The Routledge Companion to Motherhood 9781138052413, 9781315167848

Citation preview

THE ROUTLEDGE COMPANION TO MOTHERHOOD

Interdisciplinary and intersectional in emphasis, the Routledge Companion to Motherhood brings together essays on current intellectual themes, issues, and debates, while also creating a foundation for future scholarship and study as the field of Motherhood Studies continues to develop globally. This Routledge Companion is the first extensive collection on the wide-ranging topics, themes, issues, and debates that ground the intellectual work being done on motherhood. Global in scope and including a range of disciplinary perspectives, including anthropology, literature, communication studies, sociology, women’s and gender studies, history, and economics, this volume introduces the foundational topics and ideas in motherhood, delineates the diversity and complexity of mothering, and also stimulates dialogue among scholars and students approaching from divergent backgrounds and intellectual perspectives. This will become a foundational text for academics in Women’s and Gender Studies and interdisciplinary researchers interested in this important, complex and rapidly growing topic. Scholars of psychology, sociology or public policy, and activists in both university and workplace settings interested in motherhood and mothering will find it an invaluable guide. Lynn O’Brien Hallstein, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Rhetoric in the College of General Studies and an Affiliated Faculty of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Program at Boston University. She is the author/(co)editor of five books, including Bikini-Ready Moms: Celebrity Profiles, Motherhood, and the Body, which won the Organization for the Study of Communication, Language, and Gender’s 2016 Outstanding Book Award, and has published in variety of feminist and communication journals. Andrea O’Reilly, PhD, is a Professor in the School of Gender, Sexuality and Women’s Studies at York University. O’Reilly is founder and director of the Motherhood Initiative for Research and Community Involvement, founder and editor-in-chief of the Journal of the Motherhood Initiative, and founder and publisher of Demeter Press. She is the editor/author of 22 books including Matricentric Feminism: Theory, Activism, and Practice (2016). Melinda Vandenbeld Giles is a lecturer in Anthropology and English at Lakehead University (Orillia). Her research focuses on neoliberalism, public policy and homelessness (particularly for mothers) in Ontario. Melinda’s publications include her Demeter Press edited volume Mothering in the Age of Neoliberalism, her co-edited volume The Routledge Companion to Motherhood, and her Inanna feminist novel Clara Awake. Melinda’s work also appears in many Demeter Press edited collections, JMI ( Journal of the Motherhood Initiative for Research and Community Involvement) and Development ( Journal of the Society for International Development).

“This book is indeed a companion, a wise and wide-ranging guide for anyone who wants to spend time exploring the world of contemporary motherhood studies. Across topics and disciplines, it accompanies the reader to the most engaging sites in the field.” – Joan B. Wolf, Associate Professor, Women’s and Gender Studies, Texas A&M University, and author of Is Breast Best? Taking on the Breastfeeding Experts and the New High Stakes of Motherhood “This is an anthology whose time has come! The editors have garnered an extraordinary number of international scholars to discuss motherhood from a broad range of perspectives, more than one might ever have thought possible. Adrienne Rich’s pioneering distinction between motherhood as institution and ideology versus motherhood as experience and identity structures the volume’s chapters on diverse mothering/motherhood concerns across the globe. The volume will guide Motherhood Studies for years to come.” – E. Ann Kaplan, Distinguished Professor of English and Women’s Gender, and Sexuality, Studies, Stony Brook University

THE ROUTLEDGE COMPANION TO MOTHERHOOD

Edited by Lynn O’Brien Hallstein, Andrea O’Reilly, and Melinda Vandenbeld Giles

First published 2020 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2020 selection and editorial matter, Lynn O’Brien Hallstein, Andrea O’Reilly, and Melinda Vandenbeld Giles; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Lynn O’Brien Hallstein, Andrea O’Reilly, and Melinda Vandenbeld Giles to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN: 978-1-138-05241-3 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-16784-8 (ebk) Typeset in Bembo by Apex CoVantage, LLC Cover Art Artist – Meaghan Brady Nelson, PhD Title – Mothering Size – 24 x 48 inches Acrylic on gallery wrap 2019

CONTENTS

Acknowledgementsx Introduction Lynn O’Brien Hallstein, Andrea O’Reilly, and Melinda Vandenbeld Giles

1

SECTION I

Maternal theory

17

  1 Maternal theory: patriarchal motherhood and empowered mothering19 Andrea O’Reilly   2 Feminist mothering Fiona Joy Green

36

  3 Matricentric feminism: a feminism for mothers Andrea O’Reilly

51

SECTION II

Mothering through difference: hearing the voices of marginalized mothers

61

  4 Queering and querying motherhood Shelley M. Park

63

  5 Disabled mothers Gloria Filax and Dena Taylor

77

v

Contents

  6 Mothering while Black: strengths and vulnerabilities in a sociopolitical racial context of structural inequality Marva L. Lewis and Karen T. Craddock   7 Welfare mothers in the United States Brianna Turgeon and Kaitlyn Root

89 103

  8 Indigenous mothering: birthing the nation from resistance to revolution Jennifer Brant

111

  9 Voluntarily childless women: a look at Western society and the definition of motherhood Emilie Lewis

122

SECTION III

Mothers, mothering, culture, and art

131

10 Mediated celebrity motherhood: representing the norms, values, and practices promoted by and through celebrity moms Lynn O’Brien Hallstein

133

11 Feminist art and motherhood: an overview Myrel Chernick and Jennie Klein

147

12 Religions and mothers Florence Pasche Guignard

156

13 Mothers and music Martha Joy Rose

165

14 Matrifocal voices in literature Elizabeth Podnieks

176

15 Motherhood memoirs Heather Hewett

191

SECTION IV

Mothering and health

203

16 Beyond disordered brains and mother blame: critical issues in autism and mothering Patty Douglas and Estée Klar

205

vi

Contents

17 No fixed address: the everyday health challenges of mothers living in an emergency homeless shelter Rebecca Hughes

215

18 Midwifery in historical and contemporary perspective: the collusion of race, class, and gender Alicia D. Bonaparte

226

19 Mothers in prison: matricentric feminist criminology Sinead O’Malley

236

20 Abused women’s mothering experiences: making the invisible visible Caroline McDonald-Harker

255

SECTION V

Mothering, families, and domestic space

267

21 From home to house: neoliberalism, mothering, and the de-domestication of the private sphere? Melinda Vandenbeld Giles

269

22 Mothering or parenting? Linda Rose Ennis

274

23 Homing in on domestic space: the boundaries and potential of home-making Jennifer L. Johnson

284

24 Configuring the mother-daughter dyad Dorsía Smith Silva

294

25 Mothers and sons Nicole L. Willey

308

SECTION VI

Mothering and work

329

26 Mothers and work: social reproduction and the labours of motherhood Catherine Bryan

331

27 The lasting impacts of “The Opt Out Revolution”: disciplining working mothers Jennifer L. Borda vii

343

Contents

28 Shifting gender norms and childcare in Canada Brooke Richardson

353

29 Poor and working-class mothers Patrice M. Buzzanell

362

SECTION VII

Mothering, economics, and globalization

371

30 Mothering, neoliberalism, and globalization Melinda Vandenbeld Giles

373

31 Mothering and the economy Margunn Bjørnholt

389

32 Transnational motherhood: conceptualizing ideas of care here and there Gabrielle Oliveira

402

33 Mothering, urbanization, and Africa Grace Adeniyi Ogunyankin

414

SECTION VIII

Mothering, governance, and politics

427

34 Formal governance of and by mothers: mothers, public policy, and law Rebecca Jaremko Bromwich

429

35 Mothering and politics Simone Bohn

442

36 The criminalization and incarceration of mothers in Canada and the United States Catherine Borshuk and Gordana Eljdupovic 37 The governance of mothers Michelle Hughes Miller

451 462

SECTION IX

Mothering and activism

475

38 The politics of motherhood: maternal appeals in the public sphere Sara Hayden

477

viii

Contents

39 Mothering and activism Reena Shadaan

486

40 Reproductive justice as environmental justice: contexts, coalitions, and cautions Catalina M. de Onís 41 Motherhood and the struggle for reproductive justice Natalie Fixmer-Oraiz

496 510

Contributors520 Index531

ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Editors’ Collective Acknowledgements: Our deepest appreciation to the contributors to the Companion for their steadfast commitment to seeing the book come to life and to our Routledge editor, Alexandra McGregor, for her support and guidance throughout the process.

Each editor’s acknowledgements Lynn O’Brien Hallstein: I would like to dedicate this book to my mother, Nancy O’Brien. Her gift of raising me within 1970s American feminisms allowed me to have my own ambitions in ways denied to her when she was growing up. I will forever be grateful that she did so. I also hope that my intellectual work helps to lay a foundation so that women who want to mother can be both mothers and ambitious-for-themselves women in ways my mother was denied. I, too, wish to thank my wonderful co-editors, Andrea O’Reilly and Melinda Vandenbeld Giles, for their support and willingness to work hard to make this book happen. And, finally, I am also proud to be affiliated with all the contributors in the book and am grateful for their hard work and willingness to participate. Andrea O’Reilly would also like to thank Jesse O’Reilly-Conlin for his accomplished copy-editing and Angie Deveau for her invaluable research assistance. Thank you always to my MIRCI family for providing the safe and sustaining “homeplace” that makes possible my maternal scholarship possible. Melinda Vandenbeld Giles: I would like to dedicate this book to all of the incredibly strong and hard-working mothers out there who every day make this world a better place! In particular, I dedicate this book to my own mom, Maria Vandenbeld, whose courage, love and support have always been an inspiration, and my daughter, Maya Vandenbeld Giles, whose incredible positive outlook on the world makes me a better person. I would also like to thank my fellow editors, Lynn O’Brien Hallstein and Andrea O’Reilly, two amazing women and mothers who have been such a joy to work with creating this companion. A final thank you to all of the wonderful contributors whose dedicated maternal scholarship collectively brings the voices of mothers globally to the forefront.

x

INTRODUCTION Lynn O’Brien Hallstein, Andrea O’Reilly, and Melinda Vandenbeld Giles

Adrienne Rich opens her monumental work Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution (1976) stating: “We know more about the air we breathe, the seas we travel, than about the nature and meaning of motherhood” (11). In the forty plus years since the publication of Of Woman Born, the topic of motherhood has developed from an emergent to an established field of scholarly inquiry. A cursory review of motherhood research reveals that hundreds of scholarly monographs, anthologies, journal issues, and journal articles across disciplines have been published1 on every imaginable motherhood theme. Given the depth and breadth of motherhood research to date, it is impossible to list all the themes explored; however, some examples are: sexuality, peace, religion, public policy, economics, literature, work, popular culture, the maternal body (both able and disabled/differently abled), health, carework-caregiving, ethnicity, environment, militarism, young mothers, motherhood and feminism, mothers and sons, mothers and daughters, queer mothers, Black mothering, Muslim mothering, Indigenous mothers, Latina mothers, incarcerated mothers, third-wave mothering, mothering and globalization, and mothering and domestic violence. In 2006, Andrea O’Reilly coined the term motherhood studies to acknowledge and demarcate this new scholarship on motherhood as a legitimate and autonomous discipline – one grounded in the theoretical tradition of maternal theory developed by such scholars as Patricia Hill Collins, Adrienne Rich, and Sara Ruddick, and one explicitly interdisciplinary in both scholarship and teaching. An undergraduate student of women’s studies in the 1980s would be expected to know feminist theory as well as study women’s experiences from across a wide variety of disciplines. Students would remember learning the differences between liberal and socialist feminist theory as well as examining women in courses as diverse as “Women and Film,” “Women in Literature,” “Women’s History,” “Women in Society,” and “Psychology of Women.” Similarly, students and scholars of motherhood studies today must know maternal theory and examine mothers and motherhood across diverse disciplines and disciplinary approaches. While motherhood studies continues to grow, understanding the historical significance of Rich’s pivotal work is essential to contextualizing where we are at today. Rich first published Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution in 1976. Today, the book is recognized as the first and arguably the most important book on motherhood. The book – a wide ranging, far reaching meditation on the meaning and experience of motherhood that draws from the disciplines of anthropology, feminist theory, psychology, literature as well as narrates Rich’s personal 1

Lynn O’Brien Hallstein, Andrea O’Reilly, and Melinda Vandenbeld Giles

reflections on her experiences of mothering – has had a broad and enduring impact on feminist thought on motherhood. In particular, it is Rich’s landmark distinction between motherhood as an institution and mothering as practice that continues to be of relevance. As O’Reilly first noted, despite the patriarchal limits of motherhood, it is essential to recognize the potential for mothering to provide a source of empowerment. Indeed, in Of Woman Born, Rich distinguishes “between two meanings of motherhood, one superimposed on the other: the potential relationship of any woman to her powers of reproduction and to children; and the institution – which aims at ensuring that that potential – and all women – shall remain under male control” (7).“This book,” Rich writes, “is not an attack on the family or on mothering except as defined and restricted under patriarchy” (8). The term “motherhood” refers to the patriarchal institution of motherhood, which is male defined and controlled and is deeply oppressive to women, whereas the word “mothering” refers to women’s experiences of mothering and is female defined and centered and potentially empowering to women. Rich was the first feminist scholar to argue that the reality of patriarchal motherhood must be distinguished from the possibility or potentiality of empowered mothering. In other words, whereas motherhood operates as a patriarchal institution to constrain, regulate, and dominate women and their mothering, mothers’ own experiences of mothering can, nonetheless, be a site of strength, especially if mothers can define mothering for themselves. Since the publication of Of Woman Born, motherhood research has focused upon the oppressive and empowering dimensions of mothering and the complex relationship between the two, employing this field-defining distinction first made by Rich. Following the above distinction, motherhood studies may be divided into four interconnected themes or categories of inquiry: the institution of motherhood, motherhood as experience, maternal identity or subjectivity, and finally maternal agency/activism. Within motherhood studies, the term motherhood is used to signify the patriarchal institution of motherhood, while the term mothering refers to women’s lived experiences of childrearing as they both confirm to and/or resist the patriarchal institution of motherhood and its oppressive ideology. While scholars who are concerned with the ideology or institution investigate policies, laws, ideologies and images of patriarchal motherhood, researchers who are interested in experience examine the work women do as mothers, an area of study paved with insights derived from Sara Ruddick’s concept of maternal practice. The third category, maternal identity and subjectivity looks at the effect that becoming a mother has on a woman’s sense of self; in particular how her sense of self is shaped by the institution of motherhood and the experience of mothering. Since the turn of the millennium, a new theme has emerged that we have termed maternal agency. Motherhood scholarship, whether its concern is mothering as institution, experience or identity, has tended to focus on how motherhood is detrimental to women because of its construction as a patriarchal institution. For example, scholars interested in experience argue that the gender inequities of patriarchal motherhood cause the work of mothering to be isolating and exhausting for women, while those concerned with ideology call attention to the guilt and depression that is experienced by mothers who fail to live up to the impossible standards of patriarchal motherhood. In contrast, little has been written on the possibility or potentiality of mothering as identified by Rich more than forty years ago. The point is not lost on Fiona Joy Green who writes: “Still largely missing from the increasing dialogue and publication around motherhood is a discussion of Rich’s monumental contention that even when restrained by patriarchy motherhood can be a site of empowerment and political activism” (31). More recently, agency has emerged as a prevailing theme in motherhood scholarship. Around the world, mothers are rising up and claiming their rights, demanding that mothering as an everyday site of empowerment be enacted through self-expression and bodily self-determination. This activism can also be seen in the rise of a vibrant and vast global motherhood movement that has paved the way for more meaningful explorations into the emancipatory potential of motherhood in the twenty-first century. 2

Introduction

The Routledge Companion to Motherhood is the first extensive collection to bring together essays on the wide-ranging topics, themes, issues, and debates that now ground the intellectual work being done on motherhood, while also creating a foundation for future scholarship and study as the field of motherhood studies continues to develop and extend globally. Interdisciplinary in emphasis, the Companion to Motherhood focuses on how mothering and motherhood intersect with class, race, ethnicity, religion, ability, sexuality, work, popular culture, literature, family, the economy, neoliberalism and globalization, social media, politics, social policy, feminism, and maternal agency and empowerment. Moreover, the collection is also interdisciplinary in scope with chapters utilizing a range of disciplinary and interdisciplinary perspectives, including anthropology, English, communication studies, disability studies, race studies, sociology, women’s and gender studies, queer studies, history, law, political science, and economics. As a result, the emphasis of the companion is to map out the development of motherhood studies and detail current critical issues and debates, while also pointing to future scholarship and study. The extensiveness of this approach means the collection: mirrors the interdisciplinarity that has been at the foundation of motherhood studies, introduces the foundational topics and ideas in motherhood studies, delineates the diversity and complexity of motherhood and mothering, points to what future work motherhood studies must address, and, finally, also stimulates dialogue among scholars and students approaching motherhood from divergent backgrounds and intellectual perspectives. To do so, the Companion to Motherhood is divided into nine sections, which are detailed below.

ROUTLEDGE COMPANION TO MOTHERHOOD

Section one: maternal theory The relationships among feminisms and motherhood have been complex, sometimes fruitful and sometimes ignored, even though motherhood studies primarily emerged via the larger disciplines of feminist and women’s studies. The chapters in Maternal Theory open the Companion and explore some of the contemporary problems, biases, silences, and issues that currently exist among feminist and motherhood studies as well they consider the transformative possibilities of matricentric feminism and feminist mothering. As noted, in 2006 Andrea O’Reilly coined the term “motherhood studies” to acknowledge and demarcate a new scholarship on motherhood as a legitimate and autonomous discipline – one grounded in, and sustained by, a distinct tradition of maternal theory. The aim of the first chapter of this section, “Chapter 1: Maternal Theory: Patriarchal Motherhood and Empowered Mothering,” by Andrea O’Reilly is to introduce the field of maternal theory within the larger discipline of motherhood studies. The chapter, drawing upon Adrienne Rich’s distinction between motherhood and mothering, is principally organized by two standpoints: motherhood as institution and ideology, and mothering as experience and identity. The chapter introduces three central theoretical concepts of motherhood studies: motherhood versus mothering; maternal thinking and practice; and intensive mothering. As well, the chapter explores mothering as experience to consider how patriarchal motherhood is resisted and redefined through empowered maternal practices and identities. The following chapter by Fiona Joy Green, “Chapter 2: Feminist Mothering,” builds upon the inaugural chapter by considering the transformative possibilities of feminist mothering. Three prevailing themes characterize feminist mothering: understanding, troubling, and opposing the institution of motherhood; viewing feminist mothering as an empowered and political act; and practicing matroreform through claiming motherhood power by instituting new 3

Lynn O’Brien Hallstein, Andrea O’Reilly, and Melinda Vandenbeld Giles

mothering rules and practices. The chapter examines the important differences between feminist and empowered mothering and considers how an emphasis on intersectionality facilitates the disruption of gender-essentialist beliefs about mothering and care norms. Overall, the aim of the chapter is to theorize the lived experiences of feminist mothers to undermine and transform patriarchal culture at large. The final chapter of the opening section, “Chapter 3: Matricentric Feminism: A Feminism for Mothers,” by Andrea O’Reilly introduces a mother-centered mode of feminism – what O’Reilly has termed “matricentric feminism” – and considers the context and challenges of a mother-centered feminist theory and politic. Matricentric feminism seeks to make motherhood the business of feminism by positioning mothers’ needs and concerns as the starting point for a theory and politic on and for women’s empowerment. The chapter develops a definition of matricentric feminism, identifies the absence of matricentric feminism in feminist thought, and considers the reasons for this disavowal: the confusion of mothering with motherhood and the conflation of maternalism, and hence gender essentialism, with matricentric feminism.

Section two: mothering through difference: hearing the voices of marginalized mothers Primarily employing interdisciplinary perspectives, contributors to the all-important second section of the collection, Mothering Through Difference: Hearing the Voices of Marginalized Mothers, investigate how differences from the hegemonic mothering norm – white, middle class, heterosexual and cisgender – are challenged, re-shaped, and expanded via non-hegemonic mothering practices, different family formations and practices, including how families are built as well as how they are structured by queer, disabled, Black, welfare, Indigenous mothers and voluntarily childless mothers. Thus, this section explores the lives of mothers marginalized by race, class, sexuality, ability or any other form of “othering,” revealing how structural inequalities in society magnify existent biases but can also produce empowered and creative responses. The first chapter by Shelley M. Park, “Chapter 4: Queering and Querying Motherhood,” opens this section discussing the ways in which theories and practices of motherhood have been queered by mothers who live outside of so-called “traditional” nuclear families comprised of one mother, one father and their biological offspring. Park also suggests that mothers who are sexually queer (e.g., lesbian or non-monogamous) challenge legal and cultural definitions of family as heteronormative, while parents who are gender queer (e.g., butch, trans or intersex) challenge the gendered discourse of “motherhood” itself. Whether straight-identified, femme-identified, or queer-identified, those who mother queerly (i.e., “do” motherhood in ways that deviate from standard practice), also implicitly and explicitly challenge prevailing notions of good mothering. Such deviations from culturally dominant standards of “good” mothering often come at a cost, leading some queer mothers to seek social approval through processes of cultural assimilation. Thus, this chapter also explores the consequences of normalizing of lesbian and gay families mimicking the heteronormative ideal. These consequences include the further stigmatization of queer mothers who cannot or will not assimilate and the exploitation of brown, black and poor birthmothers whose invisible reproductive labors may secure the possibility of homonormative lesbian and gay families. The following chapter, “Chapter 5: Disabled Mothers,” by Gloria Filax and Dena Taylor explores disabled mothers. The authors suggest mothers with disabilities cover a wide range of being in this world including illness. Disability may be hidden or visible, and disabled mothers may be birthmothers, stepmothers, co-mothers, or adoptive mothers. Filax and Taylor also examine who counts as disabled and the various theoretical models (individual/medical, social 4

Introduction

and cultural models) provide context to understand disability. Drawing on critical issues, they explore how these models shape disability, the disabling of the disabled, what we can learn from disabled mothers, the challenges and possibilities facing mothers with disabilities, how/if disabled mothering offers insights to feminist practices of mothering, and what the future may hold. Filax and Taylor conclude with a discussion of how disabled mothers need, like most mothers, support, nurturance, and care. The third chapter of this section written by Marva L. Lewis and Karen T. Craddock, “Chapter 6: Mothering While Black: Strengths and Vulnerabilities in a Sociopolitical Racial Context of Structural Inequality,” presents an overview of several overarching themes relevant to Black mothers and multiple social indexes of physical and mental health and well-being, shaped within a lived framework of structural racism. These structural themes include racial disparities and disproportionality based on stereotypes and implicit bias – all unresolved legacies of the historical trauma of slavery. Lewis and Craddock also discuss the longstanding schema of a “strong Black woman” that often obscures the gentle and more vulnerable side of Black mothering and minimizes the mental health needs of Black mothers and their need for emotional, physical, or monetary support. The authors conclude with a discussion of a strengths perspective to briefly examine the practices of racial socialization through protective nurturing and adaptive parenting practices leading to resilience in young children to survive in a hostile, racially stratified society. Brianna Turgeon and Kaitlyn Root’s chapter, “Chapter 7: Welfare Mothers in the United States,” follows with a discussion of how the history of US welfare is marked by race- and class-based stereotypes of welfare clients and their ambitions. The authors also explore the over-simplified stereotypes and erroneous assumptions that have emerged across history that have caricaturized “welfare queens,” presenting them as lazy, greedy, and selfish women who live lavish lives at the expense of the state. While overtly racist language has been used with less frequency in recent years, the – now colorblind – imagery and stereotypes of the welfare queen persist. The “real” experiences of mothers on welfare often involve interacting with state surveillance through government programs, struggling to balance work and family demands – ­especially with childcare, cobbling together resources from a variety sources, and – for some – using agency to push back against the state. Turgeon and Root conclude that, through their resistance, welfare mothers work to reclaim their narrative from the history of controlling images that have pervaded their lives. The fifth chapter of section two, written by Jennifer Brant, “Chapter 8: Indigenous Mothering: Birthing the Nation from Resistance to Revolution,” discusses the historical, colonial, contemporary, and socio-political realities of Indigenous mothering by drawing attention to the assimilationist policies that have implicated Indigenous families and communities for generations. The chapter also introduces the Indigenous ideologies of motherhood that informed Indigenous worldviews and ancient traditions of physically and spiritually bringing forth new life since time immemorial. Brant also examines notions of Settler environmentalism, along with the acts of ongoing gendered and colonial violence that continue to target Indigenous mothering practices, and the “policing” of Indigenous motherhood: the imposition of binary understandings of patriarchal models of motherhood; the issues associated with maternal evacuation and the work that is being done to reclaim Indigenous midwifery. Brant then proposes a deeper examination of the connections between contemporary forms of violence against Indigenous women and the ongoing interventions and systemic attacks on Indigenous motherhood. Finally, Brant suggests that contemporary physical and spiritual modes of birthing the nation are presented as acts of resistance that highlight the revolutionary possibilities of empowered Indigenous mothering. 5

Lynn O’Brien Hallstein, Andrea O’Reilly, and Melinda Vandenbeld Giles

The final chapter in this section explores women who have voluntarily remained childless. To do so, Emilie Lewis in, “Chapter 9: Voluntarily Childless Women: A Look at Western Society and the Definition of Motherhood,” suggests that, prior to the 1980s, few identified as voluntarily childless women. Women and mothers had always been synonymous, but the rise of birth control, a new wave of feminism, and shifting understandings of gender identity have prompted a growing group of childfree women in Western society. To better understand the status of voluntarily childless women, historical precedents and new feminist theory is being studied. Lewis also reveals that some suggest that these women must be a new gender identity all to their own, however, Lewis concludes that room must be made in current definitions of womanhood and motherhood as sex and gender continue to be deconstructed.

Section three: mothers, mothering, culture, and art Mothers are everywhere in literature, culture, art and popular culture. Indeed what is significant and seldom observed in discussions on the rise of motherhood studies is the central and pivotal role culture, literature, art and popular culture have played in its development. Contributors in this section explore how cultural, textual and artistic spaces are accepted, embraced, and, negotiated, to challenge traditional conceptions of mothering to create alternative practices and visions for mothers in the present and the past. Lynn O’Brien Hallstein’s chapter, “Chapter 10: Mediated Celebrity Motherhood: Representing the Norms, Values, and Practices Promoted by and through Celebrity Moms,” opens section three. O’Brien Hallstein, first drawing on the Susan J. Douglas and Meredith Michaels’ ground breaking work, argues media represent and promote a kind of intensive mothering – the new momism – that seems to celebrate motherhood but ultimately works to promote standards of perfection beyond most mothers reach, while also being ensconced in economic, race, heteronormative, and cisgender privilege. O’Brien Hallstein, however, then argues that the celebrity mom profile, which continues to be the most influential media form to refine and reinforce an intensive mothering, has changed in structure and focus and now requires a third shift of body works as the energizing solution to “have it all” by doing it all, alone. O’Brien Hallstein also suggests that more recent scholarship also reveals that, even though their responses vary by class and education, “real” mothers continue to be impacted by celebrity mothers, and reality TV celebrity mothers are beginning to play a key role representing the norms, values, and practices of mediated celebrity motherhood. The following chapter, “Chapter 11: Feminist Art and Motherhood” by Myrel Chernick and Jennie Klein, is concerned with the relationship between maternity, maternal ideology, second wave feminism, and the art world. The chapter charts the growth of art about motherhood and addresses the current debates surrounding art and the maternal. Chernick and Klein also present an alternative economy of language and representation and consider the centrality of care-giving and the relationship of humans to the material world. “Chapter 12: Religions and Mothers” by Florence Pasche Guignard discusses key issues at the intersection of motherhood, mothering, and maternity with religion and spirituality and addresses methodological difficulties for studying religions and mothers. Building on interdisciplinary scholarship, the chapter explores various themes including: divine motherhood and mother goddesses, maternal cosmological narratives, maternal figures of the divine and other maternal metaphors in religion and spirituality, religious othermothering, spiritual mothering and mothering in various religious and cultural contexts, mother blame and religion, spiritual leaders as mothers, religious feminist movements centered on or led by mothers, religion as a way to eschew motherhood, traditional and emerging ritualizations centered on motherhood, 6

Introduction

and the influence of religion on maternal health and well-being. The chapter also addresses how mothers use a variety of spiritual and ritual resources to resist or reshape religious normative injunctions, presented as divinely ordered or as legitimized by sacred texts. Martha Joy Rose in her chapter, “Chapter 13: Mothers and Music,” explores how the rise of mother-identity-making and mom-made performance art have been instrumental in helping to amplify women’s voices within the motherhood movement at large as well as within the global landscape. A timeline of this groundbreaking work is recorded, as are some of the challenges faced. The chapter also examines how the Mamapalooza organization and the larger creative women of the motherhood movement have facilitated the coalescence of a body of work that contributes to women’s stories in popular culture and to the emergence of the field of motherhood studies within the academy. The following chapter, “Chapter 14: Matrifocal Voices in Literature” by Elizabeth Podnieks, surveys maternal literatures in historical, critical, and theoretical terms. Matrifocal literatures are written and narrated by mothers in the first-person or limited third-person voice, rendering maternal identity and experience from subjective perspectives. The chapter considers and provides specific examples of matrifocal fiction, life writing, and poetry written in English from and within American, British, African, and Caribbean Canadian contexts. Podnieks concludes with references to the matrifocal genres of “mommy lit,” for its increasing cultural and commercial currency; and “nanny lit,” which is directing our attention towards the role of care-takers in the raising of children, and expanding definitions of what we mean by “mother” and “mothering.” The final chapter of section three, “Chapter 15: Motherhood Memoirs” by Heather Hewett, expands upon the previous chapter by examining the emergence of motherhood memoirs in the later twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. The chapter considers various topics related to the workings of narrative and the formation of maternal subjectivity and considers some of the central debates of the maternal memoir. They include: whether the form remains complicit with, or critical of, heteronormative gender formation; why the majority of its authors reflect privileged identities, and to what extent this is changing; and how maternal autobiographical subjects are produced through the act of writing about mothering. Overall, the chapter explores how motherhood memoirs provide a valuable window into the shifting landscapes of contemporary parenting and family life and invites us to imagine new possibilities and ways of forming family and raising the next generation.

Section four: mothering and health Access to affordable and relevant health services and to accurate, comprehensive health information are fundamental to mothers’ basic human rights. Yet, gender-based discrimination, lack of access to education, poverty, and violence against women and girls can all prevent these rights from being realized for mothers – challenges that are often particularly acute when it comes to sexual and reproductive health rights and safe motherhood. Contributors from a wide range of disciplines in Mothering and Health explore how mothers’ health shape both their ability to mother and the challenges mothers face if they or their children’s health care and needs are not met. Finally, this section also explores how structural inequalities affect not only access to health resources and services but also how health, economics, and motherhood are intertwined. Section four opens with Patty Douglas and Estée Klar’s chapter, “Chapter 16: Beyond Disordered Brains and Mother Blame: Critical Issues in Autism and Mothering.” Douglas and Klar’s chapter provides an overview of critical issues in autism and mothering in order to open up the complicated terrain of mother blame, deficit understandings of autism and biomedical regulation of mothers. They first briefly introduce the reader to historical currents in autism and 7

Lynn O’Brien Hallstein, Andrea O’Reilly, and Melinda Vandenbeld Giles

mothering, tracing the emergence of autism as a brain based difference and mothers’ labour as the presumed “fix” for the disorder. Along the way, they meet the “refrigerator mother” – that “cold” mother of the 1950s whose destructive love was thought to cause autism – as well as the “mother therapist” and “mother warrior” of today who must shore up all her resources to wage war against autism in her child. Next, the chapter introduces neurodiversity, feminist disability studies and critical autism studies as academic and activist movements that challenge this fraught terrain and offer new possibilities to understand “autism” more positively and to be in relation with those who have attracted the label of autism. Finally, Douglas and Klar recommend future research directions that center lived experience, embrace difference as fundamental to life and value interdependence as both an ethics and a politics, while providing recommendations for further reading. Unlike many of the chapters in the book, the next chapter, “Chapter 17: No Fixed Address: The Everyday Health Challenges of Mothers Living in an Emergency Homeless Shelter,” written by Rebecca Hughes, draws on interviews with homeless women living in an emergency homeless shelter located in Greater Toronto. Using institutional ethnography as a method of inquiry, Hughes explicates the broader lineages of administrative and governmental entities that not only mediate and control women’s everyday experiences but that also mediate their access to health care services. Through an in-depth examination of women’s first-hand experiences accessing health care services in Toronto, Hughes’ study also examines the institutional practices or rules of governance that mediate relations between homeless women and institutional organizations. The everyday work of basic survival consumes a significant portion of homeless women’s everyday activities. Hughes concludes, for the mothers interviewed in the study, basic survival work included negotiating pre-natal and post-natal intervention, seeking support after sexual and physical assaults, and managing blood-borne diseases such as HIV/AIDS. The third chapter of section four, written by Alicia Bonaparte, “Chapter 18: Midwifery in Historical and Contemporary Perspective: The Collusion of Race, Class, and Gender,” examines how rising maternity care costs highlight the complexities embedded within choosing a birthing attendant for US expectant parents of color. Bonaparte suggests midwife-attended births within the United States previously and currently mitigate these costs, while also demonstrating how one’s race, class, and gender determine access to midwifery services. Bonaparte also examines the history of Black midwifery in the southeastern United States and its contemporary applications, emphasizing how and why race, class, and gender collude to produce health disparities, while also demonstrating the necessity of these maternity care providers in the present-day. The next chapter, “Chapter 19: Mothers in Prison: Matricentric Feminist Criminology,” written by Sinead O’Malley, reviews how mothers in prison in the US and parts of Europe have been historically ignored, cast aside, silenced and ultimately invisible within the broader discourse on criminology and the study of prisons. Therefore, as O’Malley argues, the development of feminist criminology was vital to address the gendered nature of crime and imprisonment. However, O’Malley also contends the recent matricentric focus is merited as it explores the unique concerns of mothers who are engaged with the prison system, especially in terms of imprisoned mothers’ health. While feminist criminology explores the general class and gendered struggles of offending women, a matricentric focus provides a lens through which to view such challenges, traumas and adversity via a maternal lens, placing the subject of motherhood and mothering as central to the experience of imprisonment. The chapter maps the development of matricentric feminist criminology, its current debates and most broadly discussed and relevant topics of enquiry, namely: the relevance of imprisonment, the impact of trauma, mental health, addiction and considers the issue of mother-child contact. The chapter ends with some suggestions for further research. 8

Introduction

Section four closes with Caroline McDonald-Harker’s chapter, “Chapter 20: Abused Women’s Mothering Experiences: Making the Invisible Visible.” McDonald-Harker argues that the idealized standards of intensive mothering is disconnected from the reality of the various and diverse social positions, locations, and circumstances in which many women carry out their mothering. In recent years, mothers who are victims of domestic violence are one group of mothers who have become especially criticized, stigmatized, and vilified for mothering outside the socially constructed boundaries of “good mothering” because they have lived in circumstances of abuse. McDonald-Harker also argues that, even though abused mothers are the victims, they are often unjustly perceived and characterized as “bad mothers” because their ability to shelter, care for, protect, and provide a safe and secure environment for their children is called into question and deemed deficient. Despite the increasing marginalization of abused mothers, our knowledge about mothering in the context of domestic violence is relatively recent and limited in scope. As such, the chapter provides an important background for understanding the multiple and varied ways that abused women’s mothering has thus far been framed, explored, and discussed in scholarly work, and how this framing shapes the ways that abused mothers are constructed, perceived, and treated in wider society.

Section five: mothering, families, and domestic space The focus for these chapters is on exploring how normative ideas regarding what it means to be a “mother” and what the domestic space actually signifies are constantly shifting. We are surrounded with overt narratives of “choice,” a societal embracing of diverse “parenting” styles, and a neoliberal identification of the domestic sphere as also an economic zone. Yet, do these overt initiatives signify equality or simply mask an increasing return to more stringent definitions of what “mothering”, “families” and “domestic space” ought to be, thereby often reducing or taking away mothering choices instead of providing empowerment? In “Chapter 21: From Home to House: Neoliberalism, Maternal Pedagogy and the Dedomestication of the Private Sphere?,” Melinda Vandenbeld Giles discusses how the increasing financialization of society and marketization of housing appears to remove all attached meanings connected to “home” or “mothering”. However, upon closer investigation, this overt narrative of pure economic choice actually masks an increasing moral imperative further entrenching naturalized ideas of home, mothering and family. In the next chapter, “Chapter 22: Mothering or Parenting?,” Linda Rose Ennis discusses the degree to which overt narratives of inclusive parenting mask the reality that mothers still continue to be the primary caregivers. If we encourage or in some cases legally enforce coparenting, particularly in cases of divorce in which the father may not have been an active parent initially, could this have the very real consequence of disempowering mothers? Jennifer Johnson further complicates any singular narrative of “domestic space” in her chapter, “Chapter 23: Homing in on Domestic Space: The Boundaries and Potential of Homemaking.” Johnson reveals the need to acknowledge the diversity of mothering experiences across time and place in relation to gender, race, class, and sexuality. In particular, she investigates the question of whether and how domestic spaces confine mothers or have liberatory potential. The significance, complexity and multiplicity of mother-daughter relationships is then explored by Dorsía Smith Silva in “Chapter 24: Configuring the Mother-Daughter Dyad.” This chapter examines the intersections of mothers and daughters with the changing dynamics of everyday life such as, classism, racism, sexism, and lesbianism. In exploring how the institution of mother-daughter relationships is influenced by the narrow binaries of patriarchal motherhood, empowered mothers and daughters also reconfigure motherhood, challenge patriarchal 9

Lynn O’Brien Hallstein, Andrea O’Reilly, and Melinda Vandenbeld Giles

authority, and create symbols of power and agency. By reclaiming their empowerment, mothers not only empower their individual selves but also their daughters. Section five closes with Nicole Willey’s chapter, “Chapter 25: Mothers and Sons.” Willey suggests that we need to move away from traditional gendered and binary thinking, rejecting shame, disconnection, and a “boys will be boys” mentality in mothering our sons. She discusses many crucial issues including the fear of effeminizing sons, masculine violence and the need for peace-building, African American mothering of sons and queering the mothering of sons. Finally, Willey also concludes it is only through a push for systemic and structural change that we can begin to see a true intersectional feminist mothering ethos.

Section six: mothering and work The labour of mothers reveals the complexities in which “work” and “mothering” are to be understood. Despite mothers providing the basis upon which our current neoliberal economic system is reliant, there remains lack of recognition, economic compensation or childcare supports for this crucial role. All mothers are implicated in this neoliberal regime of accumulation; however, the chapters in this section further explore how historically and into the present day, issues of class, race, geography, sexuality, ability and other identifiers directly affect the everyday experiences and expectations of mothers as they labour in both waged and unwaged contexts. In “Chapter 26: Mothers and Work: Social Reproduction and the Labours of Motherhood,” Catherine Bryan illustrates how motherhood as a form of labour, and mothers as particular kinds of workers – both waged and unwaged – are pivotal to regimes of capitalist accumulation. Drawing on the concept of social reproduction and its application by feminist scholars since the 1960s, this chapter explores the intersection of work and mothering while tending to the simultaneously shifting and persistent ideological and material conditions that accompany the work of those who mother. To do this, the chapter focuses on two key issues that shape, for many, the labour of contemporary motherhood. The first is the transition away from welfare toward workfare. The second is the growing, global reliance on migrant care workers, and the bureaucratic regimes in place to ensure the availability of their labour. Bryan also suggests, though seemingly distinct, both of these examples correspond to the state’s diminished support of women’s (socially defined) reproductive labour in the wake of wide-scale economic transformation, corresponding to neoliberal structural adjustment, and the concurrent and accelerated commodification of that labour. In the next chapter, Jennifer Borda critiques narratives of “choice” in terms of work/life balance discussions in her chapter, “Chapter 27: The Lasting Impacts of the ‘Opt-Out’ Revolution: Disciplining Working Mothers.” As Borda reveals, the media debate regarding mothers “choosing” to leave waged labour deflects from the structural realities that inform such “choices” to opt out, such as implicit and explicit workplace gender bias, workplace inflexibility, and failures of public policy to support working parents and families. The third chapter of this section, “Chapter 28: Shifting Gender Norms and Childcare in Canada” by Brooke Richardson, illustrates how the widespread inaccessibility of childcare in Canada continues to act as an insurmountable barrier to progressively shifting gender roles beyond the traditional, mother-as-primary-caregiver model. Richardson also suggests the state must play a greater role to ensure all mothers have access to the structural supports needed – particularly access to regulated childcare services – for equitable participation in society. In her chapter, “Chapter 29: Poor and Working-Class Mothers,” Patrice Buzzanell discusses how the greater the prevalence of demographic risk factors (single mother, unmarried, heads

10

Introduction

of household without viable or sometimes any employment and with low education) and the extent to which the societies in which they live dictate penalties for these risks, the greater the likelihood that these mothers will live in poverty. Additionally, due to neoliberal policy changes, Buzzanell argues the familial and social support structures along with institutional assistance that existed for previous generations have eroded; thus, making it difficult for mothers to access the resources they require.

Section seven: mothering, economics and globalization The current shift toward a globalized, neoliberal free-market driven world has had detrimental repercussions for mothers. Mothers are now expected to be both optimal economic agents in terms of garnering employment and being “productive” members of society, in addition to performing all of the unwaged labour of care and social reproduction. Despite emancipatory narratives of “choice”, within a globalized space of precarious labour with the lowest wages still reserved for “feminized” industries, mothers are bearing the burden of too much responsibility with no corresponding economic compensation. In the opening chapter of section seven, Melinda Vandenbeld Giles points out in “Chapter 30: Mothering, Economics and Globalization” how while neoliberal philosophy prioritizes the role of mothers and the institution of the family, it contradictorily recognizes only individual market actors. Mothers must be neoliberal self-optimizing economic agents in the “public” realm and maternalist self-sacrificing mothers in the “private” realm. Vandenbeld Giles also argues the more mothers become integrated within the market, the more do essentialist maternalist conceptualizations of mothering predominate. Despite mothers being the primary producers, consumers and reproducers of the neoliberal world, there has not been a corresponding economic acknowledgement of the centrality of mothers as essential to the neoliberal paradigm, resulting globally in a complete lack of support structures and economic compensation. In “Chapter 31: Mothering and the Economy,” Margunn Bjørnholt discusses the various ways in which motherhood is intertwined with the economy, as well as the ways in which mothering has been and still is rendered invisible and devalued in economic thinking, as well as presenting historical and contemporary efforts to value mothering as unpaid work. Despite the reliance of the formal economy on mothers’ productive work, Bjørnholt also argues mothering is excluded from systems of accounting and valuation, and it is often the cause of women’s exclusion or marginalization in the formal economy and the workplace. In the third chapter of section seven, Gabrielle Oliveira discusses the pivotal role migrating mothers have taken on globally as they fill in the gaps of care shortages in “Chapter 32: Transnational Motherhood: Conceptualizing Ideas of Care Here and There.” Even as there is growing literature on the feminization of migration and the central role of immigrant women’s labor in contemporary capitalist formations in industrialized countries, the role of mothers in migration is still overlooked. Oliveira also integrates a case-study of transnational mothers between Mexico and the United States, and concludes by advocating for greater understanding of how women who are migrants are negotiating the meanings of motherhood as they live transnational lives. Grace Adeniyi Ogunyankin then examines the multifaceted place of mothering within the “Africa Rising” narrative in her chapter, “Chapter 33: Mothering, Urbanization and Africa.” Adeniyi Ogunyankin points to mothers’ economic challenges in increasingly neoliberalizing African cities, illustrating how the contemporary struggles of mothers have been linked to colonial legacies that treated women as property. She additionally challenges empowermentfocused programs that emphasize women’s economic independence through micro-credit or

11

Lynn O’Brien Hallstein, Andrea O’Reilly, and Melinda Vandenbeld Giles

skills acquisition training without recognizing how preparing mothers for gendered informal labour in a precarious over-saturated economy might not always be a benefit.

Section eight: mothering, governance and politics The multiple ways in which mothers are governed – both explicitly through formal legal mechanisms and institutions and implicitly through societal regulation – inform, shape and constrain the realms of mothering possibility in everyday life. The following chapters reveal the diversity of mothering experiences within these governmental frameworks but also include the potential for hope in the political sphere in terms of advocating and ensuring that the voices of mothers are actively heard. In the opening chapter of section eight, “Chapter 34: Formal Governance of and by Mothers: Mothers, Public Policy, and Law,” Rebecca Jaremko Bromwich explores how discourses of motherhood and those persons who are identified as mothers are regulated through formal governmental mechanisms including regulations, guidelines, rules, and laws. Bromwich also considers ways in which those socially located as mothers participate in formal government, law, and regulation, as well as ways in which they are constrained, and empowered through formal regulation. Simone Bohn discusses the dialectical relationship between mothering and politics in her “Chapter 35: Mothering and Politics” chapter. Although political power constrains mothers by enforcing prevalent social normativity, Bohn argues mothers have contested these diverse forms of domination in multiple ways: becoming elected officials, entering the state and shaping public policy, seeking mother-friendly labor rights, challenging the sexual division of family labor, advocating in favor of the acceptance of different family structures, and especially by using motherhood as a springboard for matricentric social activism. The third chapter in this section, “Chapter 36: The Criminalization and Incarceration of Mothers in Canada and the United States” by Catherine Borshuk and Gordana Eljdupovic, points out how women of colour and poor mothers are disproportionately criminalized and incarcerated in Canada and the United States, in part due to public beliefs that hold Black and Indigenous mothers to a higher standard; to historical patterns of punitiveness toward people of colour; and to criminal justice practices of over-policing and differentially prosecuting members of poor communities. Pointing to the current propensity to invest in law and order policies and costly post-incarceration proceedings to determine the best interest of the child, the authors note the gaps in services that could fulfil pre-incarceration needs of mothers and families before criminalization occurs. The discussion of how mothers are regulated both formally and through mechanisms of selfsurveillance is continued in Michelle Hughes Miller’s chapter, “Chapter 37: The Governance of Mothers.” Hughes Miller argues state and institutional actors and cultural practices invoke ideological understandings of mothering. The outcome is that all mothers, but most particularly already marginalized mothers, are held accountable to unrealistic mothering expectations rooted in existing oppressive structures. Formal governance is performed through the state or state-affiliated agencies, such as child services, where officials use intensive mothering to assess mothers and their daily lives, punitively judging, restricting, and sometimes imprisoning those perceived as not adequately adhering to institutionalized expertise. Concurrently, intensive mothering messages permeate the media and social interactions, creating an ideological surveillance culture within which mothers are watched, evaluated, found wanting, and sometimes publicly shamed. Ultimately, mothers come to surveil themselves, seeking safety and/or respect as

12

Introduction

docile mothering bodies. Finally, Hughes Miller suggests resistance to the governance of mothers exists, including challenges to institutional expertise, the hegemony of intensive mothering, and surveillance culture itself.

Section nine: mothering and activism Maternal activism is a process and/or political standpoint whereby a woman, mother, or a group, adopts the figure of or the standpoint of mother to make claims on behalf of their children to secure social justice. Additionally, mothers have leveraged the ethos of maternal identity to build grassroots movements and to speak against various forms of injustice. Interdisciplinary chapters in Mothering and Activism investigate the history of maternal activism, detail contemporary maternal activism and mothers who are activists, analyze controversies associated with maternal activism, explore the efficacy of maternal activism both in the past and for the future, and focus on the power of the collective of mothers converging for social justice. In the opening chapter, Sara Hayden discusses the power of maternal activism in “Chapter 38: The Politics of Motherhood,” while also acknowledging the potential issues related to essentialism. Hayden offers an overview of the use of maternal appeals by activists across time and place, drawing attention to causes for which such appeals have been widely used, including peace activism, labor activism, and environmental justice, ultimately arguing that maternity is a potentially powerful stance from which to effect change. In the second chapter, “Chapter 39: Mothering and Activism,” Reena Shadaan traces notable literature on maternal activism, but also calls for deeper engagement with Indigenous, Black and other racialized motherhood scholars, who have long challenged patriarchal motherhood as a basis from which to approach mothering. Based on the contributions of these and other scholars, Shadaan also suggests that it is crucial to consider interlocking systems of oppression and reproductive justice in our conceptualizations of maternal activism. In addition, Shadaan maintains that it is pertinent to deepen our analysis of the gendered implications of maternal activism, particularly as there is an absence of literature on non-binary mothering or parenting and fathering in the contexts of social movements. Catalina M. de Onís’ chapter, “Chapter 40: Reproductive Justice as Environmental Justice: Contexts, Coalitions, and Cautions,” examines the intersections of reproductive justice and environmental justice to consider the possibilities and pitfalls of approaching these social movements and discourses as always-already interrelated in relationship to motherhood. Both reproductive justice and environmental justice point to unique and overlapping histories and present interconnections, as well as the imperative of centering the experiences and perspectives of women of color, Indigenous peoples, and low-income communities to challenge the corporations, politicians, ideologies, and material conditions that make life unlivable for billions of people on Earth. From these struggles for alternative ways of knowing and being, the chapter considers radical coalitional possibilities for uprooting false “solutions” that function to further alienate, erase, and threaten the lives of entire communities. The final chapter of section nine and the book, “Chapter 41: Motherhood and the Struggle for Reproductive Justice,” by Natalie Fixmer-Oraiz, provides an overview of the history of reproductive justice, its central tenets and principles, and the defining challenges and horizons of possibility for the early twenty-first century. As a critical framework and organizing strategy, reproductive justice, Fixmer-Oraiz, argues, illuminates structures that shape myriad and distinct experiences of pregnancy and parenting and challenges the reproductive rights movement to take a broader, more intersectional view of its aims and scope.

13

Lynn O’Brien Hallstein, Andrea O’Reilly, and Melinda Vandenbeld Giles

Conclusion The breadth and knowledge gained from motherhood research provides an overt acknowledgement of all that mothers do. Revealing the multiple, diverse and complex ways in which mothers have, and continue to be, actively involved in claiming their voices and identities for themselves and their children is crucial to centralizing the positionality of mothers in our current globalized world. What this Companion has done is to embrace fully the diverse aspects of mothering experience as determined and influenced by class, race, sexuality, ability, geography and other identifiers. We have revealed the extent to which patriarchal definitions of motherhood and governing structures have and do present obstructions to mothering. However, we have also revealed the multiple ways in which mothers are actively resisting these forms of patriarchal governance and neoliberal oppression by claiming their space and demanding a public voice. As an edited volume, we can only hope to strengthen and add to the global conversation regarding motherhood research, and ensure the voices and experiences of mothers continue to be brought to the forefront in pushing for both ideological and material change.

Note 1 Some key texts in motherhood research to date are: Chavkin, Wendy and Jane Maree Maher. The Globalization of Motherhood: Deconstructions and Reconstructions of Biology and Care. Routledge, 2010. Print; Crittenden, Ann. The Price of Motherhood: Why the Most Important Job the World is Still the Least Valued. Henry Holt and Company, 2001. Print; de Marneffe, Daphne. Maternal Desire: On Children, Love, and the Inner Life. Little, Brown and Company, 2004; Donner, Henrike. Domestic Goddesses: Maternity, Globalization and Middle-Class Identity in Contemporary India. Ashgate Publishing, 2008. Print; Douglas, Susan J and Michaels, Meredith. The Mommy Myth: The Idealization of Motherhood and how it has Undermined Women. Free Press, 2004, Print; Ehrenreich, Barbara and Arlie Hochschild, editors. Global Woman: Nannies, Maids and Sex Workers in the New Economy. Henry Holt and Company, 2002. Print; Friedman, May. Mommyblogs and the Changing Face of Motherhood. U of Toronto P, 2013. Print; Giles, Melinda Vandenbeld, editor. Mothering in the Age of Neoliberalism. Demeter Press, 2014; Green, Fiona. “Empowered Mothering.” Encyclopedia of Motherhood Volume One, edited by Andrea O’Reilly. 2010, pp. 347–8. Print; Hays, Sharon. The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood. Yale UP, 1996. Print; Ginsburg, Faye and Rayna Rapp. Conceiving the New World Order: The Global Politics of Reproduction. Eds. U of California P, 1995. 78–102. Print; Jordan, Brigitte. Birth in Four Cultures: A Cross-Cultural Investigation of Childbirth in Yucatan, Holland, Sweden and the United States. Eden Press, 1978. Print; Kitzinger, Sheila. Ourselves as Mothers: The Universal Experience of Motherhood. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1995 (1992). Print; O’Brien Hallstein, D. Lynn and Andrea O’Reilly, editors. Contemporary Motherhood in a Post- Second Wave Context: Challenges, Strategies, and Possibilities. Demeter Press, 2012, Print; O’Reilly, Andrea, editor. Mother Outlaws: Theories and Practices of Empowered Mothering. Women’s Press, 2004. Print; Podnieks, Elizabeth, editor. Mediated Moms: Mothers in Popular Culture, edited by Elizabeth Podnieks. McGill-Queen’s UP, 2012, Print; Rich, Adrienne. Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution. 2nd ed., W.W. Norton, 1986. Print; Ruddick, Sara. Maternal Thinking: Toward a Politics of Peace. Beacon Press, 1989. Print; Villalobos, Ana. Motherload: Making it All Better in Insecure Times. U of California P, 2014. Print; Walks, Michelle and Naomi McPherson. An Anthropology of Mothering. Demeter Press, 2011. Print; Williams, Joan. Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and What To Do About It. Oxford UP, 2000. Print.

Works cited Collins, Patricia Hill. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness and the Politics of Empowerment. Routledge, 1991. Print. Green, Fiona, J. “Feminist Mothers: Successfully Negotiating the Tensions Between Motherhood and Mothering.” Mother Outlaws: Theories and Practices of Empowered Mothering, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, Women’s Press, 2004, pp. 31–42. Print.

14

Introduction O’Reilly, Andrea. Mother Outlaws: Theories and Practices of Empowered Mothering. Toronto: Women’s Press, 2004. Print. Rich, Adrienne. Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution. 2nd ed., W.W. Norton, 1986. Print. Ruddick, Sara. Maternal Thinking: Toward a Politics of Peace. Boston: Beacon Press, 1989. Print.

15

SECTION I

Maternal theory

1 MATERNAL THEORY Patriarchal motherhood and empowered mothering Andrea O’Reilly

Adrienne Rich opened her classic work Of Woman Born with the claim that “we know more about the air we breathe, the seas we travel, than about the nature and meaning of motherhood” (11). In the forty plus years since the publication of Woman Born, motherhood has become a robust topic of scholarly inquiry. Indeed, today it would be unthinkable to cite Rich’s quote on the dearth of maternal scholarship. A cursory review of motherhood research reveals that hundreds of scholarly monographs, anthologies, and journal issues have been published on every imaginable motherhood theme. The Journal of the Motherhood Initiative and Demeter Press alone have examined motherhood topics in relation to a diverse array of subjects, including the following: sexuality, peace, religion, public policy, literature, work, popular culture, health, ethnicity, environment, militarism, young mothers, feminism, mothers and sons, mothers and daughters, queer mothers, Muslim mothering, Indigenous mothers, incarcerated mothers, third-wave mothering, and mothering and domestic violence. In 2006, I coined the term “motherhood studies” to acknowledge and demarcate this new scholarship on motherhood as a legitimate and autonomous discipline – one grounded in and sustained by a distinct tradition of maternal theory. The aim of this chapter is to introduce this field of maternal theory. Maternal theory, drawing upon Adrienne Rich’s distinction between motherhood and mothering (discussed later), is principally organized by two standpoints: motherhood as institution and ideology, and mothering as experience and identity. The background section of the chapter examines motherhood as institution and ideology and introduces three central theoretical concepts of motherhood studies, ones that have informed our understanding of patriarchal motherhood and shaped the way motherhood researchers do motherhood studies. They include the theoretical frameworks of motherhood versus mothering and that of maternal thinking and practice, as well as the expansive theoretical concept of intensive mothering. The challenges and possibilities section explores mothering as experience to consider how patriarchal motherhood is resisted and redefined through empowered maternal practices and identities. The chapter concludes with directions for future research.

19

Andrea O’Reilly

Background and contexts: theoretical concepts to understand patriarchal motherhood Mothering versus motherhood Adrienne Rich’s Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution, first published in 1976, is recognized as the first and arguably the most important book on motherhood. The book – a wide-ranging, far-reaching meditation on the meaning and experience of motherhood that draws from the disciplines of anthropology, feminist theory, psychology, literature, as well as narrates Rich’s personal reflections on her experiences of mothering – has had a broad and enduring impact on feminist thought on motherhood. In Of Women Born, Rich distinguishes between two meanings of motherhood, one superimposed on the other: the potential relationship of any woman to her powers of reproduction and to children; and the institution – which aims at ensuring that that potential – and all women – shall remain under male control. (7) “This book,” Rich writes, “is not an attack on the family or on mothering except as defined and restricted under patriarchy” (8). The term “motherhood” refers to the patriarchal institution of motherhood, which is male-defined and controlled and is deeply oppressive to women, whereas the word “mothering” refers to women’s experiences of mothering and is female-defined and centred and potentially empowering to women. The reality of patriarchal motherhood, thus, must be distinguished from the possibility or potentiality of empowered mothering. In other words, whereas motherhood operates as a patriarchal institution to constrain, regulate, and dominate women and their mothering, mothers’ own experiences of mothering can, nonetheless, be a site of empowerment. “For most of what we know as the ‘mainstream’ of recorded history,” Rich writes, “motherhood as institution has ghettoized and degraded female potentialities” (33). However, as Rich argues, and her book seeks to demonstrate, this meaning of motherhood is neither natural nor inevitable. Rather motherhood, in Rich’s words, “has a history, it has an ideology” (33). Motherhood is, thus, primarily not a natural or biological function; rather, it is specifically and fundamentally a cultural practice that is continuously redesigned in response to changing economic and societal factors. As a cultural construction, its meaning varies with time and place; there is no essential or universal experience of motherhood. Patriarchal motherhood is neither natural nor inevitable. And since the patriarchal institution is socially constructed, it can be challenged and changed. The oppressive and the empowering dimensions of maternity, as well as the complex relationship between the two, first identified by Rich in Of Woman Born, have been the focus of feminist research on motherhood over the last four decades. Scholars of motherhood have long recognized that Rich’s distinction between mothering and motherhood was what enabled feminists to realize that motherhood is not naturally, necessarily, or inevitably oppressive, which is a view held by some second-wave feminists. Rather, if freed from the institutional shackles of motherhood, mothering could be experienced as a site of empowerment and social change. However, there is no discussion of empowered mothering or how its potentiality may be realized in Rich’s book. The notable exception is the brief reference Rich makes to her summer holiday in Vermont when her husband was away and she and her sons lived “as conspirators, outlaws from the institution of motherhood” (195). Despite this absence, most scholars agree that although mothering may not be described or theorized in Of Woman Born, in distinguishing 20

Maternal theory

mothering from motherhood and in identifying the potential empowerment of motherhood, the text interrupts the patriarchal narrative of motherhood and clears the space for the articulation of counter-narratives of mothering, which enables mothers to envision and enact an empowered mode of mothering. And for many scholars, this is the true legacy of Rich’s work. Importantly, in the preface to the 1986 edition, Rich revises the claim she made in the first edition “that in the mainstream of recorded history, motherhood as institution has ghettoized and degraded female potentialities” to argue that women-centered experiences of mothering and acts of mother power can be found throughout history if we look at cultures other than the dominant Western ones. Rich writes: “Relying on ready-to-hand Greek mythology, I was led to generalize that ‘the cathexis between mother and daughter’ was endangered always and everywhere. A consideration of American Indian, African and Afro-American myth and philosophy might have suggested other patterns” (xxv). In the 1986 preface, she corrects the cultural blind spot of the 1976 edition to consider, albeit briefly, hitherto marginalized and neglected traditions of mothering, in particular, that of African American mothering, wherein mothering is a site of power.

Maternal thinking and practice As Adrienne Rich theorized the institution of patriarchal motherhood, the focus of Sara Ruddick’s work is on the experience of mothering, what Ruddick terms maternal practice. Ruddick’s concept of maternal practice and thinking – divested of biology, nature, instinct, and sentiment – foregrounds what all mothers know: motherwork is inherently an intellectual activity. In Maternal Thinking: Toward a Politics of Peace, published in 1989, Ruddick elaborates: Like a scientist writing up her experiment, a critic poring over a text, or a historian assessing documents, a mother caring for her children engages in a discipline. She asks certain questions – those relevant to her aims – rather than others; she accepts certain criteria for the truth, adequacy, and relevance of proposed answers; and she cares about the findings she makes and can act on. The discipline of maternal thought, like other disciplines, establishes criteria for determining failure and success, sets priorities, and identifies virtues that the discipline requires. Like any other work, mothering is prey to characteristic temptations that it must identify. To describe the capacities, judgments, metaphysical attitudes, and values of maternal thought presumes not maternal achievement, but a conception of achievement. (24) When mothers set out to fulfill the demands of motherwork – what Ruddick defines as protection, nurturance, and training – they are engaged in maternal practice. This engagement, in turn, gives rise to a specific discipline of thought – a cluster of attitudes, beliefs, and values – which Ruddick calls “maternal thinking.” Maternal thinking, as Ruddick explains, refers to the “intellectual capacities [the mother] develops, the judgments she makes, the metaphysical attitudes she assumes, and the values she affirms in and through maternal practice” (24). In her examination of maternal thought and practice and their accompanying tasks and concepts of scrutinizing, cheerfulness, holding, welcoming of change, concrete thinking, maternal inauthenticity, and attentive love, among others, Ruddick was the first scholar to examine the experience of mothering, as opposed to the institution of motherhood, and develop a theoretical framework and vocabulary for this analysis. In defining mothering as a practice, Ruddick has enabled future scholars to analyze the experience 21

Andrea O’Reilly

or practice of mothering as distinct from the identity of the mother. In other words, mothering may be performed by anyone who commits themselves to the demands of maternal practice. As well, this perspective has allowed scholars to study the actual experiences of mothering as apart from, albeit affected by, the institution of motherhood. The word “mother,” as Mielle Chandler writes, “[needs to be] understood as a verb; as something one does, a practice” (531). For Ruddick, as Sarah LaChance Adams notes, “it is the practice of mothering that makes one a mother, not a biological or social imperative [and] [t]herefore, the title of ‘mother’ is not strictly limited to biological mothers, or even women” (727). Ruddick’s insight marks a radical rethinking and reframing of the meaning of motherhood in maternal scholarship, as her repositioning of the word “mother” from a noun to a verb degenders motherwork. More specifically, divesting care of biology, Ruddick has enabled scholars to destabilize patriarchal motherhood by dislodging the gender essentialism that grounds and structures it. Ruddick argues that maternal practice is characterized by three demands: preservation, growth, and social acceptance. “To be a mother,” continues Ruddick, “is to be committed to meeting these demands by works of preservative love, nurturance, and training” (17).“Preserving the lives of children,” Ruddick writes,“is the central constitutive, invariant aim of maternal practice: the commitment to achieving that aim is the constitutive maternal act” (19). “The demand to preserve a child’s life is quickly supplemented,” Ruddick continues, “by the second demand, to nurture its emotional and intellectual growth” (19). Ruddick explains: To foster growth . . . is to sponsor or nurture a child’s unfolding, expanding material spirit. Children demand this nurturance because their development is complex, gradual, and subject to distinctive kinds of distortion or inhibition. . . . Children’s emotional, cognitive, sexual, and social development is sufficiently complex to demand nurturance; this demand is an aspect of maternal work . . . and it structures maternal thinking. (83) The third demand of maternal practice is training and social acceptability of children: [The demand] is made not by children’s needs but by the social groups of which a mother is a member. Social groups require that mothers shape their children’s growth in “acceptable” ways. What counts as acceptable varies enormously within and among groups and cultures. The demand for acceptability, however, does not vary, nor does there seem to be much dissent from the belief that children cannot “naturally” develop in socially correct ways but must be “trained.” I use the neutral, though somewhat harsh, term “training” to underline a mother’s active aims to make her children “acceptable.” Her training strategies may be persuasive, manipulative, educative, abusive, seductive, or respectful and are typically a mix of most of these. (21) “In any mother’s day,” as Ruddick notes, “the demands of preservation, growth and acceptability are intertwined.” Yet a reflective mother, she continues, “can separately identify each demand, partly because they are often in conflict” (23). Moreover, the rival claims of maternal practice become further pronounced when they involve the third demand of training. For most mothers, Ruddick writes, “the work of training is confusing and fraught with self-doubt” (104). It is in the context of this discussion that Ruddick introduces the central and pivotal concept of inauthentic mothering: “Out of maternal powerlessness and in response to a society whose values 22

Maternal theory

it does not determine, maternal thinking has often and largely opted for inauthenticity and the ‘good’ of others” (103). She elaborates: By inauthenticity I designate a double willingness – first a willingness to travailer pour l’armee [to work for the army] to accept the uses to which others put one’s children; and second, a willingness to remain blind to the implications for those uses for the actual lives of women and children. Maternal thought embodies inauthenticity by taking on the values of the dominant culture. (103) Maternal inauthenticity, Ruddick explains further, becomes expressed as a “repudiation of one’s own perceptions and values” and results in mothers “relinquishing authority to others and losing confidence in their own values and in their perception of their children’s needs” (111–12). In 2009, I published, in celebration of the twentieth anniversary of Ruddick’s book, the edited volume Maternal Thinking: Philosophy, Politics and Peace. The book opens with a conversation between Sarah Ruddick and myself and concludes with these words by Ruddick: So we are not as good as we should be, not as good as we could be. We will try to extend our grasp of “other” mother’s lives. And perhaps when we do, we will find that some mothers, acting together and deliberately on behalf of all their children, can weaken just a little the forces of violence that are aimed against us and the forces of destruction that are aimed by us. (36) Indeed, Ruddick’s concept of maternal thinking has enabled mothers “to work together” and has made possible the articulation of maternal voices now heard in maternal theory and in the larger field of motherhood studies.

Intensive mothering Building on Rich’s insight that motherhood is a cultural construction, I argue that normative motherhood discourses are rewritten in response to, and as a result of, significant cultural and economic change. Numerous works detail how the modern image of the “full-time stay-athome mother” – isolated in the private sphere and financially dependent on her husband – came about as result of industrialization. At the end of World War II, the discourse of the “happy homemaker” made “the stay-at-home-mom-and-apple pie” mode of mothering the normal and natural motherhood experience. The view that stay-at-home motherhood is what constitutes good motherhood emerged only in the postwar period to effect a social reorganization and, more particularly, to redesign feminine gender behaviour and roles. During World War II in North America, there was an unprecedented increase in women’s employment to include white, middle-class mothers who had previously not been engaged in full-time employment. Thus, in the war period, mothers were encouraged to work and were celebrated for doing so, particularly in the propaganda films and literature. With the end of the war and the return of the soldiers, women were forced give up their wartime employment. This was orchestrated and facilitated by an ideological redesign of what constitutes good motherhood. Sacrificial motherhood thus emerged as the dominant view of good mothering in the postwar period, or approximately seventy years ago. Sacrificial motherhood is characterized by three central themes. The first defines mothering as natural to women and essential to their being, 23

Andrea O’Reilly

conveyed in the belief, as Pamela Courtenay Hall notes, that “women are naturally mothers, they are born with a built-in set of capacities, dispositions, and desires to nurture children . . . [and that this] engagement of love and instinct is utterly distant from the world of paid work” (60). Second, the mother is to be the central caregiver of her biological children. And third, children require full-time mothering, or in the instance where the mother must work outside the home, the children must always come before the job. Sharon Hays argues that intensive mothering emerged in the postwar period. I contend in contrast that even though the origins of intensive mothering may be traced back to this time, intensive mothering, in its fully developed form, developed in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Hays argues that intensive mothering is characterized by three themes: (1) “the mother is the central caregiver”; (2) “mothering is regarded as more important than paid employment”; and (3) “mothering requires lavishing copious amounts of time, energy, and material resources on the child” (8). I would suggest that whereas the first two characterize mothering from postwar to present day, only mothering of the last thirty years can be characterized by the third theme – namely, children require copious amounts of time, energy, and material resources. The postwar discourse of good motherhood demanded that mothers be at home full-time with their children; however, such a demand did not require the intensive mothering expected of mothers today. I see the postwar discourse of motherhood – what I term “custodial motherhood” or the “flower-pot” approach – covering the period between 1946 to the late 1980s, and understand it as different from the intensive mothering that emerged in the early 1990s. Although intensive mothering emerges from custodial mothering, I emphasize that it is a distinct motherhood discourse specific to its historical period. Normative motherhood in the postwar era required full-time mothering, but the emphasis was on the physical proximity of mother and child (i.e., the mother was to be at home with the children) and not on the mother needing to be continuously attuned to the psychological, emotional, or cognitive needs of her children as mandated by intensive mothering. Intensive mothering, as Hays explains, “tells us that children are innocent and priceless, that their rearing should be carried out primarily by individual mothers and that it should be centered on children’s needs, with methods that are informed by experts, labor intensive, and costly” (21). Intensive mothering dictates that: (1) children can only be properly cared for by the biological mother; (2) this mothering must be provided 24/7; (3) the mother must always put children’s needs before her own; (4) mothers must turn to the experts for instruction; (5) the mother must be fully satisfied, fulfilled, completed, and composed in motherhood; and finally (6) mothers must lavish excessive amounts of time, energy, and money in the rearing of their children. Today, intensive mothering demands more than mere physical proximity of the mother and child: contemporary mothers are expected to spend, to use the discourse of the experts, “quality time” with their children. Today mothers though they have fewer children and more labour-saving devices – from microwaves to take-out food – spend more time, energy, and money on their children than their mothers did in the 1960s. Indeed as Bonnie Fox has remarked: Expectations about the work needed to raise a child successfully have escalated at a dizzy rate; the bar is now sky high. Aside from the weighty prescriptions about the nutrition essential to babies’ and children’s physical health, and the sensitivity required for their emotional health, warnings about the need for intellectual stimulation necessary for developmental progress are directed at mothers. (237) And the majority of mothers today, unlike sixty years ago, practice intensive mothering while engaged in full-time employment. 24

Maternal theory

Motherhood theorists offer various explanations to account for the emergence of intensive mothering over the last thirty years. One explanation for the emergence of intensive mothering in the late 1980s is the changing demographics of motherhood. Today, for the majority of middle-class women, motherhood is embarked upon only after a career is established and when the woman is in her thirties. For these mothers, the hurriedness of intensive mothering is a continuation of their busy lives as professional women. Often these professional, highly educated women, who are unfamiliar and perhaps uncomfortable with the everyday, devalued, invisible work of mothering and domesticity, fill up their days with public activities that can be documented as productive and visible work. With fewer children, and more labour-saving devices and household help, child-rearing – or more accurately the enrichment and amusement of one beloved child – becomes the focus of the mother’s time and attention, as opposed to cooking and cleaning as it was the 1950s and 1960s. And when these professional women return to their careers, intensive mothering as practiced in the evenings and weekends is the way a working mother, consciously or otherwise, compensates for her time away from her children; it bespeaks the ambivalence and guilt contemporary working mothers may feel about working and enjoying the work that they do. As well, intensive mothering’s emphasis on enrichment – toys, books, games, activities, programs, camps, holidays, theatre, and so forth for children – has emerged in response to mothers earning an income of their own and having a say on how household money is spent. Mothers, more so than fathers, are the consumers of items children need and want; so as a mother’s earnings and economic independence increases, more money is spent on children. As well, mothers today are having fewer children, which makes intensive mothering possible – they can devote all their time and attention to one or two beloved children. Now children must also turn to their mothers, rather than siblings or neighbours, for companionship. Finally, some argue that just as custodial mothering emerged in the postwar period in response to new psychological theories that stressed the need for mother-child attachment, intensive mothering in our time has arisen in response to new scientific research that emphasizes the importance of the first five years of life in the intellectual, behavioural, emotional, and social development of the child. Whatever the economic or social explanation may be, the ideology of intensive mothering measures good mothering in accordance with the amount of time, money, and energy a mother spends on child-rearing. Raising one child today, as my mother frequently remarks, demands more time, energy, and money than the raising of four in the postwar period. Indeed, the demands made on mothers today are unparalleled in history. In her article “Motherhood as a Class Act: The Many Ways in Which ‘Intensive Mothering’ is Entangled with Social Class,” Bonnie Fox argues that intensive mothering requires, signifies, and reproduces middle-class status. From her interviews with forty couples (nine working class and thirty-one middle class), Fox finds that “middle class women are more likely to have the material and personal resources necessary to give themselves over completely to mothering; [thus, middle-class women] are more likely to develop intensive mothering practices” (251). These resources include not only the obvious one of money – being free from economic pressures and financial worries – but also those of efficacy and time. Given the nature of intensive mothering, middle-class circumstances and resources – in particular, financial security, time and efficacy – seem to be, Fox concludes “the prerequisites for its accomplishment” (243). One mother interviewed by Fox remarks: “Having a woman at home full time is the new marker of being middle class” (256). However, although intensive mothering may signify class privilege, it is, as Fox emphasizes, acutely gendered: “as being home with a baby and doing intensive mothering may detract from women’s class status given how much more recognition paid work is regularly shown, it may bolster men’s class status” (257). I argue further that different from the postwar era when having a stay-at-home wife marked the achievement of 25

Andrea O’Reilly

middle-class status, today middle-class status is signified not only by a stay-at-home mother but one who engages in intensive mothering. In this way, intensive mothering is specifically a marker of middle-class status. Fox also considers how mothering practices reproduce social class. She writes that “it is possible that intensive mothering reproduces social class, in that babies cared for in this manner are somehow better prepared for success later in life” (256). However, Fox concludes that “the theoretical and empirical grounds on which to build such a case are not at all obvious” (256). Although I agree with Fox that it is impossible to prove that intensive mothering reproduces social class, I argue that what is at issue here is that middle-class parents believe that intensive mothering does reproduce class status and privilege. Parents are committed to intensive mothering precisely because they believe, to quote again from Hays, that “by lavishing copious amounts of time, energy, and material resources on the child” their children will “succeed” in life and achieve, or perhaps more accurately inherit, middle-class status (8). In her book Parenting Out of Control: Anxious Parents in Uncertain Times, Margaret K. Nelson argues that the parenting styles of what she refers to as the “professional middle class” parents with those from the “middle” to “working” classes are quite distinct. Parenting among the professional middle classes includes the following: A lengthy perspective on a child’s dependency, a commitment to creating “passionate” people, personalized and negotiated guidance in the activities of daily life, respectful responsiveness to children’s individualized needs and desires, a belief in the boundless potential, ambitious goals for achievement and an intensive engagement with children. (7) By way of contrast, Nelson notes that “the working class and middle class parents are more concerned with skills that will ensure self-sufficiency, and there are clear rules of authority within the family” (8). Why do professional middle-class parents engage in this style of parenting? This mode of child-rearing – alternatively called intensive mothering or “helicopter parenting” or in Nelson’s words “parenting out of control” – is due to, according to the author, “anxieties about the children’s future, from nostalgia for the way they imagine families used to live, and from assessment of dangers to children in the world today” (174). Speaking specifically on parent’s anxiety about their children’s future, Nelson comments: Anxious to secure their children’s competitive advantage in a world marked by increasing anxiety about college acceptance and increasing inequality (and perhaps shrinking options for elite status), professional middle class parents seize opportunities for educational success and enroll even their very young children in a dazzling array of “extracurricular” activities. They assume that their children are, if not perfectible, blessed with boundless potential. In response they nurture children to become the best they can possibly be; they also provide them with the “best” social, cultural and economic capital. (8) Of interest here, particularly in relation to Fox’s argument on the relationship between social reproduction and social class, is Nelson’s argument that professional middle-class parents engage in intensive mothering to preserve class privilege so as to ensure, in Nelson’s words, “secure status reproduction” (76). Indeed, when mothers engage in intensive mothering, they are, as Hays explains, grooming their children for their future class position by providing them with the appropriate cultural capital and demonstrating their own class status relative to mothers 26

Maternal theory

who cannot afford such luxuries or do not recognize them as an essential element of good childrearing. (159) They are engaging in what Melissa A. Milkie and Catherine H. Warner term “status safeguarding” (66). Thus, the issue is not that the intensive mothering reproduces social status and class but that anxious professional middle-class parents in uncertain times practice intensive mothering in the belief that it will. Nelson attributes parental anxiety about children’s future among the professional middle class to several social and economic factors, and all of them centre on giving children a competitive advantage and providing them with social and economic capital. Though not named as such by Nelson, professional middle-class anxiety about their children’s future and, in particular, their concern with capital and advantage, I argue, is the result of the specific political and economic context of our times – namely, the ideology of neoliberalism. Susan Braedley and Meg Luxton in their article “Competing Philosophies: Neoliberalism and Challenges of Everyday Life” argue that neoliberalism has negatively affected women in three ways. Melinda Vandenbeld Giles in her introduction to Mothering in the Age of Neoliberalism discusses these themes as follows: 1) Women’s work is so poorly remunerated that women are the majority of poor people in the world and this is only made worse by neo-liberal policies. 2) While neo-liberalism identifies women only as economic actors, the work of mothering must still be performed and is in fact integral to the reproduction of future neoliberal workers. However, due to the neo-liberal commitment of reducing state expenditures such as paid maternity leave and child care, mothers are left with no support systems. 3) Despite the emancipatory potential within the “feminization of society,” neoliberalism remains an inherently male paradigm in terms of who controls the capital assets. (6) Neoliberalism, as Braedley and Luxton write, “allows space for women who are willing or able to be like men, who present themselves as men do and who are able to compete as men do” (15). Focusing on intensive mothering, rather than mothers and motherhood more generally as do these authors, I argue that the rise of intensive mothering in the 1990s grows out of the emergence of neoliberalism in the same decade, as does O’Brien Hallstein (Bikini-Ready Moms). Once again, the meaning and practice of normative motherhood is rewritten as a result of and in response to significant cultural and economic change. With privatization and deregulation, many of the services once provided by government – schooling, education, health, culture, arts, recreation, health, fitness, and carework – have been downloaded to mothers. As well, with neoliberalism’s emphasis on individual responsibility, mothers today are not only responsible for this downloaded work, but they are also responsible for how their children fare under neoliberalism. If children do not succeed, the blame rests solely with the mother, as it was her responsibility to ensure that they could and should. The forces of neoliberalism and intensive mothering have created the perfect storm for twenty-first-century motherhood, as mothers today must do far more work with far less resources. Indeed, neoliberalism has created the “anxious parents in uncertain times” as theorized by Nelson, which is the subtitle of her book, and has produced the practice of intensive mothering, which seeks to alleviate this anxiety and uncertainty through the social reproduction of class privilege and status, as discussed by Fox. And again, these changes in the ideological and material conditions of mothering are due to the larger economic and social transformations brought about by the rise of neoliberalism in the 1990s. 27

Andrea O’Reilly

Today’s intensive mothering is also, as was custodial mothering in the postwar era, an ideological construction that functions as a backlash discourse, and like all backlash discourses, it functions to regulate women or more specifically in this instance, mothers. Drawing on Naomi Wolf ’s theory of the “Beauty Myth,” I argue that the current discourse of intensive mothering has emerged in response to women’s increased social and economic independence, which includes the following: their increased labour participation, their entry into traditionally male areas of work, the rise in female-initiated divorces, the growth in female-headed households, and improved educational opportunities for women that took place in the 1970s and early 1980s. It seems that just as women were making inroads and feeling confident, a new discourse of motherhood emerged that made two things inevitable: that women would forever feel inadequate as mothers and that work and motherhood would be forever seen as in conflict and incompatible. I believe that the guilt and shame women experience in failing to live up to what is in fact an impossible ideal is neither accidental nor inconsequential; rather, it is deliberately manufactured and monitored. Just as the self-hate produced by the beauty myth undercuts and undermines women’s sense of achievement in education or a career, the current discourse of intensive mothering gives rise to self-doubt or, more specifically, a guilt that immobilizes women and robs them of their confidence as both workers and mothers. Given that no one can achieve intensive mothering, all mothers see themselves as failures. This is how the discourse works psychologically to regulate (i.e., paralyze) mothers through guilt and shame. And, some mothers, believing that perfect motherhood could be achieved if they “just quit work,” leave paid employment. This is how the discourse regulates on the level of the social and the economic. Thus, intensive mothering, I argue, emerges as the normative ideology and practice of motherhood in the 1990s, both in response to changing demographics (discussed earlier), the rise of neoliberalism, and as a backlash to the advancement of women of the earlier decades, which O’Brien Hallstein’s (Bikini-Ready Moms) work also suggests. The discourse of intensive mothering is oppressive not because children have needs, but because we, as a culture, dictate that only the biological mother is capable of fulfilling them, that children’s needs must always come before those of the mother, and that children’s needs must be responded to around the clock and with extensive time, money, and energy. Petra Bueskens argues that “infancy and early childhood are periods of high emotional and physical dependency and, moreover this is not a pure invention of patriarchal science” (81). However, as Petra Bueskens continues, “The problem is not the fact of this requirement but rather that meeting this need has come to rest exclusively, and in isolation, on the shoulders of biological mothers” (81). Although sacrificial motherhood, and in particular intensive mothering, requires the denial of the mother’s own selfhood in positioning the children’s needs as always before her own, there are other ways to mother that allow mothers both their selfhood and power. This is the subject of the following section on empowered mothering.

Challenges and possibilities: resisting and redefining patriarchal motherhood through empowered mothering In Of Woman Born, Adrienne Rich, when discussing a vacation without her husband one summer, describes herself and her sons as “conspirators, outlaws from the institution of motherhood” (195). She writes: I remember one summer, living in a friend’s house in Vermont. My husband was working abroad for several weeks and my three sons – nine, seven, and five years old – and I dwelt for most of that time by ourselves. Without a male adult in the house, without 28

Maternal theory

any reason for schedules, naps, regular mealtimes, or early bedtimes so the two parents could talk, we fell into what I felt to be a delicious and sinful rhythm. . . . [W]e lived like castaways on some island of mothers and children. At night they fell asleep without murmur and I stayed up reading and writing as I had when a student, till the early morning hours. I remember thinking: This is what living with children could be – without school hours, fixed routines, naps, the conflict of being both mother and wife with no room for being simply, myself. Driving home once after midnight from a late drive-in movie . . . with three sleeping children in the back of the car, I felt wide awake, elated; we had broken together all the rules of bedtime, the night rules, rules I myself thought I had to observe in the city or become a “bad mother.” We were conspirators, outlaws from the institution of motherhood; I felt enormously in charge of my life. (194–95) However, upon Rich’s return to the city, the institution, in her words, “closed down on us again, and my own mistrust of myself as a ‘good mother’ returned, along with my resentment of the archetype” (195). Rich’s reflections on being an outlaw from the institution of motherhood and the references she makes to being a “good” and “bad” mother are drawn from the key distinction between motherhood and mothering discussed earlier in this chapter. In patriarchal culture, women who mother in the institution of motherhood are regarded as “good” mothers, whereas women who mother outside or against the institution of motherhood are viewed as “bad” mothers. In contrast, Rich argues that mothers must be “bad” mothers or, more precisely, “mother outlaws” to become empowered. This section, building upon Rich’s concept of “mother outlaws” examines how mothers may resist and redefine patriarchal motherhood to achieve empowered mothering to acquire empowerment for themselves and their children. In Of Woman Born, Rich writes,“We do not think of the power stolen from us and the power withheld from us in the name of the institution of motherhood” (275). The aim of empowered mothering is to reclaim that power for mothers and to imagine and implement a mode of mothering that mitigates the many ways that patriarchal motherhood, both discursively and materially, regulates and restrains mothers and their mothering. However, empowered mothering, or what may be termed “mothering against motherhood,” has yet to be fully defined, documented, or dramatized in feminist scholarship on motherhood. Rather, empowered mothering is understood for what it is not – namely patriarchal motherhood. Indeed, as Fiona Joy Green notes, what is still missing from discussions on motherhood is “Rich’s monumental contention that, even when restrained by patriarchy, motherhood can be a site of empowerment and political activism” (31). Rich uses the word “courageous” to define a nonpatriarchal practice of mothering, whereas Baba Copper calls such a practice “radical mothering.” Susan Douglas and Meredith Michaels use the word “rebellious” to describe outlaw mothering, and “hip” is Ariel Gore’s term for transgressive mothering. In my work, I use the term “empowered mothering” to signify maternal practices that resist and refuse patriarchal motherhood to create a mode of mothering that is empowering to women. Or to use Rich’s terminology, an empowered and empowering maternal practice marks a movement from motherhood to mothering and makes possible a mothering against motherhood. Interest in and concern for the empowerment of mothers, both in the home and in the larger society, has been a central concern of feminist research and activism worldwide over the last thirty plus years. Feminist scholars contend that motherhood, as it is currently perceived and practiced in patriarchal societies, is disempowering if not oppressive for a multitude 29

Andrea O’Reilly

of reasons – namely, the societal devaluation of motherwork, the endless tasks of privatized mothering, the current incompatibility of waged work and motherwork, and the impossible standards of idealized motherhood. Empowered mothering is essential for maternal well-being, as it enables women to mother comfortably, competently, and confidently. More specifically, empowered mothering enables mothers to more effectively balance motherhood with paid employment. Feminist scholars likewise emphasize that empowered mothers are more effective mothers for children, that such mothers are healthier women and more productive workers, and that empowered mothering is beneficial for families and society at large.

Empowered mothering for maternal empowerment Over the last decade, I have sought to develop a theory of empowered mothering that considers how mothers from various cultural positions resist patriarchal motherhood to achieve an identity and experience of maternal empowerment. In the first instance, I argue that empowered mothering functions as an oppositional discourse of motherhood; more specifically, it signifies a theory and practice of mothering that challenges the dominant discourse of motherhood and transforms the various ways that the lived experience of patriarchal motherhood is limiting or oppressive to women. For my work on empowered mothering, I use Wanda Thomas Bernard and Candace Bernard’s definition of empowerment, which refers to “naming, analyzing and challenging oppression” (46). Furthermore, for them, empowerment “occurs through the development of critical consciousness” and is concerned with “gaining control, exercising choices, and in engaging in collective social action” (46). Most pointedly, the overarching aim of empowered mothering, I argue, is to confer to mothers the agency, authority, authenticity, autonomy, and advocacy-activism that are denied to them in patriarchal motherhood. “Maternal agency,” as Lynn O’Brien Hallstein explains in her encyclopedia entry on the topic “draws on the idea of agency – the ability to influence one’s life, to have a power to control one’s life – and explores how women have agency via mothering” (698). A theory of maternal agency focuses on, as O’Brien Hallstein continues, “mothering practices that facilitate women’s authority and power and is revealed in mothers’ efforts to challenge and act against aspects of institutionalized motherhood that constrain and limit women’s lives and power as mothers” (698). “Authenticity,” as explained in Elizabeth Butterfield’s encyclopedia entry, “is an ethical term that denotes being true to oneself, as in making decisions that are consistent with one’s own beliefs and values [whereas] inauthenticity is generally understood to be an abdication of one’s own authority and a loss of integrity.” In the context of empowered mothering, maternal authenticity draws on Ruddick’s concept of the “conscientious mother” and my model of the “authentic feminist mother” (Matricentric Feminism) and refers to “independence of mind and the courage to stand up to dominant values” and to “being truthful about motherhood and remaining true to oneself in motherhood” (Butterfield 701; see also O’Reilly, Rocking the Cradle). Similarly, maternal authority and maternal autonomy refer to confidence and conviction in oneself, holding power in the household, and the ability to define and determine one’s life and practices of mothering, which means the refusal to, in Ruddick’s words, “relinquish or repudiate one’s own perceptions and values” (Ruddick 112; see also O’Reilly, Rocking the Cradle). Finally, the topic of maternal advocacy-activism foregrounds the political and social dimensions of motherwork, whether such is expressed in anti-sexist child-rearing or maternal activism. As empowered mothering enacts agency, authority, autonomy, authenticity, and advocacy-activism, it also challenges normative understandings of motherhood, family, child-rearing, and activism. Empowered mothering counters the normative discourse of motherhood as limited to middleclass, married, stay-at-home mothers to include a multitude of maternal identities, such as 30

Maternal theory

noncustodial, poor, single, young, old, and employed mothers, and a variety of motherhood practices, such as the practices of “othermothering” found in African American culture (see Chapter 6: Mothering while Black) and the co-mothering of queer households (see Chapter 4: Queering and querying motherhood). Likewise, as the normative family is restricted to a patriarchal nuclear structure wherein the parents are married, the children are biologically related to both parents, the mother is the nurturer, and the father is the provider, the family formations of empowered mothers are many and varied: single, blended, step, matrifocal, same sex, and so forth (see Chapter 6: Mothering while Black and Chapter 8: Indigenous mothers). Furthermore, whereas patriarchal motherhood characterizes child-rearing as a private, nonpolitical undertaking, empowered mothering redefines motherwork as a socially engaged enterprise and a site of power wherein mothers can affect social change, both in the home through feminist childrearing and outside the home through maternal activism (see Chapter 2: Feminist mothering, Chapter 6: Mothering while Black, Chapter 8: Indigenous mothers, and Chapter 39: Mothering and activism). The attributes of agency, authority, authenticity, autonomy, and advocacy-activism, as well as the practices of othermothering, co-mothering, “alternative” maternal identities and family formations, anti-sexist child-rearing, and maternal activism enable mothers to challenge and change patriarchal motherhood from various cultural positions.

Empowered mothering for the benefit of children Empowered mothering makes motherhood more rewarding, fulfilling, and satisfying for women by affirming maternal agency, authority, autonomy, authenticity, and activism, and by opening up new maternal practices and identities. Such mothering allows a woman selfhood outside of motherhood and affords her power within motherhood. Although it is evident that empowered mothering is better for mothers, it must also be noted that such mothering is also better for children. Mothers who are content with and fulfilled by their lives make better mothers, just as children raised by depressed mothers are at risk. I want to suggest that empowered mothers are more effective mothers. Anyone who has been in a plane knows the routine if oxygen masks are required: put on your mask and then assist children with theirs. This instruction initially seems to defy common sense – namely, that children should be the ones helped first. However, the instruction recognizes that parents must be masked first because only then are they able to provide real and continued assistance to the child: unmasked, they run the risk of becoming disoriented, ill, or unconscious because of lack of oxygen and would be of no use to the child. I see this instruction as an appropriate metaphor for the practice of empowered mothering, since mothers, when empowered, are able to better care for and protect their children. In her book A Potent Spell: Mother Love and the Power of Fear, Janna Malamud Smith references the myth of Demeter and Persephone to illustrate this theme that children are better served by empowered mothers. Demeter, Smith argues, “is able to save her daughter because she is a powerful goddess who can make winter permanent and destroy humankind” (59). “Demeter,” she continues, “possesses the very qualities that Mothers so often have lacked – adequate resources and strength to protect their children, particularly daughters” (59). Therefore, contrary to patriarchal wisdom, what a child needs most in the world, Smith argues, “is a free and happy mother” (167). Smith explains: What a child needs most is a free mother, one who feels that she is in fact living her life, and has adequate food, sleep, wages, education, safety, opportunity, institutional support, health care, child care, and loving relationships. “Adequate” means enough to allow her to participate in the world – and in mothering. . . . A child needs a mother 31

Andrea O’Reilly

who has resources to enable her to make real choices, but also to create a feeling of adequate control – a state of mind that encourages a sense of agency, thus a good basis of maternal well-being, and a good foundation on which to stand while raising a child. Surely, child care prospers in this soil as well as, if not better than in any other. What is more, such a mother can imagine a life of possibility and hope, and can so offer this perspective to a child. [Finally] a child needs a mother who lives and works within a context that respects her labor, and that realistically supports it without rationalizing oppression in the name of safety, or substituting idealization or sentimentality for resources. (240) Ann Crittenden, who is cited by Smith, elaborates further: “Studies conducted on five continents have found that children are distinctly better off when the mother possesses enough income and authority in the family to make investing in children a priority” (120). “The emergence of women as independent economic actors,” Crittenden continues,“is not depriving children of vital support; it is giving them more powerful defenders [and] [d]epriving mothers of an income and influence of their own is harmful to children and a recipe for economic backwardness” (130). To return to the story of Demeter: “It is only because Demeter has autonomy and independent resources,” as Smith explains, “that she can protect Persephone” (241). Conversely, “when a culture devalues and enslaves the mother, she can [not] be like Demeter and protect her daughter” (Smith 244). Therefore, and as Smith concludes: “If we are really interested in improving the lot of children, our best method would be laws and policy that supports mothers and mothering” (187). It is, indeed, remarkable, as Smith notes, that “no society has ever voluntarily turned its laws and riches toward liberating mothers” (168). The free mother valued by Smith and recognized as essential for the well-being of children, however, will not be found in the patriarchal institution of motherhood or in the practice of intensive mothering. Patriarchal motherhood robs women of their selfhood and power, and intensive mothering – in its emphasis on excessive time, attention, and energy – makes it difficult, nay impossible, for mothers to be autonomous and independent. Empowered, or to use Smith’s term “free,” mothering, thus, only becomes possible in and through the destruction of patriarchal motherhood. Such mothers can better protect and defend their children as Smith observes. As well, empowered mothers can make real and lasting changes in society through social-political activism and in the way that they raise their children. I believe that patriarchy resists empowered mothering precisely because it understands its real power to bring about a true and enduring cultural revolution. This is not to say that non-normative mothering is always rewarding or empowering; rather, it is to emphasize that non-normative mothers – who, by choice or circumstance, cannot be the “good” mothers of patriarchal motherhood – must imagine and implement nonpatriarchal mothering practices that, in their very otherness, open up to new possibilities for mothering. Dawn M. Lavell-Harvard and Jeanette Corbiere Lavell conclude the introduction to their book “Until Our Hearts are on the Ground”: Aboriginal Mothering, Oppression, Resistance and Rebirth with these words: We, as Aboriginals, have always been different, we have always existed on the margins of the dominant patriarchal culture, and as mothers we have operated outside of, if not in actual opposition to, their definition of acceptability [and] [w]e are to use the words of Adrienne Rich, the original mother outlaw. (6) 32

Maternal theory

I would suggest that these words are equally applicable to all non-normative mothers; in operating outside, if not in actual opposition to, normative motherhood, these mothers in their very unacceptability show us more empowering ways to mother and be mothered.

Directions for future research Amy Middleton in her article “Mothering Under Duress: Examining the Inclusiveness of Feminist Theory” argues that the concept of empowered mothering is problematic because it limits empowered mothering to, in her words, “educated, middle to upper class women with access to financial and human resources” (74). She writes: These criteria and the way in which they are realized in these women’s lives are extremely difficult, and in some cases impossible, for women who do not have access to recourse such as substantial finances and good childcare and/or women who are in other situations of duress such as being in an abusive relationship, having a mental illness or being addicted to drugs or alcohol. (74) In response, I argue that the concepts agency, authority, autonomy, authenticity, and advocacyactivism are not to be read as restricted to economic and educational resources. Rather, these terms are to be read in the context of a resistance to patriarchal motherhood. The concept of “authenticity,” for example, refers to the refusal to wear, what Susan Maushart terms, the “mask of motherhood” and to be truthful and true to oneself in motherhood. Similarly, “authority” refers to confidence and conviction in oneself as a mother, and, in this instance, means the refusal to, in Sara Ruddick words, “relinquish authority and repudiate one’s own perceptions and values” (112). As well, “agency” means not power but, in Rich’s words “to refuse to be a victim and then go on from there” (246), and “advocacy-activism” refers to any and all forms of formal and informal resistance to patriarchy. Research on marginalized mothers shows a wide and diverse range of empowered mothering strategies and practices including other-­community mothering, queering motherhood, collectivism, matrifocality, homeplace, radical motherhood, gender-fluid parenting, feminist mothering to name but a few (see Chapter 4: Queering and querying motherhood, Chapter 5: Disabled mothers, Chapter 6: Mothering while Black, Chapter 8: Indigenous mothers, and Chapter 20: Abused women’s mothering experiences). Empowered mothering is thus practiced by marginalized women as it is by women of privilege. In fact, I would argue that the agency, authority, autonomy, authority, and activism-advocacy of empowered mothering are more evident in the maternal practices and theories of mothers who are abused, poor, queer, young, or racialized. Indeed, what I have discovered in my many years of teaching and researching is that nonnormative mothers – whether they are defined and categorized as such by age, race, sexuality, or biology – can never be the “good” mothers of normative motherhood, so they must rely on and develop nonpatriarchal practices of mothering to raise their children. Whether they be shared parenting, co-mothering, communal othermothering, fictive kin, extended families, or maternal activism, such practices challenge and change the various ways that patriarchal motherhood causes mothering to be limiting or oppressive to women. Having said this, more research is needed to understand how the cultural location of the mother determines how patriarchal motherhood may be resisted and empowered mothering attained. African American motherhood, for example, suggests that the discourse of intensive mothering is less operative in African American culture; thus, black mothers are less restrained 33

Andrea O’Reilly

by this ideology (Hill Collins; hooks; O’Reilly). However, while for some black women the Afrocentric customs such as othermothering, matrifocal households, and prevalence of female paid employment may make motherwork less arduous, because these same practices are seen as contrary to the patriarchal definition of “good” motherhood, they effectively cause black mothers to be viewed as “bad” mothers in need of surveillance. Thus, the challenge for black mothers may not be to find less oppressive ways to mother, having already achieved such through the aforementioned cultural practices, but to resist the demonization and regulation of their empowered mothering by the larger culture. For young mothers the issue may be the isolation of patriarchal motherhood, while for queer mothers gender-fluid parenting may be the focus, and for immigrant mothers, maternal activism perhaps. The point is that the oppression of patriarchal motherhood is not the same for all mothers nor is mothers’ resistance to it. Thus, a more nuanced understanding of how patriarchal motherhood may be resisted is needed so that mothers from across cultural difference can achieve the agency, authority, autonomy, authenticity, and advocacy/activism of empowered mothering to parent with satisfaction, confidence, and efficacy.

