they are you know, deeply so, on all sorts of different levels.
(Amy)
...it was a real shock for me to realise that I was ambivalent about it but up till then I’ve always, I want to have my kids you know...I realised that it would work out I just have to stop being such a workaholic and just make time for it.
(Mary)
In defining what it is to be a mother, Amy illustrates the conflicts of needs experienced when employing the discourse of selflessness. She conveys the emotional component of this selfless relationship in that motherhood, in addition to prioritising another’s needs above your own, also entails being ‘affected by what they feel and how they are’.
Mary similarly constructs motherhood as selflessness in reflecting on her ambivalence about having a child. She expresses surprise at her ambivalence and decides to suppress her career aspirations in the interests of having children, this in spite of the fact that she attests to finding intellectual stimulation ‘exciting and [that she]...liked [her] job’.
Julia describes the practical conflict of needs she experienced in her role as mother, ‘learning how to get enough food and enough to drink for [herself] as well as looking after the baby’. She further employs this discourse in accounting for her decision to have a second child, indicating that this was as a result of her belief that ‘children should have siblings’, in spite of the fact that she had and continues to have ‘ambivalence over [her] situation’ as mother. Julia also employs this discourse in describing feeling ‘depressed .. just coming home ... because everything is just a mess, and its been a mess ever since’, yet feeling she does not have the right to her need for order and neatness, that its ‘just [her] and [her] neurosis’, questioning ‘why do you actually need everything to be perfect, what need are you trying to fulfil?’
Mary further employs the discourse of selflessness in relating her perseverance with breastfeeding even though ‘it was excruciating’ for ‘about three months’, making her ‘toes curl’ and causing her to ‘swear under [her] breath’. She reports having stopped eventually because she ‘was getting boils...[and] realised it was depleting [her] too much’.
i) Maternal Responsibility
This discourse concerns the need for a mother to take her mothering responsibilities seriously and act maturely in this regard. Whilst these expectations are closely linked to the discourse of the good enough mother discussed below, this discourse is seen to be separate in that it concerns the woman behind the mother, rather than the woman in the mothering role. This is illustrated in the following quote:
The decision to become a mother, bringing up human beings...is phenomenally powerful as a way of contributing and influencing society, because you sculpt this little person in a way.
(Kim)
Kim later reflects on the difficult time she had adjusting to motherhood, denying herself the right to have any negative emotions and reports that ‘she had to do a lot of work on dealing with [her] own emotions, ... that [she] had to do a lot of work on [herself]’. Julia reflects on her pregnancy, saying that she felt she was 'now no longer a girl’ and of now ‘really having to take responsibility for [her], looking after [her] marriage and [her] children'. She later on refers to her resentment of this responsibility and her resultant anger as something ‘which is actually not okay’, suggesting that she is failing as a mother and a mature woman if she is unable to take all this on without feeling some degree of anger and resentment. Amy similarly employs this discourse in owning that ‘the anguish that [she] felt about being a mother came from [her]’.
The Good Enough Mother
The good enough mother discourse is perhaps the most prevalent of all within the set of discourses of women as the primary caregiver. This discourse is based on the premise that women generally are not 'good enough' mothers and need to constantly make efforts to improve on their mothering abilities. The following quote illustrates this premise:
I was taking my vitamins before I became pregnant and started to do exercises and read,...because it was a decision I took [to fall pregnant] and I would be responsible about it.
(Kim)
Clearly, here the prerequisite for a 'good enough mother' starts prior to childbirth, or as Kim suggests, ‘your mothering starts before becoming pregnant, the decision to become a mother is where your mothering starts’. This aspect of the 'good enough mother' discourse has been demonstrated in the United States of America in recent years, where women are subject to legal scrutiny if they are not deemed by society to be fit mothers to their unborn children. The mother’s right to smoke, consume alcohol, etcetera are therefore legally challenged ostensibly in the interests of the needs of her unborn children.
The following quote similarly illustrates the construction of a mother in terms of meeting a certain standard:
I had to do a lot of work on dealing with my own emotions...because it’s easy to slip over the edge and become despairing and depressed and...if you are going to be miserable...obviously your baby is going to respond to that because they are that sensitive, they’ll pick it up.
(Kim)
Kim, in reflecting on the first months of her child’s life, reports that it was a difficult time because the baby was difficult. She however denies herself the right to have negative feelings about motherhood. Therefore, even though she was experiencing great difficulty in adapting to motherhood, she would not allow herself to acknowledge her despair out of fear that this would negatively affect her child.
Amy similarly questions the acceptability of the feelings she experiences regarding motherhood. In discussing the anxiety she ‘experienced from the moment [she] fell pregnant...of [her] child dying’, she reflects that whereas her fears can be protective, one runs the risk of ‘mak[ing] your child frightened of life’ if you are overprotective. In attempting to be a 'good enough mother', therefore, the way Amy has ‘dealt with the neurosis is not to deny it, but not to be overprotective either.’
Angela also conveys the pressure mothers feel to ‘play the beaming mother holding the baby behind the glass’ in describing the relief she felt that she was so ill following the birth that consequently ‘there were not much, not many expectations on [her] to be a good mother’.
The following quote further illustrates the discourse of 'good enough mothering':
...and he woke up exactly that time and shouted mommy are you working, you know, and I thought okay is that a mom you know? shew, we’re so connected and you can tune into me, my goodness am I being, a nice place to plug into and I think a mom is an available person, always available it’s very hard, not being the ideal mom.
(Mary)
Mary constructs motherhood in terms of being good enough when relating an incident where her son woke up from in the middle of the night, when she herself was lying awake and the guilt this elicited regarding her decision to work. She reflects on the demands placed on her by her work, how this conflicts with the demands of motherhood, how this affects who she is as a mother and how this relates to her idea of what constitutes a good mother. In so doing, she clearly doubts that she is a good enough mom in this instance.
Amy illustrates the importance of being validated within the good enough mother discourse, relating that when ‘people tell you you’re a brilliant mother, there’s no greater compliment that you can receive’. Amy further illustrates the extent to which mothers feel affirmed when they believe that they have indeed been good enough, in her reflection that the ‘the first time [they] changed his nappy without having him crying it was like [she] had gotten three degrees cum laude, it was such a feeling of pride’. She normalises the guilt associated with this discourse by relating the story of how her mother ‘even at the age of seventy, with all her children adults, ...still wakes up at three o’clock in the morning and feels guilty about things that she did as a mother.’
Angela, who is apparently content with the model of mothering she adopts, expresses her doubts by occasionally adopting the discourse of the good enough mother. After flippantly describing herself as having an uncharacteristic mothering style she relates feeling an accumulative guilt, fearing that she [had not been doing the right thing, [she] had not been mummying...[feeling] like maybe sometimes [she] was too cavalier’.
In exploring how she differs from other mothers, Amy employs the good enough mother discourse and begins to question her mothering style and that maybe her child would ‘love having [the] sort of mother who spends every second of her time actively with him, attending to him, just being present for him.’ She explores her feeling of inadequacy further in relating an incident when she was at a work function with her child:
I saw a video of an evening that we had at [the organisation] when he was a baby and I know that I used to walk into those functions and used to just hand him over to the first person who said 'oh please can I hold him', and then I’d bugger off and they would then be passing him onto the next person who’d say 'oh please can I hold him' anyway so the video very interestingly shows Martin in somebody’s arms with people around chatting whatever, and I don’t know if this is so but how I read his expression there, is that was wide eyed kind of, 'where is mommy, I think I’m safe for now I think it’s cool where I am but shew I really wish she would like come and get me', do you know what I mean?
(Amy)
This excerpt clearly conveys Amy’s sense of guilt at not being the type of mother she believed she ought to be.
Angela similarly questions her apparently alternative mothering style. In discussing a crisis of confidence she had regarding her style of mothering, she relates a dream that helped her resolve this crisis and made her ‘[realise] that being loose doesn’t mean you don’t care’. She concludes that adopting a ‘go with the flow mothering technique’ is not necessarily inferior. However, the dream that brought about this realisation depicts her refusing to let her husband take her child with him on a dangerous expedition, conveying clearly that she is now an 'okay' mother since she is also capable of being protective in the most stereotypic sense.
To sum up, within this discursive theme of the mother as primary caregiver, it is evident that there is strong undertone of developmental psychological theories in the discourse of 'good enough mothering', which ultimately serves to rationalise and legitimise the broader discourse on women as the primary caregiver for children. Furthermore, the inherent inferiority of women within the discourse of inequality is illustrated by the prevalence of the good enough mother discourse. Whereas women are inherently inadequate within the good enough mother discourse, they are genetically predisposed to mothering within the discourse of inherent motherhood. As a result of these conflicting discourses women feel compelled to embrace the mothering role, yet feel eternally inferior within it. The resultant guilt spurs women on to improve on their mothering and to dedicate themselves more wholly to the task of mothering. The attempt to become a better mother is illustrated in the discourse of selflessness, wherein women sacrifice themselves and their needs in the perceived interests of their child/ren.
A significant factor in the good enough mother discourse, is that the guilt often arises out of a conflict of needs, most often between the mothers need to work and the child’s apparent need for her omnipresence. The result is often that women withdraw from the public world of work, or engage therein at great emotional cost. Herewith follows an analysis of working mother discourses employed by the participants
Working Mother Discourses
Inherent in the word ‘working’ here is the assumption that the work is of a public nature, is paid and is unrelated to the tasks of motherhood. This is problematic in that it serves to perpetuate the devaluation of nurturing children. In challenging this assumption, many feminist authors suggest that mothering be equated with work (Bailey, 2000). For the purposes of this study the term ‘work’ is understood not to include the activities of mothering, since this is how it has been defined by the participants.
Three primary discourses pertaining to work were identified in the participant’s narratives. What is striking is that the discourses varied a great deal amongst the participants, and indeed changed at times within a narrative, as the participant proceeded on the journey of motherhood. There appears to be a constant and complex ambivalence regarding work and motherhood and the often conflicting demands and needs of each role between and within these discursive positions.
Motherhood is Being at Home
What is essentially implied within this discourse is that motherhood and intellectual stimulation are incompatible, that it is wrong and selfish of women to fulfil or even recognise their intellectual needs and that employment can only be justified with economic necessity or loyalty to the employer, and never personal need. Inherent in this discourse therefore is guilt associated with working.
Mary reports that she ‘love[s] [her] job, ...and that [she] really [doesn’t] have a problem [going] to work’, however she similarly employs the contradictory discourse of guilt regarding work, in relating a recent experience where her child ‘woke up...and shouted 'mommy are you working?' .. and [she] thought ‘okay, is that a mom?’, clearly experiencing discomfort with her decision to work. Julia, in responding to my question regarding her decision to return to work, initially refers to financial obligation and a feeling of commitment to the workplace. In exploring what her work entails however, Julia connects with the positive aspects of her job and the fact that she ‘really enjoy[s] it’ and then acknowledges that ‘[she] really felt [she] wanted to go back to work as well, because of [the] isolation [she] had experienced [at home]’.