Further reading Collins, Patricia Hill. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness and the Politics of Empowerment. Routledge, 1991. Hays, Sharon. Intensive Mothering: The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood. Yale UP, 1996. O’Reilly, Andrea. Rocking the Cradle: Thoughts on Motherhood, Feminism, and the Possibility of Empowered Mothering. Demeter Press, 2006. Rich, Adrienne. Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution. 2nd ed., W.W. Norton, 1986. Ruddick, Sara. Maternal Thinking: Toward a Politics of Peace. Beacon Press, 1989.

Conclusion The aim of this chapter was to introduce three central theoretical concepts of patriarchal motherhood to understand how this institution, materially and discursively, oppresses mothers and to consider how a theoretical model of empowered mothering may function as a counter-narrative to resist and redefine patriarchal motherhood so as to empower mothers and benefit their children. In detailing the context of patriarchal motherhood and the possibilities of empowered mothering, as well as in signaling new directions for research, this chapter on maternal theory seeks to enrich, expand, and sustain the new discipline of motherhood studies so as to achieve a more just world for mothers and their families.

Works cited Bernard, Wanda Thomas, and Candace Bernard. “Passing the Torch: A Mother and Daughter Reflect on Their Experiences across Generations.” Canadian Women’s Studies Journal/Cahier de la femme, vol. 18, nos. 2–3, Summer–Fall 1998, pp. 46–50. Braedley, Susan, and Meg Luxton. “Competing Philosophies: Neoliberalism and Challenges of Everyday Life.” Neoliberalism and Everyday Life, edited by Susan Braedley and Meg Luxton, McGill-Queens University Press, 2010, pp. 3–21. Bueskens, Petra. “The Impossibility of ‘Natural Parenting’ for Modern Mothers: On Social Structure and the Formation of Habit.” Journal of the Association for Research on Mothering, vol. 3, no. 1, 2001, pp. 75–86. Butterfield, Elizabeth. “Maternal Authenticity.” Encyclopedia of Motherhood, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, Sage Press, 2010, pp. 700–701. Chandler, Mielle. “Emancipated Subjectivities and the Subjugation of Motherhood Practices.” Redefining Motherhood: Changing Patterns and Identities, edited by Sharon Abbey and Andrea O’Reilly, Second Story Press, 1998, pp. 270–86.

34

Maternal theory Collins, Patricia Hill. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness and the Politics of Empowerment. Routledge, 1991. Copper, Baba. “The Radical Potential in Lesbian Mothering of Daughters.” Politics of the Heart: A Lesbian Parenting Anthology, edited by Sandra Pollack and Jeanne Vaughn, Irebrand Books, 1987, pp. 186–93. Douglas, Susan J., and Meredith Michaels. The Mommy Myth: The Idealization of Motherhood and How It Has Undermined Women. Free Press, 2004. Fox, Bonnie. “Motherhood as a Class Act: The Many Ways in Which ‘Intensive Mothering’ Is Entangled With Social Class.” Social Reproduction: Feminist Political Economy Challenges Neo-Liberalism, edited by Kate Bezanson and Meg Luxton, McGill-Queens UP, 2006, pp. 231–62. Gore, Ariel, and Bee Lavender, editors. Breeder: Real Life Stories From the New Generation of Mothers. Seal Press, 2001. Green, Fiona, J. “Feminist Mothers: Successfully Negotiating the Tensions Between Motherhood and Mothering.” Mother Outlaws: Theories and Practices of Empowered Mothering, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, Women’s Press, 2004, pp. 31–42. Hall, Pamela Courtney. “Mothering Mythology in the Late Twentieth Century: Science, Gender Lore, and Celebratory Narrative.” Canadian Woman Studies, vol. 18, nos. 1–2, 1998, pp. 59–63. Hays, Sharon. Intensive Mothering: The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood. Yale UP, 1996. hooks, bell. Yearning: Race, Gender, and Cultural Politics. South End, 1990. LaChance, Sarah Adam. “Maternal Thinking.” The Encyclopedia of Motherhood, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, Sage Press, 2010, pp. 726–27. Lavell-Harvard, Dawn Memee, and Jeanette Corbiere Lavell, editors. Until Our Hearts are on the Ground: Aboriginal Mothering, Oppression, Resistance and Rebirth. Demeter Press, 2006. Maushart, Susan. The Mask of Motherhood: How Becoming a Mother Changes Everything and Why We Pretend It Doesn’t. Penguin Books, 2000. Middleton, Amy. “Mothering under Duress: Examining the Inclusiveness of Feminist Theory of Inquiry.” Journal of the Association for Research on Mothering, vol. 8, nos. 1–2, 2006, pp. 72–82. Milkie, Melissa A., and Catherine H. Warner. “Status Safeguarding: Mothers’ Work to Secure Children’s Place in the Social Hierarchy.” Intensive Mothering: The Cultural Contradictions of Modern Motherhood, edited by Linda Rose Ennis, Demeter Press, 2014, pp. 66–85. Nelson, Margaret K. Parenting out of Control: Anxious Parents in Uncertain Time. New York University Press, 2010. O’Brien Hallstein, D. Lynn.“Maternal Agency.” Encyclopedia of Motherhood, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, Sage Press, 2010, pp. 697–99. ———. Bikini-Ready Moms: Celebrity Profiles, Motherhood, and the Body. State University of New York Press, 2015. O’Reilly, Andrea. Toni Morrison and Motherhood: A Politics of the Heart. SUNY Press, 2004. ———. Rocking the Cradle: Thoughts on Motherhood, Feminism, and the Possibility of Empowered Mothering. Demeter Press, 2006. ———, editor. Maternal Thinking: Philosophy, Politics, Practice. Demeter Press, 2009. ———. Matricentric Feminism: Theory, Activism, and Practice. Demeter Press, 2016. O’Reilly, Andrea, and Sara Ruddick. “A Conversation about Maternal Thinking.” Maternal Thinking: Philosophy, Politics and Practice, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, Demeter Press, 2009, pp. 14–38. Rich, Adrienne. Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution. 2nd ed., W. W. Norton, 1986. Ruddick, Sara. Maternal Thinking: Toward a Politics of Peace. Beacon Press, 1989. Smith, Janna Malamud. A Potent Spell: Mother Love and the Power of Fear. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2003. Vandenbeld Giles, Melinda. “Introduction: An Alternative Mother-Centered Economic Paradigm.” Mothering in the Age of Neo-Liberalism, edited by Melinda Vandenbeld Giles, Demeter Press, 2014, pp. 1–30. Wolf, Naomi. Misconceptions: Truth, Lies, and the Unexpected on the Journey to Motherhood. Anchor Books, 2003.

35

2 FEMINIST MOTHERING Fiona Joy Green

Feminist mothering entails the distinct approach of combining one’s feminism with one’s parenting and is essential to the daily lives of many families and communities. This feminist maternal practice is a political act whereby mothers trouble and challenge the effects of patriarchal power structures, particularly around motherhood. As an area of study, feminist mothering is fundamental to understanding, as well as theorizing, the lived experiences of mothers, mothering, and motherhood. It is also a significant element of motherhood studies, maternal theory, and feminist theory, as feminist mothering has the potential to redefine motherhood and to undermine and transform patriarchal culture at large (O’Reilly, “Introduction,” Feminist Mothering 20). This chapter begins by providing an historical overview of feminist mothering, including how feminist mothering has been defined, developed, and understood over time. An exploration of central theories and themes that distinguish and characterize feminist mothering within the scholarly literature is followed by an examination of the debate regarding the difference between feminist mothering and empowered mothering. The chapter then presents the current contributions of contemporary critical theories of intersectionality, maternal thinking, and transfeminism associated with theorizing feminist mothering as an area of study, before concluding by providing recommendations for future research.

Historical perspectives While feminists have been aware and critical of motherhood over time – as presented in the other chapters in this volume addressing feminism and motherhood – scholarship specifically theorizing feminist mothering is a relatively recent development. Research purposely exploring feminist mothering practices began in the 1990s with the publication of Feminist Mothers (1990), Daughters of Feminists (1993), and Mother Journey’s: Feminists Write About Mothering (1994). The early 2000s saw two collections, From Motherhood to Mothering: The Legacy of Adrienne Rich’s Of Mother Born (2004) and Mother Outlaws: Theories and Practices of Empowered Mothering (2004), edited by Anglo-Canadian maternal scholar Andrea O’Reilly, along with a two journals, off our backs and Journal of the Association for Research on Mothering, which each dedicated a special issue to feminist mothering in 2006. It is only within the past decade that scholarship specifically focusing on the practices of feminist mothering has enabled the development and advancement of a theory of feminist mothering. Attention to this project began in 2008, with the edited collection 36

Feminist mothering

Feminist Mothering, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, and the anthology Mothering and Feminism in the Third Wave, edited by American maternal scholar Amber Kinser. Two sole authored books, Feminist Mothering in Theory and Practice, 1985–1995: A Study in Transformative Politics (2009) and Practicing Feminist Mothering (2011), by Anglo-Canadian maternal scholar Fiona Joy Green, along with Motherhood and Feminism (2010), by Amber Kinser, and the anthology Feminist Parenting (2016), edited by Comerford et al., further investigate the practice of feminist mothering and contribute to developing a theory of feminist mothering. In the early 1970s, a key historical shift occurred in feminist thinking about motherhood, which started the process of defining and articulating the practice and a theory of feminist mothering. The Future of Motherhood, written by American sociologist and feminist theorist Jessie Bernard in 1974, was the first publication to consider motherhood as a social institution rather than a natural fact. Instead of viewing motherhood as a normal extension of femininity or considering mothering to be a form of collusion with patriarchy, as some feminists at the time posited, Bernard advanced the critical view of motherhood as a socially constructed role taught to and learned by women through female gender socialization and within cultural imperatives such as family, religion, and education. In 1976, American radical feminist, essayist, and poet, Adrienne Rich, further developed this feminist analysis of motherhood in her prodigious and highly influential book, Of Woman Born: Motherhood as “Institution” and “Experience.” Here, Rich made the astute distinction between the patriarchal institution of motherhood and women’s experiences of mothering. Motherhood entails mothering – the interpersonal relations and work involved in raising children generally taken up by women – and the prescribed ideals of mothering, which are often experienced as oppressive because they are constituted through the support of other social institutions, such as the gendered economy, religion, business, medicine, education, law, and the media. These narrowly established and institutionalized patriarchal rules and expectations attempt to dictate familial and child-rearing roles, responsibilities, and relationships among women, children, and men (Green, Practicing Feminist Mothering 67–68). In 1990, 14 years after Rich’s Of Woman Born, Finnish sociologist, feminist researcher, and educator Tuula Gordon interviewed feminist mothers who both acknowledged their understanding of this distinction and demonstrated to Gordon their interest and ability to “develop critical orientations towards societal structures and cultures, stereotypical expectations and myths of motherhood” (149–50). This discernment of understanding motherhood as institution and experience not only explained, and was critical of, the institution of motherhood but also offered a further momentous insight: the potential empowerment of mothering for mothers. By attributing agency to mothers and value to their motherwork, the formulation of female-defined and women-centred experiences of mothering emphasized, for the first time, maternal power and agency within motherhood (O’Reilly, “Between the Baby and the Bathwater” 326). This perspective created an interest in and the space to explore the wide range of women’s experiences of child-rearing within the institution of motherhood, their emotional responses to the work of mothering, and their relationships with their children. By “interrupting and deconstructing the patriarchal narrative of motherhood, Rich destabilized the hold this discourse has on the meaning and practice of mothering, in particular woman-centred and feminist meanings and experiences of mothering” (O’Reilly, “Introduction,” From Motherhood to Mothering 10). It also identified the potential for empowerment in mothering and made possible later feminist work on analyzing mothering as a site of power and resistance for women mothering (Green, “Feminist Mothers” 31; O’Reilly, “Introduction,” From Motherhood to Mothering 10). Rich’s crucial distinction between motherhood as institution and mothering as experience made way for a paradigm shift to understanding feminist mothering 37

Fiona Joy Green

as both political and a way to mother against motherhood (Green, “Developing a Feminist Motherline,” Feminist Mothering in Theory and Practice, and Practicing Feminist Mothering; O’Reilly, “Mothering against Motherhood”). Unlike previous feminist theorizing about motherhood, which often viewed mothers as dupes or victims of patriarchy, feminist mothering allows for the agency and autonomy of mothers within the patriarchal institution of motherhood. More recently, feminist mothering has expanded beyond the experiences of women to include the question of transgender folks and cismen practicing feminist mothering.1 By examining how feminist mothers comprehend, trouble, and consciously dispute the institution of motherhood, they create and model parenting practices based upon their knowledge, meanings of, and lived experiences of feminist mothering.

Central theories/themes within feminist mothering While feminist mothering is as unique as those who practice it, three prevailing themes can be identified: (1) understanding, troubling, and opposing the institution of motherhood; (2) viewing feminist mothering as an empowered and political act; and (3) practicing matroreform – claiming motherhood power by instituting new mothering rules and practices – by forming alternative nonpatriarchal family structures that empower mothers and children; teaching children about patriarchal society; fostering respectful, equitable, and non-hierarchical parent/child relationships; and engaging in anti-sexist parenting and gender socialization of children.

Understanding, troubling, and opposing the institution of motherhood According to Rich, “institutionalized motherhood demands of women maternal ‘instinct’ rather than intelligence, selflessness rather than self-realization, relation to others rather than creation of self ” (274–75). In her monumental book The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood (1996), American sociologist and feminist Sharon Hays argues that motherhood incorporates “an ideology of intensive mothering” that believes mothers, not fathers, should spend an enormous amount of time, physical and emotional energy, and money raising children. An ideology of intensive mothering values a woman’s love and self-sacrifice for her children over any other interest or responsibility she may have. As such, it perpetuates a “double shift” of domestic and paid labour for working women and the assumption that men are incompetent at parenting and, thus, superior in the professional world. Maternal scholar Andrea O’Reilly expands Hays’s ideology of intensive mothering by adding interrelated elements to describe current expectations of “sacrificial motherhood.” Not only is the biological mother the only one who can properly care for children and provide mothering 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, she must always put her children’s needs first, turn to experts for advice and instruction, and feel fully fulfilled by and composed in motherhood. Mothers have no power from which to mother within sacrificial motherhood, yet they have full responsibility for their children and regard child-rearing as a personal and private undertaking with no political import (Mother Outlaws 14). While feminist mothering understands the institution of motherhood to be pervasive, it also believes it is not ironclad. Mothers experience motherhood and mothering in various ways depending upon their ability, gender identity, and sexual orientation, as well as their race, cultural heritage and practices, socioeconomic class, education, and religious or philosophical beliefs (Green, Practicing Feminist Mothering 71). Some mothers may be more aware than others of the imposed restrictions and be more or less vulnerable – according to the intersection of their social locations with their personal identities and individual capacities – to the various 38

Feminist mothering

punishments inflicted upon mothers for not staying within the bounds of the prescribed ideology of motherhood (Green, Practicing Feminist Mothering 71).

Viewing feminist mothering as an empowered and political act Just as feminist mothering is concerned with uncovering and challenging the oppressive patriarchal institution of motherhood, including the ideologies of intensive and sacrificial mothering, it is equally involved in formulating and articulating a counter discourse of mothering that redefines mothering as a feminist enterprise (O’Reilly, “Mothering against Motherhood” 160). While mothering is considered to be private and apolitical within the dominant patriarchal paradigm, feminist mothering is understood to be political and to have cultural significance (Green, Practicing Feminist Mothering). Feminist mothering both operationalizes and counters the ideology of motherhood. By foregrounding the political-social dimension of feminist motherwork, feminist mothering redefines mothering as a conscious and politically engaged endeavour with the purpose of effecting positive cultural and political change through feminist modes of mothering (Green, “Feminist Mothers,” “Developing a Feminist Motherline,” Feminist Mothering in Theory and Practice, and Practicing Feminist Mothering; O’Reilly, “Introduction,” Feminist Mothering 11). Feminist mothering practices, then, can potentially affect social change by interrupting, defying, and functioning as a counter-narrative, model, and practice to traditional expectations of patriarchal motherhood (Green, “Feminist Mothers” 31; O’Reilly, “Between the Baby and the Bathwater” 326). By imagining and implementing a view of mothering that is empowering to mothers and children, mothering can be a site of empowerment and political activism that has the ability to disrupt and subvert patriarchal notions of motherhood and ways of mothering (O’Reilly, “Mothering against Motherhood” 160).

Matroreform Feminist mothering engages in matroreform, defined by Indo-Canadian psychologist Gina Wong-Wylie, as “an act, desire, and process of claiming motherhood power, [which] is a progressive movement to mothering that attempts to institute new mothering rules and practices” (142). “Matroreform,” Wong-Wylie explains further, “is a cognitive, affective, behavioural, and spiritual reformation of mothering from within . . . [that includes] the removal and elimination of obstacles to self-determination and self agency [sic]” (142). By consciously disputing the institution of motherhood, feminist mothering creates and models parenting practices based upon a feminist mother’s own knowledge, meanings, and experiences of mothering. While there are certainly many ways in which feminist mothering challenges, troubles, and counters the institution of motherhood and engages matroreform, four common practices are clear: (1) creating alternative nonpatriarchal family formations; (2) teaching children how to think critically about the world; (3) creating respectful, nonhierarchal parent/child relationships; and (4) engaging in anti-sexist parenting and gender socialization practices. One way in which feminist mothering engages in matroreform is to shatter the common family structure idealized within motherhood by parenting in family types other than the heterosexual/heterosexist nuclear family unit that people are expected to reproduce. Feminist family formations are varied. For instance, feminist mothers may consciously choose to parent alone, in couples or partnerships with other women, mothers, or adults, with trans partners or trans parents, or within heterosexual partnerships that do not replicate the gender roles proscribed within the nuclear family (Green, “Feminist Mothers” and “Re-Conceptualising Motherhood”; Green and Friedman; Green and Pelletier). Others may construct dual-earning, communal, 39

Fiona Joy Green

extended, blended, community-based, step, multigenerational, or multifocal families that contest and transform the meaning of family (O’Reilly, “Introduction,” Feminist Mothering). Another strategy of matroreform within feminist mothering is to intentionally educate children about how the world is structured in patriarchal and other oppressive ways (Green, Feminist Mothering in Theory and Practice and Practicing Feminist Mothering; Mack-Canty and Wright). Children are purposely taught how to identify and be critical of the ways in which society is organized to benefit or privilege some over others. This may include and not be limited to: patriarchal structures that value males over females; racist and white supremacist systems that foster discrimination and oppression against people of colour, Indigenous, First Nations, Metis, nonwhite folks, refugees, and immigrants; heterosexist, homophobic, and transphobic attitudes and arrangements that marginalize and oppress people who identify as queer, gay, twospirit,2 non-cisgender,3 and trans; and techniques and systems that discriminate against people with disabilities. Feminist mothering helps children recognize interpersonal and systemic power dynamics and the ways in which people can hold positions of privilege and also be in oppressed positions (Green, Practicing Feminist Mothering; Mack-Canty and Wright). Through their feminist upbringing, children become equipped to identify, understand, be critical of, and challenge discriminatory attitudes and behaviours based on heterosexism, homo/ transphobia, racism, classism, ableism, and other forms of oppression (Green, Practicing Feminist Mothering; Ott). According to research conducted by American feminist scholars Colleen MackCanty and Sue Wright, children within these families have a broader understanding of hierarchical arrangements and connection to other oppressions, are more able to assume their right to reasonably question existing power arrangements within society, and are less likely to seek gender equity at the expense of other racial, hetero/sexist, or class-based injustices. Feminist mothering takes seriously the power dynamics among people and brings that analysis and perspective into the home. Understanding and critiquing the interconnection of identity, of interlocking systems of power, privilege, and oppression are also applied to the ways in which feminist mothers socialize their children in relation to their own parent/child relationships, to their family dynamic and structures, and to their children’s identities. Valuing equity and fairness related to gender, sexuality, race, and ability often translates into the ways in which feminist mothers relate to and participate in their relationships with their children (Green, Feminist Mothering in Theory and Practice and Practicing Feminist Mothering). Feminist mothers are conscious and critical of their own power as adults within their relationship with their children and work to articulate and acknowledge that power differential to their children in ways that trouble and challenge the power difference and hierarchy. Developing and engaging in the practice of relating to children in conscious ways that foster trusting and more equitable parent/child relationships often includes some form of inclusive decision-making among adults and children within the family (Mack-Canty and Wright 156). Open dialogues about the power dynamic, as well as critical discussion of times when power has been misused by mothers to dominate or unfairly treat their children, are also strategies used to counter the imbalance (Green, Practicing Feminist Mothering). These respectful interpersonal practices empower both children and adults to speak their minds, to work through troubling situations and discussions, and to foster the development of children’s autonomy and self-governance (Epstein, “Mothers and Sons”; Green, “Developing a Feminist Motherline” and Practicing Feminist Mothering; Ott). Sharing authority, decision-making, and responsibility is both a shift away from and a challenge to dominant models of parenting built on individualized and adult authoritarian relationships (Ott 146). Teaching children how to be critical of discriminatory ideas and practices in the world according to people’s identities is not only an external-focused practice. Feminist mothering 40

Feminist mothering

also necessitates anti-sexist child-rearing practices that challenge and counter patriarchal practices of gender socialization (Green, “Re-Conceptualising Motherhood,” Feminist Mothering in Theory and Practice and Practicing Feminist Mothering; O’Reilly, “Mothering against Motherhood” and “Between the Baby and the Bathwater”; Ott; Rich). Anti-sexist child-rearing is a longstanding core principle and practice of feminist mothering that has developed over time. For instance, there is considerable literature addressing ways to raise children who are aware of and reject sexist attitudes and expectations (Carmichael; Epstein, “Mothers and Sons”; O’Reilly, “Introduction,” Feminist Mothering). And the importance of raising empowered daughters and relational sons to counter traditional sexist and binary gender socialization is well documented (Enders; Glickman; Griffin and Broadfoot; Green, Feminist Mothering in Theory and Practice and Practicing Feminist Mothering; Green and Friedman; Green and Pelletier; Hirsh; Ott; O’Reilly, Feminist Mothering). More recent feminist mothering focuses on understanding, troubling, and challenging binary gender categories, as well as being open to and supporting varied expressions of gender fluidity in children, family members, friends, and others in society (Green and Freidman; Green and Pelletier). Resisting socially prescribed expectations and patterns of socializing children’s gender, then, is another example of the ways in which maternal activism takes shape within feminist mothering, empowering mothers and children alike (Green, Feminist Mothering in Theory and Practice and Practicing Feminist Mothering; O’Reilly, Feminist Mothering 11).

Central issue – differences between empowered and feminist mothering A central issue within scholarship on feminist maternal practice is understanding the differences between feminist mothering and empowered mothering. While examples and the articulation of empowered mothering can be found in popular literature, fiction and poetry, in parenting books and articles, as well as in online blogs, the same cannot be said of feminist mothering. Additionally, although feminist mothering certainly entails empowered mothering, the reverse is not so; empowered mothering does not always include feminist maternal practice. The following articulates the difference between the two.

Empowered mothering Anglo-Canadian feminist maternal theorist, Andrea O’Reilly began using the term “empowered mothering” in the early 2000s to refer to the theory and practice of mothering that recognizes that women, children, and society at large, benefit when women “live their lives as mothers from a position of agency, authority, authenticity, and autonomy” (“Introduction,” Feminist Mothering 6–7). Empowered mothering, whether consciously enacted or not, directly confronts and counteracts the demands of patriarchal motherhood by presenting alternative approaches to mothering that are designed to empower, rather than oppress, women, mothers, children, and others. Many mothers, feminist and not, understand that traditional or patriarchal motherhood is unnatural and harmful to mothers and children, and are inspired to parent in their own femaledefined and woman-centred vision of mothering. Being aware of the impossible standards of motherhood perfection means empowered mothers often resist its ideals that foster real isolation and exhaustion, and seek less judgment and more personal and social support (Green, “Feminist Motherline”; O’Reilly, “Introduction,” Feminist Mothering 2). They choose not to employ the restrictive and harmful intensive or sacrificial mothering ideals. Engaging in maternal autonomy, sharing the work of parenting with others, feeling less or no guilt about not spending inordinate 41

Fiona Joy Green

amounts of time with children, and not taking sole responsibility for how children behave and develop (physically, emotionally, psychologically, and intellectually) are all positive effects of challenging expectations of normative motherhood (Horwitz; O’Reilly,“Introduction,” Feminist Mothering 6). Empowered mothers do not always put the needs of children before their own or see mothering as their sole identity or as a source of self-fulfillment. They find selfhood both inside and outside their mothering – often through friendships, paid and voluntary work, relationships, sports, hobbies, and other non-parenting or family-related activities (O’Reilly, “Introduction,” Feminist Mothering 7). Authentic, trans/lesbian/queer, radical, and gynocentric mothering are other examples of how empowered mothers are inspired to parent in their own female-defined and womancentred vision of mothering. They, and other mothers, choose not to replicate restrictive and damaging nuclear family forms by electing to parent alone, in partnerships, or in arrangements with others, be they queer, straight, trans, cisgender, romantic, or platonic. Empowered mothers parent in family forms that differ from, and thus counter, normalized patriarchal family structures. By interrupting, destabilizing, and modifying these socially sanctioned elements of the patriarchal script of motherhood, empowered mothering weakens the authority that normative patriarchal discourse claims on the meaning and practice of mothering. Parenting by African American mothers that is practiced through othermothering and ­community-based mothering, where women accept responsibility for children not their own is another example of empowered mothering. African American political theorist and sociologist Patricia Hill Collins describes how Black and other racial ethnic mothers often decisively and courageously parent against the institution of motherhood, particularly when they “foster a meaningful racial identity in children within a society that denigrates people of color” (“Shifting the Centre” 57). As the backbone of communities, empowered othermothers often engage in what Collins names “mothering the mind,” which entails moving toward the mutuality of a shared sisterhood that unites them as community othermothers who are able, at times, to create new types of family and community in often hostile political and economic situations (Othermother). By emphasizing their own agency, authority, authenticity, and autonomy as mothers, empowered mothers redefine motherhood through varied transformative practices. Empowered mothering is alive in nonpatriarchal family models; in community and othermothering; and in non-authoritative, anti-discriminatory, and anti-racist ways of parenting. As maternal activists, empowered mothers are mindful and deliberate in their approaches to mothering that counter those of mainstream society; they consciously redefine and actively engage in motherwork through which cultural, social, and political change can be made possible.

Feminist mothering Feminist mothering and feminist mothers, on the other hand, regard motherhood as a site of power wherein mothers can affect political social change through maternal activism both within and outside the home and family. Simply put, feminist mothers see their parenting practice as no different from or apart from other parts of their lives; their feminism informs and influences everything they do (Green, Feminist Mothering in Theory and Practice and Practicing Feminist Mothering). Therefore, mothering, too, is shaped and informed, in both theory and practice, by their feminism. Feminist mothers believe feminist mothering is a political act, which is “an essential strategy for contributing to positive political social change” (Green, “Developing a Feminist Motherline” 11) and has “cultural significance and political purpose” (O’Reilly, “Introduction,” Feminist Mothering 7). 42

Feminist mothering

The distinction between empowered mothering and feminist mothering, then, is feminist mothers identify as feminist and bring their feminist theory and practice to their everyday motherwork of parenting. Unlike empowered mothering, a feminist theory and subsequent practices of feminist mothering are constituted and constructed to interrupt and negate the master narrative and ideology of patriarchal motherhood by providing an oppositional feminist discourse to motherhood that also exemplifies mothering practices against motherhood (O’Reilly, “Introduction,” Feminist Mothering 4–5). Feminist mothering entails modeling feminist ways of mothering for children and others, which may include strategies used by empowered mothering, as well as, for example, challenging public school systems when they reproduce hetero/sexism, queer/homo/transphobia or other forms of sex/gender/sexual discrimination in their pedagogical and administrative practices (Green, “Feminist Mothering”). Other strategies may include revealing these types of negative biases, attitudes, beliefs, and discriminatory practices in the social and legal systems regarding lesbian, co-mother, queer, and trans rights to custody, access, and child support (Green, “Feminist Mothering”). Unlike empowered mothering, feminist mothering gives conscious and continual attention to disrupting the concept and practice of patriarchal motherhood by socializing children within the family, and beyond, in efforts to recognize and dispute current patriarchal systems of power. Feminist mothers actively resist traditional patterns of gender acculturation in their parenting and willfully encourage their children to develop who they are without necessarily adhering to sex/gender stereotypes. They believe raising the next generation of citizens to be consciously aware of patriarchal and other cultural and social systems and forms of discrimination and oppression through mothering is both their responsibility as mothers and essential to feminism and political change.

Challenges within feminist mothering As feminist mothering practices become more prominent and research into the strategies, realities, and experiences of feminist mothering become more evident, the scope of feminist mothering is also expanding. In response to developments that attend to the complexity, plasticity, and fluidity of sex, gender, and sexuality within feminism and feminist mothering, questions regarding who and what is included in the exploration and practice of feminist mothering, as well as who may be considered feminist mothers, are raised. The theory of intersectionality, which has contributed significantly to feminist theory and feminist mothering continues to be helpful in this contemplation and ongoing discussion. Sara Ruddick’s theory of maternal thinking, particularly as it applies to queering mothering, and transfeminist theories also provide important contributions to magnifying both the theory and particular practices of feminist mothering today and in the future.

Intersectionality Fundamental to the exploration of feminist mothering is understanding the theory of intersectionality, first articulated in 1989 by black legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw. Prominent African American feminist and social theorist Patricia Hill Collins explains that cultural patterns of oppression are interrelated, bound together, and influenced by intersectional systems of society, including race, gender, class, ability, and ethnicity. Collins elucidates the concept further, stating, “regardless of the particular intersections involved, structural, disciplinary, hegemonic, and interpersonal domains of power reappear across quite different forms of oppression” (Black Feminist Thought 11–12). 43

Fiona Joy Green

The importance of intersectionality and centring self-defined standpoints of racialized mothers have been vital to feminist maternal scholarship and to expanding knowledge about the realities of feminist mothering. A quick scan of Demeter Press publications over recent years offers the following examples: Indigenous Experiences of Pregnancy and Birth (2017); Listening to the Beat of Our Drum: Indigenous Parenting in a Contemporary Society (2017); Anansesem: Telling Stories and Storytelling African Maternal Pedagogies (2015); Mothers, Mothering and Motherhood Across Cultural Differences (2014); and Mothers of the Nations: Indigenous Mothering as Global Resistance, Reclaiming, and Recovery (2014).4 In a 2015 article, “Why Intersectionality Can’t Wait,” Crenshaw further expounds the theory of intersectionality, observing, “originally articulated on behalf of black women, the term brought to light the invisibility of many constituents within groups that claim them as members, but often fail to represent them.” Collins, too, argues that placing the voices and experiences of racialized mothers, along with those of other marginalized mothers, at the centre of analysis requires “invoking a different epistemology” to express “self-defined standpoints of mothering and motherhood” (“Shifting the Centre” 60). Collins posits: Varying placement within systems of privilege, whether race, class, sexuality, or age, generates divergent experiences with motherhood; therefore, examination of motherhood and mother-as-subject from multiple perspectives should uncover rich textures of difference. Shifting the center to accommodate this diversity promises to reconceptualize motherhood and point us toward feminist theorizing that embraces difference as an essential part of commonality. (73) African American sociologist Shirley A. Hill argues that it has become more challenging for African American women to practice othermothering or community mothering by organizing child-rearing collectively and sharing resources because the “it takes a village to raise a child” philosophy is now more symbolic than substantive due to structural forces such as class diversity that challenge traditional patterns of mothering (“African American Mothers” 117). Invoking the theory of intersectionality, Hill argues that changes in gender, class, and race position are in a state of transition due to “evolving political and economic forces and greater class polarization among black people” in the United States (117). Being cognizant of and committed to investigating and understanding intersectionality beyond the experiences of women of colour, as articulated in Collins’s call for “mother-assubject from multiple perspectives,” feminist mothering attempts to uncover the rich textures of difference in diverse feminist mothering experiences and practices. For instance, it recognizes the significance of intersectionality in the lives of mothers, acknowledging mothers who are immigrants, single, racialized, disabled, lesbian, queer, trans, living on social assistance or welfare – and who are located in often overlapping, but not mutually exclusive, categories – are frequently subjects of deviancy discourses of mothering, and of its ill effects. (Green, “Re-Conceptualising Motherhood” 200) Furthermore, feminist mothering identifies the need to bring those intersectional experiences of mothering to the centre to further understand them, as well as to benefit from the contributions they have to make to feminist mothering, in both practice and theory.

44

Feminist mothering

The recent edited collection Bad Mothers: Regulations, Representations and Resistance, for instance, adds to an understanding of intersectionality and feminist mothering through its interrogation of how the constructed “dangerous mother” continues to trouble major institutional areas such as law, governance, economy, and child protection services in ways that reveal why our society remains invested in marginalizing mothers instead of seriously addressing the numerous, interconnecting obstacles they face in raising children. (74)

Maternal thinking and queering motherhood Another example of how feminist mothering is dedicated to and informed by intersectionality is in its exploration and inclusion of the experiences and maternal practices of male, queer, and trans parents. A seemingly unlikely theory that continues to be useful in this endeavor is that of “maternal thinking,” originated in 1989 by American feminist philosopher Sara Ruddick. The central requirement for maternal thinking is a commitment to caring for children that engages in a practice of meeting the three fundamental demands of (1) preserving their lives, (2) nurturing their developmental growth, and (3) teaching them appropriate social norms allowing them to be socially accepted. By stating that maternal thinking is available and applicable to any individual who “takes upon the work of mothering as a central part of his or her life” (Ruddick 40), Ruddick clearly articulates “maternal thinking has little to do with biology or gender” (Avery 138). To be a mother, then, only requires one “to be committed to meeting these demands by works of preservative love, nurturance, and training” (Ruddick 17). Thus, Ruddick “queered motherhood” long ago by theorizing the gender flexibility of maternal thinking that takes place in the work of mothering, and which continues to inform an understanding of who mothers are and what mothering entails. Margaret Gibson, editor of Queering Motherhood: Narrative and Theoretical Perspectives, explains “queering makes the things we otherwise take for granted suddenly unpredictable, uncooperative, and unexpected” and also “brings the political and the social into a self-conscious connection with the intimate” (1).5 “Queering motherhood,” Gibson explicates, works to “destabilize existing social relations, institutions, and discourses,” (2) and therefore starts “where any of the central gendered, sexual, relational, political and/or symbolic components of ‘expected’ motherhood are challenged” (6). This includes within feminist mothering. Privileging the voices and perspectives of queer-identified parents in a world where cisnormative and heteronormative6 traditions exist, helps to expand our notions of the possible . . . create connections between individuals across time . . . allow us to see how our existing sociocultural scaffolding is constructed . . . (and) point to the gaps and weakened joints that merit our attention as we build and dismantle identities and relations in the everyday. (Gibson 5) Gibson specifically addresses the power of the institution of motherhood in its ability to dismiss or displace “any alternative versions of motherhood” (6, italics in original), arguing feminist maternal scholarship, and hence, feminist mothering, need to do more to “fundamentally challenge heteronormative and cisnormative assumptions” (10).

45

Fiona Joy Green

Feminist mothering is responding to this call and need. The experiences, theorizing, and empowered praxis of those engaged in feminist and anti-sexist child-rearing practices of feminist mothering who are men, queer, and trans are growing. Their experiences and theoretical discussion regarding their mothering practices are found in recent collections, such as: Essential Breakthroughs: Conversations about Men, Mothering and Motherhood (Green and Pelletier); Chasing Rainbows: Exploring Gender Fluid Parenting Practices (Green and Friedman); Mothering Queerly, Queering Motherhood: Resisting Monomaternalism in Adoptive, Lesbian, Blended, and Polygamous Families (Park); and Who’s Your Daddy?: And Other Writings on Queer Parenting (Epstein, Who’s Your Daddy?). As a result, feminist mothering theories and practices are enriched and broadened by growing knowledge about the ways in which the complexities of intersectionality, maternal thinking, and queer mothering are experienced and inform the everyday lives of feminist families.

Transfeminism Transfeminist theory and activists also contribute to expanding knowledge about and practices of feminist mothering. Emi Koyama, feminist, multi-issue social justice activist, and author of the 2001 The Transfeminist Manifesto advances “Transfeminism embodies feminist coalition politics in which women from different backgrounds (including, trans and non-trans) stand up for each other, because if we do not stand for each other, nobody will” (1). Furthermore, “transfeminism holds that nobody shall be coerced into or out of personal decisions regarding her or his identity or expression in order to be a ‘real’ woman or a ‘real’ man” (2). Sensitive to the fact that “feminists are challenged to rethink their idea of whom they represent and what they stand for” when those who have been previously silenced speak out, Koyama advises this important process, which may lead to the painful realization of the personal biases and internalized oppressions of feminists, “eventually benefits the movement by widening our perspectives and constituency” (1). In declaring “the time has come for trans women to openly take part in the feminist revolution, further expanding the scope of the movement,” Koyama pushes feminist mothering to also be open to and learn from transfeminist theory and mothering experiences (1). As a result of integrating the theories of intersectionality, maternal thinking, and transfeminism, which trouble and contest gender essentialism in mothering identities and childcare practices, feminisms and feminist mothers are becoming more conscious of the ways in which mothers’ lives today are more complex and diverse than ever before. Intersectionality, maternal thinking, and transfeminisms assist in the project of disrupting the gender essentialism presupposed by patriarchal discourses of mothering and contest gender-essentialized norms of motherhood so central to the theory and practice of feminist mothering. Motherhood studies, maternal scholarship, and maternal practices, along with the influence of these and the theory of intersectionality, have also become more varied, inclusive, and empowered because of their influence.

Recommendations for future research directions Moving forward, the theory and motherwork of feminist mothering must continue to develop, learn from, and contribute to lessons of intersectionality, maternal thinking, and transfeminism. Central to this endeavour is disrupting the dualistic and binary social structures that divide people into categories of either/or related to gender, sex, and mothering. Including the perspectives of men and masculinities within this project will also continue to facilitate the disruption of

46

Feminist mothering

gender-essentialist beliefs about mothering and care norms, as articulated by Euro-Canadian maternal scholars Gary Lee Pelletier and Fiona Joy Green (2). While limited feminist research has focused on the marginalization of mothers living in poverty, with disabilities, in war and conflict zones, and in refugee situations, further research is needed to investigate and understand the application of feminism and feminist mothering practices within these difficult contexts. The wisdom of Patricia Hill Collins that “shifting the center to accommodate diversity promises to conceptualise motherhood and point us toward feminist theorizing that embraces difference as an essential part of commonality” needs to be adhered to if feminist mothering is going to continue to be meaningful and encapsulate the experiences of the diverse and varied ways of feminist mothering (“Shifting the Centre” 73). Feminist mothering will also be served well if it is attentive and responsive to the sage observation of Shirley A. Hill regarding the effects of the “evolving political and economic forces” of the current time that are forcing “greater class polarization among black people” (“African American Mothers” 117). What does this changing socioeconomic-political climate mean for mothers and feminist mothering, locally as well as globally? How are marginalized mothers responding to and resisting these changing social conditions? The long overdue reconciliation that is taking place in Canada regarding its historical and current colonization of indigenous peoples also needs to be investigated in relation to feminist mothering. All of these areas, as well as unforeseen future developments within feminism and mothering need further exploration to understand the complexities and realities of feminist mothering, as well as what they have to offer the larger feminist agenda for meaningful positive social change.

Further reading Berg Scherer, Rachel. “Feminist Parenting Column.” Rebellious Magazine, https://rebelliousmagazine.com/ category/columns/feminist-parenting/. Accessed 10 Jan. 2019. Berry, Liz. The Republic of Motherhood. Penguin Books, 2018. Byvelds, Christie, and Heather Jackson, editors. Motherhood and Social Exclusion. Demeter Press, 2019. Gumbs, Alexis Pauline, et al., editors. Revolutionary Mothering: Love on the Front Lines. Between the Lines, 2016. Johnson, Jennifer, and Krista Johnson, editors. Maternal Geographies: Mothering In and Out of Place. Demeter Press, 2019. Llopis, Maria. Subversive Motherhood: Orgasmic Birth, Gender Queer Parenting, Papas, Trans Parenting, Gynepunk, Etc. Amazon Digital Services LLC, 2018. Nelson, Maggie. The Argonauts. Text Publishing Company, 2016. Prushinskaya, Anna. A Woman Is a Woman Until She Is a Mother. MG Press, 2017. Verseghy, Judy, and Sam Abel. Heavy Burdens: Stories of Motherhood and Fatness. Demeter Press, 2018.

Conclusion Thanks to MIRCI’s biannual Journal of the Motherhood Initiative and various books by Demeter Press and by other feminist publishers, there is a greater appreciation for and understanding of the ways in which feminist mothering is understood and practiced. For instance, the ways in which the institution of motherhood continues to oppress mothers who are cisgender, transgender, agender, or identify differently are coming more clearly into view. While feminist mothering is difficult and perplexing, it is also empowering for those engaged in the feminist maternal practice of raising children. Furthermore, research into feminist mothering provides insight into the multiple ways in which mothers’ lives today continue to be complex and complicated within the patriarchal institution of motherhood.

47

Fiona Joy Green

Notes 1 “Transgender” denotes or relates to “a person whose sense of personal identity and gender does not correspond with their birth sex” (Oxford English Dictionary). “Cismen” denotes or relates to a person whose sense of their personal identity as a man corresponds with their male birth sex. 2 “Two-spirit” broadly references Aboriginal peoples in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender and queer (LGBTQ) community and “refers to a person who embodies both a masculine and feminine spirit.” “Two-spirit” is also “used by some Aboriginal peoples to describe their gender, sexual and spiritual identity” (The Canadian Encyclopedia). 3 “Cisgender” denotes or relates “to a person whose self-identity conforms with the gender that corresponds to their biological sex; not transgender” (Cisgender, Oxford English Dictionary). 4 Demeter Press is an independent feminist press committed to publishing peer-reviewed scholarly work, fiction, poetry, and creative nonfiction on mothering, reproduction, sexuality, and family. It is partnered with the Motherhood Initiative for Research and Community Involvement (MIRCI), which is a scholarly and activist organization on mothering-motherhood, developed from the former Association for Research on Mothering at York University (1998–2010). MIRCI also houses the Journal of the Motherhood Initiative (formerly The Journal of the Association for Research on Mothering). 5 “ ‘Queer’ is used as the most general catch-all available for people who have sexual or gender identities and relationships that fall outside the heteronormative and cisnormative categories” (Gibson 17). 6 “Cisnormative describes beliefs and systems that presume identities and relationships to be the ‘norm’ ” and “ ‘Heteronormative’ describes beliefs and systems that presume heterosexual identities and relationships to be the ‘norm’ ” (Gibson 17).

Works cited Anderson, Kim, and Dawn Memee Lavell-Harvard, editors. Mothers of the Nations: Indigenous Mothering as Global Resistance, Reclaiming, and Recovery. Demeter Press, 2014. Avery, Dwayne. “TV’s New Dads: Sensitive Fatherhood and the Return of Hegemonic Masculinity.” Essential Breakthroughs: Conversations with Men about Mothers, Mothering and Motherhood, edited by Fiona Joy Green and Gary Lee Pelletier, Demeter Press, 2015, pp. 129–47. Bernard, Jessie. The Future of Motherhood. Dial Press, 1974. Bourassa, Carrie, et al., editors. Listening to the Beat of Our Drum: Indigenous Parenting in a Contemporary Society. Demeter Press, 2017. The Canadian Encyclopedia. “Two-Spirit,” www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/two-spirit/. Accessed 26 Nov. 2017. Carmichael, Carrie. Non-Sexist Childraising. Beacon Press, 1977. Collins, Patricia Hill. “Shifting the Centre: Race, Class and Feminist Theorizing about Motherhood.” Representations of Motherhood, edited by Donna Bassin et al., Yale UP, 1994, pp. 56–74. ———. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness and the Politics of Empowerment. 2nd ed., Routledge, 2000. Comerford, Lynn, et al., editors. Feminist Parenting. Demeter Press, 2016. Crenshaw, Kimberlé. “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory, and Antiracist Politics.” University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989, pp. 139–67. ———. “Why Intersectionality Can’t Wait.” Washington Post, 2015, www.washingtonpost.com/news/intheory/wp/2015/09/24/why-intersectionality-cant-wait/?utm_term=.5cea2b5da129. Accessed 10 Oct. 2016. Enders, L. “Feminism and Mothering of Son.” Feminism & Psychology, vol. 6, no. 1, 1996, pp. 127–29. Epstein, Rachel, editor. Who’s Your Daddy? And Other Writings on Queer Parenting. Sumach Press, 2009. Epstein, Sarah. Mothers and Sons: Feminist Maternal Practice in Boys. 2013. Deakin University, PhD dissertation. “Feminism and Motherhood.” off our backs: a women’s news journal, vol. 36, no. 1, 2006. Gibson, Margaret, editor. Queering Motherhood: Narrative and Theoretical Perspectives. Demeter Press, 2014. Glickman, Rose L. Daughters of Feminists: Young Women with Feminist Mothers Talk about Their Lives. New York UP, 1993. Gordon, Tuula. Feminist Mothers. New York UP, 1990. Green, Fiona J. “Feminist Mothers: Successfully Negotiating the Tensions between Motherhood as ‘Institution’ and ‘Experience.’ ” Mother Outlaws: Theories and practices of Empowered Mothering, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, Women’s Press, 2004, pp. 31–42.

48

Feminist mothering ———. “Developing a Feminist Motherline: Reflections on a Decade of Feminist Parenting.” Journal of the Association for Research on Mothering, vol. 8, no. 1–2, 2006, pp. 7–20. ———. “Feminist Motherline: Embodied Knowledge/s of Feminist Mothering.” Feminist Mothering, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, State U of New York Press, 2008, pp. 161–76. ———. Feminist Mothering in Theory and Practice, 1985–1995: A Study in Transformative Politics. U of Michigan; Edwin Mellen Press, 2009. ———. “Feminist Mothering.” Encyclopedia of Motherhood, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, SAGE Publications, Inc., 2010, pp. 401–03. ———. Practicing Feminist Mothering. Arbiter Ring Publishers, 2011. ———. “Re-Conceptualising Motherhood: Reaching Back to Move Forward.” Journal of Family Studies, vol. 21, no. 3, 2015, pp. 196–207, www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13229400.2015.1086666? scroll=top&needAccess=true&journalCode=rjfs20. Accessed 22 Mar. 2018. Green, Fiona J., and May Friedman, editors. Chasing Rainbows: Exploring Gender Fluid Parenting Practices. Demeter Press, 2013. Green, Fiona J., and Gary Lee Pelletier, editors. Essential Breakthroughs: Conversations with Men about Mothers, Mothering and Motherhood. Demeter Press, 2015. Griffin, C., and K. J. Broadfoot, “Outlaw Mothers Raising Gentle-men: Choosing to Disrupt Hegemonic Tensions between Masculinity and Feminism.” Contemplating Maternity in an Era of Choice: Explorations into Discourses of Reproduction, edited by Susan Hayden and Lynn O’Brien Hallstein, Lexington Books, 2010, pp. 313–32. Hays, Sharon. The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood. Yale UP, 1996. Hill, Shirley A. “African American Mothers.” Feminist Mothering, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, State U of New York Press, 2008, pp. 107–21. Hirsch, Marianne. The Mother/Daughter Plot: Narrative, Psychoanalysis, Feminism. Indiana UP, 1989. Horwitz, Erika. “Resistance as a Site of Empowerment: The Journey Away from Maternal Sacrifice.” Mother Outlaws: Theories and Practices of Empowered Mothering, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, Women’s Press, 2004, pp. 43–58. Kinser, Amber E., editor. Mothering and Feminism in the Third Wave. Demeter Press, 2008. ———. Motherhood and Feminism. Seal Press, 2010. Koyama, Eve. The Transfeminist Manifesto, last edited 26 July 2001, www.confluere.com/readings/pdf-rdg/ tfmanifesto.pdf. Accessed 20 Jun. 2014. Mack-Canty, Colleen, and Sue Marie Wright. “Feminist Family Values: Parenting in Third Wave Feminism and Empowering All Family Members.” Feminist Mothering, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, State U of New York Press, 2008, pp. 143–59. Miller, Michelle Hughes, and Tamar Hager, editors. Bad Mothers: Regulations, Representations and Resistance. Demeter Press, 2017. “Mothering and Feminism.” Journal of the Association for Research on Mothering, vol. 8, no. 1, 2006, p. 2. Neufeld, Hannah Tait, and Jaime Cidro, editors. Indigenous Experiences of Pregnancy and Birth. Demeter Press, 2017. O’Reilly, Andrea, editor. From Motherhood to Mothering: The Legacy of Adrienne Rich’s of Mother Born. SUNY Press, 2004. ———. “Introduction.” From Motherhood to Mothering: The Legacy of Adrienne Rich’s of Mother Born, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, SUNY Press, 2004, pp. 1–16. ———. “Mothering against Motherhood.” From Motherhood to Mothering: The Legacy of Adrienne Rich’s of Mother Born, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, SUNY Press, 2004, pp. 159–74. ———, editor. Mother Outlaws: Theories and Practices of Empowered Mothering. Women’s Press, 2004. ———. “Between the Baby and the Bathwater: Some Thoughts on a Mother-Centred Theory and Practice of Feminist Mothering.” Journal of Research on Mothering, vol. 8, nos. 1–2, 2006, pp. 323–30. ———, editor. Feminist Mothering. SUNY Press, 2008. ———. “Introduction.” Feminist Mothering, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, State U of New York Press, 2008, pp. 1–22. ———, editor. Mothers, Mothering and Motherhood across Cultural Differences. Demeter Press, 2014. Onuora, Adwoa Ntozake, editor. Anansesem: Telling Stories and Storytelling African Maternal Pedagogies. Demeter Press, 2015. Othermother. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Othermother. Accessed 9 Oct. 2016. Ott, Kate M. “Feminist Mothering of Sons: Ethical Practices for Everyone.” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, vol. 27, no. 2, 2011, pp. 143–47. Indiana UP.

49

Fiona Joy Green The Oxford English Dictionary. “Cisgender,” https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/cisgender. Accessed 10 Oct. 2016. The Oxford English Dictionary.“Transgender,” https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/transgender. Accessed 26 Nov. 2017. Park, Shelley, P. Mothering Queerly, Queerly Motherhood: Resisting Monomaternalism in Adoptive, Lesbian, Blended, and Polygamous Families. State U of New York Press, 2013. Pelletier, Gary Lee, and Fiona Joy Green. “Introduction.” Essential Breakthroughs: Conversations with Men about Mothers, Mothering and Motherhood, edited by Fiona Joy Green and Gary Lee Pelletier, Demeter Press, 2015, pp. 1–13. Ready, Maureen T., et al., editors. Mother Journey’s: Feminists Write about Mothering. Spinsters Ink, 1994. Rich, Adrienne. Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution. 1976. Virago, 1986. Ruddick, Sara. Maternal Thinking: Toward a Politics of Peace. 1989. Beacon Press, 1995. Wong-Wylie, Gina. “Images and Echoes in Matroreform: A Cultural Feminist Perspective.” Journal of the Association for Research on Mothering, vol. 8, no. 1, 2006, pp. 135–46.

50

3 MATRICENTRIC FEMINISM A feminism for mothers Andrea O’Reilly

In A Room of One’s Own, Virginia Woolf writes “a woman must have money and a room of her own if she is to write fiction” (1). For me, this quote serves to situate and frame what has been a passionate concern of mine over the past three plus decades as I have sought to do feminism as a mother and do mothering as a feminist: namely, mothers need a feminism of their own. When I use the term “mothers,” I refer to individuals who engage in motherwork or, as Sara Ruddick theorized, maternal practice. Such a term is not limited to biological mothers but to anyone who does the work of mothering as a central part of her or his life. The aim of this chapter is to introduce this specific mode of feminism – what I have called “matricentric feminism” – consider the context and challenges of a mother-centred feminist theory and politic and to suggest directions for future research.

Background and context The chapter works from one particular assumption: mothering matters, and it is central to the lives of women who are mothers. In saying this, I am not suggesting that mothering is all that matters or that it matters the most; I am suggesting that any understanding of mothers’ lives is incomplete without a consideration of how becoming and being a mother shape a woman’s sense of self and how she sees and lives in the world. Indeed, as Eva Feder Kitty emphasizes, “most women care for their dependents at some point, and for many women, this occupies the better part of their lives” (qtd. in Stephens 141). As a motherhood scholar, a director of a research centre on motherhood, an editor of a motherhood journal, and a publisher of a press on motherhood, I have talked to more mothers and read more motherhood scholarship than most, and I can say with confidence that for women who are mothers, mothering is a significant, if not a defining dimension of their lives, and that, arguably, maternity matters more than gender. I do not seek to substantiate these claims but rather take them as my starting point. Mothers need a feminism that puts motherhood at its centre. Motherhood, it could be said, is the unfinished business of feminism. For example, a cursory review of recent scholarship on mothers and paid employment reveals that although women have made significant gains over the last three decades, mothers have not. Mothers in the paid labour force find themselves “mommy tracked,” making sixty cents for every dollar earned by full-time fathers in the United States, for example (Williams 2). Indeed, today the pay gap 51

Andrea O’Reilly

between mothers and nonmothers under thirty-five years is larger than the wage gap between young men and women (Crittenden 94). And although the “glass ceiling” and the “sticky floor” are still found in the workplace, most scholars argue that it is the “maternal wall” that impedes and hinders most women’s progress in the workplace today. As Ann Crittenden writes, “Many childless women under the age of thirty-five believe that all the feminist battles have been won.” But as Crittenden continues, “once a woman has a baby, the egalitarian office party is over” (88). A matricentric feminism seeks to make motherhood the business of feminism by positioning mothers’ needs and concerns as the starting point for a theory and politic on and for women’s empowerment. This repositioning is not to suggest that a matricentric feminism should replace traditional feminist thought; rather, it is to emphasize that the category of mother is distinct from the category of woman and that many of the problems mothers face – social, economic, political, cultural, psychological, and so forth – are specific to women’s role and identity as mothers. Indeed, mothers are oppressed under patriarchy as women and as mothers. Consequently, mothers need a matricentric mode of feminism organized from and for their particular identity and work as mothers. Indeed, a mother-centred feminism is needed because mothers – arguably more so than women in general – remain disempowered despite forty years of feminism. My work does not rationalize or defend the need for a mother-centred feminism, as it takes it as a given. Instead, this chapter endeavours to describe and discuss this mode of mother-focused feminism – what I have termed “matricentric feminism” – which has emerged as a result of and in response to women’s specific identities and work as mothers. I use the term “matricentric” to define and describe a mother-centred mode of feminism. Feminist literary critic Elaine Showalter uses the term “gynocentric” to signify a woman-centred perspective; similarly, I use matricentric to convey a mother-centred perspective. The choice to use the word “matricentric” over “maternal” and to use the term “matricentric feminism” instead of “maternal feminism” is done to distinguish a mother-focused feminism from the theory and politic of maternalism. Writer Judith Stadtman Tucker argues that maternalism “conforms to the dominant ideology of motherhood and emphasizes the importance of maternal well-being to the health and safety of children.” “Maternalism,” she continues, “overlaps with what has been called ‘difference feminism’ – particularly the idea that women are ‘naturally’ or intuitively more empathic, less exploitive, and more closely attuned to relational ambience than men” (2). Likewise, Rachel V. Kutz-Flamenbaum, writing in the Encyclopedia of Motherhood, says: maternalism, like paternalism, is an ideology and philosophy. It asserts that “mother knows best” and that women, as a group, maintain a set of ideas, beliefs or experiences that reflect their motherly knowledge and motherly strengths. Maternalism suggests that women are (and should be) the moral conscience of humanity and asserts women’s legitimate investment in political affairs through this emphasis. (2: 712) Patrice DiQuinzio further elaborates that “maternalist politics refers to political activism and political movements that invoke motherhood as the basis of women’s agency” (“The Politics of the Mothers’ Movement in the United States” 58). A matricentric perspective must not to be confused with a maternalist one. Although some perspectives in matricentric feminism may be considered maternalist, they are largely limited to the activism of certain motherhood organizations. Moreover, matricentric feminism understands motherhood to be socially and historically constructed and positions mothering more as a practice than an identity. As well, central to matricentric feminist theory is a critique of the maternalist stance that positions maternity as basic to and the basis of female identity; as well, 52

Matricentric feminism

matricentric feminism challenges the assumption that maternity is natural to women (i.e., all women naturally know how to mother) and that the work of mothering is driven by instinct rather than intelligence and developed by habit rather than skill. Although matricentric feminism does hold a mother-centred perspective, it does not advance a maternalist argument or agenda. Thus, matricentric feminism marks the crucial difference between a focus on mothers from a politic of maternalism. When discussing matricentric feminism, I draw on the concept of a matrifocal narrative, particularly as it has been developed in maternal literary theory. In her introduction to The Mother/ Daughter Plot, Marianne Hirsch queries why in Sophocles’s Oedipus Rex, the voice of Jocasta, Oedipus’ mother, is missing, and she connects this narrative silence to a larger literary lacuna: In asking where the story of Jocasta is in the story of Oedipus, I am asking not only where the stories of women are in men’s plots, but where the stories of mothers are in the plots of sons and daughters. (4) She concludes that “clearly, to know Jocasta’s maternal story . . . we would have to begin with the mother” (5). Drawing on Hirsh, Brenda O. Daly and Maureen T. Reddy emphasize in Narrating Maternity that even of the limited number of fictional or theoretical texts that do “begin with the mother in her own right, from her own perspective . . . [they] seldom hold fast to a maternal perspective; further when texts do maintain this perspective, readers and critics tend to suppress the centrality of mothering” (2–3). Daly and Reddy have coined the term “daughter-centricity” to describe the perspective wherein “we learn less about what it is like to mother than about what it is like to be mothered, even when the author has had both experiences” (2). Within the last three decades, as motherhood studies has emerged as a distinct and established academic discipline, this daughter-centricity has been countered and corrected in both fiction and theory. Indeed, a central aim of motherhood studies is to articulate and theorize “the voice of the mother” – that is, to analyze becoming and being a mother from the perspective and subjectivity of mothers themselves. Adrienne Rich concludes Of Woman Born with these words: “The words are being spoken now, are being written down, the taboos are being broken, the masks of motherhood are cracking through” (239). Whether such “unmasking” (Maushart) is conveyed by way of a sociological study of mothers or in a popular motherhood memoir, feminist writers and scholars endeavour to unmask motherhood by documenting the lived reality of mothering. In so doing, they counter the daughter-centricity, described by Daly and Reddy, to create and compose what I term a “matrifocal narrative.” My use of the term “matrifocal” is drawn from Miriam Johnson’s discussion of matrifocality in Strong Mothers, Weak Wives. Matrifocal societies, she writes, tend to have greater gender equality because of the power of a maternal paradigm. In these societies, regardless of the particular type of kinship system, women play roles of cultural and social significance and define themselves less as wives than as mothers. . . . Matrifocality however, does not refer to domestic maternal dominance so much as it does to the relative cultural prestige of the image of the mother, a role that is culturally elaborated and valued. Mothers are also structurally central in that the mother as a status “has some degree of control over the kin unit’s economic resources and is critically involved in kin-related decision making processes.” It is not the absence of males (males may be quite present) but the centrality of women as mothers and sisters that makes a society matrifocal. (226) 53

Andrea O’Reilly

A matrifocal narrative, borrowing from Johnson’s terminology, is one in which a mother plays a role of cultural and social significance and in which motherhood is thematically elaborated and valued, and is structurally central to the plot. In other words – and to draw on the work of Hirsh, Daly, and Reddy – matrifocal narratives “begin with the mother in her own right, from her own perspective,” and they “hold fast to a maternal perspective”; in addition, a matrifocal reading attends to and accentuates the maternal thematic in any given text. Maternal writing, as Emily Jeremiah has noted, “entails a publicizing of maternal experience, and it subverts the traditional notion of mother as an instinctual, purely corporeal being. It is thus to be understood as a key tool in the redefinition of maternity in which feminists are engaged” (231). “It is impossible,” writes Patrice DiQuinzio, “for feminist theory to avoid the issue of motherhood, and it is impossible for feminist theory to resolve it” (Impossibility of Motherhood xx). However, I suggest that a matrifocal perspective in unmasking motherhood and redefining maternity allows for these encounters and explorations. As matricentric feminism is matrifocal in its focus, it is multi- and interdisciplinary in its perspective. Matricentric feminist theory draws from many academic disciplines – including anthropology, history, literary studies, sociology, philosophy, psychology, sexuality studies, and women’s studies – as well as from the established schools of academic feminism. Indeed, far from being an island onto its own, matricentric feminism is informed by traditional schools of academic feminism and its most prominent theorists: womanist and African American feminism (bell hooks and Patricia Hill Collins); liberal feminism (Ann Crittenden); psychoanalytic feminism (Nancy Chodorow and Jessica Benjamin); queer-lesbian feminism (Baba Copper); cultural-difference feminism (Adrienne Rich and Mielle Chandler); socialist feminism (Mary O’Brien); and thirdwave feminism (Ariel Gore). As an example, matricentric feminism is informed by the African American feminist commitment to the epistemological importance of lived experience, while also being informed by third-wave feminism’s commitment to intersectional analyses. I am frequently asked what matricentric feminism is. As a new and emergent feminism, it is difficult to define matricentric feminism other than to say that it is explicitly matrifocal in its perspective and emphasis – it begins with the mother and takes seriously the work of mothering – and that it is multidisciplinary and multi-theoretical in its perspective. I gesture towards a possible definition by listing what I see as the central and governing principles and aims of matricentric feminism: • •

• •

•

•

asserts that the topic of mothers, mothering, and motherhood is deserving of serious and sustained scholarly inquiry; regards mothering as work that is important and valuable to society but emphasizes that the essential task of mothering is not, and should not be, the sole responsibility and duty of mothers; contests, challenges, and counters the patriarchal oppressive institution of motherhood and seeks to imagine and implement a maternal identity and practice that is empowering to mothers; seeks to correct the child centredness that defines much of the scholarship and activism on motherhood and seeks to develop research and activism from the experience and the perspective of mothers; commits to social change and social justice, and regards mothering as a socially engaged enterprise and a site of power, wherein mothers can and do create social change through child-rearing and activism; understands mothering and motherhood to be culturally determined and variable, and is committed to exploring the diversity of maternal experience across race, class, culture, ethnicity, sexuality, ability, age, and geographical location; and 54

Matricentric feminism

•

endeavours to establish maternal theory and motherhood studies as autonomous, independent, and legitimate scholarly disciplines.

This list is only partial and provisional. It is my hope that future scholarship will lead to a more substantive and robust definition of this new feminist field of matricentric feminism to create a feminism, in the words of feminist writer and activist Marilyn Waring, for which mothers and mothering count.

Controversies and challenges Matricentric feminism, however, has yet to be incorporated into the field of academic feminism. In making this claim, I am not saying no feminist scholarship on motherhood exists, but rather that matricentric feminism remains peripheral to academic feminism. Over the last two plus decades as a motherhood researcher and publisher, I have heard countless stories from motherhood scholars about how their work has been ignored, dismissed, invalidated, or trivialized by academic feminists: how the women’s studies conferences they attend have few, if any papers, on motherhood; how motherhood is seldom a topic of discussion in women’s studies classrooms and rarely included in academic feminist textbooks; and how articles on motherhood or reviews of motherhood books are all but absent in the leading women’s studies journals. My 2016 study of the place of motherhood over the past ten years in contexts such as National Women’s Studies Association conference panels, as well as in top feminist journals such as Signs, Frontiers, Women’s Studies Quarterly, Feminist Studies, and Gender and Society, and in gender and women’s studies textbooks and syllabi confirmed this antidotal evidence, finding that only 1 percent to less than 3 percent of the content is devoted to the topic of motherhood (Matricentric Feminism). Given that 80 percent of women become mothers in their lifetime, there is an evident disconnect between the minimal representation of motherhood in academic feminism and the actual lives of most women. A demand for a theory and practice based on a specific identity of women is hardly an innovative or radical claim. Over the last forty plus years, many groups of women have argued that mainstream feminism – largely understood to be liberal feminism – has not adequately represented their perspectives or needs. Women of colour, for example, have advocated that feminism address the intersectionality of their oppression as racialized women, a feminism now known as womanism; women from the Global South have called for the development of a theory of global feminism; and queer, lesbian, bi, and trans women have supported growth of queer feminist theory and activism. Likewise, the development of third-wave feminism in the 1990s grew out of young women’s sense of alienation from the aims of second-wave feminism. When such women demanded a feminist theory of their own, the larger feminist movement acknowledged, albeit often reluctantly, that such women had been excluded from the larger canon of feminist thought. Feminist theory was subsequently revised to include these different positions and perspectives within feminism. Most introduction to women’s studies textbooks or courses now include chapters or units on socialist feminism, global feminism, queer feminism, third-wave feminism, and womanism, and these perspectives and topics are well represented at women’s studies conferences and in women’s studies journals. However, as mothers began to call for a feminism for and about mothers over the last decade or so – what I have defined as matricentric feminism – and to ask for its inclusion in academic feminism, their calls were not met with the same respect or recognition. More often than not, their claims were dismissed, trivialized, disparaged, and ridiculed: Why would mothers need such a mother-centred feminist perspective? The question implies that mothers do not have 55

Andrea O’Reilly

needs or concerns separate from their larger identity as women. It troubles me deeply that feminists are able to understand the intersectionality of gendered oppression when it comes to race, class, sexuality, and geographical location but not so for maternity. But I would argue – and I suspect most mothers would agree – that maternity needs to be likewise understood in terms of intersectional theory. The category of mother is distinct from the category of woman: many of the problems mothers face – social, economic, political, cultural, and psychological – are specific to their work and identity as mothers. Mothers, in other words, do not live simply as women but as mother women, just as black females do not live simply as women but as racialized women. Moreover, mothers’ oppression and resistance under patriarchy are shaped by their maternal identity, just as black women’s oppression and resistance are shaped by their racialized identity. Thus, mothers need a feminism of their own – one that positions mothers’ concerns as the starting point for a theory and politic of empowerment. For me, this seems self-evident. Why then is maternity not understood to be a subject position and, hence, not theorized as with other subject positions in terms of the intersectionality of gendered oppression and resistance? Why do we not recognize mothers’ specific perspectives as we do for other women, whether they are queer, working class, racialized, and so forth? Why do mothers and mothering not count or matter? In my 2016 book Matricentric Feminism: Theory, Activism, and Practice, I consider various reasons for what I term the disavowal of motherhood in academic feminism. Here I share two of these considerations: the confusion of mothering with motherhood and the conflation of maternalism, and hence gender essentialism, with matricentric feminism. Samira Kawash in her review article on motherhood argues that “the marginalization of motherhood in feminist thought over the last 15 years was a political rejection of maternalist politics constructed as a backlash to feminism and the result of dramatic upheavals in feminist theory” (971). Indeed, Kawash argues that “by the late 1990s difference feminism had been eclipsed and was no longer a serious topic of discussion in feminist graduate programs or in the academic feminist press.” “The deconstruction of ‘woman’ and the post structuralist accounts of gender and power,” she continues, “left motherhood to the side, an embarrassing theoretical relic of an earlier naïve view of the essentialist woman, and her shadow, the essential mother” (971). Building on Kawash’s argument, I argue that it is more precisely a misreading of maternity and maternalism in matricentric feminism that has resulted in the disavowal of motherhood in and by academic feminism.

Confusing mothering with motherhood It is my view that the disavowal of motherhood in academic feminism is the result of a larger and pervasive feminist discomfort with all things maternal and more specifically as a result of confusing the institution of motherhood with the experience of mothering. Much of secondwave feminism – in particular that of liberal and radical-libertarian feminism – views motherhood as a significant, if not the determining, cause of women’s oppression under patriarchy. As Rosemarie Putnam Tong notes in her second edition of Feminist Thought, Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique, a central liberal feminist text,“advised women to become like men” (31). The now-infamous quote from The Feminine Mystique – “the problem that has no name” – quickly became a trope for the dissatisfaction supposedly felt by stay-at-home mothers. Friedan states that “in lieu of more meaningful goals, these women spend too much time cleaning their already tidy homes, improving their already attractive appearances, and indulging their already spoiled children” (69–70). Moreover, Friedan argues that “contemporary women needed to find meaningful work in the full-time, public workforce” (22). Along the same lines, radical-libertarian feminist Shulamith Firestone claims that “the material basis for the sexual/political ideology 56

Matricentric feminism

of female submission and male domination was rooted in the reproductive roles of men and women” (qtd. in Tong 52). Elsewhere, Firestone writes: No matter how much educational, legal, and political equality women achieve and no matter how many women enter public industry, nothing fundamental will change for women as long as natural reproduction remains the rule and artificial or assisted reproduction the exception. Natural reproduction is neither in women’s best interests nor in those of the children so reproduced. The joy of giving birth – invoked so frequently in this society – is a patriarchal myth. In fact, pregnancy is barbaric, and natural childbirth is at best necessary and tolerable and at worst like shirting a pumpkin. (92) For Friedan and Firestone, motherhood is a patriarchal institution that causes women’s oppression, and, thus, for them, the feminist solution is to disavow and denounce motherhood. However, as motherhood scholars and mothers alike have rightly argued, such reasoning is deeply flawed in its failure to take into account the important difference between the institution of motherhood and women’s experiences of mothering. In Of Woman Born, Adrienne Rich distinguishes between two meanings of motherhood, one superimposed on the other: “the potential relationship of any woman to her powers of reproduction and to children”; and “the institution – which aims at ensuring that that potential – and all women – shall remain under male control” (13). The term “motherhood” refers to the patriarchal institution of motherhood, which is male-defined and controlled and is deeply oppressive to women, whereas the word “mothering” refers to women’s experiences of mothering and is female-defined and potentially empowering to women. The reality of patriarchal motherhood, thus, must be distinguished from the possibility or potentiality of feminist mothering. To critique the institution of motherhood, therefore, is “not an attack on the family or on mothering except as defined and restricted under patriarchy” (Rich 14). In other words, whereas motherhood as an institution is a maledefined site of oppression, women’s own experiences of mothering can be a source of power. It has long been recognized among scholars of motherhood that Rich’s distinction between mothering and motherhood was what enabled feminists to recognize that motherhood is not naturally, necessarily, or inevitably oppressive. Rather, mothering, freed from motherhood, could be experienced as a site of empowerment and a location of social change if, to use Rich’s words, women became “outlaws from the institution of motherhood.” However, in much of academic feminism, this crucial difference between the institution and the experience is not recognized or understood. As a result, mothering becomes confused with motherhood, and maternity is regarded solely and exclusively as a patriarchal entity.

Conflating matricentric feminism with maternalism and gender essentialism A matricentric perspective is often confused with a maternalist one. Matricentric feminism, as already discussed, understands motherhood to be socially and historically constructed and positions mothering more as a practice than an identity. Central to matricentric feminism is a critique of the maternalist stance that positions maternity as basic to and the basis of female identity; it challenges the assumption that maternity is natural to women – all women naturally know how to mother – and that the work of mothering is driven by instinct rather than intelligence and developed by habit rather than skill. Although matricentric feminism does hold a matrifocal perspective and insists that mothering does matter, it does not advance a maternalist argument or agenda. 57

Andrea O’Reilly

However, matricentric feminism, in its focus on a gendered experience that of mothering (and the related ones of pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding), does force us to address the thorny issue of gender difference. Feminist theory, with the notable exception of difference-­ cultural feminism, positions gender difference as central to, if not the cause of, women’s oppression. Liberal feminists advocate what has been called “sameness feminism,” wherein women become more like men; radical-libertarian feminists promote androgyny; and post-structuralist feminists seek to destabilize and deconstruct gender difference all together. Indeed, as Niamh Moore notes, “challenging biological determinism and other essentialisms has been a crucial policy strategy for feminists” (qtd. in Stephens 141). Thus, because feminists are uncomfortable with anything that underscores gender difference and suggests essentialism (i.e., men are naturally this way, and women are naturally this way), motherhood becomes problematic, as it more than anything else is what marks gender difference: only biological females can biologically become mothers. And because gender difference is seen as structuring and maintaining male dominance, many feminists seek to downplay and disavow anything that marks this difference – the main one, of course, being motherhood. For many feminists, to call attention to women’s specific gendered subjectivity as a mother is to subscribe to an essentialist viewpoint: acknowledging and affirming what is seen as marking and maintaining gender difference and, hence, the oppression of women. Indeed, as Julie Stephens writes in Confronting Postmaternal Thinking: “the primary focus of the second-wave feminist movement has been one long struggle against essentialism, whether this be biological, cultural or ideological. This makes any discussion linking women and care, or mothering and nurture, particularly troubling” (10). Consequently, as Stephens goes on to argue, “any activism done in the name of the maternal will be unsettling, particularly for those who perceive feminism as primarily a struggle against essentialism” (141). I agree that gender is constructed – sex does not equal gender or as Simone de Beauvoir said “one is not born a woman but made one” – and thus, people cannot define themselves or limit their lives to that which is socially constructed by gender. However, I likewise believe that feminists should not disavow motherhood to facilitate this destabilizing of gender. I believe it is possible to simultaneously argue that gender is constructed and that motherhood matters and that maternity is integral to a mother women’s sense of self and her experience of the world. In my view, the apprehension over gender difference is the elephant in the room of academic feminism; it has shut down necessary and needed conversations about important – and yes gendered – biological dimensions of women’s lives: menstruation, pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding, and mothering. Mothers can no longer talk about their reproductive identities and experiences without being called essentialist. But maternal scholars do not reduce women’s sense of self to motherhood, nor do they say that this is what makes her a woman or that motherhood is more important than other variables that constitute self. They say only that motherhood matters and that it is central and integral to understanding the lives of women as mothers. Thus, mothers need a feminism, in both theory and practice, for and about their identities and experiences as mothers.

Direction for future research Motherhood studies as an area of scholarship, Kawash writes, “is on precarious grounds: ignored by mainstream academic feminism, fragmented and discontinuous in the academic margins” (986). In making this argument, Kawash uses as her example York University’s refusal to provide institutional funding for The Association for Research on Mothering (ARM) and the resulting closure of the association in 2010. Kawash writes that “the fact that neither the university system nor the institution of academic feminism appears willing to support a scholarly community 58

Matricentric feminism

and research program that explicitly foregrounds mothering is discouraging” (986). However, as Kawash goes on to argue, “but the fact is, even before York pulled the plug, the established academic community completely ignored the work of ARM. Neither O’Reilly’s work nor the Demeter volumes were reviewed in any significant feminist journals, and JARM had few institutional subscribers” (986). Thus, “while motherhood has been an energizing topic in the past decade,” Kawash argues, “there has been little of boundary-crossing movement between academic and popular discussion, and the movement between feminist studies and motherhood studies has been only in one direction” (986). But as Kawash, concludes: Feminist theorists, scholars, and writers, as well as feminist mother activists, have a lot to say to each other, and a lot to learn from each other, about motherhood. Motherhood studies needs the perspectives and commitments of feminism as well as the institutional resources that feminism and women’s studies have accumulated over the past four decades. At the same time, feminism cannot possibly hope to remain relevant without acknowledging motherhood in all its contradictions and complexities. (986–87) Indeed, in the words of maternal theorist Patrice DiQuinzio “to the extent that mothering in all its diverse forms, remains an important aspect of women’s lives and that decisions about whether, when, and how to mother continues to face almost all women, feminism cannot claim to give an adequate account of women’s lives and to represent women’s needs and interests if it ignores the issue of mothering” (“Mothering and Feminism” 545).

Further reading Kawash, Samira. “New Directions in Motherhood Studies.” Signs, vol. 36, no. 4, 2011, pp. 969–1003. “Matricentric Feminism.” Journal of the Motherhood Initiative, vol. 10, no. 1, Spring/Summer 2019. O’Reilly, Andrea. Matricentric Feminism: Theory, Activism, and Practice. Demeter Press, 2016.

Conclusion In this chapter, I have introduced matricentric feminism, discussed the disavowal of motherhood in academic feminism, and suggested possible explanations for its exclusion. However, despite the disavowal of motherhood in academic feminism, we do have a feminist theory and movement of our own. But matricentric feminism must be more than acknowledged as a legitimate, viable, independent school of feminist thought; it must be integrated into mainstream academic feminism. But how do we accomplish this? We need more women doing motherhood scholarship and more mother professors in academe. We demand that matricentric feminism have a chapter of it is own as do other schools of feminism theory – queer, global, womanist, third wave – in our feminist theory readers, that introduction to women’s studies courses and textbooks include sections on motherhood, that women’s journals and conferences include more papers on motherhood, and that more books on motherhood are reviewed. We must continuously challenge the conflation of mothering with motherhood within academic feminism as well as counter the association of matricentric feminism with gender essentialism. And decisively and urgently, we must interrupt the received narrative of academic feminism, in particular, its normalization of the genderless and autonomous subject, in order to foreground the centrality of women’s reproductive identities and lives and the importance of care in our larger culture. Indeed, as Ann Marie Slaughter comments, “The bottom-line message is that we 59

Andrea O’Reilly

are never going to get gender equality between men and women unless we value the work of care as much as we value paid work. That’s the unfinished business” (qtd. in McCarthy). Finally, and most important, we must demand that matricentric feminists be recognized and respected as the feminists that they are and that their feminism, that of matricentric feminism, have a room of its own in the larger home of academic feminism.

Works cited Crittenden, Ann. The Price of Motherhood: Why the Most Important Job the World Is Still the Least Valued. Henry Holt and Company, 2001. Daly, Brenda O., and Maureen T. Reddy, editors. Narrating Mothers: Theorizing Maternal Subjectivities. U of Tennessee Press, 1991. DiQuinizio, Patrice. The Impossibility of Motherhood: Feminism, Individualism and the Problem of Mothering. Routledge, 1999. ———. “The Politics of the Mothers Movement in the United States: Possibilities and Pitfalls.” Journal of the Association for Research on Mothering, vol. 8, nos. 1–2, 2006, pp. 55–71. ———. “Mothering and Feminism: Essential Mothering and the Dilemma of Difference.” Maternal Theory, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, Demeter Press, 2007, pp. 542–55. Firestone, Shulamith. The Dialectic of Sex. Bantam Books, 1970. Friedan, Betty. The Feminine Mystique. 1963. Dell, 1974. Hirsch, Marianne. The Mother/Daughter Plot: Narrative, Psychoanalysis, Feminism. Indiana UP, 1989. Jeremiah, Emily. “Troublesome Practices: Mothering, Literature, and Ethics.” Mother Matters: Motherhood as Discourse and Practice, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, Demeter Press, 2004, pp. 231–41. Johnson, Miriam. Strong Mothers, Weak Wives: The Search for Gender Equality. U of California Press, 1988. Kawash, Samira. “New Directions in Motherhood Studies.” Signs, vol. 36, no. 4, 2011, pp. 969–1003. Kutz-Flamenbaum, Rachel V. “Maternalism.” Encyclopedia of Motherhood, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, Sage Press, 2010, pp. 712–16. Maushart, Susan. The Mask of Motherhood: How Becoming a Mother Changes Everything and Why We Pretend It Doesn’t. Penguin Books, 2000. McCarthy, Ellen. “Why Neither Men nor Women Can ‘Have It All.’ ” The Toronto Star, Toronto Star Newspapers, Ltd, 30 Aug. 2016, http://torontostar.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx. Accessed 11 Sept. 2016. O’Reilly, Andrea. Matricentric Feminism: Theory, Activism, and Practice. Demeter Press, 2016. Rich, Adrienne. Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution. 2nd ed., W. W. Norton, 1986. Ruddick, Sara. Maternal Thinking: Toward a Politics of Peace. Beacon Press, 1989. Showalter, Elaine. “Toward a Feminist Poetics.” The New Feminist Criticism: Essays on Women, Literature and Theory, edited by Elaine Showalter, Pantheon Books, 1986, pp. 125–43. Stephens, Julie. Confronting Postmaternal Thinking: Feminism, Memory, and Care. Columbia UP, 2011. Tong, Rosemarie. Feminist Thought: A More Comprehensive Introduction. 4th ed., Westview Press, 2014. Tucker, Judith Stadtman. “Motherhood and its Discontents: The Political and Ideological Grounding of the 21st Century Mothers’ Movement.” “Motherhood and Feminism” Conference, Association for Research on Mothering, Toronto, Ontario, 2004. Waring, Marilyn. If Women Counted: A New Feminist Economics. Harper & Row, 1988. Williams, Joan. Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and What to Do about It. Oxford UP, 2000. Woolf, Virginia. A Room of One’s Own. Oxford, 1929.

60

SECTION II

Mothering through difference Hearing the voices of marginalized mothers

4 QUEERING AND QUERYING MOTHERHOOD Shelley M. Park

Introduction Cultural, legal, political, and scholarly attention to queer mothering is critically important for both practical and theoretical reasons. Motherhood has frequently been idealized as a feminine embodiment of moral purity. Mothers with queer sexual desires and practices – for example, lesbians, swingers, BDSM practitioners, and sex workers – directly challenge that ideal by challenging the Madonna/whore dichotomy. Mothers with queer gender identities further trouble cultural ideals of motherhood by troubling the father/mother dichotomy itself. Thus, queer mothers provide a valuable vantage point from which to interrogate harmful constructions of mothers as self-sacrificing asexual women who practice heterosexual monogamy as a matter of reproductive duty. At the same time, queer mothers and those who mother queerly are frequently stigmatized as morally unfit to raise children. This chapter discusses both the perspectives embodied and challenges faced by mothers who are queer including lesbian mothers, butch mothers, trans mothers, intersex mothers, the mothers of queer children, mothers in non-normative families, and others. I conclude with reflections on how the marriage equality movement and advances in reproductive technologies may advance the parental rights and opportunities of some queer mothers at the expense of others.

Background and context Historical overview The term “queer” is used by Western activists and scholars to signify a variety of forms of resistance to normative models of sex, gender, and sexuality. Sometimes it functions as shorthand for lesbian, gay, and bisexual. At other times, it demarcates new forms of sexual radicalism from oldstyle lesbians and gays. It may signify those whose gender identities are non-binary. Often, it is used as an umbrella term covering a variety of non-normative sexual and gender identities. Or it may refer to a political coalition of diverse groups who are stigmatized by their sexual practices or gender performances. Queer theorists use the term to highlight incoherencies in the supposedly stable and causal relations between sex, gender, and sexual desire.

63

Shelley M. Park

In 1990, Teresa de Lauretis coined the phrase queer theory to propose a project with three aims: (1) to resist heteronormativity (using heterosexuality as the benchmark for all sexual practices and identities); (2) to attend to gender differences (sometimes flattened by the presumed homogeneity of lesbian and gay studies); and (3) to heed the ways in which race shapes sexual subjectivities. Queer theory developed in parallel with queer activism in the late twentieth century. In the 1980s and 1990s, ACT UP, Queer Nation, and other activists critiqued representations of HIV/AIDS as a gay disease, addressed heterosexist governmental policies, developed safer-sex education programs for diverse populations, and shifted thinking about sexuality from questions of identity to sexual practices. Queer activist groups such as the Lesbian Avengers and the Sylvia Rivera project also influenced queer scholarship by their critiques of lesbian and gay identity politics as inadequately attentive to gender and race. Also emerging in the late twentieth century – sometimes working in concert with radical queer activists and sometimes in tension with them – were a variety of political organizations based in advocacy by and for the families and friends of lesbians and gays. Started in 1972 by the mother of a gay son and later featured on Queer as Folk, Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) resisted anti-gay crusades, distributed information to schools and faith communities, developed safe school programs, and lobbied for legislation protecting lesbians and gays from discrimination and hate crimes. In 1979, Gay and Lesbian Parents Coalition International (GLPCI) was formed to support homo-parental families; children of those families subsequently formed Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere (COLAGE) to provide peer support, research, media, advocacy, and activist training for children of same-sex parents. As trans visibility in the queer community grew, through the work of Transgender Nation and other trans advocacy organizations, family support organizations such as PFLAG and COLAGE expanded their mission to support transgender persons and their families. In the early twenty-first century, political advocacy for trans persons and other sexual and gender minorities, including queer people of color, was often overshadowed by efforts to obtain same-sex civil unions and marriage rights in North America and Europe. For some, the legalization of same-sex marriage, along with increased gay and lesbian access to family-making through decreased restrictions on adoption and fertility treatments, has been heralded as a success of queer activism. For others, the increasing normalization of lesbian and gay families (often referred to as homonormativity) exemplifies an assimilationist politics at odds with imagining and supporting queer (non-normative) ways of being and living.

Central theories/themes Four areas of emphasis define the scholarship on queer mothering to date: scholarship focused on mothers who are queer, scholarship focused on mothering queer children, scholarship focused on mothering queerly, and scholarship focused on motherhood as queer. These are discussed below in order of their historical emergence.

Mothers who are queer A dominant theme in the literature on queer mothering concerns the ways in which those who identify as queer negotiate their identity as mothers. The specific issues that may require negotiation differ depending on whether a mother’s queerness is linked to a non-normative sexual identity and/or a non-normative gender identity.

64

Queering and querying motherhood SEXUALLY QUEER MOTHERS

Moral panics frequently surround sexual behaviors deviating from vanilla heterosexual intercourse within the context of monogamous marriage between same generation partners. Even when “freely chosen and avidly sought,” queer sex is often stigmatized – most often by an appeal to protecting children (Rubin 159; Edelman). Thus, those deviating from conventional norms of sexuality – including “countless lesbians, gay men, prostitutes, swingers, sex workers, and ‘promiscuous’ women” have had their children removed from their care by the state (Rubin 159; Wyland; Clinton et al.). In response to the loss of maternal rights faced by many women who came out as lesbian during the sexual revolution, organizations such as the Lesbian Rights Project and the Lesbian Mother’s National Defense Fund focused in the 1970s on providing financial and legal support to lesbian mothers in child custody cases (Clinton et al.; Rivers). With the advent of orientation blind standards for child custody, lesbian identity was no longer an explicit cause for loss of custody in the United States, Canada, and most western European nations. However, same-sex orientation continues to explicitly threaten a mother’s custody in nations where sodomy remains illegal and may still implicitly disadvantage women seeking custody in Western nations (Pearson). Moreover, in the West and elsewhere, sex workers, those who engage in online sexual activity, and others deemed sexually deviant continue to be stigmatized as morally unfit to parent, resulting in loss of child custody in cases of arrest, divorce, or other circumstances that make their sexuality public (O’Hara; Krueger et al.). Closely tied to custody battles over “a child’s best interests,” considerable psychological and sociological research has focused on the effects of parental sexual orientation and proclivities on children (see, e.g., Stacey and Biblarz; Biblarz and Stacey; Pearson). In addition to complicating custody cases, the stigmatization of sexual queers may threaten a woman’s ability to become a mother (Chasnoff et al.). Those who are sexually queer may face complex navigations through domestic or international adoption systems that favor placing children with middle-class, Christian, married, heterosexual couples (Brettschneider) or, for those choosing pregnancy, complex negotiations with health care systems where skepticism about ­single-mothering, lesbian mothering, and other forms of non-normative mothering persists (Dahl). Becoming a queer mother may also involve negotiations with birth families, sperm donors, or others wishing to remain connected to a child. Kinship must also be negotiated by (sexual and domestic) partners biologically unrelated to the children whom they co-parent. Cultural norms privileging biological mothers as the “real” mothers make themselves evident as non-biological mothers encounter doctors, teachers, and others who may question their ability to make decisions on a child’s behalf (Park). Even the language by which to represent co-mothers is fraught; descriptors such as “non-biological mother” or “co-parent” may sound “cold” or “bureaucratic,” rather than intimate (Moraga; Dahl). Cultural assumptions privileging bio-familial connections can and have influenced judicial decisions in contested custody cases after the dissolution of lesbian relationships. At the same time, negotiations of kinship by parents who identify as sexually queer have challenged legal and cultural definitions of family as heteronormative; by modeling a “conscious feminist kinship,” lesbian mother families have played an especially important role in “undoing” gender (Sullivan; Goldberg). GENDER QUEER MOTHERS

While the courts, media, activists, and scholars paid significant attention to homo-parental families during the latter part of the twentieth century, the twenty-first century has seen an increased

65

Shelley M. Park

focus on parents who are gender queer. Butch, trans, and intersex parents both challenge and are challenged by the discourse of “motherhood.” Butch parents (lesbians who perform masculinity) queer the ways in which sex and gender binaries are presumed to align to create motherhood as a “natural” identity for those who are female (Fraiman). Insofar as pregnancy is associated with “a cult of uber-femininity,” motherhood may threaten the foundations of a butch gender identity; yet, such identity challenges may engender a “creative do-it-yourself sensibility” that produce new understandings of maternity (Summers). Child-rearing by butch/femme couples may also generate new understandings of fatherhood and destabilize heteropatriarchal family ideals: “[t]he butch dad and the femme mom raise the possibility of authority without patriarchy” and “gender polarity without compulsory heterosexuality,” educating children in “the arbitrariness of all gender roles” (Halberstam, Gaga Feminism 58). Trans parents (parents who do not identify as the sex or gender they were assigned at birth) also confuse gendered expectations of parenting. Some trans individuals physically transition from male to female (MTF) or female to male (FTM) via top and bottom surgeries and hormone regimes; others may remove or add breasts while leaving their genitalia unaltered or change their visible genitalia while leaving their internal reproductive organs intact. Some who identify as transgender may leave their physical bodies largely unaltered (due to preference, lack of funds, or other circumstance). Trans mother typically refers to a person with children who identifies as female but was assigned a masculine gender at birth; trans father typically refers to someone with children who identifies as male but was assigned a feminine gender at birth. Some trans parents may resist the gender binaries encoded in “father” and “mother” and create other names for themselves as genderqueer parents. When a person changes their pubic gender identity after a parental identity (as mother or father) has been previously established, this change will require negotiation within one’s circles of intimacy, including with one’s children and partner as well as with more extended family and communities (Hines; Boylan). The complexities of such negotiations for fathers who transition to mothers have been brought to public attention through streaming series such as Transparent and Orange is the New Black. While transwomen have captured the public imagination as they become mothers to the children whom they previously fathered, transmen – such as Thomas Beattie who created a media sensation in 2008 – have captured public attention in their role as birthgiving fathers (Beattie). Transmen who give birth may face social and psychological challenges when conflicts arise between their embodiment (e.g., as a breastfeeding parent) and male gender identity (MacDonald). Medical challenges are also likely; despite the hypervisibility of some transmen’s pregnancies, trans pregnancies are largely invisible, resulting in little research on or skilled medical attention to the specific reproductive needs of transmen (Hoffkling et al.). Because intersex persons have relatively uncommon combinations of hormones, chromosomes, and anatomy, intersex pregnancies also require specific medical expertise which is often lacking. Medical complications with pregnancy are exacerbated for those who have been subjected to genital surgeries and other treatments during infancy and childhood and for which there may not be an honest and complete medical history. Practices of infant genital surgery have been challenged by intersex people but have been slow to change in the Western world, where gender ambiguity is not well tolerated (Costello). Intersex parents further confound gendered expectations about mothering. As individuals who do not – and often do not desire to – fit Western gender binaries, they destabilize both essentialist notions of mothering (as determined by one’s sex) and notions of mothering as a binary gender choice. 66

Queering and querying motherhood

Mothering children who are queer In his queer theoretical polemic against the politics of “reproductive futurism,” Edelman argues that “queerness names the side of those not ‘fighting for the children’ ” (3). Edelman’s critique of heteronormativity is aimed at “the Child” as a symbol of innocence to be protected by an often violent social and political order aimed at replicating itself. If we shift our focus away from the symbolic Child and towards specific children, we find a form of queerness committed to fighting for children. These are the PFLAG mothers and others who, regardless of their own sexual or gender identities, have aligned themselves with queerness as advocates for LGBTQI+ minors and young adults. Not all mothers of queer children have queer sensibilities. Indeed, some may abuse, neglect, mistreat, misunderstand, and/or reject their queer children. However, all queer children need adults who will care for and about them. The queerness of children rubs off on both the mothers who accept, embrace, and advocate for LGBTQI+ children and those who shun them. In both Western and non-Western contexts, women’s “experiences of raising gender and sexually nonconforming children are integrally shaped by the conditions of gender and family inequality in their own lives,” including disproportionate responsibility for “child outcomes” (Brainer 921). In heteropatriarchal cultures, mother-blaming is ubiquitous. Thus, a child’s queerness – if viewed as a flaw – will result in a “secondary stigma” on their mother ( Johnson and Benson; Peukert). The stigmatization of mothers who raise sexually and gender non-conforming children is especially strong in cases where mothers themselves identify as queer (Kuvlanka). Queer spawn, as the children of queer parents have come to name themselves, will often (not always) be queer or queer-friendly, thus exemplifying the fears of social conservatives that queerness is contagious and will be transmitted from parent to child (Epstein-Fine and Zook). When one is shamed as a “bad” mother, one may strive for re-inclusion in the group (“good” mothers) that has shunned you; alternatively, one may embrace one’s shunned status as a political identity bonding oneself to other mothers who align themselves with queer values and advocate for queer lives. In this sense, a queer mother is one who refuses heteropatriarchal constructions of “good” mothering, a mother who refuses to be ashamed of her child’s sexual or gender deviance and who, thus, “comes out” as deviant herself. Some queer theorists have suggested that all children are queer (deviant, strange). To follow this strand of queer theory is to contemplate a world in which all mothers might become queer by simply following their children’s lead. Children experience time differently than adults, follow different conversational logics, and are less susceptible to shame and guilt (until disciplined for their anarchism), notes Halberstam, arguing that children could teach adults a thing or two (Gaga Feminism). Stockton describes children as “growing sideways” rather than growing “up” in a linear trajectory toward adult size and maturity including work, marriage, reproduction, and the loss of childishness (4). Perhaps, such failures to grow up might be celebrated (Queer Art of Failure). A mother who did this would be queer indeed.