Mary relates how discovering her intellectual ability ‘was exciting and [that she] discovered that [she] like[d] her job’, and that ‘there was a period when [she] was building [her] career, and became quite ambivalent about [wanting a child]’. She interprets her love for her career as inappropriate however, deciding that ‘[she] wasn’t balanced, [that she] was very much career orientated’ and resolved her ambivalence by realising that ‘[she would] just have to stop being such a workaholic and just make time for [motherhood]’. Mary later conveys the conflict she has between her own needs to pursue her career and the discourse of inherent motherhood that she employs and so applies to herself. In relating her partner’s insistence that she continue working after having the baby since she was ‘a career person [and could] not give it up’, Mary reports:
I couldn’t get my head around being a working mom, whereas it is who I am. I would have lost a lot of myself had I been a full time mom, I know that, but it took me a long time to get to that point.
Whilst the above conveys the participant’s guilt at working, it also illustrates their positive feelings about work, revealing their ambivalence regarding work and ‘at-home’ motherhood. The ambivalence suggests that, within this discourse, the participants were able to construct motherhood relatively free of the discursive influences of the dominant discourses of inequality and of developmental psychological theories of childhood. Accordingly:
[the] femininity produced within the structure for this concept is more independent from the motherhood position. Still, it is always at risk of being perceived negatively in those cases in which the working woman appears to the detriment of the mother.
(Elvin-Nowak & Thomsson, 2001, p.424)
Career Women Aren’t Mothers
Employment is constructed within a discursive position that, to a certain extent, excludes the woman as a mother...Such a discursive position makes sense beside the pronounced discourse based on ideas about the mother’s accessibility.
(Elvin-Nowak & Thomsson 2001, p.418)
A similar construction of motherhood and employment was encountered in the present study. This discourse therefore encapsulates the conflict between motherhood and employment in the public sector, since inherent therein is the assumption that motherhood is a liability in the working world. It also carries the assumption that a mother is somehow inferior to other professionals, whether it is because of the limitations she has on her time or because of the belief that she does not function optimally since becoming a mother.
Angela conveys this conflict in describing herself as feeling ‘deeply ashamed’ when telling her employers that she was pregnant within two months of being employed. In order to be recognised professionally, many women then feel that they have to prevent motherhood from 'contaminating' the workplace, and so compromising their careers. Angela further demonstrates this by stating that she ‘felt that [the pregnancy] was not good for [her] future in the Organisation’.
The following two quotes illustrate this discourse:
[My] earning capacity diminishes because I'm just not prepared to work and do my work as well as I can in the hours and I was not prepared to work overtime so [the] promotion thing’s out the window
(Julia)
And then I came back to work half days you know, half time. But Carol was in charge then, she was incredibly demanding, you know it never felt like you could ever go home, so you know as long as Martin was happy at work, I’d stay, which was fine but not for me.
(Amy)
Julia, in conveying her sense of women as being inferior members of society, reflects on the impact motherhood has had for her in terms of her career. She further validates this treatment of working mothers by indicating that she ‘[doesn’t] expect to be promoted’ because she is a mother. Amy employs this discourse in relating how despite the fact that she was ‘back to work half days’, she ‘never felt like [she] could go home’.
Mothers Are Superwomen
This discourse ties up with those of guilt relating to work, and of professionalism and responsibility. The general themes of this discourse are guilt, inadequacy, the need to be and do more than one is and does, and the notion that women always have coped and survived and therefore so should you.
In the following quote, Angela accounts for her decision not to take maternity leave:
...you had to have worked for the organisation for a year, so I didn't qualify for maternity leave, em, you know but they said I could take unpaid leave, could make a plan. Ja, they were quite, they were very open to that, but the whole idea of taking unpaid leave just to didn't seem to be an option you know although Adrian was earning.
(Angela)
Even in the absence of financial constraints, Angela could not justify time off from work for motherhood. It seems as if motherhood was not sufficient to excuse her from her professional responsibilities.
Angela further employs the superwoman discourse in describing her childbirth experience:
I didn't want to be the neurotic woman, I sort of everything had gone [smoothly], I hadn't fussed about anything I just would have two scans on that sort of very basic scan machines, I didn't want to make it into a whole performance so ... I just I felt ashamed having to go, “I feel a bit I've got this pain in my chest Doctor”, I just sort of didn't want to fit into this neurotic hypochondriac woman stereotype.
(Angela)
Angela suffered a very rare and often fatal medical condition with the birth of her child. She nevertheless describes feeling embarrassed at 'making a fuss'.
Amy illustrates the pressure felt when employing the superwoman discourse:
‘you never feel that you’re doing any one job well...you’re divided and you can never give absolutely everything to the one task, so you constantly feel that you’re not doing anything properly,...you’re constantly feeling a little bit guilty and a little bit inadequate.’
In summary, from the above it is clear that mothering and working (in the public arena) are largely constructed as incompatible. The working mother discourses insidiously decree that mothers should be permanently at home, and that they are less valuable than other ‘normal’ employees. In a society where activities in the private arena are not recognised as work, the relegation of the mother to the home consequently results in the devaluation of her contribution to society and the subsequent devaluation of the mother herself. Julia describes her felt devaluation very succinctly:
...when I walk into a shop, its like this person’s going to a) need help and b) not be able to spend so much , because they’ve got children, so you’re just not a priority, you’re not a desirable customer, you’re actually a pain...being a mother gives you a sense of what it is to be older, suddenly you can’t move so quickly, you cant get done what you normally get done, you can't make phone calls, you can’t, all of these things you can’t do.
(Julia)
Mothers as Co-Parents
Whereas mothering would seem to concern the relationship of the women with her child/ren, it was felt that a discursive analysis of the mother’s perceptions of her role and position in relationship to the father of her child/ren would allow for an exploration the role of fathers in the parenting dyad. As illustrated in the two discourses encountered, it is apparent that the social construction of gender in terms of difference has cast the woman firmly into the role of caregiver whilst excluding the man from these activities. The discursive positions within the discourse of co-parenting are therefore reflections of the discourse of inequality. Since the woman is identified as the nurturer, she then becomes the nurturer of the marital relationship as well.
The Mother as Nurturer of Parent Dyad
The assumption underlying this discourse is that the woman is responsible for the emotional health of the relationship, and that if she does not tend to this aspect, she is blameworthy for the demise of the relationship. Inherent in this discourse is women’s guilt associated with perceived neglect of the partner and consequently the fear that they have compromised the relationship. The following quote illustrates this discourse:
...as a couple em, we need to get back to I mean I feel we need to get back to being a couple a little bit more because we let that go a little bit. I've let that go,... he's very good, he's very patient, very tolerant never, not never but very seldom will he judge me in terms of neglecting him... he's just sometimes kind of shown that he's, he notices that I am sacrificing him.
... so ja, I'm aware that we need to get back, I need to get back into the mode where I'm prioritising my relationship with my husband more often, I do it, every time I catch myself I think, oh I better reconnect with my husband sometime or other otherwise I am going to be a single parent very soon (laughter)
(Kim)
Kim constructs her marriage relationship in terms of herself as the nurturer. She employs this discourse in describing the state of her relationship with her partner since they have become parents. Reflecting on the relationship with her partner, she indicates that there is some distance between them. She blames herself for the current state of her marriage and expresses her perceived responsibility for nurturing her partner and the relationship. She further expresses her resultant guilt and her fear that, by her perceived neglect of her husband, she is compromising her marital relationship.
Shared Parenting
This is a discourse that focuses on the collectivity of parenting as an alternative to the broad dominant discourse of mothers as primary caregivers, illustrated above. It was notable, that in spite of a growing discourse on shared parenting in popular culture, only one participant employed this discourse in discussing her experiences of motherhood. Mary initially employed this discourse, starting her narrative by reflecting on the time prior to the pregnancy with her first child as the time ‘before we fell pregnant’. Although she was the pregnant partner, Mary constructs the pregnancy and consequently the parenting to follow as a collective experience. However, later in the interview she ironically reveals that their parenting was not in fact shared at all:
I was a bit shocked, I thought that he’d be a bit more involved,...he wouldn’t bath [the baby] or he was too scared to be left alone with [the baby].
(Mary)
Motherhood is Empowerment
Two discourses encountered appear to represent the spaces within which women can express themselves, relatively free from the prescriptions of the discourse of inequality, particularly the dominant discourse of women as the primary caregiver. These are understood to represent a discourse of motherhood as empowering. The discourses presented here occurred far less frequently than those couched in the discourse of inequality, above. Disappointingly, when they were identified in a discourse, they were always accompanied by conflicting discourses governed by the discourse of mothers as the primary caregiver. Despite the relative lack of discourses of motherhood as empowering, the occasional presence thereof is encouraging. The phenomenon of empowerment discourses within a discursive context of inequality confirms the existence of ‘spaces, and ... possibilities and limitations for radical action within patriarchal, racist, capitalist societies’ (Gordon, 1990, p.1).
Mothers Have Authority and Power
Inherent in this discourse is an expressed feeling of confidence and a sense of agency that all the participants demonstrated at some point. Julia describes an interaction with some ‘young coloured men’ who were giving her ‘a hard time’, making sexual remarks to her in public. She reports feeling a ‘sort of sense [that she is] not a girl, [she’s] not available’ and that whereas previously she would ‘never say anything about it, or do anything about it’, being pregnant with her second child she was able to ‘[give] this guy a complete mouthful’. In exercising her authority as an experienced mother, Julia also conveyed a sense of being more mature, challenging the men with 'who do you think you’re talking to, back off little boy, what do you actually know, ... you don’t have a clue, back off’. While this quote highlights her sense of threat that is both gendered and racialised, her identity as a 'mother' appears to give her courage. Kim, reflecting on her own pregnancy, suggests that this marks the beginning of ‘a complete new status in your womanhood ... you’ve joined the circle of the mothers to be and soon you’ll be a mother soon now you have or you possess a knowledge, or you’re in the process of possessing a knowledge that you know you can only possess through this [motherhood] identity’.
While this discourse is clearly an empowering one for participants, and serves as a way of challenging some of the more negative discourses on mothering, it also inadvertently falls into another dominant and popular discourse – that is, that women are only mature and successful women when they have become mothers. Thus, participants appear only able to 'find power' in mothering through a discourse which also disempowers women who aren't mothers.
Mothers Are Women Discourse
According to this discourse, motherhood is conveyed as one of many facets of a woman’s life. It is neither totally prioritised nor compromised, simply made to fit in with the other aspects of her life. This is the discourse we expected to find amongst all the participants, since we believed that the participant’s life choices prior to motherhood suggest people who ‘know what they want in life’ and who ‘go out and get it’. This was found to be in particular in terms of relationships and their working worlds. Contrary to my expectations, this discourse was employed by only one participant, Angela, in relating her reaction to discovering her unplanned pregnancy:
I sort of said look, I'm gonna, I'm going to make it fit, I'm sort of going to approach in a way that make this whole experience fit into my life as it is at the moment and try not to make too many changes.
Summary of Findings and Key Conclusions
A discourse analysis of five interviews with middle class South African women revealed four predominant discursive themes. These themes give rise to a number of conclusions regarding the construct of motherhood within the population studied.
The first three themes appear to emerge from, reflect and reproduce a discursive position of inequality. Whereas the social construction of gender through difference means that men and women are deemed different it also means that one gender is deemed superior to the other. Since men occupy the positions of power in South African society, the discourse of difference serves to reinforce and legitimise the positions of power and superiority in relation to women. Within the discourse of inequality therefore, women and mothers are constructed as the “second sex” (Simone De Beauvoir, 1949 in Oberman & Josselson, 1996, p.341). Accordingly, the themes of mother as primary caregivers, working mothers and mothers as co-parents, are created by and in turn maintain the discourse of inequality within the motherhood construct. It is apparent from the first three, most prominent themes, therefore, that the construct of motherhood in South Africa continues to reflect and perpetuate gender inequality. Inherent in a discourse of inequality is the assumption of difference and a consequent variation in attributes, each with its corresponding value. Accordingly, women are deemed biologically predisposed to nurture whilst men are constructed as being limited in their nurturing capacities.
The implication of a construction of motherhood in terms of gender inequality is twofold. Firstly, inherent in this construction of motherhood is the notion that central to femininity is being a mother. Accordingly women are constructed as only fully becoming women when they become mothers. This results in enormous pressure for women to become mothers. A significant factor in the discourses which legitimise the mother as primary caregiver is that the guilt often arises out of a conflict of needs, most often between the mothers need to work and the child’s apparent need for her omnipresence and 'perfect' care. As a result, women, who can financially afford to, withdraw from public world of work, or engage therein at great emotional cost. Such discourses further impact on the relative importance of mothering and pursuing a career. This construction of motherhood therefore also results in the marginalisation of mothers in the workplace. Consequently, working mothers experience ambivalence, discomfort and a sense of compromise with regards to their careers.
The implication of this strong pull to prioritise motherhood over a career is the perpetuation of the gendered imbalance in the corporate world. Men consequently dominate corporate positions of power because women are persuaded by dominant discourses to pursue motherhood at the expense of their careers.
The essentialism of the motherhood construct, legitimised by the construction of motherhood as inherent, excludes women from the workplace at a discursive level. Supporting the relegation of mothers to the private domain is a pervasive gender inequality that constructs women as inferior to men in terms of public work. Alongside this is the construction of public work as more valuable, more significant and indeed more challenging than private work. The consequence is ultimately a devaluing of mothers that cannot be challenged, because they are discursively forced to embrace a private function which is constructed as inferior.
The fourth discourse employed is not constructed within the discourse of inequality. The discourse of empowerment, albeit poorly represented in these narratives, suggests the possibility of a different construction of motherhood. Within this discourse, women identified with the strength and power they associated with motherhood thereby suggesting that mothers can be constructed as powerful and possessing superior knowledge, different to men but not necessarily inferior. Whereas this initially seems positive, the phenomenon of power arising from the role of motherhood in itself serves to perpetuate the construction of motherhood as central to femininity. This is problematic, in that it seems women are granted knowledge, power and influence only by submitting to a construct of the feminine which essentially renders them inferior to men.
One discursive variation of the discourse of empowerment suggests that an alternative construction of motherhood is potentially conceivable within this population. The discourse of ‘mothers are women’ was only employed by one participant, and even then within a narrative of conflicting discourses. Nevertheless, the result was a construction of motherhood that gave equal priority to mothering and a career, thereby balancing the relative significance of public and private work for mothers. The mother is still inherently the primary caregiver within this construction however, thereby limiting the degree to which a greater prevalence of this discourse will contribute to alternative construction of motherhood.
Recommendations and Limitations
The construct of motherhood is, as I have experienced it, one that evolves over time, with new experiences constantly changing what one feels and believes. It would have been useful therefore to conduct a longitudinal study, interviewing participants biannually for a number of years. This would have allowed one to analyse how the discourses around motherhood are influenced by the age of the child and the growing confidence of the mother. A single interview provides one with material reflecting the participants’ present reality. From the analysis, it seems inherent motherhood discourses predominate in the first year of rearing a child. This could arguably shift in the months to follow, as the child becomes more independent and as the discourses around motherhood change accordingly and subjective positioning in relation to these may shift according to the age of the child. It is therefore hoped that such a longitudinal study would reveal a greater predominance of motherhood discourses of empowerment and other more positive discourses of motherhood.
A further limitation of this study is the homogeneity of the sample. The chosen sample represents women who are financially least affected by a discourse of inequality, in the hope that the discursive influences on their experiences of motherhood would highlight the pervasive influence of this discursive context. However, it would be reductionist to equate inequality with economic resources, without considering other possible discursive implications. If the construct of motherhood is to be understood within the context of a discourse of inequality, there must be a contextually wider exploration of the mothering experience. It is therefore suggested that further research be conducted, encompassing the class and cultural heterogeneity of South African society. In so doing, one would include those women who have been multiply oppressed across the lines of gender, class and 'race' within the historical context of ideological and material inequalities in South African society. Discourses are context-bound. Consequently, a multiplicity of mothering experiences is informed by a multiplicity of discourses and material conditions. A more representative sample of South African society would therefore hopefully provide further insight into the pervasiveness of the discourse of inequality and also facilitate a picture of the multiplicity of experiences and discourses of motherhood.
This study was located within a feminist paradigm in the hopes that the resulting methodology would be respectful of the participants, and that the outcome of the study would be relevant to the empowerment of women. The analysis of the transcripts reveals that the construct of motherhood as emerges here, is limiting of women and generally serves to devalue them. It further reveals that women cannot escape the implications of this construct, even if they choose not to become mothers. In the light of the above it is therefore imperative that we attempt to provide recommendations that contribute to the feminist ideals with which this study was embarked upon.
In terms of the discourses identified and the extent to which these reflect and perpetuate gender inequality, an alternative construction of motherhood is required. According to feminists like Burns (2000), alternative voices are needed to challenge the status quo. The paucity of feminist literature on motherhood in South Africa and elsewhere reflects the relative insignificance of this construct for women challenging gender inequality. Just as there was a silence around shared parenting amongst the participants, there seems to be a silence around motherhood and how the social construction thereof reflects and perpetuates the gendered inequalities of most societies. What is called for therefore is more research and more theoretical work exploring the construct of motherhood, in particular within the specificity of the South African context. It is hoped that by generating knowledge regarding motherhood constructs in various contexts, women will become better equipped to challenge the inequalities that are currently inherent and essentially invisible.
Gergen and Davis, (1997, p.6) report that ‘[s]ocial constructionist ideas have been liberating to those who struggle with the difficulties of being defined by others, without suggesting that there is only one proper way to be defined’. This study has illuminated the social processes that generate and indeed are perpetuated by a particular construction of motherhood. However, whilst it may seem that the populist view of motherhood is promulgated without dispute, Gordon (1990) would have us believe that there is still room for manoeuvring within the confines of these ‘truths’.
It is hoped that by revealing the social processes at work, this study will open up the way to alternative constructions of motherhood.
Bibliography
Bailey, L. (2000). Bridging home and work in the transition to motherhood: A discursive study. The European Journal of Women’s Studies, 7, 2000, 53-70.
Breakwell, F., Hammond, S. & Fife-Shaw, M. (1995). Research Methods in Psychology. London: Sage Publications.
Burman, E. & Parker, I. (Eds.) (1993). Discourse Analytic Research – Repertoires and Readings of Texts in Action. London: Routledge.
Burns, D. (2000). Feminism, psychology and social policy: Constucting political boundaries at the grassroots. Feminism and Psychology, 10(3), 367-380.
Burr, V. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism. New York: Routledge.
Chodorow, N. (1978). The Reproduction of Mothering – Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of Gender. London: University of California Press Ltd.
Elvin-Nowak, Y. & Thomsson, H. (2001). Motherhood as idea and practice: A discursive understanding of employed mothers in Sweden. Gender and Society, 15(3), 407-428.
Everingham, C. (1994). Motherhood and Modernity. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Farganis, S. (1996). The Social Reconstruction of the Feminine Character. Second Edition. London: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.
Forna, A. (1999). Mother of all Myths – How Society Moulds and Constrains Mothers. London: Harper Collins Publishers.
Gabbard, G.O. (1990). Psychodynamic Psychiatry in Clinical Practice. Washington: American Psychiatric Press Inc.
Gergen, M.M. & Davis, S.N. (1997). Toward a psychology of gender – a reader. New York: Routledge.
Gergen, KJ. (1999). An invitation to social construction. London: Sage Publications.
Gordon, T. (1990). Feminist mothers. London: Macmillan Education Limited.
Hollway, W. & Featherstone, B. (1997). Mothering and Ambivalence. London: Routledge.
Kaplan, M.M. (1992). Mother’s Images of Motherhood. London: Routledge.
Knowles, J. P. & Cole, E. (Eds.) (1990). Woman-Defined Motherhood. London: Harington Park Press.
Lorber, J. & Farrell, S.A. (1991). The social construction of gender. London: Sage Publications.
Oberman, Y. and Josselson, R. (1996). ‘Matrix of Tensions – A Model of Mothering’, psychology of Women Quarterly, 20 (1996),341-359.
Parker, I. (1994) Discourse Analysis. In P. Banister, E. Burman, I. Parker, M. Taylor & C. Tindall (Eds.), Qualitative Methods in Psychology. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Potter, J. & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology – beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage Publications.
Ribbens. J. (1994). Mothers and their Children – A Feminist Sociology of Childrearing. London: Sage Publications.
Skinner, K. (1994). ‘Living and Loving’, Agenda, 22, 62-64.
Woollett, A., Phoenix, (1991). Motherhood. In A.Woollett, A., Phoenix, A. & Lloyd, E. (Eds) (1991), Motherhood: Meanings, practices and ideologies. London: Sage Publications.
References
[1] Transcription conventions: (name) - pseudonym, [ ] - clarifying information or translation, ( ) - non-verbal communication, ... - pause
________________________________________
Copyright © 2004 Africa Resource Center, Inc.
Citation Format
JENdA: A Journal of Culture and African Women Studies: Issue 5, 2004
========================
http://www.anthro.appstate.edu/ebooks/gender/ch05.html
Chapter 5 (Page 49)
Prehistoric Construction of Mothering
Kathleen M. Bolen
University of California, Berkeley
________________________________________
Introduction
Motherhood integrates bio-procreational and social processes; it includes notions of sexuality, reproduction, personhood, child care, social order, domestic organization and power. Motherhood has often placed the abstract woman on a pedestal, as the only "known" parent is the mother (Gough 1975:55). In our society, childbearing and child care hinders participation within wider society; we too easily project similar notions onto our prehistoric constructs. Problematizing mothering allows for a consideration of the ways gender may operate within a prehistoric context.
Cross cultural and ethnographic research demonstrate tremendous variety in what mothers do, what it means to be a mother, what expectations are placed upon mothers, what maternal behavior entails, and who actually mothers. This paper suggests such potential variability in prehistory by emphasizing the cultural construction of motherhood. If woman-as-mother best describes prehistoric social strategies, then critical consideration of what these mothers do forces serious reorientation in our understanding of the resulting divisions of labor and social organization. Alternatively, if prehistory provides situations of less or differently gendered visions of society, ethnography and research on modern mothering suggest potentially diverse ways of organizing society to fulfill the requirements of infants and children.