Mothering queerly In addition to denoting people with marginalized sexual orientations and gender identities, “queer” is used to designate ways of doing things that disrupt sexual norms and gendered expectations. As attention to advocacy for queer children illustrates, queer mothering is not just about a mother’s identity (who one is) but is also about a mother’s practices (what one does). As Gibson argues, “queering” may be “understood to extend beyond individual identity and toward a consideration of how relationships, communities, genders, and sexualities 67

Shelley M. Park

might proceed otherwise” (6). Thus, queering motherhood starts anywhere “central gendered, sexual, relational, political, and/or symbolic components of ‘expected’ motherhood are challenged” (6). There are a wide variety of ways in which mothers have challenged the expectations of motherhood by “proceeding otherwise,” i.e., by mothering queerly (Gibson; Park). Teen pregnancy, chosen single motherhood, the delayed child-bearing of women prioritizing careers, lesbian and gay family making, and a booming reproductive technology industry have produced reproductive choices and patterns differing radically from traditional expectations. Such forms of mothering disrupt the normative “time of reproduction” as “ruled by a biological clock for women and by strict bourgeois rules of respectability and scheduling for married couples” (Halberstam, Queer Time and Place 5). In-vitro fertilization, egg donation, surrogacy, and other medical interventions into reproduction have queered procreation by dividing gestational, genetic, and social motherhood and by facilitating a greater range of choices about whether, when, with whom, and how one will reproduce (Mamo). Fifty years ago, Firestone argued that artificial reproduction was key to women’s liberation from male privilege, the tyranny of the biological family with its gendered divisions of labor, and the sex distinction itself. Glimmers of Firestone’s hoped-for “era of polymorphous perversity,” reveal themselves in Tea’s description of a pregnancy involving a “drag queen-sweetheart-volunteer sperm donor,” the implantation of a trans partner’s fertilized eggs into her uterus, a second-trimester porn addiction, a doula resembling a PFLAG mother, and a morphine high during a C-section (Tea). Just as one might procreate queerly, one might “do family” queerly. In donor-extended families, for example, mothers may “recognize members of the sperm donor’s family (when he is known) as their family. . . . Lesbian-coparent families whose children share a donor with theirs” are another example of queering family forms (Sullivan 15; see also Andreassen). Like donorextended families, families extended by adoption, divorce and remarriage, and polyamory queer motherhood. So too does polygamy, as featured prominently on US television shows such as Sisterwives. Like lesbian-headed households, such families may include multiple mothers, thereby requiring co-operative caregiving, the extension of trust to other mothers, and non-possessive mother-child intimacies. Many of these queer ways of doing family also reveal motherhood as a relationship exceeding biology and law. When families of origin become families of choice, motherhood cannot always be claimed as a genetic connection or a legally recognized custodial relationship; one’s relationship with a child must be creatively constructed on alternative grounds (Park). Families constructed in non-traditional ways also illustrate the “strange temporalities, imaginative life schedules, and eccentric economic practices,” most often associated with queer subcultures (Halberstam, Queer Time and Place 1; Jones). Adoptive mothers, for example, may “wait” for indefinite periods of time for a child to arrive; divorced mothers schedule their lives and inhabit their homes differently during custodial and non-custodial time; mothers in divorced, blended, and poly families are creative with spaces, schedules, and finances as complex family configurations expand, contract, or transform. Among the life practices needed by members of queer subcultures is a set of queer survival skills. Mothering queerly thus involves teaching children the skills needed to negotiate the nonqueer world. In non-monogamous families, for example, children need to learn how to come out and when and where it is safe to do so. In addition to learning to pass, children manage their friends’ knowledge of parents’ sexual practices through bordering (protected, strategic disclosures) and polluting (resistance, noncompliance) (Pallotta-Chiarolli; Sheff ).

68

Queering and querying motherhood

Mothering as queer A recent account of maternity suggests provocatively that pregnancy is inherently queer. “Queer pregnancy,” as described by Nelson in The Argonauts, is not the same as “pregnant queers” (although Nelson identifies as queer), nor does it simply connote a queer means of becoming pregnant (although Nelson’s conception is technologically mediated). Nelson focuses on pregnancy itself as a bodily phenomenon experienced as “strange,” “wild,” and “transformative,” noting it “profoundly alters one’s ‘normal’ state and occasions a radical intimacy with – and radical alienation from – one’s body” (14). Nelson’s account of pregnancy bears similarities to Young’s account of pregnant embodiment as a state in which the dichotomy between self and other, self and world, breaks down. However, while Young uses her phenomenological observations of pregnancy to develop a feminist philosophical account of embodiment, Nelson uses her observations to challenge queer theory’s identification of queerness with non-procreative sex. Drawing on Fraiman’s analysis of “queer pregnancy” and “sodomitical maternity,” to illuminate the violent intimacy of both anal sex and procreation, Nelson uses her experiences of pregnancy to challenge “the tired binary that places femininity, reproduction, and normativity on one side and masculinity, sexuality, and queer resistance on the other” (Fraiman 146, qtd. in Nelson 75). Interweaving a narrative of her artificial insemination with her partner’s narrative of testosterone injections and breast removal surgery, likening the flooding of breast milk to orgasm, and juxtaposing the sequence of birth (her son’s) with a sequence of death (her mother-in-law’s), Nelson reveals maternity to be quite queer. In so doing, she transforms our understandings of what it means to be queer as well as what it means to be a mother.

Central issues Central issues in the scholarship on queer mothering are both practical and theoretical. Practical issues include a series of issues concerned with how to ensure the rights and well-being of mothers and/or children who identify as queer. Theoretical issues center on whether we can understand mothering as a queer practice and, if so, how.

Practical issues Practical concerns include securing legal protections for queer mothers. This includes protecting the custody rights of mothers who are sexually queer and securing legal reforms allowing second-parent adoptions in lesbian, gay, and other queer households. These goals highlight the need for non-discriminatory practices in public agencies. Insofar as child custody decisions rely on a “best interests of the child” standard, social workers, teachers, and others entrusted with ensuring child welfare need to be alert to social biases that continue to link queerness to moral depravity that threatens children’s well-being. Reducing these cultural biases is, in turn, linked to issues of cultural representation (Reed). Queer folk who are represented fairly in the media are more likely to be treated justly by social and legal institutions. Gender queer mothers, like sexually queer mothers, face cultural, social, and legal biases. Mothers who are trans or intersex also have practical concerns related to inadequate health care. From conception through delivery and breastfeeding, medical norms of maternity are premised on a biologically standardized women’s body. Thus, doctors, nurses, and other health care practitioners will frequently be unprepared to provide quality care for mothers whose diversity is physiological as well cultural.

69

Shelley M. Park

The mothers of queer children may also need to navigate heteronormative, transphobic court systems, health care systems, and social welfare agencies in advocating for their children. However, the literature on mothering queer children has also emphasized biases in schools and concerns about bullying (Travers; Barkin; “Seth’s Legacy”). Straight mothers of queer children may seek advice from queer mothers on queer parenting discussion lists. Social media has become an important tool for learning how to navigate discriminatory systems and build community among those marginalized by those systems. At the same time, it has become a primary site for the bullying of queer youth.

Theoretical issues Theoretical discussions of queer motherhood focus largely on the tension inherent in combining “queer” and “mother.” As a field that studies sexual identities and practices, queer theory focuses on non-normative (i.e., non-procreative) forms of sexuality; as a field that studies gender identities and practices, queer theory challenges the very gender binaries that seem to be presupposed by terms such as “mother” and “father.” Early queer theorists suggested that “in a culture dominated by talk of ‘family values,’ the outlook [was] grim for any hope that child-rearing institutions of home and state could become less oppressive” and urged queers to resist both repro-narrativity (the idea that lives accrue meaning when contextualized by “a narrative of generational succession”) and repro-sexuality (the notion that a self finds “its proper temporality and fulfillment in generational transmission”) (Warner 7–9). Critiques of “breeders” as the antithesis of queer have continued into the twentyfirst century as resistance to “reproductive futurism” (Edelman). This dominant strand of queer theory comports well with a radical strand of feminism that viewed women’s oppression as rooted in the heteropatriarchal institutions of marriage and the procreative family (Firestone). However, it stands in potential tension with another strand of feminism that celebrates the nurturing work of mothers and others and that views motherhood as empowering. A feminism rooted in a maternalist politics seems, on the face of it, more normative than queer. The apparent paradox of queer mothering reveals the difficulties in (re)claiming “mother” from its traditional, heteropatriarchal moorings while also (re)claiming “queer” from its bondage to a specific type of (male) gay politics. Descriptors such as “queer mother” require ongoing attentiveness to “at what expense and for what purposes the terms are used and through what relations of power such terms have been wrought” if it is to name a shared identity grounding a democratic politics (Butler, “Critically Queer” 20). To be inclusive, the phrase “queer mother” must have a denotation broader than “lesbian mother.” Queer mothers may include gay drag queens, pregnant transmen, femme strippers, straight swingers, and many others. The practical issues facing this diverse array of queer mothers both overlap and diverge.

Controversies and challenges Two key areas of controversy related to queer mothering center on the role of the state in securing queer kinship and the role of third-world women in producing children for first-world queers.

Marriage equality and critiques of homonormativity As efforts to secure same-sex marriage rights in North America and elsewhere intensified, many queer theorists and activists questioned the wisdom of inviting the state into queer lives (see, 70

Queering and querying motherhood

e.g., Butler, Undoing Gender). Worries included: whether the pursuit of marriage rights would decrease the viability of other kinship arrangements, whether the focus on gay marriage and child-rearing impoverished queer imagination and desire, and whether seeking state approval of same-sex relationships might foreground “good” queers (those willing to assimilate to dominant norms) at the expense of further stigmatizing queer others. Duggan coined the term “homonormativity” to refer to the politics of respectability ushered in by (largely middle-class, white) gays and lesbians seeking state recognition of their relationships, “a politics that does not contest dominant heteronormative assumptions and institutions, but upholds and sustains them, while promising the possibility of a demobilized gay constituency and a privatized, depoliticized gay culture anchored in domesticity and consumption” (50). Homonormativity rewards lesbians and gays who mimic heteronormative standards. These standards include heterosexual parenting scripts (e.g., gay male “soccer moms” and lesbian “June Cleavers”) and norms of sexual respectability (e.g., limiting sexuality to the privacy of one’s home) (Berkowitz; Mann; Franke). Gays and lesbians who replicate heterosexual parenting scripts make themselves intelligible at the expense of self-alienation and further marginalize those who refuse scripted roles. Gays and lesbians who uphold norms of sexual privacy procure their moral fitness as good citizens and good parents at the expense of those for whom domesticated sex is either undesirable or impossible. Sex workers and mothers who are non-monogamous, for example, have not had their sexual liberties or parental protections expanded by the normalization of lesbian and gay marriage. The risk of arrest and loss of child custody for sexual minorities other than cohabitating or married couples is increased when they lack economic, racial, able-bodied and/or other privileges that mark them as productive, morally upstanding citizens. Forms of national belonging afforded lesbians and gays willing to assimilate to heteronormative forms of life (marriage, children, a home, a car, a pet, family vacations, wills, insurance, etc.) come at a cost – both for those who aspire to this form of citizenship and for those who are cast out as less than ideal citizens. These costs have revealed themselves in recent Pride celebrations. Once a “Gay Freedom March,” intended to create a public space for sexual and gender dissidents subject to arrest, the Pride parade now prominently features police officers next to lesbian moms pushing children in strollers. In 2016, Black Lives Matter protesters temporarily shut down Pride parades in Canada and the United States, demanding the removal of police from the celebration. Such protests remind Pride organizers that the state continues to stigmatize, criminalize, and destroy black and brown queer lives, even as it is celebrated for granting rights to lesbians and gays with white middle-class privilege.

Third-world women reproducing for first-world queers Some queer theorists have argued that the economic, cultural, and political empowerment of a privileged class of lesbians and gays in the United States, Canada, and northern Europe not only excludes those without racial privilege but also depends on their domestic, affective, and reproductive labor (Eng). The rhetoric of “chosen family” as used by (white, middle-class) gay and lesbian adoptive couples has been critiqued by diasporic queers and feminists of color for its erasure of the reproductive labor of birthmothers that makes such choices possible as well as for its commodification of the (often female) children those women have borne. Transracial and transnational adoption has a long and controversial history in the Global North that includes the treatment of black women and children as white property during chattel slavery, the forcible removal of Indigenous children from their tribes, the foster care placements of children from poor white families and families of color who fail to meet white middle-class norms of “good” homes, and 71

Shelley M. Park

the adoption of children from countries decimated by imperialist wars and economic policies. Placed in the context of such historical, economic, and political legacies, adoption by same-sex couples – although celebrated on shows such as Modern Family – seems complicit with white supremacy, colonialism, and imperialism (Park). Similar controversies surround techniques of assisted reproduction. Many homonormative families are created through technologies such as in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, and gestational surrogacy. While middle-class white women (single and married, lesbian and straight) avail themselves of the services of sperm banks and fertility clinics, poor women, including many women in the Global South, are more likely to provide than consume reproductive services. Indeed, marketized reproduction depends on economic inequalities among women. For example, since egg harvesting is a painful procedure accompanied by health risks, the fertility industry depends on some women having financial needs significant enough to induce them to undergo the procedure. Similar considerations pertain to surrogacy. Feminist attention to the inequities involved in surrogacy arrangements was initiated by the 1988 “Baby M” case in the United States, where an uneducated white woman hired as a surrogate by a white professional couple wanted to keep her baby. Feminists were divided over this case, with some arguing that surrogacy exploited poor and less educated women and others arguing that surrogacy contracts respected the right of women to make personal decisions about their bodily autonomy. Some feminists also argued on behalf of surrogacy as extending reproductive rights to infertile women, single women, and lesbian and gay couples. Renewed attention to surrogacy in the twenty-first century has centered on surrogacy contracts between gay men and gestational surrogates. US law has continued to uphold the parental rights of contracting parents over those of surrogates who wish to retain custody (A.G.R. v. D.R.H. & S.H.). Because of the custodial complications of using a known surrogate, many gay men (and other infertile couples) from affluent nations are outsourcing reproductive labor to women in nations where poverty motivates women to enter surrogacy contracts. Theorists have emphasized the emotional costs of surrogacy (and other practices of global care chains extending from the Global South to the Global North) both to mothers and to the children who are commodified and exploited (Hochschild; Davies; Eng). Critiques and analyses of transnational surrogacy often focus on India where reproductive tourism has become a primary industry. Vast differences in wealth, coupled with racial/ethnic differences and legacies of colonialism, have led to pointed critiques of the exploitation of Indian surrogates by an industry that literally makes money from women’s flesh (Klein) and deploys an “orientalist gaze” to groom consumers from the Global North (DasGupta and DasGupta 74–76). Despite the troublesome colonial echoes of transnational surrogacy arrangements, some feminists view gestational surrogacy as paid labor, arguing against the Western romanticization of reproductive labor (as a labor of love) and for accepting its status – like sex work – as labor deserving of financial remuneration ( Jacobson). Lesbian mothers and other women accessing fertility services more frequently use sperm banks than surrogates. Those who do use sperm banks (rather than sperm from a known donor) to conceive, typically do so for two reasons: to prevent donor claims to fatherhood and to ensure they conceive with “healthy sperm.” The desire for healthy sperm (like the desire for healthy ova and genetic testing in ART pregnancies) bespeaks the desire for a child that lives up to cultural ideals of perfection (Kaposy). “Health” easily functions as a euphemism here for ableist norms; frequently, it is also racially coded. Denmark’s status as the “sperm capital of the world,” for example, is attributable both to laws permitting donor anonymity and industry flexibility and to its reputation for careful screening for genetic “defects.” It also “doesn’t hurt,” suggests one journalist, “that so many of the Danish donors are tall, fit, athletic young men,” describing a typical donor as “blond-haired and blue-eyed, with a square jaw and wide smile that makes him 72

Queering and querying motherhood

look like a young Matt Damon” (Manzoor). Discourses of race and eugenics continue to frame technologically assisted reproductive practices (Russell; Mamo).

Directions for future research A good starting place for learning about queer kinship is Weston’s Families We Choose. Two excellent collections of work featuring diverse experiential and theoretical accounts of queer mothering are Epstein’s Who’s Your Daddy? and Gibson’s Queering Motherhood. One of the limitations of studies of queer mothers is their focus on (mostly white, middleclass) mothers in the Global North. This limitation arises, in part, from the fact that the term “queer” originated in a US context and its signification doesn’t transfer easily across cultural contexts with disparate sexual and gender norms. Considering this, greater dialogue between post-structuralist accounts of sexuality and gender (emerging largely from humanities disciplines) and more material, culturally contextualized, accounts of women’s reproductive and caretaking work (emerging largely from the social sciences) would be fruitful. Fortunately, this dialogue has begun in critical kinship studies, a relatively new field that draws together the knowledge and conceptual frameworks of anthropology and cultural studies with queer and decolonial analyses of kinship (Franklin and McKinnon). Recent work in critical kinship studies relevant to thinking about queer mothering can be found in Carsten’s After Kinship, Kroløkke et al.’s Critical Kinship Studies, and Riggs and Peel’s Critical Kinship Studies: An Introduction to the Field. In revisiting kinship studies from a critical vantage point informed by queer theory, critical race theory, and transnational economies, critical kinship studies has addressed issues of inequality in family making, shifting the focus of queer motherhood studies from the “lived experiences of lesbian, bi, and queer women as they negotiate kinship at the intersection of reproduction, technology, and politics” (Luce) to the lived experiences of the women and children whose labor makes that negotiated kinship possible (Hofmann and Moreno). Queer mother scholars and activists in the Global North who find it difficult to shift their focus away from their own marginalization towards their potential complicity with neocolonial systems of globalization will benefit from moving documentaries and creative works such as Haimowitz and Sinha’s Made in India, Borshay Liem’s First Person Plural, and Moffatt’s Night Cries.

Further reading Epstein, Rachel, editor. Who’s Your Daddy?: And Other Writings on Queer Parenting. Sumach Press, 2009. Gibson, Margaret F., editor. Queering Motherhood: Narrative and Theoretical Perspectives. Demeter Press, 2014. Kroløkke, Charlotte Lene Myong, et al., editors. Critical Kinship Studies. Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, 2015. Mamo, Laura. Queering Reproduction: Achieving Pregnancy in the Age of Technoscience. Duke UP Books, 2007. Nelson, Maggie. The Argonauts. Graywolf Press, 2016. Park, Shelley M. Mothering Queerly, Queering Motherhood: Resisting Monomaternalism in Adoptive, Lesbian, Blended, and Polygamous Families. SUNY Press, 2013. Weston, Kath. Families We Choose: Lesbians, Gays, Kinship. Columbia UP, 1997.

Conclusion Queer mother scholars and activists both query (question) and queer (transform) motherhood as constructed in heteronormative, heteropatriarchal regimes characterized by practices of gender binarism. At the core of this critical transformation of motherhood is its denaturalization. 73

Shelley M. Park

For queer mothers and those who mother queerly, there is no “natural” way of having sex, no “natural” way of becoming a mother, and no “natural” body that a mother has. Sex, nature, and motherhood are delinked in several different ways by those who identify as sexually and gender queer: through the creation of families by means other than (hetero) sexuality, through co-parenting relationships that are not (hetero)sexual, through insisting on their status as “fit” mothers despite sexual desires that exceed the boundaries of heterosexual monogamy, through inverted lines of inheritance wherein queer children breed queer mothers, through challenging the presumed temporalities of mothering and the spaces in which it takes place, and by revealing that the capacity for gestation and nurturing is not limited to those who identify or present unambiguously as women. These and other forms of queering motherhood – if not re-domesticated by the assimilationist pull of homonormativity – have far-reaching consequences that extend to all children and all mothers. The uncoupling of parenthood from nature challenges, for example, the assumption that children are the biological property of their parents, destined and obligated to replicate the lineage they have been given. The denaturalizing of the maternal body further reveals that conceptions of mothering as “women’s work” are conceptually and empirically flawed at their core. And attention to the wide diversity of sexual practices in which mothers engage (or refuse to engage) helps discredit the Madonna/whore dichotomy that continues to frame cultural and legal understandings of maternal fitness. Critical interrogations of the good mother/bad mother dichotomy are important not only for self-identified queers but also for those whose fitness as mothers has been questioned due to the sexual politics of race, class, and ability. In these and other ways, queer forms of mothering have the potential to radicalize practices and theories of motherhood. Whether that radical potential will be actualized remains to be seen.

Works cited Andreassen, Rikke. Mediated Kinship: Gender, Race, and Sexuality in Donor Families. Routledge, 2018. Barkin, Janna. He’s Always Been My Son: A Mother’s Story about Raising Her Transgender Son. Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2017. Beatie, Thomas. Labor of Love: The Story of One Man’s Extraordinary Pregnancy. Seal Press, 2009. Berkowitz, Dana. “Maternal Instincts, Biological Clocks, and Soccer Moms: Gay Men’s Parenting and Family Narratives.” Symbolic Interaction, vol. 34, no. 4, Sept. 2011, pp. 514–35. Biblarz, Timothy, and Judith Stacey. “How Does the Gender of Parents Matter?” Journal of Marriage and Family, no. 1, 2010, pp. 3–22. Borshay Liem, Deann. First Person Plural. New Day Films, 2013. Boylan, Jennifer Finney, and Anna Quindlen. Stuck in the Middle with You: A Memoir of Parenting in Three Genders. Broadway Books, 2014. Brainer, Amy, “Mothering Gender and Sexually Nonconforming Children in Taiwan.” Journal of Family Issues, vol. 38, no. 7, May 2017, pp. 921–47. Brettschneider, Marla. The Family Flamboyant: Race Politics, Queer Families, Jewish Lives. SUNY Press, 2006. Butler, Judith. “Critically Queer.” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian & Gay Studies, vol. 1, no. 2, Nov. 1993, pp. 17–33. ———. Undoing Gender. Routledge, 2004. Carsten, Janet. After Kinship. Cambridge UP, 2010. Chasnoff, Debra, et al. Choosing Children. Frameline, 1984. Clinton, Kate, et al. Mom’s Apple Pie the Heart of the Lesbian Mothers’ Custody Movement. Frameline, 2006. Costello, Cary Gabriel. “Not a ‘Medical Miracle’: Intersex Reproduction and the Medical Enforcement of Binary Sex and Gender.” Queering Motherhood: Narrative and Theoretical Perspectives, edited by Margaret F. Gibson, Demeter Press, 2014. Dahl, Bente. Queer Challenges in Maternity Care. A Qualitative Study about Lesbian Couples’ Experiences. University of Bergen, 2015.

74

Queering and querying motherhood DasGupta, Sayantani, and Shamita Das Dasgupta, editors. Globalization and Transnational Surrogacy in India: Outsourcing Life. Lexington Books, 2014. Davies, Miranda, editor. Babies for Sale?: Transnational Surrogacy, Human Rights and the Politics of Reproduction. Zed Books, 2017. De Lauretis, Teresa. “Queer Theory. Lesbian and Gay Sexualities: An Introduction.” Differences, vol. 3, no. 2, 1991, pp. iii–xviii. Duggan, Lisa. The Twilight of Equality?: Neoliberalism, Cultural Politics, and the Attack on Democracy. Beacon Press, 2004. Edelman, Lee. No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive. Duke UP, 2004. Eng, David L. The Feeling of Kinship: Queer Liberalism and the Racialization of Intimacy. Duke UP, 2010. Epstein, Rachel, editor. Who’s Your Daddy?: And Other Writings on Queer Parenting. Sumach Press, 2009. Epstein-Fine, Sadie, and Makeda Zook, editors. Spawning Generations. Demeter Press, 2018. Firestone, Shulamith. The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution. Morrow, 1970. Fraiman, Susan. Cool Men and the Second Sex. Columbia UP, 2003. Franke, Katherine M. “The Domesticated Liberty of Lawrence v. Texas.” Columbia Law Review, no. 5, 2004, pp. 1399–426. Franklin, Sarah, and Susan McKinnon. Relative Values: Reconfiguring Kinship Studies. Duke UP, 2001. Gibson, Margaret F., editor. Queering Motherhood: Narrative and Theoretical Perspectives. Demeter Press, 2014. Goldberg, Abbie E. Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children: Research on the Family Life Cycle. American Psychological Association, 2010. Haimowitz, Rebecca, and Vaishali Sinha. Made in India: A Film about Surrogacy. PBS, 2010. Halberstam, J. Gaga Feminism: Sex, Gender, and the End of Normal. Beacon Press, 2013. ———. The Queer Art of Failure. Duke UP Books, 2011. ———. In a Queer Time and Place: Transgender Bodies, Subcultural Lives. New York UP, 2005. Hines, Sally. “Intimate Transitions: Transgender Practices of Partnering and Parenting.” Sociology, no. 2, 2006, pp. 353–71. Hochschild, Arlie Russell. So How’s the Family? And Other Essays. U of California Press, 2013. Hoffkling, Alexis, et al. “From Erasure to Opportunity: A Qualitative Study of the Experiences of Transgender Men around Pregnancy and Recommendations for Providers.” BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, vol. 17, Supp. 2, 2017, pp. 1–14. Hofmann, Susanne, and Adi Moreno, editors. Intimate Economies: Bodies, Emotions, and Sexualities on the Global Market. Palgrave Macmillan, 2017. Jacobson, Heather. Labor of Love: Gestational Surrogacy and the Work of Making Babies. Rutgers UP, 2016. Johnson, Susan L., and Kristen E. Benson. “ ‘It’s Always the Mother’s Fault’: Secondary Stigma of Mothering a Transgender Child.” Journal of GLBT Family Studies, vol. 10, nos. 1–2, Jan. 2014, pp. 124–44. Jones, Stacy Holman. “Waiting for Queer.” International Review of Qualitative Research, vol. 10, no. 3, Jan. 2017, pp. 256–62. Kaposy, Chris. “Neoliberal Perfectionism.” Boston Review, vol. 43, no. 3, Nov. 2018, pp. 43–47. Klein, Renate. Surrogacy: A Human Rights Violation. Spinifex Press, 2017. Kroløkke, Charlotte Lene Myong, et al., editors. Critical Kinship Studies. Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, 2015. Krueger, Richard B., et al. “The Impact of Internet Pornography Use and Cybersexual Behavior on Child Custody and Visitation.” Journal of Child Custody, vol. 10, no. 1, Jan. 2013, 68–98. Kuvalanka, Katherine A., et al. “The Experiences of Sexual Minority Mothers with Trans* Children.” Family Relations, vol. 67, no. 1, Feb. 2018, 70–87. Luce, Jacquelyne. Beyond Expectation: Lesbian/Bi/Queer Women and Assisted Conception. U of Toronto Press, 2010. MacDonald, Trevor. Where’s the Mother? Stories from a Transgender Dad. Trans Canada Press, 2016. Mamo, Laura. Queering Reproduction: Achieving Pregnancy in the Age of Technoscience. Duke UP Books, 2007. Manzoor, Sarfraz. “Come Inside: The World’s Biggest Sperm Bank.” The Guardian, 2 Nov. 2012. Moffatt, Tracey. Night Cries: A Rural Tragedy. 1989. Moraga, Cherrie. Waiting in the Wings: Portrait of a Queer Motherhood. Firebrand Books, 1998. Nelson, Maggie. The Argonauts. Graywolf Press, 2016. O’Hara, Mary Emily. “Sex Workers Want to Talk to You about Parenting.” The Daily Dot, 14 Aug. 2015. Pallotta-Chiarolli, Maria. Border Sexualities, Border Families in Schools. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2010.

75

Shelley M. Park Park, Shelley M. Mothering Queerly, Queering Motherhood: Resisting Monomaternalism in Adoptive, Lesbian, Blended, and Polygamous Families. SUNY Press, 2013. Pearson, Kim H. “Sexuality in Child Custody Decisions.” Family Court Review, vol. 50, no. 2, Apr. 2012, pp. 280–88. Peukert, Janet. “Constrained Agency: British Heterosexual Mothers of Homosexual Sons.” Mothers Who Deliver: Feminist Interventions in Public and Interpersonal Discourse, edited by Jocelyn Fenton Stitt and Pegeen Reichert Powell, SUNY Press, 2010, pp. 191–214. Reed, Elizabeth. “Lesbian, Bisexual and Queer Motherhood: Crafting Radical Narratives and Representing Social Change through Cultural Representations.” Women, vol. 29, no. 1, Mar. 2018, pp. 39–58. Riggs, Damien W., and Elizabeth Peel. Critical Kinship Studies: An Introduction to the Field. Palgrave Macmillan, 2016. Rivers, Daniel Winunwe. Radical Relations: Lesbian Mothers, Gay Fathers, and Their Children in the United States since World War II. U of North Carolina Press, 2013. Rubin, Gayle. “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality.” Pleasure and Danger, edited by Carole Vance, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1984, 267–321. Russell, Camisha A. The Assisted Reproduction of Race. Indiana UP, 2018. “SETH’S LEGACY: Tehachapi Teen’s Suicide Launches National, Local Anti-bullying Fights.” Bakersfield Californian [Bakersfield, CA], 5 Feb. 2012. Sheff, Elisabeth. The Polyamorists Next Door: Inside Multiple-Partner Relationships and Families. Rowman & Littlefield, 2015. Stacey, Judith, and Timothy J. Biblarz. “(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” American Sociological Review, vol. 66, no. 2, 2001, pp. 159–83. Stockton, Kathryn Bond. The Queer Child, or Growing Sideways in the Twentieth Century. Duke UP, 2009. Sullivan, Maureen. The Family of Woman: Lesbian Mothers, Their Children, and the Undoing of Gender. U of California Press, 2004. Summers, A. K. Pregnant Butch: Nine Long Months Spent in Drag. Soft Skull Press, 2014. Tea, Michelle. “Getting Pregnant with Michelle Tea: I Had a Baby.” Human Parts, 12 Feb. 2015, https:// medium.com/human-parts/getting-pregnant-with-michelle-tea-i-had-a-baby-48d5fb4d4bfe. Travers, Ann. The Trans Generation: How Trans Kids (and Their Parents) Are Creating a Gender Revolution. New York UP, 2018. Warner, Michael. “Introduction: Fear of a Queer Planet.” Social Text, no. 29, 1991, pp. 3–17. Weston, Kath. Families We Choose: Lesbians, Gays, Kinship. Columbia UP, 1997. Wyland, Francie. Motherhood, Lesbianism and Child Custody. Falling Wall Press, 1977. Young, Iris Marion. Throwing Like a Girl: And Other Essays in Feminist Philosophy and Social Theory. Indiana UP, 1990.

76

5 DISABLED MOTHERS Gloria Filax and Dena Taylor

Introduction Mothers with disabilities cover a wide range of being in this world: they may have a physical condition such as muscular dystrophy or blindness, a psychiatric disorder such as being bipolar or depressed, or an intellectual impairment. Their disability may be hidden or visible, and they may be ill or not. They may be birthmothers, stepmothers, co-mothers, or adoptive mothers. This chapter covers who is disabled, the various theoretical models (individual/medical, social, and cultural models) and how these shape disability, the disabling of the disabled, what we can learn from disabled mothers, the challenges facing mothers with disabilities, how/if disabled mothering offers insights to feminist practices of mothering, and what the future may hold.

Background and context Disability theorist Rosemarie Garland Thomson observes that a presumed correspondence between disability and femaleness has persisted throughout the history of Western thought since Aristotle declared “the female is . . . a deformed male” (20). The Aristotelian notion that equates the nondisabled body with the male and the disabled body with the female has contributed to both sexism and ableism. Thomson notes that “many parallels exist between the social meanings attributed to female bodies and those assigned to disabled bodies” (19). Female bodies and disabled bodies are both assumed to be feeble bodies that “must therefore have a feeble mind” (Stone 10). Furthermore, disabled bodies are feminized by the culture and therefore considered to be dependent (Lewiecki-Wilson and Cellio 4). The association of the female body with disability has meant that “the figure of the mother is over-determined and vexed for both feminism and disability studies” (Lewiecki-Wilson and Cellio 3). In a social world where the able-bodied are constructed as the social norm, the disability is made invisible and often unspeakable. Those who cannot conceal impairments are shunned because they cannot help drawing attention to their bodily “imperfections” or hide their disability (Stone 11). Girls and women are also expected to stay in the background. Yet, it is not possible to conceal the physical evidence of later stage pregnancy and the presence of babies and children mean that mothers are highly visible. For disabled mothers concealing 77

Gloria Filax and Dena Taylor

mothering is not an option and hence often their disability is exposed as well. Having a visible disability makes these mothers vulnerable to increased social surveillance and scrutiny with the concomitant moralizing about the capacity and quality of their mothering. In her book on mothering, Of Woman Born, Adrienne Rich provides a distressing account of the institution of motherhood for Western women, an institution which is almost impossible for most women to achieve, including those who conform to social norms. While Rich did not write about disability and mothering directly, her description of motherhood as a “painful, incomprehensible, and ambiguous ground” poignantly applies to disabled mothers (15). Rich wrote about the difficulty of mothering in relation to the harshness of social norms that govern the institution of motherhood. For disabled mothers, these social norms can be even more constraining. Many disabled mothers have taken on the hydra-headed beast of social norms that make up the intersection of gender and disability in contemporary, Western cultures and resist these social norms; sometimes they submit to them, often they just disappear and as often they are disappeared only to reappear as an object of another’s imagining.

Who is disabled? The question of who is to be counted among the disabled is a recurring theme in discussions of disability. Who is disabled and the meaning of disability are much different when disability is regarded as a problem to be solved rather than as a condition that has been produced by social organizations, or when it is understood as an embodied revelation from which, among other things, it is possible to critique the imperative of normalcy. Answers to the question of “who is disabled?” influence social policy, self-identity, and possibilities to affect change. These have profound effects on people’s lives. While it is useful in some circumstances to distinguish people with disabilities who are ill from those who are disabled but not ill, it is also true that many people who have physical impairments have health problems and many chronically ill people are disabled by their illnesses. Those who are ill present a challenge to the disability movement (Wolfe 253). For example, many disability movement activists reject the impulse to prevent and cure disability, while those who are ill will often look for cures and an end to their suffering. Wolfe wants the disability movement to rethink the scope of its concerns so that it does not leave ill people on the “wrong” side of those who are or are not worthy to benefit from its efforts. As Linton indicates, to count as disabled might be as simple as “you are disabled if you say you are” (225) as long as it is recognized that disability “is mostly a social distinction . . . a marginalized status” with this status assigned by a majority culture (Gill 44). The notion that disability labels should be reserved for the healthy disabled, or at least that they should not be extended to chronically ill people, suggests that there may be a hierarchy of what counts as a disability. Beresford suggests that some illnesses or afflictions are not easily countenanced within disability activism or disability communities for fear of their association with mental illness (167). This suggests that there is a “hierarchy of impairments” that affects how people with and without disabilities regard “impairment groups” (Deal 898). Often, defining what counts as disability falls to those who are in institutional or professional positions. Definitions are often narrow so that fewer people are entitled to benefits. Yet, public recognition of disability may be refused by some who are impaired or disabled by the culture in order to avoid social stigma. In contrast, the Deaf community regards itself as a distinct linguistic and cultural community that is only disabled by hearing people’s inability to communicate in sign language. High functioning autistic individuals who identify as Autistic regard themselves as a distinct cultural community as well.

78

Disabled mothers

Titchkosky suggests another way of understanding disability. She represents disability as a social space that is constituted from disability identity, relations to the disabled body that occur between people, and the ways disability identity and intersubjective relations to the disabled body are interpreted (48). She argues that neither disability nor non-disability can be understood merely by their objectified physicality. Instead both disability and non-disability must be understood as the lived experiences of people in relation to each other. Since the relationships of disability are further impacted by other axes of difference such as gender, ethnicity, class, geographical home, and mothering, the relationships of disability are complex. Central to identification as disabled is what terms to utilize when communicating about disability. Some writers prefer “people with disabilities” to underline that disablement is not the defining characteristic of a person. Others, including Titchkosky, refer to “disabled people” to emphasize disablement as a social process, and therefore a sociopolitical matter, that prevents certain people from access to resources and goods available to others (48). Those who follow the social model of disability argue that the phrase “people with disabilities” reflects a medical approach to disability (Shakespeare 268) and weakens the idea of disabled people as an oppressed group in society (267). Titchkosky argues that the term “people with disabilities” implies that disability is not part of what it is to be a person, not quite part of personhood, thus not quite part of the self, and leaves disability as a problem (24). The phrase “disabled person” points to disability as a form of interrelatedness that shifts focus away from the individual to what Frank describes as the relational way in which bodies are inscribed by culture, how the body projects itself into social space, and the boundary of these reciprocal social relations (209). And yet, “disability is not a thing, an essence, a fixed identity, or a single kind of experience, even though language often leads us to talk about it that way” (Lewiecki-Wilson and Cellio 3). Whether one identifies as a disabled mother or mother with a disability, there is a need for language that can refer to group or individual identity in order to mobilize ethical claims regarding legal rights. Reference to “the disabled” is fraught with a tension between not wanting to reduce differences between people to a singular notion while wanting to take advantage of benefits that might accrue to being identified as a single political entity. “Nice words such as ‘physically challenged’ and ‘special people’ . . . are often used by agencies [to] control the lives of people with disabilities” (Linton 223).

Critical issues The problem of normalizing discourse: disabling the disabled Disability draws the attention of fields that seek to cure, fix, repair, or deny its existence. Disability is a difference that exists only to be undone. (Snyder and Mitchell 190, italics in the original)

Prior to the nineteenth century, there was no concept of normal and abnormal nor was there a concept of the disabled in relation to a standard (Davis 4). Davis describes how the field of statistics signified normal to mean what is typical or most common and, as a consequence, divided populations into standard and nonstandard subpopulations. As Davis indicates, “the idea of the norm pushes . . . variation of the body through a stricter template guiding the way the body should be” (9). The emergence of a notion of normalcy, says Davis, creates the “problem” of the disabled person (10).

79

Gloria Filax and Dena Taylor

Titchkosky notes that the most authoritative representations of disability come from medical, therapeutic, and rehabilitative researchers and practitioners, pathologists, and genetic researchers (135). Medical approaches to disability regard impairment as sickness or deformity that can and must be altered or cured through medical intervention. Similarly, a rehabilitative approach regards disability as an abnormality or a deficiency that can be altered by professionals. Social science research for the most part has taken for granted the approach that disability is a problem, while regarding disability as deviance that can be altered through expert intervention. One of the effects of the problem approach to disability, argues Titchkosky, is that it teaches people who are not disabled that their discomfort in the company of those with disabilities can be attributed to the people with disabilities and that it is not related to interpretation and interaction (141). Normalcy, according to Goffman, is a position from which one recognizes who is stigmatized (5). Stigmatization is a process emanating from what Goffman refers to as reactions by “the normals” to that which is perceived to be undesirable (13). As Titchkosky indicates, not only do normals have no differences that are undesirable, it is normal for them to notice those with undesired differences (142). She notes that disability is an occasion that consolidates normality through recognition of a problem – the problem of disability subsumes all of a person’s other attributes (144). Approaches that deal with disability as a problem inform health, education, and social science practices where disability is reduced to the condition of having a body that is a problem that can be cured, improved, or otherwise altered (Titchkosky, see ch. 5). Snyder and Mitchell argue that as long as disabled bodies are regarded as objects of an inexhaustible research, disabled bodies will be “fodder for any number of invasive approaches” (187). This includes not only the interventions of medicine and therapy but also social science research that expends the “time, liberty, and energies” of people with disabilities “without concern or adequate citation” (193). Disciplines such as special education, physical therapy, occupational therapy, communication disorders, nursing, medicine, and adapted physical education and kinesiology often treat disability as insufficiency in need of change or normalization. This leads to an intolerance of difference that in turn leads to organized attempts to remove human differences through cures, rehabilitation, therapies, mainstreaming (or institutionalization if mainstreaming doesn’t work), and even abortion (Lewiecki-Wilson) or eugenics (Snyder and Mitchell). Eugenics through abortion of fetuses who have various and unwanted genetic conditions echoes the practice of aborting female fetuses in times and places where girl children are less valued. Scrutiny of egg donors to ensure “healthy, accomplished, and attractive” donors echoes earlier American and other Western preoccupations with “racial betterment” discourses about fitness that has made possible the elimination of disability or any other unwanted characteristic (Cellio 19) and holds the possibility of eliminating these differences even earlier. What does normalization mean for disabled women when gender expectations are that women are to reproduce and that motherhood and mothering are a necessary and natural outcome for a happy life? Saxton’s research reveals that early “proponents of eugenics portrayed disabled women in particular as unfit for procreation and as incompetent mothers” (122). As Barile writes, “according to the cultural and socially constructed beliefs I was brought up with, it is non-disabled women’s responsibility to reproduce, and I, as a woman with disabilities could not, and should not, reproduce” (225). Compulsory sterilization of the unfit has an intimate, sorry history for disabled people (Snyder and Mitchell 186). While sterilization may be uncommon in the Western world in the twenty-first century, there is still a widespread assumption that disabled women have no right to reproduce and/or that there are risks to the health and survival of the foetus and the disabled 80

Disabled mothers

mother (Thomas 504). When disabled women consider pregnancy or having children, a discourse of risk tempers their experience because [Medical discourse] . . . at its core [has] the belief that if there is a risk of abnormality, or the risk of worsening an already abnormal bodily condition, then steps must be taken to avoid it; genetic counseling outlining the “risks,” or the option/recommendation of a termination. (Thomas 504) For many of Thomas’s research participants, there was a sense that passing on or causing impairment in a child was unfair and irresponsible (505). Even if impairment is not the result of “bad genes,” disabled women are thought to be “contagious” because they are “unhealthy” and therefore questionable in terms of their ability to birth a “healthy” child. The offer to disabled women of genetic counseling and genetic testing serves a eugenics impulse to disappear “abnormal conditions” through abortion. Wilson writes that genetic research has cast the body as a genetic text, with disability a “flawed edition of that text” (53). Hubbard asserts that we would not tolerate tests to identify other stigmatized characteristics, for example, skin color. Children of disabled mothers are often thought to be abnormal or deviant themselves because of close proximity with their disabled parent. Mairs writes about the guilt she experienced as a disabled mother in which she worried that her children were not growing up with a “normal” mother (qtd. in Titchkosky 212). Filax’s experience is that “poor” behavior of a child, especially school-age children exposed to the hidden curriculum of middle-class values, is often blamed on a mother who is different from the social norms of “good” motherhood.

Disabled mothers as cultural critique: learning from disabled mothers Historically, disabled people have been objects of study but not purveyors of the knowledge base of disability (Snyder and Mitchell 198). The formulation of a cultural model allows us to theorize a political act of renaming that designates disability as a site of resistance and a source of cultural agency previously suppressed – at least to the extent that groups can successfully rewrite their own definition in view of a damaging material and linguistic heritage (Snyder and Mitchell 10). Is it possible to think differently about disabled mothers even as disabled mothers navigate a dominant gender discourse about the inferiority of the female body and a model of disability that focuses on disability as a problem? How can we move beyond the “fantasy” of the good mother/bad mother binary to reveal and revel in the in-betweenness of disabled mothering (Lewiecki-Wilson and Cellio 8)? The idea of oppression is central to the social model of disability and effectively shifts medical and individualizing discourse of intervention and cure to a discourse of citizenship and politics (Hughes and Paterson 325). However, the social model also “proposes an untenable separation between body and culture, impairment and disability” (326) that concedes the body and impairment to the domain of medicine. Disabled people do not experience impairment and disability separately. Rather, disability is experienced from the perspective of impaired bodies that have histories and cultural meanings, including cultural meanings about mothering and being a mother. Oppression is social, and it is embodied as hurtful. Likewise, impairment is embodied, and this embodiment structures interpersonal relationships including those of disabled mothers. As Snyder and Mitchell indicate, impairment is “both human variation encountering environmental obstacles and mediated difference that lends groups identity and phenomenological 81

Gloria Filax and Dena Taylor

perspective . . . environment and bodily variation . . . inevitably impinge upon one another” (6–7). For example, the therapeutic beliefs about disability affect disabled women’s experiences, including the internalization of what it means to be a mother and mothering, and the psychic toll of “repetitiously attempting to perform activities beyond one’s ability” (8). The norms and expectations of culture favour nondisabled people including nondisabled mothers. Coming to an understanding of this is a source of embodied revelation for disabled people (Snyder and Mitchell 10). The sociality of impairment is often experienced by disabled people as stigma, prejudice, surveillance, and anxiety, or in the case of resistance strategies, as pride. As Titchkosky shows, the sociality of impairment exposes background expectancies – rules, procedures, and norms – used by people as they engage in ordinary life. She argues that inability to engage rules, procedures, and norms often relegates disability to embodied mistakes, but experiences with these background expectancies can also distinguish disability “as a place from which the culturally constituted boundaries between the expected and the unexpected, the visible and the invisible, and the doing and the non-doing of things, can be considered” (17–18). Disability can become “a way of being in the world from which we can learn” (28). For Lewiecki-Wilson and Cellio: New forms of knowledge and values emerge from the constraints and tensions of actual embodied situationality. Disabled bodies [including those of disabled mothers] can be emergent forces of important values and actions. (15) When it is recognized that disability experience can teach us something about culture, the need to remedy disability physically or structurally is less interesting than how disability experience illuminates the workings of the dominant culture. Snyder and Mitchell describe this as cultural diagnosis: disability functions not as an identification of abnormality but as a way to diagnose culture (12). Disability serves as a critique of the dominant culture and as a “productive locus for identification” (12). In the cultural model of disability, disability is a site of resistance and a source of cultural agency previously suppressed as it teaches us about alterity as a third space between normalcy and marginalization in which “words, lives, and bodies are combined in unexpected and extraordinary ways” (Titchkosky 220).

Challenges As discussed earlier in this chapter, the issues of who is disabled and how disability is defined are important, contentious, and have far-reaching effects. Even whether to name someone a “mother with a disability” or a “disabled mother” is debatable. The strongest challenge to disabled mothers is from normalizing and naturalizing discourse that assumes mothers are able-­bodied and within an idealized, traditional, heterosexual, and often nuclear family; women outside of this norm are unfit mother material. The first line of defense against disabled women becoming mothers takes place as surveillance. The dense discursive cultural world is packed with the bodies of able-bodied, healthy women as mothers who are the privileged maternal subjects/objects of recorded history and contemporary cultural practices. This discourse renders disabled women as doubtful, deviant prospects for motherhood, and surveillance works to internalize this doubt and denial into the psyche of disabled girls and women. This psychic panopticon or self-surveillance makes even considering the possibility of becoming a mother a fraught and negative consideration as disabled women who desire children are thought of as selfish or unrealistic (Cassiman 291). 82

Disabled mothers

If/when a disabled woman decides to become a parent, one of the first challenges faced is that of pregnancy: Can the doctor’s office accommodate her? Will the pregnancy exacerbate her disability? If she wants it, will she have access to artificial reproductive technologies? How will she handle questions from others regarding the advisability of her having a baby? And even: will her doctors suggest terminating the pregnancy? In the early 1900s, when the eugenics movement was particularly influential, several states in the United States passed laws allowing the involuntary sterilization of people with mental and physical disabilities, resulting in the forced sterilization of 60,000 Americans. Similar laws were passed in Canada, for example, in 1928 The Sexual Sterilization Act was passed into law in the province of Alberta legislature to authorize the sterilization of those deemed to have undesirable traits (R. Wilson). Fortunately, by the 1970s, most of these laws had been abolished. However, there are still a few states where people with disabilities can be sterilized involuntarily (Preston). Fears of disabled mothers over losing custody of their children are omnipresent, says Canadian writer Vicky D’Aoust (292). In the first US study of disabled parents, conducted by the National Center for Parents with Disabilities in Berkeley, California, in 1997, it was found that 15 percent reported attempts to have their children taken away from them (Preston). Another study, done in 2012 by the National Council on Disability (NCD), found that the percentage of parents with intellectual disabilities who have their children taken away from them is as high as 40 percent to 80 percent (Reeves). Indeed, the two groups of disabled parents who are particularly vulnerable to discrimination, lack of appropriate services, and loss of their children are those with intellectual disabilities and psychiatric disabilities. In fact, it has been argued by some that parents with intellectual disabilities are often held to a higher standard of parenting than nondisabled parents (Preston). Disabled mothers are under the normalizing gaze and found wanting through the stigmatizing of disabling discourses including those of poverty, race, and other subject positions (Cassiman 294). The Berkeley study also found that disabled parents faced barriers to adoption, and they often lacked sufficient support with childcare, obtaining adaptive parenting equipment, transporting their children, and accessing information, as well as facing attitudinal barriers (Preston). Lack of accessible information and adequate support is a major challenge to disabled mothers. Some mothers may have to separate from their children during times of medical treatments and hospitalizations, making support from others even more necessary. As many feminist scholars note, discourses of the privatized care by the solitary and heroic mother are contrary to the interconnectedness of all human relations. Mothering is an exercise in interdependence for most mothers. One simply cannot mother without someone to mother. Often disabled mothers require different or more kinds of support for their mothering and more connections and interdependent relations may be necessary. For disabled mothers, mothering is an exercise in interdependence and vulnerability (Bost 165). When the caregiving of mothering is viewed as a reciprocal action, caring becomes interconnectedness and dependence as interdependence becomes an asset (Bost 167). This spins a counter-narrative to the isolation and loneliness of privatized, atomized notions of motherhood.

Possibilities The various models of disability – disability as a problem, disability as socially produced, and disability as cultural diagnosis – articulate with the norms of mothering to inform the lives of disabled mothers for better and at times for worse. Yet, there is more to disability than what theory or “experts” have to say about the disabled. In the words of Titchkosky, disability “is lived and performed in the midst of others, within exclusionary and oppressive environments, 83

Gloria Filax and Dena Taylor

that adds to or acts upon mainstream life and ‘normal’ identity” (204). The lives of disabled mothers exceed the confines of the categories assigned through normalizing discourse. Significantly, the voices of disabled mothers offer us subjugated forms of knowledge that reveal resistance and agency as well as oppression. Disabled mothers have much to teach us – if we are open to such teachings. In the process of recently editing an anthology on disabled mothers for Demeter Press (Filax and Taylor), we became aware of many of the struggles, challenges, and opportunities faced by this group of mothers, as well as the innovations they devised and in-your-face situations they encountered. Before even becoming mothers, some disabled women struggle to imagine themselves as mothers in a world that, as one woman wrote, is “not particularly excited” to witness such an event. Society needs to create space for disabled mothers, to conceive of mothering differently, and to embrace the diversity of mothers. Consider, for example, what gifts a disabled mother could give to a child. “Who better to teach a child to plan, strategize, brainstorm and problemsolve than someone with a disability? . . . Who better to teach equality, and what it truly means in real time, than a parent with a disability?” asks a disabled woman planning to adopt. Another woman, disabled with a mental illness, says, “If and when disability is seen as an example of human variation, of human diversity, then a more inclusive view of mothering and a more humane definition of motherhood may emerge.” As proof that a parent’s disability may facilitate and enhance the parenting task, a study on diapering by parents with physical disabilities found that as long as appropriate adaptive equipment was available, parents who took longer to diaper their children spent additional time interacting with them and developing a positive parent-child relationship (Preston). Simply by being themselves, some disabled mothers challenge Western society’s construction of ideal motherhood and childhood. Consider, too, a woman who is not only a mother and disabled but also poor, nonwhite, lesbian, or all of the above. Each of these subject positions challenges normalizing discourses and combining any of these with disability and mothering straddles a borderland of hybrid subjectivity that provides a powerful counter-discourse to narratives of motherhood that dishonour, devalue, and disrespect difference. Adequate community resources, family support, and flexibility are helpful for any mother, including, of course, mothers with disabilities. If given a voice and if this voice is heeded, disabled mothers could provide insights and recommendations to other disabled parents, to health care providers, the judicial system, and also to manufacturers of assistive technology. As mentioned earlier, oppressive legal practices and issues regarding custody of children have been ongoing problems for disabled mothers. However, research being done by the National Center for Parents with Disabilities is showing that efforts to keep or regain custody are more prevalent with the increasing influence of disability studies programs in colleges and universities and Article 23 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Ella Callow, the Legal Program Director of the National Center for Parents with Disabilities, also stresses the importance of the disability community acknowledging the ongoing subjection of disabled mothers by the legal system and ensuring that disabled mothers are supported in their efforts to fight the system (Callow). The disability community has, in fact, been increasingly active in demanding changes to legislation to support and protect the rights of parents with disabilities in the United States (Preston). And in Australia, where disabled women have long faced the removal of their children, Women with Disabilities Australia (WWDA) is actively working to reverse the “stolen children” phenomenon as well as other injustices inflicted upon mothers with disabilities (Frohmader et al.). 84

Disabled mothers

The American Psychological Association’s Guidelines for Assessment of and Intervention with Persons with Disabilities recommends several ways to ensure the rights of disabled parents, including training those in the legal system to be culturally competent in their work with the disabled. It also recommends improving the collaboration between government agencies that work with people with disabilities (Reeves). The children of disabled mothers are often believed to be overworked or in some way disadvantaged, but this notion is being disproved. In a study of young adult children raised by disabled parents in the United States (Preston), the results show that few of these children are overburdened or deprived. When they are, it is because of lack of support or other risk factors in the household. One young woman who was raised by a mother with multiple sclerosis says her mother’s presence “serves as a potent reminder to slow down, to be still, to be present, to observe, to reflect, to cultivate humility, compassion, gratitude. To be with her is to feel a sense of clarity about what really matters” (Blankenship 346). Disabled mothers and mothering becomes empowered and feminist when resistance “entails making different choices about how one wants to practice mothering” (Gordon, qtd. in O’Reilly 17). Disabled mothers do practice mothering differently but not necessarily by choice. When disabled mothers are reflexive, self-aware, and able to make informed choices, they practice mothering against able-bodied and self-sacrificing motherhood: they are mothering against the institution of patriarchal motherhood (O’Reilly 12).

Directions for future research Theory and research on disability and disabled mothers are important to understanding how disabled mothers are both subject of and subject to dominant ideas about gender roles, motherhood, mothering, and disability. Theory and research can offer ways to inform, think, and understand experiences of disabled mothers in order to disrupt myths about mothers and disability that are disabling. There are many ways of mothering and many kinds of mothers. Much of the research that has been done on parents with disabilities has been “limited and flawed,” according to Preston, largely because it has not had the input of disabled parents themselves. Now, besides pointing out these flaws, disabled parents and their families are calling for “nonpathologizing research that is more specific in its investigations” (Preston). It is becoming more common that researchers from the disability community are demanding the use of a ­disability-culture perspective. That is, says Preston,“recognizing disability as a socially constructed concept, distinguishing difference from pathology, and identifying variables that promote resilience. This view shifts the emphasis from impairment to the stigma, prejudice, discrimination, marginalization, and disempowerment imposed on individuals with disabilities” (Preston). The importance of cultural diversity in the development of policies, research and services for parents with disabilities and their families has been stressed by the International Division of the Task Force on Parents with Disabilities, as outlined by the US Task Force. The Task Force named three critical areas of concern for, and need for research on, disabled parents everywhere: poverty, illiteracy, and basic health care – for without these fundamental rights, disabled parents worldwide cannot sustain lives for themselves and their families (Preston). Erin Andrews, co-chair of the American Psychological Association’s Committee on Disability Issues, says more data needs to be collected on the prevalence, experiences, needs, and barriers faced by disabled parents. In a briefing to the US Congress in April 2013, she said a recent survey found, for example, that women with wheelchairs were the least likely to be accommodated by gynecologists. She also said some of the challenges she faces as a mother with a disability are finding day care and the difficulty of using her gynecologist’s examination table. 85

Gloria Filax and Dena Taylor

Andrews also emphasized the need for culturally competent trained health care providers in addressing the reproductive needs of disabled women, the examination of discrimination in the adoption process and the removal of children from disabled mothers, as well as more funding for research (Reeves).

Further reading Cassiman, Shawn A. “Mothering, Disability, and Poverty: Straddling Borders, Shifting Boundaries, and Everyday Resistance.” Disability and Mothering: Liminal Spaces of Embodied Knowledge, edited by Cynthia Lewiecki-Wilson and Jen Cellio, Syracuse Press, 2011, pp. 289–301. Cellio, Jen. “ ‘Healthy, Accomplished, and Attractive’: Visual Representations of ‘Fitness’ in Egg Donors.” Disability and Mothering: Liminal Spaces of Embodied Knowledge, edited by Cynthia Lewiecki-Wilson and Jen Cellio, Syracuse Press, 2011, pp. 19–33. Davis, Lennard J. “Constructing Normalcy.” The Disability Studies Reader, edited by Lennard J. Davis, 3rd ed., Routledge, 2010, pp. 3–19. Filax, Gloria, and Dena Taylor, editors. Disabled Mothers. Demeter Press, 2014. Lewiecki-Wilson, Cynthia, and Jen Cellio.“Introduction.” Disability and Mothering: Liminal Spaces of Embodied Knowledge, edited by Cynthia Lewiecki-Wilson and Jen Cellio, Syracuse UP, 2011, pp. 1–18. Titchkosky, Tanya. Disability, Self, and Society. U of Toronto Press, 2006. ———. The Question of Access: Disability, Space, Meaning. U of Toronto Press, 2011. Wolfe, P. “Private Tragedy in Social Context? Reflections on Disability, Illness and Suffering.” Disability and Society, vol. 17, no. 3, 2002, pp. 255–67.

Conclusion What disabled mothers need, like most mothers, is support, nurturance, and care. Institutionalized motherhood demands that most mothers in Western societies will mother in isolation. Asking for help is often taken as a flaw in a culture that privatizes, isolates, and individualizes all mothering as solitary work. For disabled mothers when “help” comes it is often “ ‘help’ that is not helpful” (Thomas 513). In the 1997 study done by the National Center for Parents with Disabilities in Berkeley, it was found that 54 percent of the parents surveyed said assistance was often not available when needed; 46 percent said it was unreliable; 38 percent said it interfered with the parent’s role, and 35 percent said the personal assistants did not know how to care for children (Preston). Disabled mothers do exist, and they challenge the idea that they are not “good enough” mothers and good enough at mothering (Thomas 510). Not only do they exist, but they can be expected to increase in numbers as more disabled women broaden their options with changing societal attitudes, increased civil rights, and new adaptive technologies. And despite all the obstacles they face, “the vast majority of parents with diverse disabilities continue to provide nurturing and secure environments for their children” (Preston). The experiences of disabled mothers make clear that “the problem of disability” is produced by social barriers that exclude them as disabled mothers (Thomas 508; Shakespeare 266). In December 2006, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Convention is the first legally binding instrument with full protection of the rights of disabled people. Article 23 of the Convention specifically addresses the rights of parents with disabilities: Discrimination relating to marriage, family and personal relations shall be eliminated. Persons with disabilities shall have the equal opportunity to experience parenthood, to marry and to found a family, to decide on the number and spacing of children, to have access to reproductive and family planning education and means, and to enjoy equal 86

Disabled mothers

rights and responsibilities regarding guardianship, wardship, trusteeship and adoption of children. (Preston) We hope that the ideas in this chapter will help to further spread the attitude – to all of society, including health care workers, the court system, and governments – that disabled women can proudly claim the role of mother, and in fact have much to offer the world.

Works cited Barile, Maria. “New Reproductive Technology: My Personal and Political Dichotomy.” Living the Edges: A Disabled Women’s Reader, edited by Diane Driedger, Inanna Publications and Education Inc., 2006, pp. 171–85. Blankenship, Gina. “Learning How to Swim: Finding Meaning in Disability from a Daughter’s Perspective.” Disabled Mothers, edited by Gloria Filax and Dena Taylor, Demeter Press, 2014, pp. 339–48. Bost, Suzanne. “Vulnerable Subjects: Motherhood and Disability in Nancy Mairs and Cherrie Moraga.” Disability and Mothering: Liminal Spaces of Embodied Knowledge, edited by Cynthia Lewiecki-Wilson and Jen Cellio, Syracuse Press, 2011, pp. 164–78. Callow, Ella.“Disabled Mothers: Misadventures in the American Courts.” Disabled Mothers, edited by Gloria Filax and Dena Taylor, Demeter Press, 2014, pp. 277–94. Cassiman, Shawn A. “Mothering, Disability, and Poverty: Straddling Borders, Shifting Boundaries, and Everyday Resistance.” Disability and Mothering: Liminal Spaces of Embodied Knowledge, edited by Cynthia Lewiecki-Wilson and Jen Cellio, Syracuse Press, 2011, pp. 289–301. Cellio, Jen. “ ‘Healthy, Accomplished, and Attractive’: Visual Representations of ‘Fitness’ in Egg Donors.” Disability and Mothering: Liminal Spaces of Embodied Knowledge, edited by Cynthia Lewiecki-Wilson and Jen Cellio, Syracuse Press, 2011, pp. 19–33. Coleman Brown, Lerita M. “Stigma: An Enigma Demystified.” The Disability Studies Reader, edited by Lennard J. Davis, 3rd ed., Routledge, 2010, pp. 179–92. D’Aoust, Vicky. “Non-existent & Struggling for Identity.” Lesbian Parenting: Living with Pride & Prejudice, edited by Katherine Arnup, Gynergy Books, 1995, pp. 276–96. Davis, Lennard J. “Constructing Normalcy.” The Disability Studies Reader, edited by. Lennard J. Davis, 3rd ed., Routledge, 2010, pp. 3–19. Deal, M. “Disabled People’s Attitudes toward Other Impairment Groups: A Hierarchy of Impairments.” Disability and Society, vol. 18, no. 7, 2003, pp. 897–910. Filax, Gloria, and Dena Taylor, editors. Disabled Mothers. Demeter Press, 2014. Frank, Arthur. “From Disappearance to Hyperappearance: Sliding Boundaries of Illness and Bodies.” The Body and Psychology, edited by Henderickus J. Stam, Sage Publications, 1998, pp. 205–32. Frohmader, Carolyn, et al. “Unruly Mothers or Unruly Practices? Disabled Mothers Surviving Oppressive State Practices in Australia.” Disabled Mothers, edited by Gloria Filax and Dena Taylor, Demeter Press, 2014, pp. 295–314. Hubbard, Ruth.“Abortion and Disability: Who Should and Should Not Inhabit the World?” The Disability Studies Reader, edited by Lennard J. Davis, 3rd ed., Routledge, 2010, pp. 107–19. Hughes, Bill, and Kevin Paterson. “The Social Model of Disability and the Disappearing Body: Towards a Sociology of Impairment.” Disability and Society, vol. 12, no. 3, 1997, pp. 325–40. Lewiecki-Wilson, Cynthia, and Jen Cellio.“Introduction.” Disability and Mothering: Liminal Spaces of Embodied Knowledge, edited by Cynthia Lewiecki-Wilson and Jen Cellio, Syracuse UP, 2011, pp. 1–18. Linton, Simi. “Reassigning Meaning.” The Disability Studies Reader, edited by Lennard J. Davis, 3rd ed., Routledge, 2010, pp. 223–36. Miller, Toby. The Well-Tempered Self: Citizenship, Culture and the Postmodern Subject. The Johns Hopkins UP, 1993. O’Reilly, Andrea. “Foreword: Rocking the Cradle to Change the World.” Rocking the Cradle: Thoughts on Motherhood, Feminism and the Possibility of Empowered Motherhood, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, Demeter Press, 2006, pp. 7–31. Preston, Paul. “Parents with Disabilities.” International Encyclopedia of Rehabilitation, edited by J. H. Stone, and M. Blouin, 18 Sept. 2013, http://cirrie.bualo.edu/encyclopedia/en/article/36/.

87

Gloria Filax and Dena Taylor Preston, Paul, and Jean Jacob. “Disabled Mothers: Perspectives of Their Young Adult Children.” Disabled Mothers, edited by Gloria Filax and Dena Taylor, Demeter Press, 2014, pp. 317–38. Reeves, Stefanie. “Protecting the Rights of Parents with Disabilities.” American Psychological Association, vol. 44, no. 7, July/Aug. 2013, 19 Sept. 2013, www.apa.org/monitor/2013/07-08/disabilities.aspx. Rich, Adrienne. Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution. 10th Anniversary Edition. W. W. Norton & Company, 1986. Ruddick, Sara. Preface: “Good Questions . . . I’ll Be Writing on This.” Rocking the Cradle: Thoughts on Motherhood, Feminism and the Possibility of Empowered Motherhood, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, Demeter Press, 2006, pp. 1–6. Saxton, Marsha. “Disability Rights and Selective Abortion.” The Disability Studies Reader, edited by Lennard J. Davis, 3rd ed., Routledge, 2010, pp. 120–32. Shakespeare, Tom. “The Social Model of Disability.” The Disability Studies Reader, edited by Lennard J. Davis, 3rd ed., Routledge, 2010, pp. 266–73. Snyder, Sharon L., and David T. Mitchell. Cultural Locations of Disability. U of Chicago Press, 2006. Thomas, Carol. “The Baby and the Bath Water: Disabled Women and Motherhood in Social Context.” Maternal Theory: Essential Readings, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, Demeter Press, 2007, pp. 500–519. Thomson, Rosemarie Garland. Extraordinary Bodies: Figuring Physical Disability in American Culture and Literature. Columbia UP, 1997. Titchkosky, Tanya. The Question of Access: Disability, Space, Meaning. Toronto: U of Toronto Press, 2011. ———. Disability, Self, and Society. U of Toronto Press, 2006. Wilson, James. “Disability and the Human Genome.” The Disability Studies Reader, edited by Lennard J. Davis, 3rd ed., Routledge, 2010, pp. 52–62. Wilson, Rob. Alberta Laws: Key Terms, 1 May 2014, http://eugenicsarchive.ca/database/documents/5362 81f550e0599bef000002. Accessed 29 Mar. 2019. Wolfe, P.“Private Tragedy in Social Context? Reflections on Disability, Illness and Suffering.” Disability and Society, vol. 17, no. 3, 2002, pp. 255–67.

88

6 MOTHERING WHILE BLACK Strengths and vulnerabilities in a sociopolitical racial context of structural inequality Marva L. Lewis and Karen T. Craddock

Introduction A complex, intersecting array of individual and toxic sociopolitical factors impact the everyday lives of Black women in their role as mother. In the classic poem by Langston Hughes, “Mother to Son,” she proclaims, “Life for me ain’t been no crystal stair. . . . For I’se still goin’ honey, / I’se still climbin.” It speaks of the historic roots of passionate determination and creative resilience of Black mothers. These simple words highlight the need for a warrior-like strength to persevere in the face of a sociopolitical system that was designed to destroy her spirit. Later in the poem, when this mother instructs her son, “don’t you turn back,” her maternal command becomes transformed into instructions for living in defiance of a harsh system of structural racism. In this chapter, we explore selected aspects of the broad landscape of these themes that include race-based stressors for Black mothers. The chapter first provides a short overview of the several overarching themes of mothering and multiple social indexes of physical and mental health and well-being, shaped within a lived framework of structural racism. These structural themes include racial disparities and disproportionality based on explicit marginalization, stereotypes and implicit bias – all unresolved legacies of the historical trauma of African enslavement in the Americas. We argue that the use of a deficit lens applied to Black mothers’ parenting behaviors typically leads to biased conclusions as harsh discipline and “no-nonsense” child-rearing practices. For example, the long-standing schema of a “strong Black woman” (Abrams et al.) often obscures the gentle and more vulnerable side of Black mothering. The portrayal of Black women as strong and resilient minimizes the mental health needs of Black mothers and their need for emotional, physical or monetary support. The feminist weathering hypothesis (Geronimus) highlights the intergenerational biological impact on Black women of racism-based stress. We present a racialized rubric to examine a compilation of social and psychological issues specific to Black mothers. This rubric provides a framework for a deeper understanding of intersecting race-based domains of structural racism, such as segregated and inadequate housing, economic inequality and health inequities, or disparities in the educational or child welfare systems. This systematic approach to understand the cumulative impact of various domains of structural racism highlights the neglected psychosocial needs of Black mothers. 89

Marva L. Lewis and Karen T. Craddock

A strengths perspective is used to briefly examine the practices of racial socialization through protective nurturing and adaptive parenting practices leading to resilience in young children targeted for everyday risk of discrimination, prejudice and structural racism. The chapter concludes with a discussion that builds on the poignant theme illustrated in the poem that introduces this c­ hapter – that is the remarkable and creative resilience of Black mothers to nurture and support the next generation of children and still experience joy. We end with recommendations for future research.

Background and context Key definitions The term ‘Black’ refers to the racial group membership of Black mothers. This term was created for purposes of sociopolitical categorization based on the physical characteristics of skin tones and hair type that define the phenotype. This term is often used interchangeably with the term ‘African American’ which refers to the cultural group membership or the subjective identification of an individual as their ethnic identity. More recently the term ‘Black’ is increasingly embraced by group members as an inclusive and honoring moniker to encompass all people of African descent around the globe and across the Diaspora. This marks a necessary shift in our current socio-political climate. Structural racism – a legacy of historical trauma – maintains a social hierarchy that privileges a dominant group and maintains oppression of another group. The dominant group holds positions of power and acts as an arbiter of resources for s­ urvival – economics, housing and education (Zuberi). Historical trauma is the historical experience of chronic and oppressive trauma and violence of a targeted group within a society: This type of group trauma has occurred around the world in numerous cultures and ethnic groups since recorded history (Yellow Horse Brave Heart). Examples of historical trauma include the genocide of Native Americans and First Nation people and forced removal of their children and separation from families to boarding schools designed to strip them of their Native identity. For Black mothering, the defining historical traumatic event began with the centuries of the institution of chattel slavery where enslaved Africans were forced through harsh physical methods and psychological terrorism to provide free labor that fueled the American economy (Collins). The psychological impact of people experiencing historical trauma is the “cumulative emotional and psychological wounding over the life span and across generations” (Yellow Horse Brave Heart, 7). The medical model of interpreting behaviors as symptoms and signs of psychopathology defines the concept of deficit. The simple use of demographic data that only describe characteristics of primarily Western, educated and high economic populations are often generalized for a scientific understanding of all human behavior. This sampling strategy inadvertently supports a deficit lens to interpret the behavior of groups who do not fit these demographically skewed criteria. Perceptions of Black mothering were shaped through this deficit lens. Thus, what might be interpreted by outsiders as harsh discipline, “no-nonsense” child-rearing practices of Black mothers in a context of unremitting community violence might be seen as necessary protective parenting practices to ensure the survival of their children (Lewis). Evidence from research on racial socialization by Black mothers link these protective parenting practices to positive socialemotional outcomes for Black children (Dunbar et al.; Nichols and McCoy).

Historical perspectives The historical discourse on Black mothers and Black women has been anchored in a deficit lens of dysfunction (Collins; Craddock; Harris-Perry). Research focused on the lives of low-income 90

Mothering while Black

Black women in urban environments and the subsequent patchwork of social policies, typically focuses on factors influencing Black mothering such as single parenting status, the challenging context of parenting in poverty and experiences of domestic and community violence (Boyd-Franklin). Yet, the modern sociopolitical legacies of the historical trauma of centuries of enslavement continue to shape the modern realities of Black mothers across income categories in the United States of America (Frazier; Jones and Shorter-Gooden). From the date of Black women’s capture in their homeland of Africa, through their harrowing journey in the bowels of slave ships across the mid-Atlantic passage to the United States, their descendants have been relegated to the lowest strata of a racialized social system. As enslaved Africans in the Americas, generations of Black mothers created a variety of survival mechanisms and passed their life lessons of challenge to their children (Lewis et al.). After the abolition of slavery, the psychological terrorism of the Jim Crow South emerged as a new challenge to the newly freed Black mothers. Legal scholar Michelle Alexander’s seminal work on the prison industrial complex associated with the mass incarceration of Black men, underscored the modern-day need for constant vigilance by Black mothers and continuation of socialization practices with children tied to life or death need for obedience in children. The structural process of racist policies leading to the disproportionate imprisonment and post-prison release practices that force African American men into the caste-like category of “ex-felon” strips them of their right to vote as full citizens of their society and denies them adequate affordable housing and dignity of a living wage employment. Witnessing these daily events of diminishment and emasculation of Black men may lead to a type of overprotection of boys and “toughening up” of girls in Black mothers’ child-rearing practices (Lewis, “The Intergenerational Transmission”).

A deficit lens defining Black mothers In the late 1960s, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan published a brief governmental report titled, “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action” (1964). With the laudable intent to focus needed governmental support for Black families throughout the urban neighborhoods across the nation, this report instead vilified Black women as the center of the “tangle of pathology” of Black families. Legacies of what is often called the “Moynihan Report” led to the labeling of Black women as “welfare queens” and as the cause of Black male unemployment (Dow; Cammett). This deficit portrayal of Black mothers led to official governmental sanctioned practices at welfare offices and local department of social work practices of “surprise visits” to mothers receiving welfare with required inspections of bedrooms searching for evidence of the presence of males, as evidenced by house shoes under the beds or shaving supplies in medicine cabinets in the bathrooms (Collins). In a comprehensive critique of social science research, an interdisciplinary team of Canadian economic and psychologist scientists identified what they deemed the inherent direct and implicit bias of Western scientific inquiry. After conducting a meta-analysis of methods used in psychological research, Henrich, Heine, and Norenzayan (2010) concluded that it was a misnomer to create psychological theories and generalize findings from samples of children and people from an unrepresentative minority of research participants. They argued that widely reported research policies driving treatment, policies and funding applied to all families were conducted on samples drawn entirely from mostly white, Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic (W.E.I.R.D.) societies. These findings are used to create what constitutes “normal” or “abnormal” behavior. These biased standards are then thoughtlessly applied to people of color, ethnic or religious minorities, sexual orientation and social classes. When minority behaviors are viewed through a W.E.I.R.D. prism, a deficit interpretation of their behaviors that don’t 91

Marva L. Lewis and Karen T. Craddock

match the standard of the original samples is more likely to be made by social scientists. This failure to examine the validity or even report the simple limitation of the demographics and characteristics of samples used to build theories and research, categorizes entire diverse cultural groups of people into a deficit or abnormal, pathological category. When Black mothering is held to this W.E.I.R.D. prism, Black mothers’ behaviors and child-rearing practices are seen as pathological lending scientific support to the conclusion made by Moynihan’s analysis of Black families. To refute this damning portrayal of Black families in the Moynihan Report, sociologist Robert Hill wrote The Strengths of Black Families (1972) based on an analysis of the same census data. Hill identified multiple core strengths of Black families over the centuries of trauma and psychological terrorism that were adaptations critical for their survival in hostile environments of chattel slavery. These strengths were strong kinship bonds, strong work orientation, adaptability of family roles, extended family, religious orientation and high achievement orientation. These strengths were not necessarily different from those used by European American immigrant families facing challenging circumstances attempting to survive in an often-unwelcoming American landscape. What Hill highlighted was the need to move the narrative from a deficit trope presenting Black families as hopeless “tangles of pathology” to humanizing Black families as brilliantly surviving and thriving people in challenging circumstances.

Intersectional diversity within Black motherhood/parents concept A recent study involving contemporary Black families in the United States focused on a diverse sample of Black married couples and explored their perspectives on parenting values. The study found that differences among Black parents occurred along lines of social identity, gender, SES and whether the parents were immigrants or US born (Cross-Barnet and McDonald). Further inquiry and explorations of Black motherhood must move in a direction that examines withingroup demographics to better inform our understanding about and related practices with Black mothers. Thus, issues of mothering defined through a W.E.I.R.D. deficit lens minimizes the creative resilience displayed by Black mothers to survive in a racially stratified society. We argue that vestiges of these strengths can be found emerging through what we identify as protective adaptive and nurturing for resilience mothering practices (Craddock, “Pushing Back with Our Souls Intact”; Lewis, “The Intergenerational Transmission”; Narcisse).

Critical issues and topics The issues currently facing Black mothers include modern-day challenges presented through authority-based violence, social media and growing disparities associated with income inequality. The traditional strengths of Black families originally identified by Robert Hill have seen them through any number of difficult circumstances. Yet, with the new chronic challenges, the strong Black extended family support system is overextended and stretched to capacity. One can only imagine the amount of grief, loss and mourning that Black mothers may be silently experiencing with this myriad of chronic trauma and race-based stress. As a result, a racialized lens highlighting various biopsychosocial outcomes with roots in structural racism must be used to focus attention on the neglected psychosocial needs of Black mothers. This racialized rubric includes specific domains directly linked to structural racism (such as health disparities, gendered-based racism and incarceration rates) and the correlated challenges for Black communities specifically on women and mothers. Within communities of 92

Mothering while Black

color around the world, the issue of Colorism – the acceptance or rejection of people based on skin color and hair type – remains part of the complexities of parent-child relationships. This specific dynamic in Black mother-daughter relationships remains an unrecognized dynamic with origins in the historical traumas of slavery and colonialism (Harris-Perry; Lewis, “Getting the Parts Straight”; Lewis et al.). Finally, a racialized rubric provides a basis for future research at the individual, community and societal level. Research is needed to understand the impact of different domains of structural racism in the form of community health, loss of life and economic impact. This racial rubric ends with the most important outcome for our discussion of this paper, the neglected psychosocial impact on Black mothers.

“Everything but the kitchen sink”: a racialized rubric of structural racism and biopsychosocial outcomes for Black mothers In their 2016 national study of the impact of discrimination and violence, the American Psychological Association found that over 50% of African American respondents reported experiences of discrimination, prejudice and racial hate crimes. They reported a clear link between discrimination and stress. Table 6.1 presents a racialized rubric to examine how some of the different domains’ of structural racism impact the well-being of Black mothers. The various domains that can be traced to structural racism include health disparities in physical and mental health, experiences of racism based on gender, such as the recent research demonstrating racial bias as the basis for the high rate of Black male toddlers’ expulsion from day care centers (Gilliam and Shabar). The familiar domains of structural racism touch many aspects of Black family life, including the public educational systems, food deserts, economics based on employment practices and the glaring disparities in the incarceration rate of Black males and increasingly Black females. Each of these domains is then linked to race-based challenges faced by Black women in general and Black mothers in particular. Examples are given of the impact of different domains of structural racism on the larger society and economy. Finally, the rubric outlines the neglected psychosocial needs of Black mothers based on the external racial social challenges they face. Black mothers face continual losses, chronic stresses and all the other factors that complicate the optimal functioning of parent-child relationships must take a psychological as well as a physical toll on Black primary caregivers.

Weathering Weathering is another critical issue. The biological toll of exposure to centuries of the multiple assaults of racism and misogyny has only recently been addressed by social scientists (Geronimus). There have been consistent public health findings of racial differences in health indicators significant to women of chronic morbidity and excess mortality. In the early 1990s, Geronimus developed the “weathering” hypothesis to describe Black women’s resilience coping response to the cumulative impact of exposure and adaptation to everyday economic adversity and racismbased stress. The weathering hypothesis proposes that, at the physiological level, chronic and persistent stress can have a significant effect on health. Geronimus et al. later found evidence of this weathering response to the generational racial stress of being a Black woman in America at the biological level. They found a pattern of aging at the cellular level significantly different for Black women in comparison to white women. Based on an analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data collected with adults aged 18–64 significant racial differences in allostatic load – the measure of stress hormone – scores. Blacks had higher scores 93

Education -Standardized test disparities -Overdiagnosis of ADHD and prescription of Ritalin

Mental Health Multigenerational transmission of standards of beauty based on skin color, hair texture, body size and facial features Gender-Based Racism Daycare expulsion of Black male toddlers

Health Disparities Physical Access to health care

Dimensions of Structural Racism

-Stress; anger -Lack of trust

-Helplessness -Disempowered -Invisibilized and ignored

-Reduced workforce for entrylevel jobs -Pipeline to prison phenomena

-Corporatization of education with charter school movement -“Turn style” educators: Reliance on inexperienced Teach-forAmerica -Loss of diverse talent for STEM to address climate change

Mass firing of experienced public school teachers, the traditional core of the Black middle-class

- With no child care; missed Income -Loss of job -Racial socialization of girls for intersectional bias -Overwhelmed grandmother caregivers -Need parenting support for education of special needs children -Disempowered parents - Invisibilized and ignored in governance of education of children -Parents viewed as “troublemakers”

Childhood memories and emotions of acceptance or rejection by caregivers and partners

Messages and reinforcement by larger social media of European standards of beauty

Intergenerational transmission of Colorism – valuing of lighter skin, “good” hair or discriminating against darker skin tones and curly hair and rejection by some in the Black community

Need to provide additional financial support to struggling family members

- Complicated grief and loss -Medical misdiagnosis; underdiagnosis -Long-term physical separation from premature infants placed in NICU

-Uninsured burial costs -High costs of Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) hospital care -Overuse of hospital emergency room care

-Ignored Birth trauma -Race-based stress during pregnancy -Premature births -Infant Mortality -Inability to do health-promoting breastfeeding due to work schedule

-High rates of maternal death in childbirth -Fibroid tumors across social class -Obesity -Diabetes -Heart Attacks -Internalized oppression -Within group tensions based on privileges of light-skinned “Talented Tenth”

Neglected Psychosocial Needs of Black Mothers

Mothers

Impact on the Larger Society and Economy

Women

Challenges in the Black Community

Table 6.1 Dimensions of Structural Racism and Psychosocial Impact on Black Mothers

- Limited economic mobility for overeducated, overexperienced middle class

-Need to work multiple minimum wage jobs with no long-term benefits -Reduced marriageable partners

Economic Income Inequality Food deserts

Prison Industrial Complex -Police shootings -Exposure to community violence

-Need to work multiple jobs -Absence from home and supervision of children -No time or energy to participate in civic discourse -Reduced access to health sources of nutrition for family Policies, practices community -Shackled female inmates during economies tied to local prison childbirth industry -Increasing rate of imprisoned mothers; reduced opportunity for attachment and bonding -Forced single-parent family structure -Lack of social support due to overextended family networks -Protective racial socialization for boys’ survival

-Less able to compete on global basis - Unregulated viral social with biased content Neighborhoods with no readily available food sources in urban areas and rural areas

-Desexualized -Lack of sexual partners

-Stress; internalized oppression; doubt; stereotype threat -Isolated middle-class women; need to “code switch” and “shift” between Black and white social settings

Marva L. Lewis and Karen T. Craddock

than whites at all ages and across socioeconomic groups, Black women had the highest and second highest allostatic load than Black men or whites. The researchers concluded that repeated exposure and adaptation are significant factors in biological indicators of Blacks’ early health deterioration and are the weathering effects of living in a race-conscious society.

Strong Black woman Research supporting and expanding existing ideologies of the Strong Black Woman schema revealed consistency among a range of Black women of varying socioeconomic, education and family make-ups and is another critical issue. The study confirmed a complex conceptualization of the Strong Black Woman schema that embodies both perseverance and strength that propels themselves and community forward, but it also comes at a cost to Black women’s well-being. Additional markers of this archetype uncovered in the research included the centrality of religion/spirituality, self-definition/ethnic pride and matriarchal leadership (Abrams et al.). These findings align with the Black motherhood research exploring psychological resistance to marginalization and profile types wherein optimal strategies of resistance included cognitively defining oneself through a culturally aware lens, incorporating faith practices and centering their mothering in liberation-oriented beliefs and practices (Craddock, “Pushing Back with Our Souls Intact”).

Challenges to Black mothers Wealth and fame are not a protection for Black mothers in the age of modern racism and presents yet another critical issue. The experience of Black women’s birth trauma being ignored by medical health care staff is vividly illustrated in the recent experience of international tennis star, Serena Williams. Well aware of her medical history that put her at risk for post delivery of her pregnancy, she immediately contacted her physician alerting them when she had concerns about her pregnancy. The medical staff initially discounted her worries as simply “new mother anxiety.” She had to vehemently insist with medical staff that she was in postpartum distress and she should be hospitalized. These examples illustrate the racial disparities stemming from structural racism in the health care system (Anderson et al.).

Black motherhood and loss concept Davis speaks to the normalization of horrific loss among Black mothers over time by a myriad of ways – children sold during enslavement, lost to abduction, infant mortality and state-­ sanctioned violence. Most striking is the underscoring of how the normalization of Black mother loss is in it a most perverse form of violence. Davis points out that it is not only the actual loss Black mothers face but the constant threat of loss that wreaks its own terror among Black mothers. While this, by and large, has focused on Black sons, Black females have become increasingly vulnerable to the threats of institutional, emotional and physical violence, which includes a growing trend of school suspensions and expulsions along with physical attacks, sex trafficking and murder (Davis; Gilliam & Shahar 2006). While it is imperative to name and address these issues of loss as central to the Black mothering experience, the emphasis placed here is on “radical Black mothering” that resists efforts to erase Black children from the societal consciousness and elevate the creative and persevering ways that Black mothers transform terror-informed sorrow into survival. The future directions of Black mothering studies must

96

Mothering while Black

hold both accounts firmly and yet focus more attention on the legacies of love and maternal activism that continue to protect and sustain.

Strengths of Black mothering Another critical issue, often not acknowledged, is the invisible and unrecognized strengths displayed by Black mothers over the generations, especially in their central role in achieving desegregation in school systems (Devlin). An example of the fortitude and strategic planning exhibited by Black mothers was the desegregation of schools across the United States. After the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, across the United States Black mothers played a leadership role in achieving the hard-fought goal of having the children educated in newly desegregated schools. They fought to enroll their children in the well-resourced schools located primarily in all-white neighborhoods. In urban cities from Chicago, New York, Detroit and Boston, these mothers met the vitriolic resistance of entrenched White parents who fought just as hard to preserve the status quo of segregated schools. The mothers of the famous group of high school students known as the “Little Rock Nine” worked with their local organizations of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) to develop legal strategies to fight the false hurdles posed by the angry white parents who resisted an end to segregated school systems. The actions illustrate the steps needed by all Black mothers to raise their children to not only survive but also be functional and successful in an unwelcoming racially stratified society. These steps illustrate the intentionality, facing immediate violence, retaliation by unsympathetic employers and unknown invisible insults and aggression ranging from being spit on to threats of bombs exploding in their homes (Devlin).

Creative Black mothering: “othermothering” Another unrecognized role of Black women as mothers is termed “othermothers.” Scholar Patricia Hill Collins identified a distinct group of African American women who provided important parenting roles to children in their communities. She identified them as othermothers. These women may not be related legally or biologically to neighborhood children but willing carry out important nurturing and child-rearing duties. Othermothers may provide a safe haven after school until a child’s parents return home from work or lend a listening ear when no one else seems to understand. She may simply be there to give a hug to a child without being asked. No expectations are attached to this role. She might be a formally designated godparent, aunt or uncle where role expectations are prescribed by the culture. In contrast, an othermother defines her role as nurturer and social activist and willingly steps into the lives of one or many children. When asked, a child may not immediately identify this person as having fulfilled a maternal role. But the emotional memory of having been warmly nurtured and the experience of being unconditionally accepted will bubble up to conscious memory with little prodding. The othermother never challenges the authority of biological parents and families. She is just there for the child. Some may be more active than others, but they assume the role willingly and consistently. They know who “their children” are and acknowledge their role and responsibilities with pleasure and pride. These othermother icons sustained the isolated working and middle-class Black women, toiling as “hidden figures” in a racialized society (Craddock, “Mothering and Mentoring”).

97

Marva L. Lewis and Karen T. Craddock

Current contributions and research For the past half century, racial socialization – how Black parents and caregivers carefully prepare their children to negotiate the everyday challenges of living in a racially stratified society – has been examined by social scientists (McAdoo; Dunbar et al.; Peters). Researchers have studied strategies used by Black mothers to cope with the pragmatic realities of their lives including their single-parent status (McAdoo). The findings from a more recent study identified how Black mothers with little education navigated the challenges of launching the next generation of daughters into higher income positions that they may have only seen on television (Narcisse 2013). This group of Black mothers found ways to provide emotional and instrumental support to their daughters to enhance their self-confidence and resilience in a racially stratified society not always welcoming to young Black women. Similarly, research exploring the psychological strategies used by young Black mothers to combat marginalization revealed unique patterns of resistance that incorporated cognitive, behavioral and emotional coping and outcomes (Craddock, “Pushing Back with Our Souls Intact”). While variations in resistance strategies were revealed an underlying desire and effort focused on how they could resist and remain resilient so their children would experience a full and satisfying life.

Recommendations for future directions The task of rearing African American children in the face of economic, psychological and physical adversity remains the challenge of Black mothers. Recent studies of racial socialization are beginning to document the successful emotional as well as racial socialization processes used by Black parents to ensure the survival of their children (Dunbar et al.). In a racialized context, children’s emotional socialization – practices that help children to understand and regulate their emotions – overlap the successful racial socialization to help them cope with racial discrimination. Lewis (“The Intergenerational Transmission”) notes the protective parenting responses to historical trauma includes such behaviors as the daily hair-combing task as a rich opportunity for mothers to talk, touch and listen to their young daughters. Implications for Black parenting in a racialized context requires acknowledging the pain of social exclusion that Black children and parents experience on a regular basis. Growing explorations in relational neuroscience offer links to groundbreaking brain science that confirms we experience actual pain in our brains when being marginalized, and an emerging model to counter these effects is being developed (Craddock, “It’s Not in Our Head”). More community-based supports and interventions must build on the strengths of cultural practices, while addressing the vulnerability of the continued practices that developed in a trauma-based environment. Black women have “weathered” the slings and arrows of structural racism and the inherent disparities and inequities that manifest in health care, everyday marginalization and microaggressions, patriarchy, homophobia and misogyny. The explosion of research in the area of neurobiological and epigenetics of generational trauma that include carrying the experiences of loss and grief within our very DNA can begin to help us understand the impact of centuries of racism-based stress on Black mothers. More research is needed to address the question of what the implications are for current health and public health research and inquiry on Black maternal mortality and morbidity. We must consider and honor the complexities of Black mothering when children are exploring, expanding and sometimes rejecting commonly held (and often widely accepted) notions of Blackness both in and out of the Black community. Or, similarly, we must also consider when children are pushing against narrow definitions of gender identity or national identity and 98

Mothering while Black

needs of Lesbian Black mothering (Mezey; Everet et al.). Wanda Pillow challenges social science theorists who heretofore have boxed these discussions of Black youth identity questioning into stages of racial consciousness leaving little room for the breadth of identity exploration and reimagining that is active among Black children and youth along many lines. Black mothering in this context must deftly include and pivot between openness for children to define themselves and guidance in a world that is trying to box them in. These mothers must navigate society at large with biases attached to their child’s Blackness and assumed heterosexual status, as well as cope with the rigidity that can come from within the Black community around racial, ethnic and sexual identity norms. We challenge our social science researchers, service providers, students, social work and mental health and medical practitioners and policymakers to use this racialized rubric to not only evaluate, including the formulation of research questions and program evaluation tools, but also use this as a regular and systematic means to courageously examine organizational policies and clinical practices, assessment and interventions for structural racism. Up-to-date and relevant data can then be used to examine the status of specific issues impacting Black mothers within individual settings, organizations or communities.

Closing section: sustaining joy We are a people. A people do not throw their geniuses away. And if they are thrown away, it is our duty as artists and as witnesses for the future to collect them again for the sake of our children, and, if necessary, bone by bone. Alice Walker, In Search of Our Mothers’ Gardens: Prose

“Bone by bone . . . it is in the very marrow of Black mothering that strength and vulnerability reside side by side. Bone at once implies a dichotomous connection of fragility and sturdiness. It carefully links the body together and holds it upright at the same time. It is generative in its tissue, yet can weaken in density through the wear and tear of time. It is hidden from view, but necessary to exist” (Craddock, “Maternal Wellness”). In the introduction, the poem by Langston Hughes reflects one Black mother passing down the memories of her story of survival to her son determined both to preserve her lived history as well as to celebrate a commitment to life. It is this perseverance that has been long reflected in the research and literature that underscores the interplay between resistance and resilience so often amplified in the lives of Black mothers across time and topic. The upshot is one that elevates joy over pain. To close, we refer to the sustaining emotion of joy that goes beyond a simple feeling of happiness. The joy of Black mothering refers to an ascended emotional space that offers an extensive bandwidth capable of holding the vastness of embedded sociopolitical stressors while breaking free of the strongholds with elevated power and purpose (Craddock, “Pushing Back with Our Souls Intact”). This joy, created in a crucible of oppression, represents an intergenerational inheritance of creativity, pride and mothering power. It was necessary to withstand the historical trauma of slavery, an institution designed to crush the psychological spirit of generations of mothers forced to witness the violence of subjugation of their families and beloved children. This sustaining joy remains a necessity to deal with racial disparities in multiple health indexes and community violence targeting their sons and daughters. Despite the pressures and depictions of Black motherhood, the binding fiber between these false polarities we also know, joy. 99

Marva L. Lewis and Karen T. Craddock

Further reading Abdullah, Melina. “Womanist Mothering: Loving and Raising the Revolution.” Western Journal of Black Studies, vol. 36, no. 1, Spring 2012, pp. 57–67. Craddock, Karen T. “Pushing Back with Our Souls Intact: Young Black Mothers’ Psychological Resistance to Marginalization.” Black Motherhood(s): Contours, Contexts and Considerations, edited by K.T. Craddock, Demeter Press, 2015, pp. 36–68. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1rrd90f.7. ———. “It’s Not in Our Head . . . And Yet Pain Is in Our Brain: Why Racialized Exclusion Hurts and How We Can Remain Resilient.” EmbraceRace Blog, 19 Jan. 2019. Cross-Barnet, Caitlin, and Katrina McDonald. “It’s All about the Children: An Intersectional Perspective on Parenting Values among Black Married Couples in the United States.” Societies, vol. 5, no. 4, 2015, pp. 855–71. Roberts, Dorothy E. “Prison, Foster Care, and the Systemic Punishment of Black Mothers.” UCLA Law Review, vol. 59, 2012, p. 1474; U of Penn Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 12–45. SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2184329. Rousseau, Nicole. “Social Rhetoric and the Construction of Black Motherhood.” Journal of Black Studies, vol. 44, no. 5, Jul. 2013, pp. 451–71. doi: 10.1177/0021934713488786. Taylor,T.“Re-examining Cultural Contradictions: Mothering Ideology and the Intersections of Class,Gender, and Race.” Sociology Compass, vol. 5, no. 10, 2011, pp. 898–907. doi: 10.1111/j.1751–9020.2011.00415.x.

Resources American Psychological Association. Mental Health in the African American Community. APA. www.cpp. edu/~healthcounseling/Documents/africanamer-final-1-15-09.pdf, 2009. Abrams, Jasmine A., et al. “Carrying the World with the Grace of a Lady and the Grit of a Warrior: Deepening Our Understanding of the ‘Strong Black Woman’ Schema.” Psychology of Women Quarterly, vol. 38, no. 4, Dec. 2014, pp. 503–18. doi: 10.1177/0361684314541418. Association of Black Psychologists. Therapist Resource Directory. Phone: (301) 449–3082. www.abpsi. org/find-psychologists/. This resource will assist one in finding African American Psychologists within their local community. Blakey, J.M., and S.H. Schnavia. “Trauma and Substance Abuse among Child Welfare Involved African American Mothers: A Case Study.” Journal of Public Child Welfare, vol. 7, no. 2, 2013, pp. 194–216. doi: 10,1080/155–48732.2013.779623. Mendenhall, R., et al.“Chicago African American Mothers’ Power of Resistance: Designing Spaces of Hope in Global Contexts.” The Power of Resistance (Advances in Education in Diverse Communities, Vol. 12), Emerald Publishing Limited, 2017, pp. 409–28. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-358X20140000012019. Davis, O.I. “A Visitation from the Foremothers: Black Women’s Healing through ‘a Performance of Care’ from African Diaspora to the American Academy.” Women’s Studies in Communication, vol. 31, no. 2, 2008, pp. 175–85. www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07491409.2008.10162530. Elliott, Sinikka, et al. “Low-Income, Black Single Mothers Negotiate Intensive Mothering.” Journal of Family Issues, vol. 36, no. 3, 2015, pp. 351–70. First published online 27 May 2013. http://journals.sagepub. com/doi/abs/10.1177/0192513X13490279. King, Toni C., and S.A. Ferguson. Black Womanist Leadership: Tracing the Motherline. State University of New York Press, 2011. Print. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=tzGHYmS-ZxoC& oi=fnd&pg=PR3&dq=Black+mothering&ots=UFcGoZdHn7&sig=egsV7Qjvt_LIuMjXd2UIxHo6 3ZM#v=onepage&q=Black%20mothering&f=falseMental Health America. Phone: (800) 969–6642. www.mentalhealthamerica.net/african-american-mental-health. This resource works nationally and locally to raise awareness about mental health and mental health services, particularly for people of color, by providing research, statistics and general information. This resource also assists one in locating where they can locate mental health screenings as well as local professions services. “Stress and Health Disparities.” American Psychological Association. www.apa.org/pi/health-disparities/ resources/stress.aspx. Accessed 18 Jul. 2017.

Works cited Alexander, M. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Color-Blindness. The New Press, 2010. Anderson, K.O., et al. “Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Pain: Causes and Consequences of Unequal Care.” Journal of Pain, vol. 10, no. 12, 2009, pp. 1187–204.

100

Mothering while Black Ashing, K.T., et al. “Attending to Children’s Wellbeing after Witnessing Race-Based Violence.” Journal of American Medical Association, Pediatrics, vol. 171, no. 6, 2017, pp. 511–519. doi: 10:1001/ jamapediatrics2017.0137 Boyd-Franklin, N. Black Families in Therapy: A Multi-systems Approach. Guilford Press, 1989. Brave Heart, M.Y.H. “Wakiksuyapi: Carrying the Historical Trauma of the Lakota.” Disaster and Traumatic Stress Research and Intervention, edited by M. J. Zakour, Winter/Spring, Tulane University, School of Social Work, 2000, vol. 21–22, pp. 245–266. Cammett, A. “Welfare Queens Redux: Criminalizing Black Mothers in the Age of Neoliberalism.” Cal. Interdisciplinary Law Journal, vol. 25, 2016, pp. 363–93. Collins, P.H. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. Unwin Hyman, 1990. Craddock, Karen T. “Mothering and Mentoring: Exploring Relational Dynamics among Black Women in the Academy.” Journal of the Motherhood Initiative for Research & Community Involvement, vol. 4, no. 1, Spring 2013, pp. 53–66. 14p. ———. “Pushing Back with Our Souls Intact: Young Black Mothers’ Resistance to Marginalization.” Black Motherhood(s): Contours, Contexts and Considerations, edited by K.T. Craddock, Demeter Press, 2015, pp. 36–70. ———. Maternal Wellness: A Conversation with Our Brothers and Sisters – Re-imagining Healthcare Forum. The Wellness Collaborative Inc., Boston. Workshop, remarks, 2019. Davis, D. “ ‘The Bone Collectors’ Comments for Sorrow as Artifact: Black Radical Mothering in Times of Terror.” Transform Anthropology, vol. 24, no. 1, 2016, pp. 8–16. doi: 10.1111/traa.12056. Devlin, R. A Girl Stands at the Door: The Generation of Young Women Who Desegregated American Schools. Basic Books, 2018. Dow, Dawn Marie. “Negotiating ‘The Welfare Queen’ and ‘The Strong Black Woman’: African American Middle-Class Mothers’ Work and Family Perspectives.” Sociological Perspectives, vol. 58, no. 1, Mar. 2015, pp. 36–55. doi: 10.1177/0731121414556546. Dunbar, A.S., et al. “An Integrative Conceptual Model of Parental Racial/Ethnic and Emotion Socialization and Links to Children’s Social-Emotional Development among African American Families.” Child Development Perspectives, vol. 11, no. 1, 2017, pp. 16–22. doi: 10.1111/cdep.12218. Edelman, M.W. Families in Peril: An Agenda for Social Change. Harvard UP, 1987. Everet alt, Joyce E., et al. “A Qualitative Study of the Black Mother-Daughter Relationship: Lessons Learned about Self-Esteem, Coping, and Resilience.” Journal of Black Studies, vol. 47, no. 4, 2016, pp. 334–50. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0021934716629339. Frazier, G. “Birthing Black Motherhood: A Short History of How Race Shapes Childbirth.” Black Motherhood(s): Contours, Contexts and Considerations, edited by K.T. Craddock, Demeter Press, 2015, pp. 147–64. Geronimus, A.T. “The Weathering Hypothesis and the Health of African-American Women and Infants: Evidence and Speculations.” Ethnic Disease, vol. 2, no. 3, 1992, pp. 2017–21. Geronimus, A.T., et al. “ ‘Weathering’ and Age Patterns of Allostatic Load Scores among Blacks and Whites in the United States.” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 96, no. 5, 2006, pp. 826–33. doi: 10:2105/ AJPH.2004.060749. Gilliam, W.S., and Shahar, G. Preschool and child care expulsion and suspension. Infants & Young Children, vol 19, no. 3, 2006, pp. 228–45. Harris-Perry, Melissa V. Sister Citizen: Shame, Stereotypes, and Black Women in America. Yale UP, 2011. Henrich, J., Heine, S., & Norenzayan, A. The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol. 33, 2011, 61–135. Hill, Robert B. The Strengths of Black Families. University Press of America, Inc., 1972. Hughes, Langston. The Collected Poems of Langston Hughes, 1902–1967. Knopf: Distributed by Random House, 1994. Jones, C., and K. Shorter-Gooden. Shifting: The Double Lives of Black Women in America. Harper Collins, 2003. Lewis, M.L. “Getting the Parts Straight: The Psychology of Hair Combing Interaction between AfricanAmerican Mothers and Daughters.” Black Motherhood(s): Contours, Contexts and Considerations, edited by K.T. Craddock, Demeter Press, 2015, pp. 204–20. ———. “For African-American Families, a Daily Task to Combat Negative Stereotypes about Hair.” The Conversation, 9 Feb. 2016. https://theconversation.com/for-african-american-families-a-daily-task-tocombat-negative-stereotypes-about-hair-60154.

101

Marva L. Lewis and Karen T. Craddock ———. “The Intergenerational Transmission of Protective Parent Responses to Historical Trauma.” The Impact of Prejudice: Youth through Adolescence, edited by H.E. Fitzgerald et al., vol. II, Chapter 3. Springer Publishers, 2019, pp. 43–66. Lewis, M.L., et al. “Colorism, a Legacy of Historical Trauma in Parent-Child Relationships: Clinical, Research, & Personal Perspectives.” Zero to Three Journal, vol. 34, no. 2, 2013, pp. 11–23. McAdoo, H.P. Black Families, edited by H.P. McAdoo, Sage, 1981. Mezey, N. “The Privilege of Coming Out: Race, Class, and Lesbians’ Mothering Decisions.” Race, Gender, Sexuality, & Social Class: Dimensions of Inequality and Identity, edited by S.J. Ferguson, 2nd ed., Sage, 2016, pp. 314–22. Moynihan, D.P. The Negro Family: The Case for National Action. Office of Policy Planning and Research. United States Department of Labor, 1964. Narcisse, D.A. “Pride and Joy: African American Mothers’ Influences on their Professional Daughters’ Success.” Race, Gender & Class, vol. 20, no. 1, 2013, pp. 156–76. Nichols, T., and R. McCoy. “Black Mothers’ Messages of Pride to their Adolescent Daughters.” Black Motherhood(s): Contours, Contexts and Considerations, edited by K.T. Craddock, Demeter Press, 2015, pp. 185–203. Parmer, T., et al. “Physical Attractiveness as a Process of Internalized Oppression and Multigenerational Transmission in African American Families.” The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, vol. 12, no. 3, 2004, pp. 230–42. Peters, M.F. “Parenting in Black Families with Young Children: A Historical Perspective.” Black Families, edited by H.F. McAdoo, Sage, 1981, pp. 211–24. Pillow, Wanda S. “Mothering a Black Son Who Dreams of Another Country.” Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies, vol. 15, no. 4, Aug. 2015, pp. 316–21. doi: 10.1177/1532708615578424. Zuberi, T. “Racial Domination and the Evolution of Racial Classification.” Race, Gender, Sexuality, & Social Class: Dimensions of Inequality and Identity, edited by S.J. Ferguson, 2nd ed., Sage, 2016, pp. 60–72.

102

7 WELFARE MOTHERS IN THE UNITED STATES Brianna Turgeon and Kaitlyn Root

Introduction In this chapter, we discuss mothers on welfare in the United States. Like all mothers, women on welfare are subject to scrutiny surrounding their mothering practices. They face similar challenges to women of other class backgrounds in terms of managing work and family (Hays 65). Mothers on welfare are unique, however, in their marked lack of resources as well as the stigma they encounter for relying on government assistance. Specifically, welfare mothers’ lives are shaped by a policy that is informed by myths and stereotypes (Rousseau 138). The controversial history of welfare has made it incredibly political and subsequently mothers on welfare are politicized for relying on public assistance to survive. Collectively, the lack of resources, stigma, and political nature of welfare make it important to better understand the experiences of mothers on welfare. By examining the context and experiences of these women, we can come to a greater understanding of their lives, and reform policies in a way that better meets their needs. We start out with a description of welfare policies, which is important since welfare primarily provides assistance to mothers (85% of welfare recipients are women; 70% come from single-headed households; Office of Family Assistance 6). In this chapter, we further explore the background and context of welfare policies, controlling images often applied to mothers on welfare, the mothering expectations they face, acts of resistance from welfare mothers, and how our changing political and social landscape might guide future research.

Background and context Historical overview: mother’s pensions, AFDC, and TANF Social welfare in the United States began in the early twentieth century with the creation of “mother’s pension” programs to address high rates of poverty (Neubeck and Cazenave 41). Yet, these policies actively excluded mothers of color, focusing on the needs of poor, white mothers (Gilens 18; Neubeck and Cazenave 45). Under New Deal policies, mothers’ pensions evolved into Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) in 1935 (Neubeck and Cazenave 46). Although there were no changes to the policy itself, in 1962 ADC became Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) to place greater emphasis on a two-parent family structure (Blank and 103

Brianna Turgeon and Kaitlyn Root

Blum 31). ADC/AFDC was mostly used by white people from its inception until the civil rights movement (Neubeck and Cazenave 54). From the 1940s to the 1950s, there was a gradual increase in families of color on the welfare rolls (Neubeck and Cazenave 64). The rise of Black families on welfare corresponded to a decline in public opinion on welfare and efforts to abolish AFDC (Gilens 106–07; Neubeck and Cazenave 64). Because of lower public opinion regarding welfare receipt, it became a hot political issue in the 1990s – resulting in election platforms built around welfare policy (Neubeck and Cazenave 227). In 1996, President Clinton and a predominantly Republican Congress reformed welfare, passing the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). PRWORA ended AFDC and created Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) (Gilens 183; Handler 230). This 1996 welfare reform intended to transform welfare from an “entitlement” program to one that focuses on wage labor and transitions to work (Handler 230–31; Iversen 139; Quadagno and Street 53). The major changes to cash assistance during the transition from AFDC to TANF include the creation of work requirements, time limits, and family caps (Handler 230–231; Hays 34–35). The work requirements mandate that clients log a certain number of hours per week at a place of employment or a worksite selected by the program in order to receive benefits (Handler 231). When clients fail to reach these requirements, states are required to reduce their funding through “sanctions” (Handler 233). The time limit on benefit receipt for the cash assistance program that TANF created is a five-year federal time limit, at which point individuals are no longer eligible for benefits. Finally, TANF implemented family caps for cash assistance. Family caps involve denying families an increase in assistance for any additional children they may have after they begin receiving benefits (Neubeck and Cazenave 159). In 2005, Congress reauthorized TANF and made policy changes that were proposed under the Bush administration (Allard 323). Notably for mothers on welfare, the reauthorization included funding programs that encourage marriage and two-parent families (Allard 324). While caseloads have declined since the passage of TANF in 1996, this is primarily because of more stringent requirements for benefit receipt, the work requirements, and diversion to other sources of benefits (Epstein 16; Handler 232–35).

Central themes Controlling images: the welfare queen and the matriarch Welfare policies have historically been racialized, with policymakers generally ignoring the needs of mothers of color (Neubeck and Cazenave 41). Controlling images of black women have been instrumental in shaping ideas about welfare recipients since individuals experiencing poverty have predominately been portrayed as African American (Gilens 102). Controlling images are representations of a group that assert ideological control over them (Collins 71–84). Two racialized images that are relevant to welfare stigma are “the matriarch” and “the welfare queen” (Collins 78–81). The matriarch image is tied to single-headed black households, poverty, “bad” mothering via spending too much time outside of the home, emasculation of male partners, and failure for a woman to submit to her husband within the familial gender hierarchy (Collins 77). The image of the matriarch blames black women for poverty and the outcomes of black children in a way that ignores structural racial inequalities (Collins 78). In the 1960s, the Moynihan Report further associated poverty with black families by presenting black families as “suffering a sickness that is primarily attributed to the failings of Black women as wives and mothers” (Rousseau 51). 104

Welfare mothers in the United States

In the 1970s and 1980s, the “welfare queen” image emerged as a conniving and lavish mother of color who profits off the welfare system (Collins 80; Neubeck and Cazenave 30; Rousseau 52; Soss et al. 33; Zucchino 65). The welfare mother image is tied to images of “breeder women” during slavery, a desire to control the reproduction of a group that leeches money from state funds, opposition to national values, “bad” mothering (like the matriarch), and laziness (Collins 80; Rousseau 138–39). Attributing these characteristics to black mothers is one of the ways that policymakers have constructed black women as unfit mothers who are undeserving of welfare benefits (Neubeck and Cazenave 30; Rousseau 138–39). Constructions of the welfare mother blame black mothers for the continuation of poverty (Collins 81). Foster (168) finds that this image of the welfare queen is influential to public opinion about welfare in general and that Americans struggle to support a program that they think benefits this caricature. Overall, controlling images rely on stereotypes of welfare recipients as black mothers who are dishonest, immoral, sexually promiscuous, exploitative, irresponsible, lazy, and responsible for many social problems (e.g., violent crime, the decline of families) (Neubeck and Cazenave 30; Rousseau 138–39).

Controlling images and colorblind ideology Policymakers and physicians have historically used propaganda relying heavily on negative stereotypes of poor women and women of color to create a panic around their reproduction (Flavin 16; Rousseau 7). Since the late nineteenth century, involuntary sterilizations have been performed on many nonwhite and poor women and framed as a means to help them achieve financial security (Flavin 16; Rousseau 96). While these very real consequences illustrate the power of controlling images of black women, recent welfare reforms have often claimed racial neutrality by targeting poverty and not outwardly using race-based language (Neubeck and Cazenave 9, 221). Yet, scholars have noted how welfare is racialized in a subtle way that is indicative of colorblind ideology (Bonilla-Silva 46–47; Omi and Winant 256). Colorblind ideology holds that we live in a post-racial society and that race no longer has any implications on the outcomes of people’s lives (Bonilla-Silva 42; Omi and Winant 263). Colorblind ideology legitimates individualism and meritocracy by assuming that people have an equal opportunity to succeed and thus that people of color are to blame for their outcomes (Gallagher 25). The rise of colorblind ideology has meant that people use race and racism in more covert ways that are not often identified as racist (Bonilla-Silva 42; Mallinson and Brewster 800; Van Dijk 91). Yet, there are real indicators that racism is still influential to welfare policies (Neubeck and Cazenave 215–42; Soss et al. 12–13; Rousseau 138). For example, under TANF, states that have large black populations have systematically implemented harsher rules. This has occurred largely due to state discretion in forming programs under TANF, resulting in racial biases structured into the programs. Monnat (680) argues that “individuals who administer welfare policies do not have to be explicitly biased; even unbiased caseworkers who carry out the policies of welfare reform contribute to racial inequality within the system.” While the stereotypical image of welfare recipients draws on the image of the welfare queen, the average welfare recipient is really a white woman in her mid-thirties with an average of 1.9 children working a minimum wage job and using welfare as a supplement (Handler 231). Many welfare recipients have had difficulty finding and keeping jobs but use welfare for only a few years (Handler 231). Those who are on welfare longer often have difficult barriers that keep them unemployed, including not completing high school and experiencing mental health issues (Handler 232). Further, some research finds that the focus on day-to-day survival makes transitioning off of welfare difficult and often costly for single mothers to achieve (Edin and Lein 264; Zucchino 14). 105

Brianna Turgeon and Kaitlyn Root

Controversies or challenges in relation to the topic Emphasizing work over mothering The rise of neoliberalism in the United States has made focus on work more important than ever (Soss et al. 20–21). Neoliberalism involves promoting individualism and participation in the labor market (Soss et al. 20–21; Wiggan 385). The government also plays a role in upholding neoliberal labor market values (Soss et al. 20–21). Through a neoliberal lens, people are poor because they do not invest enough effort in labor market endeavors. The emphasis on getting the poor to work disproportionately affects single mothers who are working to cobble together enough resources to survive (Soss et al. 33; Office of Family Assistance 3). This puts a lot of pressure on mothers who are poor to work outside of the home (Chavkin 477). In addition to being required to work to receive welfare benefits, recipients face pressure to find “real jobs” (Edin and Lein 263). However, paid work may be difficult to find (especially in rural areas), and getting a job may cost welfare recipients other benefits (e.g., health insurance, food stamps, etc.) (Edin and Lein 254). While mothers in all economic positions struggle to manage the balance between work and family life, there are specific expectations placed on mothers on welfare (Hays 63–67). These expectations are reflected in the establishment of PRWORA (described earlier), which introduced strict work requirements for recipients of cash assistance (Handler 232). Grounded in neoliberal ideology, these work requirements were intended to emphasize hard work over dependence on state aid (Gross et al. 14; Handler 230). Beyond the tenets of the policy itself, the workers implementing PRWORA often encourage mothers to prioritize work and discourage them from focusing too extensively on their identities as mothers (Taylor et al. 27; Turgeon 128). The pressure to work outside of the home, combined with the requirements of welfare programs, affects the mothering practices available to mothers on welfare (Gross et al. 14–15; Taylor 903–05; Turgeon 128). Middle-class ideals of motherhood center on “intensive mothering” (Hays 72–75), a mothering ideology that requires a large amount of self-sacrifice in terms of time and resources from mothers (Arendell 14). Even when mothers experiencing poverty share family values consistent with the child-centered logic of intensive mothering, their lack of resources is a barrier to realizing these practices (Hays 73). The high demands of welfare programs in terms of work requirements and extensive documentation further interfere with mothers’ ability to practice intensive mothering (Gross et al. 14). Poor mothers however are told that participation in the work force is the only path to good mothering (Chavkin 477; Kennelly 183; Taylor 901). Work, both to provide for their children and to set an example for them, is emphasized as the only route out of poverty (Bloch and Taylor 3; Kennelly 183; Turgeon 133; Taylor 902). Poor mothers who don’t work are viewed as parasitic, irresponsible, and feeding into the “cycle of poverty” (Chavkin 478; Turgeon 129).

Cobbling together resources Poor, working mothers experience the combined stress of handling child care and household needs while working low-wage jobs that do not always allow them to make ends meet (Weigt 345). Since many women on welfare are single mothers (Office of Family Assistance 6), there is often not another parent or partner around to provide income and share responsibilities. Poor mothers must often seek out additional resources beyond cash assistance to get their family through the month (Cook 521–24; Edin and Lein 254; Nelson 70; Stack 93; Zucchino 14). 106

Welfare mothers in the United States

Social support in the form of child care, shared transportation and help with food or housing are common ways that mothers draw on their social networks to make ends meet (Cook 521–24; Edin and Lein 258–62; Nelson 80; Stack 43; Weigt 347; Zucchino 17). Frequent exchange with members of social networks also makes it more common for child care responsibilities to be shared by women other than a child’s biological mother (Collins 180; Stack 62). Monetary help is sometimes harder to find within these social networks however (Cook 524; Stack 105). Generational poverty might mean that asking immediate family for help with bills or rent is not a viable option (Cook 508; Stack 106). For those who have someone financially better off to ask for help, this favor is often saved for what feels like a particularly dire situation (Nelson 91; Stack 106). Alternate sources of income might include work outside of the official labor market and assistance from charity or religious organizations (Gilliom 73–75). Scholars who study the process of mothers assembling resources to survive focus on these women’s agency in making choices and navigating trade-offs (Nelson 67; Stack 24; Zucchino 14). Mothers on welfare and poor mothers in general must be strategic with how they cobble together resources (Nelson 38–41; Zucchino 14). Choices about where to receive resources from often involve considerations of reciprocity and independence (Nelson 63; Stack 32). One of the main reasons that mothers choose not to participate in welfare programs is because they perceive the program’s invasiveness and requirements as a threat to their independence (Nelson 97). Yet, for other mothers, welfare may offer independence from demands of other members of their social network (Nelson 101). Cobbling together resources is another form of “work” that mothers experiencing poverty engage in that takes considerable time and effort and is often rendered invisible (Nelson 44; Zucchino 14).

Resistance from mothers on welfare While receiving welfare, individuals are subject to surveillance and scrutiny that they would not otherwise encounter (Soss et al. 24–28). Yet, mothers on welfare still engage in acts of resistance that undermine both this state surveillance as well as structural inequality more broadly. Here, we provide two examples of ways in which mothers on welfare use their agency to resist. In the first example, Gilliom (73–78) found that women on welfare resisted state surveillance by supplementing their incomes in ways that would not affect their welfare receipt. Side jobs such as babysitting, cleaning houses, or doing hair were all ways that women made a little extra money on the side, despite this activity often being restricted or altogether banned under state regulations. By not reporting this added income to state welfare agencies, women could resist the regulations they are held to by welfare agencies, while at the same time bringing extra income to their families. While this behavior is no different from what middle-class and wealthy families do to avoid additional taxation, their position as welfare recipients places them at greater risk if they are found to be gaming the system (Gilliom 78). Second, McCormack (374) found that various forms of “everyday resistance” were common among mothers. Most women in this study distanced themselves from the controlling image of the “welfare mother.” By doing this, they emphasized the difference between their parenting skills and work ethic, as compared to those of the stereotypical welfare mother. Some women understood poverty as a structural and intergenerational issue and seemed aware of the lack of well-paying jobs available to women on welfare. They denied the notion of being dependent on welfare, as some felt that welfare gave them a certain amount of independence that they would not otherwise have (see also Nelson 103). These women also noted that were it not for them receiving welfare, employees in welfare agencies would not even have a job to do. Further, some women even questioned the middle-class notion of success altogether and especially as 107

Brianna Turgeon and Kaitlyn Root

a measure of moral worth. Some pointed out that those people they knew who were working consistently were still not well-off and others invoked religious doctrine which emphasizes good deeds over financial success. These strategies of distancing themselves from the stereotypical image of a welfare mother allow women to resist the stigma placed on welfare recipients.

Directions for future research In our current political climate, rhetoric surrounding welfare, immigration, and “big government” has steered the conversation towards the question of who should receive welfare benefits. Welfare policies have often been shaped by public perception of the poor, which has historically been guided by the controlling images described earlier. There has long been a distinction between the “deserving” poor (e.g., those experiencing short-term unemployment) and the “undeserving” poor (e.g., single mothers of color), and public opinion guides who falls into each category. As such, we suggest that future research should examine how stereotypes about the poor, and mothers on welfare specifically, continue to shape the political landscape. Rhetoric around immigration was another central topic of the 2016 presidential election. A common misconception surrounding immigration and welfare is that undocumented immigrants are eligible to receive welfare benefits. Similarly, some people believe that immigrants who come to this country and have children are doing so only in order to receive welfare benefits from the US government. These populations – Latinx immigrants, both documented and undocumented – almost certainly would fall into the category of “undeserving” poor in the opinion of many Americans. Knowing this, future studies of welfare might explore the relationship between public opinion about immigration and welfare. As a country that is rapidly moving towards a majority minority population, what might this mean for public opinion of welfare recipients and the development of future welfare policies? Since studying the lives of mothers on welfare involves a complex intersection of inequality, policy, and ideology, we have a variety of readings that we recommend for further information. For readings that focus on the everyday experiences of mothers on welfare, see Hays’s Flat Broke with Children or Edin and Kefalas’s Promises I Can Keep. Additional readings that focus on ideology and controlling images that affect mothers on welfare include Rousseau’s Black Woman’s Burden, a variety of works by Patricia Hill Collins (e.g., Black Feminist Thought), and work by Soss, Fording, and Schram (e.g., Disciplining the Poor). Neubeck and Cazenave’s Welfare Racism provides a thorough overarching account of the racialized history of welfare policies in America. Finally, for further readings specific to the work-family balance of mothers on welfare, see works by Arendell, Taylor and colleagues, and Gross and colleagues.

Conclusion While mothers on welfare face similar challenges to mothers in other class positions, their challenges are often exacerbated by their notable lack of resources and the demands of welfare policies (Hays 130). Controlling images have historically cast welfare mothers as undeserving of state resources and a drain on taxpayer dollars (Collins 77–81; Rousseau 138). These opinions continue to be salient and are heightened by the emphasis on labor market values that has accompanied the rise of neoliberalism. As such, mothers on welfare are primarily encouraged to prioritize work over mothering practices. Prioritizing work is even often reframed as something that is done in the name of providing for one’s children (Turgeon 132). While mothers on welfare are labeled as lazy, they often must engage in additional work to cobble together sufficient resources to supplement their welfare benefits (Edin and Lein 262; Nelson 74; Stack 108

Welfare mothers in the United States

22; Zucchino 14). Despite the impact that structural inequality and government policy have on welfare mothers’ lives, these women often use their agency to draw on resources in a way that maximizes their independence and self-sufficiency (Nelson 95). Furthermore, these mothers engage in “everyday acts of resistance” that subvert some of the societal stereotypes and expectations placed upon them (McCormack 374–76).

Works cited Allard, Scott W. “The Changing Face of Welfare during the Bush Administration.” Journal of Federalism, vol. 37, no. 3, 2007, pp. 304–32. Arendell, Teresa. “Hegemonic Motherhood: Deviancy Discourses and Employed Mothers’ Accounts of Out-of-School Time Issues.” Center for Working Families Working Paper 9, 1999. Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. “The Linguistics of Color Blind Racism: How to Talk Nasty about Blacks without Sounding ‘Racist’.” Critical Sociology, vol. 28, nos. 1–2, 2002, pp. 41–64. Blank, Susan W., and Barbara B. Blum. “A Brief History of Work Expectations for Welfare Mothers.” The Future of Children, vol. 7, no. 1, 1997, pp. 28–38. Bloch, Katrina, and Tiffany Taylor. “ ‘Welfare Queens’ and ‘Anchor Babies’: An Intersectional Analysis of Race, Gender, Class, Nationality and Motherhood.” Mothering in the Age of Neoliberalism, edited by Melinda Giles, Demeter Press, 2014, pp. 199–210. “Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of TANF Recipients, Fiscal Year 2015.” Office of Family Assistance, 18 Aug. 2016, www.acf.hhs.gov/ofa/resource/characteristics-and-financial-circumstancesof-tanf-recipients-fiscal-year-2015. Accessed 13 Sept. 2017. Chavkin, Wendy. “What’s a Mother to Do? Welfare, Work, and Family.” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 89, no. 4, 1999, pp. 477–79. Collins, Patricia Hill. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. Unwin Hyman, Inc., 1990. Cook, Kay. “Neoliberalism, Welfare Policy and Health: A Qualitative Meta-Synthesis of Single Parents’ Experience of the Transition from Welfare to Work.” Health, vol. 16, no. 5, 2012, pp. 507–30. Corcoran, Mary, et al. “How Welfare Reform is Affecting Women’s Work.” Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 26, 2000, pp. 241–69. Edin, Kathryn, and Maria Kefalas. Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage. U of California Press, 2011. Edin, Kathryn, and Laura Lein. “Work, Welfare, and Single Mothers: Economic Survival Strategies.” American Sociological Review, vol. 62, no. 2, 1996, pp. 253–66. Epstein, William M. American Policy Making: Welfare as Ritual. Rowman & Littlefield, 2002. Flavin, Jeanne. Our Bodies, Our Crimes: The Policing of Women’s Reproduction in America. New York UP, 2009. Foster, Carly. “The Welfare Queen: Race, Gender, Class, and Public Opinion.” Race, Gender, and Class, vol. 15, nos. 3–4, 2008, pp. 162–79. Gallagher, Charles A. “Color-Blind Privilege: The Social and Political Functions of Erasing the Color Line in Post Race America.” Race, Gender & Class, vol. 10, no. 4, 2003, pp. 22–37. Gilens, Martin. Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media and the Politics of Anti-Poverty Policy. U of Chicago Press, 1999. Gilliom, John. “Resisting Surveillance.” Social Text, vol. 23, no. 2, 2005, pp. 71–83. Gross, Christi, et al. “State Intervention in Intensive Mothering in the United States: Neoliberalism, New Paternalism, and Poor Mothers in Ohio.” Intensive Mothering: The Cultural Contradictions of Modern Motherhood, edited by Linda Ennis, Demeter Press, 2014, pp. 163–79. Handler, Joel F. “Social Citizenship and Workfare in the US and Western Europe: From Status to Contract.” Journal of European Social Policy, vol. 13, no. 3, 2003, pp. 229–43. Hays, Sharon. Flat Broke with Children: Women in the Age of Welfare Reform. Oxford UP, 2003. Iversen, Roberta. “TANF Policy Implementation: The Invisible Barrier.” Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, vol. 27, no. 2, 2000, pp. 139–59. Kennelly, Ivy. “ ‘That Single Mother Element’: How White Employers Typify Black Women.” Gender & Society, vol. 13, no. 2, 1999, pp. 168–92. Mallinson, Christine, and Zachary W. Brewster. “ ‘Blacks and Bubbas’: Stereotypes, Ideology, and Categorization Processes in Restaurant Servers’ Discourses.” Discourse and Society, vol. 16, no. 6, 2005, pp. 787–807.

109

Brianna Turgeon and Kaitlyn Root McCormack, Karen. “Resisting the Welfare Mother: The Power of Welfare Discourse and the Tactics of Resistance.” Critical Sociology, vol. 30, 2004, pp. 355–83. Monnat, Shannon. “The Color of Welfare Sanctioning: Exploring the Individual and Contextual Roles of Race on TANF Case Closures and Benefit Reductions.” Sociological Quarterly, vol. 51, 2010, pp. 678–707. Nelson, Margaret K. The Social Economy of Single Motherhood: Raising Children in Rural America. Routledge, 2005. Neubeck, Kenneth J., and Noel A. Cazenave. Welfare Racism: Playing the Race Card against America’s Poor. Routledge, 2001. Omi, Michael, and Howard Winant. Racial Formation in the United States. 3rd ed., Routledge, 2015. Quadagno, Jill, and Debra Street. “Ideology and Public Policy: Antistatism in American Welfare State Transformation.” Journal of Policy History, vol. 17, no. 1, 2005, pp. 52–71. Rousseau, Nicole. Black Woman’s Burden: Commodifying Black Reproduction. Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. Soss, Joe, et al. Disciplining the Poor: Neoliberal Paternalism and the Persistent Power of Race. U of Chicago Press, 2011. Stack, Carol B. All Our Kin: Strategies for Survival in a Black Community. Harper & Row, 1974. Taylor, Tiffany. “Re-examining Cultural Contradictions: Mothering Ideology and the Intersections of Class, Gender, and Race.” Sociology Compass, vol. 5, no. 10, 2011, pp. 898–907. Taylor, Tiffany, et al. “What Work/Life Balance? Ohio Welfare-to-Work Program Managers’ Focus on Paid Work.” The Balancing Act: Intersections of Work-Life Balance in Communication across Identities, Genders, and Cultures, edited by Elizabeth Hatfield, Lexington Books, 2017, pp. 25–39. Turgeon, Brianna. “A Critical Discourse Analysis of Welfare-to-Work Program Managers’ Expectations and Evaluations of Their Clients’ Mothering.” Critical Sociology, 27 July 2016, https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0896920516654555. Van Dijk, Teun. “Discourse and the Denial of Racism.” Discourse & Society, vol. 3, 1992, pp. 87–118. Weigt, Jill. “Compromises to Carework: The Social Organization of Mothers’ Experiences in the LowWage Labor Market after Welfare Reform.” Social Problems, vol. 53, no. 3, 2006, pp. 332–51. Wiggan, Jay. “Telling Stories of 21st Century Welfare: The UK Coalition Government and the NeoLiberal Discourse of Worklessness and Dependency.” Critical Social Policy, vol. 32, no. 3, 2012, pp. 383–405. Zucchino, David. Myth of the Welfare Queen. Touchstone, 1997.

110

8 INDIGENOUS MOTHERING Birthing the nation from resistance to revolution Jennifer Brant

Introduction This chapter on Indigenous mothering begins by providing a brief synopsis of the colonial interference that has deeply affected Indigenous mothering practices, families, and communities in Canada. One cannot begin to understand Indigenous mothering without knowledge of this history and the associated intergenerational legacy. That being said, contemporary Indigenous mothering practices are rooted in a time before settler contact and within the Indigenous worldviews and maternal knowledges that have governed our traditions of bringing new life into the physical world since time immemorial. As a collective understanding of birthing the nation, Indigenous mothering moves us beyond resistance of oppression and colonial violence to revolutionary acts of cultural revitalization. This offers an opportunity to share the community work that reawakens the spirit of birth. Texts that highlight Indigenous maternal pedagogies are also shared to express future directions for empowered Indigenous motherhood that dismantles the patriarchal notions of what it means to mother and to be mothered and reveals Indigenous mothering itself as a revolutionary act. With the understanding that this chapter can only offer a reflection of the collective experiences of a group of people who are extremely diverse, I invite the reader to come to know a bit about the commonalities and diversities of those who partake in Indigenous mothering across the generations.

Background and context Within Indigenous worldviews, mothers are understood to be the very first teachers of their children, and, in fact, children are said to be learning as early as in the womb before they are born. Mohawk midwife Katsi Cook (1993) articulated that “women are the first environment” (par. 5). These first teachings, however, are understood to involve a community of support in preparation for new life. Thus, the role of fathering is also central to understandings of Indigenous birthing traditions. Tom Porter describes this practice as it is taught within the Iroquois tradition: When a father and mother are gonna have a child, the mother is pregnant, but the husband is also pregnant. There is no such thing as just the mother, the woman being 111

Jennifer Brant

pregnant. The father is also pregnant because it took two to make that baby. And it takes two to take on the responsibility of that child. (243) This sentiment is echoed by the Anishinaabe teachings as documented by Rebeka Tabobondung, who noted that the idea of “men being pregnant is a concept that cannot be contained within Western defined gender roles” (136). Thus, the traditional understandings of women’s and men’s roles in the birthing and parenting process as expressed in Indigenous worldviews must be understood as counter to ideologies of Western patriarchal gender binaries. Traditionally, there was a community of support that took on the task of raising the next generations from infancy, childhood, youth, and on to adulthood. This communal approach to Indigenous mothering was central to the matrilineal and egalitarian societies of what we refer to as Turtle Island. This particular model of mothering was very different and in fact conflicted with the traditions of European settlers whose worldview and ideologies of gender normativity thrust upon the shores of what has been described as “the new world.”

Historical overview: two worlds colliding “It is women who give birth both in the physical and spiritual sense to the social, political and cultural life of the community” (Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, cited in Anderson, “Giving Life to the People” 774). The aforementioned statement highlights the powerful role of Indigenous women and expresses the essence of a matriarchal worldview that holds women in high esteem. Indigenous teachings, stories, and cultural traditions remind us that Indigenous women held powerful roles in pre-contact societies. Indigenous women were honoured for their ability to give life to the community both in a physical and spiritual sense. Among the Haudenosaunee people, the women were, and continue to be, the backbone of matrilineal communities as Clan Mothers had the final authority in community matters. This matrilineal structure still governs Haudenosaunee communities today amid the multiple junctures of colonial interference. This powerful status of women conflicted with the patriarchal social structure that permeated the settler mindset. As Andrea Smith expressed, settler women were in awe of the power Indigenous women held in matriarchal societies. The demonization of Indigenous womanhood therefore served to protect and enforce the patriarchal family structure. Moreover, Indigenous women were seen as a threat to newcomer visions of patriarchal dominance and expansion (Smith). Indeed, Indigenous women were in the way of settlement on newly discovered lands often described as “terra nullius.” The following Cheyenne proverb is telling in consideration of the colonial mindset that fostered the conquest of what was considered new land: “A nation is not conquered until the hearts of its women are on the ground. Then it is done, no matter how brave its warriors or strong its weapons” (Lavell-Harvard and Corbiere Lavell vii). These oftenquoted words capture the disposition of a colonial agenda threatened by the ability of Indigenous women “to reproduce the next generation of people who can resist colonization” (Smith 78). The perceived threat of Indigenous women led to centuries of forceful assimilationist agendas that severely altered, in some cases completely eradicated, and arguably still target Indigenous women’s right to give birth and mother. Justified by deeply entrenched settler ideologies that deemed Indigenous women uncivilized and uncivilizing, legally sanctioned initiatives such as the Indian Act of 1876, the eugenics movement, the pass system, residential schools, and child welfare interventions directly impeded the birthing and parenting rights of Indigenous women. Associated with some of these interventions were aggressive missionary tactics to Christianize Indigenous families and save them from their savage ways. Indigenous mothering can only be 112

Indigenous mothering

understood within the context of the pervasive forms of colonial violence that have significantly influenced generations of Indigenous families and communities. As Elizabeth Rule expressed, “attacks on Indigenous motherhood functioned as a form of gendered violence in service of settler colonialism” (750). The Indian Act of 1876 was “designed to create a patriarchal family unit in First Nations societies that already had a variety of kinship systems, including many matrilineal and matrilocal ones” (Sangster 307). This act has been described as being “one of the most influential and intrusive acts of legislation in Canadian history” (Cull 147). It was part of an assimilation framework in which every aspect of life for Indigenous peoples was regulated as they were forced into a state of dependency. The Indian Act still exists in Canada today despite the inherent racism and sexism embedded in the Act. Below, I outline several policies that were sanctioned under the Indian Act in an attempt to “civilize” Indigenous women and control family structures and child-rearing practices. It is important to keep in mind that these civilizing and moralizing campaigns were inextricable to the convergence of a patriarchal worldview within a landscape deeply seeped in matrilineal understandings of kinship and governance. In Canada, residential schools operated from 1831 to 1996 by physically removing Indigenous children from their homes and placing them in boarding schools where they were subject to physical, sexual, emotional, and spiritual abuse. Some children went home for the summer, some were not able to return to their families for years, and others never returned. Overcrowding and rampant disease in the schools led to a high mortality rate at an alarming rate of up to 42 percent. My grandmother attended the Mohawk Institute, otherwise known as the Mush Hole in Brantford, Ontario. It was named the Mush Hole by survivors who described the poor quality of food that resembled mush. It was not uncommon for children in residential schools to be forced to eat rotten food. The Mush Hole was the first residential school to open in Canada in 1831 and was initially directed by the Anglican Church. In 1844, the Baggot Commission proposed the separation of Indigenous children from their families to achieve assimilation. The Mohawk Institute served as a model for the residential school system in Canada and ran for nearly 50 years prior to the federal government taking control as part of the larger residential school system. With amendments to the Indian Act of 1876, federal funding for the creation of residential schools was established and by 1896 there were 45 federally funded residential schools across Canada. Residential schools became the primary means, and the driving force to “kill the Indian in the child” (The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015). Although Indian Agents and missionaries haunted Indigenous communities to round up children throughout the 1800s, residential schools did not become mandatory until 1920. The mindset that governed the residential school movement is described by many scholars as a policy of genocide and extermination. The 1920s, nearly 100 years after the Mush Hole opened, were reported to be a time that “laid the foundation for the mass removal of children” (Battiste 55). As Battiste noted, this movement left entire communities without children as a strategy to “root out and destroy Indigenous knowledge, languages, and relationships with the natural family” (56). As Battiste explained, the effects of the pervasive abuses that took place in these schools has resulted in the intergenerational trauma that permeates Indigenous families and communities. Understandings of intergenerational trauma must consider the devastating effects on entire communities that were left without children. Within many Indigenous communities, children are referred to as the heart of the nation. If we consider that from 1830 to 1996, the heart was literally ripped out of Indigenous communities, the severity of the disruption to healthy families and communities becomes clear. Residential schools were significant in the campaign to moralize Indigenous women whose mothering practices were deemed unfit and uncivilized. The residential school system entailed 113

Jennifer Brant

“training women for their exclusively domestic roles. Residential schools took on the job of providing a gendered education that would foster a male breadwinner family model. Boys were trained in trades and farming and girls were schooled in domestic science” (Anderson, “Giving Life to the People” 763). Moreover, these boys and girls were taught to be ashamed of the traditional family practices of their communities. Children left the residential schools without parenting skills and without the knowledge of their family traditions (Anderson, “Giving Life to the People”). While the residential school system was sanctioned to solve the “Indian problem,” it has actually created many of the problems that Indigenous communities face today, including the shift away from traditional family planning practices, and these problems, in turn, continue to be presented as justification for the stereotypes of Indigenous mothering practices as inferior. The threat of Indigenous women set in place other acts of colonial violence that were both gendered and sexualized. The image of Indigenous women as uncivilized and uncivilizing placed particular constraints on their movement off reserve. The pass system was justified by the notion that Indigenous women were “incongruous, corrupting, and demoralizing. Classified as prostitutes, [Indigenous] women were seen as particular threats to morality and health” (Carter 158). Thus, movement of Indigenous women off reserve was largely prohibited by the pass system of 1882–1935. If an Indigenous woman was found off the reserve without a pass she would be arrested and ordered back to the reserve. The moral regulation of Indigenous women and their segregation to reserves severely limited their access to resources. Carter advised that basic sanitary items such as soap and wash basins were not available to the women, and the lack of textiles and yarn made clothing scarce as well. Despite acknowledgement that Indigenous women had no means to acquire these basic needs “the tendency was to ascribe blame to the women rather than to draw attention to conditions that would injure the reputation of government administrators” (150). For many Indigenous women, the opportunity to become a mother was denied through the forced and legal sterilizations that took place during the eugenics movement in Canada. The eugenics movement allowed for the legal sterilization of women who were deemed unfit to mother according the Sexual Sterilization Act. This was particularly troubling for Indigenous women as it is estimated that 25–50 percent of Indigenous women were sterilized under this legislation (Anderson, A Recognition of Being; Carter). Although the Sexual Sterilization Legislation in Canada was repealed in 1973, coerced sterilization of Indigenous women continues today. In fact, a number of Indigenous women recently came forward prompting an external review in 2017 entitled Tubal Ligation in the Saskatoon Health Region: The Lived Experience of Aboriginal Women (Boyer and Bartlett). The deliberate attack on the right of Indigenous women to mother their own children continued during what is referred to as the “Sixties Scoop.” This involved the mass removal of children from Indigenous homes and into state care. Children were relocated away from their families and communities, and in most cases, siblings were separated. Many Indigenous children from Canada were adopted out to families in the United States, some were sent as far as New Zealand and Australia. Any records that identified their birth families or home communities were destroyed. Many of those children, now middle-aged adults, are trying to find out where they came from, unaware of their nation and home communities. This continues today with an alarming number of Indigenous children currently in state care, a reality now referred to as a millennium scoop. As Cindy Blackstock reported, the number of Indigenous children in state care is significantly higher than the number of children who attended residential schools. In fact, in the province of Manitoba alone, there are over 10,000 children in state care and nearly 90% of these children have been apprehended from Indigenous families. These attacks on Indigenous women’s right to physically give birth and care for their own children have 114

Indigenous mothering

severely altered Indigenous communities, most notably through parenting and family planning traditions.

Central theories/themes: Indigenous ideologies of motherhood For Indigenous women, empowered mothering is connected with the Indigenous ideologies of motherhood that informed our worldviews and ancient traditions of physically and spiritually bringing forth new life. These teachings varied from nation to nation but were largely rooted in understandings of the interconnectedness of all living things and showcase how cultural teachings related to mothering are embedded within the teachings that Mother Earth provides. Among the Haudenosaunee and the Anishnaabee people, strawberry teachings offer valuable lessons about family planning and rebirth within our communities. These strawberry teachings are presented in lifestage ceremonies such as the Berry Fast – a ceremony that honours the transition from girlhood to womanhood. Mohawk midwife Katsi Cook explained how the strawberry teachings are related to Indigenous teachings on family planning and sustaining life. In The Spirit of the Berry Speaks to us Still, Cook described the strawberry spirit: It is sacred food because we understand and fulfill our relationship to it as human beings. We remember its protective power in our linguistics and we still share the stories . . . of the berry spirit. The central theme of those stories always has to do with the power of love in healing and maintaining harmonious relations. One of our names for the wild strawberry is “heart-berry”, special among the berry people for its very essence: the way it smells, the way it looks, the way it tastes, the way it makes us feel when we eat it. Even the way it sends out red runners along the ground to reproduce itself inspires us to think of the regeneration of our own families. (61) This connects to not only the ways in which Mother Earth nurtures, sustains, and endlessly gives, but also to the very teachings that can be found in the life continuum of the strawberry plant. This sentiment of Indigenous ideologies of motherhood and the interconnectedness with all living things was also expressed in the recent and controversial #Sealfie campaign in which Inuk throat singer Tanya Tagaq defended seal-hunting practices and confronted settler environmentalism and the gendered violence that continues to attack Indigenous women today. Traditional seal hunting is understood within the values of reciprocity and balance within the natural environment (Rule). As Tagaq, who herself is a residential school survivor, explained, seal-­ hunting practices are critical to the well-being of Indigenous families in Canada’s most remote fly-in community. In 2014, she posted a photo of her daughter lying beside a dead seal. The photo was shared on Twitter as part of the #Sealfie movement to showcase the peacefulness of traditional seal hunting. Tagaq explained that she uses her platform as an international awardwinning artist to highlight the beauty of Indigenous cultures and raise awareness about the continued interference of settler colonialism. In response to settler environmentalism expressed in the anti-seal-hunting rhetoric, Tagaq’s Sealfie was intended to draw awareness to traditional teachings of a way of life that is rooted in understandings of the reciprocal relationships between all living things and the profound way in which thanks is given to the seal spirit: I took that picture long before the “Sealfie” movement at an Elder’s camp in the middle of nowhere. Some Elders were sitting around drinking tea in the summertime and it was very peaceful. A boat pulled up and it was their nephew who had caught a seal. 115

Jennifer Brant

They were so happy to be able to have the seal for the fur, for tanning, and to eat. You can weave the intestines together to make rope. Every single part of that beautiful animal is used. One of the traditions is to melt snow in your mouth and then put it into the seal’s mouth so their spirit isn’t thirsty in the afterlife. It is a deep respect. (cited in Freeman) The responses to Tagaq’s Sealfie, however, present a clear snapshot of the way in which racist notions of Indigenous cultures remain deeply embedded in settler colonialism and continue to manifest in gendered violence. Online harassment included comments suggesting that Tagaq is an unfit mother and violent images that photoshopped the original #Sealfie. In one image her daughter appears to be getting stabbed, in another Tagaq’s face is peeled off. Indeed as Rule articulated: Settler colonialism continues to wage attacks on Indigenous cultures and, in these efforts, specifically targets Indigenous women with accusations of unfit motherhood as a way to disrupt or halt the transmission of certain cultural ways from mother to child. (749) Rule further explained how historical attacks on Indigenous women are intentionally gendered and intricately connected to recent attacks on Indigenous motherhood and noted that the connection between historical and contemporary forms of gendered violence must be understood. Anderson advised that “Indigenous ideologies of motherhood are distinct from patriarchal western models of motherhood, and this means that strategies for empowered mothering are also distinct” (“Giving Life to the People” 775). Tagaq’s Sealfie, as an act of digital resistance (Rule), serves as a prominent example of an act of empowered mothering. Moreover, according to Lavell-Harvard and Corbiere Lavell (“Until Our Hearts Are on the Ground”), it is the very distinctiveness of Indigenous mothering that is empowering: The historical persistence of our cultural difference generation after generation (despite the best assimilative efforts of both Church and State) is a sign of our strength and our resistance. That we have historically, and continually, mothered in a way that is “different” from the dominant culture, is not only empowering for our women, but is potentially empowering for all women. (3) Extending this notion, Lina Sunseri pointed out that “an alternative to patriarchal mothering has always existed in Indigenous communities.” Sunseri explained, “empowered mothering recognizes that when mothers practice mothering from a position of agency rather than of passivity, of authority rather than of submission, and of autonomy rather than of dependency, all, mothers and children alike, become empowered” (57). Indeed as Lavell-Harvard and Corbiere Lavell (“Until Our Hearts Are on the Ground”) contend “the voices of our sisters, and their accounts of our longstanding resistance to the imposition of patriarchal motherhood and all it entails, can be a source of empowerment in the struggle for revolution (5–6). Anderson (“Giving Life to the People”) documented Indigenous ideologies of mothering as “strategies of resistance, reclamation, and recovery” (762) drawing attention to the resiliency of Indigenous women in their ability to hold on to and practice traditional customs despite colonial influences and the role that reclaiming those practices has in the healing and recovery of Indigenous families. The aforementioned work of Katsi Cook in advancing Indigenous midwifery 116

Indigenous mothering

and Tanya Tagaq’s commitment to traditional seal-hunting practices are deeply rooted in Indigenous community well-being and thus serve as strategies of resistance, reclamation, and recovery.

Controversies or challenges in relation to the topic Policing of Indigenous moms. The troubling responses to Tanya Tagaq’s Sealfie draw attention to the contemporary attacks on Indigenous motherhood. Indeed, as Rule wrote, “accusations of unfit Indigenous motherhood exist as contemporary iterations of the enduring, powerful ideologies that once fueled mid-nineteenth- and early twentieth-century residential schools, sterilizations, and adoption and foster care abuses” (741). Moreover, as Darlene Juschka articulated, “for Indigenous women reproductive rights include their ability to transmit their culture to their children” (37). Indigenous mothers continue to “live their lives under a state-controlled microscope and no one’s life or behaviours look acceptable under that type of unnatural and unjust scrutiny” (Cull 153). This type of policing must be understood as the continued legacy of residential schooling that “impacts on successive generations of mothers and their abilities to nurture” (Gosselin 199). These “current neo-colonial discourses [serve] as justification to mark Indigenous parents as neglectful and abusive as well as the removal of children from their home environments” (Gosselin 199). Evidently the same moralizing campaign that was designed to attack the very heart of Indigenous communities through the residential school system, the sixties scoop, forced and coerced sterilizations and pervasive gendered violence continues to threaten the most vulnerable of Canadian society – Indigenous mothers and their children. The vulnerability of Indigenous women and their children must be understood within the context of racialized and sexualized violence that persists in Canada today. Not only are Indigenous mother’s over-policed but they continue to be under-protected. This is reflected in the appalling rates of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls in Canada. Indigenous two-spirit/queer critiques. Another attack on Indigenous mothering and Indigenous maternal knowledges is the imposition of binary understandings of patriarchal models of motherhood. Juschka noted that “for colonization to be successful, it was necessary to dismantle the gender fluidity and equivalent gender relations among Indigenous peoples” (15). Rule explained that “the violent repercussions of naturalizing heteropatriarchy and heteropaternalism similarly manifest in attacks against the Indigenous lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual and Two-Spirit community” (743). Mothering within an Indigenous understanding is inclusive and speaks to the balance among the multiple genders. This is expressed in Elder Betty McKenna’s statement that “our warriors will come full circle so that mothering will once again not be separated by gender” (cited in Stonechild xi). Thus, a fulsome understanding of Indigenous ideologies of motherhood must take into account that decolonizing Indigenous mothering practices must resist essentialist notions of the very word “maternal” and reclaim the power of matriarchal worldviews. The emergence of critical scholarship such as Indigenous Two-Spirit/Queer Critiques “imagine[s] continued decolonial movements that centre resistance to heteropatriarchy and colonial gender regimes” (Driskill et al. 6) and creates a space to articulate the gender inclusivity of Indigenous maternal pedagogies.

Maternal evacuation “Georgina, a mother of Mi’kmaq heritage, is in the last stage of her pregnancy. Reluctantly, she is preparing to leave her home community of Port-aux-Basques, located on the southwestern tip of Newfoundland, to give birth in the only remaining maternity hospital in her health region, the Western Memorial Regional Hospital in Corner Brook, 220 kilometres away from her 117

Jennifer Brant

family and friends. Her chances of having a maternity doctor or midwife she knows attend her birth are slim to none, and there is a 30% chance that her baby will be delivered by Caesarean section” (Benoit). Maternal evacuation is another significant challenge faced by many Indigenous women in Canada who live in remote communities. For the women of these communities, what was once a celebrated community event is now experienced as a lonely, isolated event, away from home (Cidro et al.). Women have to travel long distances to deliver in urban settings, where they are likely to be far removed from the necessary support network that typically accompanies the birthing process. Rachel Olsen documented the current practices of maternal evacuation in relation to risk management by drawing attention to the negative effects of relocating for birth such as newborn complications, increased postpartum depression, and decreased breastfeeding rates. Olsen articulated that the risks associated with delivering away from biomedical technology do not account for the risks associated with isolation and travelling long distances to deliver. Moreover, Olsen contended that delivery in the hospital setting, according to the birth stories she encountered, highlight a lack of support to negotiate the birthing experience. The birth stories documented in the studies of Olsen and Cidro et al. demonstrate the interference of the biomedical and neoliberal patriarchal capitalist regimes that are contemporary iterations of colonial interference into the lives of Indigenous women. The birth stories also highlight the urgency of returning birth to Indigenous communities by supporting Indigenous midwifery practices and establishing health care centres in remote communities. This is both a need and a desire as expressed in the following section.

Bringing the spirit of birth back to our communities I try to keep alive the work that my grandmother did, she who delivered me in her big white iron bed at her farmhouse, and who learned what she knew from her mother. I’m third or maybe even fourth-generation midwife in my community. I’m delivering babies to children of babies my grandmother delivered, and so the continuity of that is very meaningful. (Katsi Cook, qtd. in Wessman and Harvey)

“The transition of a baby coming through the door of the spirit world and into the physical world is considered a ceremony for the mother and child, and for her community” (Tabobondung et al. 82) Reclaiming Indigenous midwifery practices is an act of revitalizing Indigenous birth knowledges. As these knowledges have largely been suppressed by the colonial acts noted earlier, Tabobondung expressed the need to “spend time recalling our pre-contact knowledges” (133). Her research focuses on reclaiming ancestral knowledge that has been passed down in the oral tradition and includes contemporary stories that express resilience against assimilationist efforts within the context of the shifting landscape of lived experiences. Other Indigenous scholars position the revitalization of Indigenous midwifery as an expression of sovereignty (Tabobondung et al.; Simpson). Indeed, as Simpson articulated, decolonizing Indigenous birth experiences is a revolutionary act; “by reclaiming pregnancy and birth, we are not only physically decolonizing ourselves but we are also providing a decolonized pathway into this world” (28). Efforts to reclaim Indigenous midwifery practices across Canada have been largely successful with growing support of the National Aboriginal Council of Midwives and the establishment of new Indigenous birthing centres across the country. However, as the stories of maternal 118

Indigenous mothering

evacuation reveal, there is significant need for support and funding to bring the spirit of birth back to Indigenous communities.

Directions for future research Tanya Tagaq’s experience upon defending the tradition of seal hunting practices must be understood within the context of a history of settler and gendered violence. “The interconnectedness of the attacks on Tagaq’s physical well-being, traditions, and motherhood speak to the larger colonialist effort to end the intergenerational reproduction of Indigenous culture, and attempts to do so through campaigns of violence against Indigenous women” (Rule). A common thread throughout Indigenous feminisms and studies on Indigenous motherhood is the pervasiveness of gendered colonial violence. As Rule articulated, a new conceptual framework for articulating this violence is necessary as it manifests in new attacks on Indigenous ideologies of motherhood as expressed by settler environmentalism within the context of antiseal-hunting rhetoric. Indigenous maternal pedagogies, presented in the texts that follow, offer a theorizing space for understanding the intricacies of settler and gendered violence and in doing so must consider the intersections of heteropatriarchy and colonial gender regimes.

Further reading Anderson, Kim. Life Stages and Native Women: Memory, Teachings and Story Medicine. U of Manitoba P, 2011. Bourassa, Carrie, et al. Listening to the Beat of Our Drum: Indigenous Parenting in Contemporary Society. Demeter Press, 2017. Brant, Jennifer. “From Historical Memories to Contemporary Visions: Honouring Indigenous Maternal Histories.” Journal of the Motherhood Initiative for Research and Community Involvement, vol. 5, no. 1, Mothers and History, 2014, pp. 35–52. Brant, Jennifer, and Kim Anderson. “In the Scholarly Way: Marking Generations of Inroads to Empowered Indigenous Mothering.” What Do Mothers Need? Motherhood Activists and Scholars Speak out on Maternal Empowerment for the 21st Century, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, Demeter Press, 2012, pp. 203–08. Lavell-Harvard, Dawn Memee, and Kim Anderson. Mothers of the Nations: Indigenous Mothering as Global Resistance, Reclaiming, and Recovery. Demeter Press, 2014. Lavell-Harvard, Dawn Memee, and Jeannette Corbiere Lavell. “Until Our Hearts Are on the Ground”: Aboriginal Mothering, Oppression, Resistance and Rebirth. Demeter Press, 2006. Neufeld, Hannah Tait, and Jaime Cidro. Indigenous Experiences of Pregnancy and Birth. Demeter Press, 2017. Olsen, Rachel. “Bodies of Water: Exploring Birth Place and Ceremony in Manitoba, Canada.” Pimatisiwin: A Journal of Aboriginal and Indigenous Community Health, vol. 10, no. 3, 2013, pp. 341–51.

Conclusion This chapter has documented years of colonial attacks on Indigenous women and mothers. These attacks, however, are no match for the power of Indigenous maternal epistemologies that have governed the many diverse nations across Turtle Island since time immemorial. These maternal teachings are expressed in different ways today as creative acts of resistance, reclamation, and renewal. While, Indigenous families continue to experience the multiple effects of intergenerational traumas, the powerful legacy of maternal knowledges has awakened to bring balance back to Indigenous communities. Neufeld and Cidro describe this as a sacred time for decolonized possibilities. Indigenous women, families, and communities experienced this through a collective synergy when midwives delivered an Indigenous child at the Standing Rock Reservation surrounded by water protectors gathered to support the spirit of birth on the frontlines. Not only is this a powerful example of a decolonized pathway into the physical 119

Jennifer Brant

world, it is a deeply profound act of Indigenous midwifery as an expression of sovereignty over Indigenous lands and bodies. As Neufeld and Cidro wrote, “a reclamation of the value of place and ceremony has been ignited within Indigenous women across the world as they repossess their rights to protect water, starting with the water inside them” (9). My understandings of empowered Indigenous motherhood are shaped by the contemporary revolution of reclaiming Indigenous epistemologies of birth knowledge, the richness and beauty of Indigenous cultures, the strength that is expressed in our resistance movements, and the ongoing work of reclaiming and preserving our cultural traditions; a powerful legacy I can pass on to my children. The collective synergy of efforts to reclaim Indigenous ideologies of mothering have left our youngest with a powerful legacy that will continue to be passed down to our future generations as we continue to birth our nations.

Works cited Anderson, Kim. A Recognition of Being: Reconstructing Native Womanhood. Sumach Press, 2000. ———. “Vital Signs: Reading Colonialism in Contemporary Adolescent Family Planning.” Strong Women Stories: Native Vision and Community Survival, edited by Kim Anderson and Bonita Lawrence, Sumach Press, 2003, pp. 173–90. ———. “Giving Life to the People: An Indigenous Ideology of Motherhood.” Maternal Theory: Essential Readings, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, Demeter Press, 2007, pp. 761–81. Battiste, Marie. Decolonizing Education: Nourishing the Learning Spirit. Purich, 2013. Benoit, Cecilia. “Modern Maternity Care in Canada.” The Vanier Institute of the Family, vol. 45, no. 4, 2015, pp. 3–6. Blackstock, Cindy. “First Nations Child and Family Services: Restoring Peace and Harmony in First Nations Communities.” Child Welfare: Connecting Research, Policy, and Practice, edited by K. Kufeldt and B. McKenzie, Wilfrid Laurier UP, 2003, pp. 331–42. Boyer, Yvonne, and Judith Bartlett. “External Review: Tubal Ligation in the Saskatoon Health Region: The Lived Experience of Aboriginal Women.” Saskatoon Health Region, 2017, https://www.saskatoon healthregion.ca/DocumentsInternal/Tubal_Ligation_intheSaskatoonHealthRegion_the_Lived_Expe rience_of_Aboriginal_Women_BoyerandBartlett_July_22_2017.pdf. Carter, Sarah. “Categories and Terrains of Exclusion: Constructing the ‘Indian Woman’ in the Early Settlement Era in Western Canada.” In the Days of Our Grandmothers: A Reader in Aboriginal Women’s History in Canada, edited by Mary-Ellen Kelm and Lorna Townsend, U of Toronto P, 2008, pp. 146–69. Carvell, Marlene. Sweetgrass Basket. Dutton Children’s Books, 2005. Cidro, Jaime, et al. “Bored, Broke, and Alone: Experiences of Pregnant and Expectant First Nations Mothers Birthing in and out of the Community.” Indigenous Experiences of Pregnancy and Birth, edited by Hannah Tait Neufeld and Jamie Cidro, Demeter Press, 2017, pp. 73–90. Cook, Katsi. “Mothers the First Environment.” Women Healthsharing, vol. 13, no. 4, 1993, pp. 22–24. ———. “Spirit of the Berry Speaks to Us Still.” Native Americas, vol. 2, no. 2, 2004, pp. 60–61. Cull, Randi. “Aboriginal Mothering under the State’s Gaze.” “Until Our Hearts Are on the Ground”: Aboriginal Mothering, Oppression, Resistance and Rebirth, edited by D. Memee Lavell-Harvard and Jeannette Corbiere Lavell, Demeter Press, 2006, pp. 141–56. Driskill, Qwo-Li, et al. Sovereign Erotics: A Collection of Two-Spirit Literature. U of Arizona P, 2011. Freeman, John. “Breath of the Inuit: Tanya Tagaq Interviewed.” 2015, thequietus.com/articles/17065tanya-tagaq-animism-interview. Gosselin, Cheryl. “They Let Their Kids Run Wild”: The Policing of Aboriginal Mothering in Quebec. “Until Our Hearts Are on the Ground”: Aboriginal Mothering, Oppression, Resistance and Rebirth, edited by D. Memee Lavell-Harvard and Jeannette Corbiere Lavell, Demeter Press, 2006, pp. 196–206. Juschka, Darlene. “Indigenous Women, Reproductive Justice, and Indigenous Feminisms: A Narrative.” Listening to the Beat of Our Drum: Indigenous Parenting in Contemporary Society, edited by Carrie Bourassa et al., Demeter Press, 2017, pp. 13–45. Lavell-Harvard, Dawn Memee, and Kim Anderson. Mothers of the Nations: Indigenous Mothering as Global Resistance, Reclaiming, and Recovery. Demeter Press, 2014.

120

Indigenous mothering Lavell-Harvard, Dawn Memee, and Jeannette Corbiere Lavell. “Until Our Hearts Are on the Ground”: Aboriginal Mothering, Oppression, Resistance and Rebirth. Demeter Press, 2006. ———. “What More Do You People Want? The Unique Needs of Aboriginal Mothers in a Modern Context.” What Do Mothers Need? Motherhood Activists and Scholars Speak out on Maternal Empowerment for the 21st Century, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, Demeter Press, 2012, pp. 107–22. Neufeld, Hannah Tait, and Jaime Cidro. Indigenous Experiences of Pregnancy and Birth. Demeter Press, 2017. Olsen, Rachel. “Bearing Witness: Rural Indigenous Women’s Experiences of Childbirth in an Urban Hospital.” Indigenous Experiences of Pregnancy and Birth, edited by Hannah Tait Neufeld and Jaime Cidro, Demeter Press, 2017, pp. 91–110. Porter, Tom. And Grandma Said . . . Iroquois Teachings as Passed Down Through the Oral Tradition. Author, 2008. Rule, Elizabeth. “Seals, Selfies, and the Settler State: Indigenous Motherhood and Gendered Violence in Canada.” American Quarterly, vol. 70, no. 4, 2018, pp. 741–54. Sangster, Joan. “Native Women, Sexuality, and the Law.” In the Days of Our Grandmothers: A Reader in Aboriginal Women’s History in Canada, edited by Mary-Ellen Kelm and Lorna Townsend, U of Toronto P, 2008, pp. 301–35. Simpson, Leanne. “Birthing an Indigenous Resurgence: Decolonizing Our Pregnancy and Birthing Ceremonies.” “Until Our Hearts Are on the Ground”: Aboriginal Mothering, Oppression, Resistance and Rebirth, edited by D. Memee Lavell-Harvard and Jeannette Corbiere Lavell, Demeter Press, 2006, pp. 25–33. Smith, Andrea. “Not an Indian Tradition: The Sexual Colonization of Native Peoples.” Hypatia, vol. 18, no. 2, 2003, pp. 70–85. Stonechild, Blair. “Foreword.” Listening to the Beat of Our Drum: Indigenous Parenting in Contemporary Society, edited by Carrie Bourassa et al., Demeter Press, 2017, pp. xi–xiii. Sunseri, Lina. “Sky Woman Lives On: Contemporary Examples of Mothering the Nation.” First Voices: An Aboriginal Women’s Reader, edited by Patricia Monture and Patricia McGuire, Inanna, 2009, pp. 54–62. Tabobondung, Rebeka. “Revitalizing Traditional Indigenous Birth Knowledge.” Indigenous Experiences of Pregnancy and Birth, edited by Hannah Tait Neufeld and Jamie Cidro, Demeter Press, 2017, pp. 129–43. Tabobondung, Rebeka, et al. “Indigenous Midwifery as an Expression of Sovereignty.” Mothers of the Nations: Indigenous Mothering as Global Resistance, Reclaiming, and Recovery, edited by D. Memee LavellHarvard and Kim Anderson, Demeter Press, 2014, pp. 71–87. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future, Summary of the Final Report, 2015. Wessman, J., and N. Harvey. An Interview with Katsi Cook. Talking Leaves, Spring, 2000.

121

9 VOLUNTARILY CHILDLESS WOMEN A look at Western society and the definition of motherhood Emilie Lewis Introduction Little scholarly attention has really been given to women who choose not to have children in Western, Christian society. Women or couples who prove infertile are pitied by society, while women who marry men and have children are upheld as the societal standard. This heteronormative framework has long been reinforced by Christian religion and upheld by legal definitions of marriage. The concept of relationships – and parents – consisting of one man and one woman is slowly beginning to shift, but the dominant framework in Western society remains that of heteronormative couples. But fertile women who choose not to become mothers are cast out as “others” who don’t fit into Western society’s understanding of what a woman is and should be. Society’s binary gender system and the essentialist view that all women want to be mothers is largely to blame for this understanding. As it stands today, voluntarily childless women upset Western, binary understandings of gender but, by broadening the definition of womanhood, these women can find their place in society and still be understood as complete women outside the realm of motherhood. This chapter will look at the historical and current development and implications of voluntarily childless women by exploring definitions, historical perspectives, critical issues, current contributions, recommendations for further discussions, and suggested further reading. This chapter refers only to Western society built predominantly by and colonized for Christians (i.e., western Europe, the United States, Canada, and Australia). This is to narrow the scope and focus of this chapter and is enforced by the authors cited within.

Background and context In this chapter, women are defined by the author as those with a womb and who identify with a more female gender embodiment, going along with the commonly accepted Western binary terms. The term “voluntarily childless women” is used to represent those who are fertile but choose not to have children. This term is used because of its stance as the most popular description of this group within current academic study. “Voluntarily childfree women” is also commonly used. 122

Voluntarily childless women

Historical perspectives In Western history, all women are understood to be mothers. This idea is still the root of the view that motherhood is a woman’s main purpose in life. The prevalence of this idea comes from the use of essentialism of motherhood in Western history. Essentialism, the idea that within each person is an “essence” of gender, supports the idea that people are men or women as determined by something specifically “male” or “female” about their essence and function. The idea stems from the works of Plato in roughly 360 b.c.e. and has been upheld ever since, supported by Christianity and encouraged through the widespread movement of the religion across the Western world (Ann Taylor Allen). The essentialist viewpoint of women as mothers starts with the biblical story of Adam and Eve. Originating in the chapter of Genesis, Adam and Eve are the first humans, placed upon the earth by God. Although science has since proven otherwise, many people, Christian or not, still think of this story as the very beginning, the creation of Man and Woman. Thus begins Western society’s belief in a two-gender system. Because of the wide sect of the world that practiced Christianity, this viewpoint crossed from the edges of Western Europe to North America and beyond as colonization in the name of God spread, namely with the British. This binary allows for only two versions of humans: men and women. Those in the men category possess a penis and sperm and those in the Women category possess a vagina and a womb. It has long been thought that reproduction is the ultimate goal and only possibility for interaction between the two sexes, an idea that is strongly supported by the religious requirement stated in the chapter of Genesis to “be fruitful and multiply” in order to create more Christians and therefore control more of the world. Throughout recorded Western history, women have been equated with mothers. There has been such an inextricable link between the two that they are often identified as one and the same. A woman’s purpose in life was to find a husband and have children. She was expected to cook, clean, take care of her husband’s every need, and raise children while potentially facing death each time she brought the next one into the world. A woman was a mother just as a man was a citizen, property owner, and the real foundation of society. But women were only allowed to fulfill this duty of motherhood via marriage. To better control a woman and the exchange of property from one generation to the next, marriage was used as a means of ownership and possession. A man was the head of the household and his wife and children were subservient to him. His sons where his heirs, inheriting business and property, and the legitimacy of these heirs was determined by tight control of a woman passed from her father to her husband. She was to possess no knowledge of another man, though men were free to frequent local brothels or other establishments at their leisure. This patriarchal system was never questioned as it was believed to be natural – the way that God intended things to be. This very same God put certain leaders into power. The entirety of the British monarchy was based on the God-given right to the throne (whether that right be given via birth or a win in battle). This system was never questioned and, until Elizabeth I, no woman was accepted as heir to a major Western throne. It was, after all, Eve who caused the downfall of man. Not a thought was given to a woman’s choice in having children in these marriages. It was assumed that she wanted children and that it was her natural duty to provide them simply because it was her body that could do so. There was no access to guaranteed birth control other than abstinence, and that wasn’t an option for the majority of married women. Many women died in childbirth but were quickly replaced with another wife, another mother, all interchangeable so long as they continued to provide offspring, particularly more men (Allen). The rise of capitalism in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries provided yet another facet of the woman-as-mother argument. Now the incentive to provide heirs wasn’t just to continue 123

Emilie Lewis

the exchange of property from one generation to another, but it was one’s moral duty to provide workers for the state. In fact, “maternity, though still regarded as a moral duty, was also re-conceptualized as a productive activity that manufactured the most important commodity of all, citizens” (Allen 65–66). More workers and consumers were needed to keep the economy going; thus, women were told their job in society was to create more workers above anything else. Particular attention was also paid to which citizens were reproducing – which classes of people were offering up these new workers. As Michel Foucault suggests, people, particularly women, were controlled because of the functions of power of the state. The power of man over woman was reinforced in law, societal standards, and religion, and this power appeared through capitalism and the need for unified workers that were trainable and replaceable. Pseudo-science even argued for medical reasons why women were not equal to men – smaller brains, weaker muscles, and good old hysteria (Foucault). But at the turn of the twentieth century, a new movement in regards to motherhood arose – the feminist reclaiming of motherhood from Christianity. Although the concept of feminism is now irrevocably associated with a woman’s right to choose what happens to her body, feminists of a hundred years ago decided to reclaim motherhood as their platform (Allen). Feminists of the early 1900s through 1920s fought not only for their right to vote but also encouraged women to embrace that ultimate, essential duty of motherhood. It was a moral obligation – a way to influence the next generation and revel in all that it meant to be a woman. Motherhood was the ultimate step toward becoming a fully embodied woman, and it was therefore necessary in order to become one’s true self and a fully matured adult. The writings of Simone De Beauvoir in the 1950s were some of the first as a feminist response to motherhood that decoupled femininity and motherhood and referenced the “enforced maternity” of today’s society, discussing the seemingly unshakeable link between woman and mother (485). “From infancy,” De Beauvoir writes, “woman is told over and over that she is made for childbearing” (491). Even today this has been embedded within society, told to little girls as they are handed dolls and expected to begin their mothering skills. De Beauvoir points out that this view dooms women to a dependence on men, never mind allowing space for those who identify as homosexual, bisexual, or asexual. There is only heterosexuality in this world and all women are to become mothers. De Beauvoir succinctly points out that separating women from the idea of motherhood is the only way to break free of the label, to transcend society’s understanding of woman, but essentialism still stands in the way. There is an idea that all women possess some innate longing of motherhood, some “maternal desire” that she carries within her until she has babies and is ultimately fulfilled. This essentialist view of gender and its use against women is also poignantly articulated by Adrienne Rich in her 1976 work Of Woman Born. Commenting on De Beauvoir’s earlier work in order to clearly demonstrate how society has enforced these binary understandings, Rich cites the forced communion between mother and woman as the main point of control over women’s bodies. She says, “women are controlled by lashing us to our bodies,” and states that this control is in turn used to prove that, since all women have babies, all women must want babies (Rich 13). Rich believes the very root of patriarchy rests in this control and claims, “institutional motherhood revives and renews all other institutions” (45). In order for the power to be maintained and society to continue as always, women must be told that it is their duty and desire to have children, to create more humans to feed into the patriarchal structure and therefore that essentialism is being used to control women’s lives. Rich argues that part of this is done via the Catholic Church, which postures the idea that a soul resides in men and women are nothing more than the womb that houses that soul and brings it into the world. Rich also points out that any women who choose to have a say in their maternity 124

Voluntarily childless women

are labeled as pathological and polarized against women who are mothers, creating a further divide within women as a whole, which only serves to enhance the power of the dominant, male group. In sum, “the absence of respect for women’s lives is written into the heart of male theological doctrine,” Rich says, “into the structure of the patriarchal family and into the very language of patriarchal ethics” (269–70). As Rich demonstrates, a strong stigma has always surrounded women who dare to seek agency in their own maternity. Only somewhat recently have any studies been done on maternity and a woman’s choice following the advent of birth control and the legalization of abortion in the 1960s and 1970s. Jean Veevers gave voluntarily childless women recognition in her 1973 study of their treatment and the motivations one might have for becoming a parent, rather than just the assumed lack of fertility. “Social scientists and laymen both make an implicit assumption that wanting and having children are necessary for development to full maturity” (Veevers 202). Veevers points out the stigma attached to women who choose not to have children – that they will never reach their full maturity – but also points out that there are no proven reasons for having children, saying it is not the natural position of all human beings to want to procreate. Looking at the stigma of voluntarily childfree women in the 1980s, Susan Bram demonstrates that these women are seen as pathological and out of their minds. “In the past psychologists have either ignored the childless or presumed them to be pathological” (Bram 195). Women who pushed back against the essentialist view of desire and motherhood were cast off as hysterical, yet again supporting the age-old pseudo-scientific idea that women are controlled by hormones and don’t know any better and must therefore be told what they want. However, the 1980s did offer some support for women who chose to actively lead childfree lives or put off motherhood in favor of other pursuits, such as their careers. Visibility for this path and increasing support of it by society starts to appear in Shealy and Shealy’s 1981 book on parenthood. The work is entirely based on the fact that choice is a vital part of parenthood and maternity. The book, titled To Parent or Not?, explores and explains the idea that having children is a life-changing choice, one that can be based on income, career goals, time, and whether one even likes spending time with children in the first place. They treat the choice as the normal, sane reaction to contemplating children rather than the non-choice it has for so long been. Ultimately there is a move, starting in the 1950s, to understand the reasons behind enforced motherhood rather than blindly accepting it. The feminist work of the 1920s – again, in Western society only – started the move toward women as individuals rather than a man’s property and more and more thought was put into what that individualism meant. Stigma still surrounds women who don’t fit into the mold of what women had for so long been forced into, but no clear understanding of how to solve that problem had yet arisen approaching the 1990s.

Central issues and debate Today we stand on a battlefield for feminist and civil liberties. There are a number of critical issues that still stand in the way of total equality, namely our understanding of the definition of womanhood and motherhood and the stigma attached to being the “wrong” kind of woman. What happens when women actively choose not to have children? There are many who would like to become mothers but can’t, due to their partner’s or their own bodies getting in the way. Adoption is a way for many to fulfill a maternal desire, as is a career in a field working with children, such as elementary education or pediatric medicine. But not all women want to have children. Not everyone feels a maternal instinct, wishes to carry a child in their womb and care for it. So what do we do with those women? How are they situated in a society that struggles to dissociate woman and mother? There is no term for a “nonfather,” but we have a plethora of 125

Emilie Lewis

terms for ‘barren’ women without a child of their own (Rich). In our two-gender society, what do we do with women who don’t wish to fulfill their “duty” as mothers? Unfortunately, the binary system is still in place in today’s Western society and becomes a point of concern as the idea that motherhood is womanhood and vice versa still remains the most basic definition of females. To be understood as a woman today, one still needs to be a mother. Now, as Planned Parenthood and other organizations provide healthcare and reproductive support to thousands of women around the United States and the world, motherhood and womanhood are still inextricably linked. In Western society, woman equals mother. There is no in between, no wiggle room. If you are a woman, you are expected to be a mother and desire children above your career or yourself. So what do we do with those non-mothers? How do we accept women who are physically capable of having children but decide not to into a society that can’t comprehend such a phenomenon? The long-term answer is: we get rid of the binary system, while the short-term answer is: we redefine what it means to be a woman.

Current contributions After the first wave of feminism in the twentieth century and the new understanding for the societal structures put into place to enforce motherhood for the centuries before, the 1990s and 2000s have brought more modern understandings and plans of action toward a more equal society for all. But the stigma of pathological and hysterical doesn’t just live in the past. As Stephanie Rich et al. prove through firsthand accounts, women today are still being treated just about the same as they were in the 1800s. These scholars discuss the preordained nature of motherhood in Western society, and they also spoke to various women who identify as voluntarily childless. The results focused more on society’s perceived ideas of these women rather than the women’s own experiences. “Being childless was not particularly personally significant in and of itself,” they said, “but rather, it became personally significant through the experience of being in a misunderstood . . . position” (Rich et al. 242). The women that they spoke to often brought up the fact that they had trouble explaining to their family and friends how they could be happy in their childfree life. The idea of motherhood is so embodied and the stigma of non-mothers as pathological and “wrong” remains so strong in our society that women have to explain how they could possibly function outside motherhood. Rich and her co-authors similarly point to the idea that part of the stigma lies in the idea of maturity. If women are only fully mature when they become mothers, how does society view women who live their adult lives without children? Poorly, is how. But it is here that we begin to see a shift. More recently, we have seen women actively claim their status as women, embodying the identity known to society as “woman,” but they are doing so without fulfilling the previously required role of motherhood. Here we start to see the subversion of gender arise. With so much stigma and judgment surrounding voluntarily childless women, there have been a number of ways suggested to combat this “pathological” idea and fight against the assumed desire of motherhood for all women. The choice of whether to become a mother or not is a primary point for liberation from gender roles. It is only with this liberation that we will finally be able to break away from essentialism and the idea that women = mothers. Creating a space for women to be recognized as complete, whole, mature human beings without being mothers will help to break down traditional men/women gender dichotomies. Maaret Wager, who identifies as a voluntarily childless woman, cites her agreement with Adrienne Rich (and therefore De Beauvoir) that separating the ideas of what is a mother and what is a woman is the best way to challenge gender binaries. She notes that, today, many women are defined by their maternity, which is the very first bit of information anyone 126

Voluntarily childless women

wants to know about a woman. Whether married, single, in a relationship, all women are constantly hounded as to their maternal status. Wager clearly states that “every woman is a potential mother, biologically or socially, but it is not our only potential” (394). It is also important to move toward an idea of social acceptability for both mothers and non-mothers, where the social stigma no longer exists and no judgment is made as to a person’s womanhood as defined by her maternity. Wager’s focus on understanding motherhood as a potential act rather than a required act is a good place to start, but some scholars have suggested that the creation of new identities, of new means of separating womanhood and motherhood, might be the best way to move forward. One of these scholars, Mardy Ireland, suggests a creation of three identity classifications for women in relation to their maternal status. While Ireland fully supports a woman’s choice in maternity, she feels it is important to have an identity, a group to fall into and suggests using the term “Traditional” for women who wish to become mothers but physically can’t, “Transitional” for women who are ambivalent and unsure of motherhood, and “Transformative” for those who actively choose not to become mothers. Ireland sees most women falling into the “Transitional” category, which is probably true. Many women weigh the pros and cons of having children and spend more and more time deciding whether to become mothers or not. The positives to Ireland’s suggestion is that all three of these categories reshape the way women as a group are viewed. In a society so glued to a binary system, it seems logical to start by reshaping the understanding of binary categories before destroying them all together. But the negative of Ireland’s three categories is that it further segregates women. Those in the “Traditional” category are pitied and consoled by society while those in the “Transformative” category are still seen as insane and unnatural. Some women actually use essentialism in order to create categories among themselves. Peterson and Engwall’s 2013 qualitative study indicates that several childfree women identify as “other” to woman. This creation of a third gender of sorts is supported by essentialist arguments that these women don’t feel the desire of maternity; that “women” all crave motherhood, and those that don’t want motherhood are therefore not women but an “other.” This third gender is, for some, neither male nor female but a sort of nonbinary, transformative space without traditional binary roles. Others view the third gender as an offshoot of woman – a woman who does not fit into traditional, heteronormative expectations and who chooses not to have children. A creation of this third gender, of yet another separation in a society that needs fewer boundaries and divides, again, only pits women against women and one gender against another. Rather than having two groups of women – those with children and those without – it is important to allow all women to claim the space of “woman,” as much as that space actually exists. As demonstrated by Marian Faux, these separations are already built into Western European and North American society in the form of tax benefits where everyone is encouraged to spend within their means unless it comes to having children in which case the state offers tax cuts and encourages children (to feed the Capitalist machine). There are no tax benefits offered to couples without children, though the money saved by not having kids is something in and of itself (Faux). Rosemary Gillespie also looks at the number of reasons why people choose not to have children, including financial reasons, but she also cites that some mothers feel as though they give everything to their children, even their identities. In a society so fueled by the encouragement of motherhood as the ultimate means of self-fulfillment, it seems that the very identity of the mother isn’t all that important. This loss of identity often changes a mother’s life and can lead to anger and active dislike of those who aren’t mothers or those who don’t seem as effected, creating even more divides within a group already torn at from all angles. Ultimately the creation of a third gender, especially one that uses essentialism, or categories within an already existing idea of gender only prove to further support the connection between 127

Emilie Lewis

womanhood and motherhood. Claiming that one must feel an essential desire to have children or not further supports the idea that women should be mothers and that those who aren’t are unnatural. This also doesn’t allow for any sense of ambivalence or time spent on making the choice. Having a child isn’t something decided in a minute or two; Long periods of thought – over finances, timing, careers, etc. – are vital in making the choice, one that benefits both mother and child.

Future research directions It is important that we don’t further separate women from each other as they are already an oppressed group. Rather, we need to broaden our understanding of what womanhood means. Historically and currently womanhood means motherhood, but a move away from this singular understanding is necessary and long overdue. Rather than attempt this move via the creation of even more groups and identities, I suggest that we make room within the preexisting notion of womanhood – stretch the boundaries so that the idea of motherhood is no longer the only understanding of womanhood. We need to focus on working within the binary system (for now) to make room for all women, mothers or not. While the end goal should be to destroy the gender binary entirely, starting by reshaping our understanding of one part of that binary seems a logical start. Pushing at the boundaries of how gender and sex are defined softens them through questioning and reshaping rather than simply accepting. This softening allows a more malleable understanding while also offering inclusion for all.

Further reading Blumenfeld, Samuel. The Retreat from Motherhood. Arlington House, 1975. Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble. Routledge Press, 1990. De Marneffe, Daphne. Maternal Desire. Little, Brown and Company, 2004. Fuss, Diana. Essentially Speaking. Routledge, 1989. Grosz, Elizabeth. Volatile Bodies: Toward a Corporeal Feminism. Indiana UP, 1994. Riley, Denise. “Am I That Name?”: Feminism and the Category of “Women” in History. Macmillan, 1988. Witting, Monique. The Straight Mind. Beacon Press, 1992.

Conclusion Voluntarily childless women are the crux of breaking down gender roles and binary understanding as they claim the space of womanhood, while also claiming the space of non-mother. This dual claim disrupts the gender binary that exists today since that binary is built on the idea that all women are mothers and need to be mothers. Working within the system that has existed for so long and will continue to exist for the foreseeable future requires a slow shift, one that supports the dissolving of ignorance and the education of what it means to be a woman and citizen; but, it is a necessary step and one that is entirely possible. Rather than dividing, we need to unite. The biggest challenge to destroying this system of essentialism is the system itself. The twogender system of men and mothers is self-perpetuating and therefore nearly impossible to oppose. Of course, this system can’t be brought down overnight. The teachings of the church support women as mothers and, as many people build their idea of morality and how to live their lives on the teachings of the Christian church and other religious structures, this only bolsters the binaries of Western society. Removing a wedding vow of obedience and changing the idea that all parents must be married is one way to start chipping away at this barrier.

128

Voluntarily childless women

For people whose understanding of gender is so ingrained as to be unconcious, the idea of women who actively choose not to become mothers is nearly unintelligible. Because of this, working within the binary system seems the best course of action. Using a system already known to everyone but slowly twisting that system to better support the separation of women and motherhood is the best way to face this challenge.

Works cited Allen, Ann Taylor. Feminism and Motherhood in Western Europe 1890–1970: The Maternal Dilemma. Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Blumenfeld, Samuel L. The Retreat from Motherhood. Arlington House Publishers, 1975. Bram, Susan. “Voluntarily Childless Women: Traditional or Nontraditional?” Sex Roles, vol. 10, no. 3, 1984, pp. 195–206. De Beauvoir, Simone. The Second Sex. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1952. Faux, Marian. Childless by Choice: Choosing Childlessness in the ’80’s. Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1984. Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality: Volume 1: An Introduction. Vintage Books, 1976. Gillespie, Rosemary. “Childfree and Feminine: Understanding the Gender Identity of Voluntarily Childless Women.” Gender and Society, vol. 17, no. 1, 2003, pp. 122–36. Ireland, Mardy S. Reconceiving Women: Separating Motherhood from Female Identity. Guildford Press, 1993. Peterson, Helen, and Kristina Engwall. “Silent Bodies: Childfree Women’s Gendered and Embodied Experiences.” European Journal of Women’s Studies, vol. 20, no. 4, 2013, pp. 376–89. Rich, Adrienne. Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution. W. W. Norton and Company Inc., 1976. Rich, Stephanie, et al. “ ‘Unnatural’, ‘Unwomanly’, ‘Unpredictable’ and ‘Undervalued’: The Significance of Being a Childless Woman in Australian Society.” Gender Issues, vol. 28, 2011, pp. 226–47. Shealy, C. Norman, and M.-C. Shealy. To Parent or Not? The Donning Company/Publishers, 1981. Veevers, Jean E. “Voluntary Childlessness: A Neglected Area of Family Study.” The Family Coordinator, vol. 10, no. 3, 1973, pp. 195–206. Wager, Maaret. “Childless by Choice? Ambivalence and the Female Identity.” Feminism and Psychology, vol. 10, no. 3, 2000, pp. 389–95.

129

SECTION III

Mothers, mothering, culture, and art

10 MEDIATED CELEBRITY MOTHERHOOD Representing the norms, values, and practices promoted by and through celebrity moms Lynn O’Brien Hallstein Beginning in the 1980s and exploding by the 1990s, celebrity journalism created an obsessive media focus on motherhood that, as Susan J. Douglas and Meredith Michaels first suggested in 2004, also promoted and encouraged a kind of intensive mothering they called the new momism. According to Douglas and Michaels, the new momism is a “set of ideals, norms, and practices, most frequently and powerfully represented in the media, that seem on the surface to celebrate motherhood, but which in reality promulgate standards of perfection that are beyond” most mothers’ reach (4–5). In their media coverage of celebrity moms, media developed, as Douglas and Michaels also first argued, the celebrity mom profile, which primarily worked to encourage guilt and failure in mothers because the profiles always showed celebrity moms juggling it all – work, family, and mothering – with ease and without difficulty. The hallmark of the profiles Douglas and Michaels first explored was to show celebrity moms glowing, happy, content, and with their children, often one-to-two years postpartum, while the moms extolled the virtues of motherhood and promoted, either implicitly or explicitly, a highly romanticized, demanding representation of the ideals, norms, and practices of “good motherhood,” which was also ensconced in the immense economic, race, heteronormative, and cisgender privilege that continues to undergird the lives of celebrity moms today. Contemporary scholars (Chae, “Am I”; Cunningham; McRobbie “Post-Feminism,” “Yummy Mummies”; Jermyn; O’Brien Hallstein; Villalobos) argue that the demands represented in celebrity motherhood generally and celebrity moms specifically continue today, albeit in new and even-more demanding ways, while also now integrating neoliberal, postfeminist sensibilities and an even-more demanding maternal body focus that continue to serve as backlash against feminist gains and keep mothers always failing and guilty. The aim of this chapter is to explore the norms, values, and practices promoted by and represented through mediated celebrity motherhood today. To do so, the background section of the chapter details Douglas and Michaels’s groundbreaking work on the rise of celebrity motherhood – motherhood represented by and through the celebrity moms featured in media. The critical issues and topics section explores how celebrity motherhood now incorporates a maternal-body focus and promotes an even-more demanding intensive mothering, both of which have changed the structure and focus of celebrity mom profiles, while this section also reviews more recent scholarship that explores how “real” mothers respond to celebrity moms 133

Lynn O’Brien Hallstein

and the growing importance of reality TV celebrity moms. Finally, the chapter ends with conclusions and ideas about future research.

Background and contexts: the rise of celebrity moms Academics began to study mediated motherhood in the early 2000s. Many of these scholars (Chae,“Am I”; Lagerwey; O’Brien Hallstein; Podnieks; Williams et al.) agree that Susan J. Douglas and Meredith Michael’s book, The Mommy Myth: The Idealization of Motherhood and How it Undermined Women was the landmark text in terms of analyzing the popular culture obsession with motherhood generally and the rise of celebrity moms specifically that first emerged in the 1980s and 1990s. Writing in 2016, for example, Jori Lagerwey argues, “the first critical articulation of the current cultural preoccupation with maternity may have come from Susan Douglas and Meredith Michaels’ a decade ago” (8). Moreover, Heather Hundley and Sara Hayden note that Douglas and Michaels’s first work explored “how various forms of media, including celebrity journalism, network newscasts, daytime television, and evening situation comedies and dramas, promote and extend the ‘new momism’ ” (3). While Douglas and Michaels’s larger project was focused on how various forms of media promoted the new momism, their specific focus on celebrity motherhood explored early, or what I now refer to as the first iteration of, celebrity mom profiles in the chapter “Attack of the Celebrity Moms.” In that chapter and elsewhere in the book, Douglas and Michaels argued that celebrity mom profiles primarily worked to encourage guilt and failure in mothers because the profiles always showed celebrity moms juggling it all – work, family, and mothering – with ease and without difficulty. Douglas and Michaels also argued that these profiles emerged when mothers became a marketing niche and with the rise of celebrity journalism. As they put it humorously, “Beginning in the 1980s, and exploding with a vengeance in the ’90s, celebrity journalism brought us a feature spread that spread like head lice through the women’s magazines, as well as the more recent celebrity and ‘lifestyle’ glossies: the celebrity mom profile” (16). The hallmark of these profiles was to show celebrity moms glowing, happy, content, and with their children, often one-to-two years postpartum, while the moms extolled the virtues of motherhood. Douglas and Michaels, in fact, report, and are worth quoting in length, that the celebrity mom: had to be photographed displaying a brood toothy grin, her child in her lap or lifted with outstretched arms above her head, an accessory who made her look especially good on her sofa or balcony. Celebrity mothers are invariably surrounded by pastels and suffused in white light; the rooms we often see them in feature white or pastel furniture. Often they are backlit or simply shot against a white backdrop for a nice halo effect. (113) Moreover, the profiles also conveyed a key message: celebrity mothers found motherhood the best and most important experience in their lives. Everything about the profile – from the titles, staging, and lighting – highlighted and reinforced the key ideas that celebrity moms loved motherhood, had found their “calling” once they became mothers, and were serene, calm, content, and able to “juggle it all” with ease, while also allowing the moms to show off and/or be pictured with their well-dressed and well-behaved child or children. Additionally, while looking and feeling fabulous were important in these first profiles, clearly, celebrity mom profiles primarily worked rhetorically – persuasively – to communicate clear messages and “arguments” about motherhood: that celebrity moms believe that being devoted, attentive mothers is not 134

Mediated celebrity motherhood

only the best kind of mothering, being a mother is the best and most important part of who they are now, regardless of any success that the celebrities might have had previously. In short, celebrity mom profiles worked to promote and persuade mothers to adhere to and enact a very specific ideology of “good mothering.” Indeed, Douglas and Michaels also argued that celebrity mom profiles are at the heart of the new momism, a term they coined to describe mediated intensive mothering. The new momism is the form of intensive mothering that emerged in the 1980s and continues to be in full force today, albeit in new and more intensive ways. Drawing on Sharon Hays’s work, Douglas and Michaels argued that this “good mothering” ideology rests on three core beliefs and values: “the insistence that no woman is truly complete or fulfilled unless she has kids, that women remain the best primary caretakers of children, and that to be a remotely decent mother, a woman has to devote her entire physical, psychological, emotional, and intellectual being, 24/7, to her children” (4). These three core principles also mean that the new momism requires mothers to develop professional-level skills, such as therapist, pediatrician, consumer products safety instructor, and teacher, in order to meet and treat the needs of children (Douglas and Michaels 6). In addition to creating impossible ideals of mothering, the new momism also defined women first and foremost in relation to their children and encouraged women to believe that mothering was the most important job for women, regardless of any success a woman might have had prior to motherhood. As such, Douglas and Michaels suggest that the new momism no longer makes women subservient to men; rather, “it is about subservience to children” (299, italics in the original). Thus, Douglas and Michaels concluded, “the celebrity mom profile was probably the most influential media form to sell the new momism, and where its key features were refined, reinforced and romanticized” (113). The final pillar of Douglas and Michaels’s argument was that the new momism is also a postfeminist ideology because it both acknowledges and integrates second wave feminist rhetoric and ideas while also denying any ongoing need for feminist action. Indeed, the post-secondwave-feminist and middle-class premise that contemporary women now have the choice to “do it all” is now entrenched in the new momism. Specifically, first young girls and then young women are taught that they live at a time when women can “have it all”: education, a career, and a family as long as they make good choices. As Douglas and Michaels put it, embedded in the new momism is the idea that women: have their own ambitions and money, raise kids on their own, or freely choose to stay at home with kids rather than being forced to. . . . Central to the new momism, in fact, is the feminist insistence that woman [sic] have choices, that they are active agents in control of their own destiny, that they have autonomy. (5) Situating their discussion of having it all in relation to postfeminism, Douglas and Michaels suggested that the new momism “has become the central, justifying ideology of what has come to be called ‘postfeminism’ ” (24). While they are disdainful of postfeminism, Douglas and Michaels also argued: “Postfeminism means that you can now work outside the home even in jobs previously restricted to men, go to graduate school, pump iron, and pump your own gas, as long as you remain fashion conscious, slim, nurturing, deferential to men, and become a doting selfless mother” (25). Douglas and Michaels thus conclude that the celebrity moms profiled, then, are postfeminist role models in that they are “women who had combined demanding careers with motherhood,” while being “highly successful professionals with often grueling hours who also excelled at intensive mothering” (118, italics in original). Consequently, from the beginning, the 135

Lynn O’Brien Hallstein

celebrity mom profiles that Douglas and Michaels first analyzed justified and reinforced privileged (at-least middle-class) cisgendered and heteronormative motherhood, the new momism, postfeminism, and grounded the general solution to “having it all” within mothers’ abilities to make good post-second-wave choices. Since the publication of Douglas and Michaels’s book, media have become even more fascinated by and obsessed with motherhood. Indeed, contemporary scholars (Bishop; Jermyn; Lagerway; McRobbie,“Yummy Mummies”; Nash,“Postmodern”; O’Brien Hallstein; Podnieks), for example, also suggest that fascination with celebrity moms has only increased, even taking on new “nuances” and foci of attention. Understanding the importance of celebrity moms in representing “good” motherhood also emerged as both popular culture and media became obsessed with all things related to motherhood. In fact, in Mediating Moms: Mothers in Popular Culture, editor Elizabeth Podnieks suggested in 2012 that popular culture had made a “maternal embrace” such that “we are so ‘mothered up,’ in fact, that we have created a whole new lexicon to define mothers in their various roles and identities within contemporary culture” (4). Moreover, writing in 2017, Jorie Lagerwey also suggests that American celebrity culture continues to be preoccupied or obsessed with motherhood and mothering in what she refers to as “mom or mommy culture, and its prominence in American popular culture in the early part of the twenty-first century” (3). Moreover, Deborah Jermyn argues: fascination with celebrity moms has continued since this time [2000], taking on new nuances as it has become focused, first, on new stars (cf. Victoria Beckham and Elizabeth Hurley); has been marked by an intense scrutiny of stars’ post-baby weight loss (cf. the cover story photograph montage of scantily-clad ‘Hot bodies after baby’ on the UK’s Now magazine, 29 October 2007); and has come to co-exist with, if not actually facilitate, the rise of the “yummy mummy”, a kind of linked demograph visible among aspirational “ordinary” women and not merely celebrities. (166) Finally, as Jiyoung Chae (“Interest in”) also contends, this media focus on motherhood is also part of contemporary celebrity culture and media coverage in New Zealand, Australia, and the United Kingdom (420).