The literature on mothering derives from a variety of disciplines. By pulling many writings together I hope to provide an understanding of our construction of motherhood and discuss alternatives for evaluation of such an institution in prehistoric contexts. Psychobiology, psychology, primatology, sociobiology, behavioral studies, and biosocial approaches all attempt to scientize mothering. Feminist influence in the literature has focused on validating mothering for women, recognizing Mothering as a crucial issue for women (and men). My superficial treatment of these contributions to the mothering literature does not highlight any deterministic influences, as "there is no single, undisputed claim about universal human behavior (sexual or otherwise) " (Fausto-Sterling 1985:199). Rather, I present plausibility arguments which focus on various aspects of people and the way they have been understood.
For conceptual clarity, two aspects of motherhood are often distinguished: biological mothering (the birth relation) and social mothering, although such divisions or categories must remain fluid and permeable, as we are not "stratified into a biological base and a cultural superstructure" (Errington 1990:14). There is a relevant undeniable biological "fact" in that females give birth. This reality contrasts with the changing ambiguity of parenting within ethnographic contexts and the growing acceptance of the cultural construction of "biologically" based explanations. The conceptual distinction between mothering labor and birthing labor is important. Birthing labor, which isbiological and culminates in giving birth, is
________________________________________
Page 50
undeniably female and remains universally in the realm of women (Ruddick 1989:50). Raising, feeding, protecting, and caring for children commonly defines the activities of motherhood, and occur under a variety of conditions. Socially, all women are potentially mothers, yet often overlooked is the fact that these social functions are not limited to women (Reed 1975:13), or even specific age groups. Throughout this paper, I entertain the idea that these aspects of mothering can be fulfilled by different individuals or groups of individuals.
The concept and practice of Motherhood is by definition gendered - women, through biology, mother (Chodorow 1978; Collier and Rosaldo 1981; DeBeauvoir 1952; Miles 1989; Rich 1976) - but my focus does not attempt to impose this contemporary phenomena on prehistory. Rather, considering the extent to which mothering is part of the past requires serious attention to mothers, fathers, children, and elders in society. It requires approaching the social system as a whole.
Much of the literature on mothering does assume (or promote) a universal model of the woman/mother. The universal Woman possesses a universal distinguishing feature - the capacity to Mother. As humans are social beings, and infants are not self sufficient (Reed 1984; Lancaster 1985), the most essential task of this Mother is bearing and raising children. As with any universally applied concept, the Mother concept creates analytical problems through reliance on a transhistorical, universal, sexual division of labor. The extent to which generalizations can be accepted and the need for explicitness of context raise crucial problems to be resolved in the mothering literature. Once mother becomes an issue and not just a factor, and the specific contexts in which mothering activity takes place have been defined, discussions of mothering activity most often revolve around discussion of women. In contrast to this genderization of mothering we may need to "de-gender" mothering, in light of the consideration of mothering as not solely reliant on the definition of woman-as-biology.
In this assimilation stage, I deal with theoretical considerations of prehistoric motherhood. As theory is often a self-fulfilling prophecy, it orders experience into the frameworks it provides (Hubbard 1983:46) thus opening up future interpretation. Heavily informed by feminist theory, I attempt to deconstruct Mother at its most basic level - biology-reproduction-woman-mother - and offer some alternative constructions. By looking beyond the confines of our gender conceptions to the social relations operating within prehistoric societies, this paper seeks a framework for understanding the social construction of gender, through Mother. Such questioning forces consideration of alternative scenarios for how prehistoric adults organized around children. I argue that much of mothering activity cross cuts gender - and does not require a bipolar gender construction of woman-as-mother. There is no one prehistoric type of mother. In conclusion I will consider ways to envision prehistoric mothers.
Why prehistory?
Often those working in historic periods and with ethnographic continuity claim greater access to 'knowledge' and profess more accurate descriptions or depictions of the past (Watson and Gould 1982). Models for constructing the past strengthen and collapse in relation to the specific "evidence" being applied. Those working in "far-back prehistory" simply do not have the evidence to say much about people or social relations, some would argue. Yet prehistorians do have material remains, and thus the archaeological tools for reading the past. Prehistory potentially holds more flexible models for the past than simply transplanting modern gatherer-hunters or nuclear families.
Despite difficulties derived from an unwillingness to expand the boundaries of our knowledge, understanding the past remains essential to understanding and surviving the present. The patriarchal society we operate within shapes our knowledge and consideration about women and mothers; simultaneously, archaeology is shaped by sociopolitical concerns (Leone 1982). The combination of these influences while constructing the past creates a reproductive path for prehistoric women which correctly mirrors contemporary society and its ideologies. "We legitimize the division and inequalities in our own society by making them the inevitable outcome of inevitable forces" in the past (Bender 1986:5). Women today are believed to be unequal, weaker, biologically inferior and evolutionary unimportant; under patriarchal, androcentric, and traditional archaeological frameworks, this ideology creates similar women in the past. Aspects of the past re-defined in relation to the present are pushed back in time, naturalized, and thereby given continuity (Conkey 1991).
Archaeology is a powerful method for constructing prehistory; prehistory exists as creative tensions between world views - those of the present and those of the past (as viewed through the present). The strongest determinant for "knowledge" of prehistory is contemporary influences, from funding source, to audience, to explicit and implicit agendas underlying research. Prehistory is a period in time created to serve our interests - the prehistoric 'Other' lives in a
________________________________________
Page 51
different time and place, accessible through archaeology, paleontology, and analogy and homology to other primates and ethnographic examples. Many disciplines discuss prehistoric peoples to a variety of ends, yet only archaeology is concerned with the material dimensions of society and is responsive to the material parameters.
Archaeologists attempt to display the cultural diversity of prehistoric people and develop "culture" chronologies. Often though, this diversity appears in lithic assemblages, ceramic production technique, or resource procurement strategy. The people of these archaeological cultures become mono- groups, not individualistic and variable assemblages of people. The common acceptance of static groups rather than critically constructed people escalates the problem of considering active prehistoric people. If there is no homogeneous "prehistoric people", then there can be no one prehistoric mother but negotiated, different "mothers".
At this point, archaeology informs us about mothers mainly as reproductive units, and it and other disciplines then import these biologically adaptive mothers into the past to validate models of evolution and development. Yet we know from cross cultural, ethnographic, and historic contexts that the institution of motherhood entails more than strict biological reproduction, which may or may not describe how things were in the past. What mothering involves then, must be addressed next, prior to a consideration of mothering within archaeological contexts.
Addressing mothering: Myths and Construction of Alternatives
The relative lack of focus on mothering is unsurprising, given the contemporary devaluation of mothers in Western society, nonrecognition of children as individuals, and societal subordination of women. In popularizing the 'universal' experience of (white, middle class) mothers, many feminists (Chodorow 1978; Gilligan 1982; Rich 1976; Ruddick 1989, among others) argue from a specific western historic tradition, but suggest that motherhood is natural and has historic and prehistoric antecedents. Within the feminist literature many writers also do not question biodeterminist notions (for example, DeBeauvoir 1952; French 1985; Lerner 1986; Rich 1976). Use of a generalized notion of prehistory, and discovery of a "lost primitive egalitarianism" (Collier and Rosaldo 1981:277) becomes not only a basis for construction of a glorious past (Miles 1989; Stone 1976) but then becomes an ideal for the future (Eisler 1987; Gadon 1990).
In many ways, research on the past selectively seeks "evidence "to maintain the dominant view of what our early social relations were or alternatively provides oppositional views which offer a "certain psychological and political sense of well being" (Fausto-Sterling 1985:175). Feminist approaches in anthropology and archaeology have begun to deconstruct biased literature and the concept of the universal woman.Yet clearly such work has not been integrated throughout disciplines. Archaeologists, as writers of prehistoric knowledge and narrative, must address this manifestation of the present in the past to provide more plausible models for the past. Although relativism and pluralism have been critiqued as ultimately paralyzing, research must operate within a growing holistic approach to reality and the past.
Women's capacity to have children, or men's inability to "have children", distinguishes them from each other. Our persisting distinctions in gender categories depend on reproductive technologies. This conflation of female identity with reproduction and female sexual biology "mimics a similarly narrow view of the contemporary female" (Campbell 1991:2).Yet, as Collier and Rosaldo have argued, themes of motherhood and sexual reproduction hold various degrees of centrality to conceptions of women (Collier and Rosaldo 1981:275-6). Reluctance within our society to allow women reproductive rights reflects the prevailing woman-as-reproducer model, which is assumed for the past as well. As Conkey and Williams have argued for origins research, the present is invoked in research of the past (see also Leone 1982); this past is used to explain (and I would argue, justify) the present (Conkey and Williams 1991:19).
Archaeology practices a "'masculinist construction of the world', in which females are assumed to exist primarily for the use of males, sexually or reproductively" (Nelson 1990:16) or for labor.The division of labor within early groups has been conceived of as a sexual one, based on the limitations of women for full participation in sustaining activities and defining women's activity based on a constraining model of motherhood. "Because of natural or normal involvement with pregnancy, nursing and or care of the young, [women] were inclined and ultimately required to refrain from certain subsistence activities .." (Leibowitz 1986:47). According to such views, demands on childcare limit compatibility of tasks for women and determine the sexual division of labor; responsibility in childcare must be reduced or economic activity must be such that it is concurrent with childcare (Brown 1970:1075). The "ability to give birth has been transformed into a liability ..." (Leacock 1972:35). Rather than constructing divisions of labor
________________________________________
Page 52
or activities as forming around child care (Burton et al. 1977), women were viewed conjoined to other activities for reproductive success. This assumes a unquestioned biologically based motherhood and sees a sexual division of labor as natural with women tied to children and "housebound" (Bender 1986:3). Yet women do not operate within a "set of natural given tasks common to all societies at all times; nor can it be assumed that all women perform these tasks" (Moore 1988:53). In the "denigration of domesticity" (Strathern 1984:30) that prevails today, mothering is not considered an official "job" and "being at home" is not an acceptable occupation, attitudes which influence presentation of a prehistoric division of labor.
Woman-the-gatherer may be an gynocentric inversion of the androcentric model, but a serious consideration of the divisions of labor and gender relations moves away from simple unquestioned acceptance of biased stereotypes. Evolutionary-based approaches propose innovations and inventions by women in prehistoric society and indicate the selective and active role of females in their reproduction (Fedigan 1986; Tanner and Zihlman 1976; Zihlman 1978, 1981). One of the valuable lessons learned through considerations of woman-the-gatherer (Dahlberg 1981; Slocum 1975) was that earlier notions of prehistoric subsistence revolving around big game had to be revised. However, a fundamental flaw in the evolutionary/woman as gatherer models is its acceptance of present day notions of childrearing for prehistoric contexts, although none of our divisions or obligations are written into nature (Bender 1986:3). Although our understanding of hunting has changed, the male terminology and emphasis persists.
Slocum claims that the mother-child bond is the major enduring bond in gatherer society (Slocum 1975:43). Lerner (1986) also considers the mother-child dyad the most basic one throughout history. The prolonged infancy, immaturity and helplessness of the child necessitates the assistance of others for survival. The long childhood and maternal care produces a close relationship between mother (or care provider) and child (Gough 1975:55). The need to organize for feeding and socializing the child after weaning involves complex social and emotional bonds and relationships. Much of the modification through learning and cultural molding considered essential to survival depends upon 'maternal' care yet contrary to the dyad argument does not require woman mothers. The formation of a child-adult bond, the differentiation from self, the struggle for autonomy, and the awareness of 'other' that occurs during early child development can flourish with fathers, siblings, or other adults in place.