Critical issues and topics As both scholarly and media attention to celebrity motherhood have continued to develop, five critical issues have emerged: the importance of the maternal body, the intensification of intensive mothering, both of which have changed the focus and structure of celebrity mom profiles, an interest in how “real” mothers do and do not respond to the messages represented by celebrity moms, and, finally, the growing importance of reality TV celebrity motherhood.

The maternal body A first critical scholarly focus is on how media have become obsessively focused on the maternal bodies of celebrities. Scholars (Bishop; Cunningham; Jermyn; McRobbie, “Yummy Mummies”; Nash, “Postmodern”), in fact, note the growing importance of the maternal body in mediated motherhood, especially the shift to slender pregnancy and quickly slender postpartum bodies of celebrity moms. Additionally, McRobbie suggests a link between the maternal body, body work, and the market, as do other body scholars (Dworkin and Wachs; Gimlin; Gremillion; Lee; Jette), 136

Mediated celebrity motherhood

and concludes that the new focus on the bodies of celebrity mothers is changing the nature of motherhood when she argued, “The tribe of yummy mummies – Sadie Frost, for example, or Davina McCall, or Victoria Beckham – also contributes to a redefinition of motherhood for the nation’s young women” (par. 2). Or, as Nash (“Postmodern”) argues by directly linking the pregnant maternal body to “good” motherhood, “in the UK, Australia, and North America, a ‘fit, risk-free, flexible, and responsible body’ is the mark of a ‘good’ mother” (169). The central focus on maternal bodies has even prompted a change in the obsessive media coverage from only featuring celebrity moms one-to-two years postpartum to a focus on the pregnancy “arc.” Indeed, as Williams et al. suggest: “Representations of celebrity motherhood begin with tabloids speculating over the celebrity ‘baby bumps,’ followed by a detailed progression of their pregnancies, and then critiques of their postpartum bodies” (1). Thus, the maternal body and its pregnancy arc via celebrity moms have become the central focus of media coverage of celebrity moms.

Intensified intensive mothering A second critical issue is the ways intensive mothering demands have also increased and become even more demanding, which has also changed the structure and focus of celebrity mom profiles. While there is no doubt that the new momism has always been a demanding approach to mothering, by the late-2000s, scholars and writers (Bianchi et al.; Coontz; Lee; Lovejoy and Stone; Nelson; Villalobos; Warner; Wolf ) began to argue that intensive mothering was intensifying and contemporary mothers were doing even more mothering rather than less, even though more and more American women were working. Indeed, Pamela Stone and Meg Lovejoy suggest that the contemporary reality is “that most college-educated mothers in the USA are working (Boushey 2008) and recent cohorts of college-educated mothers are more, not less, likely to be working than ever before (Percheski 2008)” (632). Drawing on Banchi et al., Ana Villalobos also argues, There is broad consensus that mothering has intensified during the last four or five decades. Although women’s paid work hours have increased during precisely the same decades, mothers paradoxically spend more time with their children now than they did in 1965. (6–7) Working mothers are also far more actively engaged with their children than full-time mothers were in previous generations (Bianchi et al.; Lee; Lovejoy and Stone; O’Reilly; Villalobos; Wolf ). Moreover, financially, families, especially mothers, are investing in and spending more than ever before on their children, while also being more emotionally absorbed by and in their relations with their children (Coontz; Rosenfeld and Wise). By 2007, the Pew Research Center reported: There is broad agreement among the public that it is harder to be a parent today – especially a mother – than it was in the 1970s or 1980s. Fully 70% of the public says it is more difficult to be a mother today than it was 20 or 30 years ago, while somewhat fewer (60%) say the same about being a father. (“Motherhood Today” par. 1) In short, even though both Douglas and Michaels and Hays argued that intensive mothering was labor-intensive, this more recent scholarship suggests that intensive mothering is continuing to 137

Lynn O’Brien Hallstein

be refined and developed such that it is even more demanding for mothers than it was when scholars first named and detailed intensive mothering. This intensification does not mean, however, that the three core principles of the new momism have changed. Rather, the core principles have only become more demanding and exacting for mothers and require mothers to devote even more time and energy to their mothering and children in order to be “good” mothers. What has changed, then, is that contemporary motherhood requires mothers to have and utilize yet more energy to meet the even-more demanding requirements of “good” mothering today. Equally important, celebrity motherhood continues to play a central role in promoting and reinforcing this intensified intensive mothering.

Celebrity mom profiles: a change in focus and structure A third critical issue, then, is the ways that celebrity mom profiles have developed a new focus and structure that reinforce both the newfound importance of the maternal body and the evenmore demanding intensive mothering. In Bikini-Ready Moms: Celebrity Profiles, Motherhood, and the Body, I argued that celebrity mom profiles had shifted, in fact, to a primary focus on celebrity moms’ slender-pregnant and bikini-ready postpartum maternal bodies. In other words, I argued that, by 2010, celebrity mom profiles had shifted from postpartum profiles of celebrity moms with their toddler children, where the celebrity mom gushed about the joys of motherhood, to profiles that focused on the celebrity mothers’ slender-pregnant and quickly slender postpartum bodies, where celebrity mothers rarely discussed the joys of motherhood and instead primarily detailed the diet, fitness, and body work they utilized to stay slender in pregnancy and to become quickly slender, even bikini-ready, postpartum. Moreover, this shift in focus also changed the structure of celebrity mom profiles such that the profiles integrated a two-step process: a first focus on the slender-pregnant body of celebrity moms and a second focus on the quickly slender postpartum body of celebrity moms.

Step one: celebrity moms and slender pregnancy In addition to incorporating neoliberal sensibilities and an obsessive focus on the maternal bodies of celebrities, I argued that celebrity mom profiles incorporated a cultural shift toward uncovering rather than covering celebrity pregnancy. Historically, celebrity women, as did non-celebrity women, hid or covered up their pregnancies and pregnant body. However, the first “real” pregnancy depicted in media was Lucille Ball’s 1952 actual pregnancy, which was written into the storyline of Ball’s fictional character, Lucy Ricardo, on her television sitcom I Love Lucy (CBS 1951–1957). As Lagerwey (Postfeminist Celebrity and Motherhood) argues, “After Ball/Ricardo’s 1952 maternity sitcom, scholars seem to agree that the next benchmark in the history of media pregnancies is Demi Moore’s August 1991 Vanity Fair Magazine cover” (28). As a matter of fact, scholars contend that the focus on celebrity pregnancy began with Demi Moore’s “naked” pregnant Vanity Fair Cover (Bedor and Tajima; Dworkin and Wachs; Gimlin; Gremillion; Lee; Jette; O’Brien Hallstein; Nash, “Shapes”). Meredith Nash (“Shapes”), for example, argues that the “fascination with celebrity mothers and pregnant beauty over the last two decades in the West has been frequently linked with the 1991 Vanity Fair cover photograph of US actress, Demi Moore” (19). In the cover photo, Moore, slender everywhere except her pregnant “belly,” is posed sideways and naked with her right arm across her breasts and her left arm cupping her pregnant belly. Moore was the first celebrity mom to pose this way; prior to this cover photo, in fact, most pregnant celebrities “hid” their pregnancy either by staying out of the media and/ or wearing billowing, non-form-fitting maternity clothes. Moore’s cover was so controversial, 138

Mediated celebrity motherhood

Vanity Fair had to wrap the issue in brown paper packaging à la Playboy magazine covers at the time. However, since the Moore cover, pregnant, celebrity bodies have been “uncovered” by various media forms, which now obsessively focus on the maternal body of pregnant celebrities. This focus has also led to celebrity mothers’ bodies as the ideal; indeed, research “documents how multiple media forms present celebrity mothers’ bodies as ideal types – in prenatal, pregnant, and postpartum stages” (Williams et al. 1). The ideal maternal body emulated by celebrity mothers is the slender-pregnant body, where the celebrity mother remains thin everywhere else but in the “bump” of pregnancy, as Moore first modeled and embodied. Moreover, the slender ideal embodied by pregnant celebrity moms is also now demanded of the postpartum maternal body. Indeed, celebrities mothers are also now expected to become quickly slender postpartum, which is expected to be “easy” to do given the demand to be pregnant only in the bump, while slender everywhere else. As a result, celebrity mothers are expected to be both sexy and slender throughout maternity – both during pregnancy and postpartum. Emma Bedor and Atsushi Tajima also note, The particular relevance in examining the development of this ideology [being both sexy and slender] are the prominence and widespread popularity of media narratives featuring the rapid weight loss of celebrity mothers. Their stories illustrate how every woman can reclaim her body from the effects of pregnancy, getting it back to what it used to be. (3) Coupled with these imperatives is the fact that very few other models of postpartum images exist. As Nash (“Shapes”) suggests, “Pictures of postpartum bodies in Western visual culture are largely confined to celebrities” (19). Finally, scholars (Dworkin and Wachs; McRobbie “PostFeminism”; Nash “Postmodern”; O’Brien Hallstein) all concur that the slender-pregnant and postpartum maternal body norms embodied by celebrity moms continue to be an even-more exacting postfeminist response. Indeed, as Nash (“Shapes”) concludes, the celebration of slender pregnant and postpartum bodies in visual culture has encouraged a problematic post-feminist view that regaining control of the body following childbirth is “empowering” and that it should be a primary goal for all mothers (see also Gow et al. 2012). (20) In Bikini-Ready Moms, then, I argued that the new celebrity mom profiles incorporated a new focus on slender-pregnant celebrity moms in step one. To illustrate this argument, I did a case study of the first pregnancies of Kate Middleton and Kim Kardashian who were both pregnant for the first time in 2012. In framing these future celebrity mothers in this way, then, the media focused on and “analyzed” each woman’s maternal body, style, and pregnancy as an ongoing battle about which future mother would be the best mom. As such, the slender-pregnant profiles of Middleton and Kardashian position Middleton as making all the right, disciplined, constrained, and contained choices, such that her slender pregnancy was just a “small bump in the road” in her “waif-like” maternal body and to her new identity as a future “good” intensive mother, an identity that she embraced fully. Whereas, from the beginning, media represented Kardashian as making all the wrong undisciplined, excessive choices, even still trying to “squeeze” into her unencumbered life. Pregnancy was an “excessively large and possibly insurmountable bump in the road” in her “whale-like” maternal body and to her new identity as a mother, an identity that 139

Lynn O’Brien Hallstein

she was unable to embrace fully. Thus, when combined, I argued that these profiles make the “case” for why, when given postfeminist neoliberal choices, the better, more “natural” and “best” future maternal position is represented and embodied via the contained, slender pregnancy that Middleton embodied so well.

Step two: postpartum profiles and the third shift of body work While step one focuses on maintaining a slender-pregnant body as a representation and embodiment of “good” future motherhood, in Bikini-Ready Moms, I also argued that step two of the new celebrity profiles focuses on celebrity moms becoming quickly slender, even bikini-ready, postpartum as the energizing solution for “having it all.” While in the analysis of the slenderpregnant maternal body, I argued that the right kind of slender-pregnant maternal body reveals the right kind of future mothering and the necessary “turn” to accepting, even embracing, an even-more intensive mothering, in the analysis of step two, I argued that the right kind of postpartum maternal body now reveals the right kind of post-second-wave crisis management for contemporary mothers. In this context, post-second-wave crisis management is when contemporary mothers realize that the gender gains they have enjoyed in the public sphere as childless (unencumbered) women are not matched in the private sphere once they become mothers, which means that mothers must “do it all” to “have it all”: be successful professionals in the public sphere and come home and have primary responsibility for child-rearing and care at home. The crisis then is the realization that, once they become mothers, a woman’s life is split between a public sphere that encourages women to believe they have gender equality with men, while the private sphere continues to reinforce “traditional” notions that caregiving and child-rearing are mothers’ responsibilities. As a result, the post-second-wave crisis emerges most fully in contemporary mothers’ attempts to “have it all” and “juggle it all.”

The solution to “juggling it all”: the third shift of body work I also argued, then, that today this means, in addition to encouraging mothers to make good choices, celebrity motherhood now also promotes and reinforces the idea that contemporary mothers are now responsible for a third shift of body work in addition to the second shift of family life; and, as a result, this demand is also a new, fourth principle of the new momism. Arlie Hochschild, in The Second Shift, was the first feminist scholar to argue that women’s second shift as primary caregivers of both children and the private sphere indicated a “stalled revolution” in (at least privileged) women’s lives as second wave feminist beneficiaries: women who benefited from and were taking advantage of access to educational and professional opportunities that emerged from 1970s feminisms. Indeed, Hochschild argued that, as women gained more and more access to educational and professional institutions, there was very little change in women’s roles as primary caregivers of children. Consequently, she argued, many American women had two shifts as second-wave beneficiaries: the first shift as workers and/or professionals and the second shift of household labor and childcare. In the mid- to late 2000s, sociologists (Dworkin and Wachs; Jette) were the first to argue that contemporary women are now expected to engage in a third shift of body work and management when pregnant as a vehicle to embody the new slender-pregnant and postpartum maternal body ideal. Jette, for example, in describing Dworkin and Wachs’s early work on fit pregnancy, argues, “Indeed, the authors point to the way in which the magazine positions new mothers as responsible for an additional third shift of body work in order to get rid of baby fat and regain their femininity” (337). 140

Mediated celebrity motherhood

Ironically, much of the third shift ideology, like the new momism, also integrates secondwave feminist rhetoric and ideas. In their work on fit pregnancy advice, for example, Dworkin and Wachs suggest that much of that advice “strategically draws on a feminist stance to help women ‘get their body back’ but paradoxically reinscribes women to the domestic and privatized realm of bodily and household maintenance to do so” (119). Drawing on this groundbreaking work, I argued the maternal body work and management promoted in postpartum profiles now train mothers to buy into a third shift of body work as the specific means to an end to manage and energize them as they enact the core principles of the new momism, while also enjoying their post-second-wave status in the public sphere. In short, in Bikini-Ready Moms, I contended the second step of the restructured celebrity mom profiles requires mothers to accept and embrace the new fourth principle of the new momism – a third shift of body work – as a nownecessary core requirement of “good” mothering, so that mothers can simultaneously meet the new ­slender-pregnant and bikini-ready postpartum maternal body demands and their first and second shift responsibilities with stress-free ease and contentment. This means that the contemporary “good mothering” ideology promoted and reinforced by the new, second iteration of celebrity mom profiles now rests on four core beliefs and values: the insistence that no woman is truly complete or fulfilled unless she has kids, that women remain the best primary caretakers of children, and that to be a remotely decent mother, a woman has to devote her entire physical, psychological, emotional, and intellectual being, 24/7, to her children, and a now-required third shift of body work as the energizing solution for both maternal body management and to juggle it all. As such, I also suggested that celebrity motherhood via the second iteration of profiles now suggests that slender-pregnant profiles begin to train and prepare mothers for good, future motherhood, while postpartum profiles continue that training by offering a third shift of body work that also denies women’s “encumberedness” and, as a result, denies and erases the difference in family responsibility and the reproductive body that maternity makes for mothers postpartum. Equally important, the new profiles also demand that mothers bounce back even more quickly and with even more energy to their unencumbered similarity with men to show that they can move in and out of reproduction without, as Cunningham first put it, any “ ‘visible’ aftermaths – a body which seems to regulate movement between the domestic sphere and the workplace with cellulite-free ease” (450). Consequently, I concluded that contemporary celebrity mom profiles now suggest that the right kind of maternal body now both represents and embodies the right kind of “good” contemporary motherhood and mother: a mother who enjoys second-wave feminist gains in the public sphere in terms of education and work, but not at the expense of either her obligations at home or to the tenets of the now-intensified new momism, while she also adheres to privatized solutions to any work-life struggles.

“Real” mothers’ responses Recently, a fourth critical issue for scholars (Chae “Interest in Celebrities”; Henderson et al.; Williams et al.) is how “real” women/mothers respond to celebrity motherhood and celebrity moms, specifically celebrity moms’ maternal body and the new momism they model. Williams et al., for example, explore “how noncelebrity mothers react to media featuring celebrity postpartum bodies” (1), specifically mothers’ self-image and relationship to men, within the Upper South of the United States, while Chae (“Interest In”) explores “how interest in celebrities’ post-baby bodies relates to body image disturbance after childbirth in South Korean Women” (419) and a second article (“Am I”) examines how South Korean women compare themselves to what Chae calls the celebrity mom discourse (norms of intensive mothering, child-rearing, and 141

Lynn O’Brien Hallstein

what counts as ideal motherhood). This scholarship reveals that real mothers are impacted by celebrity motherhood in a variety of ways and celebrity moms’ bodies specifically.

Mothers’ responses shaped by social class and education As a result of their in-depth interviews and after showing interviewees what they call celebrity mom body images (CMB), Williams et al. found that most of the mothers they interviewed evaluated themselves negatively, although the mothers interviewed did so differently depending on the mother’s social class and education. So, for example, most upper-class mothers, all of whom had at least a college degree, believed, they could achieve a fit body through hard work and overlooked the resources associated with their high incomes. In addition, most had some kind of plastic surgery, and most compared their bodies with women in their social circle rather than celebrities. (5) Because most of these women had the economic means to do so, they believed they could have postpartum success – meet the slender postpartum body ideals. As such,“these mothers were not highly critical of the images of celebrity postpartum bodies” and, instead, all the high-income mothers “said they compared themselves with women in their social circle in addition to celebrity mothers” (5–6). Williams et al. also note that many of these mothers had had plastic surgery postpartum, while also not acknowledging the role that their class privilege afforded them to engage in the body work necessary to become quickly slender and to have plastic surgery. Middle- and low-income mothers had different responses to CMBs than upper-income mothers. Indeed, middle-income mothers, who were educated and mostly career-oriented, “were both critical of and envious of celebrity mothers who had the time to work out and eat healthfully,” while also many of these women admitted wanting plastic surgery – breast augmentation or tummy tucks – to improve their postpartum bodies (6–7) – whereas all the low-income mothers interviewed, who were single mothers and full-time students, “attributed their inability to regain their pre-baby bodies to a lack of economic resources” (7). Low-income mothers, like the middle-income mothers, however, “were somewhat critical of CMB images, but at the same time, almost all lower-income respondents said they wanted these kinds of bodies for themselves” (7). Unlike the upper-income mothers, all of the low-income mothers were aware of the economic resources of celebrity mothers and were critical of the class privileges of celebrity mothers. However, “while critical of the class privilege of celebrity mothers, the low-income mothers in this sample also wanted these economic privileges for themselves” (8). Interestingly, even though there were different responses about contemporary maternal body demands based on the respondents’ social class and education, every mother interviewed believed the men in their lives expected a quick return to their prepregnancy body. As the authors note, “All 38 mothers believed that the men in their lives subscribed to what we began to call the ‘male myth’ – the assumption that women’s bodies spontaneously go back to their prepregnancy shape following the birth of a child” (8). Moreover, although in different ways, all of the women interviewed shared experiences of feeling like their bodies “were inadequate in the face of the CMB narratives” (10), while also feeling like CMBs had negative effects on men. Because they believed CMBs negatively impacted men, these women also believed that men evaluated postpartum bodies unfavorably that did not look like celebrity mothers’ postpartum bodies. While Chae (“Interest in”) explored South Korean mothers’ responses to celebrities’ post-baby bodies, Chae also found that the South Korean mothers’ responses to the study 142

Mediated celebrity motherhood

questionnaires also confirmed the effect of media representations of postpartum celebrities as the beauty standard for the mothers. Moreover, Chae ascertained that the South Korean mothers’ responses indicate “that social comparison results in body dissatisfaction” and a drive for thinness postpartum (427). Moreover, the findings of the study were also “consistent with contemporary motherhood which requires perfection in mothering” (430). In a second study also with South Korean mothers’ responses to a questionnaire survey, Chae (“Am I”) explored how South Korean mothers compared and evaluated themselves in relation to the celebrity mom discourse. According to Chae, “the most interesting finding of the present study was the association between exposure to celebrity moms and intensive mothering ideology/SCO [social comparison orientation], only among employed mothers” (518). In other words, employed South Korean mothers were more likely to compare themselves to others than non-employed mothers in relation to intensive mothering demands, which further confirms Douglas and Michaels’s original argument that “celebrity moms have become the role model for employed mothers, and this study empirically demonstrated their argument” (518). Moreover, Chae found that “exposure to celebrity moms was associated with competitiveness regardless of mothers’ working status” (518). Thus, Chae’s study found that exposure to celebrity moms was associated with competitiveness or valuing success in motherhood, which reconfirms Douglas and Michaels’s original argument that motherhood is now such a competition among women that motherhood is best thought of as the new female Olympics (6).

Reality TV celebrity motherhood Finally, scholars ( Jones and Weber; Lagerwey) have also begun to study “reality celebrity motherhood.” In this work, reality celebrity mothers are mothers on reality TV who use their children to become celebrities or are reality TV mothers who use their children to develop and cultivate their own celebrity brand. Across the different types of reality TV shows, reality TV celebrity mothers are especially vilified. As Jones and Weber report: While reality TV serves up many female models of excess – from “biggest loser” to hoarders, plastic surgery junkies to bridezillas – it saves a special invective for mothers whose desires for fame drive them to “prostitute” themselves and their children to the voracious appetites of fame. (12) Also exploring the larger relationship between media and maternal embodiment that is “activated through eruptions around the grotesque body, particularly the monstrosity assigned to the reality celebrity mother,” Jones and Weber, also propose that “Mothers who actively work for celebrity thus signal a form of unhealthy, even pathological, narcissism and a coding of identity that works against imperatives for both humility and authenticity” (12). After engaging in a case study of reality TV mothers Farrah Abraham, Kate Gosselin, and Kris Jenner, they also suggest that using one’s children to secure celebrity is “depicted as a gender crime so extreme that the grotesque reality celebrity mother must be punished through every discursive weapon in the arsenal of the politics of representation” (13). Thus, Jones and Webber conclude that the vilification of reality TV celebrity moms work as a gendered vehicle to “tame” and discipline all ambitious, successful, and difficult women/mothers. Another area of research focuses on reality TV celebrity motherhood and celebrity brand moms. In her work, Lagerwey situates her analysis of celebrity and motherhood via a larger focus on what she calls brand moms: celebrity mothers like Gwyneth Paltrow and Jessica Alba whose 143

Lynn O’Brien Hallstein

primary locus of identity is her children and maternal status who spread their self-brands across media platforms to create and maintain their wealth, fame, and longevity. In doing so, Lagerwey examines how celebrity moms play “versions of themselves on reality television, social media, gossip sites, and self-branded retail outlets [to] negotiate the complex demands of postfeminism and the current fashion for heroic, labor-intensive parenting” (i). Analyzing Paltrow, TLC’s religious moms, and Bravo’s star franchise The Real Housewives, Lagerwey’s work also continues to reveal the importance of and focus on celebrity moms’ maternal bodies. As she puts it: “Because twenty-first century popular culture also overvalues fame, I’ve argued that celebrity women’s maternal bodies serve as instruction manuals of a sort for proper postfeminist citizenship” (118). Finally, Lagerway also continues to confirm how mothers’ labor in the private sphere is reinforced, while also offering individual, privatized solutions to public sphere issues and changes: As they create self-brands and perform motherhood, these celebrities and their children formulate a picture of the ways women should cope with recession and inequality, i.e., by returning to the domestic sphere, refashioning affective labor and domestic labor into entrepreneurialism, and maintaining a slender, youthful, contained body ideal. (118)

Further reading Chae, Jiyoung. “Interest in Celebrities’ Post-baby Bodies and Korean Women’s Body Image Disturbance After Childbirth.” Sex Roles, vol. 71, 2014, pp. 419–35. ———. “Am I a Better Mother Than You?: Media and 21st-Century Motherhood in the Context of the Social Comparison Theory.” Communication Research, vol. 42, no. 4, 2015, pp. 503–25. Douglas, Susan J., and Meredith Michaels. The Mommy Myth: The Idealization of Motherhood and How It Has Undermined Women. Free Press, 2004. Henderson, Angela C., et al. “A New State of Surveillance? An Application of Michel Foucault to Modern Motherhood.” Surveillance & Society, vol. 7, nos. 3–4, 2010, pp. 231–47. Jones, Jennifer Lynn, and Brenda R. Weber. “Reality Moms, Real Monsters: Transmediated Continuity, Reality Celebrity, and the Female Grotesque.” Camera Obscura, vol. 30, no. 1, 2015, pp. 11–38. Lagerwey, Jorie. Postfeminist Celebrity and Motherhood: Brand Mom. Routledge, 2017. O’Brien Hallstein, Lynn. Bikini-Ready Moms: Celebrity Profiles, Motherhood, and the Body. SUNY Press, 2015. Williams, Brittany M., et al. “Who Doesn’t Want to Be This Hot Mom?”: Celebrity Mom Profiles and Mothers’ Accounts of Their Postpartum Bodies.” Sexualization, Media, & Society, July–Sept. 2017, pp. 1–12.

Conclusions Clearly, mediated celebrity motherhood plays a central role in how contemporary motherhood is shaped and reinforced today. Indeed, as Douglas and Michael’s first suggested and my own work continues to confirm, celebrity mom profiles continue to be the most influential media form to sell the new momism, and where its key features are being refined and reinforced, particularly in terms of the obsessive focus on the maternal body in order to integrate a third shift of body work as the fourth core principle of the new momism. Since the publication of Bikini-Ready Moms, this focus on the maternal body and body work has continued to be in full force, possibly even more demanding. As such, future research needs to continue to explore how the new momism continues to develop by making the maternal body the most important symbol and embodiment of contemporary motherhood, how “real” mothers’ lives across cultures are impacted by this new focus, and the ways mediated celebrity motherhood fuels rather than challenges postfeminism. 144

Mediated celebrity motherhood

All the work reviewed here also continues to reveal that all mediated versions of celebrity motherhood remain deeply entrenched in economic, racial, heteronormative, and cisgender privilege. Indeed, rather than less privilege, the second iteration of celebrity mom profiles and reality TV celebrity motherhood show that this privilege is more entrenched rather than less entrenched. As a result, future work must continue to acknowledge this privilege, while also trying to find ways to challenge that privilege. Moreover, the work on “real” mothers’ responses to celebrity motherhood reveals that economic and educational standing do impact how mothers respond to celebrity motherhood. This means, then, that future work on mediated celebrity motherhood must continue to acknowledge both how privilege is embedded within mediated representations of motherhood but also how social location and the cultural vectors of “real” mothers’ lives also impact (or not) responses to and integration of the norms of celebrity motherhood promoted via media’s ongoing obsession with motherhood. Finally, even with the differences between real mothers’ responses in relation to mothers’ economic and educational standing, Williams et al.’s work shows that all the mothers’ surveyed believe that celebrities’ maternal bodies shape men’s expectations of mothers’ postpartum bodies. But, as they point out in the study, they did not interview men in their study. Future work, then, needs to explore how men do or do not respond to celebrity motherhood, and the expectations that those men have or not of the postpregnant bodies of the women in their lives.

Works cited Bedor, Emma, and Atsushi Tajima. “No Fat Moms! Celebrity Mothers’ Weight-Loss Narratives in People Magazine.” Journal of Magazine & New Media Research, vol. 13, no. 2, Summer 2012, pp. 1–26. Bianchi, Suzanne M., et al. Changing Rhythms of American Life. Russell Sage, 2006. Bishop, Mardia J. “The Mommy Lift: Cutting Mothers Down to Size.” Mommy Angst: Motherhood in American Culture, edited by Ann C. Hall and Mardia J. Bishop. Praeger, 2009. Blickley, Leigh. “Kate Middleton vs. Kim Kardashian: It’s Time for a Pregnancy Battle.” huffingtonpost. com, 6 Mar. 2013, www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/kate-middleton-kim-kardashian-pregnancy_ n_2814304.html. Chae, Jiyoung. “Interest in Celebrities’ Post-baby Bodies and Korean Women’s Body Image Disturbance After Childbirth.” Sex Roles, vol. 71, 2014, pp. 419–35. ———. “Am I a Better Mother Than You?: Media and 21st-Century Motherhood in the Context of the Social Comparison Theory.” Communication Research, vol. 42, no. 4, 2015, pp. 503–25. Coontz, Stephanie. “The Family Revolution.” greatergood.berkeley.edu, 1 Sept. 2007, http://greatergood. berkeley.edu/article/item/the_family_revolution. Cunningham, Hilary. “Prodigal Bodies: Pop Culture and Post-Pregnancy.” Michigan Quarterly Review, vol. 41, no. 3, 2002, pp. 429–54. Douglas, Susan J., and Meredith Michaels. The Mommy Myth: The Idealization of Motherhood and How It Has Undermined Women. Free Press, 2004. Dworkin, Shari L., and Faye Linda Wachs. Body Panic: Gender, Health, and the Selling of Fitness. New York UP, 2009. Gamson, Joshua. “The Unwatched Life Is Not Worth Living: The Elevation of the Ordinary in Celebrity Culture.” PMLA, vol. 126, no. 4, Oct. 2011, pp. 1061–69. Special Topic: Celebrity, Fame, Notoriety. Gimlin, Debra. “The Absent Body Project: Cosmetic Surgery as a Response to Bodily Dys-appearance.” Sociology, vol. 40, no. 4, 2006, pp. 699–716. Gremillion, Helen. “In Fitness and in Health: Crafting Bodies in the Treatment of Anorexia Nervosa.” Signs, vol. 27, no. 2, Winter 2002, pp. 381–414. Hayden, Sara, and Heather L. Hundley. “Introduction: Challenging the Motherhood Myth.” Mediated Moms: Contemporary Challenges to the Motherhood Myth, edited by Heather L. Hundley and Sara E. Hayden, Peter Lang, 2016, pp. 1–14. Hays, Sharon. The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood. Yale UP, 1996. Henderson, Angela C., et al. “A New State of Surveillance? An Application of Michel Foucault to Modern Motherhood.” Surveillance & Society, vol. 7, nos. 3–4, 2010, pp. 231–47.

145

Lynn O’Brien Hallstein Hochschild, Arlie. The Second Shift: Working Parents and the Revolution at Home. Viking, 1989. Jermyn, Deborah. “Still Something Else Besides a Mother? Negotiating Celebrity Motherhood in Sarah Jessica Parker’s Star Story.” Social Semiotics, vol. 18, no. 2, June 2008, pp. 163–76. Jette, Shannon. “Fit for Two? A Critical Discourse Analysis of Oxygen Fitness Magazine.” Sociology of Sport Journal, vol. 23, 2006, pp. 331–51. Jones, Jennifer Lynn, and Brenda R. Weber. “Reality Moms, Real Monsters: Transmediated Continuity, Reality Celebrity, and the Female Grotesque.” Camera Obscura, vol. 30, no. 1, 2015, pp. 11–38. Lagerwey, Jorie. Postfeminist Celebrity and Motherhood: Brand Mom. Routledge, 2017. Lareau, Annette. Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life. U of California P, 2003. Lee, Sharon Heijin. The (Geo)politics of Beauty: Race, Transnationalism, and Neoliberalism in South Korean Beauty Culture. 2012. U of Michigan, PhD dissertation. Lovejoy, Meg, and Pamela Stone. “Opting Back In: The Influence of Time at Home on Professional Women’s Career Redirection after Opting Out.” Gender, Work and Organization, vol. 19, no. 6, Nov. 2012, pp. 631–53. McRobbie, Angela. “Post-Feminism and Popular Culture.” Feminist Media Studies, vol. 4, no. 3, 2004, pp. 255–64. ———. “Yummy Mummies Leave a Bad Taste for Young Women.” theguardian.com, 1 Mar. 2006, www. theguardian.com/world/2006/mar/02/gender.comment. “Motherhood Today: Tougher Challenges, Less Success.” Pew Research Center, 2 May 2007, www.peoplepress.org/2007/05/02/motherhood-today-tougher-challenges-less-success/. Nash, Meredith. Making “Postmodern” Mothers: Pregnant Embodiment, Baby Bumps, and Body Image. Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. ———. “Shapes of Motherhood: Exploring Postnatal Body Image through Photographs.” Journal of Gender Studies, vol. 24, no. 1, 2015, pp. 18–37. Nelson, Margaret K. Parenting Out of Control: Anxious Parents in Uncertain Times. New York UP, 2010. O’Brien Hallstein, Lynn. Bikini-Ready Moms: Celebrity Profiles, Motherhood, and the Body. SUNY Press, 2015. O’Reilly, Andrea, editor. Mother Outlaws: Theories and Practices of Empowered Mothering. Women’s Press, 2004. Podnieks, Elizabeth. “Introduction: Popular Culture’s Maternal Embrace.” Mediated Moms: Mothers in Popular Culture, edited by Elizabeth Podnieks, McGill-Queen’s UP, 2012, pp. 3–34. Rosenfeld, Alvin, and Nicole Wise. The Over-Scheduled Child: Avoiding the Hyper-Parenting. St. Martin’s Griffin, 2001. Stone, Pamela. Opting Out?: Why Women Really Quit Careers and Head Home. U of California P, 2007. Villalobos, Ana. Motherload: Making It All Better in Insecure Times. U of California P, 2014. Warner, Judith. “Mommy Madness (excerpted from Perfect Madness): What Happened when the Girls Who Had It All Became Mothers? A New Book Explores Why This Generation Feels So Insane.” thedailybeast.com, 21 Feb. 2012, www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2005/02/21/mommy-madness.print.html. Williams, Brittany M., et al. “ ‘Who Doesn’t Want to Be This Hot Mom?’: Celebrity Mom Profiles and Mothers’ Accounts of Their Postpartum Bodies.” Sexualization, Media, & Society, July–Sept. 2017, pp. 1–12. Wolf, Naomi. Misconceptions: Truth, Lies, and the Unexpected on the Journey to Motherhood. Anchor Books, 2003.

146

11 FEMINIST ART AND MOTHERHOOD An overview Myrel Chernick and Jennie Klein

Introduction This chapter is concerned with the relationship between maternity, maternal ideology, secondwave feminism, and the art world. In this chapter, we argue that while women artists are being recognized in the history of art and contemporary women artists are being included in major exhibitions, there is still a prejudice in the art world against women who are mothers and against artwork that addresses or engages with the idea of the maternal. Artist mothers are not encouraged to participate in the art world, and artwork about motherhood is often rejected by curators. While there are plenty of images of mothers in art museums such as the Virgin and Christ Child, there is very little contemporary art that explores the lived experience of maternity. The situation is slowly improving. There have been some promising developments including resources that are both online and in physical venues, a proliferation of artwork about the maternal made in a variety of media, art exhibitions that are themed around the maternal, and the use of the idea of the maternal to theorize activism, maternal subjectivity, and a maternal ethics.

Background and context Historical overview of maternal artists and exhibitions The history of maternal art and theory is fairly recent, as even second-wave feminist-identified artists were ambivalent or even hostile to the idea of artist mothers and their children. Historian Michelle Moravec, noting that the slogan “the personal is political” represented the issues that feminists saw as appropriate for a social movement to address, has suggested that “these topics encompassed everything from the drudgery of housework to women’s orgasms, but rarely extended to an analysis of motherhood” (12). Laura Silagi, one of the founders of Mother Art, encountered overt hostility towards motherhood at the Woman’s Building. Silagi, who had founded a co-op daycare while she was still at the University of California, San Diego, was told by one of the (childless) founding professors at the Feminist Studio Workshop that she could not be a mother and an artist (Moravec 12). As Moravec notes, the “members of Mother Art faced intertwining myths about motherhood and art that made it seem almost impossible to combine the two roles (12). There 147

Myrel Chernick and Jennie Klein

were historical examples of women artists who combined art and motherhood such as Elisabeth Vigée Le Brun (1755–1842), Paula Modersohn Becker (1876–1907), and Käthe Kollwitz (1867–1945), although these artists were not widely known in 1972. One important project that has been undertaken by feminist critics, curators, and art historians is to address the historical lacuna of mother artists, just as their earlier counterparts did for women artists. Two important exhibitions in 2015 – The Great Mother: Women, Maternity, and Power in Art and Visual Culture, 1900–2015, curated by Massimiliano Gioni, and Rabenmütter: Zwischen Kraft une Krise: Mütterbilder von 1900 bis heute/Mother of the Year (Between Empowerment and Crisis: Images of Motherhood From 1900 to Today), curated by Sabine Fellner, Elisabeth Nowak-Thaller, and Stella Rollig – addressed both historical mother artists and the history of the representation of mothers in the visual arts. Both exhibitions, hosted in major venues (Palazzo Reale, Milan, and Lentos Art Museum, Linz), included over 100 artists, many of them male, and many more of them not biological mothers.

Contemporary maternal art exhibitions The Great Mother and Rabenmütter were not the first exhibitions of maternal-themed art. In 1966 the artist Niki de Saint Phalle constructed Hon (Her, in Swedish) a 6-ton, 82-feet-long, 30-feet-wide hugely pregnant Nana, at the modern museum in Stockholm. The visitors entered the belly through the vagina, which contained a cinema, a milk bar in the right breast, and a planetarium in the left. Saint Phalle called it “a temple, a cathedral, the return to the womb or the biggest whore in the world . . . She was also the devouring [mother], who chewed up and digested her public” (Niki Charitable Art Foundation). In 1968 the Paris-based Argentinian artist Lea Lublin presented Mon Fils (My son) at the Parisian “Salon de Mai” held in the Musée d’Art Moderne (Spencer). In the interest of creating a dialogue between gender, culture, and social life, Lublin set up her seven-month-old son’s crib under her painting and brought him with her to the exhibit every day, playing with him, feeding him, and caring for him (Lea Lublin). The following year Mierle Laderman Ukeles presented Manifesto for Maintenance Art 1969! originally written as a proposal for an exhibition she labelled Care (Phillips 42). After Ukeles gave birth to her first child, she had little time to create art. Ukeles decided to call her work as a mother Maintenance Art (Yngvason 9). Mary Kelly exhibited Post-partum Document (1973– 1979) at the ICA in London in 1976. The installation, which would eventually grow to include 139 works, used Lacanian psychoanalytic theory to analyze the first six years of her son Kelly Barrie’s psycho-social development as he separated from his mother. Post-Partum Document was a watershed in terms of maternal representation, as it was a rigorously conceptual and theoretical work that materialized and literalized the way in which developing language and representation skills produce subjectivity and separation. Kelly ceased working on the piece when her son was able to write his name. As suggested by these examples, there were very few, if any, art exhibitions devoted to maternity even at the height of the feminist art movement. When Chernick first curated Maternal Metaphors for the Rochester Contemporary in 2004, she could only point to one other exhibition of maternal art – Signe Thiell’s Doublebind, exhibited at the Kanstlerhaus Bethanian, Berlin, in 2003. The landscape has changed considerably since that time. Various factors contributed to this, including a new generation of young, feminist mothers who were already affiliated with academia and had MFAs from prestigious art schools, the facility of visual communication on the web and social media, the globalization of the art world, and the decentralization and re-localization of artists and art communities outside of major urban centers. There is a growing interest in artwork that addresses the relationship between feminism, maternity, caretaking, 148

Feminist art and motherhood

environmentalism, and activism. It is a welcome development that several major exhibitions on maternal art have been mounted since 2010. Beyond Re/Production: Mothering took place at the Kunstraum Kreuzberg, Berlin, 2011. An exhibition curated by Felicita Reuschling that addressed the relationship between maternity, caring, and carework, Beyond Reproduction included artists from South America and South Africa as well as Europe. The work in the exhibition and many of the essays in the accompanying catalogue addressed the relationship between motherhood, neoliberalism, and the economy of carework. The exhibition included several collectives: TIWA/Taiwan International Workers Association and the MRCI/Migrant Rights Workers Centre Ireland. Natalie Loveless curated New Maternalisms (2012, FADO Performance Space, Toronto), New Maternalisms Chile (2014, along with Soledad Novoa Donoso, Museo de Arte Conteporáneo MAC, Santiago de Chile), and New Maternalisms Redux (2016, FAB/Fine Arts Building Gallery at University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada). The exhibitions were premised on the materiality, affect, and activist potential of motherhood. New Maternalisms Redux was part of Mapping the Maternal: Art, Ethics, and the Anthropocene, a colloquium organized by Loveless and Sheena Wilson that grappled with how a maternal ethics might offer new ways of thinking about the Anthropocene, a term coined by Paul Crutzen and Eugene Stoermer in 2010 to indicate the geological impact of humans on the planet. Mapping the Maternal was an attempt to use maternal ethics – defined by philosopher Sara Ruddick as a nonviolent, anti-militaristic approach based on the daily job of nurturing children and by psychoanalyst Bracha Ettinger as an early language based on the threads of connection and coextensiveness between mother and child – to address the societal and ecological imbalance of the world today and to develop strategies for moving forward. Home Truths was curated by Susan Bright in 2014 and shown in four venues in the United Kingdom and the United States. An exhibition of contemporary photography and video work about maternity, Home Truths included work that addressed the new visibility of the mother on social media, infant mortality, and infertility (haunting photographs by Elina Brotherus that reference earlier painted images of The Annunciation). Bright also included Leigh Ledare’s photographic series Pretend You’re Actually Alive of his mother, Tina Peterson, having sexual relations with a series of men about the same age as Ledare, along with Tierney Gearon’s disturbing images of her mother descending into mental illness in the series The Mother Project. The accompanying catalogue included essays by Bright and Simon Watney that addressed the interrelationship between the histories of photography and images of mothers. Lise Haller Baggesen’s Mothernism was exhibited at multiple venues in the United States and Europe. Mothernism is an environment – a womb-like nomadic tent camp installation. The brightly colored disco tent is a place for relaxing, for conversation, and for listening. The artist’s voice over recounts stories of life and passion, informs us, exhorts us, encourages, and cajoles us. Mothernism is also a book/manifesto for artist/mothers that describes itself as being somewhere “at the intersection of feminism, science fiction, and disco” (17). The book takes the form of a series of letters, dedicated to Baggesen’s daughter, sister, and readers. Baggeson’s topics are wideranging – rape, where is the mother in the museum, Saint Phalle’s Hon, and an apparatus that allows you to take a picture of your vagina. Through the Eyes of the Mother, curated in 2014 by the late Hye-Seong Tak Lee for the Korean Cultural Center of Chicago and for the Baekryun Gallery (Gwangju Art Association Building), Gwangju, South Korea, included artists from South Korea and North America. The exhibition was particularly significant in that so many artists from South Korea were included. The Let Down Reflex was curated by Amber Bersen and Juliana Driever in 2016 for EFA Project Space, New York, and again for Take Care: Circuit 2: Carework (curated by the collective Letters and Handshakes/Greig de Peuter and Christine Shaw for the Blackwood Gallery, 149

Myrel Chernick and Jennie Klein

University of Toronto Mississauga) in October and November of 2017. The title of the exhibition referred to the letdown of breast milk and the way in which parents were “let down” by the art world. Bersen and Driever asked the artist/parents to envision “an art world where ‘Mom’ is not a demeaning characterization, where childcare is factored-in for participating artists at art spaces, and where artists aren’t forced to choose between home and work because of a lack of parental leave” (Press Release). Take Care included five exhibitions that were noteworthy in that they questioned and deconstructed the idea of caregiving, paid and unpaid labour, the relationship of care to self-care and health, and significantly, the theorization of care as an activist ecological strategy, thus echoing the themes of Mapping the Maternal and the 2017 conference The Mothernists II. Repeat Pressure Until was curated by photographer Sheilah ReStack/Wilson for Ortega Y Gassets Project, New York, and for Angela Meleca Gallery, Columbus, Ohio, in 2017. For this photographic exhibition on images of maternity, ReStack invited artists to submit images that are presented with little explanation – the viewer is left to draw connections between the works. ReStack/Wilson has published two zine-like books Mother Mother volumes 1 and 2, for which she accepted contributions and again published the images without explanation. Artist and Mother, a 2018 documentary that aired on KCET’s Artbound, was directed and produced by Joanna Sokolowski and Kate Trumbull-LaValle. Artist and Mother profiled four southern California artist mothers: Kenyatta A.C. Hinkle, Andrea Chung, Rebecca Campbell, and Tanya Aguiñiga. In addition, it included interviews with Micol Hebron, New York Times journalist Jori Finkel, and curators Naima Keith and Helen Molesworth. The documentary was accompanied on the KCET website by several articles about mother artists.

Institutions, organizations, and resources The growth in exhibitions on maternal art have been accompanied by the establishment of Do It Yourself/DIY institutions and resources to support mother art, many of them online. Lenka Clayton created her Artist Residency in Motherhood in 2012 after the birth of her son. Realizing that most residencies were closed to artists with young children, Clayton crafted a residency for herself that acknowledged the built in interruptions of small children (lenkaclayton.com). Clayton’s residency was so successful that she created a website for artist-mothers to structure their own residency – anyone could apply, and the application was free (artistresidencyinmotherhood.com). Hebron’s and Carren Jao’s “Artist-Mothers: Where to Find Them and Who Supports Them” was compiled in conjunction with the KCET Artbound Artist Mother episode. Hebron and Jao crowdsourced mother artists, related projects, activist art, grants, exhibitions, publications, and residencies in order to put together a comprehensive list of maternal artmaking. Ruchika Wason Singh’s online Archive for Mapping Mother Artists in Asia (AMMAA) includes artists’ pages, interviews, exhibitions, and a manifesto. Wason Singh has also established Creative Collaborative Mothers, a self-funded residency. Cultural Reproducers, founded in 2012 by Christa Donner, is an excellent resource for artists, events, and exhibitions. The Artist Parent Index is an astonishingly complete index launched in 2016 by Sarah Irvin and Kathryn Carney (working as an intern). Other helpful online resources include The M/Other Voices Project (Deirdre M. Donoghue), Chicana M(Other)work, The Institute for the Practice of Art and Dissent at Home (Lena Šimić), Desperate Artwives (Amy Dignam), The Procreate Project (Dyana Gravina), Digital Institute for Early Parenthood (Mila Oshin), the blog section of the egg, the womb, the head and the moon (Helen Sargeant), and The Motherload (Natalie Macellaio and Lesli Robertson). Most of these resources were established by artists, who, upon becoming mothers, felt very isolated from the art world and their art-making practices. 150

Feminist art and motherhood

There have been some key conferences and symposia dedicated to maternal art as well, beginning with the day of panels that we/Chernick and Klein organized for The Feminist Art Project in 2014, which took place in Chicago at the same time as the College Art Association meeting. The theme of TFAP@CAA Day of Panels was The M Word. The panels included talks on historical artists, individual artist presentations, and artist collectives such as Broodwork and Cultural Reproducers. In 2015, Elena Marchevska and Valeria Walkerdine organized Motherhood and Creative Practice: Maternal Structures in Creative Work at London South Bank University, London. Immediately following that conference was Mothernism I, organized by the M/Other Voices Project and named after Haller Baggeson’s exhibition and book of the same title. Mapping the Maternal: Art, Ethics, and the Anthropocene, discussed earlier, took place the following year within Baggeson’s Mothernism installation. That same year, Lena Šimić and Emily UnderwoodLee organized the conference Motherhood and Live Art, held at the Institute for Art and Practice of Dissent at Home in Liverpool. Following up on the strategies discussed in Mapping the Maternal, M/Other Voices Donahue and Haller Baggeson organized their second conference The Mothernists II: Who Cares for The 21st Century? in Copenhagen in 2017.

Central theories and themes There are three primary areas of interest for mother artists working today: articulating a maternal subjectivity/language/representation, using the position of the maternal as a conduit for social and environmental activism and affective care, and the performance and materiality of the maternal. Feminist mother artists, influenced by Kelly’s Post-Partum Document, have been interested in exploring the psychic development of the maternal subject and forging a maternal language of representation that exists outside of the patriarchal economy. More recently, Lisa Baraitser and Bracha Ettinger have theorized a maternal subjectivity that counters the Freud to Lacan insistence on separation and lack as the path to subjectivity. Ettinger has argued for a subsymbolic or Real mode of representation that exists outside of language, a representation based on the connection with an/other, that can be accessed through representation or art (The Matrixial Borderspace). Ettinger’s theorization of matrixial subjectivity thus makes a case for the centrality of visual representation (Ettinger is herself an artist) in teasing out an identity and mode of representation that is not binary and hence patriarchal. Baraitser has been particularly important for artists thinking about maternal subjectivity as a new identity forged in connection with another being. For Baraitser, a key idea is that of interruption, which Baraitser uses to argue for the notion of relationality in terms of care work (Maternal Encounters). Maternal artistic activism is influenced by Sara Ruddick’s theorization of maternal thinking, a kind of moral virtue and intelligence that is honed through caring for a young child. Mothering (which Ruddick argued can be done by a man or a woman) produces empathy for others and a receptivity for change. Such qualities, Ruddick argued, can be brought to bear on political action, particularly actions against war and injustice. Maternal activism is moral and ethical. It recognizes the impact of human actions on the sentient and non-sentient alike and approaches all beings with compassion and openness. The third theme, performance, has been influenced by the writing of Judith Butler, who has argued in Gender Trouble (1989) and Bodies That Matter (1993) that the construction of gender is mutable, and that gender and identity are performative rather than biological and universal. The issue for mother artists is how the performance of maternity can challenge the hegemonic construction of the institution of motherhood in order to foreground lived experience and maternal activism. Central to this interrogation of the performance of maternity is the idea of maternal agency (Kinser et al. 3). In their jointly authored “Manifesto for Maternal Performance 151

Myrel Chernick and Jennie Klein

(Art) 2016!” modeled on that of Ukeles, artists Šimić and Underwood-Lee, drawing on the work of Ettinger and Baraitser, define the performance of motherhood as a combination of embodiment, abjection, transgression, and transcendence, stating that “Maternal performance smells” (132).

Central issues At this point there are several pressing issues. First is whether artists and art professionals who are mothers fear retaliation by acknowledging and including their children in their art-making practices and careers. To a certain degree, this situation has improved since the 1970s, as evidenced by programs such as Artist and Mother or the Artsy podcast Motherhood, Children, and Art, produced by the editorial staff at Artsy and accompanied by an article authored by Marina Cashdan that profiled well-known artist mothers such as Tara Donovan, Diana Al-Hadid, Kara Walker, Nikki Maloof, and Laurie Simmons. On the other hand, mother artists, curators, and critics are not welcomed with open arms. The situation of Nikki Columbus is a case in point. A respected curator and editor who had worked for the art publications Artforum and Parkett, Columbus was formally offered a position at MoMA PSI as curator of performance in August 2017. But just a few weeks later, Columbus, while negotiating her contract, mentioned that she had recently had a baby and suddenly found that her job offer, for which she had been recruited, was rescinded. Ms. Columbus filed a complaint with the New York City Commission on human rights (Ryzik). Another issue is the continued marginalization and discomfort with the idea of the maternal in art. So pervasive is the prejudice against art that engages with maternal issues that even artists, curators, and critics who frankly acknowledge that they have given birth are loath to be associated with art work that is about maternity. For example, none of the artists profiled in Artist and Mother are making work that directly addresses the maternal, which is probably why they are more successful than the artists profiled in the articles on the Artbound website that do make maternal art.

Challenges The central challenge facing mother artists, curators, critics, and art historians today is not so much a debate about methodologies as it is the continued ambivalence and even shame regarding having children. Why is it hard to be both an artist and mother? This question warrants multiple responses that range from the practical to the psychological. Is it hard to be a mother? To be fully responsible for one or more human beings from birth to adulthood? Is it hard to be a mother who works outside the home? To add another commitment of time, energy, and responsibility to that of being a mother? Is it hard to be an artist and a mother? Most dedicated artists have a deep psychological commitment to their work. In 1992, Joan Snyder, a wellknown painter, was asked to contribute to a forum edited by Susan Bee and Mira Schor for M/E/A/N/I/N/G. “Being an artist and a mother: hard. Being a single mother and an artist: harder. Being a mother is being a mother is being a mother. Being an artist means doing your work. You need time and you need help. Years and years of help” (Snyder, qtd. in Bee and Schor 36). Of the 32 artists who participated in the forum, the great majority of them discuss the difficulties of combining a career in art with motherhood. And if one dismisses the concept of the artist as solitary (male) genius in his studio, as does Linda Nochlin in her groundbreaking essay from 1971, “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?”, we have to conclude as she does, “that the total situation of art making, both in terms of the development of the art maker 152

Feminist art and motherhood

and in the nature and quality of the work of art itself, occur in a social situation, are integral elements of this social structure, and are mediated and determined by specific and definable social institutions” (158). In the past, women artists were not granted the social structure necessary in order to devote themselves to their art. Visual artists need space in which to work. They need time. And since the great majority of women who see themselves foremost as artists do not earn a living from their artwork, this necessitates a third employment, often teaching or working in a related field. In her recent book, Mothers: An essay on love and cruelty, Jacqueline Rose asks: “Why are mothers not seen as having everything to contribute, by dint of being mothers, to our understanding . . . of public, political space?” (Kindle Locations 194–95). The same question could be applied to the art world. Rose goes on to quote the poet Adrienne Rich, who wrote that “the male mind has always been haunted by the force of the idea of dependence on a woman for life itself ” (Rich, Of Women Born, 1976, qtd. in Rose, Kindle Locations 309–11). And the art world, still dominated by individual successful male artists, adheres to the concept of the selfless mother who is “expected to pour undiluted love and devotion into her child” (Kindle Locations 927–28). Visual representation of maternal ambivalence is difficult to accept in a world where the mother is almost always considered through the point of view of the (male) child. In an essay published in 2012, Chernick wrote, acknowledging one’s ambivalence is for a mother the first step in relating to her child. The competition between the two intense areas of an artist/mother’s life is acute, as evidenced by the great numbers of artists who stop making art once they have children. If the denial of maternal ambivalence were not so deeply rooted in this society, we would not so constantly feel the need to tell women how to be good mothers and to condemn them when they fail to meet the ideal. (264)

Directions for future research Future work on art and the maternal would include the following: •

•

•

•

An address of both the place for mothers and parents in the art world and by extension the world and the use of the idea/theorization of the maternal to address larger issues around caregiving, ecological activism, post-humanism, and the relationship between objects and actions. A focus on artists working outside of the Western paradigm of maternity. Such artists already exist – Wason Singh immediately comes to mind, but there is also Arahmaiani Feisal (Indonesia), Lynn Charlotte Lu (Singapore/London), Alejandra Herrera Silva (Chile), Lina Adam (Singapore), Amanda Heng (Singapore), Regina José Galindo (Guatemala), and Monica Mayor/Madres! (Mexico) – all artists challenging the western European and North American construction of maternity. It is our hope that exhibitions will take place outside of North America and Europe. At present, Wason Singh is one of the few organizers working outside of the West, and we would like to see many more join her in her efforts. Artists, curators, critics, and institutions support work that continues to address anti-­patriarchal, postcolonial, global, and queer maternal identities as well as to address the history of maternal representation in art and culture. Support for mother-artists such as on-site childcare at conferences, child-friendly art spaces, and the places set aside for breastfeeding and diaper changes. 153

Myrel Chernick and Jennie Klein

Further reading Bright, Susan, editor. Home Truths: Photography and Motherhood. Art/Books, The Photographers’ Gallery/ The Foundling Museum/MoCP, 2013. Epp-Buller, Rachel, and Charles Reeve, editors. Inappropriate Bodies: Art, Design, and Maternity. Demeter Press, 2019. Fellner, Sabina, editor. RABENMÜTTER: Zwischen Kraft und Krise: Mütterbilder von 1900 bis heute. Lentos Kunstmuseum Linz, 2016. Gioni, Massimiliano, editor. The Great Mother: Women, Maternity, and Power in Art and Visual Culture, 1900– 2015. Fondazione Nicola Trussardi, 2015. Haller Baggesen, Lise. Mothernism. Green Lantern Press, 2014. Loveless, Natalie, and Sheena Wilson, editors. New Maternalisms Redux. Department of Art and Design, U of Alberta, 2018. Marchevska, Elena, and Valeria Walkerdine, editors. Maternal in Creative Work: Intergenerational Discussions on Motherhood and Art. Routledge, 2019.

Conclusion In 2018, Carmen Winant’s My Birth, 2018, comprised of over 2,000 found images of women in various stages of giving birth, was included in Being: New Photography 2018, part of MoMA’s biannual New Photography Series. This level of visibility for an artist whose work addresses the representation of the maternal was unimaginable even five years earlier. That doesn’t necessarily mean, however, that maternal imagery and mothers will suddenly start to show up at major museum exhibitions and art fairs, or even that it will suddenly become easier for mother artists to have a career in an industry that is notorious for its lack of secure employment opportunities. The curatorial statement that Amber Bernsen and Juliana Driever wrote in 2016 and again in 2018 for The Letdown Reflex is sobering: When we set out to create an exhibition about parenting, we were weary from concealing our roles as parents in order to not jeopardize our careers. . . . We were exhausted by assumptions that our appetite for professional involvement would – and maybe should – change because of our parental status. And we were tired of feeling alone; alienated from the larger (art) world by our fear of speaking up about these issues. (2016) As the #MeToo movement gains momentum, we anticipate that more mother artists will stand up to the continuing discrimination against mothers in the art world.

Works cited “Artist and Mother.” Artbound, Season 9, Episode 7. KCET. Burbank, California, 18 Apr. 2018. Baraitser, Lisa. Maternal Encounters. Routledge, 2009. [Bookshelf Online], https://bookshelf.vitalsource. com/#/books/9781134050710/. Bee, Susan, and Mira Schor. “Forum: On Motherhood, Art, and Apple Pie.” M/E/A/N/I/N/G, vol. 12, Nov. 1992, pp. 3–42. Bernsen, Amber, and Juliana Driever. “The Let Down Reflex: Curator’s Statement.” EFA Project Space Program, 2016, www.projectspace-efanyc.org/the-let-down-reflex/. Accessed 22 May 2018. Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble. Routledge, 1989. ———. Bodies That Matter. Routledge, 1993. Cashdan, Marina. “You Can Be a Mother and Still Be a Successful Artist.” Artsy, 24 Aug. 2016, www.artsy. net/article/artsy-editorial-why-motherhood-won-t-hinder-your-career-as-an-artist. Accessed 10 Aug. 2018.

154

Feminist art and motherhood Chernick, Myrel. “Reflections on Art, Motherhood, and Maternal Ambivalence.” Reconciling Art and Motherhood, edited by Rachel Epp Buller, Ashgate, 2012, pp. 255–66. Clayton, Lenka. Artist Residency in Motherhood. http://residencyinmotherhood.com/. Accessed 10 Aug. 2018. ———. An Artist Residency in Motherhood. www.artistresidencyinmotherhood.com/. Accessed 10 Aug. 2018. Ettinger, Bracha L. The Matrixial Border Space, edited and afterword by Brian Massumi. Foreword by Judith Butler. Introduction by Griselda Pollock. U of Minnesota P, 2006. Hebron, Micol, and Carren Jao. “Artist-Mothers: Where to Find Them and Who Supports Them.” KCET Artbound/Culture Politics, 18 Apr. 2018, www.kcet.org/shows/artbound/artist-mothers-where-to-findthem-and-who-supports-them. Accessed 22 May 2018. Kaplan, Isaac, et al. “Motherhood, Children, and Art.” The Artsy Podcast #12, 8 Sept. 2016, https://sound cloud.com/artsypodcast/artsy_090716. Kelly, Mary. Post-Partum Document. U of California P, 1999. Kinser, Amber E., et al., editors. Performing Motherhood: Artistic, Activist, and Everyday Enactments. Demeter Press, 2014. Lena Šimić, Lena, and Emily Underwood-Lee, editors. “Special Issue of Performance Research: On the Maternal.” Performance Research, vol. 22, no. 4, 2017. Lublin, Lea. “Mon Fils (1969).” Lea Lublin, www.lealublin.com/mon-fils/. Accessed 20 May 2018. Moravec, Michelle. “Introduction: Make Room for Mommy: Feminist Artists and My Maternal Musings.” Mother Art, edited by Suzanne Siegel et al., Otis College of Art and Design/Ben Maltz Gallery, 2011, pp. 10–15. Niki Charitable Art Foundation. “50 Years Since Hon.” Niki de Saint Phalle, http://nikidesaintphalle. org/50-years-since-hon/. Accessed 20 May 2018. Nochlin, Linda. Women, Art, Power and Other Essays. Harper & Row, 1988. Rose, Jacqueline. Mothers: An Essay on Love and Cruelty. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition. Ruddick, Sarah. Maternal Thinking. Beacon Press, 1989. Ryzek, Melena. “Curator Says MoMA PSI Wanted Her, Until She Had a Baby.” The New York Times, 6 July 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/07/06/arts/design/moma-ps1-discrimination-suit-baby.html. Accessed 11 Aug. 2018. Spencer, Catherine. “Acts of Displacement: Lea Lublin’s Mon Fils, May ’68, and Feminist Psychosocial Revolt.” Oxford Art Journal, vol. 40, no. 1, Mar. 2017, pp. 67–83. doi: 10.1093/oxartj/kcx012. Wilson, Sheilah (ReStack). Mother Mother, vol. 1, Self Published, 2016. ———. Mother Mother, vol. 2, Self Published, 2017. Wolfson, Julie. “Life Lessons: Motherhood and Art.” Artbound. KCET, 17 Apr. 2018, www.kcet.org/shows/ artbound/life-lessons-motherhood-and-art. Accessed 20 May 2018. Yngvason, Hafthor. Conservation and Maintenance of Contemporary Public Art. Archetype, 2002.

155

12 RELIGIONS AND MOTHERS Florence Pasche Guignard

Introduction This chapter provides key categories and notions to study mothers, motherhood, and mothering at the intersection with religions and spiritualities. Religion and maternity1 rarely are examined together, even as gender has become a widespread critical category of analysis in the study of religions. Rather than offering any detailed accounts or specific case studies, this chapter constitutes a general introduction and invites us to consider a plurality of institutional, organized religions rooted in historical traditions, as well as more recent, contemporary or emerging trends. Building on scholarship on religion and gender more generally, it focuses on issues specific to motherhood rather than to gender or femininity. Although many religious representations, discourses, and practices tend to conflate “women” with “mothers,” it is crucial for any academic perspective on religions and maternity to distinguish these categories and thus to avoid any essentialist assumptions. To this end, a cross-cultural and implicitly comparative approach is helpful in replacing in critical perspective what religious discourses and actors say about mothers, motherhood, and, more rarely, mothering. Uncovering what mothers themselves express, through a variety of media, about their own religious experiences and practices is possible only in contexts where sufficient data is available. Although definitions of both religion and spirituality are contentious, a broad definition of religion as a distinctive part of culture is relevant for this chapter, with the awareness that “religion” is not always a neatly carved out and separate domain. Spirituality is a term useful to highlight the discrepancy between official or orthodox discourses and the lived reality of people (e.g., practices and beliefs not necessarily rooted in or central to institutions). This chapter highlights many intersections between “the maternal” and “the religious” beyond obvious key figures and themes (outlined in the central themes section), acknowledging the diversity of ways in which religions and spiritualities influence or shape motherhood, as an institution, mothers, and, in some instances, mothering as women’s own experience of being mothers. After a preliminary historical overview, I outline a list of central themes at the intersection of religion and maternity, with the intention to draw attention to topics that deserve more scrutiny or that remain difficult to identify. After discussing selected issues around these themes, I address a few controversies and challenges. Finally, before the concluding remarks and the bibliographical section, I outline directions for future research. 156

Religions and mothers

Background and context Historical overview Neither religious traditions themselves nor those who study them academically have always recognized mothers or the maternal as central issues. Several recent studies with a sharper focus (see the bibliographical section) successfully uncover and analyze new materials or reconsider traditional sources. On the one hand, few scholars of religions have focused their work on motherhood or mothers, and mothering is even more rarely at the center. On the other hand, motherhood studies scholars have only recently paid attention to religion specifically either as a decisive vector in enforcing traditional or conservative gender norms, or as a potential path to empower mothers. Theologians, too, some from within their own tradition and others with some more distance, have written about spirituality as a way for (mostly) women to express in their own terms their experience of being mothers and of mothering, as well as mothers reclaiming their own spiritual paths (Stovell; Thomas). Most of the key themes outlined in the next section relate to motherhood as an institution, though studies on women’s own experience of engaging in maternal practice are becoming more frequent, especially in anthropology. Because of epistemological or methodological issues, religious dimensions of mothering rarely are brought to the foreground. Indeed, for historians, access to relevant past sources is a key issue (Cooper and Phelan). Literature of various genres, attributed to men authors, gives us some access to expressions of particular aspects of maternity. Furthermore, an essentialist position that considers maternity as natural, instinctive, and universal, exempts scholars from documenting and studying it, since it is assumed to be the same everywhere and at all times. Yet, religion is one of the factors that contributes to the variety of motherhood. Although the religious lives of women – especially the literate ones who frequently also were close to or part of the religious elite – have never been completely erased or censored, the spiritual lives of mothers and their religious activities in relation with motherhood often remain a blind spot. It is rarely acknowledged explicitly that mothers are necessary to physically give birth to, as well as to practically (through care work) and symbolically transmit religion to and sustain (through religious upbringing and education, among others) the human beings that compose any religious group. Divine images or normative moral discourse tend to occupy the forefront of most discussions on religion and mothers or motherhood. The next section outlines key themes, without claiming any exhaustivity, beyond the frequent, essentialist, and naturalizing focus on “women as mothers” and of notions of “good religious motherhood” within religious traditions themselves as well as in the works of those who study them.

Central themes The variety of religions and spiritualities past and present around the globe adds to the diversity of motherhood as a social and cultural construction, beyond biologically determined processes of sexual reproduction. Attempts at a general theorizing on maternity and religion, even from feminist perspectives, are bound to fail because it is indeed perilous to claim any systematic thinking about and with categories that cover such a diversity of expressions. The following section, however, provides readers with a list of themes transversal to several religions and spiritualities, and suggest works of reference. Many studies indeed focus on maternal themes or figures within well-defined religious or spiritual traditions (with specific references to a time period, a geographical area, or to particular ethnic or linguistic expressions). Beyond encyclopedia entries that provide a general framework (Harper) or consider motherhood in particular traditions (see 157

Florence Pasche Guignard

particular entries in the Encyclopedia of Motherhood), it is difficult to find works that consider not just reproduction or childbirth, but women and others in their specific role as mothers (whether biological, social, or spiritual) in religions. Religious traditions themselves indeed produce and reproduce their own discourses about motherhood in which the lived reality of past and contemporary human mothers rarely is central. Some traditions, however, often those outside of the most studied monotheistic ones, feature maternal figures (both human and suprahuman ones) more prominently, often with an awareness on the multidimensional aspects of motherhood, as we will see later. When addressed specifically to human mothers (more rarely, generically, to parents), religious discourses tend to convey normative views on the very topic of motherhood and family. Issues related to parenting have only recently been considered as valid topics for the study of religions (Lofton). Yet, the contents of such discourses about mothers or addressed to them, might play a crucial role in the everyday religious lives of practitioners, whether or not they mother children. Recurring themes emerge in social sciences and humanities scholarship on various aspects of motherhood in different religious traditions. Specific points of controversy and challenges, especially relevant to contemporary issues, will be discussed next, but first, based on a previously published and more extensive review (Pasche Guignard, “The Academic Study of Religions and Mothering”), the following section outlines central themes and topics relating to religion and maternity in a variety of past and contemporary traditions. Maternal cosmological narratives. Notions of generating and sustaining life are at the very center of several cosmogonies and worldviews that can distinctively be labeled as religious. Some mythological narratives conceptualize the “beginning” or the “creation” of the world with metaphors of sexual reproduction involving a maternal (though not necessarily human) body, with fecundation, gestation, and childbirth or parthenogenesis. Others emphasize the role of certain divine entities as sustainers and nurturers of humans and other sentient beings. Divine motherhood and mother goddesses. Many artistic or literary figures have been interpreted as mother goddesses, mother of the gods, or Mother of God. Systematically reading and reclaiming artifacts shaped like female bodies as “fertile,” “maternal,” or as “divine,” is problematic (Eller). In polytheistic systems that, to some extent, reflect human systems of kinship and family relations, a plurality of suprahuman figures (mostly though not exclusively feminine ones) are concerned with aspects of human life most directly related to maternity. A variety of divinities are prayed to for the good health of the mother and child. Some goddesses have maternal aspects of nurturance and protection while retaining an ambivalent character of potential danger to the child and to the mother as well. Other goddesses are constructed as feminine but without being maternal. “Mother goddesses” are not necessarily associated with children of their own, with many children, nor are represented in the very act of giving birth. Lactating or breastfeeding goddesses are more common. Other maternal figures. A range of other nonhuman figures, including male and animal ones, that have maternal aspects or take on maternal roles are featured in myths and other sacred narratives. The extent to which othermothers are represented varies in each tradition. Some sources mention other protective or nurturing figures that intervene in the life of the child in addition to the birth-giver (e.g., Halima, the wet-nurse of Prophet Muhammad; the daughter of Pharaoh raising Moses as her son while his own mother serves as wet-nurse; fairies and godmothers in European folktales). Some narratives, and often too their corresponding ritual practices, place a great emphasis on the mother of a man (more rarely, a woman) important to his (or her) religion in his (or her) capacity as a saint, a prophet, a founder, a spiritual leader, or a reformer (e.g., the Virgin Mary in some expressions of Christianity). Inversely, some religious narratives explicitly feature maternal death or comment on the absence of the mother of a 158

Religions and mothers

famous religious figure (e.g., Queen Mahamaya, mother of the Buddha, dies seven days after childbirth). The absence or early death of the mother is accounted for, reflected upon, and often presented as necessary. Some myths feature both human and divine male childbirth and mothering, especially in the absence of a mother (e.g., Zeus giving birth to Dionysus and Athena). Maternal imagery of the divine or of a God with otherwise frequently masculine attributes and characteristics is also found in religious texts. In the Bible, for instance, God is alluded to or described through metaphors of being involved in midwifery, as a woman in labor, as a woman who has given birth and is carrying her child, as providing nurturance. Maternal physiological and reproductive functions are also mentioned in the New Testament. Some traditions have ambivalent views on maternal attachment, which is seen as “ties that bind” (Ohnuma) and thus as a potential hindrance on the spiritual path. Religious othermothering. In some religious institutions, some men and women, who have vowed to live communal lives of celibacy, concretely mother children through raising orphans or running schools or educational programs. This is the case in Buddhism, especially in Southeast Asia, where some monasteries also concretely serve as orphanages, or where parents bring their children in order for them to receive an education. The feelings of mothers willingly bringing their children or constrained to abandon them at the doors of such institutions have rarely been investigated. Catholicism also has teaching congregations known for specializing in running orphanages and schools. Spiritual and cultural religious mothering. The metaphor of the mother-child relationship is used in several traditions to describe a more advanced practitioner guiding another one as his or her “spiritual child” (also see later considerations on women spiritual leaders as mothers). Outside of such cases of spiritual mothering, very practically, the primary source of exposure of infants to religion often come from those who mother them. Philosopher Plato already acknowledged the primary role of mothers and other caregivers in exposing children to stories about divinities. In many religious contexts, mothers are the primary religious enculturators of children (Reimer, “Who Is in Charge of the Family?” 282). Such spiritual and cultural religious roles in mothering are not restricted to the private or domestic sphere. Roles of educators of children (e.g., Sunday school teacher) often are considered as socially acceptable for women (though not necessarily birth-givers) in contexts where other professional paths and roles within religious institutions remain closed to them or are deemed as inappropriate. Mother blame and religion. Perceived failure in this role as primary religious enculturator leads to forms of mother blame with specifically religious and moral undertones. More than other caregivers, mothers tend to be blamed, implicitly or explicitly, for decisions or lifestyle choices their children make. This is the case when adolescent or adult children either go against the beliefs and practices of the religious group they were born and raised into and that they sometimes choose to distance themselves from. In more secularized contexts, mother blame occurs when (generally adult) children choose a religious path that is deemed incompatible with or threatening to secular society, or when they display an excessive zeal, especially in case of conversions and further supporting or committing acts of violence. Spiritual leaders as mothers. Overlapping in some instances with the spiritual mothering mentioned earlier are now well-documented historical and contemporary cases of women as religious leaders, whether their authority is institutional or charismatic. Women in positions of spiritual (and sometimes authoritative institutional) leadership are called “mother” or equivalent terms in the respective languages of their followers, though many of them will never become birth-givers as they commit to a life of sexual abstinence (e.g., in Catholicism, an abbess in a position of authority over a community of nuns, is often called “mother superior”; as early as the late nineteenth century, several movements within Hinduism and its modern reforms and 159

Florence Pasche Guignard

reinterpretations emerged with women as leaders or, in some instances, as celibate wife of the guru, see Pechilis). Gender equality, feminist ideals, and religious feminism with an emphasis on motherhood. Some explicitly religious movements self-identify as feminist and espouse many of the original ideals of feminism, in particular, gender equality. They fight against discriminations both within their own communities and in society in general. These movements tend to build upon maternalist ideals2 considering that women and, especially, mothers, naturally have more “morality” than men and thus should serve as guardians of good morals as well as trustworthy and efficient social and spiritual reformers or revivalists, not only in their own family or private sphere but in society in general. Other movements fight against discriminations targeting mothers for religious reasons. Religion as a way to eschew motherhood. Many works on women’s religious histories have focused on women who were deemed exceptional in the sense that they did not follow the culturally determined normative course of life for women (traditional adult roles as wife and mother). Nuns, saints, and mostly celibate women engaging in various forms of asceticism, scholarship, or service are examples in many traditions. In several contexts, a radical engagement with religion, though sometimes controversial, provides a socially accepted framework alternative to marriage and motherhood. Traditional and emerging rituals. Key moments in a woman’s life, especially those related to fertility and childbirth, are celebrated in many traditions. These often are reinterpreted or appropriated by emerging and often highly customized ritualizations in contemporary times. Cultural and religious constructions of the moral and physical im/purity of woman as (future or potential) wife and mother evolve over time. Women are responsible for maintaining many aspects of ritual purity, as well as for teaching them to daughters. Other traditions (and often too, more liberal interpretations within these same traditions) no longer regard the blood of childbirth (and of menstruation) as polluting or impure (e.g., a Sikh mother may visit a Gurdwara for the naming ceremony of a newborn as soon as she feels ready to do so after childbirth). Rituals once linked to ideas of thanksgiving and purification can take on new meanings for mothers (e.g., the churching of women, their first returning to church after childbirth). Influence of religion on the health and well-being of mothers. In some contexts, religion still influences, among others, access to medical care and the very type of services women as mothers receive. For instance, Catholic hospitals will not provide most forms of contraception, sterilization, and abortion services, even when the life of the mother would depend on it. Similarly, in Ireland, Catholic motivations and beliefs regarding women’s fertility, rather than purely medical indications, motivated the procedure of symphysiotomy (rather than C-section). Some discourses also support access to midwifery care and homebirth and resist Western biomedical models on religious grounds (Klassen). Regarding other issues such as in-vitro fertilization and third donor party, acceptance varies greatly across traditions (see Inhorn). How religions impose, offer, or lack ritual and spiritual resources for women to deal with pregnancy loss, abortion, stillbirth, or the early death of a child is also a point to consider.

Key issues and debates Differences and similarities between mothers in different religious traditions practiced in the same territories, thus sharing some common cultural elements, are striking. Recent volumes, for instance, consider the influence of Hindu, Muslim, or Sikh traditions on motherhood in South Asia and in the South Asian diaspora (Sangha and Gonsalves; Krishnaraj). Another relevant question to consider comparatively is whether monotheistic or polytheistic conceptualizations of the 160

Religions and mothers

divine, with the presence of a plurality of feminine and maternal representations of goddesses in the latter, make any difference for human mothers in their daily life. Similarly, the influence of religious discourse on family structures, as in monogamous or polygynous marriages, or as in other forms of commitments that transcend heteronormative categories, could be further considered.

Controversies and challenges in relation to religions and maternity Both the academic study of religions and motherhood studies are highly interdisciplinary fields, each relying on various approaches. They share some methodological and epistemological challenges, such as accessing sources and reflecting on the positionality of the researcher. Versatile methodologies, often combining those of literary analysis, history, and anthropology, are privileged. Another key challenge both to women within religious traditions and to scholars who study them consists in questioning essentialist views that equate “women” with “mothers” and consider motherhood as the “natural” destiny for all (or most) women. Any academic approach to studying religion and maternity ought to identify and then deconstruct this assumption, while acknowledging that, in practice, most reproductive and care work relating to children is still overwhelmingly done by women rather than men. In the case of religious contexts, this “naturalization” of women as mothers is further reinforced when presented as a sacred duty or a divine order. In parallel, the injunction to respect one’s parents, and, especially, one’s mother is presented not just as an ethical or respectful things to do but as a command from the divinity. In many contemporary contexts, mothers thus may still derive a relatively high and respected status from this. However, it is often not the maternal status per se nor the capacity of the female body for bringing life that are valued. Even where mothers are highly regarded and respected, most women in general certainly do not enjoy the same freedom, privileges, and rights as men do in contexts where religious laws or customs prevail over or still strongly influence civil ones. While some mothers are praised, others, for the very same physical act of birthing a child (and, later, the social act of raising a child) are vilified: for instance, those who do so outside of a religiously sanctioned wedlock (whether in monogamy or polygyny), or those who give birth only to girls, or to children with disabilities. Similarly, the counterpart of this insistence on valuing motherhood and women’s maternal bodies as carriers of (a potential) life, often is the condemnation of infertility. Women who do not wish to or cannot have or raise children may suffer from religious perspectives that view having many children, especially sons, as a sign of morality and blessedness, and associate infertility with suspicion or punishment for a moral or ritual failure. Narratives about motherhood and non-motherhood ought to be contextualized and reconceived (Moss and Baden). Ritual remediation may be suggested to, or enforced on a woman, such as fasting, prayers, pilgrimages, or visits to specific religious sites. Another challenge for studying motherhood and religion is to go beyond the emphasis placed on the overlap between “motherhood” and “reproduction” by religious discourses, by some mothers themselves, and by scholars. Many studies focus almost exclusively on “biological moments,” which are indeed important and constitutive of motherhood (pregnancy, childbirth, the immediate postpartum, and lactation). Studying the religious, ritual, and spiritual aspects of childbirth in any given culture or comparing various religious discourses around a particular birth practice shared by women of several different religious, spiritual, or secular traditions (Selin; Delaporte and Martin), as homebirth for instance (Klassen), does not exhaust the topic of motherhood. It is more difficult to find studies that consider maternal roles not directly tied to biology and that can be taken on by anyone, in less gendered ways. 161

Florence Pasche Guignard

A challenge for scholars is to identify and deconstruct the apparently benevolent rhetoric of religious groups that use motherhood and notions of family to extol a normative, religiously informed “good motherhood” while vilifying other experiences and practices of mothering that do not conform to their own values, for instance, that of same-sex couples raising children. While stigma against single and divorced mothers might have decreased in the last decades, at least in Western and secularized societies, there remains a strong opposition to same-sex parenting, grounded on religious moralistic arguments. Interestingly, groups that hold highly conservative positions on morality but have diverging theologies, meet across the religious spectrum in their opposition to same-sex marriage and families, rights to adoption, or access to gestational surrogacy.

Directions for future research Previously published reviews of literature or basic key themes on mothers and religion (­CheruvallilContractor and Rye; Sered; Kawash; Pasche Guignard, “The Academic Study of Religions and Mothering”) have already pointed out significant gaps and outlined directions for future research. Building upon these and considering new directions in most recent scholarship, I identify current or new themes or topics likely to receive more attention in the future. One such trend is to focus more on mothering and religious practice as experienced by mothers, rather than as prescribed by institutions. In line with this, aspects and experiences not directly linked to giving birth and other aspects of motherhood closely tied to biology deserve more scrutiny. Many myths, sacred narratives, ritual practices, and ethical prescriptions indeed relate to such important issues and are consequently the most studied. However, what happens in the mother-child relationship, for instance, in terms of ritualization, past the years of infancy and childhood and how religious institutions consider mothers also matter. Likewise, how different religious traditions consider as normal or as problematic that several persons other than the birth-giver intervene in the life of the child could become a fruitful topic for comparison. Furthermore, maternal participation in shaping or transmitting religious narratives and norms to their children and the general role of mothers as primary religious enculturators for their children deserves more research, especially in non-monotheistic contexts. Maternal participation in religious rituals and the issue of mother blame in perceived failures of “training” children to meet religious expectations also are likely to be further investigated. Future research ought to take emic discourses and religious sources themselves seriously, even when no direct, authentic maternal voices are available in them. Yet, tendencies of religious discourses themselves to equate women with mothers and to overemphasize the biological aspects of motherhood should be considered with distance in any critical analysis.

Notes 1 I use the word “maternity” as a cluster encompassing the various meanings of motherhood as an institution and mothering as women’s own experience, drawing the distinction, initially suggested by Adrienne Rich (13) and now a common referential in motherhood studies. Also see the general introduction to this volume. 2 Maternalism is different from matricentric feminism (see O’Reilly and in the introduction to this volume).

Further reading Cheruvallil-Contractor, Sariya, and Gill Rye. “Introduction: Motherhood, Religions and Spirituality.” Religion and Gender, vol. 6, no. 1, 2016, pp. 1–8.

162

Religions and mothers Harper, Susan. “Religion and Mothering.” Encyclopedia of Motherhood, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, Sage, 2010, pp. 1056–61. Pasche Guignard, Florence. “The Academic Study of Religions and Mothering, Motherhood and Mothers.” Maternità e Politeismi – Motherhood(s) and Polytheisms, edited by Florence Pasche Guignard et al., Pàtron, 2017, pp. 61–88. Reimer, Vanessa, editor. Angels on Earth: Mothering, Religion and Spirituality. Demeter Press, 2016. Sered, Susan Starr. Priestess, Mother, Sacred Sister: Religions Dominated by Women. Oxford UP, 1996 (see especially pp. 71–85).

Conclusion Any considerations on religions and mothers, motherhood and mothering should be carefully situated in their broader contexts and in regard to other factors that determine sociocultural norms and how these get enforced, resisted, challenged, or changed by mothers and others. More research on the intersection of religion and maternity certainly is needed to advance our understanding of experiences of motherhood and mothering, both in contemporary and past contexts, with attention paid to spiritual expressions, normative and marginalized discourses, as well as ritual practices. Other more specific topics of study, whether particular to one tradition or comparatively across several religions, are still to be uncovered in addition to the key themes outlined in this chapter.

Works cited Cheruvallil-Contractor, Sariya, and Gill Rye. “Introduction: Motherhood, Religions and Spirituality.” Religion and Gender, vol. 6, no. 1, 2016, pp. 1–8. Cooper, Dana, and Claire Phelan, editors. Motherhood in Antiquity. Springer, 2017. Delaporte, Marianne, and Morag Martin, editors. Sacred Inception: Reclaiming the Spirituality of Birth in the Modern World. Lexington Press, 2018. Eller, Cynthia. The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented Past Won’t Give Women a Future. Beacon Press, 2000. Fast, Kerry, and Rachel Epp Buller, editors. Mothering Mennonite. Demeter Press, 2013. Harper, Susan. “Religion and Mothering.” Encyclopedia of Motherhood, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, Sage, 2010, pp. 1056–61. Inhorn, Marcia. “Religion and Reproductive Technologies: IVF and Gamete Donation in the Muslim World.” Anthropology News, vol. 46, 2005, p. 14. Kawash, Samira. “New Directions in Motherhood Studies.” Signs, vol. 36, no. 4, 2011, pp. 969–1003. Klassen, Pamela. Blessed Events: Religion and Homebirth in America. Princeton UP, 2001. Krishnaraj, Maithreyi, editor. Motherhood in India: Glorification without Empowerment? Routledge, 2010. Lofton, Kathryn. “Religion and the Authority in American Parenting.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion, vol. 84, no. 2, 2016, pp. 806–41. Moss, Candida R., and Joel S. Baden. Reconceiving Infertility: Biblical Perspectives on Procreation and Childlessness. Princeton UP, 2015. Ohnuma, Reiko. Ties that Bind: Maternal Imagery and Discourse in Indian Buddhism. Oxford UP, 2012. O’Reilly, Andrea. Matricentric Feminism: Theory, Activism, and Practice. Demeter Press, 2016. Pappano, M. Aziza, and Dana M. Olwan, editors. Muslim Mothering: Global Histories, Theories, and Practices. Demeter Press, 2016. Pasche Guignard, Florence. “The Academic Study of Religions and Mothering, Motherhood and Mothers.” Maternità e Politeismi – Motherhood(s) and Polytheisms, edited by Florence Pasche Guignard, Giulia Pedrucci, and Marianna Scapini, Pàtron, 2017, pp. 61–88. Pasche Guignard, Florence, and Giulia Pedrucci. “Motherhood(s) and Polytheisms: Epistemological and Methodological Reflections on the Study of Religions, Gender, and Women.” Numen, vol. 65, no. 4, 2018, pp. 405–35. Pechilis, Karen, editor. The Graceful Guru: Hindu Female Gurus in India and the United States. Oxford UP, 2004. Reimer, Vanessa, editor. Angels on Earth: Mothering, Religion and Spirituality. Demeter Press, 2016.

163

Florence Pasche Guignard ———. “ ‘Who Is in Charge of the Family?’: Religious Mothering, Neoliberalism, and REAL Women of Canada.” Mothering in the Age of Neoliberalism, edited by Melinda Vandenbeld Giles, Demeter Press, 2014, pp. 279–96. Rich, Adrienne. Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution. Norton, 1995. Sangha, Jasjit K., and Tahira Gonsalves, editors. South Asian Mothering: Negotiating Culture, Family and Selfhood. Demeter Press, 2013. Selin, Helaine, and Pamela K. Stone, editors. Childbirth Across Cultures: Ideas and Practices of Pregnancy, Childbirth and the Postpartum. Springer, 2009. Sered, Susan Starr. Priestess, Mother, Sacred Sister: Religions Dominated by Women. Oxford UP, 1996. Stovell, Beth M. Making Sense of Motherhood: Biblical and Theological Perspectives. Wipf and Stock, 2016. Thomas, Trudelle. “Motherhood as Spiritual Crisis: Memoirs of Childbirth and Early Motherhood.” A/B: Auto/Biography Studies, vol. 14, no. 2, 1999, pp. 273–91.

164

13 MOTHERS AND MUSIC Martha Joy Rose

Introduction Music is a powerful instrument for social change. In many cultures, music has been employed to protest injustice, to promote storytelling, to advance history, and to share individual as well as collective experiences. The sociologist William F. Danaher, who examines music in the context of social movements, states that music activates “the feeling of being part of something bigger and having a connection to others.” Beginning in 1997, a new musical genre emerged. The “mom rock” phenomenon started when musicians began writing and performing songs about mother identity and practice. One band’s idea grew to include hundreds of musicians as well as performance artists from a variety of genres. Comediennes, actors, dancers, and spoken-word artists joined together to establish a movement of mother-made performance art that resulted in a global message focused on the empowerment of women who were mothers. The aim of this chapter is to explore mother-identity-making and mom-made performance art and how it has been instrumental in helping to amplify women’s voices within the motherhood movement. The first section of this chapter, background and context, describes the origins of mom rock and mother-made performance art. The second section, central issues, analyzes how these activities sparked a broad public discourse that increased the visibility of mothers and mother work. The third section, controversies and challenges, explores difficulties that mom rockers faced and considers the external forces that controlled and ultimately co-opted aspects of the mom rock movement. The fourth section, directions for future research, argues that future research must be intersectional and interdisciplinary.

Background and context A survey of the timeline of mom rock and the motherhood movement demonstrates that they had a vast effect on the cultural psyche at large. Mom-made music identified motherhood as a topic of broad public discourse and increased the visibility of mothers. The timeline of the movement begins with the self-identified mom rock band Housewives on Prozac, formed in 1997. Housewives on Prozac employed music, comedy, and theater as tools for social change. Focused on voice and identity, the band’s aim was to explore motherhood through song, to challenge the invisibility of motherwork, and to legitimize maternal experiences as perspectives 165

Martha Joy Rose

for artistic expression. The original Housewives band, comprising two mothers and a father, initiated a conversation about maternal (and paternal) experiences while challenging the stereotype of the uncool, out-of-touch, and socially constrained parent. After their founding in 1997, Housewives on Prozac developed a performance catalog that depicted everyday life from a maternal perspective. Parameters for the band’s material included the transformative experience of birth and caregiving, family challenges, and calls for gender parity, among other things. Songs from their first album, No Prescription Required, covered a broad range of mother and family topics. For example, “I Am Not a Barbie Doll,” “I Go Thru Changes,” and “24 Hour Woman” challenged the stereotype of the beautiful but dumb woman, highlighted the discomfort and challenges of the pregnant body, and acknowledged the burdensome workload of mothers. A subsequent EP titled Gay Girls Make Great Moms was written specifically as a celebration and affirmation of women in the LGBT community. The second Housewives on Prozac album featured tracks such as “I Don’t Think Like My Mom (Anymore),” “Fuzzy Slippers,” “Eat Your Damn Spaghetti,” and “Harper Valley PTA.”  The song “I Don’t Think Like My Mom (Anymore)” encouraged the liberated woman to keep moving forward: “I have established my own point of view about the things we ought and ought not do / I don’t think like my mom anymore.” The track “Fuzzy Slippers” reflected on the transition from intellectual pursuits to childcare: “I wipe my baby’s chin with my college diploma and wonder how did I ever get here?” “Harper Valley PTA” was a reworked 1970s song about a widow who gets a note from the school board about wearing supposedly inappropriate clothing. In short, Housewives on Prozac focused on difficulties mothers encountered, such as expanding personal identity within the social construction of motherhood and challenging the invisibility of caregiving labor. Media attention ensued almost immediately. The article “Band Sings About What It’s Like to Raise a Family in the 90’s” appeared in the New York Times on November 9, 1997. This article captured Housewives on Prozac’s attempt to voice “the plight of the suburban housewife raising children” (Hershenson). Band members touted their signature leopard and boas for the article’s photographs, strongly declaring their individuality and intelligence. “They dress according to what they call ‘car pool couture’ – black velvet in the supermarket, fringed red leather and leopard designs on everything – and chafe at being pigeonholed.” Shortly after the publication of the New York Times article, Housewives on Prozac appeared on CBS Sunday Morning, a national television broadcast, singing “I Go Through Changes.” Song lyrics identified the physical changes that pregnancy imparts as well as the emotional landscape of mothers-to-be: I go through changes; it’s really something. I watch the me I knew disappear. I’m having a baby it’s getting bigger. It’s coming out sometime this year. My belly’s growing, my pants won’t fit me; I kiss size 9 goodbye and pray. Who am I kidding? I’m totally ruined. My breasts are dropping by the day. (Rose, No Prescription Required) The band’s performance pushed back against the sanitization of pregnant bodies, making silent subjects audible while acknowledging irrefutable changes brought on by maternal labor. One year after Housewives began performing, another New-York-based musician, Tina deVaron, released her album If Mama Ain’t Happy (1998). Songs on that album included “Rocking Chair,” “Put a Lock on the Bedroom Door,” and “Gravity” (about maternal bodies). The lyrics to the title track caution, “If mama ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.” DeVaron’s work

166

Mothers and music

indicated that interest and energy for making music about motherhood was poised to resonate with mainstream audiences. Her website notes: I had all these songs in my head about my experience of being a Mom. So I gave a concert at St. Michael’s church on NYC’s Upper West Side, and all these moms came. And as I sang these new songs, I heard gasps in the audience, I saw some moms break down in tears. And I thought, even though the record industry doesn’t get it, I have something here. Both Housewives on Prozac and deVaron identified a need for music by and about mothers. In order to fulfill this need, Housewives on Prozac’s frontwoman, Martha Joy Rose (performing as Joy Rose) and a group of local New York-based women began discussing the feasibility of a collective comprised of performance artists who were women, especially interested in the subject of motherhood. The result of these conversations was the first and only large-scale performance venue focused on mothers in the arts. The Mamapalooza festival got its start in May 2002. The purpose of the spectacle was to encourage women-made, mom-branded art, education, and commerce by connecting individuals who were interested in examining their identity and performance as mothers. The first event, hosted at The Cutting Room in New York City, featured the American dancer and educator Jennifer Edwards, who performed her poem “One Breasted President.” Performances also included the Housewives Band, Monique Avakian (poet), Corliss Whitney (80-year-old ex-Rockette), and Tina deVaron, among others. By its second year, the festival was held at multiple locations across New York. Feminist activist Christen Clifford appeared in her one-woman show BabyLove, which grappled with themes of motherhood and sexuality. Further performances included Nancy Lombardo spearheading Momedy Comedy, Rew Starr as Black Flamingo hosting singer/songwriter nights, and Alyson Palmer, feminist and activist from the band BETTY, pioneering the first outdoor concert with the New York City Parks Department.1 The festival also included mother-made businesses and was incorporated as a large-scale festival production company. Mamapalooza was instrumental in connecting and promoting mother performers across genres. Festivals spread to England, Australia, and Canada. More and more women found their voice as part of mom rock and the motherhood movement. Emerging artists included The Mothers (England), MotherLode Trio (New York), Placenta (California), the Mydols (Michigan), Merry and the Moodswings (Texas), CandyBand (Michigan), Frump (Texas), Hot Flash (Washington, DC), and Vee Malnar (Australia). Mamapalooza events were staged in multiple cities as the result of year-long planning sessions. Monthly conference calls were organized, and production packages were mailed with instructions on how to leverage community resources for events. Promoters were mentored about ways to make concerts profitable through local partnerships so that they could pay talent. Parks departments from New York City, to Westchester, to Los Angeles, to Detroit embraced Mamapalooza and its mission to recognize and empower mothers’ creativity and labor. In 2005, the mayor of San Jose, California, working with Mamapalooza organizer Tiffany Petrossi, declared a “Mamapalooza Day” with a city proclamation. In the same year, the mayor of Buffalo, New York, along with Mamapalooza organizer Annette Daniels Taylor, did the same. The City of Seneca Falls, New York (home of the Suffragette movement) awarded Housewives on Prozac the key to the city “for their work on behalf of women everywhere.” By 2004, New York City alone hosted over ten separate events spanning the month of May and spawned the first edition of The Mom Egg (later renamed MER, Mom Egg Review), which

167

Martha Joy Rose

published the lyrics and poetry of Mamapalooza participants. Adoptive mothers, othermothers, and women as caregivers also participated. In California, Petrossi started her own Rockin’ Moms website, and fathers cooperatively spearheaded Papapalooza performances in Pennsylvania as well as Manhattan. Mamapalooza and the motherhood movement garnered increasing media attention on television, radio, and print. The press became captivated by the mom rock phenomenon – so much so that in 2004, The Wall Street Journal, The Chicago Tribune, CNN, and CBS, among other news organizations, featured stories on several pioneers of mom rock. In 2004, Kate Perotti, a California mother-turned-filmmaker, began interviewing the women of Mamapalooza for an independent project titled Momz Hot Rocks (released in 2008). The film opens with a quote that lays out some of the parameters of the music of motherhood at the time: Music is the art form of rebellion. We’re using music to identify [our] generation and expand on what it is to be a human being in the role of mother. We’re reinventing what it is to be a modern mom. We don’t know what that is yet. We’re still figuring it out. What had begun as a way of identifying motherhood in the arts became a rallying cry for mothers everywhere. Mom rock and Mamapalooza used music and other performance categories to increase the visibility of mothers, shatter stereotypes, and break new ground for women challenging the social constraints of motherhood.2

Central issues The central issues among mother artists have been varied and are ongoing. Three important issues are (1) the lack of supportive social and legal policies for mothers in the United States, which results in the invisibility of mothers and mother status and contributes to feelings of isolation; (2) the presence of strict ideologies, social pressures, and media portrayals of what constitutes being a good or bad mother, which objectionably constrains and limits mothers’ professional and creative opportunities; and (3) the absence of adequate public understanding of what mothering is and can be, which creates a challenge for mothers to find a balance between “me time” and “family time.” Mom rock and the motherhood movement have entered the debate about each of these issues, contributing to a more relevant and nuanced understanding. The great lack of supportive and legal policies for mothers in the United States has been well documented.3 Women who are birthing children are also raising future workers and citizens. They do this without federally mandated paid parental leave, without social security payments, without affordable health care, and without remuneration of any kind or associated retirement funds. Ann Crittendon’s bestselling book, The Price of Motherhood: Why the Most Important Job in the World is Still the Least Valued, addresses the ways in which mothers have been systematically disadvantaged by our capitalist culture and the American political system. In an op-ed article outlining her book, Crittenden asserts, “The devaluation of mothers’ work permeates virtually every major institution. Not only is caregiving not rewarded, it is penalized” (“The Price of Motherhood”). This lack of supportive policies causes mothers to shoulder an undue burden and contributes to a sense of isolation and invisibility. It can also be argued that this sense of undervaluing motherhood is also an international theme; however, due to the brevity of this chapter, there is not an opportunity to explore this further. Several organizations have targeted policy change for families in the United States through governmental action, such as the National Partnership for Women and Families (founded in 1971), Moms Rising (2006), and National Advocates for Pregnant Women (2007). Mamapalooza 168

Mothers and music

events also joined the effort for more supportive policies. Festivals included initiatives for domestic violence prevention, family wellness awareness, and reproductive health initiatives, among other things. Planned Parenthood mobile services were onsite for free HIV testing and to encourage gynecological checkups. While Mamapalooza pushed for better social policies, its unique focus was on making an impact on mothers’ lives using music (and the performance arts) to spread a message of creative liberation. By organizing and connecting like-minded people, the festival aimed to combat mothers’ sense of isolation and invisibility. The introduction to the 2007 Mamapalooza Magazine promised to connect new mothers while supporting them and honoring their labor and their efforts: You’ve had a baby. But, everything’s gotten more complicated. Maybe you’re feeling isolated. You’re tired. Depressed? You love your baby, but you work three jobs now, instead of two. Where did you go? Who cares about you? Who wants to see you thrive? You’re doing really important work and no one seems to notice. How can we lift each other up? How can we love each other? Who’s going to applaud you? We are! (Rose, “Introduction”) This statement seeks to counter mothers’ isolation and invisibility by inviting them to join a large circle of “moms that rock”; it offers an opportunity to find support and redemption within group experience. Mamapalooza Magazine also published women’s song lyrics, poems, and stories as an adjunct to spring festivals. The festival’s projects sought to elevate the labor of mothers through increasing their visibility and by paying them for their services and performances. A second issue facing many mothers is the hegemonic construction of good or bad parenting. Stereotypes often take the form of what might be called “the good mother imperative” (following Adrienne Rich’s “the good mother ideal”), defined as the demand that mothers frantically prioritize their children at the expense of their own personhood. Above all, there is pressure that one must avoid being a bad mother, that is, being mother who defies expectations or acts in a deviant manner by challenging the status quo. This expectation is, of course, unfair and unreasonable, and it constrains and limits mothers’ professional and creative opportunities in ways that often make mothers feel unhappy, harmed, and oppressed. Of course, mothers often care a great deal, and ideally, their care should be able to take many forms while also including important self-care activities. The problem of the good mother imperative is well documented in the scholarly literature. Michelle Hughes Miller and colleauges explain in the introduction to Bad Mothers: Regulations, Representations, and Resistance how pervasive the regulation of mothers is. Citing Adrienne Rich, they affirm the ways in which the good mother ideal imprisons women’s codes of behavior: “Motherhood is a patriarchal institution, managed and controlled by men, who have legal, technical, and ideological control over all aspects of childbirth and motherhood. The good mother ideal and its incumbent expectations thus imprison women within patriarchal motherhood” (6). Lindsey Rock explains that “the binary logic that confines mothers to ‘good’ or ‘bad’ is socially constructed and propagated in western culture to serve patriarchy and the state, dividing mothers and women” (27). Amber Kinser’s book Motherhood and Feminism also corroborates these binary constructions as something that have been part of Western culture since Descartes’s era, if not before. Mom rock and the motherhood movement emerged largely to combat the good mother imperative by challenging the stereotypes of what makes a good or bad mother. Artists did so by behaving in unconventional ways. They took their children to band rehearsals and rock concerts. 169

Martha Joy Rose

They donned guitars and wore boas while eschewing frumpy clothing that ­de-sexualized them. Susan Douglas, one of the coauthors (along with Meredith Michaels) of The Mommy Myth: The Idealization of Motherhood and How It Has Undermined Women, had this to say about mother rockers as they challenged their mothering roles: “These events mark the beginning of a rebellion against the dictates of perfect motherhood and the idea that women have to always be subservient to their children. Mothers are rejecting societal pressure and finally saying ‘enough is enough’ ” (qtd. in Ginty). Mamapalooza’s mission statement carried this “rebellion” even further. It spelled out specific goals that encouraged mothers to make creativity an important part of their lives (“About” Mamapalooza Website). A further issue – so closely related to the good mother imperative that it might be understood as a corollary of it – is that an inadequate public understanding of what mothering is (and can be) creates a challenge for mothers to find the balance between “me time” and “family time.” This “me time” (or personal time) is crucial for personal development, creative expression, and professional advancement. The expectation that mothers should primarily be caretakers whose activities are solely centered on their families makes it difficult for mothers to follow their own pursuits. Sharon Hays, the author of The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood, addresses this theme of oppressive maternal expectations in an article about Mamapalooza for USA Today. She writes, “Even the bravest feminist would be loath to speculate which generation of mothers has had the toughest row to hoe.” However, she continues, “today’s moms face demands that are historically unprecedented.” This issue was particularly salient for performance artists who needed to adhere to a rigorous practice schedule, book gigs, find sitters (or bring their kids along), perform shows (sometimes without pay), and organize their own events. For example, in an interview with Resident Magazine in early 2000, Angela Babin, a guitarist for Housewives on Prozac, said, “When I didn’t have a child, I was available for certain gigs that tour and were of a certain level. When I had my family, this was not an option. No one wants a guitarist with a baby” (8). The commitment to parent, given the evolving demands of children’s needs, the changing landscape of personal circumstances, and the necessary priorities families sift through, makes individual pursuits daunting. Vee Malnar, a playwright and musician and the event coordinator for Mamapalooza in Sydney, Australia, further speculated: When a woman becomes a mother her identity shifts. It is important at this confronting time that women see themselves reflected truthfully in the culture, so they can reconstitute a new self. It is important for mothers to know they are not alone. What happens to a woman’s creativity when she takes on care responsibilities? It is so much harder to dedicate time to creative expression, yet that expression is still important. Participating in personal pursuits outside of family ones is still often difficult. This is due to practical reasons, which I have mentioned, and also due to dominant ideologies that constrain women. Mom rockers and other performance artists in the motherhood movement tried to encourage a more sophisticated and adequate understanding of what mothering could be. Their aim was to create a space to make it possible for mothers to develop their own pursuits in their personal time. Lyrics and performances challenged both the sharp distinction between family time and personal time and confronted the prioritization of the former over the latter. For example, one prominent mom rock band, the Mydols, exclaim in their song “Runaway,” “Who gives a sh** about the PTA? I want to play my bass and go out every night. I want to tour my band across the USA” (“Lyrics” The Mydols Website). In a later interview, the Mydols’ bassist, Paige Gilbert, calls making music with her band “liberating” and labels it “her escape” (Heyman). When speaking about the mother rockers in the film Momz Hot Rocks, Andrea 170

Mothers and music

O’Reilly defended creative mothers by saying, “These are committed moms who also pick up guitars.” Interestingly enough, as the motherhood movement gained momentum, its participants were not portrayed in popular media as bad moms. This could have been for several reasons and is further explored in Martha Joy Rose’s “Electronic Mommyland.” Social expectations were palpable and the pushback from the women of Mamapalooza was evident throughout their performances. Martha Joy Rose is quoted in a New York Times article explaining that Making art and parenting are both creative acts, but our society isn’t sure how to deal with women who serve their own needs as well as their families. As the flight attendant says, put on your own oxygen mask before assisting others. (Ingall)

Controversies and challenges Mom rockers and artists in the motherhood movement face many challenges, including familial complications and fractures like divorce, illness, special needs, fiscal insolvency, or a move to a new location. Family life can all too easily become a triage endeavor in which one or more of its members are threatened and the entire family enters survival mode. This sort of difficulty can eradicate any progressive activities that are beyond basic daily maintenance. Two additional challenges mom rockers and participants in the motherhood movement have faced are (1) the financial co-opting of the ideals of mom rock and the motherhood movement and (2) a systemic Hollywood takeover of the motherhood identity, which did nothing to advance the progressive feminist ideals at the heart of mom rock and the motherhood movement. As the motherhood movement gathered momentum, the messages of empowerment that mom rockers advocated for were used to sell merchandise that the artists did not benefit from. While it may seem like increased corporate attention (and its concomitant advertising promotion) should increase prosperity for mom rockers, in the end, such attention profited corporations and did little to help the artists. Realizing the appeal of women who were “different,” Unilever employed that message to create new campaigns. The Dove Campaign for Real Beauty, launched in 2004, took out ads in Mamapalooza Magazine. Celebrating women’s authentic beauty, the campaign went mainstream with TV and major print advertisements for soap products. However, although the Real Beauty campaign grew, the mom rockers’ financial circumstances did not improve. Likewise, Gap ads appeared on the back of New York City buses touting the phrase “Your Mom Rocks,” but no mom rockers were paid. By 2006, a rise in socalled mommy blogs, corporate sponsorships, and mother identity in advertising was being used to sell everything from sex to diapers and dishwashers. However, none of that money trickled back to the artists themselves. In much the same way, Hollywood producers co-opted the word “housewife,” which was central to mom rock and the motherhood movement. Films and television shows employed the identities of housewives and mom rockers and portrayed them as one-dimensional characters. The objectification and simplification of women and their lives persisted in these works.4 These characters depicted exactly the stereotypes that Mamapalooza worked so hard to dismantle. Of course, the producers and investors behind these films and shows profited, but the mother artists were left behind. In 2004, the television show Desperate Housewives was a smash hit for ABC. The show featured conventionally attractive but anxious women who appeared not to work outside the home, making them part of an elite American socioeconomic group representing a significantly small percentage of the population. The problem with such a distorted 171

Martha Joy Rose

portrayal of women and families is that it fails to recognize and promote diversity, inclusivity, and the struggle for financial well-being so inherent in both the motherhood movement and the third-wave feminist movement. In one episode, a desperate housewife hoses herself off wearing a wet T-shirt in the driveway of a neighbor whom she is attracted to. The characters in the show capitalized on sexuality, mood-altering substances, and catty behavior to sell their brand of “housewife.”5 The empowered mother did not make the leap from the festival stage to the Hollywood screen.

Directions for future research Challenging expectations, empowerment, expanding services for women and families, identifying hegemonic definitions of motherhood, as well as creating collaborative, supportive opportunities for personal identity and expression were all major themes throughout the rise of mom rock. Mamapalooza facilitated the organizing of events and the championing of a far-­reaching mission. The festival also supported the individuals who coordinated, participated in, and attended these events. Media coverage contributed greatly to a groundswell of attention focused on the issues of this mothers’ movement. Some of these contributions have been explored and written about in the Music of Motherhood (Rose et al.).6 Future research might include interviews with some of the original mom rockers, critical analysis of the music amassed during these years, a more thorough examination of media from the era, as well as creating transcripts of The Motherhood Movement: You Say You Want a Revolution and Momz Hot Rocks. These items are all archived at the Museum of Motherhood. Lastly, and most important, all future directions should emphasize intersectional and interdisciplinary perspectives as a guiding principle. The Mamapalooza festival continues to be organized independently through the New York Parks Department, as of this writing (2015–2019). It takes place each May at Riverside Park South in Manhattan. Multiple international organizations, such as the Artist Parent Index, the Procreate Project, and the Archive for Mapping Mother Artists in Asia (AMMAA), now collect and promote mother artists and parent-made fine art. A partnership promoted through the Museum of Motherhood, titled Mothers Are Making Art (MAMA), in collaboration with the Procreate Project (England) and Mom Egg Review (MER, USA) features monthly online exhibits. This initiative began in 2016 and is ongoing. Archives and additional research on these organizations and the individual artists would also be beneficial for understanding the ways in which mother-made fine art continues to develop and expand throughout the world. Many of the values and issues mom rockers advocated for, such as increased visibility, appear to be taking root in popular culture. Hints of progress give hope to a world still dominated by racism, sexism, and misogyny. In 2017, Senator Larissa Waters breastfed her baby in the Australian Parliament. In 2018, Senator Tammy Duckworth was the first United States senator to give birth while holding office. In the same year, congressional candidate Liuba Grechen Shirley won the legal right to apply campaign funding to her child care. Classes in mother studies, which are being taught under a variety of names, continue to make progress in universities. In a pivotal article about research programs in mother studies, Samira Kawash explains that success must reside in an “inclusive and popular” intersection “that at the same time responds to and incorporates the best of scholarship and theory” (996). Mother studies and its interdisciplinary subjects, including art, history, anthropology, sociology, and psychology should be incorporated into graduate and undergraduate curricula and into non-academic settings like birthing groups, postpartum groups, and places like the Museum of Motherhood, which champions public education and houses exhibits about mothers, mothering, and motherhood. These 172

Mothers and music

kinds of initiatives must be continually promoted in order to impart permanent, positive change, equalizing women’s status and decreasing the marginalization of mothers in the arts and beyond.

Conclusion The intention of this chapter has been to frame mom rock and the motherhood movement as significant and pivotal. Music is a great connector as well as an effective vehicle for social change. William F. Danaher reminds us that music evokes “emotions in the short term [that] can have long-term effects.” The goals and dreams of mother musicians to live in a society that supports maternal arts and motherhood in general is a work in progress, but much progress has been made. The rise of mother-identity-making and action in the arts has been instrumental in helping to amplify women’s voices. The energy, commitment, and hard work of the individual mothers who wrote songs and stories, created comedy and theater, rehearsed in their attics and garages, participated in interviews, conducted Mamapalooza production meetings, performed in late night gigs, and attended large-scale functions, all while raising kids, have helped a new generation of artists find their maternal expressions. This creative output is evidenced in blogs, politics, businesses, and a multitude of contemporary artistic mediums – none of which existed prior to the inception of Mamapalooza. In this way, mom rockers, the Mamapalooza organization, and the women of the motherhood movement have facilitated the coalescence of a body of work that contributes to motherhood in popular culture and to the emergence of the field of mother studies in the academy.

Notes 1 Too many women participated in Mamapalooza to cite here. Many of them were instrumental to the festival’s success. Some of these people include Sue Fabisch, Deb Chamberlin, Kim Char Meredith, Judy Davids, Nancy Lombardo, Jessica Feder Birnbaum, Terry Textor Platz, Rew Starr, Alyson Palmer, Stacy Robin, Robin Schatell, Zhen Heinemann, Vee Malnar, Eileen Motok, Janeane Bernstein, Tiffany Petrossi, and Patrice Moreman, all of whom organized concerts. 2 Mamapalooza also produced four compilation CDs (2004–2010) on the MamaPUBlooza publishing label started by Pilley Bianchi and Carol Lester. Mamapalooza also published MamaZina Magazine (2007–2011). Prior to that publication, several in-house publications with Intermixx (Independent Music Conference) and The Mom Egg (now named MER, Mom Egg Review) were produced and distributed onsite at events (2004–2007). Conferences began in 2005 and are ongoing. The first conference, titled Art, Feminism, and Finances, was held at the Women’s Media Center in New York City in 2005. 3 A classic theoretical exploration of these issues is Susan Moller Okin’s Justice, Gender, and the Family. 4 Rita Rocks (2008) is a television show about a housewife whose lead character, Rita Clemens, decides to tap into her creativity and frustration by starting a garage band with her friend. See also the movie Motherhood (2009), starring Uma Thurman (who attended at least one Housewives on Prozac concert), who plays a frazzled New Yorker with ambitions to become a writer. In the movie, Thurman’s character enters a Mamapalooza contest. Mamapalooza Inc. was not consulted and received no credit or payment for use in the film despite the use of this script device. That same year, the Real Housewives franchise launched on Bravo. The series began in Orange County and moved to different urban locations featuring wealthy, mostly white, women caught up in petty dramas. 5 Consultations with a wide range of Hollywood production companies from 2004 to 2006 resulted in controversial conversations during which Mamapalooza’s founder, Martha Joy Rose, resisted offers from producers that further demeaned women. Rose consulted with Freemantle Media, FoxLabs, and Spielburg Studios (among others) about creating reality shows featuring mom rockers. During these meetings, it became obvious that women’s empowerment was not part of the studios’ agenda. 6 Other mentions of Mamapalooza in the scholarly literature include Andrea O’Reilly (editor), The Encyclopedia of Motherhood and The 21st Century Motherhood Movement, Amber E. Kinser’s Motherhood and Feminism, Jocelyn Fenton Stitt and Pegeen Reichert Powell’s Mothers Who Deliver: Feminist Interventions in Public and Interpersonal Discourse, and Vanessa Olorenshaw’s Liberating Motherhood: Birthing the Purplestockings Movement.

173

Martha Joy Rose

Works cited “About.” Mamapalooza Website. Mamapalooza (founded by Martha Joy Rose), www.mamapalooza.word press.com/about/. Accessed 16 Aug. 2017. “About Moms Rising.” Moms Rising Website. MomsRising (founded by Kristen Rowe-Finkbeiner and Joan Blades), 2017, www.momsrising.org/page/moms/our-issues. Accessed 10 Aug. 2017. Associated Press. “All-Mom Bands Rock the Housewife Stereotype.” Fox News, 22 Jan. 2005, www. foxnews.com/story/2005/01/22/all-mom-bands-rock-housewife-stereotype.html. Accessed 15 Dec. 2017. Babin, Angela. Interview in Resident Magazine. May 2004. Brooke, Jill. “Mommy Rebellion: Tracking the Course of Mutiny against the Tyranny of Parental Expectations.” Chicago Tribune, 21 Dec. 2004, http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-12-21/fea tures/0412210035_1_perfect-mom-mommy-myth-desperate-housewives. Accessed 30 Nov. 2017. Collins, Patricia Hill. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. Routledge, 2000. Crittenden, Ann. The Price of Motherhood: Why the Most Important Job in the World Is Still the Least Valued. Picador, 2001. ———. “The Price of Motherhood: Why the Most Important Job in the World Is Still the Least Valued.” Feminist.com, 2001, www.feminist.com/resources/artspeech/family/motherhood.html. Accessed 15 May 2018. Danaher, William F. “How I’ve Understood Music’s Role in Activism.” Mobilizing Ideas, 18 Jun. 2013, https://mobilizingideas.wordpress.com/2013/06/18/how-ive-understood-musics-role-in-activism/. Accessed 17 Dec. 2017. Davids, Judy. Rock Star Mommy: Motherhood, Music and Life as a Rocker Mom. Citadel Press, 2008. della Cava, Marco R. “The Bands That Rock the Cradle.” USA Today, 31 Jan. 2005, www.usatoday30. usatoday.com/life/music/news/2005-01-31-rock-moms_x.htm#. Accessed 10 Aug. 2017. deVaron, Tina. “If Mama Ain’t Happy.” If Mama Ain’t Happy, via Bandcamp app, https://tinadevaron.band camp.com/album/if-mama-aint-happy, 1998. ———. Tina deVaron Website. Tina deVaron, www.tinadevaron.com. Accessed 12 Jan. 2018. Douglas, Susan, and Meredith Michaels. The Mommy Myth: The Idealization of Motherhood and How It Has Undermined Women. Free Press, 2004. Fabisch, Sue. “Walmart Woman.” Music 4 Mommies Vol. 1, Songs to Make You Laugh, Mommy Music Inc., 2007. Ginty, Molly M. “Mother’s Day Rocks for Break-the-Mold Moms.” Women’s E News, 7 May 2004, https:// womensenews.org/2004/05/mothers-day-rocks-break-the-mold-moms/. Accessed 12 Jan. 2018. Hays, Sharon. “Hard Times, Hard Rock.” USA Today, 1 Jan. 2005. Hershenson, Roberta. “Band Sings About What It’s Like to Raise A Family in the 90’s.” New York Times, 9 Nov. 1997, www.nyti.ms/2phbqE2. Accessed 10 Aug. 2017. Heyman, J.D. “Moms Who Rock.” People Magazine, 11 Oct. 2014. Ingall, Marjorie. “Rock on Moms.” New York Times, 14 May 2004. Kawash, Samira. “New Directions in Mother Studies.” Signs, vol. 36, no. 4, 2011, pp. 969–1003. Keates, Nancy.“Mommie Loudest: Now Rocking: It’s Your Mother, Singing of Suburban Angst; An Ode to Uneaten Spaghetti.” Wall Street Journal, 25 Jun. 2004, www.wsj.com/articles/SB108811464869547030. Accessed 5 Jan. 2018. Kinser, Amber E. Motherhood and Feminism. Seal Press, 2010. “Lyrics.” The Mydols Website. The Mydols, http://mydols.com/page8.html. Accessed 5 Aug. 2019. Malnar, Vee. Press Release for Mamapalooza Sydney. 5 May 2014. McNamara, Chris. “These Ain’t Lullabies: Moms Rock a Lot More than the Cradle at Mamapalooza.” Chicago Tribune, 14 May 2006, http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-05-14/features/0605140458_1_ moms-meredith-mothers. Accessed 5 Jan. 2018. Miller, Michelle Hughes, et al., editors. Bad Mothers: Regulations, Representations, and Resistance. Demeter Press, 2017. Momz Hot Rocks: New York. Directed by Kate Perotti, Edendale Pictures, 2008. Morales, Tatiana. “Mommy the Rock ‘N’ Roller.” CBS, 23 Aug. 2004, www.cbsnews.com/news/mommythe-rock-n-roller/. Accessed 5 Jan. 2018. Motherhood: New York. Directed by Katherine Dieckmann, performance by Uma Thurman, John Wells Productions, 2009.

174

Mothers and music Museum of Motherhood Website. The Museum of Motherhood, https://mommuseum.org/. Accessed 12 Jan. 2018. Okin, Susan Moller. Justice, Gender, and the Family. Basic Books, 1989. Olorenshaw, Vanessa. Liberating Motherhood: Birthing the Purplestockings Movement. Womancraft, 2016. O’Reilly, Andrea, editor. Maternal Theory: Essential Readings. Demeter Press, 2007. ———, editor. Encyclopedia of Motherhood. Sage Publications, 2011. ———, editor. The 21st Century Motherhood Movement: Mothers Speak Out on Why We Need to Change the World and How to Do It. Demeter Press, 2011. Rock, Lindsey. “The ‘Good Mother’ vs. the ‘Other’ Mother: The Girl-Mom.” Journal of the Motherhood Initiative for Research and Community Involvement, vol. 9, no. 1, 2007, pp. 20–28. Rose, Martha Joy, composer. No Prescription Required. Performed by Housewives on Prozac, CD Baby, 1998. ———, composer. Gay Girls Make Great Moms. Performed by Housewives on Prozac, independent release, 2002. ———. Housewives on Prozac Live. Performed by Housewives on Prozac, CD Baby, 2003. ———. “Introduction.” Mamapalooza Magazine, vol. 1, 2007. ———. The Journal of Mother Studies: A Peer Reviewed, International, Interdisciplinary, Open-Access, Digital Humanities Hybrid Project. 2015. CUNY Graduate Center, CUNY Academic Works, Master’s Thesis. ———. “Electric Mommyland.” Music of Motherhood: History, Healing, and Activism, edited by Martha Joy Rose, Lynda Ross, and Jennifer Hartman. Demeter Press, 2018, pp. 210–40. Rose, Martha Joy, et al., editors. Music of Motherhood: History, Healing, and Activism. Demeter Press, 2018. Rothman, Barbara Katz. Recreating Motherhood. Penguin Books, 1989. Ruddick, Sara. Maternal Thinking: Toward a Politics of Peace. Beacon Press, 1989. Stitt, Jocelyn Fenton, and Pegeen Reichert Powell, editors. Mothers Who Deliver: Feminist Interventions in Public and Interpersonal Discourse. State U of New York P, 2010. The Motherhood Movement: You Say You Want a Revolution: Toronto. Directed by Martha Joy Rose, independent release, 2008.

175

14 MATRIFOCAL VOICES IN LITERATURE Elizabeth Podnieks

Introduction Throughout literary history, mothers have always occupied diverse textual positions. They may hover in the background in plots centred on children (i.e., heroic sons, rebellious daughters); be main characters but described by an omniscient narrator, their own first-person status decentralized; or be an absent presence (i.e., through death, choosing to abandon a child, or being forced to relinquish a child). With the surge of first-wave feminism in the late 1800s, increasing demands for women’s autonomy and agency in private and public spheres went hand in hand with challenges to patriarchal motherhood. Such a charged climate generated, unsurprisingly, a rise in matrifocal literatures.1 Matrifocal literatures are written and narrated by mothers in the first-person or limited third-person voice, rendering maternal identity and experience from subjective perspectives. Further, they (re)value the significance and meaning of maternal figures in cultural, social, and national arenas, and often contest or negotiate traditional ideologies of the “good” mother as self-sacrificing, nurturing, and sexless with her antithesis, the “bad” mother. As such, these narratives perform what Susan Maushart calls the act of “unmasking” motherhood to reveal and depict truths about maternity heretofore silenced or repressed. In offering an overview of maternal literatures in this chapter, I survey key scholarship that positions the topic in historical, critical, and theoretical terms. I then provide examples of matrifocal fiction, life writing, and poetry written in English from and within American, British, African, and Caribbean Canadian contexts.2 Read as a genre in and of itself as part of a tradition of writings about motherhood, matrifocal literatures are sites of textual liberation where women self-consciously and outspokenly chart, confront, debate, and celebrate maternal feelings, practices, bodies, and identities.

Background and context Historical overview Motherhood has perhaps most famously been theorized by Adrienne Rich in her 1976 Of Woman Born as constitutive of “two meanings”: “the potential relationship of any woman to her powers of reproduction and to children; and the institution, which aims at ensuring that 176

Matrifocal voices in literature

that potential – and all women – shall remain under male control.” Rejecting motherhood as defined by patriarchy, she emphasizes that “for most of what we know as the ‘mainstream’ of recorded history, motherhood as institution has ghettoized and degraded female potentialities” (13). Expanding on Rich and invoking Betty Friedan’s 1963 feminist treatise The Feminine Mystique, Maushart, in The Mask of Motherhood, addresses the crisis experienced by twentiethcentury women as they grapple with contradictions between their expectations versus realities of motherhood. For Maushart, the “mask of motherhood” is “an assemblage of fronts” that women have been wearing “to disguise the chaos and complexity of our lived experience” (2) and that “keeps women from speaking clearly what they know, and from hearing truths too threatening to face” (7). Maushart’s contention that “the mask of silence – is the most treacherous one of all” (xx) resonates with this chapter’s focus on maternal literatures. While she implores women today to “strip off the masks” and “speak with open voices about the realities we experience” (xxi), numerous authors have in fact been “unmasking motherhood” (36) for public audiences since the Victorian era. Drawing on discourses related to gender, biology and reproduction, nationhood and race, economics, law, and ethics, and popular culture, among others, creative writers have led the way in breaking women’s silence about topics like pregnancy, birth, breastfeeding, postpartum depression, erotics, sexuality, adoption, abortion, miscarriage, single motherhood, and maternal ambivalence. This “unmasking” implicates mothers as “bad” not only for what they write but also for the act of writing itself. By speaking up, women repudiate proscribed patriarchal imperatives for submissive feminine behavior; their “unfeminine” articulations about the way things really are for mothers have produced narratives that are bold, irreverent, and authentic. In this chapter, I explicate these kinds of narratives. Before turning to them, I want to reflect on the scholarship that informs my wide array of examples. With the entrenchment of secondwave feminism in academia in the 1970s and subsequent third-wave or post-feminist movements from the 1980s on, literary scholars have increasingly been interested in locating and promoting representations of motherhood in literatures. This scholarship is grounded in feminist as well as psychoanalytical, postcolonial, and or new historicist theory, to name a few approaches, as applied to and generative of maternal theory itself. Studies analyze maternal stories in varied and often overlapping ways, such as tracing maternal traditions within literary history and across genres; mapping these traditions in terms of national and geographic spaces, and intersectional identities; and highlighting specific maternal themes and experiences. Scholars advance the projects of creative writers by setting up critical frameworks that privilege maternal readings. As Marianne Hirsch observed nearly three decades ago, feminist theorists must “assume a maternal position” and “speak in a maternal voice,” “listening to the stories that mothers have to tell” and “creating the space in which mothers might articulate those stories” (167). This chapter tracks maternal positions and voices at the nexus of critical theory and creative literatures.

Central theories, themes, and issues An early and sustained body of scholarship looks at traditions predicated on mother-daughter relationships. Major studies include those by Cathy N. Davidson and E. M. Broner, Marianne Hirsch, Mickey Pearlman, Heather Ingman, Susan C. Greenfield, Adalgisa Giorgio, and Yi-Lin Yu. An overarching thematic of these works is manifested in Davidson and Broner’s expansive collection The Lost Tradition: Mothers and Daughters in Literature. Contributors examine narratives across forty centuries from Near Eastern, British, and North American contexts and draw on mother-daughter dyads from mythic and biblical times, like Demeter and Persephone, and Ruth and Naomi, to those presented by authors like Doris Lessing, Sylvia Plath, Alice Munro, 177

Elizabeth Podnieks

and Alice Walker. Chapters uncover the disruption of empowered ancient mother-daughter relationships as patriarchal forces from the early Christian centuries to the Renaissance undervalued the societal roles of women and mothers. Between the high Renaissance and Victorian periods, the mother re-emerged as a central figure, but she was simultaneously an obstacle to the daughter’s individuation. In the early and mid-twentieth century, feminist gains (including suffrage, birth control, and women’s greater access to education and the workforce) led to female agency and maternal choice, which resulted in a daughter’s looking to her mother as a possible role model. By the mid- to late twentieth century, the rebellious daughter has found a way back to the mother, reclaiming her through an acceptance of and celebration of matrilineal (that is, generational or grandmother-mother-daughter) bonds. These ties are especially strong in the literatures of women of minority status (i.e., black, Asian) who, participating in the oral traditions of their communities, give voice to their often silenced mothers. While this recovery of the maternal voice involves participation and agency by the mother, the search has tended to be what Brenda O. Daly and Maureen T. Reddy call daughter-centric (2) (as opposed to matrifocal) in that the mother is positioned in terms of her relations with, and as perceived by, the daughter. In tracing maternal traditions through realist, modernist, and postmodernist iterations, Hirsch advocates for maternal readings of mother-daughter stories which, she contends, have been “submerged in traditional plot structures” in nineteenth- and twentieth-century western European and North American fictions, which privilege the father and son (3). Citing Sophocles’s Oedipus Rex, she insists that “to know Jocasta’s maternal story . . . we would have to begin with the mother” (5). This “maternal position” (167) is taken up towards the end of the twentieth century by Toni Morrison and Alice Walker who “clearly identify themselves as a new feminist generation in relation to the maternal tradition of the past” (16). In like spirit, Daly and Reddy acknowledge that some creative and scholarly works certainly “begin with the mother in her own right, from her own perspective,” yet they “seldom hold fast to a maternal perspective” and when they do,“readers and critics tend to suppress the centrality of mothering” (2–3). As redress, their collection Narrating Maternity: Theorizing Maternal Subjectivities (1991) displays maternal subjectivity as predicated on second-wave feminism in North American and British contexts. In examining authors like Margaret Atwood, Louise Erdrich, and Sherley Anne Williams, contributors query the kinds of “revisions of motherhood” suggested by their stories (3), invoking the agendas of “unmasking” that I illuminate in this chapter. Going back to the Victorian era and the period of first-wave feminism, Barbara Z. Thaden and Mary McCartin Wearn theorize shifts in middle-class familial structures and maternal ideologies, and their impact on maternal narratives. Looking at popular British novelists like Margaret Oliphant, Ellen Price Wood, and Caroline Norton, for example, Thaden reads what she sees as “their idealized representations of motherhood as subversive and not complicit to the dominant ideology” of the married, angelic, self-sacrificing mother (5). Wearn moves the location to the United States to review how conceptions of maternal duty and the rise of sentimentalism via Transcendentalism and Romanticism played out in textual constructions of the idealized, morally righteous, white middle-class mother. She finds that “selfless, sanctified motherhood” in texts like Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin did not go uncontested and that mothers like Harriet Jacobs and Sarah Morgan Bryan Piatt “muddy the waters of sentimental writing with maternal ambivalence and with contradictory and eccentric emotions,” falling “outside the range of ‘proper’ nineteenth-century womanhood in their sexuality, power, or conditional love” (11). These conclusions underscore my contention that matrifocal voices were becoming audible during the Victorian era. In addition to scholarship clustered by temporal and historical traditions, critical studies are devoted to figures from marginalized races and ethnicities, evidenced in books by Susheila 178

Matrifocal voices in literature

Nasta, Obioma Nnaemeka, Simone A. James Alexander, Angelita Reyes, Renate Papke, Verena Theile and Marie Drews, and Abigail L. Palko. Their work is in part a response to what many regard as the universalizing of a white, heteronormative, mainstream feminist agenda, seeking instead to delineate maternal experience and identity through the lens of postcolonial interventions. As such, they interrogate motherhood in relation to the “mother country” and “mother tongue.” Moreover, they tend to celebrate nonbiological mothers: the othermother and kinship caretakers who help to raise children in collective, communal arrangements. Utilizing samples that are again typically daughter-centric, scholars illuminate how the primacy of the mother in the domestic sphere in colonial and diasporic narratives is problematized by the very concept of “home.” African American, African Caribbean, and South Asian writers like Jamaica Kincaid, Paule Marshall, Toni Morrison, Audre Lorde, Edwidge Danticat, Kamala Das, and Kofi Awoonor, to name but a few, are marginalized from Euro- and Ameri-centric perspectives, and proffer stories of fortitude, struggle, and rebellion against patriarchal and imperial oppression. Palko, for instance, emphasizes that her study queries “essentialist ideologies of the Good Mother that have tended to dominate postcolonial rhetoric” (13). “Unmasking” motherhood in these contexts is especially political and urgent for women of colour, for they have been silenced along gendered as well as class and racialized lines. Scholarship predicated on race and nationhood is further evidenced by Di Brandt, Laura Benedetti, and Gill Rye et al. Reading for maternal presence in contemporary Canadian narratives, Brandt attends to how authors like Margaret Laurence, Daphne Marlatt, and Jovette Marchessault write from and about marginal Western positions, be they lesbian, immigrant, or Indigenous, for example, and thus our attention to them is crucial. Benedetti traces inscriptions of maternal textual subjectivity in relation to specific periods in Italy’s history, notably the cult of the Virgin Mary, fascist control of reproduction, and legalizing of divorce and abortion. Rye and her other editors position the mother as subject within twenty-first-century European literary and cultural representations, exhibiting how motherhood in all its relational manifestations and enunciations becomes “a framework through which to view the world” at a time when discourses of borders and belonging are particularly contentious (xiv). In a different sense, scholarship dedicated to specific themes enhances our appreciation of textual motherhoods. Maternal subjectivity as rendered through the body, for instance, is addressed by Tess Cosslett, Julie Tharp, and Susan MacCallum-Whitcomb. They highlight writers like Enid Bagnold and Sharon Olds, respectively, who broke taboos by writing explicitly and graphically about corporeal experiences, and for elevating them within the literary realm. Changing tack, Elaine Tuttle Hansen regards the “mother without child” as a manifestation of multiple forms of absence. These incorporate “nontraditional mothers and ‘bad’ mothers” such as “lesbians and slave mothers; women who have abortions and miscarriages; women who refuse to bear children, or whose children are stolen from them,” and even those who may be “criminals, murderers, prisoners, suicides, time travelers, tricksters, or ghosts” (10). In writing the maternal body and absent mother (back) into the text, authors reconfigure the center and margins of narrative significance. Attention to genre lends another facet to scholarship. Hilary S. Crew, Lisa Rowe Fraustino, and Karen Coats theorize young adult and children’s literatures, assessing mother-child relationships (in negotiation with daughter-centric and matrifocal perspectives) according to how mothers reinforce or complicate paradigms of the mother as traditional guardian and role model. Further to the many scholars already cited who treat fiction and poetry, Jo Malin regards how autobiographies of the daughter inevitably produce biographies of the mother. Andrea O’Reilly and Silvia Caporale-Bizzini foreground life narratives constructed by the mother herself. Contributors to their collection are attuned to political and philosophical registrations of 179

Elizabeth Podnieks

maternity in autobiographies from the nineteenth to the twenty-first century about slavery, maternal mourning, Chicana and lesbian identity, and Irish Catholic nationalism, among others. I want to close this section on scholarship with a reference to Textual Mothers/Maternal Texts: Motherhood in Contemporary Women’s Literatures (2010), the collection I edited with O’Reilly. Featuring works from Canada, the United States, Central America, Britain, Europe, the Caribbean, Asia, and Australia, contributors illuminate narrative shifts from daughter-centric to matrifocal perspectives, proposing that the latter have become especially prominent in the last few decades. Several factors account for this trend: the founding and legitimizing of motherhood studies as a unique discipline; the “mommy wars” between the mother who works at home and the mother in the labour force; the rise of “intensive mothering” and “new momist” ideologies that mandate complete financial and emotional investment in children;3 the arrival of social media affording unprecedented means of communicating personal stories about motherhood; and developments in technology that advance and redefine reproduction and conceptions of the “mother.” Factors like these fuel debates about what constitutes the “good” mother, debates initiated over one hundred years ago as Victorian society confronted women’s demands for birth control, divorce, and single-mother rights, for instance. In the sections that follow, I offer examples of textual motherhood from these two vantage points in history, the late nineteenth century, and the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Such a framework showcases stories that “begin with the mother” (5), to quote Hirsh, and assume the “maternal position” (167) in ways that are historically contingent and fluid. Matrifocal narratives, then as now, present women who grapple with patriarchal notions of idealized motherhood and who voice and “unmask” their own counter-narratives.

Controversies and challenges in textual examples I: Victorian voices Some of the earliest texts to privilege matrifocal subjectivity appeared during the Victorian period, especially the fin de siècle. Diverse in genre as well as content, narratives undermine conventional assumptions about the “good” mother as they make groundbreaking forays into complicated and taboo regions of motherhood. For instance, in Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl (1861), Harriet Ann Jacobs gives a first-person account of her life as a slave in North Carolina. Detailing her efforts to secure freedom for her herself and her two children, she fuses maternity with the abolitionist cause: Could you have seen that mother clinging to her child, when they fastened the irons upon his wrists; could you have heard her heart-rending groans, and seen her bloodshot eyes wander from face to face, vainly pleading for mercy; could you have witnessed that scene as I saw it, you would exclaim, Slavery is damnable! (30) The narrative charts her years as a mother in bondage, forcibly separated from and desperate to be reunited with her children. She reiterates the theme of the “proper” woman defined by motherhood: “had it not been for the hope of serving my children, I should have been thankful to die; but, for their sakes, I was willing to bear on” (135). At the same time, recognizing that her children have become “an addition” to her master’s “stock of slaves” (69), she “would rather see them killed than have them given up to his power” (87). Jacobs radically politicizes her identity: she refuses to accept her abject fate in the Confederate South; she problematizes the mother as instinctual nurturer; and she dares to articulate the ignored trauma of enslaved black women denied access to their own children. 180

Matrifocal voices in literature

Different kinds of challenges to idealized maternity inform the oeuvre of Sarah Piatt, collected in Palace-Burner: The Selected Poetry of Sarah Piatt. Piatt upends mother comfort in poems like “Questions of the Hour” (1871), wherein the narrator has been reading Cinderella to her child, who then queries, “What makes – men’s other wives – so mean?” The mother concedes: “I know / That I was tired, it may be cross, before / I shut the painted book for her to go.” In the final stanza she reports, “Hours later, from a child’s white bed / I heard the timid, last queer question start: / ‘Mama, are you – my stepmother?’ it said” (10–11). The mother negates the image of the gentle nurturer by acknowledging the realities of motherhood that render her “tired” and “cross,” and by letting the accusation that she is the “mean” stepmother of the fairy tale stand. In another act of resistance, in “Her Blindness in Grief ” (1873) the speaker mourns her deceased child in terms that refuse to accept the will of her patriarchal God, preferring instead to rebel against the subservient, sanctified image of the bereaved Madonna. She asserts, “There is no comfort anywhere. / My baby’s clothes, my baby’s hair, / My baby’s grave are all I know” (49). Appreciating that “My cry is but a human cry,” she nonetheless insists on voicing her unfeminine thoughts: “The grief is bitter. Let me be. / He lies beneath that lonesome tree. [. . .] Despair can only be despair. / God has his will. I have not mine” (51). Refusing religious platitudes, she articulates the truths of maternal loss. The semi-autobiographical story “The Yellow Wallpaper” (1892) by Charlotte Perkins Gilman takes on the violent truths of postpartum psychosis, events informed by Gilman’s own breakdown after the birth of her only child. The narrator counters the patronizing directives of her doctor-husband (and by extension, the male medical establishment seeking to control women’s bodies) who tells her not to “let any silly fancies run away with” her (1154). Instead, she describes how the patterns on the wallpaper of her room, a metaphor for her own psychic as well as physical entrapment, are curved such that “they suddenly commit suicide – plunge off at outrageous angles, destroy themselves in unheard-of contradictions” (1150), alerting the reader to the seriousness of her condition. Unable to embrace motherhood due to her illness, she tears away at the wallpaper, and crawls about the floor of her room, mad but free. The proof of her “release” is the text itself, wherein she explains, “I don’t know why I should write this. [. . .] But I must say what I feel and think in some way – it is such a relief!” (1154). The very fact of the narrator’s writing signals her rebellion, for although she is “absolutely forbidden” by her husband “to ‘work’ ” until she gains “proper self-control” (1149), she nonetheless produces the story we are reading in which she takes control of her own subjectivity. In the novel The Daughters of Danaus (1894), Mona Caird portrays the Victorian New Woman figure who embraces modernity in her quest for self-realization. Protagonist Hadria Fullerton, a young mother in rural Scotland, recognizes how the institution of motherhood has subjugated women: “Throughout history [. . .] children had been the unfailing means of bringing women into line with tradition”; and “An appeal to the maternal instinct had quenched the hardiest spirit of revolt” (57). Her love for her own two sons is ambivalent: “They represent to me the insult of society – my own private and particular insult, the tribute exacted of my womanhood. It is through them that I am to be subdued and humbled” (58). In the spirit of Rich, she states of motherhood that, “No woman has yet experienced it apart from the enormous pressure of law and opinion that has, always, formed part of its inevitable conditions” (103). Her verdict is that “Motherhood, as our wisdom has appointed it, among civilized people, represents a prostitution of the reproductive powers” (104). Additionally, when the local schoolteacher kills herself after giving birth to her illegitimate baby, Hadria adopts the child in order to “strike a blow at the system which sent her mother to a dishonoured grave” (58). She favours her relationship with this baby because it is predicated on her autonomous choice, not biology. Hadria approaches 181

Elizabeth Podnieks

children from political, not instinctual, perspectives. In repudiating institutional motherhood, she overturns assumptions about the “good” mother. In the novella The Awakening (1899) by Kate Chopin, Edna Pontellier is another fin-de-siècle protagonist who charts an anarchic response to motherhood. As an unfulfilled wife and mother in New Orleans, Edna longs to be an artist but is thwarted by her husband who demands that she be a “good” mother and focus only on their family. Edna is, however, maternally ambivalent, and thus relieved when the children are away on vacation: “It seemed to free her of a responsibility which she had blindly assumed and for which Fate had not fitted her” (25). Edna awakens to erotic needs, too, taking a lover and sexually yearning for yet another man. When her husband announces that he is moving the family abroad – against her will – she drowns herself in the Gulf of Mexico. Slipping under water, “The children appeared before her like antagonists who had overcome her; who had overpowered and sought to drag her into the soul’s slavery for the rest of her days. But she knew a way to elude them” (154); “She understood now clearly what she had meant long ago when she said to [her friend] Adèle Ratignolle that she would give up the unessential, but she would never sacrifice herself for her children” (154). Edna may be a “bad” mother who abandons her children, but her final actions make taboo claims to selfhood, underscoring that the imperatives of patriarchal motherhood are so ingrained in society that a woman may have no recourse but to the most extreme measures in order to transgress them.

Controversies and challenges in textual examples II: contemporary echoes and elaborations A century later, authors, narrators, and protagonists continue to “unmask” motherhood in ways that reflect and expand on the thematic of “good” versus “bad” mothering. Certainly, matrifocal narratives were produced within this one-hundred-year span. In highlighting texts from the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, I illuminate how stories from one fin-de-siècle era speak to those from another – in this case, our contemporary one. In the spirit of Caird and Chopin, for instance, The Joys of Motherhood (1979) by Buchi Emecheta reverberates with Rich’s contention that women have been oppressed by the institution of motherhood, which Emecheta presents as complicit with British colonial rule. Set in mid-twentieth-century Nigeria, the novel features Nnu Ego, an impoverished Igbo woman struggling within a racist society to raise her seven surviving (of nine) children while coping with her polygamous husband in the modernizing city of Lagos. The novel problematizes motherhood as the defining feature of womanhood, while concurrently privileging matrifocal subjectivity as a valid focus of fiction. Nnu Ego subscribes to her community’s philosophy that “a woman without a child for her husband was a failed woman” (62), yet she also prays, “God, when will you create a woman who will be fulfilled in herself, a full human being, not anybody’s appendage?” (186). She expands on her lifetime of self-sacrificial maternity: “What have I gained from all this? Yes, I have many children, but what do I have to feed them on? On my life. I have to work myself to the bone to look after them, I have to give them my all. And if I am lucky enough to die in peace, I even have to give them my soul” (186). She articulates a taboo sentiment about child-rearing: “I doubt if it has all been worth it” (202). By the novel’s end, with her adult children detached from her, she “died quietly” on “the roadside” near her home, “with no child to hold her hand and no friend to talk to her. She had never really made many friends, so busy had she been building up her joys as a mother” (224). This ironic “joy” undercuts accusations that Nnu Ego is a “bad” mother for consistently questioning the ideology of “good” motherhood. Her self-imposed badness manifests in the afterlife where she takes some

182

Matrifocal voices in literature

small revenge on the cult of motherhood: it is reported that she was “a wicked woman” because “however many people appealed to her to make women fertile, she never did” (224). Nnu Ego symbolizes her nation’s devastating subscription to biological destiny, and the colonized woman as concomitantly colonized by motherhood. The experimental hybrid of autobiographical poetry and prose in Drawing Down a Daughter (1992) by Claire Harris – who migrated to Canada from Trinidad in 1966 – is the matrifocal account of a pregnant woman living in Calgary addressed to her unborn child. The book treats themes related to the maternal body and maternal ambivalence, especially at the intersection of race and racism. The narrator describes, inside her the child thrashing daughter she needs dreads for who would bring a child skin shimmering black God’s night breath curled crisp about her face courage of enslaved ancestors in her eyes who would choose to cradle such tropic grace on the Bow’s frozen banks.4 (17–18) The stanza depicts physical maternity (the “thrashing” baby) and conflates the maternal body with the racial one – images of “skin shimmering black” and “enslaved ancestors” recall the history of black slavery, as well as the narrative of Harriet Ann Jacobs discussed earlier. Additionally, although the “frozen” landscape of Canada is pitted again the “tropic” Caribbean, throughout she prefers her new home. While her partner wants to return to Trinidad, she tells him “there is racism there too!” whereas Canada affords her “freedom!” (69). That said, she implores, “remember Daughter all those othered are black / female like you or worse commit poverty” (29). The narrator continues to exact the toll of pregnancy as her freedom is manipulated by the baby she carries: she puts down the notebook stands to ease an ache in her back . . . 656th bathroom break. Girl i hope when you’re finished using my body, i can still go to concerts in the park . . . (34) The reality of going into labour is rendered as sheer pain: it rips through her so suddenly shaking her flinging her breathless against cliffs (111)

183

Elizabeth Podnieks

The book ends with agonizing parturition, startlingly compared to racialized torture as the narrator loses her identity to the punishing will of her newborn: inside you thrash out i hug my belly in the helpless dawn for a moment i am as the stunned slave under the whip. (112) Harris’s dramatic text bluntly unmasks the corporeal realties of pregnancy and in the process draws powerful connections between maternal and colonized bodies. Sue Miller focuses on the maternal body as a site of sexual negotiation. In The Good Mother (1986), she hypothesizes the dire consequences for women who seek sexual fulfillment as mothers outside of marriage. Following her divorce, protagonist Anna Dunlop takes a lover, Leo. Anna eventually loses her child, Molly, in a custody battle as her ex-husband “proves” that she is a “bad” mother. Anna is wholly “bound up with” her daughter (80), but her status as a “good” mother is compromised early on with a graphic description of Anna masturbating: I felt what was at first a shapeless yearning in my body, and I learned to bring it to life. I would reach between my legs, separate the folds of my flesh. My own saliva on my fingertips would make me wet; and I came. I came again and again in those mornings, by myself, with my thoughts all my own. (83) As her relationship with Leo intensifies, she grows convinced that her sexual liberation makes her “in every way, more expressive. And it was good for Molly” (236). However, when her ­ex-husband (wrongly) accuses Leo of sexual misconduct with Molly, Anna understands that she showed bad judgment in allowing lover and child to be naked together. Forced to account for her decisions before a round of lawyers and psychologists, she feels she “was failing some test” (226), and indeed the arbiters of patriarchy determine her fate: the father is awarded custody. Miller’s text postulates how the mother who seeks to accommodate her personal and sexual freedoms within the parameters of maternity, and who provocatively “unmasks” those desires, is punished by the institutions who control the very notion of what constitutes “good” motherhood. Like Anna, in the autobiographical poetry collection Crime Against Nature (1989) Minnie Bruce Pratt depicts herself on trial, in her case for the “crime” of being a lesbian mother. Pratt came out following her marriage and birth of two sons; her sexuality was a literal as well as “moral” crime in the United States during both the period of the events taking place in the 1970s and her writing about them in the 1980s. Her text explores how her lesbianism led to her being declared an “unnatural” and therefore “unfit” mother who lost custody of her children; her guilt as well as affirmation about her decisions; and her rage against the legal and social systems that persecute gay people and communities. The book begins with “Poem for My Sons,” an address to her children in which the narrator “can only pray” that you’ll remember me, who crossed, recrossed you, as a woman making slowly toward an unknown place where you could be with me, like a woman on foot, in a long stepping out. (28) 184

Matrifocal voices in literature

From here, the poems speak to personal and public facets of her coming out and the subsequent fragmentation of selfhood. She explains in “No Place” how her husband at the time shouted, Man or woman, her or him, Choose, choose. me or the children. There was no place to be simultaneous, or between. (32) Having chosen her female lover, in “Shame” the narrator admits: I ask for justice but do not release Do I think I was wrong? Yes. myself. Of course. Was wrong. Am wrong. Can justify everything except their pain. Even now their cries rattle in my ears like icy winds pierce in cold weather. She goes on to recall, What I The past repeats in fragments: see is everybody watching, me included, as a selfish woman leaves her children, two small boys hardly more than babies. (57) In “Dreaming a Few Minutes in a Different Element,” during a phone call with her children she tries to reconcile passion for her children and her lover; when her boys “want / to know why I’m not with them,” she queries, How to explain a kind of doubling back to myself, selfish or the difference between the stale fountain I stare at, and the creek, pure unknown upwelling, sex, what I put my hands in, how it was to touch her, (95) Ultimately, while people “abhorred” her for “the crime of moving back and forth / between more than one self, more than one end to the story” (“Crime Against Nature,” 116), the very act of translating her trauma into art affords her – and her now-grown children – some justice and redemption. In “Another Question,” she acknowledges of her sons, The world prefers Yes, they’ve seen the poems. I not tell the children: hide, be oblique, be secret, be grotesque. But the youngest says when I tell it all, that’s what he likes best. (102) 185

Elizabeth Podnieks

The book concludes with the narrator celebrating her defiance in her titular poem “Crime Against Nature”: But I didn’t write this story until now when they are too old for either law or father to seize or prevent from hearing my words, or from watching as I advance in the scandalous ancient way of women: our assault on enemies, walking forward, skirts lifted, to show the silent mouth, the terrible power, our secret. (119) Pratt unmasks the “power” and the “secret” of her motherhood through the very mouthpiece of her poems. My final example uses satire to make serious observations about twenty-first-century motherhood. In Fiona Neill’s The Secret Life of a Slummy Mummy (2008), narrator Lucy Sweeney is forced to measure herself against the overly competitive and improbably perfect Yummy Mummy No. 1 and Alpha Mum in their tony London neighborhood. Lucy is a frazzled wife and mother of three who undermines the myth of domestic bliss while accenting the impact of forfeiting a career on professional women. A former TV producer, she confesses, It is utterly baffling to me that I used to be able to put together the lead package on Newsnight in less than an hour but am so singularly unable to meet the challenge of getting my children ready for school every morning. (10) As with so many other maternal protagonists discussed in this chapter, Lucy’s identity has fractured: “Somehow over the years I had atomised. Now, faced with the prospect of my youngest child starting nursery three mornings a week, it is time to rebuild myself, but I can no longer remember how all the pieces fit together” (11). Lucy unmasks how women have internalized maternal sacrifice to the point of self-impairment: Even though this is the first time that I have been out for almost a month, I still reproach myself. Guilt is the bindweed of motherhood, the two so inexorably entwined that it is difficult to know where one ends and the other begins. (19) While her contemporary Alpha Mum exhorts, “I didn’t breastfeed for a year, give up work, and cook organic meals every day for my child to end up at a substandard nursery” (198), Lucy’s mother, who still teaches part-time at university, disparages, “I can’t believe that a daughter of mine has chosen to be a housewife.” Lucy responds, “Actually, Mum, part of the problem lies with feminists like you, because in overemphasising the importance of women working, you totally devalued domestic life” (219). In the end, her friend asks what she will do with her immediate future: “ ‘More of the same, I suppose,’ I say with an unusual hint of certainty in my tone. ‘And less of anything different’ ” (420). Lucy articulates shifts from second- to third-wave feminism; although she is a “bad” mother for rejecting the prevailing intensive agenda of Alpha Mum, she (re)commits to her own decision to stay home as a matter of empowered choice.

186

Matrifocal voices in literature

Recommendations for future reading and research Neill’s The Secret Life of a Slummy Mummy can be considered a form of “mommy lit,” which is a specific genre of matrifocal fiction that warrants increased attention given its cultural and commercial currency. In “You are Not Alone: The Personal, the Political, and the ‘New’ Mommy Lit,” Heather Hewett traces the genre’s arrival to I Don’t Know How She Does It: The Life of Kate Reddy, Working Mother (2002) by Allison Pearson, which reignited “Decades-long debates about motherhood and work” as it soared to best-seller status in Britain and the United States (119). Citing other titles like Laura Wolf ’s Diary of a Mad Mom-to-Be (2003) and Fiona Gibson’s Babyface (2004), Hewitt identifies recurring characters and tropes in the stories featuring “fallible but likeable narrators (all middle class and white) who, although overwhelmed by diapers, lack of sleep, and incompetent husbands, managed to survive the self-transformation into motherhood without losing their sense of humor” (119–120). Classified as an extension of “chick lit” in which the unmarried heroine is on a quest for Mr. Right, mommy lit instead focuses on “a journey from womanhood to motherhood, and her challenge lies in integrating her new role into her former identity” (120). In the Encyclopedia of Motherhood entry for “Mommy Lit,” Diana Davidson lists numerous additional titles like Jennifer Weiner’s Little Earthquakes (2004) and Emily Giffin’s Baby-Proof (2007). Hewett emphasizes that mommy lit owes its debt to an earlier wave of stories, articles, and columns from the 1940s to the 1970s, by humorists like Betty MacDonald, Shirley Jackson, Jean Kerr, and Erma Bombeck, wherein traditional expectations for wives and mothers are subjected to criticism via self-deprecation, wisecracks, and satire (127). Hewett and Davidson both underscore that mommy lit is predicated on escapism and consumption, but the best iterations “alleviate anxiety, produce laughter, and expose cultural ideologies of parenting” (Hewett 130). Hewett also extends the definition of mommy lit to encompass texts that in general treat “the ‘real’ experience of motherhood honestly, without sentimentality or idealization or judgment, from the point of view of the mother,” and she cites as further examples nonfiction texts such as Anne Lamott’s Operating Instructions: A Journal of My Son’s First Year (1993) and Ann Crittenden’s The Price of Motherhood (2001) (121). Taken broadly, mommy lit signals a boom in the promotion of maternal voices which contributes to the unprecedented contemporary unmasking of motherhood through a matrifocal lens. Moving forward, mommy lit’s commercial genre fiction must do more to represent mothers from diverse race and class backgrounds. Relatedly, the genre of “nanny lit” is bourgeoning. This chapter has examined stories about mothers from the mother’s perspective, and future writing and research can be directed towards the role that othermothers or caretakers play in the raising of children, and towards expanding definitions of what we mean by “mother” and “mothering” so as to encompass and value figures like the nanny. As Elizabeth Hale outlines in “Long-Suffering Professional Females: The Case of Nanny Lit,” The Nanny Diaries (2002) by Emma McLaughlin and Nicola Kraus helped to initiate the genre. Although a branch of contemporary chick lit, nanny lit echoes Anne Brontë’s 1847 novel Agnes Grey, which depicts a “governess-heroine,” “exposes the exploitation that underpins the nannying situation,” “analyses a femaleemployer-employee relationship,” and “exposes the complexities of the mother-nanny relationship, in which the nanny is hired to substitute for a mother, and in which the mother fails to live up to her parental role, as a mother to her child, and as a mother-employer to her nanny” (Hale 104). While the governess has been a staple of fiction in the past (i.e., Charlotte Brontë’s 1847 Jane Eyre, P. L. Travers’s 1934 Mary Poppins), Travers’s line “But nobody ever knew what Mary Poppins felt about it, for Mary Poppins never told anybody anything” (14) describes the silences and masks

187

Elizabeth Podnieks

that ­matrifocal – and more recently “nanny-focal” – texts seek to break and uncover. That nannies of the twenty-first century remain hidden is evidenced in the 2017 New York Times article by Michelle Ruiz “Where Are All the Nannies on Instagram?” which probes the fact that although “Nannies are often lauded as indispensable to keeping modern families afloat,” they are “hardly ever included” in social media photos of those families, and are therefore rendered “invisible.” In a similar vein, critic Estelle Lenartowicz reflects that the “complex and ambiguous” relationship between “a mother and her babysitter” has remained “unexplored in literature.” Lenartowicz made this observation in her review of Leila Slimani’s Chanson Douce, the 2016 best-selling French novel based on the 2012 New York murders of two children by their nanny (translated and published in 2018 as Lullaby (UK) and The Perfect Nanny (US)). Chanson Douce, along with novels like Mona Simpson’s My Hollywood and Victoria Brown’s Minding Ben, value nanny-centric subjectivities, and are complemented by a growing body of nonfiction studies like Jessika Auerbach’s And Nanny Makes Three: Mothers and Nannies Tell the Truth about Work, Love, Money, and Each Other (2007), Analyn Aryo’s Nanny Tales: Voices from the Diary of an Overseas Filipina Worker (2009), and Cameron Lynne Macdonald’s Shadow Mothers: Nannies, Au Pairs, and the Micropolitics of Mothering (2011). Unmasking truths about nanny identity and experience necessarily raises questions and issues around race, class, immigration status, power relations, and “good” and “bad” maternal care. Recent and future creative and scholarly work predicated on nanny-focal perspectives point to new and relevant directions for motherhood studies.

Further reading Aryo, Analyn. Nanny Tales: Voices from the Diary of an Overseas Filipina Worker. ResearchMate, 2009. Auerbach, Jessika. And Nanny Makes Three: Mothers and Nannies Tell the Truth about Work, Love, Money, and Each Other. St. Martin’s Press, 2007. Davidson, Diana. “Mommy Lit.” Encyclopedia of Motherhood, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, Sage, 2018. Hale, Elizabeth. “Long-Suffering Professional Females: The Case of Nanny Lit.” Chick Lit: The New Woman’s Fiction, edited by Suzanne Ferriss and Mallory Young, Routledge, 2006, pp. 103–18. Hewett, Heather. “You are Not Alone: The Personal, the Political, and the ‘New’ Mommy Lit.” Chick Lit: The New Woman’s Fiction, edited by Suzanne Ferriss and Mallory Young, Routledge, 2006, pp. 119–39. Macdonald, Cameron Lynne. Shadow Mothers: Nannies, Au Pairs, and the Micropolitics of Mothering. U of California P, 2011. McLaughlin, Emma, and Nicola Kraus. The Nanny Diaries. St. Martin’s Griffin, 2002. Slimani, Leila. Chanson Douce. Gallimard, 2016.

Conclusion As this chapter has elucidated, the authors, narrators, and protagonists of matrifocal narratives operate within and against traditional familial arrangements to tell stories that unmask motherhood. In so doing, they reveal an awareness of how legal, political, economic, and medical institutions define and control ideologies of motherhood; and they recognize fully what their respective cultures and communities expect from them as mothers. They know the rules for “good” mothering, and yet they break them, revise them. The textual examples offered here give us women who tell blunt, brave, and vivid stories that position motherhood in terms of slavery, postpartum psychosis, adoptive motherhood, ambivalence, hetero- and homosexual desire, mourning, colonized homelands and bodies, and hyper-competitive parenting. These mothers reconstitute assumptions about “good” and “bad” mothering as they write their voices of resistance and reality into matrifocal literatures.

188

Matrifocal voices in literature

Notes 1 The term has been defined in O’Reilly and Caporale-Bizzini (10–11); and Podnieks and O’Reilly (3). 2 By “life writing” I mean texts that engage with auto/biographical content. I do not discuss the motherhood memoir – a significant genre in itself – because there is a dedicated chapter to it in this collection. 3 For “intensive mothering,” see Hays; for “new momism,” see Douglas and Michaels. 4 The Bow River, Alberta.

Works cited Alexander, Simone A. James. Mother Imagery in the Novels of Afro-Caribbean Women. U of Missouri P, 2001. Aryo, Analyn. Nanny Tales: Voices from the Diary of an Overseas Filipina Worker. ResearchMate, 2009. Auerbach, Jessika. And Nanny Makes Three: Mothers and Nannies Tell the Truth About Work, Love, Money, and Each Other. St. Martin’s Press, 2007. Benedetti, Laura. The Tigress in the Snow: Motherhood and Literature in Twentieth-Century Italy. U of Toronto P, 2007. Berg, Allison. Mothering the Race: Women’s Narratives of Reproduction, 1890–1930. U of Illinois P, 2002. Brandt, Di. Wild Mother Dancing: Maternal Narrative in Canadian Literature. U of Manitoba P, 1993. Brontë, Anne. Agnes Grey. Thomas Cautley Newby, 1847. Brontë, Charlotte. Jane Eyre. Smith, Elder & Co., 1847. Brown, Victoria. Minding Ben. NY Books, 2011. Caird, Mona. The Daughters of Danaus. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2014. Chopin, Kate. The Awakening. The Awakening and Selected Short Fiction, introduction and notes by Rachel Adams, Barnes & Noble Classics, 1997, pp. 1–155. Cosslett, Tess. Women Writing Childbirth: Modern Discourses of Motherhood. Manchester UP, 1994. Crew, Hilary S. Is It Really Mommy Dearest?: Daughter-Mother Narratives in Young Adult Fiction. Scarecrow, 2000. Crittenden, Ann. The Price of Motherhood. Henry Holt and Company, 2001. Daly, Brenda, and Maureen T. Reddy, editors. Narrating Mothers: Theorizing Maternal Subjectivities. U of Tennessee P, 1991. Davidson, Cathy N., and E. M. Broner, editors. The Lost Tradition: Mothers and Daughters in Literature. Frederick Ungar, 1980. Davidson, Diana. “Mommy Lit.” Encyclopedia of Motherhood, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, Sage, 2018. Douglas, Susan J., and Meredith W. Michaels. The Mommy Myth: The Idealization of Motherhood and How It Has Undermined All Women. Free Press, 2004. Emecheta, Buchi. The Joys of Motherhood. George Braziller, 1979. Fraustino, Lisa Rowe, and Karen Coats, editors. Mothers in Children’s and Young Adult Literature: From the Eighteenth Century to Postfeminism. UP Mississippi, 2016. Gibson, Fiona. Babyface. Flame, 2004. Gilman, Charlotte Perkins. “The Yellow Wallpaper.” The Norton Anthology of Literature by Women, edited by Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar, W. W. Norton and Co., 1985, pp. 1148–61. Giorgio, Adalgisa, editor. Writing Mothers and Daughters: Renegotiating the Mother in Western European Narratives by Women. Berghahn Books, 2002. Greenfield, Susan C. Mothering Daughters: Novels and the Politics of Family Romance Frances Burney to Jane Austen. Wayne State UP, 2002. Hale, Elizabeth. “Long-Suffering Professional Females: The Case of Nanny Lit.” Chick Lit: The New Woman’s Fiction, edited by Suzanne Ferriss and Mallory Young, Routledge, 2006, pp. 103–18. Hansen, Elaine Tuttle. Mother Without Child: Contemporary Fiction and the Crisis of Motherhood. U of California P, 1997. Harris, Claire. Drawing Down a Daughter. Goose Lane Editions, 2007. Hays, Sharon. The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood. Yale UP, 1996. Hewett, Heather. “You are Not Alone: The Personal, the Political, and the ‘New’ Mommy Lit.” Chick Lit: The New Woman’s Fiction, edited by Suzanne Ferriss and Mallory Young, Routledge, 2006, pp. 119–39. Hirsch, Marianne. The Mother/Daughter Plot: Narrative, Psychoanalysis, Feminism. Indiana UP, 1989. Ingman, Heather. Women’s Fiction Between the Wars: Mothers, Daughters and Writing. St. Martin’s P, 1998. Jacobs, Harriet Ann. Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl. Ichthus Publications, 2016.

189

Elizabeth Podnieks Lamott, Anne. Operating Instructions: A Journal of My Son’s First Year. Anchor Books, 1993. Lenartowicz, Estelle. “Sweet song for a chilling psychological thriller.” L’Express, 27 Sept. 2016, https:// translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lexpress.fr%2Fculture%2 Flivre%2Fchanson-douce-pour-un-thriller-psychologique- glacant_1834575.html. Macdonald, Cameron Lynne. Shadow Mothers: Nannies, Au Pairs, and the Micropolitics of Mothering. U of California P, 2011. Malin, Jo. The Voice of the Mother: Embedded Maternal Narratives in Twentieth-Century Women’s Autobiographies. Southern Illinois UP, 2000. Maushart, Susan. The Mask of Motherhood: How Becoming a Mother Changes our Lives and Why We Never Talk about It. Penguin Books, 2000. McLaughlin, Emma, and Nicola Kraus. The Nanny Diaries. St. Martin’s Griffin, 2002. Miller, Sue. The Good Mother. Perennial, 2002. Minh-ha, Trinh T. Women, Native, Other: Writing Postcoloniality and Feminism. Indiana UP, 1989. Nasta, Susheila. Motherland: Black Women’s Writing from Africa, the Caribbean and South Asia. Rutgers UP, 1992. Neill, Fiona. The Secret Life of a Slummy Mummy. Arrow Books, 2008. Nnaemeka, Obioma, editor. The Politics of (M)Othering: Womanhood, Identity and Resistance in African Literature. Taylor & Francis, 1997. O’Reilly, Andrea, and Silvia Caporale-Bizzini, editors. From the Personal to the Political: Toward a New Theory of Maternal Narrative. Susquehanna UP, 2009. Palko, Abigail L. Imagining Motherhood in Contemporary Irish and Caribbean Literature. Palgrave Macmillan, 2016. Papke, Renate. Poems at the Edge of Differences: Mothering in New English Poetry by Women. Universitätsverlag Göttingen, 2008. Pearlman, Mickey, editor. Mother Puzzles: Daughters and Mothers in Contemporary American Literature. Greenwood Press, 1989. Pearson, Allison. I Don’t Know How She Does It: The Life of Kate Reddy, Working Mother. Anchor Books, 2002. Piatt, Sarah. Palace-Burner: The Selected Poetry of Sarah Piatt. Edited and with introduction by Paula Bernat Bennett, U of Illinois P, 2001. Podnieks, Elizabeth, and Andrea O’Reilly, editors. Textual Mothers/ Maternal Texts: Motherhood in Contemporary Women’s Literatures. Wilfrid Laurier UP, 2010. Pratt, Minnie Bruce. “Another Question.” Crime against Nature. A Midsummer Night’s Press, 2013, pp. 101–02. ———. “Crime against Nature.” Crime against Nature. A Midsummer Night’s Press, 2013, pp. 113–19. ———. “Dreaming a Few Minutes in a Different Element.” Crime against Nature. A Midsummer Night’s Press, 2013, pp. 93–97. ———. “No Place.” Crime against Nature. A Midsummer Night’s Press, 2013, pp. 32–33. ———. “Poems for My Sons.” Crime against Nature. A Midsummer Night’s Press, 2013, pp. 27–28. ———. “Shame.” Crime Against Nature. A Midsummer Night’s Press, 2013, pp. 57–61. Reyes, Angelita. Mothering Across Cultures: Postcolonial Representations. U of Minnesota P, 2001. Rich, Adrienne. Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution. W. W. Norton, 1986. Ruiz, Michelle. “Where Are All the Nannies on Instagram?” New York Times, 11 Nov. 2017, nytimes. com/2017/11/11/style/where-are-all-the-nannies-on-instagram.html. Rye, Gill, et al., editors. Motherhood in Literature and Culture: Interdisciplinary Perspectives from Europe. Routledge, 2017. Slimani, Leila. Chanson Douce. Gallimard, 2016. ———. Lullaby. Faber & Faber, 2018. ———. The Perfect Nanny. Penguin, 2018. Simpson, Mona. My Hollywood. Vintage, 2010. Thaden, Barbara Z. The Maternal Voice in Victorian Fiction: Rewriting the Patriarchal Family. Garland Publishing, 1997. Tharp, Julie, and Susan MacCallum-Whitcomb, editors. This Giving Birth: Pregnancy and Childbirth in American Women’s Writing. Bowling Green U of Popular P, 2000. Theile, Verena, and Marie Drews, editors. Reclaiming Home, Remembering Motherhood, Rewriting History: African American and Afro-Caribbean Women’s Literature in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2009. Travers, P.L. Mary Poppins. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1997. Wearn, Mary McCartin. Negotiating Motherhood in Nineteenth-Century American Literature. Routledge, 2008. Weiner, Jennifer. Little Earthquakes. Pocket Star Books, 2004. Wolf, Laura. Diary of a Mad Mom-to-Be. Delta, 2003. Yu, Yi-Lin. Mother, She Wrote: Matrilineal Narratives in Contemporary Women’s Writing. Peter Lang, 2005.

190

15 MOTHERHOOD MEMOIRS Heather Hewett

Introduction Motherhood memoirs, or autobiographical writing about motherhood, represent a subgenre of memoir, defined by Sidonie Smith and Julia Watson as a “mode of life narrative that historically situates the subject in a social environment” (198). This chapter examines English-language life narrative written by those who are positioned in the social location of “mother” and whose writing reflects their engagement with the work of mothering and parenting. After examining the background and context of motherhood memoirs, it reviews some of the main controversies and challenges that characterize critical discussions about the subgenre and then considers directions for future scholarly research. Because the categories of “mother” and “memoir” are not static, but rather reflect changes in cultural understandings and practices, this chapter traces many of the shifts and tensions inherent in the subgenre at the current moment. The presence of “mother” in adjectival form – reflecting (and, many would argue, producing) parenting as a gendered endeavor – reveals cultural practices and ideologies whereby the primary care of children has often been, and continues to be, undertaken chiefly (though not exclusively) by individuals identified as mothers and women. The structures that produce “mothering” – indeed, who is permitted to be a “mother” – are furthermore informed by inequities related to other axes of identity (such as race, ethnicity, class, sexuality, ability, religion, citizenship, and indigeneity). Yet because ideas about gender and parenting continue to change, maternal autobiographical writing provides a rich textual tool for mapping many of these shifts. Motherhood memoirs are expanding and developing as they record stories of mothering along with societal transformations in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. The subgenre provides a portal to a range of issues related to the landscapes of contemporary parenting, including the existence of both shifting and static understandings of gender and gendered roles within families; clashes between cultural expectations, structures of power, and current parenting practices among majority, minority, and marginalized populations; the question of whose stories are told, whose stories aren’t told, and what forms these stories take; and finally, who reads (and doesn’t read) motherhood memoirs and how various audiences make meaning out of maternal autobiographical writing.

191

Heather Hewett

Background and context Historical overview This chapter uses both terms memoir and autobiography; although generic differences exist, these terms are often used interchangeably.1 In the scholarly literature on memoirs written in English, several different terms are used: “mommy memoirs” (I. Brown), “motherhood autobiography” (O’Reilly and Bizzini), “maternal memoir” (Frye), “motherhood memoir” (Dymond and Willey), “maternal autobiographies” (Harman), and “maternal confessional writing” (Quiney). (In a more tongue-in-cheek coinage, writer Katie Allison Granju used the term “momoir” for a 2003 Salon article.) Both memoir and autobiography fall under the broader category of life narrative, understood as a “historically situated practice of self-representation” (Smith and Watson 14). Both memoir and autobiography have long histories. Smith and Watson note that autobiography “is a term for a particular practice of life narrative that emerged in the Enlightenment and has become canonical in the West,” a form that traditionally “celebrates the autonomous individual and the universalizing life story” and whose canonization elevated certain lives while excluding others (3). Wealthy white men viewed as holding public significance wrote and published autobiographies, while people disadvantaged by dominant structures of power generally did not. (For these reasons, postmodern and postcolonial critiques of the Enlightenment subject have resulted in critiques of traditional autobiography).2 Thus, the history of autobiography reflects existing power relations, both within nations and globally, and contains many gaps and silences. Given this literary historical context, autobiographical acts hold particular significance for those who have been silenced, dehumanized, enslaved, disregarded, and marginalized. Placing oneself as the narrator and/or subject of one’s story can contest one’s assigned position as ancillary or unimportant; it is a move that insists upon one’s subjectivity and place in history. Additionally, if memoir provides a form for “collective memorialization” that enables the writer to “keep cultural memory alive,” as Nancy Miller claims, then the act of recording one’s memories and sharing them with others can empower communities, who can use written remembrances to revise larger stories, such as national narratives (424, 432). At the same time, gaps in the historical record do not equal absence; as Alice Walker wrote in 1974 about her quest for artistic productions created by her enslaved foremothers, we must search for “our mothers’ gardens” outside of the written record and beyond places we might otherwise look (231). Within patriarchal Western societies, the devaluation of caregiving has been reflected in an absence of stories and narratives about mothering. Those who wrote about motherhood – predominantly, white, upper-class, married individuals who could claim “mother” as a valid, respectable identity and possessed the means to become literate and the time to write – had to resist sexist dualisms that split mind from body and constructed reproductive labor as less important than intellectual work or wage work. Most mothers did not have the opportunity or the freedom to write; enslaved mothers of African descent, indigenous mothers, immigrant mothers, poor mothers, and disabled mothers faced institutions and individuals who not only prevented them from writing their stories but also, in the case of enslaved and indigenous mothers, frequently took their children taken away from them. Because the history of motherhood memoirs is marked by exclusion and silence, scholars tend to define maternal autobiography broadly. Justine Dymond and Nicole Willey observe that motherhood memoir “can appear in genres that are not strictly or only memoir,” including slave narratives and diaries (10). Feminist archival work has surfaced private writing about mothering: Karin Voth Harman lists several diaries kept by wealthy white women, beginning in the 192

Motherhood memoirs

seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, that recorded “the common, but nevertheless anguishing, experience of the loss of children” (617). Willey writes about the personal diary kept by African American mother Richelene Mitchell in 1973, subsequently published by her children as Dear Self: A Year in the Life of a Welfare Mother (2007). Harman notes that through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, only a few mothers who published autobiographies discussed their children openly, although many writers fictionalized their personal experience and, in the early twentieth century, turned to “poetry as a place for maternal confession” (618). With the advent of civil rights, feminist, and LGBTQ movements in North America and the United Kingdom, more writers began to analyze their experiences of motherhood. The publication of works such as Adrienne Rich’s Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution (1976) and Jane Lazarre’s The Mother Knot (1976) broke taboos as these authors wrote honestly about their ambivalences and struggles concerning motherhood. By the 1980s and 1990s, increasing numbers of “unapologetic” maternal memoirs were published (Harman 618). Bestsellers such as Anne Lamott’s Operating Instructions: A Journal of My Son’s First Year (1993) suggested that irreverent books about motherhood could make money, and memoirs such as Jane Lazarre’s Beyond the Whiteness of Whiteness: Memoir of a White Mother of Black Sons (1996) and Cherrie Moraga’s Waiting in the Wings: Portrait of a Queer Motherhood (1996) addressed motherhood as it relates to race, ethnicity, and sexuality. The increasing number of motherhood memoirs in the 1980s and 1990s were published during a more general “memoir boom,” and the turn of the twenty-first century saw a decided uptick in the popularity of this subgenre (Harman 618; Mendelsohn).3 Despite this growth, writing about motherhood tends not to be taken seriously by many critics. As writer Sarah Menkedick explains, “Patriarchal culture has reduced motherhood to an exercise no serious artist would tackle as a subject,” which not only marginalizes “motherhood as a literary topic” but also contributes to “the real-life marginalization of mothers.” This persists, despite the fact that many established fiction writers and journalists have published memoirs about motherhood; consider Louise Erdrich’s The Blue Jay’s Dance: A Birth Year (1980), Anne Roiphe’s Fruitful: A Real Mother in the Modern World (1996), Rachel Cusk’s memoir A Life’s Work: On Becoming a Mother (2001), and Joan Didion’s Blue Nights (2011). At the end of the twentieth and into the twenty-first century, a greater diversity of identities is being represented in maternal autographical writing as authors contest the ideologies of white supremacy, colonialism, classism, nativism, able-bodiedness, and cis-heteronormativity that designate some mothers as “fit” and others as “unfit.” The founding of publications such as Hip Mama in 1993 and Brain, Child: The Magazine for Thinking Mothers in 2000 provided additional forums for autobiographical writing, as did the advent of online magazines such as Literary Mama in 2003 and personal blogs.4 In the early 1990s, mama zines played an important role for self-authorship. Alison Piepmeier observes that zines allow for playful and powerful interventions into cultural mythologies about motherhood and make space for a more diverse range of racial and ethnic identities than have been available in publishing, noting that “approximately 20 percent of the contributors to the Mamaphiles zines are women of color” (114). A small but growing number of memoirs and personal essays authored by lesbian and queer mothers as well as trans parents (such as Rachel Epstein’s 2009 anthology Who’s Your Daddy?: And Other Writings on Queer Parenting) challenge cis-heteronormative conceptions of motherhood, parenting, and reproduction. While many of the most visible motherhood writers are still white, these openings suggest that some barriers have been overcome.5 Small presses in particular have led the way in publishing memoirs and essay collections written by younger voices and marginalized mothers; one recent example is the collection Revolutionary Mothering: Love on the Front Lines (2016), published by Between the Lines in Canada and 193

Heather Hewett

PM Press in the United States. Likewise, independent and faith-based presses have published memoirs written by Christian, Jewish, and Muslim mothers, and social media and self-­publishing companies have opened the door for mothers and parents who wish to write about their experiences without going through a gatekeeper. Both the quality of writing and the range of topics vary widely. As well, many of the past’s taboos surrounding motherhood have fallen. For example, essays and blogs penned by mothers with mental illness, addiction, physical disabilities, and other chronic conditions challenge ideals that mothers must be able-bodied, while formerly unmentionable topics such as infertility, fertility treatments, postpartum depression, miscarriage, and child death are the subject of increasing numbers of confessional memoirs and essays. One final trend worth noting is the growing number of motherhood memoirs that narrate the experience of raising a child not considered “typical” by mainstream society or a child whose identity is stigmatized, feared, or medicalized – experiences often marked by heightened vulnerabilities – whether because the child is LGBTQIA+ or because of developmental or physical disabilities, illness, addiction, or neuroatypicality. While many of these, to date, have been penned by able-bodied mothers, they are fueled by a mission to deconstruct stereotypes and open the minds of their readers. While narrated by mothers (a few are also written by fathers), these memoirs place the experience of the child at the center of the story along with that of the parent.

Central theories and themes Broadly speaking, scholarly examinations of motherhood memoirs have been driven by two interconnected endeavors. First, much of the scholarship is animated by “larger, ongoing feminist projects that have for the past few decades been revising the Western literary canon in a plethora of ways,” which ranges from excavating the work of historically marginalized writers to uncovering additional forms of storytelling and creative expression (Podnieks and O’Reilly 5). Secondly, the scholarship emerges from cross-disciplinary feminist critiques of the private/ public distinctions that so often render motherhood and family invisible and undervalued. The commitment to examining motherhood memoirs is grounded in an understanding that narratives are powerful, both the cultural ones that elevate particular ideals of motherhood – in Euro-American contexts, this includes various iterations of what Avital Norman Nathman calls the “formidable archetype” of the “Good Mother Myth” (xiv) – as well as personal stories that critique the status quo and move “beyond critique toward transformation” (Dymond and Willey 5–6). Because of the feminist interest in understanding power and agency – particularly whether and how individuals can resist patriarchal cultural scripts – the scholarly study of motherhood memoirs has largely focused on texts with maternal narrators and/or authors. Scholarship about mothers’ autobiographical texts originally emerged out of feminist literary criticism and psychoanalytic feminism beginning in the 1970s and 1980s. Literary scholars working on women’s autobiography were relatively slow to focus on mothers; Karin Voth Harman observes that much of the major feminist scholarship on autobiography in the 1980s did not address motherhood, noting that “Even feminist theorists, as they bemoan the lack of writing about aspects of women’s lives, almost never include mothering in their lists of silenced experiences” (617). Elizabeth Podnieks and Andrea O’Reilly enumerate some of the major scholarship on (and anthologies of ) women’s autobiographies from the 1980s to the 2000s that address mothering and motherhood, but this list is relatively short (10). Dymond and Willey provide a similar overview of scholarship on women’s autobiographies during the same time period. While they build on work based in auto/biography studies, they note that motherhood memoirs “remain relatively unexplored in the field of life writing” (7). 194

Motherhood memoirs

The “small explosion” of motherhood memoirs published in the late twentieth century, combined with the “ ‘coming-of-age’ of mothering studies,” has inspired more scholarship on maternal writing (Frye 191; Dymond and Willey 6). Yet to date, no full-length monograph on motherhood memoirs exists. Existing scholarship has been published in a range of journals and edited book collections, and two edited volumes focus on motherhood memoirs and autobiography: From the Personal to the Political: Toward a New Theory of Maternal Narrative (2009), edited by Andrea O’Reilly and Sylvia Bizzini; and Motherhood Memoirs: Mothers Creating/Writing Lives (2013), edited by Dymond and Willey. Most of this scholarship is based in interdisciplinary fields such as motherhood studies and women’s and gender studies. However, approaches from a wide range of disciplines – primarily auto/biography and literary studies but also sociology, history, queer studies African, American and diaspora studies, and other areas of inquiry – are being used to assess the textual and cultural meanings of maternal memoirs. As well, writers and journalists participating in mainstream media and feminist discussions have made important contributions to our understanding of motherhood autobiography. Identity serves as one of the primary areas of inquiry in contemporary scholarship. Podnieks and O’Reilly argue that autobiography provides “an especially valuable arena” for theorizing maternal subjectivity: “we can register and understand the ways that women inscribe an ‘I’ or series of ‘I’s’ in the authoring of their maternal selves, accounting for and expressing awareness of factors such as the body, sexuality, gender, race, class, and nationhood” (7). As opposed to the unitary subject of traditional autobiography, the relational dimensions of “mother” bring others into focus along with the narrating “I.” In some cases, the “I” may include a “we”; for example, Willey draws from work in African, African American, and African diasporic feminist/womanist theory in her argument that othermothering and communal mothering often characterize the autobiographical “I” of black mothers. Nor is the “I” always a mother or a woman; scholarship that draws from both queer and mothering studies, along with autobiographical writing by queer parents, establishes a diversity of gendered identities. Even so, as Margaret Gibson observes, normative ideologies continue to affect many people engaged in the work of mothering: “Even when we consider the practices and perspectives of queer fathers, transgender and transsexual parents, genderqueer parents, intersex parents, or even of queer people who did not ultimately become parents, we grapple with the institution of motherhood” (6). As part of theorizing subjectivity in motherhood autobiography, O’Reilly and Bizzini identify the term “matrifocal” as a key element for motherhood memoirs: “A matrifocal narrative . . . is one in which a mother plays a role of cultural and social significance and in which motherhood is thematically elaborated, valued, and structurally central to the plot” (11). The significance of matrifocal narrative, they argue, emerges from the long history whereby mothers’ stories have been missing. Drawing from Marianne Hirsch as well as Brenda O. Daly and Maureen T. Reddy, O’Reilly and Bizzini argue that matrifocal narratives provide the mother’s perspective that has been missing for so much of history. Related to this concept, some scholars have examined the importance of “matrilineal narrative,” in particular for writers of color, to provide what Yi-Lin Yu describes as a “lifeline and the family line that sustain and safeguard the continuation of marginalized, endangered cultures or subcultures” (qtd. in Podnieks and O’Reilly 20). Memoir can record cultural knowledge otherwise performed, embodied, or passed down orally in mothers’ stories. Through remembering, these texts can resist dominant cultures. Finally, because many of the scholars of motherhood memoir identify as mothers, Dymond and Willey use the term “autotheory” or “autocritical writing” to theorize the mixture of personal and scholarly approaches that characterize many of the essays in their collection as well as scholarship elsewhere (13). The editors draw from the tradition of “women of color writing criticism through the lens of their own experience” (12) as well as the practice of “autocritique” 195

Heather Hewett

that blurs the boundaries “between criticizing and writing life narrative” (Smith and Watson 155). Indeed, Harman notes that many feminist scholars (such as poet-scholar Adrienne Rich) led the way in writing about and theorizing their experiences of motherhood, and other writers have created hybrid, genre-bending works in order to explore mothering (618). For example, Moraga combines memoir and journal entries in Waiting in the Wings: Portrait of a Queer Motherhood; Lonnae O’Neal Parker combines memoir, history, and reportage in I’m Every Woman: Remixed Stories of Marriage, Motherhood, and Work (2005), and Maggie Nelson incorporates multiple theoretical voices in The Argonauts (2015), a work that she herself describes as “autotheory.”

Controversies and challenges Several debates and challenges characterize the scholarship on motherhood memoirs. Complicity or critique? In her study of the common themes of nine “mommy memoirs” published between 2000 and 2004, Ivana Brown finds that while these texts all “present motherhood as a transformative experience for women,” they also show it as “constitutive to existing gender structures” (209). As a result, they “contribute to gender essentialism and dichotomous categorization of gender” (209). O’Reilly builds on Brown’s analysis, arguing more broadly that motherhood memoirs normalize patriarchal motherhood. She suggests that the emergence of “mommy lit” at the turn of the millennium is tied to the ideology of what Sharon Hays has identified as “intensive motherhood,” thus limiting any truly radical possibilities in the genre. As she argues, [while] this discourse makes a critique of patriarchal motherhood possible, it simultaneously censors what can be said in that critique. More specifically . . . this discourse ultimately reinscribes, or more accurately naturalizes and normalizes, the very patriarchal conditions of motherhood that feminists, including the motherhood memoir writers themselves, seek to dismantle. (205) O’Reilly’s argument parallels those of Kara Van Cleaf, who maps “the shift from the personalfor-politics to the personal-for-production” between 1976, when Rich published Of Woman Born, and the twenty-first century, which saw the rise of autobiographical mommy blogs (248). While consciousness-raising characterized the historical moment and the mode of Rich’s autobiographical text, Van Cleaf ’s analysis of forty-seven blogs finds a “simultaneous commodification and depoliticization of motherhood” tied to neoliberalism and characterized by what she calls “neoliberal narratives of resilience” (249, 252). Despite these shortcomings, Joanne S. Frye argues for the “value of the maternal memoir” (187). She acknowledges that “some maternal memoirs do participate in perpetuating essentialism and gender dichotomies,” but she also finds that “a select group” of texts manage “to extend our understandings of the actual lives of women who mother and to initiate alternative understandings that resist the hazardous cultural constructions with which we continue to wrestle” (188). In her close reading of three maternal memoirs, all authored by novelists, she finds that while none of them “completely eludes the constraints of cultural assumptions about mothers,” they all “participate in the feminist project of disrupting old certainties and moving toward alternative understandings – beyond the outworn polarity of good mother/bad mother, beyond the hazards of essentialism and individualism” (193–94). Likewise, in a parallel but separate conversation, scholars studying the “explosion of popular and literary writing about queer

196

Motherhood memoirs

pregnancy, adoption, and parenting” are theorizing queer parental identities as well as what cultural changes might emanate from “queering” motherhood: “how [might] relationships, communities, genders, and sexualities . . . proceed otherwise” (Gibson 5, 6)? “Why are so few motherhood memoirs penned by women of color?” In 2008, writer Deesha Philyaw asked the question of which mothers have the privilege to write and publish motherhood memoirs in an article for Bitch magazine. Observing that most memoirs since the publication of Anne Lamott’s Operating Instructions: A Journal of My Son’s First Year (1993) have been written by white women, she recounts the experience of Lori L. Tharps, a published author whose agent was “less than enthusiastic” about her pitch for a mommy memoir (Philyaw). Philyaw wonders how many times this scenario might happen: do publishers and other gatekeepers “presume that a minority of middle-class and upper-middle-class married white women could speak for all mothers?” What’s even more troubling, however, is how the “absence of Black mommy memoirs mirrors the relative absence of Black women’s voices in mainstream U.S. media discourse about motherhood in general” (Philyaw). As a consequence, Philyaw writes, this conversation is primarily “concerned with how women balance the demands of family and careers,” which is neither the experience nor the concern of most women of color.6 Seven years later, Stacia Brown argued in The New Republic that “black confessional writing doesn’t get published” because the “shameless writing” of women of color is seen as “proof of deviance.” Willey puts it thus: “perhaps those words, ‘motherhood’ and ‘memoir,’ are an insight into part of the problem” (234). Pointing out that ideologies of the “good mother” have always excluded black women (234), Willey argues that “African American women have been telling and writing their mothering stories as long as they’ve been mothering, but those stories are not always made public; therefore, they are often not available, and even more often they are not celebrated, at least not in the same category as more traditional motherhood memoirs” (238). As T. F. Charlton observes in a personal essay, “The myth I contend with is not that of the Good Mother, but that of the Bad Black Mother . . . a myth that renders my motherhood at turns invisible and suspect” (178). Others are more hopeful that the literary marketplace will open up to a more diverse range of stories and “truly representative maternal memoir[s]” authored by mothers “whose resources are limited and whose experiences lies outside assumed norms” (Frye 199). Whether this will happen, and whether including more “diverse voices” will address the systemic and discursive issues identified by the critics, remains to be seen. Theorizing experience and the maternal autobiographical subject. Much of the work in motherhood theory builds on the insights of Rich, who explored the possibilities of agency and pleasure connected with mothering that can exist outside of, or despite, the oppressive and patriarchal institution of motherhood. Following this, many critics have viewed the act of maternal writing as containing the power to take off the “motherhood mask” by “documenting the lived reality of mothering” (Podnieks and O’Reilly 3). Yet post-structuralist and queer theories complicate our understanding of how subjectivity is produced. As Leigh Gilmore argues in Autobiographics (1994), “the autobiographical subject is a representation and its representation is its construction. The autobiographical subject is produced not by experience but by autobiography” (25). We can also understand experience as “the very process through which a person becomes a certain kind of subject owning certain identities in the social realm, identities constituted through material, cultural, economic, and interpsychic relations” (Smith and Watson 25). How then are mother writers themselves culturally and discursively produced through motherhood and the act of writing about mothering? As Samira Kawash argues, we need to “begin by questioning the very categories of experience and power” in order to intervene into the institution of motherhood (12).

197

Heather Hewett

Directions for future research Given the number of motherhood life narratives that have been and continue to be published, much work lies ahead. While not exhaustive, here are a few main areas for future research. Life narrative theories. Innovative literary approaches in the field of auto/biography studies offer new tools and questions for academic inquiry. For example, how might a performative view of autobiographical acts help us to think about motherhood memoirs? Alternatively, how can additional approaches to genre – for example, paying attention to its technologies and its affects – along with a consideration of audience help us theorize motherhood memoirs? Separately, building on Dymond and Willey, we should consider a wider range of forms when we conceptualize maternal autobiography, including short essays, zines, graphic narratives, blogs, social media, spoken word, and autobiographical fiction. Intersectional feminist analyses. Katie Arosteguy argues that “mommy lit” (which she defines as “semi-autobiographical writing dating back to the 1990s”) normalizes whiteness and “can be seen broadly as a hegemonic tool for encouraging complicity” with white, middle-class, and heterosexual norms of motherhood (418). While Arosteguy’s critique mainly focuses on fiction, she draws attention to the need to fully address whiteness in scholarly assessments of the cultural and political work of contemporary writing about motherhood. While a number of scholars have produced intersectional analyses of motherhood memoirs, more can be done. Building on Willey, critics can draw from the work of black feminists working in sociology, history, and literary and cultural studies (including Patricia Hill Collins, Dorothy Roberts, Saidiya Hartman, and others) in order to establish alternative genealogies and frameworks. Theories from a range of disciplines can help in the development of intersectional analyses: critical race studies, whiteness studies, transnational and postcolonial studies, Latina/o/x studies, Caribbean studies, disability studies, queer studies, sexuality studies, and masculinity studies. Queer and transgender studies. These fields have been instrumental in deconstructing gender, sex, and sexuality. Scholars such as Gibson suggest ways to attend both to the “discursive (or structural) with the everyday (or experiential) in the endeavor of queering motherhood” (7–8). Scholars can build on these theories and approaches to examine motherhood autobiography, particularly those narratives that address reproduction, technology, parenthood, and kinship. How might these theories help us to approach memoirs written by those who do not identify as women, or as mothers? How might we queer the frameworks that reproduce cisgendered procreative expectations to account for alternative genealogies of creating and caring for family? Transnational, postcolonial, and decolonial frameworks. While an increasing amount of comparative and transnational work exists in motherhood studies, the study of maternal memoirs has primarily focused on texts written in English and published in North America, the United Kingdom, and to a lesser extent Australia. Scholarship from diaspora, postcolonial, and transnational studies in addition to specific area studies scholarship could help reframe existing theories and inform the examination of maternal autobiography from other locations – the European Union, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Oceania, the Caribbean and Central America, and South America. How do motherhood memoirs penned in other languages change our understanding of the subgenre? How do mothers and ideas about motherhood travel across borders? How are narratives about motherhood “transplanted, internalized, and reconfigured,” and how do their travels impact “the definition of self and the experience of mothering” (Hewett, “Mothering Across Borders” 135)? How do the borders of nation and citizenship circumscribe, produce, and forestall autobiographical narratives about motherhood? How do global capitalism and colonialism inform mothering and writing about motherhood? What does the future hold for the practice of writing one’s self within the circulations of the economies of publishing, the Internet, and global capital?7 198

Motherhood memoirs

Finally, how might decolonial frameworks emerging from Latin American and indigenous studies as well as the autobiographical writing of indigenous mothers enable us to grapple with the interconnected oppressions of settler colonialism, nation, and patriarchal motherhood? How can we decolonize motherhood and the ability to tell and share stories about ourselves? What might it look like to decolonize the academic study of motherhood autobiography?