Our understanding of early societies often incorporates a view of Mother within the Family. We see early societies as bands or tribes, and construct our models of their existence on loosely based, heterosexual relations which organize around continuation of the species. To free women from their biology threatens both the social unit of organization, if it is based in biological reproduction, and the subjection of women to their biological destiny (Motherhood and the Family) (Reed 1984:139). Our ideas of mothers are products of history, in which we recognize the producer:offspring relationship in nuclear family terms. Yet the family is a historical development rooted in a so called natural necessity (O'Brien 1981) which privileges the biologically rooted mother-infant bond. Thus the biological nuclear family requires antecedents in prehistory; it must be the 'natural' (therefore unchangeable) way. However, a variety of sources indicate that family formation varies significantly; monogamy, polygamy, single parenthood, faculative polyandry (Lancaster 1988:5). It is within these specific social configurations, that biology, psychology, and other forces articulate with the people of these contexts.
Human reproduction does require pregnancy, however, the extent of physical "limitation" (if any) this imposes can vary, and some pregnancies do not reach full term. Ethnographic data (in gathering-hunting societies and predictions for Pleistocene populations) suggest that the actual birth rate for babies demonstrates high infant mortality, and a high percentage of babies die before they reach one year of age; estimated prehistoric child mortality averages 50% (Deevey 1968; Hassan 1975; Konner 1976; Lancaster 1985:12). Furthermore, and often ignored in prehistory, cultural factors act on child mortality: control and regulation of childbirth, affects of living conditions, nutrition, healthcare, disease, accidents, neglect (Lillehammer 1989:100). Clearly such considerations factor into the composition of the female mothering population. Not all women in society are under the "physiological confinements" of eternal mothering; not all women constantly (or ever) produce children. There are periods within a sexually reproductive female's life span when she does not fall victim to the 'limitations' of biology; some women may be infertile, post menopausal, or otherwise chose not to reproduce.
The most significant biological "reality" of females beyond birth is the demand for lactation of dependent young. Yet, the practice of lactation shows variability at many levels - frequency, length of time, multiple feeders of children, non-biological mothers feeding, or alternative food sources. Lactation assures the maintenance of proximity between mother and newborn
________________________________________
Page 53
(Rossi 1985:176) yet infants do not demand strictly their biological mother, they just need to be fed which may shift the location of this relationship. Composition of prehistoric groups often relies on "required" mother-infant lactation as "natural" birth spacing. Cavalli-Sforza (1983:60) points to evidence that after one and one half or less years of lactation, menstruation will begin again, which contrasts with common assertions of birth spacing every three to four years when nursing. Lancaster (1988:61) claims that a return to menstruation does not equate or necessarily imply a return to ovulation, which is the crucial requirement for reproduction. And, as ethnographic examples indicate, women can also "lose" the ability to breast feed (Scheper-Hughes 1992) or otherwise practice no lactation, yet their baby survives. In such cases, however, the "natural", universal, essential mother-child bond is threatened. Thus, arguments for birth spacing and lactation must be questioned, as patterns can be less "biologically" determined.
The origin of attachment, often considered critical to infant development in psychology, has been attributed to predatory selection pressures (Bowlby 1969), presumably deriving from early prehistory.The desired quality of physical intimacy/closeness in psychological theorizing does not require a specific, biological mother. However, social influences can be shown to be more important than behaviorist stimulus (Haraway 1989) as Harlow demonstrated with desirable quality-enhanced inanimate figures. Harlow's experiments in primate attachment have demonstrated a multi-attachment system (as cited in (McKinney 1985:246)) rather than assumed monotrophy (Tronick et al. 1985:294); infant to non-mother bonds work equally well in fulfilling both nutritional and social aspects of infant development.
In addition to underlying assumptions that children do survive, discussions of historic, ethnographic, and prehistoric people implicitly enforce our definition of the child as an individual from birth (or conception, dependent upon stance). Ethnographic data indicate a variety of cultural recognitions of an individual; postponed naming, baptism, and other treatments of babies indicate varying degrees of defining when an offspring becomes an individual/person (Morgan 1989; Scheper-Hughes 1992). Infanticide, "passive" neglect, indifference, and killing of infants have been cultural responses to specific environmental, social, and economic conditions and stress. Depending upon cultural context, such actions do not negate the ideals of mothering or maternal care; this cultural response reflects an alternative conception of death rather than bad mothering, and mothers are not responsible for such "tragedy". "Infanticide, then, with all the moral repugnance it evokes in the West, is a cultural construction rather then a universal moral edict" (Morgan 1989:98).
Material Culture of Mothering
Having explored the cultural construction of mothering activity, I turn to a brief consideration of archaeological contexts. We "know" there were female and males and children in prehistory because we are a sexually reproducing species, yet we emphasize our "knowledge" of women and men in accordance with the prevailing bipolar conception of gender and models of adaptive success which require heterosexuality. Our knowledge of contemporary women and men peoples prehistory and clearly improves on accounts of prehistoric Man although there still remain few alternatives to our bipolar gender categories.
In their refusal to accept that reproduction is an arena of active social relations, not just a biological phenomena, prehistorians in general assume woman-as-mother, a result of the reproductive process. The traditional Man-the-Hunter and woman-the-gatherer models of prehistoric people can be extended to woman-as-mother and man-as-toolmaker; not only do women not make (formal) tools (but see Gero, 1991), but they do make babies (Al-Hibri 1981). Yet women are not active agents in these prehistoric contexts, despite their primary role as re-producers (Conkey and Williams 1991:20). In fact, it is men who (re)produce Cultural Man and the dominant paradigm through the object of women. Cultural Man evolves with his subservient, child producing "wife". Not only does the woman-at-home ideology characterize archaeology (Gero 1985), but in prehistoric contexts, woman-at-home is woman-as-mother.
A necessary precursor to looking archaeologically for social relations as evident in mothering activity must be engendering archaeology. Feminist archaeologists suggest and demonstrate the importance of considering how and in what contexts women were active participants in society; various lines of evidence have been engendered, setting the precedent for further delving into the social relations of prehistoric contexts (especially articles in Gero and Conkey 1991). In both biological and social manifestations, motherhood requires more than passive women in prehistory.
Like gender, we can not "find" motherhood as we "find" lithic debris or ceramic sherds. The lack of direct identification of artifacts which cry out "I am evidence of mothering" like a projectile point supposedly indicates hunting activity is indicative of the responsibility of archaeologists to deal with the "less visible" aspects of the archaeological record. What kind of evidence does 'mothering' leave archaeologically? How can we
________________________________________
Page 54
"find it" empirically? For a start I return to defining what 'it' is. Separating the activity of mothering, which may be configured in different ways, from the biological role, clarifies the understanding of what one is looking for. A mother, as biological relation, can potentially be indicated through analysis of skeletal remains. Birth results in morphological indications on the pelvis; yet retrieval of such physical evidence of birthing is rare and we can not expect or rely on associated, well-preserved cemeteries for all archaeological research. Material and skeletal evidence of children, and the continuing presence of people through time proves that some women actually produced children and these children were sufficiently raised and survived.
Mothers may feed infants, but breast feeding leaves no known material evidence and preparation of alternative baby foods falls within the general archaeological realm of food production or subsistence activities. Chemical analyses of skeletal remains can indicate food (especially meat vs. plant) differences, and subsistence evidence suggests dietary patterns (Price 1988). Archaeologists potentially can differentiate beyond female and male dietary patterns to explore food systems and social relations (Hastorf 1991).
Women carry their infants (burdening), keeping them in close contact. An innovation, such as a strap or sling to facilitate transport of the infant, would not likely preserve, and such mention appears infrequently in archaeological literature (see Reed 1975; Slocum 1975; Zihlman 1978). Baskets made to hold or encage children likewise would not leave archaeological traces. By overlooking or ignoring the potentials of such less archaeologically visible evidence, the infant always on the mother's hip continues to burden prehistoric women.
Social mothering blends together some research on kinship, gender, and social organization. Mothers are claimed to be primary socializing agents, yet archaeologists struggle with "seeing" social interaction as directly reflected in material culture. Some of the social and symbolic communication preserved within the archaeological record may have operated within the social mother's realm. Such culturally motivated aspects of society require informed interpretation from archaeological materials, a shift to considering the active people behind the appearance of exotic materials, technology, artifacts, architecture, food, and refuse, and forces consideration of the social relations within which all this occurs. Thus we have access to aspects of socialization which may describe mothering activity.
In a rare critical consideration of mothers in prehistory, Rice (1981) suggests that the European "Venus figurines" represent women through their life cycle. If such analysis can be taken as suggestive of prehistoric social make up, a model of group composition and the place of mothers can be projected having four reproduction-related age groups: pre-reproduction, reproductive and pregnant, reproductive and not pregnant, post reproductive. Only a minority of a given population actually produces infants at a given time, yet other individuals within the society can contribute to social mothering.
Little material culture evidence seems to "get at" prehistoric mothers directly. Do we discard this discussion as too problematic, intangible, and ultimately non-informative or not "provable"? Archaeologists do, to various extents, recognize the accessibility of gender, and no technological breakthrough, highly significant find, or even hoards of skeletal material have stimulated this. Repeatedly, feminist archaeology and archaeologies of gender have stressed the changing methodological/theoretical focus that will allow for us to understand gender in the past. The emergence of social archaeology, contextual approaches, and interpretive archaeology (Hodder 1991) has been an integral part of this trend. What is visible to archaeology is constructed through the research strategy, data recovery, and interpretation. Therefore, openness to alternative interpretations expands the archaeological record and allows for understanding prehistoric people.
Discussion: Archaeology & Implications
Many of the myths of motherhood raised here need closer examination yet my brief overview serves as a trampoline for constructing a broader theoretical framework. As can be demonstrated in a wide ethnographic sample, there are alternatives to the biological mother as primary care giver. Children born of biological mothers dying in childbirth would require alternative caretakers and food providers. Failure to carry to full term or early loss of infants provides baby-free women, who are not "burdened" by infants and could participate in nursing and other caring activities. If the breast food link can be severed and the feeding of the infant accomplished another way, the possibilities for who provides primary care open up. Ethnographic cases of gatherer-hunters demonstrate children in charge of infants and children, yet the Mother, who plays no active role, periodically "supervises", and maintains the (non-practiced) role (Draper 1976; LeVine 1974; Shostak 1976). Even if the biological mother nurses the baby, this does not require a full time commitment to a mother-baby pair. The model of indulgence (LeVine 1974) and constant
________________________________________
Page 55
feeding does not necessarily hold for prehistory. Placing women in domestic contexts, and depositing children with them, limits our understanding of archaeological sites, and neglects the awareness that any mother-child dyad, created by proximity or lactation, is ultimately enmeshed within the social group (Rossi 1985:176). Constraints on activity and divisions of labor change if one can feed sporadically and leave the baby with others in between.
During early prehistory, evolutionists would have us believe that life was a struggle, which only the fittest survive. It would follow then that those creating and enabling this survival are irreplaceable. For survival and perpetuation of the species, reproductive and caretaking work would be critical. If women do fulfill such essential societal roles, the responsibility for perpetuation of the species through role as mother is central to social organization. Men's traditionally accepted role - that of hunter - results not from physical strength or innate aggressiveness but as a supplementary role to mothering activity. Hunting takes men off in rounds, removed from the "essential" tasks of childcare/feeding, indicating either (social) inadequacy or social prescriptions to perform these tasks or the potential of the community to survive and defend itself with this peripheral male participation.
________________________________________
Page 56
Deconstructing Mother allows for construction of Father, beyond simple images of an expendable hunter out on raids; childcare becomes an area for men's activity. "Men and women must have done other things with their tine besides hunting and gathering" (Ingold 1987:79), and mothering and fathering activities add to a fuller understanding of prehistoric social organization. Bowlby's (1969) classic work on attachment suggests that the patterns of attachment shown with men (as fathers) resembled that of women (as mothers). Such correlation in behavior patterns reinforces the interchangeability of woman mothers and men fathers as care givers (Klaus and Kennell 1983) and broadens potential conceptions of social interaction.
The question of choice and desire, as well as value of role, infrequently enters into discussions of early prehistoric people. But clearly consideration of people (especially women) as active decision makers changes the conceptualization of persons-as-pawn within equilibrium. If women can be freed from a strict mothering role, the prehistoric division of labor depends less on gender limitations. Thus, we can see the hunting=male model for the idealized notion that it is. The definition of the past, through our periodization and construction of prehistory, is undoubtedly male-oriented. However, deconstruction of our notion of woman and mothering helps us reconceptualize prehistoric divisions of labor and leads to the possibility of transforming social relations in the past and freeing them from the idealized present.
The next progression in this analysis is consideration of childhood, which is equally culturally constructed. The validity and necessity of covering childhood has been noted (Lillehammer 1989) and explored in anthropology (Mead 1959, 1970; Whiting 1963) and social history (Aries 1962; deMause 1974; Erikson 1963). Inclusion of active people within social theory oriented studies leads to addressing the context of the transference of culture and tradition - from one generation to another. This transference occurs through existing social configurations; adult to adult, children to adults, between children. Technology, symbolism, ideology, production, subsistence strategies, and hunting all pass through and articulate within socialization and interrelations. Archaeologists do study these issues as expressed in material culture yet are only now considering the social embeddedness and broader orientations of technological production (Dobres 1991a). Focusing on the divisions of labor in productive activities and critically considering daily social interaction can not proceed without a broadened understanding of prehistory. Thus, the transformation of unsocialized infants to socially recognized person provides the ideal context for the ideas of culture, tradition, and culture change which archaeologists attempt to present.
Bachofen's (1861:xvii) argument for matriarchy relies on the "simple fact" that babies survive only because of maternal care and thus posits that the relation at the origin of all culture is that between Mother and child. Such a belief essentially condemns mothers to a life oriented around motherhood, yet also suggests a primary role for women in society. In questioning this role as the dominant model for society and in challenging and freeing women from the burdens of motherhood, I wish to keep both options as viable, to be considered against the material parameters of culture to which archaeologists have access. The division of labor, relations of production, family, and household are important elements in construction of the past but unquestioned reliance on the "most basic relation", woman-as-mother, will only continue to perpetuate our cultural constructions within the past rather than critically evaluate what archaeological knowledge can add to understanding these relations.
This paper has focused on whether woman-as-mother can be applied universally to prehistory, as often assumed. By considering some of the relevant discussion of infant development, I do not deny the significance of parental-infant, parental-child relations, but I attempt to broaden our visions for unknown (and different) prehistoric contexts and the potential ways people - men, women, and however else gender may have been socially organized - cared for children. Seriously rethinking models for the diversity of social relations, by questioning what mothering as social activity entails, and who might fulfill these tasks, provides insight into alternative but plausible readings of the archaeological record, as meaning and organization must be understood within the complex social whole (Collier and Rosaldo 1981:315).
Acknowledgements
This paper was stimulated by my participation in a seminar on the Cultural Construction of Motherhood,
________________________________________
Page 57
taught by Nancy Scheper-Hughes, which forced me to deal with the inadequate treatment of mothers in prehistory. Ongoing discussion and support from Marcia Anne-Dobres has been invaluable. Meg Conkey provided encouragement and advice, which is much appreciated. Special thanks to Meg Conkey, Marcia-Anne Dobres and Amy Grey who all took the time to read an early draft and offered comments which helped refine my arguments.
Endnotes
1. I do not assume that mothers exist in prehistory, as we can not necessarily find currently known phenomena in the past.
2. We differentiate biological, step, and adoptive mothers to clearly define the degree of the mothering relation. In our society we commonly accept that an adoptive mother is not the "real" mother, and that one who bears a child and subsequently gives it up for adoption is not a "mother" at all, yet we refuse to be open to such activities in the past (although by Ruddick's reasoning all mothers are adoptive (Ruddick 1989:51). References to "substitute care" implies that a substitute fills in for a normal, real, expected role, under temporary, less than optimally desired conditions. Common usage of such a notion fails to recognize the substituter as a viable alternative to our preconceived expectations. Consequently, women who work, with children under substitute care, remain the mothers of these children, unreflective of who actually performs the tasks of mothering.
3 Archaeologists "define a culture as an assemblage of associated traits that recur repeatedly" (Childe 1951:30).
4. Work by feminists-of-color (especially Lourde 1984; Moraga and Anzaldúa 1983, Spretnak 1982) has provided alternatives to this focus; interestingly often less dependent upon validation through the (white, androcentric, eurocentric) past - as Lorde notes, "assimilation within a solely western-european herstory is not acceptable".
5. Mothering in the historical past has taken different forms and fulfilled different ideologies. The values of mothering are context dependent, not universal or timeless. Social historians recognize that motherhood (as we know it) was invented in the late 18th century (Badinter 1981; Londa Schienbizer, personal communication, 1990); and Good Mothering is an invention of modernization (Shorter 1975). Historically Aries (1962) argues that maternal indifference characterizes traditional society and Badinter (1981) describes this "maternal indifference" in eighteenth century France.
6. Ethnographic examples raise cases of women hunters (Estioko-Griffin and Griffin 1981; Goodman et al. 1985) and within "hunting" societies the contribution of hunted meat to subsistence is less crucial than plant foods (Lee and DeVore 1968).
7. The complex relation between Motherhood and divisions of labor has been addressed yet needs to be further explored (Mukhopadhyay and Higgins 1988). Leibowitz proposes that sharing between mother and infant leads to exchange of food and later social patterns of food use (1986). The scope of gathering arguably results from this bond; female's gathering, carrying, and sharing foods with the young forms from the logical extension of an intense mother-infant bond (Slocum 1975). Zihlman (1978, 1981) argues further that women's gathering role may invoke the foundations for hunting.
8. Wealthy eighteenth century women shipped infants off to be raised by wet nurses, as the birth mother was not desirable for this task (Badinter 1981; Shorter 1975). Baby formula represents the twentieth century manifestation of alternative feeding.
9. Liebowitz (1986:69) suggests that large proportions of early foraging populations exhibited lesser physical differences in preadult females and males; adulthood only appears after sex maturation. Such insight must force us to reconsider gender within such groups; social differentiation may be through age (adult, preadult, transitional) but only adults are women and men.
10. Rice deals with the "Venus" figurines in an innovative way, and moves beyond simple interpretation of fertility or Goddess figurines. Yet further caution must be taken in applying biological judgements (as to reproductive status) as well as conceptions of sexuality (and gender) to figurines exhibiting tremendous variability and time depth (Dobres 1991b; Nelson 1990).
11. Haraway (1989) claims the American male is physically endowed with all the really essential equipment to compete with the American female on equal terms in the essential activity of rearing infants. Yet Americans are unwilling to accept such a construction in the past or present.
________________________________________
Page 58
References Cited
Al-Hibri, A.
1981 Capitalism is an Advanced Stage of Patriarchy, But Marxism is not Feminism. In Women and Revolution: The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism, edited by L. Sargent, pp. 165-194. South End Press, Boston.
Aries, Philippe
1962 Centuries of Childhood; a Social History of French Life. Knopf, New York.
Bachofen, J. J.
1861 Das Mutterrecht. Benno Schwabe, Basel, Switzerland.
Badinter, Elisabeth
1981 Mother Love: Myth or Reality; Motherhood in Modern History.. Macmillian, New York.
Bender, Barbara
1986 The Roots of Inequality. Paper presented at the World Archaeology Conference, Southampton, England.
Bowlby, John
1969 Attachment and Loss. Basic Books, New York.
Brown, Judith K.
1970 A Note on the Sexual Division of Labor by Sex.American Anthropologist 72:1073-1078.
Burton, M. L., L. A. Brudner, and D. R. White
1977 A Model for the Sexual Division of Labor.American Anthropologist 79:568-583.
Campbell, S. Kate
1991 Woman as Body, Unearthed: The Case of Prehistoric Figurines. Paper presented at the 35th Annual Meeting of the Kroeber Anthropology Society, Berkeley.
Cavalli-Sforza, L. L.
1983 Discussion. In How Humans Adapt, edited by D. J. Ortner, pp. 60-61. Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington, D. C.
Childe, V. Gordon
1951 Social Evolution. Watts and Company, London.
Chodorow, Nancy
1978 The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of Gender. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Collier, Jane F., and Michelle Z. Rosaldo
1981 Politics and Gender in Simple Societies. In Sexual Meanings: the Cultural Construction of Gender and Sexuality, edited by S. B. Ortner and H. Whitehead, pp. 275-329. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Conkey, Margaret W.
1991 Does it Make a Difference? Feminist Thinking and Archaeologies of Gender. In The Archaeology of Gender, edited by Dale Walde and Noreen Willows, pp. 24-33. Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary.
Conkey, Margaret W. and Sarah H. Williams
1991 Original Narratives: The Political Economy of Gender in Archaeology. In Gender at the Crossroads of Knowledge: Feminist Anthropology in the Postmodern Era, edited by M. di Leonardo, pp. 68-89. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Dahlberg, Frances (editor)
1981 Woman the Gatherer. Yale University Press, New Haven.
DeBeauvoir, Simone
1952 The Second Sex. Vintage Press, New York.
________________________________________
Page 59
Deevey, Edward
1968 Pleistocene Family Planning. In Man the Hunter, edited by R. B. Lee and I. DeVore, pp. 248-249. Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago.
deMause, Lloyd
1974 The History of Childhood: the Untold Story of Child Abuse. Bedrich, New York.
Dobres, Marcia-Anne
1991a Production as Process, Artifacts as Artifice. Paper presented at the 56th annual meeting of the
Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans.
1991b Re-presentation of Paleolithic Visual Imagery: Simulacra and Their Alternatives. In Occasional Papers of the Kroeber Anthropological Society, edited by J. Hyland. Kroeber Anthropological Society (in press).
Draper, Patricia
1976 Social and Economic Constraints on Child Life among the !Kung. In Kalahari Hunter-Gatherers, edited by R. Lee and I. DeVore, pp. 199-217. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Eisler, Rianne
1987 The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future. Harper and Row, San Francisco.
Erikson, Erik H.