Further reading Dymond, Justine, and Nicole Willey, editors. Motherhood Memoirs: Mothers Creating/Writing Lives. Demeter Press, 2013. Epstein, Rachel, editor. Who’s Your Daddy?: And Other Writings on Queer Parenting. Three O’Clock Press, 2009. Gibson, Margaret F., editor. Queering Motherhood: Narrative and Theoretical Perspectives. Demeter Press, 2014. O’Reilly, Andrea, and Sylvia Caporale Bizzini, editors. From the Personal to the Political: Toward a New Theory of Maternal Narrative. Susquehanna UP, 2009. Philyaw, Deesha. “Ain’t I A Mommy: Why Are So Few Motherhood Memoirs Penned by Women of Color?” Summer 2008. Bitch, 23 Feb. 2016, www.bitchmedia.org/article/aint-i-a-mommy-0. Accessed 12 Aug. 2018. Podnieks, Elizabeth, and Andrea O’Reilly, editors. Textual Mothers/Maternal Texts: Motherhood in Contemporary Women’s Literatures. Wilfrid Laurier UP, 2010. Van Cleaf, Kara. “Of Woman Born to Mommy Blogged: The Journey from the Personal as Political to the Personal as Commodity.” WSQ: Women’s Studies Quarterly, vol. 43, no. 3, Oct. 2015, pp. 247–64. Project MUSE, muse.jhu.edu/article/594653.

Conclusion The challenges inherent in theorizing a contemporary form such as motherhood memoir – a subgenre that is constantly changing, alongside cultural attitudes toward mothering, parenting, and families – may also provide its gratifications (if also frustrations) for scholars and critics. As a living form, maternal life narratives both reflect and form culture; as they expose some of the more painful truths about parenting, they can additionally reveal its pleasures and push us to imagine new possibilities and ways of forming family and raising the next generation.

Notes 1 Smith and Watson note that in “contemporary parlance,” autobiography and memoir are “used interchangeably,” though distinctions exist (198). See their discussion of autobiography, pp. 1–15 and throughout. 2 See Smith and Watson 3–4. 3 See I. Brown; Hewett, “You Are Not Alone”; O’Reilly; Frye; Dymond and Willey; and Harman. 4 See Friedman. 5 While only one measure of visibility, consider motherhood memoirs that have become bestsellers, such as Anne Lamott’s Operating Instructions (1993) and Ayelet Waldman’s essay collection Bad Mother: A Chronicle of Maternal Crimes, Minor Calamities, and Occasional Moments of Grace (2009). Both authors are white. 6 Philyaw further elucidates these arguments in an essay for the collection Motherhood Memoirs (2013). 7 See Quiney.

Works cited Arosteguy, Katie. “The Politics of Race, Class, and Sexuality in Contemporary American Mommy Lit.” Women’s Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, vol. 39, no. 5, June 2010, pp. 409–29. MLA. doi: 10.1080/00497878.2010.484327.

199

Heather Hewett Brown, Ivana. “Mommy Memoirs: Feminism, Gender and Motherhood in Popular Literature.” Journal of the Association for Research on Mothering, vol. 8, nos. 1–2, Winter–Summer 2006, pp. 200–212. Brown, Stacia L. “The Personal Essay Economy Offers Fewer Rewards for Black Women.” The New Republic, Sept. 2015, newrepublic.com/article/122845/personal-essay-economy-offers-fewer-rewardsblack-women. Accessed 2 Sept. 2017. Charlton, T. F. “The Impossibility of the Good Black Mother.” The Good Mother Myth: Redefining Motherhood to Fit Reality, edited by Avital Norman Nathman, Seal Press, 2014, pp. 177–83. Collins, Patricia Hill. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. Routledge, 2000. Cusk, Rachel. A Life’s Work: On Becoming a Mother. Picador, 2003. Daly, Brenda O., and Maureen T. Reddy. “Narrating Mothers: Theorizing Maternal Subjectivities.” Narrating Mothers: Theorizing Maternal Subjectivities, edited by Brenda O. Daly and Maureen T. Reddy, U of Tennessee P, 1991, pp. 1–18. Didion, Joan. Blue Nights. Vintage Books, 2012. Dymond, Justine, and Nicole Willey. “Introduction: Creating the Collection.” Motherhood Memoirs: Mothers Creating/Writing Lives, edited by Justine Dymond and Nicole Willey, Demeter Press, 2013, pp. 1–30. Epstein, Rachel, editor. Who’s Your Daddy?: And Other Writings on Queer Parenting. Three O’Clock Press, 2009. Erdrich, Louise. The Blue Jay’s Dance: A Memoir of Early Motherhood. Reprint edition, Harper Perennial, 2010. Friedman, May. Mommyblogs and the Changing Face of Motherhood. U of Toronto P, 2013. Frye, Joanne S. “Narrating Maternal Subjectivity: Memoirs from Motherhood.” Textual Mothers/Maternal Texts: Motherhood in Contemporary Women’s Literatures, edited by Elizabeth Podnieks and Andrea O’Reilly, Wilfrid Laurier UP, 2010, pp. 187–201. Gibson, Margaret F. “Introduction: Queering Motherhood in Narrative, Theory, and the Everyday.” Queering Motherhood: Narrative and Theoretical Perspectives, edited by Margaret F. Gibson, Demeter Press, 2014, pp. 1–23. Gilmore, Leigh. Autobiographics: A Feminist Theory of Women’s Autobiography. Cornell UP, 1994. Granju, Katie Allison. “Navel-Gazing Their Way through Parenthood.” Salon, 21 Oct. 2003, www.salon. com/2003/10/21/genx_parents/. Accessed 15 Oct. 2017. Gumbs, Alexis Pauline, et al., editors. Revolutionary Mothering: Love on the Front Lines. PM Press, 2016. Harman, Karin Voth. “Motherhood and Life Writing.” Encyclopedia of Life Writing: Autobiographical and Biographical Forms, edited by Margaretta Jolly, Routledge, 2013. Hartman, Saidiya. Lose Your Mother: A Journey Along the Atlantic Slave Route. 1st ed., Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2008. Hays, Sharon. The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood. Yale UP, 1996. Hewett, Heather. “You Are Not Alone: The Personal, the Political, and the ‘New’ Mommy Lit.” Chick Lit: The New Woman’s Fiction, edited by Suzanne Ferriss, and Mallory Young, Routledge, 2006, pp. 119–39. ———. “Mothering Across Borders: Narratives of Immigrant Mothers in the United States.” WSQ: Women’s Studies Quarterly, vol. 37, nos. 3, 4, Fall/Winter 2009, pp. 121–39. Project MUSE. doi: 10.1353/ wsq.0.0188. Hirsch, Marianne. The Mother/Daughter Plot: Narrative, Psychoanalysis, Feminism. Indiana UP, 1989. Kawash, Samira. “New Directions in Motherhood Studies.” Signs, vol. 36, no. 4, 2011, pp. 969–1003. JSTOR. doi: 10.1086/658637. Lamott, Anne. Operating Instructions: A Journal of My Son’s First Year. Pantheon, 1993. Lazarre, Jane. The Mother Knot. Duke UP, 1997. ———. Beyond the Whiteness of Whiteness: Memoir of a White Mother of Black Sons. Twentieth Anniversary ed., Duke UP, 2016. Mendelsohn, Daniel. “But Enough About Me.” The New Yorker, 25 Jan. 2010, www.newyorker.com/maga zine/2010/01/25/but-enough-about-me-2. Accessed 15 Oct. 2017. Menkedick, Sarah. “Why Don’t People Take Writing about Motherhood Seriously? Because Women Do It.” The Los Angeles Times, 21 Apr. 2017, www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-menkedick-literaryvalue-of-motherhood-20170416-story.html. Accessed 10 Aug. 2018. Miller, Nancy K. “ ‘But Enough About Me, What Do You Think of My Memoir?’ ” Yale Journal of Criticism: Interpretation in the Humanities, vol. 13, no. 2, Fall 2000, pp. 421–36. Project MUSE. doi: 10.1353/ yale.2000.0023. Mitchell, Richelene. Dear Self: A Year in the Life of a Welfare Mother. NID Publishers, 2007.

200

Motherhood memoirs Moraga, Cherrie L. Waiting in the Wings: Portrait of a Queer Motherhood. Firebrand Books, 1997. Nathman, Avital Norman. “Introduction.” The Good Mother Myth: Redefining Motherhood to Fit Reality, edited by Avital Norman Nathman, Seal Press, 2013, pp. xiii–xvii. Nelson, Maggie. The Argonauts. Graywolf Press, 2015. O’Reilly, Andrea. “The Motherhood Memoir and the ‘New Momism’: Biting the Hand That Feeds You.” Textual Mothers/Maternal Texts: Motherhood in Contemporary Women’s Literatures, edited by Elizabeth Podnieks, and Andrea O’Reilly, Wilfrid Laurier UP, 2010, pp. 203–13. O’Reilly, Andrea, and Sylvia Caporale Bizzini. “Introduction.” From the Personal to the Political: Toward a New Theory of Maternal Narrative, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, and Sylvia Caporale Bizzini, Susquehanna UP, 2009, pp. 9–31. Parker, Lonnae O’Neal. I’m Every Woman: Remixed Stories of Marriage, Motherhood, and Work. Amistad, 2006. Philyaw, Deesha. “Letter to a Young Black Mama on Writing Motherhood Memoir.” Motherhood Memoirs: Mothers Creating/Writing Lives, edited by Justine Dymond, and Nicole Willey, Demeter Press, 2013, pp. 218–32. ———. “Ain’t I A Mommy: Why Are So Few Motherhood Memoirs Penned by Women of Color?” Summer 2008. Bitch, 23 Feb. 2016, www.bitchmedia.org/article/aint-i-a-mommy-0. Accessed 12 Aug. 2018. Piepmeier, Alison. Girl Zines: Making Media, Doing Feminism. New York UP, 2009. Podnieks, Elizabeth, and Andrea O’Reilly. “Maternal Literatures in Text and Tradition: Daughter-Centric, Matrilineal, and Matrifocal Perspectives.” Textual Mothers/Maternal Texts: Motherhood in Contemporary Women’s Literatures, edited by Elizabeth Podnieks, and Andrea O’Reilly, Wilfrid Laurier UP, 2010, pp. 1–27. Quiney, Ruth. “Confessions of the New Capitalist Mother: Twenty-First-Century Writing on Motherhood as Trauma.” Women: A Cultural Review, vol. 18, no. 1, Spring 2007, pp. 19–40. EBSCOhost. doi: 10.1080/09574040701276704. Rich, Adrienne. Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution. W. W. Norton & Company, 1995. Roberts, Dorothy E. Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty. Twentieth Anniversary ed.,Vintage, 2017. Roiphe, Anne Richardson. Fruitful: Living the Contradictions: A Memoir of Modern Motherhood. Penguin Books, 1997. Smith, Sidonie, and Julia Watson. Reading Autobiography: A Guide for Interpreting Life Narratives. 2nd ed., U of Minnesota P, 2010. Van Cleaf, Kara. “Of Woman Born to Mommy Blogged: The Journey from the Personal as Political to the Personal as Commodity.” WSQ: Women’s Studies Quarterly, vol. 43, no. 3, Oct. 2015, pp. 247–64. Project MUSE, muse.jhu.edu/article/594653. Waldman, Ayelet. Bad Mother: A Chronicle of Maternal Crimes, Minor Calamities, and Occasional Moments of Grace. Anchor Books, 2010. Walker, Alice. “In Search of Our Mothers’ Gardens.” In Search of Our Mothers’ Gardens: Womanist Prose, Harcourt Brace, 1983, pp. 231–43. Willey, Nicole. “In Search of Our Mothers’ Memoirs: Redefining Mothering Through African Feminist Principles.” Motherhood Memoirs: Mothers Creating/Writing Lives, edited by Justine Dymond, and Nicole Willey, Demeter Press, 2013, pp. 233–60.

201

SECTION IV

Mothering and health

16 BEYOND DISORDERED BRAINS AND MOTHER BLAME Critical issues in autism and mothering Patty Douglas and Estée Klar

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States have called the sharply rising rates of autism diagnosis worldwide an “urgent public health concern” (27). Media images of so-called warrior mothers who cure their autistic child, or, alternately, mothers who abandon or murder their autistic child have become commonplace. Cultural fascination with the strange otherworldliness of autism has peaked in popular television shows such as Parenthood and Hollywood movies such as Roman J Israel, Esq. This chapter provides an overview of critical issues in autism and mothering in order to shed some light on this complicated terrain. We lay bare the long histories of mother blame and biomedical regulation of mothers as “fixers” of autism, understood as a negative difference. We suggest instead that autism is an embodied difference that should be accepted, not cured, and consider how mothers have also been key supporters and advocates of this alternative view. More supports that accept autism and that support access to life for both mothers and autistic individuals are urgently needed.

Context and background By way of a brief history: introducing key themes and theories The predominant understanding of autism or autism spectrum disorder in our contemporary moment is a biomedical one. Autism is understood as a neurodevelopmental disorder – a genetic condition that affects brain development and functioning. This is thought to result in three key areas of impairment: communication (e.g., impaired language), social interaction (e.g., difficulty making friends, averted eye gaze), and repetitive movements and behaviours (e.g., hand flapping) (“Autism Spectrum Disorder”). Level of impairment is measured along an axis of severity from level 1 “requiring support” to level 3 “requiring very substantial support” (“DSM-5 Criteria”). Within this view, autism is understood to be the result of both heritability and environmental triggers (Rutter). This prevailing biomedical view of autism is partnered with the biomedical imperative to view disorder and mental difference as unnatural and to remedy it (Michalko). Mothers – who carry the bulk of carework globally – are recruited as the primary agents in remedial autism treatments (Douglas, “As If You Have a Choice”). Guided by biomedical practitioners and self-fashioned expertise as “mother warriors,” many mothers access treatments for their child that are intensive and expensive and often have normalization or recovery as their 205

Patty Douglas and Estée Klar

goal (e.g., behavioural therapies). Given today’s biogenetic landscape, mothers are also recruited into particular practices of self-governance to “watch” their own actions. Undergoing expensive testing for the “autism gene,” for example, or engaging in self-care routines that mitigate epigenetic (inherited) risks of having a child with autism (such as maternal nutrition) have become common routines. Learning to watch for the signs of autism in your developing child, too, has become everyday practice (Douglas, Autism and Mothering; McGuire). And yet, things have not always been this way. Autism emerged as a distinct medical category in the 1940s. Leo Kanner, director of child psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Hospital and a leader in this new field, called this new disorder “early infantile autism.” He distinguished it from childhood schizophrenia (Nadesan 11) in that the children he observed were impaired from the start in their ability to communicate, unable to engage in reciprocal social interaction, and engaged in stereotyped behaviours such as rocking or “twiddling” (Kanner). Given the influence of biological psychiatry and mental hygiene in the 1940s, Kanner thought there must be some biological basis for the disorder. However, he also infamously noted the potential influence of parents, describing those in his study as lacking in warmth and affection. Most parents in the study were college graduates and worked outside of the home, and most families were middle-class and white. These children, said Kanner in an interview for Time, were “kept neatly in a refrigerator which didn’t defrost” (“Medicine: Frosted Children” 78). Such notions of refrigerator parents alongside the age-old adage of mother blame were quickly swept up within gendered post-war efforts to bolster social stability, reinstate middleclass white mothers in the home, and replace biological psychiatry with relational approaches such as psychoanalysis in an era reeling from the atrocities of the Nazi holocaust and scientific racism (Nadesan). In the work of University of Chicago psychologist Bruno Bettelheim and others, the “refrigerator mother” was born. This so-called cold mother of the 1950s and 1960s (in some cases, up to the 1980s and 1990s) was overtly blamed for her child’s autistic withdrawal. It was a mother’s innately disordered love and desires – wanting to work outside the home, for example – where the trigger for autism could be found (Douglas, “Refrigerator Mothers”). The image of the autistic child trapped in a fortress emerged during this time when Bettelheim made the disturbing analogy between refrigerator mothers and guards in concentration camps, a fate so intolerable for the child the only recourse was to withdraw completely. Separation from her child through institutionalization and psychoanalytic treatment for mothers was often prescribed by experts as the solution. Ironically, the refrigerator mother emerged as a privileged identity – other “bad” mothers of this era (i.e., black, working-class, unwed) and their children were excluded from this elite category and regulated instead through racist and classist hierarchies (Douglas, “Refrigerator Mothers”; Ladd-Taylor and Umansky 12). Mothers and parents searching for alternatives in the 1960s and 1970s began to champion emerging biological understandings of autism (Rimland). A prominent theory in cognitive neuropsychology, for example, posits that autistic people lack Theory of Mind (ToM), a cognitive structure thought to be locatable within brains as the precondition for empathy, understood as that which makes us human (Baron-Cohen et al.). The alarming implication of this still-popular theory is that without remediation, autistic people do not fully share in humanity and, indeed, are thought to be “victim-captives” of their neurology (Yergeau 3). Parents, particularly mothers, formed local and national autism advocacy organizations to educate the public about biological views of autism, raise money for scientific research, advocate for public funding and access to public schools and community living supports (Douglas, Autism and Mothering; McGuire). Through their efforts, overt forms of mother blame were debunked, new supports for families and their offspring secured, and a nascent form of disability activism forged (O’Toole; Panitch 7; Ryan and Runswick-Cole). 206

Beyond disordered brains

New and intensive behavioural therapies – Applied Behaviour Analysis – emanating from the behaviourist experiments of Ole Ivar Lovaas at University of California Los Angeles on autistic and gender non-conforming children sought to normalize autistic children and their disordered biology/brains through the use of aversives to extinguish autistic behaviours (i.e., shocks from electrified floors) and rewards to shape normative ones (i.e., hugs, food) (Gibson and Douglas; Gruson-Wood). Against the backdrop of neoliberal capitalism and shifting family-state-market relations that pushed care back into the home and community as the primary responsibility of mothers (even as middle-class white mothers entered the workforce in record numbers), the ideology of intensive mothering emerged (Brodie; Hays). It would be “mother therapists” (Douglas, Autism and Mothering) under the guidance of new behaviourists who would be tasked with the “critical exigence” (Yergeau 4) to work intensively to remediate and normalize autism. Mothers were taught to “watch” themselves anew – to love and care for their child through practicing intensive, scientifically guided behavioural techniques. For those mothers who “failed” to take up these new modes of self-governance – working-class, black, and other disadvantaged ­mothers – or who did not want to care intensively in this way, this was a new form of covert mother blame that concealed unequal gender, class, and race relations and individualized a mother’s failure to remedy her child (Douglas, Autism and Mothering; Hays 165; Sousa). Today, ours is a risk society that understands autism as non-viable and hopeless, a threat to a family’s, community’s, and nation’s economic and emotional well-being. Today’s “mother warrior” must work ever more intensively to safeguard her family from the proliferating risk of autism, including from her own genes and potentially poor coping and mothering choices (Douglas, “As If You Have a Choice”; McGuire). Within social scientific studies of autism and mothering, for example, research on coping with the stress and stigma of autism as well as resiliency is predominant (Gray). While vital, possibilities for more autism-accepting and sociopolitical understandings of autism and mothering are elided in this view. Covert mother blame again cloaks mothers’ unequal access to resources and is intensified in our time; mothers become powerful curative forces as “warriors” staving off risk through their own choice and resilience (Douglas, “As If You Have a Choice”).

Central issues and debates In response to the predominance of biomedical approaches to autism, autistic people, mothers and critical and feminist scholars (not mutually exclusive) have raised a number of important issues and debates: (1) What is autism? Is it a deficit in need of remedy or a human difference? (2) How might mothers care differently, outside a biomedical framework? (3) How do power and privilege shape autism and mothering? (4) What is the role of mothers within disability and autistic self-advocacy movements? (A human rights based movement started in the 1980s by and for autistic people advocating for access and acceptance. See Autistic Self Advocacy ­Network; Autistics United Canada; Autistics for Autistics); (5) What should the goal of autism research be? In this section, we introduce alternative frameworks, including feminist disability studies, neurodiversity, and critical autism studies, that illuminate these key issues and debates. Briefly, the interdisciplinary field of disability studies rethinks disability as a sociopolitical phenomenon and raises questions about how power shapes the meaning we make of human difference. In other words, the field of disability studies is concerned with “not simply the variations that exist in human behavior, appearance, functioning, sensory acuity, and cognitive processing, but, more crucially, the meaning we make of those variations” (Linton 2; also see Michalko and Titchkosky). The marginalized standpoints of disabled persons are centered, and the biomedical view that disability is a thing locatable within individual bodies and brains, 207

Patty Douglas and Estée Klar

troubled. As Lennard Davis articulates, “Disability is not an object – a woman with a cane – but a social process that intimately involves everyone” (2). Rather than a personal tragedy, disability studies understands disability as a legitimate, albeit different, way of being in the world with something of value to teach us about our relationships and our life together (Davis). Lived experiences and the fleshy stubbornness of different bodies become sites of cultural production, resistance, and new knowledge (Douglas et al., “Re-storying Autism”; Rice). Scholars have also signaled the need for disability studies to take up complex histories and intersections between disability, race, class, gender, sexuality, and other oppressions and struggles for human freedom (O’Toole 297). Scholars of mothering, care, and disability working at the intersection of feminist and disability studies raise complex questions that attend to such intersections. They point to questions raised by autistic self-advocates, for example, about mothers’ (who may also be disabled) troubling implication in histories of ableist violence, oppression, and exclusion toward autistic people such as ABA (Dawson), where care is imagined as a burden on families and mothers in particular. In this view, a mother’s care must recover the autistic body to its presumed normative state, that is, to an independent, productive, and contributing body that relies on itself. At the same time, disability studies scholars point out that mothers have, in many instances, been at the forefront of struggles against autistic persons’ oppression (Ryan and Runswick-Cole). Mothers are key support persons and advocates for their autistic offspring, a sometimes-unsettling reality for autistic self-advocacy and disability rights movements that have worked hard to distance themselves from patronizing, dehumanizing, and devalued feminized aspects of care (such as dependence) to achieve support and autonomy as their fundamental right (Hughes et al.; Kelly). Beginning from the supposition that care and support are “fundamental to life,” feminist disability studies recognizes the mother-child relationship not only as political but also ethical: “caring relationships characteristically carry a jolting, perhaps irresolvable paradox – that of transgressive possibility and coercive constraint, intimate inter-dependence and constraining power, love and violence” (Douglas et al., “Cripping Care” 4–5). Within the relational tension of loving our “different” child, and against the recruitment of mothers to fix that same child through neoliberal capitalist and biomedical logics (that we suggest do violence to difference), new possibilities for supporting and being-with (versus fixing) our child in relation emerges (Douglas, Autism and Mothering; Klar). Alongside such relational and ethical questions, feminist disability studies scholars trouble the notion of disability as an added care burden for mothers – a common theoretical position in feminist political economy of care. They raise complex questions about interconnections between feminist and disability emancipation within intensive mothering and neoliberal capitalist regimes, for example, pointing out that disability and autistic self-advocates, alongside mothers in positions of privilege, are implicated in transnational capitalist flows of labour given that racialized, disadvantaged and Third World women fill the gap of underpaid carework in Global North neoliberal capitalist economies (Erevelles; Meekosha; Williams). Bridging such ethical, political, and economic tensions to achieve deeper understandings of intersecting oppressions and to work toward disability and feminist liberation is vital (Kelly). A first move toward bridging these tensions is to attend to emerging research that opens different possibilities and questions around autism and mothering. One important approach emanating from autistic communities is neurodiversity, which is the understanding that human neurology is neither static nor fixed (Walker). In other words, embodied difference is part of life and should be accepted, not cured. This offers an alternative to biomedical views such as Theory of Mind or behaviour therapies that assume autistic behaviour is the result of a disordered neurology, and therefore that it is meaningless and involuntary (Yergeau). Neurodiversity has been a formative concept within autism self-advocacy organizations organized 208

Beyond disordered brains

by and for autistic persons, including Autistics United Canada and the Autistic Self Advocacy Network in the United States (Autistic Self Advocacy Network, Autistics United Canada), as well as for many autistic bloggers,1 who argue that autism is a viable way of being, and that parent advocacy should not advance a world without autism as its goal (McGuire 105–07). Neurodiversity perspectives shift the understanding of the human so that neuro-­ normativity (behaviour that conforms to normative expectations) is no longer the measuring stick of what makes a life worth living, and so that neurodivergent identities (any identity counter to neuro-normativity; see Neurodivergent K) are a viable option for people. A second important alternative to biomedical frameworks and curative therapies comes out of the emerging field of critical autism studies. Runswick-Cole et al., for example, call for a troubling of “any of the current accepted understandings that view autism as a biologically based biomedical disorder or brain difference” (7–9). They include neurodiversity in this challenge. These researchers aim to debunk the science of autism, understand how the diagnosis of autism impacts the lives of those who attract it, critique the autism industry, and promote alternative ways to provide service and supports to individuals and families beyond that of diagnosis, labelling, and remediation (8; also see Davidson and Orsini). Neurodiversity and critical autism studies, in different ways, shift the meaning of autism and the purpose of research, opening up new possibilities for being together beyond biomedical frameworks and normalizing regimes.

Controversies and challenges We delve more deeply now into two key areas of controversy related to autism and mothering that have particular salience in our contemporary moment. The first controversy is the question of autism treatment, which touches on deeper issues raised earlier around the meaning of autism, power, and privilege (in terms of access to supports as well as whose knowledge about autism counts), and the goal of autism research. We focus our discussion on one recent controversy within parent and autism communities around Applied Behavioral Analysis (also called Intensive Early Behavioural Intervention); however, our comments also apply to a number of other controversial treatments, which we point to along the way. Applied Behavioural Analysis (ABA) is currently the sole funded treatment in most countries (if any), understood as the only evidence-based intervention proven scientifically to be effective in extinguishing autistic behaviours (i.e., flapping or rocking) and increasing normative ones (i.e., making eye contact, using spoken language) (Gibson and Douglas; Ontario Scientific Expert Taskforce). Its goal is independence and normalization. It is prescribed in intensive dosages (up to thirty or more hours per week), and thought to be most effective if started early, by age two. As its founder Ivar Lovaas puts it, the goal is for treated children to become “indistinguishable from their normal friends” (8). ABA is often offered to mothers at the point of diagnosis as a child’s best or only hope for a good life – understood as a life free from autism. Mothers and families have been at the forefront of advocacy efforts for public funding for ABA (Klar, Douglas and McGuire). It is, of course, vital for families and autistic individuals to have access to a variety of supports and therapies to support their well-being and access to life, just as it is for us all. However, when ABA – alongside its goal of independence and normalization – is offered as the only possible hope, this powerfully communicates hopelessness for families who cannot (or do not want to) access ABA due to long waitlists, limited financial resources, or alternative goals for their child (Klar, Douglas and McGuire; also see Gibson and Douglas). It also elides ethical and relational questions about difference (discussed earlier), and supports the view that autism is a problem that must be fixed. When ABA fails to recover or produce a “normal” child, which is most often the case, the dire need for support, and alternative approaches to autism is clear. 209

Patty Douglas and Estée Klar

Within our contemporary moment, the biomedical imperative to remedy difference (Michalko) arising from the prestige of Western science as the utmost authority on health and disability drives normalizing treatments such as ABA. Many families go into substantial debt to access ABA treatment. Other mothers and parents pursue alternative, sometimes risky and usually expensive and intensive treatments to recover or normalize their child including chelation therapy, gluten-free/casein-free diets, hypobaric oxygen treatment, vitamin treatment, anti-vaccination stances, the list goes on (Nadesan). In this way, parents become part of a booming autism industry that commodifies autism (Mallet and Runswick-Cole) and profits from the “critical exigence” (Yergeau 4) to eliminate difference. For over thirty years, autistic selfadvocates, activists, and academics (not mutually exclusive) have articulated harm as a result of undergoing intensive, normalizing treatments such as ABA that use neuro-normativity as the measuring stick of what is considered human and a worthwhile life (Dawson; Sequenzia; Yergeau). They articulate the need to move beyond dominant biomedical “theories that privilege restrictive notions of what it means to interact and interrelate” (Yergeau 12). The lengthy list of parents who have murdered their autistic child citing hopelessness for their child’s future is an urgent signal that access to supports, different therapeutic goals, and positive representations of autistic individuals are urgently needed (McGuire). This raises a second area of controversy surrounding autism and mothering, namely, mother advocacy and activism, which again touches on deeper issues raised earlier about the meaning of autism, power and privilege, and the goal of autism research. The most powerful and financially affluent parent advocacy organizations today, such as Autism Speaks (McGuire 57), advocate and educate, now globally, from within a dominant Western biomedical framework. This framework, to recap, understands autism as a neurodevelopmental problem in need of a biomedical solution. In this view, behavioral and genetic therapies are interventions that aim to reshape impairments caused by disordered brain development, and a mother’s role becomes that of therapist, fixer, and even “warrior.” While seemingly a benevolent aim, these efforts export Western culture’s understanding of the normative human as non-autistic, white, and Western (Douglas, “As If You Have a Choice”; Mallet and Runswick-Cole; McGuire; Titchkosky and Aubrecht). Other ways of understanding autism and care beyond that of deficit and remedy are marginalized; scientific research agendas target the cause and cure of autism to the exclusion of research to support a good life for autistic individuals. MSSNG, for example, is a collaboration that brings together corporate America (google) with Autism Speaks and over fifty academic and research institutions in thirteen countries to “create one of the world’s largest databases on autism,” the goal of which is to pinpoint different types of autism and biogenetic treatments (“MSSNG”). One important effect of such efforts has been the generation of vast autism research industries invested in biomedical approaches (McGuire) primarily of financial benefit to non-autistic researchers rather than mothers and autistic individuals (Mallet and Runswick-Cole). The approach of Autism Speaks has been criticized by autistic self-advocates, activists, and academics who support a different understanding of autism, autism support, and research. These criticisms raise important questions about whose experience and knowledge of autism matters. The Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN), for example, an influential self-advocacy organization in the United States, points out that most money raised by Autism Speaks does not support mothers, families, and autistic individuals but rather scientists’ careers and executive salaries. Further, autistic people’s voices are marginalized within the leadership of Autism Speaks, and awareness and fundraising campaigns turn on promoting negative, stigmatizing, and fearful images of autism (“Before You Donate to Autism Speaks”). ASAN’s slogan, “Nothing about us without us!” forwards a vital message that speaks back to dominant approaches and research agendas, suggesting that a different direction for future research is needed. 210

Beyond disordered brains

New directions for future research Research that brings autistic voices to the centre and considers the ethical and political dimensions of autism and mothering is crucial. We make the following recommendations. First, future research must aim to more deeply understand the lived experiences of mothers and autistic individuals within current neoliberal and biomedical contexts. This understanding must include both the ethical and political dimensions of care so that the supports and services required for a good life for autistic individuals and those who support them – still predominately mothers – can be identified and implemented. Secondly, research agendas must move away from unquestioned views of autism as disordered neurology in need of a mother’s curative labour and toward understanding difference as fundamental to life. This shift in perspective opens new possibilities to support access to life for all people, including autistic individuals and mothers. Finally, a complex interrogation of interdependence as a key goal and value of relationships and relational support should be at the centre of future research agendas. This aligns with recent calls in feminist disability studies research on disability and care to recentre interdependence in ways that bring the perspective of disabled people and the force of political economy to the fore, taking into account gendered, racialized, and classed aspects of care work while sustaining earlier disability critiques of the realities of violence against disabled persons within care relationships. (Douglas et al., “Cripping Care” 5) Key questions to guide future research include: (1) How do mothers support their adult autistic children in a social system that demands independence (Klar; Rooy)? (2) How might we reimagine autistic individuals as agential and relational within the mother/child dyad (Klar; Yergeau)? (3) How might we rethink mothering, care, and support vis-à-vis interdependence (Douglas et al., “Cripping Care”)?

Further reading Books, articles, and videos “Autism and the Concept of Neurodiversity.” Disability Studies Quarterly (Special issue on the concept of neurodiversity), vol. 30, no. 1, 2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v30i1. Baggs, Amanda. In My Language, 14 Jan. 2007, www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnylM1hI2jc. Accessed 29 Mar. 2018. Douglas, Patty. “Refrigerator Mothers.” Journal of the Motherhood Initiative for Research and Community Involvement, vol. 5, 2014, pp. 94–114. Hanley, J. J. (Producer) and David E. Simpson (Director). Refrigerator Mothers [Motion Picture]. Kartemquin Films, 2002. Jack, Jordan. Autism and Gender: From Refrigerator Mothers to Computer Geeks. U of Illinois P, 2014. Lewiecki-Wilson, Cynthia, and Jan Cellio, editors. Disability and Mothering: Liminal Spaces of Embodied Knowledge. Syracuse UP, 2011. McGuire, Anne. War on Autism: On the Cultural Logic of Normative Violence. U of Michigan P, 2016. Murray, Stuart. Representing Autism: Culture, Narrative, Fascination. Liverpool UP, 2008. Nadesan, Majia Holmer. Constructing Autism: Unraveling the ‘Truth’ and Understanding the Social. Routledge, 2005. Runswick-Cole, Katherine, et al., editors. Re-thinking Autism: Diagnosis, Identity and Equality. Jessica Kingsley, 2016. Ryan, Sara, and Katherine Runswick-Cole. “From Advocate to Activist? Mapping the Experiences of Mothers of Children on the Autism Spectrum.” Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, vol. 22, 2009, pp. 43–53.

211

Patty Douglas and Estée Klar Silverman, Chloe. Understanding Autism: Parents, Doctors and the History of a Disorder. Princeton UP, 2012. Sinclair, Jim. “Don’t Mourn for Us.” Our Voice: The Newsletter of Autism, vol. 1, no. 3, 1993. www.autreat. com/dont_mourn.html. Accessed 11 Dec. 2017. Sousa, Amy C. “From Refrigerator Mothers to Warrior-Heroes: The Cultural Identity Transformation of Mothers Raising Children with Intellectual Disabilities.” Symbolic Interaction, vol. 34, 2011, pp. 220–43. Yergeau, Melanie. Authoring Autism: On Rhetoric and Neurological Queerness. Duke UP, 2018.

Websites Amy Sequenzia: https://ollibean.com/author/amy-sequenzia/ Aspies for Freedom: www.aspiesforfreedom.com/ Autistics for Autistics https://a4aontario.com/ Autistics United Canada https://www.autisticsunitedca.org/ The Autism Acceptance Project. www.taaproject.com/ The Autism Crisis: http://autismcrisis.blogspot.ca/ The Autistic Self Advocacy Network: http://autisticadvocacy.org/ Enacting Autism Inclusion: http://enactingautisminclusion.ca/ Neurodiversity.com: www.Neurodiversity.com Positively Autistic: https://positivelyautistic.weebly.com/ Tiny Grace Notes: https://tinygracenotes.blogspot.ca/

Conclusion The history of autism and mothering is one of regulation, whether the regulation of a mother’s love and care within biomedical and neoliberal patriarchal capitalist regimes, or the meaning of being human as exclusive of autistic and other difference within powerful research agendas. This chapter has suggested that embodied difference such as autism, as well as care and support – still predominately performed by women and mothers – are “fundamental to life” (Douglas et al., “Cripping Care”). Given this, the need for alternatives to biomedical understandings of difference and care is dire if we are to move beyond a landscape of hopelessness and harm for mothers and autistic individuals alike. Within the current research context, social support for autistic people and mothers remains contingent on subscribing to biomedical understandings of autism. Mothers who understand autism differently, or who seek educational and other opportunities for their autistic child beyond ABA, are left on their own without financial support or access to other resources. Indeed, mothers remain vexed figures, either covertly blamed within biomedical frameworks for failing to normalize their autistic child or criticized within autism communities for enforcing curative therapies. It is by pursuing a deeper understanding of the ethical and political complexities of mothering and autism that new possibilities for being together beyond biomedical frameworks and normalizing regimes might emerge. It is critical that future research attend to such possibilities.

Note 1 See, for example, Amanda Baggs, https://ballastexistenz.wordpress.com/ and Michelle Dawson www. sentex.net/~nexus23/naa_02.html.

Works cited “Autism Spectrum Disorder.” American Psychiatric Association. www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/ autism/what-is-autism-spectrum-disorder. Accessed 11 Dec. 2017. Autistic Self Advocacy Network. http://autisticadvocacy.org/. Accessed 2 Feb. 2019. Autistics United Canada. https://www.autisticsunitedca.org/. Accessed 27 Sept. 2019.

212

Beyond disordered brains Baron-Cohen, Simon, et al. “Does the Autistic Child Have a Theory of Mind?” Cognition, vol. 21, 1985, pp. 37–46. “Before You Donate to Autism Speaks: Consider the Facts.” Autistic Self Advocacy Network. https://autistic advocacy.org/?s=Before+you+donate. Accessed 31 Jan. 2018. Bettelheim, Bruno. The Empty Fortress: Infantile Autism and the Birth of the Self. The Free Press, 1967. Brodie, Janine. Politics on the Margins: Restructuring and the Canadian Women’s Movement. Fernwood, 1995. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). “Prevalence of the Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASDs) in Multiple Areas of the United States, 2004 and 2006.” www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/states/ ADDMCommunityReport2009.pdf. Accessed 12 Dec. 2017. Davidson, Joyce, and Michael Orsini, editors. Worlds of Autism: Across the Spectrum of Neurological Difference. U of Minnesota P, 2013. Davis, Lennard J. Enforcing Normalcy: Disability, Deafness and the Body. Verso, 1995. Dawson, Michelle. “The Misbehavior of Behaviorists: Ethical Challenges to the Autism-ABA Industry.” No Autistics Allowed, 18 Jan. 2004, www.sentex.net/~nexus23/naa_aba.html. Accessed 30 Mar. 2018. Douglas, Patty. “As If You Have a Choice: Autism Mothers and the Remaking of the Human.” Health, Culture & Society, vol. 5, 2013, pp. 167–81. https://doi.org/10.5195/hcs.2013.137 ———. “Refrigerator Mothers.” Journal of the Motherhood Initiative for Research and Community Involvement, vol. 5, 2014, pp. 94–114. ———. Autism and Mothering: Pursuing the Meaning of Care. 2016. University of Toronto, PhD dissertation. /hdl.handle.net/1807/72960. Douglas, Patty, et al. “Cripping Care: Care Pedagogies and Practices.” Review of Disability Studies, vol. 13, no. 4, 2017, pp. 3–12. ———. “Re-storying Autism: A Body Becoming Disability Studies in Education Approach.” International Journal of Inclusive Education, Advance online publication, 4 Jan. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603 116.2018.1563835 “DSM-5 Criteria.” Autism Speaks. www.autismspeaks.org/dsm-5-criteria. Accessed 31 Jan. 2018. Erevelles, Nirmala. “Signs of Reason: Rivière, Facilitated Communication and the Question of SelfDetermination.” Foucault and the Government of Disability, edited by Shelley Tremain, U of Michigan P, 2005, pp. 45–64. Gibson, Margaret, and Patty Douglas. “Disturbing Behaviours: O Ivar Lovaas and the Queer History of Autism Science.” Catalyst: Feminism, Theory, Technoscience, vol. 4, no. 2, 2018, pp. 1–28. https://doi.org/ 10.28968/cftt.v4i2.29579 Gray, Donald E. “Gender and Coping: The Parents of Children with High Functioning Autism.” Social Science & Medicine, vol. 56, 2003, pp. 631–42. Gruson-Wood, Julia F. “Autism, Expert Discourses, and Subjectification: A Critical Examination of Applied Behavioural Therapies.” Studies in Social Justice, vol. 10, 2016, pp. 38–58. Hays, Sharon. The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood. Yale UP, 1996. Hughes, Bill, et al. “Love’s Labors Lost? Feminism, the Disabled People’s Movement and an Ethic of Care.” Sociology, vol. 39, 2005, pp. 259–75. Kanner, Leo. “Autistic Disturbances of Affective Contact.” Nervous Child, vol. 2, 1943, pp. 217–50. Kelly, Christine. Disability Politics and Care: The Challenge of Direct Funding. UBC Press, 2016. Klar, Estée. “The Mismeasure of Autism.” Concepts of Normalcy: The Autistic and Typical Spectrum, edited by Wendy Lawson. Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2008, pp. 104–29. Klar, Estée, Patty Douglas and Anne McGuire. “Autism Strategy Masks Societal Exclusion of Autistic Ontarians.” Ottawa Citizen, 19 April, 2016. http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/klar-douglasand-mcguire-autism-strategy-masks-societal-exclusion-of-autistic-ontarians. Accessed 18 Aug. 2019. Ladd-Taylor, Molly, and Lauri Umansky, editors. “Bad” Mothers: The Politics of Blame in Twentieth-Century America. New York UP, 1998. Linton, Simi. Claiming Disability: Knowledge and Identity. New York UP, 1998. Lovaas, Ole Ivar. “Behavioral Treatment and Normal Educational and Intellectual Functioning in Autistic Children.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, vol. 55, 1987, pp. 3–9. Mallet, Rebecca, and Katherine Runswick-Cole. “Commodifying Autism: The Cultural Contexts of ‘Disability’ in the Academy.” Disability and Social Theory: New Developments and Directions, edited by Dan Goodley et al., Palgrave Macmillan, 2012, pp. 33–51. McGuire, Anne. War on Autism: On the Cultural Logic of Normative Violence. U Michigan P, 2016. “Medicine: Frosted Children.” Time, 26 Apr. 1948, pp. 77–78.

213

Patty Douglas and Estée Klar Meekosha, Helen. “Decolonising Disability: Thinking and Acting Globally.” Disability & Society, vol. 26, 2011, pp. 667–82. Michalko, Rod. The Difference that Disability Makes. Temple UP, 2002. Michalko, Rod and Tanya Titchkosy. Rethinking Normalcy: A Disability Studies Reader. Canadian Scholar’s Press, 2009. “MSSNG: Changing the Future of Autism with Open Science.” MSSNG. www.mss.ng/#. Accessed 31 Jan. 2019. Nadesan, Majia Holmer. Constructing Autism: Unraveling the ‘Truth’ and Understanding the Social. Routledge, 2005. Neurodivergent K [Sibley, Kassiane]. Radical Neurodivergence Speaking. timetolisten.blogspot.ca/. Accessed 10 Dec. 2017. Ontario Scientific Expert Taskforce for the Treatment of Autism Spectrum Disorder. Evidence Based Practices for Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder: Recommendations for Caregivers, Practitioners and Policy Makers, Apr. 2017. www.ontaba.org/#&panel1-2. Accessed 31 Jan. 2019. O’Toole, Corbett Joan. “The Sexist Inheritance of the Disability Movement.” Gendering Disability, edited by Bonnie G. Smith and Beth Hutchison, Rutgers UP, 2004, pp. 294–300. Panitch, Melanie. Disability, Mothers and Organization: Accidental Activists. Routledge, 2008. Rice, Carla. Becoming Women: The Embodied Self in Image Culture. U of Toronto P, 2014. Rimland, Bernie. Infantile Autism: The Syndrome and Its Implications for a Neural Theory of Behaviour. AppletonCentury-Crofts, 1964. Rooy, Robert, director. DEEJ. Rooy Media LLC and The Independent Television Service, 2017. Runswick-Cole, Katherine, et al., editors. Re-thinking Autism: Diagnosis, Identity and Equality. Jessica Kingsley, 2016. Rutter, Michael. “Genetic Studies of Autism: From the 1970s into the Millennium.” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, vol. 28, 2000, pp. 3–14. Ryan, Sara, and Runswick-Cole, Katherine. “From Advocate to Activist? Mapping the Experiences of Mothers of Children on the Autism Spectrum.” Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, vol. 22, 2009, pp. 43–53. Sequenzia, Amy. “Autistic Conversion Therapy.” Autistic Women and Nonbinary Network, 27 Apr. 2016, autismwomensnetwork.org/autistic-conversion-therapy/. Accessed 31 Jan. 2019. Sinclair, Jim. “Don’t mourn for us.” Our Voice: The Newsletter of Autism, vol. 1, no. 3, 1993, www.autreat. com/dont_mourn.html. Accessed 11 Dec. 2017. Sousa, Amy C. “From Refrigerator Mothers to Warrior-Heroes: The Cultural Identity Transformation of Mothers Raising Children with Intellectual Disabilities.” Symbolic Interaction, vol. 34, 2011, pp. 220–43. Titchkosky, Tanya. Disability, Self and Society. U of Toronto P, 2003. Titchkosky, Tanya, and Catherine Aubrecht. “Who’s MIND, Whose Future? Mental Health Projects as Colonial Logics.” Social Identities: Journal for the Study of Race, Nation and Culture, vol. 21, 2015, pp. 69–84. Walker, Nick. “Throw Away the Master’s Tools: Liberating Ourselves from the Pathology Paradigm.” Loud Hands: Autistic People, Speaking, edited by Julia Bascom, The Autistic Press, 2012, pp. 154–62. Williams, Fiona. “Towards a Transnational Analysis of the Political Economy of Care.” Feminist Ethics and Social Policy: Towards a New Global Political Economy of Care, edited by Rianne Mahon and Fiona Robinson, UBC Press, 2011, pp. 21–38. Yergeau, Melanie. Authoring Autism: On Rhetoric and Neurological Queerness. Duke UP, 2018.

214

17 NO FIXED ADDRESS The everyday health challenges of mothers living in an emergency homeless shelter Rebecca Hughes

Introduction As homeless women are not generally as visible as their male counterparts, their experiences are often underrepresented in the research literature. This study reports on three in-depth interviews with homeless mothers. These women’s first-hand experiences shed light on a number of health-related challenges experienced by homeless mothers. Women discussed negotiating the labour and birthing process, dealing with the subsequent apprehension of their infant children, seeking support after sexual and physical assaults, and managing blood-borne diseases such as HIV/AIDS. Women’s experiences were viewed both as the impetus to initiate research inquiry and the means by which to explore tangential avenues of inquiry. Framing women’s experiences not only provided the researcher with a standpoint, or a place to begin research inquiry, but it also provided a real-life backdrop or context through which to explicate the everyday survival work of homeless women. This study asks: How are health care services socially organized with regard to homeless women’s access to health care services? How do women living without a fixed address manage their sexual or reproductive health care issues or needs? How do women negotiate institutional health care directives, policies, or processes with regards to obtaining prenatal and postnatal care? How do specific texts (legislation, regulations, policy directives, and standard paperwork) mitigate women’s social interactions with institutional agencies?

Background and context In this study, interviews were conducted with 27 individuals living in a mixed-gender Open Access emergency homeless shelter located in Toronto, Canada. For the purposes of this chapter, interview data were drawn from three mothers: Stacey, Laura, and Lynn. Stacey and Laura are mothers of young children, all of whom have been apprehended by Child Protective Services and are currently living with adoptive families. Lynn raised a daughter, who is now living independently. These women’s accounts seek to capture in first-person and descriptive format the social, relational, and interactive lives of mothers living without a fixed address (Gubrium and Holstein 244). In this study, women are perceived as active agents who construct their reality of life and their understanding of the world around them through sharing, interpreting, and reflecting on their everyday lived experiences. 215

Rebecca Hughes

The setting of this study was Open Access, one of 20 community-based, emergency homeless shelters located in churches and synagogues in Toronto. These are not conventional shelters. Unlike other shelters that provide daily shelter, each Open Access shelter remains open only one night per week. For the remaining six nights of the week, guests have the option to rotate through the remaining 19 Open Access shelters, all of which are located in faith-based organizations dotted around the Greater Toronto area. Although the word “emergency” is employed to describe the ad hoc, impermanent nature of Open Access, for many homeless individuals, Open Access is a place to call home during the winter season. In the warmer spring and summer months, Open Access closes its doors and reopens again in the winter season. Many individuals discussed sleeping outside in warmer weather. The Green Mile, a stretch of grassland bordering a downtown wooded ravine, constitutes a popular campground. While Open Access provides only transient shelter, it nevertheless provides guests with a sense of continuity and community throughout the winter months. The dinner tables are collapsible, the cutlery is plastic (and rewashed many times throughout the night), and fold-up gym mats serve as mattresses. There are no shower or storage facilities. However, a sense of the comforts of home is present, if only for short periods. Each night, dessert is available after the late-night movie has ended, and, early each morning, hot coffee is served in ceramic mugs. The City of Toronto provides limited funding for the provision of security services at each shelter. Security work includes denying access to disruptive individuals, breaking up occasional fights, and removing guests who consume alcohol or drugs on shelter premises. The all-access, inclusive nature of Open Access appeals to individuals seeking admission to non-bureaucratic programs and services. Unlike other shelters that require guests to complete paperwork or to show valid identification, Open Access has few prerequisites to access. The use of pseudonyms is permitted, and guests are not frisked or searched before admission. Dogs accompanying guests are permitted to sleep overnight in a heated hallway located outside the main eating and sleeping quarters. As the shelter prohibits the use of alcohol and illicit drugs, guests are asked to “bottle check” their alcohol with security personnel upon arrival.

Central themes The social determinants of health Income is a social determinant of health. Insufficient income plays a significant role not only in homelessness but also in the health of homeless individuals. A healthy life is not only a state of physical and mental well-being: it is also a measure of socioeconomic status. Broader social determinants of health (poverty, socioeconomic disparity, and social status) predetermine the extent to which certain societal groups are predisposed to illness (Wilkinson and Marmot 7). In the United Kingdom, the groundbreaking Whitehall I and Whitehall II longitudinal studies of over 28,000 British civil servants found that poorer individuals experience more illness and have a lower life expectancy than their wealthier counterparts (Marmot et al., “Employment Grade” 244; Marmot et al., “Health Inequalities” 1387), and subsequent research in the United Kingdom replicated these findings (Townsend, Davidson, and Whitehead, 1992). In the United States, Hajat et al. (627), Kitagawa and Hauser (11), and Menchik (427) established a strong correlation between wealth and increased longevity. In Canada, Frohlich and Mustard (1273), and McLeod et al. (1287) also found a strong correlation between socioeconomic status and health. For homeless mothers, their own poor health outcomes directly impact the health of their children. Current research regarding the health outcomes of homeless mothers and their children

216

No fixed address

shows adverse perinatal outcomes including low birth weight, pre-term deliveries, increased risk of anxiety and depression, developmental disability in children, and high risk for multiple episodes of homelessness for the family (Little et al. 615–18).

Participant interviews Selected segments of conversations with three homeless mothers, Stacey, Laura, and Lynn, are featured in this chapter:. Professionals working in institutional settings (e.g., health care workers, social workers, case workers) exerted significant power and control over the lives of many of the women interviewed in this study. Institutional plans of action, put into motion by professionals, had direct and significant consequences for these individuals. Stacey recounted the birth of her child, a boy, who was apprehended by Child Protective Services immediately after birth. At the time of our interview, Child Protective Services had mounted a case for complete removal of Stacey’s maternal rights, which would allow no future contact with her newborn child. Stacey did not discuss the specifics of her infant’s apprehension, although she did discuss her disappointment when informed that she would not be permitted to provide breast milk for her premature infant. Protective Services did not allow her to pump milk for her infant, and neither hospital staff nor Protective Services explained to her why she was prevented from doing so. Stacey was not consulted regarding a number of institutional decisions regarding the birth process (e.g., birthing plan, postnatal infant care, provision of breast milk) and the subsequent apprehension of her child. Stacey remained hopeful that she would one day regain custody of her infant boy, and towards that end she was seeking a two-bedroom rental apartment. Her latest rental application had been rejected. Laura discussed the difficulties experienced by homeless individuals when balancing survival lifework with the challenges of both motherhood and the demands exerted by bureaucratic regulatory processes. Laura’s account highlights the multiple difficulties faced by mothers living without a fixed address who must manage both onerous daily survival work (accessing food banks, doing laundry, finding shelter accommodation) and health work (negotiating safe sex work, obtaining prenatal care, and routine STD testing), while also coping with addiction. Laura’s account also highlights the ways in which institutional plans of action shape, mediate, and coordinate interactions between individuals in bureaucratic settings. Laura described her recent experiences giving birth to a daughter. In the hours leading to Protective Services’ removal of her daughter from the maternity ward, a doctor offered Laura a chance to hold her daughter for the first and only time. Laura refused this offer, and she ruminated briefly on the difficulty encountered when making this momentous decision. Lynn’s discussion underscored the ways in women experience homelessness differently from men. Women are more susceptible to sexual violence, and they also have uniquely female sexual and reproductive issues. Homeless women are often more vulnerable than their male counterparts when either sleeping on the streets or sharing communal accommodation in shelter settings. For example, a few years ago, Lynn was raped in a downtown Toronto stairwell. Although Lynn feels more secure sleeping at the Open Access shelter, she nevertheless finds herself deflecting unwanted sexual advances from men (including at Open Access). Lynn’s account describes not only the daily survival work of living with AIDS but also the subsequent problems when attempting to access specialist medical care. All three accounts highlight the multiple difficulties faced by mothers living without a fixed address who must manage onerous daily heath work, such as managing safe sex work, prenatal care, monthly STD testing, and life-threatening addiction and disease.

217

Rebecca Hughes

Stacey: homeless for two months How long have you been staying with Open Access? It’s my second time. Do you have a health care card? Mine recently just got stolen. Someone came right into my room and went into my jacket when I was sleeping and helped herself to my pocket and took it with my bus pass and my health card. Is there a door to lock? Yeah, we can lock our doors, but staff is now telling us that we are not allowed to lock our doors. And they come in while we’re sleeping to do bed checks. It’s to make sure that we’re there before curfew. That’s what I don’t understand. If the door is locked, doesn’t that mean we’re inside sleeping? Maybe they want to make sure no one else is inside? That’s not the point. You should be able to lock your door, right? It gives that little bit of security. Have you ever had any problems getting a health care? My card recently just got stolen. I have to do the paperwork all over again. What will you do now that it’s stolen? I have to do the paperwork all over again. And then wait the four to six weeks all over again. Or six to 12 weeks, depending on how backed up they are for them to send you a new one. What are some examples of your health care needs? Actually, it brings me down. It’s depressing. We’re actually going through a lot of other stuff too . . . We’re fighting a custody battle to get our baby back. Well, it’s hard. Living in a shelter, trying to get the baby back. How was your prenatal help? I did see a doctor outside of Toronto. For the last year in Toronto we have seen doctors in dropins or clinics. We just got a family doctor last month. Was the delivery doctor nice to you? Yes, but the other doctors and nurses were not nice to me at all. Because I kept telling them I was in labour, and they were not listening to me. It took them at least half an hour to find out I was in labour. The doctor looked at me and says, you either give birth to this baby right now, or we’re putting you out. So I said, whatever’s best for the baby. I wasn’t thinking about me or anything. They had to cut me open. C-section. I woke up and there’s my baby. I was scared. Literally my whole hand would fit on his back. Were you helped with breastfeeding? I was pumping until CPS [Child Protective Services] took him. They wouldn’t let you continue to pump [breast milk]? No. 218

No fixed address

Laura: homeless for nine years How long have you been staying with Open Access? Nine years off and on. Like not straight every year. I’ve had my own place in between. But yeah, nine years. Tomorrow there’s two other sites. Tuesdays, it’s the hardest one, when Open Access doesn’t start until January 10. Tuesday there’s only one site. So, you have to be there early or you’re not going to get a bed. How do you feel? I’ve been using for like 10 years. My drug is crack cocaine. I’ve been using since I came to Toronto. I fell in love with crack right away. I’ve been using it ever since I came here. I’ve lost my kids because of the addiction. They took her away when I was sleeping. I knew what was going to happen. I figured they could have woken me up to say, “Bye.” Their point of view is that if we would have woken you up, you would have gotten attached to her, and you wouldn’t have wanted to let her go. I knew I would have to let her go, but I wanted to hold her. But I went to sleep. That’s when they took her away. Could you try to keep your [youngest] baby, or was there no way? There was no hope. Like, I already knew. I knew in my heart I was not ready to stop using drugs. I knew in my heart. The reason they took her is that they found traces of cocaine in her blood. So, that’s why they took her away. For that reason, and because I already gave up my son to Protective Services. Once you’re involved with Protective Services, you’re red flagged. Like even if you go have another one and you have your stuff together, they will go get into your life, and see how they can take your kid away. How does that happen? The hospitals. Once the hospital knows you’re here to have a baby, they punch your name in the system. Involvement with Protective Services shows up on the computer. I’m glad the baby came out as healthy as she did. She was almost full term. The doctor came up to me in the room. I was still a bit groggy because they gave me some drugs, but he said, “Listen, you have a beautiful 5-pound baby girl. Would you like to see her?” I said yes, but then I fell back asleep. When I woke up the next day, I thought about it, and I thought the only way I knew I could deal with it, is that I went up to the nurses’ station and said, “Listen, I’m OK, I don’t want to see her.” Because I knew if I would have seen her . . . It would be very hurtful for me. I knew I wasn’t taking her back. Have you ever had problems getting a health card? I have a family doctor at a drop-in centre. I get tested for all kinds of stuff. She will test me for diseases. I did a test three years ago. Here’s an example of how addiction can take over your life: they found something on my cervix. I’ve been letting it go for three years. I finally got another appointment in January. I had other appointments, but I kept letting them go, letting them go, because I was too busy getting high. What else do you do during the day? I need to do laundry, I need to go to the food banks. It’s not easy. Everything else comes in the way, so I’m not able to make it. 219

Rebecca Hughes

You sound busy. Having an addiction doesn’t help.

Lynn: homeless for 30+ years How long have you been homeless? I was a runaway. And you know kids come to the city. Yeah, so off and on since I was 12. I did 14 years in a house and married and all that stuff. I raised my daughter and went to university, and came back out. It’s like, people become your family. Out here, as rough as it is, and as much as you hate it when you’re here – because it’s treacherous. It’s very draining, but you miss it. You miss the people. Is it dangerous by yourself? You have to know who to be around, and how long to stay if somebody’s around. And learn to recognize the signs. Because I have been raped. I have been attacked. I have been stabbed – on the streets, in the stairwell. And robbed – they steal from you. They go through your pockets and take everything you have. How many times has this happened to you? Four times. But it happens on a daily basis that guys are hitting on you. Trying to pick you up. Asking if you want to do dates.’Cause you’re a lowly homeless person they think you’re a hooker. And they offer you money for sexual favours – for like $10 bucks, $20 bucks, $40 bucks, whatever. Dirt cheap kinda crap, don’t want to use condoms. You know, it’s disgusting. Dennis, another guest of the shelter (and a previous interviewee) interrupts the interview. Dennis: Excuse me, tell her I’m not a playboy, am I? Lynn: Yeah he is. Gerald walks away, laughing. Lynn: That’s the worst of it – guys hitting on you all the time. Have you had housing off and on? Yeah, I’ve had housing, but I gave it up. I can’t stand it. They put you in some area that you’re not familiar with, and it’s not good. Not in the city. I used to go there to pick up my cheque once in a blue moon, but you know, it’s so far. No friends. I don’t know where my resources are. Like downtown, I know where to eat. I know how to survive downtown. But I know in some of these other places their food bank system in different. But to get to the doctor, my doctor is downtown. The AIDS services are downtown. Everything I need is downtown. Are you getting enough support? I did a 10-week program. They were all very supportive, but when I got out I had nowhere to go. And I got into the same circle I did when I left. And I did all that work. You can fight it, but it doesn’t last long. I will always be struggling with one addiction or another. Well, I replace addiction with addiction, with addiction. 220

No fixed address

Are you taking your medication? Yeah, I have been taking my medication regularly, but this is the problem. I was at a women’s shelter, and it’s probably a great place for some people, but I couldn’t handle it. They packed my stuff into seven bags. I brought it in in two. They don’t know how to pack obviously. I had to fight with them for a token. They didn’t want to release my medication without me taking all of my belongings. They don’t have the storage space. But that’s wrong, so I had a doctor – It’s all women, and they do what they can. The doctors are female. So the doctor called the shelter and said it’s a matter of life and death. Maybe not death, but it’s crucial that she has her medication, so can she pick up just her medication and leave her belongings? Where do you keep your stuff now? My stuff is in the truck of my friend’s car, another lady who volunteers at another organization where I go to a drop-in. She offered to keep it in her house. I’m hoping this housing comes up at the end of the month.

Challenges in relation to the topic Mothers living in emergency homeless shelters: unique and differential health challenges The mothers interviewed in this study identified as “absolutely” homeless. The Oxford Dictionary states that a homeless individual “is a person without a home, and therefore typically living on the streets” (1). Rossi notes that the term “homeless” may refer to precarious or unstable housing as equally as it can to no housing at all (11). Research conducted on the night of April 17, 2013, by the City of Toronto’s Street Needs Assessment (3) ascertained that 5,253 homeless individuals lived outdoors or in shelter locations in Toronto. Individuals who are unable to secure provisional shelter and therefore sleep on the streets experience significantly high rates of mortality. Researchers in the United Kingdom found that homeless individuals living on the streets in London have an average life expectancy of only 42 years, compared with the national average of 74 years for men and 79 years for women (Grenier 5). Homeless individuals appear to be at a higher risk of injury and assault, and therefore require more preventive and rehabilitative treatment than those in the general population. Kushel et al. (2492) presented findings from a survey of 2,577 homeless people living in San Francisco, California. The study instrument included a series of close-ended, quantitative interview questions, in which researchers assessed participants’ access to housing, history of victimization, sexual behaviour, substance abuse, mental health, and justice-system involvement over a oneyear period. Kushel et al. were specifically interested in determining the connection between homelessness and reported rates of assault. Findings showed that homeless individuals were at higher risk of victimization than the general population, due to inconsistent shelter facilities, nearness to high-crime areas, and involvement in high-risk activities, such as drug use, alcohol abuse, and sex-trade work (2492). Indeed, one in three women and men (27.1% and 32.3% respectively) reported incidents of either sexual or physical assault in the one-year study period (2492). These findings indicate that violence and victimization are a common reality for many homeless individuals. Violent assault results in physical harm and emotional distress, and victims of such abuse require immediate and often prolonged medical intervention. While both sexes in the homeless population are susceptible to violence, homeless women appear particularly vulnerable to 221

Rebecca Hughes

sexual violence. Researchers in the San Francisco study found that 9.4% of homeless women experienced sexual assault over a one-year study period, and that this percentage more than doubled among homeless women with a mental illness (Kushel et al. 2495). Khandor and Mason (4) present similar unsettling findings about life on the streets of Toronto: one in five homeless women has been sexually assaulted during a one-year period. Women in the general population are substantially less likely to experience sexual assault: less than 1% of the general population in Toronto reported an incidence of sexual assault in a one-year period. (In each of these studies, it is not known if strangers or acquaintances were perpetrators of these attacks, or where the attacks took place.) New and expectant mothers not only experience unique and differential health challenges, but they are also often vulnerable to intimate partner violence. New and expectant homeless mothers are also at a higher risk of injury and assault than their housed counterparts. For example, Wood et al. (1049) compared homeless Los Angeles mothers to low-income housed female mothers: homeless mothers reported increased drug use (43% versus 30%), increased mental health issues (14% versus 6%), as well as increased abuse by spouses (35% versus 16%). These findings were of particular significance for this study, as they highlight the differential health care needs and rates of victimization experienced by new and expectant homeless mothers.

Recommendations for further research Neoliberal policies have increasingly shaped the social democratic landscape, by introducing cost-effective restructuring of public health care and by reducing welfare spending. If this trend continues, it is feasible to assume that informal, nonprofit, faith-based organizations will maintain a prominent role in caring for disenfranchised groups (who are perhaps inadequately supported by social welfare programs). Informal health services refer to health care services that exist outside mainstream services and that are designed to support economically disadvantaged individuals. Many of these services are nonprofit and community-funded. Nonprofit organizations were historically formed in response to a specific need in a community that was overlooked or inadequately addressed by governmental service providers. Currently, a number of nonprofit, privately funded, charitable organizations in Toronto offer mobile, on-the-spot nursing care. These services do not require individuals to show identification or to produce a health card. Many interviewees in this study sought care from informal health care providers located in church drop-in centres, homeless shelters, or nonprofit traveling buses, in an effort to circumvent or avoid bureaucratic regulations that mediate and control access to governmental or mainstream health care services. Open Access in Ontario, an entirely faith-based program, largely relies on donations from individuals in the community, rather than government subsidies or support. Faith-affiliated, nonprofit organizations add another dimension to the provision of informal health care. Although nonprofit organizations fill a crucial role in providing care to vulnerable groups, little is known about the inner workings of such organizations. Such a study might ask: What makes informal health care the preferred choice for marginalized individuals? What support (funding or service augmentation) does the government provide for nonprofit health care organizations? Do nonprofit organizations support or diminish their governmental counterparts? What role do faith-based organizations play in the provision of health care in Ontario? How are faith-run, nonprofit service providers and recipients (volunteers, parishioners, sponsors, and service recipients) socially organized? What is the sociopolitical context in which such institutions operate?

222

No fixed address

Further reading Ambrosio, Eileen, et al. The Street Health Report: A Study of the Health Status and Barriers to Health Care of Homeless Women and Men in the City of Toronto. Street Health, 1992. Campbell, Marie, and Frances Gregor. Mapping Social Relations: A Primer in Doing Institutional Ethnography. Garamond Press, 2002. Chomsky, Noam. Profit Over People: Neoliberalism and Global Order. Seven Stories Press, 1999. Giroux, Henry. Schooling for Democracy: Critical Pedagogy in the Modern Age. Routledge, 1989. Raphael, Dennis. Social Determinants of Health: Canadian Perspectives. Canadian Scholars’ Press, 2004. Street, Brian. Literacy in Theory and Practice. Cambridge UP, 1984.

Conclusion This study examined the broader lineages of administrative and governmental entities that not only mediate and control women’s everyday experiences but also mediate their access to health care services. Through an in-depth examination of individuals’ first-hand experiences accessing health care services in Toronto, this study explicated the institutional practices or rules of governance that mediate relations between homeless individuals and institutional organizations. Of particular interest is the complex social interactions and interrelationships that exist between people who operate in institutionally mediated bureaucracies and the structures of health care organizations that might serve to mitigate or limit homeless individuals’ access to health care services in Toronto, Canada. Quantitative research studies have comprised a significant and useful contribution to the literature that pertains to the health of underserved populations. However, critical ethnographic research brings another dimension to the existing body of scholarly knowledge, because participants maintain an active and authoritative voice throughout the course of the ethnographic research endeavor by initiating, guiding, and directing avenues of exploration. While there have been a number of informative studies in Canada regarding the problems and challenges encountered by homeless individuals in their attempts to access health care, little has been studied regarding the everyday health-related challenges experienced by homeless mothers and women. This study aimed to fill this niche. The onerous nature of health work was a pervasive theme that emerged throughout my discussions with women living without a fixed address. For example, women often crisscrossed the city in order to shower, do laundry, obtain medicine, use the telephone or Internet, retrieve belongings from storage facilities, and relocate lost or stolen identification or paperwork. An essential component to lifework is health work, or the management of health care needs. Women’s everyday lifework was further complicated by negotiating safe sex work, obtaining prenatal care, and by managing life-threatening illness, such as addiction or HIV/AIDS. The unavoidable and relentless pursuit of daily survival work exacerbates the problems and challenges encountered by individuals. Additional to these demands are those exacted by drop-in centres or travelling clinics, each of which necessitates its own regulatory policies and procedures. Institutional plans of action, put into motion by health care policies and procedures, had significant consequences for women, and mothers, in particular. Women discussed negotiating labour and birthing processes, dealing with subsequent apprehension of their infant children, seeking support after sexual and physical assaults, and managing blood-borne diseases such as HIV/AIDS. Better access to affordable downtown housing, cash-assistance programs, and outreach programs will not only reduce the number of homeless individuals living on the streets, but such interventions may also feasibly reduce the health problems experienced by both women and their children. Homelessness and health share a cyclical relationship: poor health

223

Rebecca Hughes

contributes to homelessness, and homelessness further exacerbates poor health. For homeless mothers, poor health has a negative and long-lasting impact not only their own well-being but also on the subsequent well-being of their children.

Author statement This research project was both reviewed and approved by the University of Toronto Research Ethics Board (REB) prior to its commencement. The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and or publication of this chapter: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education and the Ontario Graduate Scholarship funded the research and/or authorship. The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this chapter. Pseudonyms are employed in order to protect the identity of the interviewees.

Works cited Collins Dictionaries Online. “Neoliberalism,” http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/ neoliberalism. Accessed 27 June 2017. Fischer, Pamela, and Breakey, William. “The Epidemiology of Alcohol, Drug, and Mental Disorders among Homeless Persons.” American Psychologist, vol. 46, no. 11, 1991, pp. 1115–28. Frohlich, Norman, and Cameron Mustard. “A Regional Comparison of Socioeconomic and Health Indices in a Canadian Province.” Social Science and Medicine, vol. 42, 1996, pp. 1273–81. Grenier, Paola. Still Dying for a Home: An Update of Crisis 1992 Investigation into the Links between Homelessness, Health and Mortality. Crisis, 1997. Gubrium, Jaber, and Holstein, James. Handbook of Emergent Methods. Edited by Sharlene Nagy Hesse-Biber and Patricia Leavy. Guilford Press, 2008. Hajat, Anjum, et al. “Long-term Effects of Wealth on Mortality and Self-rated Health Status.” American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 11, 2010, pp. 627–35. Hughes, Rebecca. “Are Institutional Health Policies Exclusionary?” Journal of Qualitative Health Research, vol. 24, no. 3, 2014, pp. 366–74. Hwang, Stephen. “Homelessness and Health.” Canadian Medical Association Journal, vol. 164, no. 2, 2001, pp. 229–23. Khandor, Erika, et al. The Street Health Report 2007. Street Health, 2007. Kitagawa, Evelyn, and Philip Hauser. Differential Mortality in the United States: A Study of Socioeconomic Epidemiology. Harvard UP, 1973. Kushel, Margot, et al. “No Door to Lock: Victimization among Homeless and Marginally Housed Persons.” Archives of Internal Medicine, vol. 163, no. 20, 2003, pp. 2492–99. Little, Merry, et al. “Adverse Perinatal Outcomes Associated with Homelessness and Substance Use in Pregnancy.” Canadian Medical Association Journal, vol. 173, no. 6, 2005, 615–18. Marmot, Michael, et al. “Employment Grade and Coronary Heart Disease in British Civil Servants.” Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, vol. 32, no. 4, 1978, pp. 244–49. Marmot, Michael, et al. “Health Inequalities among British Civil Servants: The Whitehall II Study.” The Lancet, vol. 337, no. 8754, 1991, pp. 1387–93. McLeod, Christopher, et al. “Income Inequality, Household Income, and Health Status in Canada: A Prospective Cohort Study.” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 93, no. 8, 2003, pp. 1287–93. Menchik, Paul. “Economic Status as a Determinant of Mortality among Black and White Older Men: Does Poverty Kill?” Population Studies, vol. 47, no. 3, 1993, pp. 427–36. Oxford Dictionaries Online. “Homeless.” http://oxforddictionaries.com/ definition/homeless Rossi, Peter. Down and Out in America: The Origins of Homelessness. U of Chicago P, 1991. Smith, Dorothy E., editor. Institutional Ethnography as Practice. Rowman & Littlefield, 2006. “2013 Street Needs Assessment: Results.” City of Toronto, 2013, www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2013/ cd/bgrd/backgroundfile-61365.pdf. Accessed 27 June 2017. Townsend, Peter, et al. Inequalities in Health: The Black Report and the Health Divide. New York, NY: Penguin. 1992.

224

No fixed address UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Homelessness and the Right to Housing, n.d., www. ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Housing/Pages/Homelessnessandhumanrights.aspx. Whitehead, Margaret. Inequalities in Health: The Black Report and the Health Divide. Penguin, 1992. Wilkinson, Richard, and Michael Marmot, editors. Social Determinants of Health: The Solid Facts. World Health Organization, 2003. Wood, David, et al. “Homeless and Housed Families in Los Angeles: A Study Comparing Demographic, Economic, and Family Function Characteristics.” American Journal of Public Health, 1990, pp. 1049–52.

225

18 MIDWIFERY IN HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVE The collusion of race, class, and gender Alicia D. Bonaparte Introduction In 2013, the New York Times outlined the high costs of maternity care within hospital settings compared to midwifery care in the United States and Europe. Over 85% of births occur under a doctor’s supervision and predominantly in hospital delivery and labor wards. Comparatively, “in many European countries, midwives attend to most pregnancies, often in clinics, resulting in maternity charges that are a fraction of those in the United States”; “in Britain and Denmark, more than two-thirds of all births are attended by a midwife” (Rosenthal, “Getting Insurance to Pay”). Midwife literally translates to “ ‘with woman’ or ‘wise woman’ ” (Varney and Thompson 4). And yet, this birthing model’s presence became minimized in the United States so that this idea of birthing as a partnership becomes blurred or nonexistent. This chapter primarily focuses on midwifery’s history in the southeastern United States as an example of how and why midwife-attended births occur in racialized, gendered, and classed contexts. Moreover, given that black southern midwives served (and continue to serve) both black and white populaces, this grouping of midwives are vitally important today when considering the needs of vulnerable black birthing parents. This chapter will provide a history of southern black midwives, their struggles due to the development of obstetrics and gynecology in the early twentieth century, discuss the resurgence of midwives in the United States, their continued battles within birthing settings, and suggested recommendations for why black midwives are integral to address the birthing disparities faced by black birthing parents.

Background and context Historical overview of black midwifery in the United States Prior to the early 1900s, most midwives worked within their local communities in the United States. Varney and Thompson found that depending on the region, midwives were ethnic immigrant, black, or white women, and often female relatives with child-bearing history. Three predominant forms of midwifery persisted: lay midwifery, grandmother midwifery, and later nurse-midwifery. Lay midwifery connoted home births attended by informally educated 226

Midwifery in historical and contemporary perspective

practitioners. Grandmother (granny) midwifery is a derivation of lay midwifery; however, these forms of midwifery possess some differences. The term “grandmother” denoted that these midwives were older female relatives or community members who had borne children; conversely, lay midwives, were happenstance – local women who had borne children, were not menopausalaged, and were in convenient proximity to aid laboring women in their community (Bonaparte, The Persecution and Prosecution 1). Both forms of midwifery required: a spiritual “calling”; an apprenticeship until the community’s older midwife retired; or follow a matrilineal tradition of midwifery. Midwives-in-training needed a combination of these prerequisites dependent upon the southern state and traditions of their supervising midwives (1). Nurse-midwives were of a different standing given their academic and licensure expectations and their numbers grew under Mary Breckenridge’s training of nurse-midwives (Breckenridge 111).

Southern midwives: revered healers among black and white populaces Southern US midwives encapsulated within southern folk healing traditions served within their own respective racial and ethnic communities; yet, black grandmother midwives served both black and white communities during the seventeenth through the early twentieth centuries in the southern United States (Bonaparte, The Persecution and Prosecution 9). These women passed down Central and West African herbal knowledge to younger female relatives and peers which fostered rebellion against seventeenth-century dominant Western medical practices (Brown 290) and ill-suited white male doctors with little or minimal obstetrical expertise (Davis and Ingram 191–92). Poor and middle-class community members preferred entrusting their lives to these revered women due to: their divine healing gifts, skills at catching babies, respective leadership positions, and an interdependent relationship between healer and community members lasting from birth into adulthood (Bonaparte, “Physicians’ Discourse” 168). Black midwives birthed over 80% of children in the US South during the early twentieth century while white women of a higher standing in urban and northern US environs preferred a doctor or a nursemidwife as befitted their class and propriety standards (Holmes 258). These revered positions allowed midwives to not suffer undue criticism and regulation from states or the US government prior to stricter medical regulation within the first quarter of the twentieth century (Weitz and Sullivan 245). Since healthy mothers and infants were divine blessings, states with midwifery regulations had moral licensure requirements and service obligations. These regulations “typically specified that midwives attend all who needed their services, reveal the truth about illegitimacy and infanticide, and foreswear abortions and magic. Civil and religious authorities rarely interfered in midwives’ practices unless witchcraft or other heresy was suspected” (246).

Central themes and theories explaining midwifery’s decline in the early twentieth century US census records indicate midwife (and untrained nurses) numbers increased from 109,000 to 198,000 between 1900 and 1930 (Bonaparte, Persecution and Prosecution 212). The shifting landscape of US medicine and reproductive health care influenced a precipitous decline in practicing lay midwives resulting in a bifurcated system of woman-centered care and care deemed most appropriate by mainly white male physicians of the time. Consequently, the social acceptance of midwives lessened while regulation and abrogation efforts in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century impacted their birthing practices. By 1940, only 115,000 midwives (and 227

Alicia D. Bonaparte

untrained nurses) existed in the United States (212). Lay points to the renewed vigor of the American Medical Association (AMA) as a major influence on midwifery abrogation as well as an embrace of physician-supervised birthing within hospital settings (63). Prior the mid-nineteenth century, the AMA suffered a professional decline because citizens perceived doctors as barbers and incapable of providing adequate care – especially compared to alternative healers (Baer and Jones 327). Eventually, the AMA rose back into prominence via various lobbying efforts to become “a powerful interest group,” possessing political power, and a “distinctive structural position within the economy” (Starr 102 and 103). A clear example of doctors establishing themselves as reproductive medical experts involved their tapping into white middle- and upper-class women’s fears – namely not fulfilling their social gender roles resulting in death by pregnancy. The eighteenth and nineteenth century ushered in the cult of domesticity – an ideology dictating women’s mental, physical, and emotional stability required the behavioral embodiment of submissiveness, piety, domesticity, and purity (Giddings 43). White American middle- and upper-class women followed these patriarchal tenets and physicians within birthing rooms further embodied and espoused these beliefs. Women socialized into these norms opined pain was not to be borne and that women should not seek to learn midwifery skills or use midwifery services. Yet, racial prejudice and restricted socioeconomic attainment perpetuated black women’s inability to adhere to these edicts (43). For example, physicians perceived poorer and ethnic women were of “hardier stock” for childbirth and accepted their utilization of midwives as birth attendants; and, southern doctors fought against midwives’ elimination “even if they provided only second-class care” to avoid serving in rural black communities (Weitz and Sullivan 246). This acceptance was short-lived because medical professionals – under the auspices of the maternal health care movement during the second and third decade of the twentieth century – increasingly coerced poorer and ethnic minority women to use licensed physicians for prenatal and postnatal care. Conjointly, doctors sought midwifery abrogation to “force poor women to birth in hospitals to provide medical students with necessary clinical experience” (246). Doctors further established their preeminence as health care providers during the early 1900s by pathologizing pregnancy and stressed that midwife-assisted births increased probabilities of maternal or infant death, risk of disease, or puerperal fever. Conversely, physicians argued that their educational accreditation and knowledge of modern birthing technology and preventative techniques could save women from suffering. This pathologization spawned the medicalization of birth: birth is unnatural and demands trained medical supervision (Lay 5). Dr. Joseph B. DeLee, an obstetrician, led this propaganda’s charge. He rose to prominence within obstetrics as a major proponent for hospital births. His recommendations to avoid dangerous labor included using forceps, episiotomy, and ergot1 to induce uterine contractions to make birth more predictable (Leavitt 298). The AMA with support from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists advocated this procedure and catalyzed putting pregnancy and childbirth “under the control of the specialist” (298). This professional shift in birthing work monopolized prenatal and postnatal diagnosis and treatment, made medical and nursing schools harbingers of improved American health care, and undercut the practices of traditional birth attendants. Consequently, lay black and ethnic midwives in the southern and northern United States without proper credentials set forward by prohibitive licensure, professional, and academic requirements were eliminated from birthing work while a newer midwife, supervised by medical doctors and trained as a nurse-midwife, was embraced (Bonaparte, “Physicians’ Discourse” 24). Some county health departments used black nurse-midwives to “round up” lay black midwives to motivate their elimination (Bonaparte, “The Satisfactory Midwife Bag” 177). By the 228

Midwifery in historical and contemporary perspective

mid-1900s, most US babies were hospital-born while lay (mainly black and ethnic) midwives gradually became a figment of the past (Holmes 258–59). The medical model of birth where a woman’s body is a machine and the baby is its product became prominent practice until the homebirth movement challenged it (Davis Floyd 49).

Critical issues in midwife-attended births The homebirth movement and rise in midwife-attended births One central issue contributing to the renewed interest in midwife-attended births in the late 1960s into the 1970s is due to the advocacy of homebirth under midwife Ina May Gaskin and the rise of the feminist movement (Craven 47). In 1971 Gaskin, her partner, and 300 faith-based community members founded The Farm in rural Summertown, Tennessee (Gaskin 2). Within this community, traditional midwifery care is a central component of prenatal care and births within a supportive communal context. Homebirth advocacy and successful out-of-hospital births on The Farm and elsewhere contributed to the homebirth movement’s proliferation into the 1980s. The models of maternal health care began to expand beyond the highly technical into wholistic and natural models of birth. Hospital settings had a small but notable increase of midwife-attended births with some differences across racial and class lines during the late 1980s (Davis Floyd 48).

Collusion of race and class in midwife-attended births In 1989, midwife-attended births rose from 60,000 to 150,000. Women served by midwives were different from most obstetric patients because “87% of all midwife-attended births” were by non-white, younger, less educated, and unmarried women (Parker 1139). Although women of color had minute increases of midwife-attended births over white women, cultural preference might partially explain this decision-making within hospital settings. Such preferences harken back to why birthing parents celebrated traditional midwives as proponents of communal support and alternative practitioners (1139). Although Parker’s statistics date back almost three decades, she illustrates how at one point race and SES did not function as dual axes of constraint within reproductive choices or what Shellee Colen terms stratified reproduction. This term explains how and why some women of majority groups and higher-class positions are able to have empowering reproductive experiences while marginalized women are disempowered and constrained in their reproductive choices (Ginsburg and Rapp 3). Stratified reproduction then translates to either positive or negative reproductive health care experiences that impact maternal and infant health outcomes. Labor and delivery complications and low birth weight babies are lessened by midwife-­ attendance especially when the birthing parent is of low-risk and received adequate prenatal care (Davis Floyd xxi). In the early 2000s, this trend of more nonwhite birthing parents using midwives as birth attendants shifted to “home birth rates [being] higher for non-Hispanic white women, married women, women aged 25 and over, and women with several previous children” (MacDorman et al. 1). MacDorman et al. highlight that 1990 to 2006 had a continued but minimal increase of out-of-hospital and homebirths; and dropped by a few percentage points between 2004 and 2005. Within this time period, non-Hispanic white mothers had a slightly higher number of births over non-Hispanic black mothers and Hispanic mothers within hospitals as well as within freestanding birthing centers (2; Declercq 325). 229

Alicia D. Bonaparte

So, why were white women during this time period not the main recipients of midwifery care in hospitals; yet, they later became its main proponents and recipients within homebirth settings? Scholars again point to the critical role of contemporary social movements in explaining these shifts in midwife-attendant choices and how they occur in a racialized and classed context. In 2008, the Big Push for Midwives (BPM) movement – organized primarily by white homebirth mothers – advocated for more autonomous decision-making for women for their birth settings and birth attendant. BPM organizers sought “legal access to certified professional midwives (CPMs) [and] national certification for direct-entry midwives (DEM)” (Craven 1). In 2009, midwives and consumer groups supporting midwives formed the Midwives and Mothers in Action (MAMA) campaign – this campaign’s central focus was for federal recognition of CPMs. Davis Floyd delineates how the presence of midwives in reproductive health care allows women or birthing parents to have autonomy in their maternity care options (47). Rothman concurs and argues that midwifery care is a form of feminist praxis that honors the natural logistics of birthing (116). However, such autonomous choices are mitigated by: a birthing parent’s authoritative knowledge about their body, values, and beliefs in addition to how practitioners respect that knowledge (Edwards 89). Consequently, shifts in midwife-attended births continue to be gradual.

Current issues and topics Current maternal health researchers indicate despite gradual increases in out-of-hospital births and homebirths since the 1990s (Bernhard et al. 160), the legacy of pathology associated with out-of-hospital births perpetuates the trend of birthing parents’ primary utilization of hospital settings for their births in the United States ( Jansen et al. 377). Some cite the predominance of hospital births despite the availability of midwifery care persists due to an information gap about the absence of information associated with home births and birthing centers (Bernhard et al. 160). Despite an increase in midwife-attended out-of-hospital births from 1990 to 2000, state-tostate laws also govern the variation of out-of-hospital births (Declercq 326) due to the paternalistic and corporate role of insurance companies in reproductive health care (Bonaparte, “The Satisfactory Midwife Bag” 178). Various scholars disagree about why birthing parents choose midwifery services and whether wealth and race contribute to birth attendant choice or if it is a completely different confluence of factors at play such as Medicaid and private insurance. Galotti et al. contend that choosing a midwife-attended birth is directly linked to familiarity with information about birth attendance, autonomous decision-making, and appreciation of alternative birth philosophies (325). Kozhimannil et al. find similar rationales for choosing a midwife-attended birth and include birthing parents’ appreciation for the patient-provider communication patterns of midwifery care (1611). Weisband et al. contend that the role of patientprovider communication is a highly influential factor on choosing a midwife, especially when those communication patterns allow for greater autonomy rather than class (90). These studies allude to the role of health literacy. Health literacy is “the personal, cognitive, and social skills which determine the ability of individuals to gain access to, understand, and use information to promote and maintain good health” (Nutbeam 261). Nutbeam as well as Fiscella and Williams observe that poor people and people of color tend to have lower levels of health literacy in comparison to other wealthier and less marginalized groups due to restricted educational attainment via race and class (1140). These marginalized birthing parents cannot necessarily choose midwifery care. As Craven finds “white consumer power often resonates with middle-class and affluent homebirths [and] has 230

Midwifery in historical and contemporary perspective

been less applicable to the low-income families seeking midwifery care, who frequently have far fewer choices in their reproductive healthcare” (3). These constraints work in tandem with a cost-prohibitive reproductive health care marketplace.

Drivers for cost-prohibitive maternity care Insurance prohibitions within maternity care drive costs exponentially. Another contributor is corporatization in medicine where “insurance companies determine whether midwifery care is covered” to a point in which some hospitals that “primarily used midwives for prenatal and postnatal care” are shut down (Bonaparte, “The Satisfactory Midwife Bag” 178). Furthermore, insurance companies do not bundle services making patients pay more for each individual service they receive (Rosenthal, “American Way of Birth”). The 2013 Truven report reveals that between 2004 and 2010, “the prices that insurers paid for childbirth . . . rose 49 percent for vaginal births and 41 percent for Caesarean sections in the United States, with average out-ofpocket costs rising fourfold” (7). And, fearing malpractice, medical professionals engage in overzealous interventions known as “defensive medicine” (Anderson 2399). This defensive medicine in maternal health care is a consequence of the perpetual pathologization of birth thereby causing even normal pregnancies to receive a large amount of necessary and unnecessary procedures, increasing the cost of maternity care (Rosenthal, “Getting Insurance”). “Home and out-of-hospital birth is the subject [of] ongoing controversy in the United States” thanks to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 2007 policy statement opposing home birth due to safety concerns” (MacDorman and Menacker 6). This statement supported by an AMA 2008 resolution directly contrasted with the World Health Organization, the American College of Nurse Midwives, and the American Public Health Association’s arguments supporting home and out-of-hospital births (6).

Current research on black maternal outcomes due to birth attendant choices The year 2018 marks continued attacks on women’s access to reproductive health care and a renewed interest in black women’s maternal health care outcomes as evidenced by the publication of Battling Over Birth: Black Women & The Maternal Health Care Crisis authored by ­co-founders of Black Women Birthing Justice (an Oakland-based birthing justice advocacy organization) as well as journalists Nina Martin and Renee Montagne’s ProPublica piece, “Nothing Protects Black Women from Dying in Pregnancy and Childbirth.” Battling Over Birth adroitly details via “recorded narratives and collected questionnaires” the highly vulnerable and fear-inducing birthing conditions that black women face (Oparah et al 12). Predominantly, black women face the following: “birth as a battle,” “the culture of fear and coercion,” “inadequate prenatal care,” “unnecessary and unwanted medical interventions” and “barriers to access to doula and midwifery care,” “inadequate postpartum support,” and “pressures undermining breastfeeding” (13–16). Martin and Montagne’s article echoes many of the points exposed in Battling Over Birth including “black mothers are three to four times more likely to die in pregnancy or childbirth than their white counterparts; black babies are 49 percent more likely to be born prematurely and twice as likely to perish before their first birthdays” (“Nothing Protects Black Women”, www.propublica.org). Sadly, these pieces point to what Dominguez illustrates: black maternal health outcomes have not improved significantly over the past few decades (360). Martin’s more recent article notes that midwives are a reasonable way to work to progressively address these outcomes (“A Larger Role for Midwives”). 231

Alicia D. Bonaparte

Yet, Oparah and Black Women Birthing Justice illuminate that race and SES influence why poor and birthing parents of color tend to have less authoritative knowledge in clinical settings (5). Such restrictions faced by black birthing parents explicate the preponderance of white middle- and upper-class women using CMs and CNMs. However, other contributors direct black women and poorer women in the US South away from midwife-attended births.

Southern black women choose doctors over midwives Jennie Joseph, midwife-activist for poor women and women of color and founder of the JJWay©2 finds within her activism that black women in Florida bought into the idea that midwives were alternative practitioners and less skilled compared to obstetricians and gynecologists thanks to negative myths and superstitions within anti-midwife advocacy campaigns and legislation (183). These beliefs in conjunction with issues associated with state regulations, insurance access, and the cost of maternity care further complicate choosing a midwife-attended birth.

Directions for future research Birthing work occurs within racial and classed social contexts alongside the persistence of reproductive racial health disparities predicated upon inadequate access to care and racial bias as evidenced by the experiences of black birthing parents. The nuanced complexities within the viability of midwife-attended births for women of color may have some progressive resolutions. More quality improvements are needed to mitigate disparities linked to racism and socioeconomic status. These quality improvements include: the practice of culturally competent care, health education and promotion materials geared towards increasing health literacy and autonomy among people of color and doubly marginalized groups, as well as further education about the benefits of midwifery care. Midwifery scholars could also explore how and what interventions can impede or reduce reproductive health disparities that increase opportunities for women of color to choose midwife-attended birthing settings. For example, how likely will alliances between CMS, ­ CNMS, and practicing OB/GYNs shift the landscape for bettering the birthing conditions for women of color? How do race, class, and gender impact the feasibility of these alliances? Can these alliances supersede or change the more technocratic models of birthing? How can hospitals and community health clinics embrace less technocratic models of birth in spite of influential insurance compensation rules/policies? In what ways can insurance companies be held accountable for their policies that negatively impact how birthing parents of color choose birthing attendants? And, what potentially resulting legislative reforms within insurance coverage would foment greater permissiveness of midwifery practice? Resolving these questions would provide sufficient fodder for midwifery scholars.

Further reading Bonaparte, Alicia D. “The Satisfactory Midwife Bag: Midwifery Regulation in South Carolina, Past and Present Considerations” Social Science History, vol. 38, nos. 1–2, 2014, pp. 155–82. Craven, Christa. Pushing for Midwives: Homebirth Mothers and the Reproductive Rights Movement. Temple UP, 2010. Davis Floyd, Robbie. Birth as an American Right of Passage. U of California P, 2003. Ginsburg, Faye D., and Rayna Rapp, editors. Conceiving the New World Order: The Global Politics of Reproduction. U of California P, 1995.

232

Midwifery in historical and contemporary perspective Martin, Nina. “A Larger Role for Midwives Could Improve Deficient U.S. Care for Mothers and Babies.” ProPublica, 2018, www.propublica.org/article/midwives-study-maternal-neonatal-care. Accessed 13 Mar. 2018. Martin, Nina, and Renee Montagne. “Nothing Protects Black Women from Dying in Pregnancy and Childbirth.” ProPublica, 7 Dec. 2017, www.propublica.org/article/nothing-protects-black-womenfrom-dying-in-pregnancy-and-childbirth. Accessed 12 Jan. 2018. Oparah, Julia Chinyere, and Alicia D. Bonaparte, editors. Birthing Justice: Black Women, Pregnancy, and Childbirth. Routledge, 2015. Oparah, Julia Chinyere, et al. Battling Over Birth: Black Women and the Maternal Health Care Crisis. Praeclarus Press, 2018.

Conclusion One organization seeking to continue the culture of black midwives is the National Black Midwives Alliance (NBMA) (blackmidwivesalliance.org). Embedded within the NBMA’s mission is that midwifery care promotes the understanding that birthing is a natural occurrence and allows for birthing parents to have choices regarding their birthing setting. Additionally, midwifery care can mitigate maternity costs while also providing culturally competent care to eradicate racial health disparities and fulfill the Millennium Development Maternal Health Goals of lowering maternal and infant mortality rates (Wagstaff and Claeson xi). Midwife-attended births provide opportunities for birthing parents to move away from the ways in which race, class, and gender negatively influence health care experiences and make way for affordable, supportive, and autonomous birthing settings. The recent social media campaign #BlackWomenMaternalHealthWeek highlights that scholars and maternal health care advocates continue to seek more effective interventions, so that black birthing parents can have better birthing experiences and eradicate the social inequities faced in clinical and/or hospital birthing settings (https://blackmamasmatter.org/bmhw/). What is of further import is that Dr. Haywood Brown and other physicians representing the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Action group recently met at the Congressional Leadership Conference with black maternal health care advocates like Elizabeth Dawes-Gay and the organization Black Mamas Matter (www.acog.org/Advocacy/Congressional-LeadershipConference). This meeting and subsequent state congressional leaders agreeing to fight against infant and maternal mortality signals more progressive steps and the onset of tailored interventions for black birthing parents.

Notes 1 Ergot is a fungus used in early obstetrical practice. 2 “The JJWay© aims not only to diminish and ultimately eradicate health disparities but also to create a community of support for the black birthing woman and all disenfranchised women” (Bonaparte and Joseph 184).

Works cited American College of Nurse-Midwives. “Fact Sheet: CNM/CM-Attended Birth Statistics in the United States.” American College of Nurse Midwives, Mar. 2016, www.midwife.org/acnm/files/ccLibraryFiles/ Filename/000000005950/CNM-CM-AttendedBirths-2014-031416FINAL.pdf. 2016. Accessed 17 Dec. 2017. Anderson, Richard E. “Billions for Defense: The Pervasive Nature of Defensive Medicine.” Archives of Internal Medicine, vol. 159, no. 20, 1999, pp. 2399–402.