1963 Childhood and Society. W. W. Norton, New York.
Errington, Sherry
1990 Recasting Sex, Gender, and Power. In Power and Difference: Gender in Island Southeast Asia, edited by J . M. Atkinson and S. Errington, pp. 1-58. Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Estioko-Griffin, Agnes and P. Bion Griffin
1981 Woman the Hunter: The Agta. In Woman the Gatherer, edited by F. Dahlberg, pp. 121-131. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Fausto-Sterling, Anne
1985 Myths of Gender: Biological Theories About Women and Men. Basic Books, New York.
Fedigan, Linda Marie
1986 The Changing Role of Women in Models of Human Evolution. In Annual Review of Anthropology 15: 25-66.
French, Marilyn
1985 Beyond Power : On Women, Men and Morals. Ballantine, New York.
Gadon, Elinor W.
1990 The Once and Future Goddess : A Symbol for Our Time. Harper and Row, San Francisco.
Gero, Joan M.
1985 Socio-Politics and the Woman-at-Home Ideology. American Antiquity 50(2):342-350.
1991 Genderlithics. In Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, edited by J. M. Gero and M. W. Conkey, pp. 163-193. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Gero, Joan M. and Margaret W. Conkey (editors)
1991 Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Gilligan, Carol
1982 In a Different Voice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Goodman, M. J., P. Bion Griffin, A. A. Estioko-Griffin and J. S. Grove
1985 The Compatibility of Hunting and Mothering among the Agta Hunter-gatherers of the Philippines. Sex Roles 12:1199-1209.
Gough, Kathleen
1975 The Origin of the Family. In Toward an Anthropology of Women, edited by R. Reiter, pp. 51-76. Monthly Review Press, New York.
Haraway, Donna
1989 Primate Visions. Routledge, New York.
Hassan, F. A.
1975 Determination of the size, growth rate of hunting-gathering. In Population, and Social Evolution, edited by S. Polgar, pp. 27-52. The Hague, Paris.
________________________________________
Page 60
Hastorf, Christine
1991 Gender, Space, and Food in Prehistory. In Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory , edited by J. M. Gero and M. W. Conkey, pp. 132-159. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Hodder, Ian
1991 Interpretive Archaeology and Its Role. American Antiquity 56(1):7-18.
Hubbard, Ruth
1983 Have Only Men Evolved? In Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science, edited by S. Harding and M. B. Hintikka, pp. 45-69. D. Reidel Publishing, Dordrecht.
Ingold, Tim
1987 The Appropriation of Nature: Essays on Human Ecology and Social Relations. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City.
Klaus, Marshall H. and John H. Kennell
1983 Bonding: the Beginning of Parent-infant Attachment. New American Library, New York.
Konner, Melvin J.
1976 Maternal Care, Infant Behavior and Development among the !Kung. In Kalahari Hunter-Gatherers, edited by R. Lee and I. DeVore, pp. 218-245. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Lancaster, Jane B.
1985 Evolutionary Perspectives on Sex Differences in the Higher Primates. In Gender and the Life Cycle, edited by A. B. Rossi, pp. 3-28. Aldine, New York.
1988 Women in Biosocial Perspective. American Anthropological Association Project on Gender and the Curriculum, Washington, D. C.
Leacock, Eleanor Burke
1972 Introduction. In Frederick Engel's The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, edited by E. Leacock, pp. 7-67. International, New York.
Lee, Richard B. and Irven DeVore (editors)
1968 Man the Hunter. Aldine, Chicago.
Leibowitz, Lila
1986 In the Beginning . . . : The Origins of The Sexual Division of Labour and the Development of the First Human Societies. In Women's Work, Men's Property: The Origins of Gender and Class, edited by S. Coontz and P. Henderson, pp. 43-75. Verso, London.
Leone, Mark P.
1982 Some Opinions About Recovering Mind. American Antiquity 47:742-760.
Lerner, Gerda
1986 The Creation of Patriarchy. Oxford Press, New York.
LeVine, Robert A.
1974 Parental Goals: A Cross-Cultural View.College Record 78(2).
Lillehammer, Grete
1989 A Child is Born. The Child's World in an Archaeological Perspective. Norwegian Archaeological Review 22(2):90-105.
Lourde, Audre
1984 Sister Outsider. The Crossing Press, New York.
McKinney, William T.
1985 Separation and Depression: Biological Markers. In The Psychobiology of Attachment and Separation, edited by M. Reite and T. Field, pp. 201-222. Academic Press, Orlando.
________________________________________
Page 61
Mead, Margaret
1959 Four Families. National Film Board of Canada.
1970 Culture and Commitment: A Study of the Generation Gap. Natural History Press/Doubleday, Garden City.
Miles, Rosalind
1989 The Woman's History of the World. Salem House, Topsfield, Massachusetts.
Moore, Henrietta
1988 Feminism and Anthropology. Polity Press, Oxford.
Moraga, Cherríe and Gloria Anzaldúa (editors)
1983 This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color. Kitchen Table Press, New York.
Morgan, Lynn M.
1989 Where Does Life Begin? A Crosscultural Perspective on the Personhood of Fetuses and Young Children. In Abortion Rights and Fetal "Personhood", edited by E. Doerr and J. W. Prescott, pp. 97-114. Centerline Press, Long Beach.
Mukhopadhyay, Carol C. and Patricia Higgins
1988 Anthropological Studies of Women's Status Revisited: 1977-1987. Annual Review of Anthropology 17:461-495.
Nelson, Sarah M.
1990 Diversity of the Upper Paleolithic "Venus" Figurines and Archaeological Mythology. In Powers of Observation: alternative views in archaeology, edited by S. M. Nelson and A. B. Kehoe, pp. 11-22. American Anthropological Association, Washington D. C.
O'Brien, Mary
1981 The Politics of Reproduction. Routledge and Kegan Paul, Boston.
Price, T. Douglas
1988 Gender and Diet in Prehistory. Paper presented at the Women and Production in Prehistory Conference, Georgetown, South Carolina.
Reed, Evelyn
1975 Woman's Evolution from Matriarchal Clan to Patriarchal Family. Pathfinder Press, New York.
1984 Women: Caste, Class, or Oppressed Sex? In Feminist Frameworks: Alternative Theoretical Accounts of the Relations between Men and Women, edited by A. M. Jaggar and P. S. Rothenberg, pp. 132-135. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Rice, Patricia
1981 Prehistoric Venuses: Symbols of Motherhood or Womanhood? Journal of Anthropological Research 37: 402-414.
Rich, Adrienne
1976 Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution.W. W. Norton, New York.
Rossi, Alice B.
1985 Gender and Parenthood. In Gender and the Life Cycle, edited by A. B. Rossi, pp. 161-232. Aldine, New York.
Ruddick, Sarah
1989 Maternal Thinking: Towards a Politics of Peace. Ballantine, New York.
Scheper-Hughes, Nancy
1992 Death Without Weeping: The Violence of Everyday Life in Brazil. University of California Press, Berkeley. in press.
Shorter, Edward
1975 The Making of the Modern Family. Basic Books, New York.
Shostak, Marjorie
1976 A !Kung Woman's Memories of Childhood. In Kalahari Hunter-Gatherers, edited by R. Lee and I. DeVore, pp. 246-277. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Slocum, Sally
1975 Woman the Gatherer: Male Bias in Anthropology. In Toward an Anthropology of Women, edited by R. Reiter, pp. 36-50. Monthly Review Press, New York.
Spretnak, Charlene (editor)
1982 The Politics of Women's Spirituality. Anchor Books, New York.
________________________________________
Page 62
Strathern, Marilyn
1984 Domesticity and the Denigration of Women. In Rethinking Women's Roles: Perspectives from the Pacific, edited by D. O'Brien and S. W. Tiffany, pp. 13-31. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Stone, Merlin
1976 When God Was a Woman. Dial Press, New York.
Tanner, Nancy and Adrienne Zihlman
1976 Women in Evolution: Part I. Innovation and Selection in Human Origins.Signs 1:585-608.
Tronick, Edward Z., Steve Winn and Gilda A. Morelli
1985 Multiple Caretaking in the Context of Human Evolution: Why Don't the Efé Know the Western Prescription for Child Care? In The Psychobiology of Attachment and Separation, edited by M. Reite and T. Field, pp. 293-322. Academic Press, Orlando.
Watson, Patty Jo and Richard A. Gould
1982 A Dialogue on the Meaning of Use of Analogy in Ethnoarchaeological Reasoning. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:355-381.
Whiting, Beatrice B. (editor)
1963 Six Cultures: Studies of Child Rearing. Wiley, New York.
Zihlman, Adrienne L.
1978 Women in Evolution, Part II: Subsistence and Social Organization among Early Hominids. Signs 4:4-20.
1981 Women as Shapers of the Human Adaptation. In Woman the Gatherer, edited by F. Dahlberg, pp. 75-120. Yale University Press, New Haven.
=================
In the last century, American culture promoted a romanticized ideal to which all mothers are supposed to aspire. The ideal is the full-time, at-home, middleclass White mother fully engaged and fulfilled in the private sphere (Boris, 1994). Yet, at the turn of the twenty-first century, a number of motherhood ideologies compete for ascendancy. Research on the sources of motherhood ideologies has led to the historical analysis of self-help literature (Zimmerman, Holm, & Haddock, 2001), child-rearing manuals (Daily, 1982; Eyer, 1996), and expert advice (Ehrenreich & English, 1978). Other researchers have explored the role of socialized gender roles (Chodorow, 1978; Johnson, 1988) and cultural expectations (Daily, 1982; Maushart, 1999; Rich, 1976) on the construction of motherhood. Relatively little attention has been paid to the role of the media in constructing motherhood ideologies (Keller, 1994). The purpose of this study is to explore the portrayal of employed and at-home mothers in current women's magazines as a source of cultural myths and ideologies that define contemporary motherhood.
MOTHERHOOD IDEOLOGIES
To explore ideologies of motherhood, it is useful to recognize that motherhood is not biologically determined or socially ascribed. Motherhood is a social and historical construction (Bassin, Honey, & Kaplan, 1994; Glenn, 1994; Risman, 1998). Coontz (1992) argued that the "traditional family" with a wage-earner father and a stay-at-home mother is an historical and cultural aberration. Culture tells us what it means to be a mother, what behaviors and attitudes are appropriate for mothers, and how motherhood should shape relationships and self-identity.
Jayne Buxton (1998) described the adversarial climate of competing ideologies as the "mother war." She documented how stereotypical characterizations of the Superwoman (who efficiently manages her household and children with the same cold-hearted equanimity she employs in the business world) are pitted against the Earth Mother (who, barefoot and wearing kaftans, feeds her children home-grown organic foods with an everpresent beatific smile). Each motherhood camp justifies its own ideology by co-opting the values of the other: "I am a better mother if I work"; "I am resisting the dominant culture and exercising my free choice and power as a woman to stay at home with my children."
A dominant ideology supports the cultural hegemony by creating social expectations for a social group. For example, a patriarchial ideology of mothering denies women identities and selfhood outside of motherhood (Glenn, 1994). Feminist scholars have explored how current motherhood ideologies sustain patriarchy (Rothman, 1994), perpetuate the economic dependency of middle-class women and the economic exploitation of working-class and migrant women (Chang, 1994), and project White, middleclass mothers" experiences as universal and ideal (Collins, 1994). Culture defines and rewards "good mothers," and it sanctions "bad mothers."
There are many mothers who fall outside the club of "good motherhood" as defined by dominant motherhood ideologies. A number of scholars have noted the relegation of teenage mothers (Bailey, Brown, & Wilson, 2002), older mothers, single mothers, and lesbian mothers (Lewin, 1994) to the bottom rungs of the hierarchy of motherhood (DiLapi, 1989). A number of researchers have addressed both the historical and contemporary exclusion of African, Asian, and Latina American mothers from the cult of domesticity that defines American motherhood (Collins, 1994; Dill, 1988; Glenn, 1992).
There are clearly racial and class biases in the social construction of good and bad mothers. Solinger (1994) found that whereas Black single mothers are labeled deviant by the dominant culture, White single mothers are considered "troubled" but "redeemable." Although the conventional motherhood ideology maintains that mothers should not work outside the home, economically or financially privileged mothers continue to hire working-class women, and Women of Color, who are often mothers themselves, to perform the more arduous childcare work (BlairLoy, 2001; Chang, 1994). Thus, the construction of motherhood, particularly in the form of dominant ideologies, may have little correspondence to the lived social realities of mothers.
MOTHERHOOD MYTHS
The building blocks of ideologies are myths. Barthes (1972) defined a myth as an uncontested and unconscious assumption that is so widely accepted that its historical and cultural origins are forgotten. As such, myths of motherhood are presented as "natural," "instinctual," and "intuitive'' as opposed to "cultural," "economic," "political," and "historical" (Hrdy, 2000). Ideologies are born when myths are combined into coherent philosophies and politically sanctioned by the culture.
Myths of employed and at-home mothers abound in the culture. A cursory glance at the motherhood section of a bookstore is revealing. Employed mothers are tired, busy, and guilty (e.g., The Third Shift, Bolton, 2000; Motherguilt, Eyer, 1996). At-home mothers live in a state of bliss (e.g., Home by Choice: Raising Emotionally Secure Children in an Insecure World, Hunter, 2000; Mitten Strings for God, Kenison, 2000). On the negative side, at-home mothers suffer from "mommy mush brain" due to lack of intellectual stimulation (e.g., "I told one man, 'I'm a mother at home,' and was greeted with the sight of his back as he wandered off to find someone more important to talk to"-from the book jacket of Staying Home: From Full-Time Professional to Full-Time Parent, Sanders & Bullen, 1992). Employed mothers neglect their children, or at the very least have difficulty meeting children's basic needs of adequate food, clothing, protection, supervision, and security (e.g., Parent by Proxy: Don't Have Them If You Won't Rais e Them, Schlessinger, 2000). Employed mothers put their family relationships at risk and jeopardize mother-infant bonding (cf. Bad Mothers, Ladd-Tayloer & Uamnsky, 1998; and Mother-Infant Bonding: A Scientific Fiction, Eyer 1992, that challenge the veracity of these myths). In contrast, at-home mothers are bonded and attached to their children, to the point of being overinvolved, controlling, and enmeshed (e.g., When Mothers Work: Loving Our Children Without Sacrificing Our Selves, Peters, 1997). On the positive side, at-home mothers are ever present and therefore competent in protecting and supervising their children (e.g., Children First, Leach, 1995).
Coll, Cynthia Garcia, Janet L. Surrey, and Kathy Weingarten (eds.), Mothering Against the Odds: Diverse Voices of Contemporary Mothers
Garey, Anita Ilta, Weaving Work and Motherhood
Glenn, Evelyn Nakano, Grace Chang and Linda Rennie Forcey (eds.), Mothering: Ideology, Experience, and Agency
Gordon, Linda, Pitied, but Not Entitled
Hansen, Karen V. and Anita Ilta Garey (eds.), Families in the U.S.: Kinship and Domestic Politics
Hays, Sharon, The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood
Rich, Adrienne, Of Woman Born
Walzer, Susan, Thinking about the Baby: Gender and Transitions into
Parenthood
*alta, Momma: A Start on all the Untold Stories (New York: Times Change Press, 1974)
Rich, Adrienne, “Anger and Tenderness,” in Of Woman Born, pp. 21-40
*Olsen, Tillie, “I Stand Here Ironing,” in Tell Me a Riddle (New York: Dell, 1956), pp. 9-21
*Clark, Joanna, “Motherhood,” in The Black Woman: An Anthology edited by Toni Cade (New York: New American Library, 1970), pp. 63-72
Glenn, Evelyn Nakano “Social Constructions of Mothering: A Thematic Overview,” in Mothering, pp. 1-29
Collins, Patricia Hill, “Shifting the Center: Race, Class, and Feminist Theorizing About Motherhood,” in Mothering, pp. 45-65
Stack, Carol, and Linda Burton, “Kinscripts: Reflections on Family, Generation, and Culture,” in Mothering, pp. 33-44
Garey, Anita and Terry Arendell, “Children, Work, and Family: Some Thoughts on Mother Blame” http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/wfnetwork/berkeley/papers/4.pdf
Hays, Sharon, The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood, Chapters 1-2
*Antler, Joyce, “Was She a Good Mother? Some Thoughts on a New Issue for Feminist Biography,” in Women and the Structure of Society, edited by Barbara J. Harris and JoAnn K. McNamara (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1984), pp.53-66
*Childers, Mary, “A Spontaneous Welfare Rights Protest by Politically Inactive Mothers: A Daughter's Reflections,” The Politics of Motherhood: Activist Voices from Left to Right, edited by Alexis Jetter, et al. (University Press of New England, 1997), pp. 90-101
Rothman, Barbara Katz, “Beyond Mothers and Fathers: Ideology in a Patriarchal Society,” in Mothering, pp.139-157
*Roberts, Dorothy, “Racism and Patriarchy in the Meaning of Motherhood” in Mothers in Law: Feminist Theory and the Legal Regulation of Motherhood, edited by Martha Fineman and Isabel Karpin (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995), pp. 224-249
Schnitzer, “He Needs his Father: The Clinical Discourse and Politics of Single Mothering,” in Mothering Against the Odds, pp. 151-172
*Mink, Gwendolyn, “The Lady and the Tramp: Gender, Race, and the Origins of the Welfare State,” in Women, the State, and Welfare, edited by Linda Gordon (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1990), pp. 92-122
*Hollingworth, Leta S. “Social Devices for Impelling Women to Bear and Rear Children,” American Journal of Sociology, v. 22 (1916): 19-29
Gordon, Linda, Pitied, but Not Entitled, Chapters 1-3
*Polikoff, Nancy, “Lesbians Choosing Children: The Personal is Political Revisited,” in Politics of the Heart: A Lesbian Parenting Anthology, edited by S. Pollack and J. Vaughn (Ithaca, NY: Firebrand Books, 1987), pp. 48-54
*Kline, Marlee, “Complicating the Ideology of Motherhood: Child Welfare Law and First Nation Women,” in Mothers in Law: Feminist Theory and the Legal Regulation of Motherhood, edited by Martha Fineman and Isabel Karpin (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995), pp. 118-141
*Ruddick, Sara, “Maternal Thinking,” in Rethinking the Family: Some Feminist Questions edited by Barrie Thorne with Marilyn Yalom (New York: Longman, 1982), pp. 76-94
Carothers, Suzanne, “Catching Sense: Learning from Our Mothers to be Black and Female,” in Families in the U.S., pp. 315-327
*Reich, Jennifer, “Building a Home on a Border: How Single White Women Raising Multiracial Children Construct Racial Meaning,” in Working Through Whiteness: International Perspectives, edited by Cynthia Levine-Rasky (New York: SUNY Press, 2002), pp. 179-208
*Pollitt, Katha, “Marooned on Gilligan’s Island: Are Women Morally Superior to Men?” in Reasonable Creatures: Essays on Women and Feminism (New York: Knopf, 1994), pp. 43-62
Forcey, Linda Rennie, “Feminist Perspectives on Mothering and Peace,” in Mothering, pp. 355-375
Pardo, Mary, “Mexican American Women Grassroots Community Activists: Mothers of East Los Angeles” in Families in the U.S., pp. 251-262
Toro-Morn, Maura, “Gender, Class, Family, and Migration: Puerto Rican Women in Chicago,” in Families in the U.S., pp. 189-199
*Umansky, Lauri, “Breastfeeding in the 1990s: The Karen Carter Case and the Politics of Maternal Sexuality,” in “Bad” Mothers: The Politics of Blame in Twentieth-Century America, edited by Molly Ladd-Taylor and Lauri Umansky (New York: New York University Press, 1998), pp. 299-309
Holtzman, Linda, “Jewish Lesbian Parenting,” in Families in the U.S., pp. 329-334
Lewin, Ellen, “Negotiating Lesbian Motherhood: The Dialectics of Resistance and Accommodation” in Mothering, pp.333-353
*Nestle, Joan, “My Mother Liked to Fuck,” in The Powers of Desire, edited by Ann Snitow, Christine Stansell, and Sharon Thompson (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1983), pp. 468-470
Garey, Weaving Work and Motherhood
Segura, Denise, “Working at Motherhood: Chicana and Mexican Immigrant Mothers and Employment,” in Mothering, pp.211-233
Shaw, Stephanie, “Mothering Under Slavery in the Antebellum South” in Mothering, pp. 237-258
Chang, Grace, “Undocumented Latinas: The New ‘Employable Mothers’,” in Mothering, pp. 259-285
*Parenas, Rhacel Salaazar, “The Care Crisis in the Philippines: Children and Transnational Families in the New Global Economy,” in Global Woman:
*Parenas, Rhacel Salaazar, “The Care Crisis in the Philippines: Children and Transnational Families in the New Global Economy,” in Global Woman: Nannies, Maids and Sex Workers in the New Economy, edited by Barbara Ehrenreich and Arlie Hochschild (New York: Metropolitan Books), pp.39-54
Nelson, Margaret, “Family Day Care Providers: Dilemmas of Daily Practice” in Mothering, pp. 181-209
Glenn, Evelyn Nakano, “The Dialectics of Wage Work: Japanese-American Women and Domestic Service, 1905-1940” in Families in the U.S., pp. 745-765
Recommended:
Boris, Eileen, “Mothers are Not Workers: Homework Regulation and the Construction of Motherhood, 1948-1953” in Mothering, pp. 161-180
Walzer, Susan, Thinking about the Baby: Gender and Transitions into Parenthood
Witherow, “Native American Mother,” in Families in the U.S., pp.335-337
Reinelt, Claire and Mindy Fried, “I am This Child’s Mother’: A Feminist Perspective on Mothering with a Disability,” in Families in the U.S., pp. 339-348
Sparks, “Against All Odds: Resistance and Resilience in African-American Welfare Mothers,” in Mothering Against the Odds, pp. 215-237
Finger, Anne, “Claiming All of Our Bodies: Reproductive Rights and Disability,” in Families in the U.S., pp. 849-857
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved, TranZ by Almuhajir