233

Alicia D. Bonaparte Baer, Hans A., and Yvonne Jones. African Americans in the South: Issues of Race, Class, and Gender. U of Georgia P, 1992. Bernhard, Casey, et al. “Home Birth After Hospital Birth: Women’s Choices and Reflections.” Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health, vol. 59, no. 2, 2014, pp. 160–66. Black Mamas Matter. “Black Maternal Health Week.” https://blackmamasmatter.org/bmhw/. Accessed 26 Mar. 2018. Black Midwives Alliance. “Power.” https://blackmidwivesalliance.org/power. Accessed 26 Mar. 2018. Bonaparte, Alicia D. The Persecution and Prosecution of the Granny Midwife in South Carolina, 1900–1940. 2007. Vanderbilt University, PhD dissertation. ———. “The Satisfactory Midwife Bag: Midwifery Regulation in South Carolina, Past and Present Considerations.” Social Science History, vol. 38, nos. 1–2, 2014, pp. 155–82. ———. “Physicians’ Discourse for Establishing Authoritative Knowledge in Birthing Work and Reducing the Presence of the Granny Midwife.” Journal of Historical Sociology, vol. 28, no. 2, 2014, pp. 166–94. Bonaparte, Alicia D., and Jennie Joseph. “Becoming an Outsider-Within: Jennie Joseph’s Activism in Florida Midwifery.” Birthing Justice: Black Women, Pregnancy, and Childbirth, edited by Julia Chinyere Oparah and Alicia D. Bonaparte, Routledge, 2015, pp. 176–86. Breckenridge, Mary. Wide Neighborhoods: A Story of the Frontier Nursing Service. UP of Kentucky, 1981. Brown, Ras Michael. “Walk in the Feenda: West-Central Africans and the Forest in the South CarolinaGeorgia Lowcountry.” Central Africans and Cultural Transformations in the American Diaspora, edited by Hans A. Baer and Yvonne Jones, Cambridge UP, 2002, pp. 289–317. Colen, Shellee. “Like a Mother to Them: Stratified Reproduction and West Indian Childcare Workers and Employers in New York.” Conceiving the New World Order: The Global Politics of Reproduction. U of California P, 1995, pp. 78–102. Congressional Leadership Conference. “The Congressional Leadership Conference (CLC): The President’s Conference.” www.acog.org/Advocacy/Congressional-Leadership-Conference. Accessed 21 Mar. 2018. Craven, Christa. Pushing for Midwives: Homebirth Mothers and the Reproductive Rights Movement. Temple UP, 2010. Davis, Sheila P. and Cora A. Ingram. “Empowered Caretakers: A Historical Perspective on the Roles of Granny Midwives in Rural Alabama.” Wings of Gauze: Women of Color and the Experience of Health and Illness, edited by Barbara Bair and Susan E. Cayleff, Wayne State UP, 1993, pp. 191–201. Davis Floyd, Robbie. Birth as An American Right of Passage. U of California P, 2003. Declercq, Eugene. “Trends in Midwife-Attended Births in the United States, 1989–2009.” Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health, vol. 57, no. 4, 2012, pp. 321–26. Dominguez, Tyan Parker. “Race, Racism, and Racial Disparities in Adverse Birth Outcomes.” Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 51, no. 2, 2008, pp. 360–70. Edwards, Nadine Pilley. Birthing Autonomy: Women’s Experiences of Planning Home Births. Routledge, 2005. Fiscella, Kevin, and David Williams. “Health Disparities Based on Socioeconomic Inequities: Implications for Urban Health Care.” Academic Medicine, vol. 79, no. 12, 2004, pp. 1139–47. Galotti, Kathleen M., et al. “Midwife or Doctor: A Study of Pregnant Women Making Delivery Decisions.” Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health, vol. 45, no. 4, 2000, pp. 320–29. Gaskin, Ina May. “Editorial.” Birth Gazette, vol. 10, no. 1, 1993, p. 2. Giddings, Paula. When and Where I Enter: The Impact of Black Women on Race and Sex in America. Morrow, 1994. Ginsburg, Faye D., and Rayna Rapp, editors. Conceiving the New World Order: The Global Politics of Reproduction. U of California P, 1995. Holmes, Linda Janet. “Midwives, Southern Black.” Encyclopedia of Childbearing: Critical Perspectives, edited by Barbara Katz Rothman, Oryx Press, 1992, pp. 258–60. Kozhimannil, Katy B., et al. “Midwifery Care and Patient – Provider Communication in Maternity Decisions in the United States.” Maternal and Child Health Journal, vol. 19, no. 7, 2015, pp. 1608–15. Lay, Mary M. The Rhetoric of Midwifery: Gender, Knowledge, and Power. Rutgers UP, 2000. Leavitt, Judith Walzer. “Science Enters the Birthing Room: Obstetrics in America Since the Eighteenth Century.” The Journal of American History, vol. 70, no. 2, 1983, pp. 281–304. MacDorman, Marian F., et al. “Trends and Characteristics of Home and Other Out of-Hospital Births in the United States, 1990–2006.” National Vital Statistics Reports: From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System, vol. 58, no. 11, 2010, pp. 1–14.

234

Midwifery in historical and contemporary perspective Martin, Nina, and Renee Montagne. “Nothing Protects Black Women from Dying in Pregnancy and Childbirth.” ProPublica, 7 Dec. 2017, www.propublica.org/article/nothing-protects-black-womenfrom-dying-in-pregnancy-and-childbirth. Accessed 12 Jan. 2018. Nutbeam, Don. “Health Literacy as a Public Health Goal: A Challenge for Contemporary Health Education and Communication Strategies into the 21st Century.” Health Promotion International, vol. 15, nos. 1, 3, 2000, pp. 259–67. Oparah, Julia Chinyere, and Black Women Birthing Justice. “Beyond Coercion and Malign Neglect: Black Women and the Struggle for Birth Justice.” Birthing Justice: Black Women, Pregnancy, and Childbirth, edited by Julia Chinyere Oparah and Alicia D. Bonaparte, Routledge, 2015, pp. 1–18. Oparah, Julia Chinyere, et al. Battling Over Birth: Black Women and the Maternal Health Care Crisis. Praeclarus Press, 2018. Parker, Jennifer D. “Ethnic Differences in Midwife-Attended US Births.” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 84, nos. 7, 1994. pp. 1139–1141. Rosenthal, Elisabeth. “American Way of Birth, Costliest in the World.” New York Times, 1 July 2013, www.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/health/american-way-of-birth-costliest-in-the-world.html. Accessed 25 Nov. 2017. ———. “Getting Insurance to Pay for Midwives.” New York Times, 3 July 2013, https://well.blogs.nytimes. com/2013/07/03/getting-insurance-to-pay-for-midwives. Accessed 21 Nov. 2017. Rothman, Barbara Katz. Recreating Motherhood. Rutgers UP, 2000. Starr, Paul. The Social Transformation of Medicine. Basic Books, 1982. Truven Health Analytics. “The Cost of Having a Baby in the United States.” Truven Health Analytics MarketScan© Study, 2013, http://transform.childbirthconnection.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ Cost-of-Having-a-Baby1.pdf. Accessed 25 Nov. 2017. Varney, Helen and Joyce Beebe Thompson. A History of Midwifery in the United States: The Midwife Said Fear Not. Springer Publishing, 2015. Wagstaff, Adam, and Mariam Claeson. The Millennium Development Goals for Health: Rising to the Challenges. The World Bank, 2004. Weisband, Yiska Loewenberg, et al. “Who Uses a Midwife for Prenatal Care and for Birth in the United States? A Secondary Analysis of Listening to Mothers III.” Women’s Health Issues, vol. 28, no. 1, 2018, pp. 89–96. Weitz, Rose and Deborah Sullivan. “Midwife Licensing.” Encyclopedia of Childbearing: Critical Perspectives, edited by Barbara Katz Rothman. The Onyx Press, 1992, pp. 245–247.

235

19 MOTHERS IN PRISON Matricentric feminist criminology Sinead O’Malley

John Lonergan, Governor of Mountjoy Prison for 22 years, writes, “I apologize to nobody when I say my ultimate admiration is for mothers. There is something distressing about seeing mothers locked up in prison and their children outside” (142). As Lonergan reveals, mothering from prison is a distinct and painful prison experience. John Lonergan, a retired governor of the largest mixed gender prison complex in Ireland, had the unique and rare position to observe all prisoner types and incarceration experiences over three decades. And while men constituted approximately 97% of the prisoner population during his period in office, the subgroup of mothers (within the subgroup of females) acquired his ultimate respect and recognition. Why? Because of the inimitable trauma that imprisonment invokes upon incarcerated mothers. Notwithstanding this, the management of penal institutions and the overall discourse on crime has primarily and historically focused on male issues as the majority population, often misrepresenting the underlining causes and effects of offending and imprisonment for incarcerated mothers globally. In the background and context section, this chapter discusses the inception of feminist criminology as a necessary development and, through a matricentric feminist lens, evidences the gendered political agenda which questions the legitimacy of imprisonment for this vulnerable group of mothers. The following section of this chapter, critical issues and topics, draws attention to research and literature on the hardships imprisoned mothers specifically are challenged with, and arguably the single biggest concern for incarcerated mothers: the complex nature of contact with their babies and older children. The overarching principle of the chapter is to present current and topical research on the maternal experience of incarceration, showcasing the matricentric strand within feminist criminology; therefore, providing mothers with their own space within the broader field of feminist criminological literature.

Background and context Accurate contemporary statistics on the number of imprisoned mothers is hard to come by. This is in part, as argued by other academics (Flynn, “Waiting for Mum”; Minson et al.; Baldwin and Epstein), due to the fact that much research precludes incarcerated mothers of children over 18 years of age and, in part, because most prison establishments do not collate or release such information. Nevertheless, a recent Irish national study conducted by O’Malley (“Motherhood, 236

Matricentric feminist criminology

Mothering”) found that 78% of female prisoners are mothers, of which 27% of the children of the incarcerated mothers were over 18 years. While the first prison built exclusively for females was built in Amsterdam in 1645, it wasn’t until the early nineteenth century that separate prisons were established for women across Europe and the United States. Prior to this, convicted females were abandoned to penal labour colonies or housed alongside men in corrupt and dilapidated correctional houses or jails without due concern for their welfare or safety (Zedner; Clear, Cole, and Reisig). Alongside the development of female penitentiaries was the arrival of prison nurseries, marking the most visible distinction between male and female nineteenth-century penal institutions. Initially, incarcerated mothers would usually keep their children with them until the end of their sentence, and, as explained by Lucia Zedner, many mothers benefited from the basic living resources provided within the prison, resources which these mothers oftentimes lacked in the community. However, concerns grew for the cognitive and social development of the child, particularly the influence of criminality. This led to a movement whereby mothers frequently resigned (often under coercion) their maternal rights, which led to the separation from their children, who were regularly subsequently sent to other industrial or religious institutions (Zedner, 307). To the benefit of incarcerated mothers, during this era, middle-class Quakers and Christian philanthropic women became very active in providing support services within prisons (Zedner). Elizabeth Fry was one of the most prolific international advocates for female prison reform in the nineteenth century, advocating – among many things – for community-based alternatives to be used in lieu of the formal prison system where possible (Zedner; Clear et al.). Alternative formal and informal institutions were available throughout Europe and the United States; as Smith notes, the first “asylum for fallen women,” called the Magdalen Society of Philadelphia, opened in the United States in 1800 (qtd. in McAleese 36). However, by the late nineteenth century, such institutions were widespread; approximately 300 Magdalen Laundries were in operation in the United Kingdom, for example. In addition, as Pat Carlen notes in “Law, Psychiatry and Women’s Imprisonment” and Lisa Hackett in “Working with Women and Mothers Experiencing Mental Distress,” the shadowy use of asylums for the mentally insane and those women cast from society unfortunately became too familiar. Subsequently, other forms of coercive confinement became customary: female prisons began to close, and courts frequently used such institutions as an alternative to prison well into the twentieth century (Baldwin, Mothering Justice; McAleese; Quinlan; Zedner). However, as women’s rights and the feminist movement emerged on the political agenda during the mid-twentieth century, welfare reform had an interestingly diminishing effect on the use of such institutions. Mothers who received some form of social welfare income support were able to keep their children. Prior to this, maternal crimes were often poor moral crimes (i.e., infanticide and stealing) and reflective of the times of social hostility and the lack of social welfare support for single unwed mothers. As stealing for survival among poor mothers mostly dissolved, the Laundries and institutions lost their captive supply and began to close their doors (IPRT and KHF; O’Malley, “A Mother Is Serving Her Sentence”). However, the twenty-first century saw yet another turn in the criminalisation and incarceration of mothers. Today women constitute the fastest growing prison population; while the world prison population has risen by 20% since 2000, the global number of incarcerated females has increased by over 50% within the same timeframe (Walmsley; Golden). Feminist criminologist Christina Quinlan concluded that the increasing willingness to imprison women is related to a need to maintain the patriarchal order, which is managed and implemented through the relentless so-called war on drugs (also see Golden). 237

Sinead O’Malley

It is now recognised that incarcerated women and mothers exhibit substance dependencies, which are often more acute compared to their male counterparts, frequently presenting as the underline cause for their criminality and imprisonment (Cain and Gross; Kilty and Dej; Elwood Martin et al., Arresting Hope). Research argues that the rise of female incarceration is due to social policies and judicial practices, which seek to punish or ignore challenges related to unresolved and ongoing trauma and adversity incarcerated mothers face in society and their often interlinked challenges with substance misuse, as opposed to promoting gender-informed responses to the root causes of crime and drug treatment and rehabilitation programmes (Costello; Minson et al.; Golden). Moreover, due to the nature of such crimes, sentences are often short which do not permit time for mothers to properly immerse in prison-based rehabilitative programmes before the cycle of release, possible homelessness, addiction, and re-entry begins again (Golden; Aiello; Unnasch; Kilty and Dej). Nevertheless, as a result of the increase in female incarceration, the distinct gendered needs of female prisoners and how mothers manage and are managed within and across the wider criminal and social justice institutions gained international, political, and scholarly attention (Carlen, “Mothers in Prison”; Enos; Flynn, “Waiting for Mum”; Carmody and McEvoy; Smart). Prior to the twenty-first century, mother’s crimes were predominantly poor gendered crimes such as stealing, fraud, infanticide, and prostitution, and early criminologists theorised female criminality as the product of “presumed” female characteristics, i.e., dishonesty, promiscuity, or insanity (Hackett, in Baldwin Mothering Justice; Zedner; Lonergan; Carlen, “Law, Psychiatry and Women’s Imprisonment”). However, the development of feminist criminology in the 1970s challenged this conventional understanding, attacking the dominant and accepted sexual and cultural stereotyping of offending women and mothers. Feminist criminology was initially advanced by sociologist Carol Smart within Women, Crime and Criminology: A Feminist Critique. While it remains true that women commit far fewer crimes and crimes that are predominately nonviolent and gendered, Smart still argued that all previous criminological theories did not address women’s distinct pathways into crime nor explain well enough their particular offences. Subsequent and complementary work by Pat Carlen explored how offending women are depicted as evil women who transgress both social and gendered norms, as Gordana Eljdupovic and Rebecca Jaremko Bromwich assert, “incarcerated mothers are ‘doubly stigmatised’ or ‘double odd’. They are where most of the women are not or should not be. They are in jail, like men” (1). Such transgressions of social and gendered norms are now referred to, in feminist criminology, as the “double deviance” phenomenon (Masson; Baldwin, Mothering Justice). Smart and Carlen ignited a debate into the ignorance of earlier criminological theories which ignored the specific economic, cultural, and class challenges women and mothers face within society. Previously overlooked areas of enquiry, such as “Why do women, who’s economic position is generally worse than men’s – commit far fewer crimes?” and “How do mothers experience incarceration differently?” became a focus for discussion for the first time.

Matricentric feminism In refining the matricentric feminist (O’Reilly) strand within criminology, O’Malley’s (“Motherhood, Mothering”) participatory research with incarcerated mothers drew from motherhood scholars such as Adrienne Rich, Sara Ruddick, Andrea O’Reilly, and Nancy Chodorow and focused on how patriarchy “polices all women’s mothering and results in the pathologizing of those who do not or cannot perform normative motherhood’ (O’Reilly 19). Moreover, Sophie Feintuch theorises that motherhood itself is used a source of control. For instance, the structure and programme of prison nurseries “(re)produce a white, Western, middle-class idealized vision 238

Matricentric feminist criminology

of motherhood and rehabilitation – which is inconsistent with the background of most of the imprisoned women” (73). Regardless that the vast majority of mother’s crimes are completely unrelated to the love and care they provide their children, synergies between “bad mothering,” intensive mothering ideologies, and the imprisoned mother have been explored by various commentators in this area (Enos; Granja et al.; Aiello). Through the direct voices of imprisoned mothers, Talia Esnard and Kimberly Okpala theorise how structural marginalisation and inequalities – which ultimately provides the bedrock for intensive mothering ideologies – impact on mothering both before and during incarceration. Moreover, scholars such as Gordana Eljdupovic, Rebecca Jaremko Bromwich, and Lucy Baldwin (Mothering Justice) provide a matricentric focus on how incarcerated mothers are pathologised, scrutinised, criminalised, and ultimately judged as bad mothers for not subscribing to idealised motherhood often projected on them via patriarchy; “Incarcerated mothers are not doing what social expectations dictate that ‘good’ mothers should do; they are not providing daily care to their children. Rather, they are separated from their children, leaving them in the care of someone else, often a stranger” (Eljdupovic and Jaremko Bromwich 1).

Gendered political agenda As the matricentric theoretical and literature focus on imprisonment developed, so did the gendered political agenda. This political shift began to address, for the first time, the ways in which women, mothers, and maternal issues had been historically ignored. This agenda finally rendered the rights and needs of imprisoned mothers as visible and essential. The agenda of this gender politics acknowledged the unique challenges faced by incarcerated mothers as distinct from other prisoner groups, via national, European, and international treaties. For instance, Rule 19 of European Prison Rules (2006) outlines the sanitation requirements for pregnant and breastfeeding mothers; Rule 36 asserts infants should be supported to stay with their imprisoned mother for as long as it is determined in the child’s best interest, and, where separation must occur, then “the parental authority of the mother, if it has not been removed, should be recognised”; Rule 36 also states special accommodation should be set aside for mothers and babies, and there must be a nursery and trained staff to care for the infant while the mothers participates in other activities. Finally European Prison Rules (2006) subsequently inserted Rule 34, a dedicated section recognising the specific gendered needs of women, by acknowledging that “women prisoners are particularly likely to have suffered physical, mental or sexual abuse prior to imprisonment” (Council of Europe). However, one of the most significant international instruments is The United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-Custodial Measures for Women Offenders (otherwise referred to as “Bangkok Rules”), introduced and adopted by the United Nations in 2010. Bangkok Rules provide the first set of UN rules specifically geared towards the needs of women offenders/prisoners. While many of the Bangkok Rules span across areas of pregnancy, work, childcare, childbirth, Rule 64, which recommends non-custodial sentences for mothers of dependent children, is most widely referenced. Non-custodial sentences for pregnant women and women with dependent children shall be preferred where possible and appropriate, with custodial sentences being considered when the offence is serious or violent or the woman represents a continuing danger, and after taking into account the best interests of the child or children, while ensuring that appropriate provision has been made for the care of such children. (United Nations) 239

Sinead O’Malley

However, while such international treaties are beginning to bed down, the voices of mothers sought out via matricentric feminist criminological research reflects that this is often political rhetoric rather a genuine agenda to reform local practice and policy. For instance, as initially argued for by Elizabeth Fry, and recommended again in Bangkok Rules, one of the most prominent topical debates is whether mothers should be imprisoned in the first place. Yet the reality is, as evidenced earlier, the number of mothers being given custodial sentences is consistently and relentlessly increasing (Feintuch; Golden). The premise of the argument for non-custodial sentencing of mother offenders is often based on the fact that prison does not work (Moore and Scraton; Baldwin, “Mothers in Prison”); it does not reduce recidivism; in fact O’Malley (“Motherhood, Mothering”) found that mothers are statistically more likely to be readmitted into prison compared to non-mothers. Moreover, much international research has recently focused on the ineptness and detrimental impact of short sentences on incarcerated mothers, which mothers are statistically more likely to receive due to their predominately low-level crimes (Elwood Martin et al., “Primary Health Care”; Masson). The premise of the concerns regarding short sentences is that even though short, evidence has shown they have the potential to have long-term, even life-long and intergenerational negative effects on the mothers and her children. One example is that mothers tend to lose their homes within 42 days of being in prison (Reilly), and the catastrophic implications of that reality on the mother and her children, a statistic not reflected in research on father prisoners. This difference is due to the fact that incarcerated mothers are more often lone mothers (Feintuch; Esnard and Okpala; Minson et al.), whereas children of incarcerated fathers tend to be cared for in their own homes by their mothers while the father serves out his sentence. Finally, incarceration is an expensive business. The Prison Reform Trust in the United Kingdom reported that the cost of imprisoning mothers for nonviolent offences is estimated at more than £17 million over 10 years (Minson et al.). Several academics and penal reform advocates argue that such an investment would be better stretched across early intervention services and alternatives to custody (Minson et al.; Mulcahy and Quinlan). Such gender-responsive services would recognise the overwhelming challenges these mothers face with their poverty and substance misuse, addictions which are often interrelated with experiences of unmanaged past and ongoing trauma and mental and maternal ill health (Baldwin et al.). For instance, in the United States, housing a mother in Riker’s Island costs $60,000 a year compared to $18,000 a year for a drug treatment centre (Golden). In Canada, the average annual cost per prisoner is $115,000 compared to $18,000 for community based parole and probation supervision (The John Howard Society of Canada). In Ireland, the Probation Service funds the community-based women’s centres, and the average annual cost of supervising a Probation Order in the community is €5,000, compared to a colossal €65,542 per year per prisoner (O’Malley and Devaney, “Supporting Incarcerated Mothers”). Central to this discussion, as alluded to earlier, is the collateral damage of imprisonment: aside from homelessness, the disruption to relationships and loss of mother-child attachments is of huge concern – having serious and direct implications for their children, referred to in the literature as the “orphans of justice” (Flynn et al.). Research has shown that relationships with children never fully recover when a mother is given a custodial sentence (Baldwin, “Motherhood Disrupted”). However, those mothering through adversity are often implicitly blamed and labelled as bad mothers, accused by “the systems” of not achieving the best for their children regardless of the explicit challenges they face and the overall lack of support from those same systems to address the issue of offending, trauma, and addiction through an alternative rehabilitative lens outside of the formal penal system (Eljdupovic and Jaremko Bromwich; Neale and Lopez; Esnard and Okpala). 240

Matricentric feminist criminology

Critical issues and topics Trauma, mental health, and addiction Feminist criminology acknowledges the role that trauma has played in the life course of the many women who end up in the prison system (Smart; Chamberlen; Barnes and Stringer), while matricentric feminist criminologists have worked hard to draw out what this means in relation to the imprisoned mothers’ experience of motherhood and mothering (Baldwin, Mothering Justice; Enos). The empirical and statistical link between trauma and incarceration is now confirmed (Shamai and Kochal; Cain and Gross; Elwood Martin et al., Arresting Hope; Neale and Lopez; Ashton et al.). Research has found that the lifetime prevalence rates of severe violence (in childhood by child carers and in adulthood by intimate partners) experienced particularly by imprisoned mothers far exceeds all those acts of abuse reported by women in the general public (Brown et al.). Imprisoned mothers are four times more likely to have experienced rape compared to imprisoned fathers (Burgess-Proctor et al.) and nearly half of women in prison are victims of domestic abuse (Masson). Empirical research on the subgroup of imprisoned mothers found that they faced acute challenges due to situations of domestic violence, preand post-imprisonment, because of their motherhood and mothering responsibilities, which is then exasperated by the incarceration experience (Baldwin and Epstein; Minson et al.; Neale and Lopez; Carlen, “Mothers in Prison”). Moreover, incarcerated mothers are more likely to experience intergenerational and inter-familial incarceration compared to incarcerated fathers (Dallaire, “Incarcerated Mothers and Fathers”), and imprisonment has been identified as a route to lone motherhood and homelessness (IPRT and KHF), presenting challenges in regaining custody of children post release (O’Malley, “Motherhood, Mothering”; Baldwin and Epstein), such discourse which is absent in studies regarding imprisoned fathers. In addition, there are distinct differences between imprisoned mothers’ and fathers’ experiences of seeking childcare during their custodial sentences. Children of imprisoned fathers are more frequently cared for in their own homes by their own mothers (Dallaire, “Children with Incarcerated Mothers”; Minson et al.), whereas children of incarcerated mothers mostly live out of home – either with other family members or placed into state foster care, often also experiencing sibling separation (Caddle et al.; Baldwin, “Mothers in Prison”). Subsequent to this, imprisoned mothers often rely on caregivers who have health and poverty-related challenges of their own, so these substitute caregivers are not always able to provide the ideal childcare environment (Hissel et al.). Considering the challenges imprisoned mothers are already faced with regarding their own, often unmanaged trauma, this cycle of intergenerational trauma and institutionalisation is pertinent to the overall debate and the unique challenges incarcerated mothers are faced with. Equally, poor mental well-being, suicide, and deliberate self-harm is of huge concern in relation to imprisoned mothers. Statistics show that 46% of incarcerated women in the United Kingdom have previously attempted suicide (Prison Reform Trust); 20% of female prisoners self-harm while serving their sentence, which is 30 times the rate of the general population (Chamberlen) and four times the rate of male prisoners (Ministry of Justice). Deliberate self-harm is acknowledged as a coping strategy for past and ongoing traumas, including, what is referred to in criminological literature as the “pains of imprisonment” (Chamberlen) as coined by criminologist Gresham Sykes. Ann Booker Loper and Elena Hontoria Tuerk argue that there is a direct link between the “pains of imprisonment” exerted via deliberate self-harm and suicide to the emotional pain incarcerated mothers feel resulting from being separated from their children. Certainly, literature on the pain and emotional turmoil 241

Sinead O’Malley

associated with the imprisoned mother’s separation from her children is often discussed as the most difficult aspect of her time in prison (Hairston; Arditti and Few). O’Malley (“Motherhood, Mothering”) found what primary caring mothers missed most was the physical presence of their children, along with performing mothering. Moreover, the emotional journey of reconnecting with children during and post imprisonment is just as challenging (Baldwin, “Motherhood Disrupted”). As highlighted by Loper and Tuerk, separation via imprisonment is distinct compared to other types of mother-child separation, as it is often enforced and therefore results in poor maternal emotional regulation under specific confined circumstances and heightened surveillance. While Sinead O’Malley (“A Mother Is Serving Her Sentence”) highlights some advances in staff training initiatives beneficial to incarcerated mothers, literature consistently reports on the lack of training and awareness among prison staff regarding the specific vulnerabilities of the mother prisoner population (CCPHE and UBC; Baldwin, Mothering Justice; Zust). Moreover, as Linda Moore and Phil Scraton impeccably highlight, imprisoned women who exhibit mental distress are often exposed to strategies, such as segregation and solitary confinement, which exasperate their psychological vulnerabilities. In response, the Guidelines for The Implementation of Mother-Child Units in Canadian Correctional Facilities (CCPHE and UBC) makes specific endorsements for trauma-informed care sensitive to the needs of incarcerated mothers and pregnant women recovering from past or managing ongoing trauma and the applied use of trauma-informed practice to address the substance use challenges imprisoned mothers face. The interconnectedness between trauma and addiction has long since been recognised and confirmed (Woods; Ashton et al.). Reflective of this, mothers in both Marguerite Wood and Sinead O’Malley’s (“Motherhood, Mothering”) study described severe and multiple childhood adversities and how substances were specifically used during motherhood to escape such difficult memories. As Woods explains, maternal stigma is magnified as substance-dependent mothers are viewed as putting their own needs before their children, which according to good mothering ideals (Granja et al.) is the epitome of bad mothering; “good mothers,” as the literature on intensive mothering asserts, must “always” put their children first (Aiello). Likewise, many mothers challenged with addictions acknowledge that they are viewed and judged by society as “dishonest” “bad mothers” (Woods). Most studies concerning maternal imprisonment, regardless of the research aims and objectives, will at least acknowledge substance misuse among this group of mothers, if not explicitly report its prevalence (Kilty and Dej; O’Malley (“Motherhood, Mothering”); Espinet et al.; Freudenberg et al.; Cain and Gross), or that mothers challenged with addictions and incarceration have significant family histories of substance misuse (Taylor et al.; Suchman et al.). The consumption and sale of illicit drugs has affected incarcerated mothers across the globe (Giacomello; Silva-Segovia). In Iran, for example, most imprisoned mothers are incarcerated for stealing invoked as a method of survival due their husband’s drug addiction and/or their subsequent divorce; they rarely consumed drugs themselves (Forooeddin Adl et al.; Rahimipour Anaraki and Boostani). Likewise, Talia Esnard and Kimberly Okpala in their work seeking the voices of incarcerated mothers in Trinidad and Tobago highlight that over half of the women of African descent were in prison for drug-related crimes (52%), followed by violent crimes (26%); while the opposite is true for East Indian women in the same prison population, half of whom are in prison for violent crimes (50%), followed by drug offences (27%). The primary reason for female imprisonment in Latin America is drug trafficking based on economic necessity (Silva-Segovia). Reflective of this is the strong representation of Latin American mothers in European prisons (Feintuch). Nonetheless, as Jimena Silva-Segovia clearly asserts, the institution of motherhood is 242

Matricentric feminist criminology

always challenged when it is a mother who is criminalised and incarcerated, regardless if she is a consumer, a vender, or challenged by adversity and poverty, or all the above. As a result of the recognised drug epidemic, many prison-based parenting programmes have a starting point that mothers have extensive histories with drug or alcohol addiction, which have impacted on their ability to mother (Aiello). Interestingly, maternal incarceration can however serve to alleviate some chaos associated with managing active addiction and can offer children of imprisoned mothers a period of relative stability (Burgess and Flynn; Burgess-Proctor et al.). Several studies (Aiello; Cartwright; Baldwin and Epstein; O’Malley “Motherhood, Mothering”) found (sometimes within their broader study) that prison can provide substance dependent mothers with “much needed clean-time and a chance to restore communication with children and child caregivers” (Aiello). Indeed, Sinead O’Malley (“Motherhood, Mothering”) found that mothers often used prison as a space of “respite and repair” to overcome long-term problematic drug use. Similarly, research has shown the opportunity to mother while in prison can potentially invite positive change (Kauffman; Shamai and Kochal).

Supporting mother-child bonds and contact? Babies in prison While it has been reported that 7% of women who go into prison in the United Kingdom are pregnant (McLaughlin et al.), US research claims that if those who have recently given birth are also considered, then the figure could be as high as 25% (Kubiak et al.). There are several international practices that support imprisoned mothers and babies to remain together, much of which is provided for via legislation to support of breastfeeding, often for children up to two to three years (Library of Congress). Examples of this include countries such as Ireland, the United Kingdom, Canada, Zimbabwe, Botswana, and Chile among many others (Matsika et al.; CCPHE and UBC; O’Malley and Devaney, “Maintaining the Mother”; Abbott, in Baldwin, Mothering Justice). Additionally, there are examples where time limits for babies have been flexible meaning babies can remain in prison with their mothers after the legal age limit (O’Malley and Baldwin). Programmes where incarcerated mothers are supported to keep their babies are commonly referred to as Mother and Baby Units (MBUs) or Prison Nursery Programmes (PNP) (Abbott; Byrne et al.). The overarching benefits of MBUs/PNP have been outlined by many commentators (Abbott; Sleed et al.; Baradon et al.; Byrne et al.; Campbell and Carlson). Custodial programmes focused on child-rearing not only have positive outcomes for the mother-baby relationship and the mother’s well-being but also assist in lowering recidivism (Burgess and Flynn). Moreover, mothers who engage with such programmes are more likely to sustain longterm relationships with their children (Kubiak et al.). Overall, the consensus is that MBUs/ PNP provide positive opportunities for mother-child bonding (Byrne), otherwise challenged in the community via chaotic lifestyles, strained or violent inter-partner relationships, substance misuse, poverty, or poor mental and maternal well-being (Baldwin, Mothering Justice). This is important, since women are twice as likely as male offenders to have experienced foster care as children (Gardiner et al.), therefore acknowledging the intergenerational cycle of disrupted maternal bonds which MBUs/PNP have the potential to break. Indeed, several criminological and psychological studies on MBUs/PNP have applied attachment theory, as coined by John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth, to the mother-child prison scenario (Baradon et al.; Cassidy et al.). However, a systematic review on attachment-focused policy and government publications in the United Kingdom found that, while attachment theory 243

Sinead O’Malley

infiltrated much of the discourse, most references were child-focused and hinged on the “best interest of the child” (Powell et al.). What this work ultimately confirms is that, while the trauma of mother-child separation is very much recognised in feminist criminology, such strong moral and child-focused arguments frequently overshadow the equal need for the mother to have a healthy balanced attachment with her child. However, matricentirc feminist research is beginning to emerge in this area. For example, Laura Abbott and Tricia Scott’s work on pregnancy and birth in prison found mother-baby bonding through breastfeeding while in prison was described as a “life-saving experience” by some of the mothers in their work. Regardless of the overall positive evidence on MBUs/PNP, unfortunately, it is not automatic protocol that imprisoned and postpartum mothers will keep their babies. While in some countries, Ireland and Africa, for instance (O’Malley, “A Mother Is Serving Her Sentence”; Matsika et al.), mothers are generally supported to keep their babies; other countries, such as the United Kingdom, Canada, and Scotland, do not automatically support this practice (Gardiner et al.; Abbott and Scott; McCormick et al.). In the United Kingdom, approximately 500 postnatal imprisoned mothers are separated from their babies each year (O’Malley and Baldwin), and one in every five babies are removed from their imprisoned mothers in Scotland (Gardiner et al.). Subsequently, many MBUs, for instance, in the United Kingdom and Canada, remain underutilised and are being closed (O’Malley and Baldwin; CCPHE and UBC). Reasons, again, often focus on the “child’s best interest” (CCPHE and UBC); however, it has been proven that decisions related to whether or not a mother can keep her baby are oftentimes realised by professionals who have rarely met the mother. The trauma of mother-child separation under such circumstances is acute (O’Malley et al). While imprisoned mothers endure poor mental health and well-being as a result of being separated from their babies (Byrne et al.), maternal depressive and mental health difficulties already present can be exasperated as a direct result of the mother-baby separation via imprisonment, particularly when separation occurs soon after birth: a time when postpartum mothers’ maternal well-being is ordinarily monitored and challenged regardless of additional challenges (Abbott; Powell et al.).

Visits, letters, and calls While literature provides examples where countries permit older children to reside with their mothers in prison (Library of Congress; Philbrick et al.), the reality remains that most mothers are separated from their children via incarceration. For those, mother-child contact is a contentious issue. Moral and rights-based debates occur regarding whether or not children should have contact with their incarcerated mother (Matsika et al.; Epstein). These initial debates are not independent of an additional layer of complex questions, which tend to be the focus of most contemporary research and literature: for instance, how is contact managed? Who supports dependent children to visit? How often is enough or too little? What are the conditions within which visits take place? (Burgess and Flynn; Flynn, “Getting There and Being There” Mignon and Ransford; Arditti). However, while this is not an exhaustive list of relevant questions, a smaller body of research reminds us that no matter what the conditions – or indeed if the perfect prison policy recipe exists – outcomes of mother-child prison visitation and contact are contingent on the context of individual mother-child relationships and the mothers formal and informal supports prior to, during, and post her imprisonment (O’Malley, “Motherhood, Mothering”). Often, prison visits and parenting programmes are utilised as a method to sustain meaningful contact between incarcerated mothers and their children (McLaughlin et al.). Where unique interventions are designed to increase the quality and frequency of mother-child contact via 244

Matricentric feminist criminology

imprisonment, it is difficult to source negative research. For example, increased mother-child prison visitation has shown to improve maternal depressive symptoms (Poehlmann) and improve empathy and parenting attitudes among imprisonment mothers (Loper and Tuerk). However, prison visitation is complex and not always possible. For example, O’Malley (“Motherhood, Mothering”) found that, while 90% of children of incarcerated mothers either lived with or had contact with their mother prior to her imprisonment, only 30% visited their mothers while she was in prison. A large-scale US study found that visits were in fact the least common way mothers sustained contact with their children (Glaze and Maruschak). The type of visit ultimately determines the potential benefits or negative outcomes of contact. Prison settings and facilities vary from full physical contact, to limited contact at the beginning and/or end of the visits, or screened visits (i.e., behind glass), all of which dictate the types of interactions mothers and children can have during visits (Poehlmann et al., “Children’s Contact With Their Incarcerated Parents”). Much research exists regarding the harmful nature of un-child-friendly prison visitation and how mothers are often reluctant to pursue or encourage their child to visit under such circumstances (Hairston; Arditti). Examples include harsh and disrespectful treatment by prison officers, which impact on the experience, the short visiting times, which restrict emotional mother-child connectivity or time to resolve complex issues (Arditti), and the journey children must endure to the prison, which is often long and costly (Hairston; Poehlmann et al., “Children’s Contact with Their Incarcerated Parents”; Martyn). Mother-child visitation is recurrently described as “bittersweet” (Arditti and Few; CaseyAcevedo et al.; Hairston); while incarcerated mothers long to see and embrace their children, they are nonetheless concerned about harm the visiting process can cause (Hairston; Arditti and Few). Regardless, mother-child separation is the often discussed as the most emotionally challenging aspect of serving a custodial sentence for a mother (Hairston); all the practical challenges associated with visitation can have an overwhelmingly negative impact, and, as Hairston and others have found (Loper and Tuerk), mothers are left to consider are they worth the colossal emotional upheaval. Interestingly but understandably so, the negative effects of mother-child prison visits has been associated with poor prison conduct (Casey-Acevedo et al.). There has been a subsequent call for better scrutiny into the quality of the visitation environment and support for the mothers’ distress following visits (Arditti and Few; O’Malley, “Motherhood, Mothering”). Visits can be a reminder to the mother of her lack of parental control and mothering practices while incarcerated (Casey-Acevedo et al.; Arditti and Few), and the anger related to this lack of control is what has been attributed to higher rates of incidents of misconduct among those mothers who receive visits in prison from their children (Casey-Acevedo et al.). Moreover, the search process, security dogs, and the long waits have been reported as frightening for children (Dallaire et al., “Children’s Experiences of Maternal Incarceration-Specific Risks”; Arditti). Some children are so distressed at the process, they present with behavioural and emotional difficulties from the outset of the prison visit with their mother. This intensifies what is already a difficult contact arrangement and impacts on the quality of the interaction (Arditti and Few; O’Malley, “Motherhood, Mothering”). Such settings, it is argued (Poehlmann; Dallaire and Wilson), do not provide an opportunity for the mother to support the frightened child to work through the visiting experience or the child’s feelings of insecurity before mother-child separation is once again enforced at the end of the visit, ultimately reinforcing harmful experiences of separation. Overall, however, it is acknowledged that increased levels of contact between imprisoned mothers and their children provide a stronger alliance between the mother and the child’s caregiver and provoke positive maternal perceptions of the mother-child relationship (Poehlmann; 245

Sinead O’Malley

Loper et al.). Alternative methods of contact either alongside or in lieu of visitation is also well published (Cassidy et al.). A US national survey found that mothers had more phone and mail contact with their children compared to imprisoned fathers, and between mail, telephone, and visitation, mail correspondence was the most common – followed by telephone contact and lastly visits (Glaze and Maruschak). While the attractiveness of telephone calls is evident, collect calls rates in the United States, for example, have been found to be more expensive than calls made in the community, meaning families can financially struggle to accept such calls (Poehlmann et al., “Children’s Contact with Their Incarcerated Parents”). Moreover, imprisoned mothers do not always find talking over the phone an easy task (Hissel et al.), a challenge made more difficult when opportunities for calling are often limited and restricted to times which coincide with when children are in school (Hissel et al.; Baldwin, “Mothers in Prison”). Contrary to this, however, is the example of a commendable practice where all national and international phone calls (and letter postage costs) are provided free of charge by the Irish Prison System (O’Malley and Baldwin). While nothing can replace the importance of a mother seeing, hearing, and embracing her children, the overall benefits of letter writing in prison is wholly evident. For instance, increased mail correspondence between incarcerated mothers and their children has been associated with less depressive and somatic symptoms in children (Dallaire et al., “Children’s Experiences of Maternal Incarceration-Specific Risks”) and lower parenting stress for the imprisoned mothers (Houck and Loper). Both mother and child apply thought and intention behind the process of writing, sending sentimental items (pictures, photos, poems) (Poehlmann et al., “Children’s Contact with Their Incarcerated Parents”; Tuerk and Loper), and return post provides something tangible and comforting to have in difficult times (Dallaire et al., “Teachers’ Experiences with and Expectations of Children”; O’Malley “Motherhood, Mothering”). Moreover, as Poehlmann et al. highlight, imprisoned mothers can control the content of the letter, writing supportive and comforting words their child may like/need to hear, fostering a sense of control often lacking in unhospitable and noisy visiting environments.

Gatekeepers While much debate exists regarding the beneficial or potential or possible detrimental effects of contact between incarcerated mothers and their children, this is equally matched by an interest in the ways in which contact is either supported or prevented. Incarcerated mothers often rely on their own mothers and female friends to provide childcare and caregiving (Raikes); grandmothers, in particular, have been noted for their overall support for children of imprisoned mothers (Gill; Raikes). Research shows an overall increase in mother-child contact when the imprisoned mother has a close and loyal relationship with her child’s caregiver (Poehlmann et al., “Representations of Family Relationships”; Barnes and Stringer), or equally how motherchild contact is curtailed when such relationships are strained or have broken down (Flynn, “Caring for the Children of Imprisoned Mothers”). There is a strong emerging case for prison interventions to focus on assisting caregivers with their stress and their concerns with visitations, and supporting methods of positive communication and co-parenting skills in collaboration with the mother in prison (Poehlmann et al., “Children’s Contact with Their Incarcerated Parents”; O’Malley,“Motherhood, Mothering”). Interventions designed to support such communications have demonstrated a decrease in general maternal distress, less stress related to child visits, improved alliances with caregivers, and increased letter writing (Loper and Tuerk). However, incarcerated mothers who have children in state foster care experience additional challenges. While social services ought to play a role in sustaining and promoting mother-child 246

Matricentric feminist criminology

contact (Sheehan; Mignon and Ransford), research consistently confirms that access between an imprisoned mother and her child is reliant on whether the child protection social worker believes contact is in the child’s best interest (Poehlmann et al., “Children’s Contact with Their Incarcerated Parents”; O’Malley and Baldwin). And as argued (Poehlmann et al., “Children’s Contact with Their Incarcerated Parents”), determining the “best interest” of children visiting their incarcerated mothers is inherently the subjective opinion of an individual social worker. Likewise, permanency planning legislation for children in state care is of concern, as attention is brought to the lack of consideration given to the difficulties imprisoned mothers are faced with in sustaining maternal bonds and mothering while in prison (Beckerman; Flynn et al.; O’Malley, “A Mother Is Serving Her Sentence”). For instance, US child protection legislation automatically ignites permanency planning for children in foster care longer than two years, which unjustly impacts on children of incarcerated mothers (Poehlmann et al., “Children’s Contact with Their Incarcerated Parents”). Much international research is emerging on the overall lack of direct child protection and welfare protocol to support children who are separated from their mothers due to imprisonment, who are exposed to acute challenges and long-term detrimental disadvantage as a direct result of this situation over which they have no control (Sheehan; O’Malley and Devaney, “Supporting Incarcerated Mothers”). O’Malley (“Motherhood, Mothering”) voices a concern for the general lack of collaboration between the criminal, social, and welfare systems during maternal imprisonment as a lost opportunity to harness and support positive change and future mother-child relationships. The challenges faced by children with child welfare involvement whose mothers are engaged with the criminal justice system extend beyond issues related to maternal criminal justice involvement alone – these challenges, in fact, are significant for both criminal justice and child welfare practice and policy jointly (Miller et al.; Neale and Lopez)

New directions for research First, feminist criminologist Quinlan (“Discourse and Identity”) argues the significance of culture in the maintenance of patriarchy (25). However, as noted by O’Malley (“Motherhood, Mothering”), Shamai and Kockal, and Flynn (“Caring for the Children of Imprisoned Mothers”), culture has not been well explored among international literature on mothers in prison and is certainly an area for further reflection. For instance, breastfeeding is noted as the primary legal reason for supporting mothers and babies to remain in prison together following birth. In African prisons, breastfeeding as a recognised cultural maternal practice, this legal instrument certainly remains relevant (Matsika et al.). Yet, while the legal framework is also reflective of breastfeeding in the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Canada, these countries have extremely low breastfeeding rates. Interestingly, while MBUs are closing in Canada and the United Kingdom, Ireland has maintained a protocol of automatically supporting mothers to keep their babies, regardless if they are breastfed or bottle-fed, in order to “support mother and baby bonding” (O’Malley, “Motherhood, Mothering”). Additionally, Ireland is currently supporting the building of a new prison which intends to include a new mother and baby unit, following the recognition of need (O’Malley and Baldwin). Therefore, while breastfeeding may not be a culturally and universally relevant, there is certainly a gap in understanding why some cultures support mothers to keep their babies, while others do not. Another distinct reason culture merits closer attention is due to the over-representation of ethnic minority mothers held in prisons (Feintuch). This is partly to do with the varying ways that the “war on drugs” has affected mothers differently in the global prison system. However, how mothers serve out their sentence in a prison which does not subscribe to their own culture 247

Sinead O’Malley

(be it through different regimes, rights recognitions, or cultural calendar events) is an important line of enquiry. Cultural practices have implications on the imprisoned mother’s maternal identities and practices, not to mention the distinct challenges for those attempting to not only manage mothering from prison but also managing mothering from another country. Overall, in order to advance matricentric feminist criminology in such a way that is reflective of the reality of motherhood and mothering while incarcerated, the interface of culture and its distinct maternal practices within and across prison spaces – places of oppression and containment – it is argued here, must be better explored in further research. Second, the prison population is currently reflecting an aging and older society, yet grandmothers have only become visible in few studies. While scholars highlight the incarcerated mother as specifically symbolic of a “bad mother,” Baldwin (“Grandmothering”) argues this is evermore magnified for the imprisoned grandmother. The image of a grandmother is at complete odds with the image of a prisoner, regardless if it is a female prisoner. Moreover, incarcerated grandmothers are unique; they are not only separated from their own children, often also struggling with their own adversities in the community, but they are trying to negotiate and maintain their grandmothering role with practically no support or recognition (Baldwin “Grandmothering”). This issue is considered within the recognition of the changing and more prominent role grandmothers now play in their grandchildren’s lives. For instance, a new flow of research notes how grandmothers provide a particular form of informal family support for incarcerated mothers and their children, however, research exploring the grandmother’s presence and voice within the prison system is scant. Yet, 20% of the mothers in O’Malley’s (“Motherhood, Mothering”) study spoke about the importance of their grandmothering role, a role which was often impinged upon because they are in prison. On the whole, grandmothers in prison have been internationally noted as an overlooked cohort within feminist criminology and prison sociological studies. Matricentric feminist advocates the inclusion of all mothers, all mothering types, and non-mothers, in research, politics, and activism (O’Reilly). Therefore, as matricentric feminist criminology advances, it would be vital to sustain this philosophy of inclusion and therefore address the current gap in research on this important and growing group of incarcerated mothers. By doing so, it will also address the current gap whereby research has (for some reason) predominantly focused on mothers of children under 18 years, therefore making invisible the older/adult child population who are equally affected by the imprisonment of their mothers; many of whom are still dependent on their mothers for varying reasons, often including grandmothering. Thus, it is important to advance research in this area to bring forward the experience of grandmothers within research on mothers in prison. Third, contrary to general perception, newly emerging yet limited research in Australia, Iran, England, and Ireland have found that biological fathers play a significant and often primary caregiving role for children of incarcerated mothers (Flynn, “Caring for the Children of Imprisoned Mothers”; O’Malley, “Motherhood, Mothering”; Baldwin and Epstein; Forooeddin Adl et al.). However, there is certainly an overall lack in research in this area, which would be particularly welcomed considering the changing roles men are beginning to play in some societies and would therefore be encouraging to address this in more analytical depth. Matricentric feminism (O’Reilly) draws from Sara Ruddick’s maternal theory, asserting that true mothering is a voluntary commitment; it is not dictated by nature or social imperative, confirming and asserting that men can and do perform motherwork. Through applying this matricentric feminist lens to criminological studies which focus on the father’s or man’s roles in mothering children of incarcerated mothers is completely lacking and of particular interest in the advancement of this area of enquiry, and therefore ought to be considered for future research. 248

Matricentric feminist criminology

Overall, these three areas of further research – culture, grandmothering, and the role of the father for children of imprisoned mothers – are flagged as the most substantial gaps in current knowledge regarding mothers in prison. Mother scholars interested in the theory and sociology of crime have begun to emerge. Such scholars have sought out the inclusion of all mothers and non-mothering mothers in their work, therefore providing space within the broader field of feminist criminological research for mothers experiencing imprisonment. There is certainly a recognition, although both groups of prisoners (females and mother prisoners) are recognised as vulnerable, stigmatised, and challenged with multiple adversities, these are magnified when the female prisoner is also a mother. On the whole, matricentric feminist criminology is in its infancy, it is hoped that it continues to develop and advance, to include but not be limited to areas of culture, grandmothers, and fathering. This advancement in research is vital if we are to be serious about providing vulnerable and criminalised mothers their own space to voice their needs so we may attempt to address such needs. Finally, mother scholars continue to highlight class, poverty, and structural and gender inequality, which is equally pertinent to the case of the incarcerated mother.

Further reading Baldwin, Lucy. Mothering Justice: Working with Mothers in Criminal and Social Justice Settings. Waterside Press, 2015. Burgess, Alannah, and Catherine Flynn. “Supporting Imprisoned Mothers and Their Children: A Call for Evidence.” Probation Journal, vol. 60, no. 1, 2013, pp. 73–81. Eljdupovic, Gordana, and Rebecca Jaremko Bromwich. Incarcerated Mothers: Oppression and Resistance. Demeter Press, 2013. Enos, Sandra. Mothering from the inside: Parenting in a Women’s Prison. N.p., 2001. Golden, Renny. War on the Family: Mothers in Prison and the Families They Leave Behind. Routledge, 2005. Granja, Rafaela, et al. “Mothering From Prison and Ideologies of Intensive Parenting: Enacting Vulnerable Resistance.” Journal of Family Issues, vol. 36, no. 9, 2015, pp. 1212–32.

Websites Birth Companions: www.birthcompanions.org.uk/ Children of Prisoners Europe: https://childrenofprisoners.eu/ International Coalition for Children with Imprisoned Parents: http://inccip.org/ Penal Reform International: Women in the Criminal Justice System: www.penalreform.org/priorities/ women-in-the-criminal-justice-system/ Women in Prison: www.womeninprison.org.uk/ Women’s Prison Association: www.wpaonline.org/

Film documentaries Mothers of Bedford, www.kanopy.com/product/mothers-bedford Cain, L., and D. Gross. Healing Neen, Gallery 144 Productions, 2010.

Conclusion Feminist criminology provided, for the first time, a discourse for the pathways of crime and imprisonment for offending women. Within this, the more recent matricentric focus has better explored how those challenges, such as the level of trauma, mental health, and addictions are a distinct experience for the subgroup of imprisoned mothers because of the influence of and on maternal identity, representations of motherhood, responsibilities of mothering, and maternal 249

Sinead O’Malley

practice; all of which make the mothers’ experience of imprisonment somewhat unique in comparison to the general female prisoner population. Notwithstanding the growing attention being given to this area of oppressed motherhood, it is yet in its infancy, and certainly some areas of enquires remained scantly addressed. Regardless, one argument is that while acute childhood challenges and ongoing adversities present in motherhood, incarcerated mothers remain faced with judgements as bad undeserving mothers – rather than survivors against all odds. While MBUs/PNP present some hope in disrupting the unmanaged and intergenerational maternal trauma in the way they support mothers to keep their babies, it is an unfortunate reality that this practice is not systemic. On the whole, imprisoned mothers are mostly reliant on external supports and empathic prison policies when attempting to maintain meaningful contact with their children. Subsequently, incarcerated mothers feel they have lost or are losing their child to a system, which doesn’t support their continued contact or evolving dynamic mother-child relationships. Imprisoned mothers do not have the means to exercise their rights or wishes and as evidenced by Schram (1999), rights which are diminished because of their “bad” mothering status directly linked to their convict status rather than any connection to their love or ability to care for their child.

Works cited Abbott, Laura. “A Pregnant Pause: Expecting in the Prison Estate.” Mothering Justice: Working with Mothers in Criminal and Social Justice Settings, edited by Lucy Baldwin, Waterside Press, 2015. Abbott, Laura, and Tricia Scott. “Women’s Experiences of Breastfeeding in Prison.” MIDIRS Midwifery Digest, vol. 27, no. 2, 2017, pp. 217–22. Aiello, Brittnie.“Making Mothers: Parenting Classes in a Women’s Jail.” Contemporary Justice Review, vol. 19, no. 4, 2016, pp. 445–61. Arditti, Joyce. Parental Incarceration and the Family: Psychological and Social Effects of Imprisonment on Children, Parents, and Caregivers. New York UP, 2012. Arditti, Joyce, and April Few. “Maternal Distress and Women’s Reentry into Family and Community Life.” Family Process, vol. 47, no. 3, 2008, pp. 303–21. Ashton, Kathryn, et al. “Adverse Childhood Experiences and Their Association with Health-Harming Behaviours and Mental Wellbeing in the Welsh Adult Population: A National Cross-Sectional Survey.” The Lancet, vol. 388, July 2016, n.p. Baldwin, Lucy. Mothering Justice: Working with Mothers in Criminal and Social Justice Settings. Waterside Press, 2015. Baldwin, Lucy.“Grandmothering in the Context of Criminal Justice: Grandmothers in Prison and Grandmothers as Carers When a Parent Is Imprisoned.” Grandmother and Grandmothering, Demeter Press, 2017, 1–20. ———. “Motherhood Disrupted: Reflections of Post- Prison Mothers.” Emotion, Space and Society, 2017, pp. 1–8. ———. “Mothers in Prison.” Corrections Today, vol. 181, 2017, pp. 45–47. Baldwin, Lucy, et al. “Mothers Addicted.” Mothering Justice: Working with Mothers in Criminal and Social Justice Settings, edited by Lucy Baldwin, Waterside Press, 2015. Baldwin, Lucy, and Rona Epstein. Short but Not Sweet: A Study of the Impact of Short Custodial Sentences on Mothers & Their Children. De Montfort University, 2017. Baradon, Tessa, et al. “New Beginnings – an Experience-Based Programme Addressing the Attachment Relationship between Mothers and Their Babies in Prisons.” Journal of Child Psychotherapy, vol. 34, no. 2, 2008, pp. 240–58. Barnes, Sandra L., and Ebonie Stringer. “Is Motherhood Important? Imprisoned Women’s Maternal Experiences before and during Confinement and Their Postrelease Expectations.” Feminist Criminology, vol. 9, no. 1, 2014, pp. 3–23. Beckerman, Adela. “Charting a Course: Meeting the Challenge of Permanency Planning for Children with Incarcerated Mothers.” Child Welfare, vol. 77, no. 5, 1998, pp. 513–29. Brown, A., et al. “Prevalence and Severity of Lifetime Physical and Sexual Victimization among Incarcerated Women.” International Journal of Law & Psychiatry, 22, 1999, pp. 301–22.

250

Matricentric feminist criminology Burgess, Alannah, and Catherine Flynn. “Supporting Imprisoned Mothers and Their Children: A Call for Evidence.” Probation Journal, vol. 60, no. 1, 2013, pp. 73–81. Burgess-Proctor, Amanda, et al. “Comparing the Effects of Maternal and Paternal Incarceration on Adult Daughters’ and Sons’ Criminal Justice System Involvement a Gendered Pathways Analysis.” Criminal Justice and Behaviour, vol. 43, no. 8, 2016, pp. 1034–55. Byrne, Mary W. “Interventions within Prison Nurseries.” Children of Incarcerated Parents: A Handbook for Researchers and Practitioners, edited by J. Mark Eddy, and Julie Poehlmann, The Urban Institute Press, 2010. Byrne, M. W., et al. “Intergenerational Transmission of Attachment for Infants Raised in a Prison Nursery.” Attachment & Human Development, vol. 12, no. 4, 2010, pp. 375–93. Caddle, Diane, et al. “Mothers in Prison.” Criminal Justice Matters, vol. 30, no. 1, 1997, pp. 21–23. Cain, L., and D. Gross. Healing Neen. Gallery 144 Productions, 2010. Campbell, J., and J. R. Carlson. “Correctional Administrators’ Perceptions of Prison Nurseries.” Criminal Justice and Behavior, vol. 39, no. 8, 2012, pp. 1063–74. Carlen, Pat. “Law, Psychiatry and Women’s Imprisonment. A Sociological View.” The British Journal of Psychiatry, vol. 146, no. 6, 1985, pp. 618–21. ———. “Mothers in Prison.” Sociology of Health & Illness, vol. 9, no. 1, 1987, pp. 105–06. Carmody, Patricia, and Mel McEvoy. A Study of Irish Female Prisoners. Stationary Office, 1996. Cartwright, Luke. “Respite and Repair: How Mothers of Incarcerated Long-Term Problematic Drug Users Make Prison Work for Them.” Journal of Substance Use, vol. 21, no. 4, 2016, pp. 439–43. Casey-Acevedo, Karen, et al. “Children Visiting Mothers in Prison: The Effects on Mothers’ Behaviour and Disciplinary Adjustment.” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, vol. 37, no. 3, 2004, pp. 418–30. Cassidy, Jude, et al. “An Attachment Perspective on Incarcerated Parents and Their Children.” Attachment & Human Development, vol. 12, no. 4, 2010, pp. 285–88. CCPHE and UBC. Guidelines for the Implementation Of Mother-Child Units in Canadian Correctional Facilities November 2015. The U of British Columbia, 2015. Chamberlen, Anastasia. “Embodying Prison Pain: Women’s Experiences of Self-Injury in Prison and the Emotions of Punishment.” Theoretical Criminology, vol. 20, no. 2, 2016, pp. 205–19. Clear, T., et al. American Corrections. Cengage Learning, 2012. Costello, Lisa. Women in the Criminal Justice System: Towards a Non-Custodial Approach Planning the Future of Irish Prisons Line Two Here. Irish Penal Reform Trust, 2013. Council of Europe. “Recommendation Rec(2006)2 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the European Prison Rules.” Council Of Europe Committee Of Ministers. N.p., 2006. 8 June 2017. Dallaire, Danielle H. “Children with Incarcerated Mothers: Developmental Outcomes, Special Challenges and Recommendations.” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, vol. 28, no. 1, 2007, pp. 15–24. ———. “Incarcerated Mothers and Fathers: A Comparison of Risks for Children and Families.” Family Relations, vol. 56, no. 5, 2007, pp. 440–53. Dallaire, Danielle H., and Laura C. Wilson. “The Relation of Exposure to Parental Criminal Activity, Arrest, and Sentencing to Children’s Maladjustment.” Journal of Child and Family Studies, vol. 19, no. 4, 2010, pp. 404–18. Dallaire, Danielle H., et al. “Teachers’ Experiences with and Expectations of Children with Incarcerated Parents.” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, vol. 31, no. 4, 2010, 281–90. Dallaire, Danielle H., et al. “Children’s Experiences of Maternal Incarceration-Specific Risks: Predictions to Psychological Maladaptation.” Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, vol. 44, no. 1, 2015, pp. 109–22. Eljdupovic, Gordana, and Rebecca Jaremko Bromwich. Incarcerated Mothers: Oppression and Resistance. Demeter Press, 2013. Elwood Martin, Ruth, et al. Arresting Hope: Women Taking Action in Prison Health inside Out. Inanna Publications & Education, 2014. ———. “Primary Health Care: Applying the Principles within a Community-Based Participatory Health Research Project That Began in a Canadian Women’s Prison.” Global Health Promotion, vol. 16, no. 348114, 2009, pp. 43–53. Enos, Sandra. Mothering from the inside: Parenting in a Women’s Prison. N.p., 2001. Epstein, Rona. “Mothers in Prison: The Sentencing of Mothers and the Rights of the Child Making This Research Possible.” Coventry Law Journal, Dec. 2012, pp. 1–33. Esnard, Talia, and Kimberly Okpala. “Mothering at the Margins: The Case of Incarcerated Women in Trinidad and Tobago.” Criminalized Mothers, Criminalizing Mothering, edited by Joanne Minaker, and Bryan Hogeveen, Demeter Press, 2015.

251

Sinead O’Malley Espinet, Stacey D., et al. “ ‘Breaking the Cycle’ of Maternal Substance Use through Relationships: A Comparison of Integrated Approaches.” Addiction Research & Theory, vol. 24, no. 5, 2016, pp. 375–88. Feintuch, Sophie. “Mothering in Prison: The Case of Spain’s New External Mother Units.” Bad Mothers: Regulations, Representations, and Resistance, edited by Michelle Hughes Miller et al., Demeter Press, 2017, pp. 73–97. Flynn, Catherine. Waiting for Mum: The Impact of Maternal Incarceration on Adolescent Children. Monash University, 2008. ———. “Caring for the Children of Imprisoned Mothers: Exploring the Role of Fathers.” Child Abuse Review, vol. 21, no. 4, 2012, pp. 285–98. ———. “Getting There and Being There: Visits to Prisons in Victoria – the Experiences of Women Prisoners and Their Children.” Probation Journal, vol. 61, no. 2, 2014, pp. 176–91. Flynn, Catherine, et al. “Responding to the Needs of Children of Parents Arrested in Victoria, Australia. The Role of the Adult Criminal Justice System.” Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, vol. 49, no. 3, 2016, pp. 351–69. Forooeddin Adl, Akbar, et al. “Physical and Social Circumstances of Children in Iran Affected by the Incarceration of the Mother.” International Journal of Social Welfare, vol. 16, no. 3, 2007, pp. 278–80. Freudenberg, Nicholas, et al. “Coming Home from Jail: The Social and Health Consequences of Community Reentry for Women, Male Adolescents, and Their Families and Communities.” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 95, no. 10, 2005, pp. 1725–36. Gardiner, Adelle, et al. Contributors to the Rose Project The Rose Project Team. U of Stirling and Aberlour, 2016. Giacomello, Corina. “How the Drug Trade Criminalizes Women Disproportionately.” NACLA Report on the Americas, vol. 42, no. 2, 2014, pp. 38–42. Gill, Owen. “Developing Pathways into Children and Family Services for Mothers Involved in the Criminal Justice System.” 2013, n.p. Glaze, Lauren E., and Laura M. Maruschak. “Parents in Prison and Their Minor Children.” U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2008, pp. 1–25. Golden, Renny. War on the Family: Mothers in Prison and the Families They Leave Behind. Routledge, 2005. Granja, Rafaela, et al. “Mothering From Prison and Ideologies of Intensive Parenting: Enacting Vulnerable Resistance.” Journal of Family Issues, vol. 36, no. 9, 2015, pp. 1212–32. Hackett, Lisa. “Working with Women and Mothers Experiencing Mental Distress: Creating a ‘Safe Place’ for Constructive Conversations.” Mothering Justice: Working with Mothers in Criminal and Social Justice Settings, edited by Lucy Baldwin, Waterside Press, 2015. pp. 43–64. Hairston, Finney. “Mothers in Jail: Parent-Child Separation and Jail Visitation.” Affilia, vol. 6, no. 2, 1991, pp. 9–27. Hissel, Sanne, et al. “The Well-Being of Children of Incarcerated Mothers: An Exploratory Study for the Netherlands.” European Journal of Criminology, vol. 8, no. 5, 2011, pp. 346–60. Houck, Katherine D. F., and Ann Booker Loper. “The Relationship of Parenting Stress to Adjustment among Mothers in Prison.” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, vol. 72, no. 4, 2002, pp. 548–58. IPRT and KHF. The Whitaker Report 20 years On: Lessons Learned and Lesson Forgotten? Dublin: Irish Penal Reform Trust/Irish Katherine Howard Foundation, 2007. Kauffman, K. “Mothers in Prison.” Corrections Today, vol. 63, no. 1, 1991, n.p. Kilty, Jennifer M., and Erin Dej.“Anchoring amongst the Waves: Discursive Constructions of Motherhood and Addiction.” Qualitative Sociology Review, vol. 8, no. 3, 2012, pp. 6–23. Kubiak, Sheryl Pimlott, et al. “Assessing Long-Term Outcomes of an Intervention Designed for Pregnant Incarcerated Women.” Research on Social Work Practice, vol. 20, no. 5, 2010, pp. 528–35. Library of Congress. “Laws on Children Residing with Parents in Prison.” N.p., 2015. 7 June 2017. Lonergan, John. The Governor. Penguin, 2010. Loper, Ann Booker, and Elena Hontoria Tuerk. “Improving the Emotional Adjustment and Communication Patterns of Incarcerated Mothers: Effectiveness of a Prison Parenting Intervention.” Journal of Child and Family Studies, vol. 20, no. 1, 2011, pp. 89–101. Loper, Ann Booker, et al. “Parenting Stress, Alliance, Child Contact, and Adjustment of Imprisoned Mothers and Fathers.” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, vol. 48, no. 6, 2009, pp. 483–503. Martyn, Michelle. Picking up the Pieces: The Rights and Needs of Children and Families Affected by Imprisonment. Irish Penal Reform Trust, 2012. Masson, Isla M. “The Long-Term Impact of Short Periods of Imprisonment on Mothers.” King’s College London, 2014.

252

Matricentric feminist criminology Matsika, A. B., et al. “Innocent Inmates: The Case of Children Living with Incarcerated Mothers in Zimbabwe’s Chikurubi Prison.” Journal of Social Development in Africa, vol. 28, no. 2, 2013, pp. 73–93. McAleese, Senator M. Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee to Establish the Facts of State Involvement with the Magdalen Laundries. N.p., 2013. McCormick, Amanda, et al. In the Best Interests of the Child: Strategies for Recognizing and Supporting Canada’s At-Risk Population of Children with Incarcerated Parents. U of Fraser Valley, 2014. McLaughlin, Katrina, et al. “Parenting Programmes for Incarcerated Parents.” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, edited by Katrina McLaughlin, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2016. Mignon, Sylvia I., and Paige Ransford. “Mothers in Prison: Maintaining Connections with Children.” Social Work in Public Health, vol. 27, nos. 1–2, 2012, pp. 69–88. Ministry of Justice, National Offender Management Service (NOMS) Women and Equality Group. A Distinct Approach: A Guide to Working with Women Offenders. Ministry of Justice, 2012. Minson, Shona, et al. Sentencing of Mothers: Improving the Sentencing Process and Outcomes for Women with Dependent Children. Prison Reform Trust, 2015. Moore, Linda, and Phil Scraton. The Incarceration of Women: Punishing Bodies, Breaking Spirits. Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2014. Mulcahy, J., and C. Quinlan. The Needs of Women in the Criminal Justice System: Proposals for Reform. Irish Academic Press, 2013. Neale, Anne, and Nina Lopez. SUFFER the Little CHILDREN and Their MOTHERS. Crossroad Books, 2017. O’Malley, Sinead. “A Mother Is Serving Her Sentence . . . In Her Head, Outside As Well As Inside”: Motherhood and the Irish Prison System”. National U of Ireland, Galway, 2013. O’Malley, Sinead. Motherhood, Mothering and the Irish Prison System. National U of Ireland, Galway, 2018. O’Malley, Sinead, et al. “Mothering Interrupted: Mothers Separated From Their Children By Incarceration in England and Ireland.” Developing a Children’s Rights Approach to Parental Imprisonment, Routledge, forthcoming. O’Malley, Sinead, and Carmel Devaney. “Maintaining the Mother – Child Relationship within the Irish Prison System: The Practitioner Perspective.” Child Care in Practice, vol. 5279, Sept. 2015, pp. 1–15. ———. “Supporting Incarcerated Mothers in Ireland with Their Familial Relationships: A Case for the Revival of the Social Work Role.” Probation Journal, 2016, n.p. O’Malley, Sinead, and Lucy Baldwin. “Mothering Interrupted: Mothers-Child Separation via Incarceration in Ireland and England.” Mothers Without Their Children, edited by Charlotte Beyer and Andrea Robertson, Demeter Press, 2018, pp. 73–110. O’Reilly, Andrea. Matricentric Feminism: Theory, Activism, and Practice. Demeter Press, 2016. Philbrick, K., et al. Children of Imprisoned Parents: European Perspective on Good Practice. Children of Prisoners Europe, 2014. Poehlmann, Julie. “Incarcerated Mothers’ Contact With Children, Perceived Family Relationships, and Depressive Symptoms.” Journal of Family Psychology, vol. 19, no. 3, 2005, pp. 350–57. Poehlmann, Julie, et al. “Children’s Contact with Their Incarcerated Parents: Research Findings and Recommendations.” American Psychologist, vol. 65, no. 6, 2010, pp. 575–98. Poehlmann, Julie, et al. “Representations of Family Relationships in Children Living with Custodial Grandparents.” Attachment & Human Development, vol. 10, no. 2, 2008, pp. 165–88. Powell, Claire, et al. “Mother – infant Separations in Prison. A Systematic Attachment-Focused Review of the Academic and Grey Literature.” Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 2017, n.p. Prison Reform Trust. Prison: The Facts. n.p., 2013. Quinlan, Christina. “Discourse and Identity: A Study of Women in Prison in Ireland.” 2006, n.p. Rahimipour Anaraki, Nahid, and Dariush Boostani. “Living in and Living out: A Qualitative Study of Incarcerated Mothers’ Narratives of Their Children’s Living Condition.” Quality & Quantity, vol. 48, no. 6, 2014, pp. 3093–107. Raikes, Ben. “ ‘Unsung Heroines’: Celebrating the Care Provided by Grandmothers for Children with Parents in Prison.” Journal of Community and Criminal Justice Probation Journal, vol. 63, no. 3, 2016, pp. 320–30. Reilly, Judge Michael. Inspector of Prisons Standards for the Inspection of Prisons in Ireland – Women Prisoners’ Supplement. N.p., 2011. Schram, P.J., “An Exploratory Study: Stereotypes About Mothers In Prison.” Journal of Criminal Justice, vol. 27, no. 5, 1999, pp. 411–426. Shamai, Michal, and Rinat Billy Kochal. “ ‘Motherhood Starts in Prison’: The Experience of Motherhood among Women in Prison.” Family Process, vol. 47, no. 3, 2008, pp. 323–40.

253

Sinead O’Malley Sheehan, Rosemary.“Parents as Prisoners: A Study of Parent – Child Relationships in the Children’s Court of Victoria.” Journal of Social Work, vol. 11, no. 4, 2010, pp. 358–74. Silva-Segovia, Jimena. “The Face of a Mother Deprived of Liberty: Imprisonment, Guilt, and Stigma in the Norte Grande, Chile.” Journal of Women and Social Work, vol. 31, no. 1, 2016, pp. 98–111. Sleed, Michelle, Tessa Baradon, and Peter Fonagy. “New Beginnings for Mothers and Babies in Prison: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.” Attachment & Human Development, vol. 15, no. 4, 2013, pp. 349–67. Smart, Carol. Women, Crime, and Criminology: A Feminist Critique. Routledge, 1976. Suchman, Nancy E. et al. “Mothering From the Inside Out: Results of a Second Randomized Clinical Trial Testing a Mentalization-Based Intervention for Mothers in Addiction Treatment.” Development and Psychopathology, vol. 29, no. 02, 2017, pp. 617–36. Taylor, Myra F., et al. “Drug Addiction Is a Scourge on the Earth and My Grandchildren Are Its Victims: The Tough Love and Resilient Growth Exhibited by Grandparents Raising the Children of DrugDependent Mothers.” International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, vol. 14, no. 6, 2016, pp. 937–51. Tuerk, Elena Hontoria, and Ann Booker Loper. “Contact Between Incarcerated Mothers and Their Children: Assessing Parenting Stress.” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, vol. 43, no. 1, 2006, pp. 23–43. United Nations. United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-Custodial Measures for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules). 2010, n.p. Unnasch, Emily Ann. Motherhood on the Inside: Exploring the Challenges Facing Incarcerated Women at Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women. N.p., 2011. Walmsley, Roy. World Female Imprisonment List Women and Girls in Penal Institutions, Including Pre-Trial Detainees/Remand Prisoners: World Prison Brief. N.p., 2015. Woods, Marguerite. “ ‘Keeping Mum’: A Qualitative Study of Women Drug Users’ Experience of Preserving Motherhood in Dublin.” U of Dublin, Trinity College, 2007. Zedner, L. “Wayward Sisters: The Prison for Women’.” The Oxford History of the Prison: The Practice of Punishment in Western Society, edited by N. Morris, and D. Rothman, Oxford UP, 1998, pp. 329–361. Zust, Barbara L. “Partner Violence, Depression, and Recidivism: The Case of Incarcerated Women and Why We Need Programs Designed for Them.” Issues in Mental Health Nursing, vol. 30, no. 4, 2009, pp. 246–51.

254

20 ABUSED WOMEN’S MOTHERING EXPERIENCES Making the invisible visible Caroline McDonald-Harker

Introduction Today’s modern family has undergone significant transformation, often deviating from traditional family compositions and structures. In North America and beyond, there has been a significant decline in marriage, a rise in separation and divorce, more blended and reconstituted families, a decrease in fertility rates and number of children per household, and a growth in dualearner families resulting from an increase in the number of women in the workforce. Indeed, the very dynamic of the family has changed, leading to increasingly complex and diverse family forms. Yet, traditional views of gender still largely shape and influence sociocultural norms and expectations about family roles and functioning, particularly when it comes to child-bearing and child-rearing. The ideal of the male breadwinner and female caregiver/homemaker continues to persist today, despite the changing nature of the family. This has important implications for the expectations that are placed on mothers and fathers, which are highly gendered. Modern mothers continue to face societal and cultural demands to adopt and maintain the role of the primary caregiver in the family, and they are also now held to new and more highly idealized standards when it comes to caring for children. It is no longer enough for mothers to merely bear and care for children, they are now expected to dedicate and sacrifice their entire physical, intellectual, psychological, and emotional well-being (Hays). Modern motherhood is thus shaped by a dominant ideology of motherhood that emphasizes intensive mothering and consists of “a gendered model that advises mothers to expend a tremendous amount of time, energy, and money in rearing their children” (Hays x). This type of mothering reflects a privileged Eurocentric, heterosexual, white, and upper-class perspective of parenting and child-rearing. The ideology of intensive motherhood has a powerful influence within today’s modern family, as well as within wider society. Not only is it represented and emphasized in numerous social institutions, cultural practices, and social interactions, but it is also acquired and reproduced through the language, statement, terms, and classifications that define how women must mother. Mothers are dichotomized into two separate categories – they are either a “good mother” or a “bad mother.” Mothers who follow and live up to the standards of intensive mothering are considered to be “good mothers,” and mothers who oppose and deviate from the standards of intensive mothering are considered to be “bad mothers” (O’Reilly, Mother Outlaws 2). Yet a 255

Caroline McDonald-Harker

disconnect exists between the idealized standards of intensive mothering and the reality of the various and diverse social positions, locations, and circumstances in which many women carry out their mothering. Not all women live and mother within privileged spaces and places, but they are all still held to the same idealized standards of intensive mothering. As a result, some mothers are perceived, labeled, and portrayed as “bad mothers” because they mother outside the socially constructed boundaries of “good mothering,” including, for example, teen mothers, mothers who consume alcohol and drugs, mothers on social assistance, and incarcerated mothers, to name just a few. This is particularly the case for mothers living in marginalized circumstances based on marital status, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, and social class, including, for example, single mothers, lesbian mothers, mothers of color, and low-income mothers (McDonald-Harker, Mothering in Marginalized Contexts 7–9). In recent years, mothers who are victims of domestic violence are one group of mothers who have become especially criticized, stigmatized, and vilified for mothering outside the socially constructed boundaries of “good mothering” because they have lived in circumstances of abuse. Despite being the victims, abused mothers are often perceived and characterized as “bad mothers” because their ability to shelter, care for, protect, and provide a safe and secure environment for their children is called into question and deemed deficient, regardless of whether their children have witnessed or experienced abuse themselves (McDonald-Harker, Mothering in Marginalized Contexts 9–10). In this sense, victimization and mothering are often perceived as contradictory because it is constructed as a particular kind of deviant mothering that opposes and offends sensibilities about how a “good mother” ought to be and where “good mothering” should take place (McDonald-Harker, “Mothering in the Context of Domestic Violence and Encounters with Child Protection Services”; Lapierre, “Striving to be ‘Good’ Mothers”). It is no surprise then that abused mothers are more likely to come to the attention of and be subjected to heightened surveillance, governance, and control by both legal and extra-legal state agencies, such as, for example, the police, shelters, and child protection services. Despite the increasing marginalization of abused mothers, our knowledge about mothering in the context of domestic violence is relatively recent, limited in scope, and mostly focuses on domestic violence and mothering as separate topics of inquiry rather than as interrelated. There is, however, a small but growing body of scholarly research that examines abused women’s mothering experiences. This chapter provides a comprehensive overview of (1) the historical developments in the scholarly research on domestic violence and motherhood and mothering; (2) maternal theory, both past and present, and the implications it has for our understanding and framing of abused women’s mothering experiences; (3) current research, findings, controversies, gaps, and future directions for increasing our understanding of mothering in the context of domestic violence. The contents of this chapter provide an important background for understanding the multiple and varied ways that abused women’s mothering has thus far been framed, explored, and discussed in scholarly work, and how this framing shapes the ways that abused mothers are constructed, perceived, and treated in wider society.

Background and context A recognition and focus on domestic violence: 1960s–1970s In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the topic of domestic violence emerged as an important and central topic of public and academic attention and inquiry. The social problem of domestic violence was not new – it had been occurring for decades. But feminist activists and scholars began

256

Abused women’s mothering experiences

to call attention to how domestic violence provided a powerful illustration of the systematic oppression of women in the context of male domination and to the ways that separating the private sphere of the home from the wider public sphere perpetuated the oppression of women (Dobash and Dobash). Awareness of the long-standing issue of domestic violence was due in large part to the pioneering work of feminists who sought to politicize violence against women, create and enforce legislative sanctions for male offenders, and aid and support female victims. During this time, a large body of feminist research emerged which conceptualized domestic violence in two main ways: as a gendered social problem and as reflecting a patriarchal social structure. The social problem of domestic violence has been attributed to wider gender inequalities within society. In this view, the unequal power imbalance between males and females in both the public and private sphere leads to men being the primary perpetrators and women being the primary victims of domestic violence (Kurz; Berk et al.; Dobash and Dobash; Pleck et al.; Russell; Walker). Violence towards women is thus used as a way for men to attain and maintain power over women. This standpoint emphasizes that when women do engage in acts of violence, they do so primarily in self-defence, and therefore there is a need to specifically focus on men’s violence against women. This perspective has faced criticism for focusing predominantly on domestic violence in heterosexual relationships, and therefore failing to acknowledge and consider that domestic violence also occurs in same-sex relationships, including those involving lesbian couples. Domestic violence has also been framed and linked to patriarchal social structures. From this perspective, men’s violence against women is due to a male-dominated social system throughout organized society. In the domain of the family, the ideology of familial patriarchy teaches males to use techniques of control in order to maintain their dominant position and the subordinate position of females in family, relationships, and wider society. This leads to the physical, psychological, emotional, and sexual abuse of women by their intimate male partners. The patriarchal norms of the family, whereby contemporary society still institutionalizes the control of women through the structure of male-female roles, further contributes to and justifies men’s violent behavior towards women (Bograde; Bowker; Dobash and Dobash; Lenton). This viewpoint attributes male dominance, and the violence used to sustain it, to male socialization and the patriarchal social structures that support it. This perspective has recently been criticized for largely focusing on gender as the key explanatory factor of domestic violence, and therefore neglecting to include other important social dimensions such as race and social class. Today, after fifty years of scholarly research, domestic violence is recognized as a serious violation of human rights and continues to be a major issue on the international human rights agenda. According to Article I of the United Nations Declaration on Violence against Women, violence against women consists of an act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result, in physical, sexual, or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion, or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life (United Nations). Domestic violence is one aspect of violence against women and refers specifically to physical, sexual, psychological, emotional, financial, or verbal abuse perpetrated by an intimate partner ( Jasinski 5). Although anyone can be subjected to and experience domestic violence by an intimate partner, “women are most frequently the victims of domestic violence” and “suffer the most persistent abuse and the most severe injuries” (Radford and Hester, “Introduction” 8). Women who have children face even further complexities and difficulties as they perform and carry out their mothering in the threatening and dangerous circumstances associated with domestic violence.

257

Caroline McDonald-Harker

The emergence and focus on motherhood and mothering: 1980s–1990s In the 1980s, motherhood and mothering began to emerge as an important and central topic of public and academic inquiry, spurred on by feminist scholars who began to call attention to the exclusion of motherhood and mothering in feminist theory (O’Brien Hallstein). As mothers increasingly entered the workforce during this time and were engaging in a “second shift,” that is, shouldering the extra burden of unpaid child care and housework in addition to the paid work they were performing outside the home, the lack of attention paid to the various roles and experiences of mothers in both the private and public spheres became even more apparent (Hochschild). Much debate arose among feminist scholars in the 1980s as they attempted to theorize motherhood and mothering. Early feminist work cast motherhood and mothering in a negative light and focused on how women’s reproductive abilities subjugated them in the family. This work associated motherhood with oppression (Featherstone and Trinder; Firestone; Knowles and Cole). Later feminist work highlighted the positive elements of motherhood and mothering and focused on how women’s procreative potential provided them with moral superiority over men. This work equated motherhood with value and empowerment (Chase and Rogers; Featherstone and Trinder; Firestone). The evolution of feminist conceptualizations of motherhood and mothering in the 1980s led to the development of a significant body of feminist literature on motherhood and mothering in the 1990s, which is still growing today. This literature examines motherhood and mothering along two broad tracks. One track has a universalistic focus and attempts to develop an understanding of motherhood and mothering which highlights commonalities in women’s mothering experiences. Attention is given to women’s common maternal practice, as it relates to the nurturing, protecting, and training of children, as a way to understand their collective mothering experience (Ladd-Taylor; Leonard; Ruddick). This perspective has been criticized for reducing all women’s mothering experience to one unifying experience and for failing to consider differences in their experiences and wider social contexts. The other more recent track has a more particularized focus and seeks to develop an understanding of motherhood and mothering which recognizes and draws attention to variations in women’s mothering experiences. Women’s mothering experiences are identified as being multiple, diverse, and varied. As such, attention is given to the ways in which mothers’ social locations, experiences, and identities are mediated by race, class, sexuality, age, ability, and dominant ideologies of mothering. The individual, sociocultural, and economic contexts that shape the lives of mothers is given important consideration. This represents an important shift in understandings about motherhood and mothering as it brings to light the complexity of factors that shape and influence women’s experiences of motherhood and mothering (Collins; Gordon; Hays; Luxton; Mauthner; McMahon). Today a distinct feminist framework of knowledge and practice for conceptualizing mothers, motherhood, and mothering has emerged, referred to as maternal theory (Hays; HillCollins; hooks; Ladd-Taylor; Maushart; O’Reilly, Maternal Theory; Rich). Current maternal theory distinguishes between motherhood and mothering, and is largely influenced by Adrienne Rich’s work (Of Woman Born). “Motherhood” is conceptualized as the patriarchal institution of motherhood, which is male defined, controlled, and oppressive to women, whereas “mothering” is conceptualized as women’s experiences of mothering, which are female defined, centered, and potentially empowering to women (Rich). Rich argues that the reality of patriarchal motherhood must be distinguished from the possibility or potentiality of empowered mothering. 258

Abused women’s mothering experiences

Andrea O’Reilly’s work provides the largest and most significant contribution to the further development of Rich’s work and to the construction of a feminist theory and practice of empowered mothering. O’Reilly’s theory of “Mothering against Patriarchal Motherhood” provides a counter-narrative of motherhood that attempts to interrupt the master narrative of oppressive motherhood and implement a view of mothering that is empowering to women (Rocking the Cradle 45–48). Women who conform to the ideology of intensive mothering are considered “good mothers” while those who do not are considered “bad mothers.” O’Reilly argues that mothers can and do challenge the demands of intensive mothering by engaging in what she refers to as “empowered mothering,” which involves resisting as opposed to accepting patriarchal motherhood (O’Reilly Rocking the Cradle). Empowered mothering is characterized by agency, authority, autonomy, and authenticity (21–23). According to O’Reilly, marginalized mothers, such as poor mothers, mothers of color, and lesbian mothers, are more likely to engage in empowered mothering as they have fewer resources and less status in motherhood, and therefore are more able to perceive and oppose their oppression (46). Mothers who experience domestic violence are another group of marginalized mothers who have unique experiences due to the non-normative, stigmatized, and challenging circumstances in which they care for their children.

Findings, controversies, gaps, and future directions in relation to mothering in the social context of domestic violence Despite the long-standing research and literature in the area of domestic violence, and the more recent and emerging research and literature in the area of motherhood and mothering, there is surprisingly little overlap between these two bodies of work. The domestic violence work neglects to consider the unique mothering roles and responsibilities of women with children, and the motherhood and mothering work fails to consider the context of abuse in which some mothers carry out their mothering (McDonald-Harker, “Mothering in Marginalized Contexts”). A lack of knowledge and understanding about abused women’s mothering experiences continues to persist despite findings which indicate that women with children are up to three times more likely to experience domestic violence compared to women who do not have children; women’s decisions to contact and access domestic violence interventions are influenced based on whether or not they have children; and women and their accompanying children constitute a large number of the residents in women’s shelters (Holden and Ritchie; Holden et al.; Levendosky and Graham-Bermann, “Behavioral Observations of Parenting in Battered Women”). What then do we know about abused women’s mothering experiences? Since the late 1990s and early 2000s, a small body of scholarly research has begun to emerge as a result of concern among clinicians, particularly doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, and social workers, about the prevalence of abuse experienced by women and children, with a particular focus on the later. Much attention has been given to the protection, safety, and overall health and well-being of children. The majority of the existing research examines the impact of domestic violence on women’s mothering, and, in turn, the impact of women’s mothering on their children. Domestic violence, therefore, is largely viewed and framed as a child welfare issue. As a result, abused women are often only considered in relation to their children, relegating them to the periphery, which has important implications for how abused mothers are constructed, perceived, and portrayed in wider society (Lapierre, “Mothering in the Context of Domestic Violence”). Only a very limited amount of the existing research examines abused mothers in their own right. 259

Caroline McDonald-Harker

The current body of literature focuses on three main areas: (1) the impact of domestic violence on mothering practices; (2) the effects of domestic violence on mother-child relationships; and to a lesser extent (3) abused women’s perceptions and experiences of mothering. Some of the early research points to abused women’s mothering deficits and ineffective mothering abilities, raising concern about their competence as mothers. Suspicion is thus often placed on abused mother’s capacity to care for and protect their children. This has led to abused mothers facing criticism and heightened surveillance by service agencies and providers, particularly child protection services. However, the more recent research calls into question the supposition that abuse universally impairs women’s mothering, pointing to women’s mothering strengths and effective mothering abilities. As such, many scholars are now advocating for a move away from this deficit focus, and for greater support, rather than criticism, of abused women’s mothering (Krane and Davies, “Sisterhood is Not Enough”; Lapierre, “Mothering in the Context of Domestic Violence”; McDonald-Harker, Mothering in Marginalized Contexts; Nixon et al.; Radford and Hester, “Overcoming Mother Blaming?”). Each of these three main areas of focus will be discussed in order to provide an overview of the current knowledge and understandings of mothering in the context of domestic violence.

Domestic violence and mothering practices Much of what we know about abused women’s mothering focuses on their parenting practices, specifically their ability to cope with stress and trauma, the various disciplinary methods they utilize, and the nature and quality of their interactions with their children. Compared to non-abused women, abused women have increased levels of psychological distress as a result of experiencing abuse, whether it is verbal, emotional, psychological, physical, or sexual abuse ( Jones et al.). Consequently, the hardships of domestic violence are thought to have a direct and negative effect on women’s parenting capabilities, which puts their children at risk. Some assert that abused mothers experience increased parenting stress and react to their children in less effective ways (Levendosky and Graham-Bermann, “The Moderating Effects of Parenting Stress”), employ coercive parenting strategies (Hazen et al.), engage in harsh disciplinary practices which involve the use of verbal aggression (Morrell et al.), and are physically aggressive with children because they are distressed and distracted, resulting in strained interactions (Moore and Peppler). Despite this early and long-standing research which points to abused mothers’ deficits, sufficient evidence does not exist to conclude that experiencing domestic violence adversely affects parenting capabilities. In fact, recent research reveals that abused mothers compensate for the abuse they personally experience by being more affectionate, attentive, and sensitive to their children. Many argue that there are no differences in the parenting practices of abused and nonabused mothers, and that they are “remarkably similar” when it comes to their parenting values, beliefs, behavior, abilities, and interactions with their children (Holden and Ritchie; Van Horn and Lieberman). Some indicate that abused mothers have increased empathy for and protectiveness of their children (Levendosky et al., “Mothers’ Perceptions of the Impact of Woman Abuse”), are available to and closely supervise their children (Sullivan et al.), show positive discipline and warm and nurturing behavior towards their children (Letourneau et al.), avoid violent behavior with their own children (Buchbinder), create a buffer between their children’s world and their violent world by maintaining a positive attitude (Peled and Gil). Some also demonstrate that abused mothers take active steps to protect their children from violence, such as putting them in another room (Kelly), calling friends, family, or police for assistance (Haight et al.), and avoiding, appeasing, or leaving the abuser (Hardesty). 260

Abused women’s mothering experiences

On the whole, abused mothers do experience stressors as a result of abuse, but this does not necessarily mean that it directly impacts their parenting practices and leads to diminished parenting. Abused mothers are concerned about their children’s well-being and do find ways to compensate and overcome the violence in their lives.

Domestic violence and mother-child relationships Our knowledge about abused women’s mothering also largely focuses on mother-child relationships. A significant amount of attention is given to the psychological, emotional, and social characteristics of mother-child relationships, specifically mothers’ responsiveness, communication, and nurturing abilities. Domestic violence is believed to have detrimental effects on mother-child relationships. Some purport that abused mothers are emotionally drained and have little to give their children by way of emotional support (Abrahams), show less maternal warmth, affection, and kindness (Levendosky and Graham-Bermann, “Behavioral Observations of Parenting in Battered Women”; McCloskey), and have limited time and energy to devote to communicating with their children and therefore building, nurturing, and solidifying relationships (Mullender). Contrary to this early research, a growing body of research indicates that many mother-child relationships successfully endure during and after abuse, particularly when mothers receive social support. As such, these seeming deficiencies in mother-child relationships are attributed not to abused mothers themselves but rather to the lack of social supports that are accessible and available to abused mothers. Several uphold that abused mothers compensate for the abuse by becoming more effective and responsive to their children (Levendosky et al., “The Impact of Domestic Violence on the Maternal-Child Relationship and Preschool-Age Children’s Functioning”), provide emotional support and nurturance to their children as a protective strategy (Nixon et al.), and demonstrate supportive maternal relationships with their children which counteract the adverse psychological consequences of domestic violence ( Jarvis et al.). All in all, abused mothers are not helpless victims in the face of violence who subsequently neglect their relationships with their children. Abused mothers are often active subjects who attempt to compensate for the abuse by forging stronger relationships with their children, even in times of crisis.

Abused women’s perceptions and experiences of mothering Very little is known specifically about abused women’s mothering in its own right, separate from their children. There is a lack of research and knowledge about abused women’s subjective mothering perceptions and experiences from their own voices, perspectives, and subjectivities. There is an even greater dearth of knowledge about the complex ways that abused mothers are held to the dominant ideology of motherhood and how standards of good mothering shape their mothering experiences and views of themselves as mothers. Not much therefore is known about abused women’s lived realities. Some of the research that does specifically examine abused mothers in their own right focuses on their experiences with domestic violence protective interventions, mainly abused women’s shelters. There is increasing recognition and awareness that abused women’s shelters do not always effectively recognize and address women’s mothering needs. Residents are often viewed in a unidimensional way, as victims, and therefore other facets of their lives such as their role and responsibilities as mothers are not taken into consideration (Krane and Davies, “Sisterhood is not Enough”). Women residents are expected to pursue their individual needs in order 261

Caroline McDonald-Harker

to confront and overcome the violence in their lives, and those individual needs are not inclusive of their needs as mothers, rendering them invisible. When mothering is rendered visible, it is subject to idealized constructions which reinforce the message that good mothers should always be available to their children, and that their children’s needs must come first (Krane and Davies, “Mothering under Difficult Circumstances”). A contradictory message is thus conveyed to abused mothers – they must put their individual needs first to overcome the violence in their lives, but they must also and at the same time put their children’s needs first to fulfill their role and obligations as mothers. There is also some very limited research that focuses on the ways that abused women view, understand, and carry out their mothering. Attention is paid to the ways that standards of intensive mothering shape and influence abused women’s mothering experiences. Abused mothers often express the desire to be “good mothers” and to be perceived as such by engaging in “good mothering” strategies, such as putting their children first, and caring for and protecting their children even when their abusive male partners targets their mothering as part of their coercive and violent strategies (Lapierre, “Striving to Be Good Mothers”). Some abused mothers even directly articulate, challenge, and resist the constricting and oppressive nature of the ideology of intensive motherhood and the associated discourses of the “good mother” and “bad mother.” Abused mothers articulate that even though they are often viewed and portrayed as “bad mothers,” they are in fact “good mothers.” They resist the intensive mothering ideals by redefining what a “good mother” is so that it has more inclusive boundaries. In this sense, abused mothers, many of whom are also marginalized (single, poor, and nonwhite), find ways to empower themselves in their subjective constructions of their mothering identities in the face of an ideology of intensive mothering that delegitimizes and subjugates them (McDonald-Harker, Mothering in Marginalized Contexts). Overall, abused mothers are more strongly held to the idealized standards of mothering because they mother outside the socially boundaries of “good mothering.” However, this does not necessarily mean that they are passive victims who merely accept and internalize the ideology of intensive mothering that casts them in a negative light. Abused mothers do question these mothering standards and view their mothering in a positive light, despite their stigmatized status.

Conclusion Despite decades of awareness and research in the area of domestic violence, little is known about abused women’s mothering experiences, particularly from their own voices. Much of what we do know today about abused women’s mothering is largely in relation to their children and focuses on their parenting practices and their mother-child relationships. A lot of the early scholarly work focuses on abused women’s deficits as mothers, and only recently has there been a move towards acknowledging their strengths and abilities as mothers. It is important to recognize that locating the problem of domestic violence primarily with the women and their mothering obscures the gender inequalities that underlie domestic violence relationships, whereby males are the perpetrators and females are the victims, not to mention removes responsibility from the men who inflict abuse in the first place and their fathering. Moreover, targeting and blaming mothers for their own victimization, and then monitoring and questioning their mothering is more likely to lock women into abusive relationships, as it has the potential to discourage them from reporting and leaving abusive partners (Radford and Hester, “Overcoming Mother Blaming?”). Although emerging research is beginning to provide a window into the lived realities of abused mothers by focusing on their individual perceptions and experiences of mothering, 262

Abused women’s mothering experiences

much of this work is still in its infancy. Only when we give abused mothers a voice, pay close attention to their subjective experiences, and shine the light on their everyday realities, are we able to gain a clearer and more holistic understanding of their unique mothering experiences, which have been silenced for far too long. It is crucial to make visible the unique experiences of women who mother in the context of domestic violence, as failure to do so risks further marginalizing an already marginalized group of mothers, and rendering their experiences invisible. Going forward it is important to envision ways for creating spaces where all mothers, regardless of the contexts in which they carry out their mothering, are included rather than discounted, understood rather than criticized, and supported rather than judged.

Works cited Berk, R. A., et al. “Mutual Combat and Other Family Violence Myths.” The Dark Side of Families: Current Family Violence Research, edited by David Finkelhor, Sage Publications, 1983, pp. 197–212. Bograde, M. “Feminist Perspectives on Wife Abuse: An Introduction.” Feminist Perspectives on Wife Abuse, edited by Kersti Yllo and M. Bograde, Sage Publications, 1988, pp. 11–26. Bowker, Lee H. Beating Wife-beating. D. C. Heath, 1983. Buchbinder, Eli. “Motherhood of Battered Women: The Struggle for Repairing the Past.” Clinical Social Work Journal, vol. 32, no. 3, 2004, pp. 307–26. Chase, Susan E., and Mary F. Rogers. Mothers & Children: Feminist Analyses and Personal Narratives. Rutgers UP, 2001. Collins, Patricia Hill. “Shifting the Center: Race, Class, and Feminist Theorizing About Motherhood.” Mothering: Ideology, Experience, and Agency, edited by Evelyn Nakano Glenn et al., Routledge, 1994, pp. 45–66. Dobash, R. Emerson, and Russell Dobash. Violence against Wives: A Case against the Patriarchy. Free P, 1979. Featherstone, Brid, and Liz Trinder. “Familiar Subjects? Domestic Violence and Child Welfare.” Child and Family Social Work, 2003, pp. 147–59. Firestone, Shulamith. The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution. Bantam, 1971. Gordon, Tuula. Feminist Mothers. Macmillan, 1990. Haight, W. L., et al. “Mothers’ Strategies for Protecting Children from Batterers: The Perspectives of Battered Women Involved in Child Protective Services.” Child Welfare, vol. 86, no. 4, 2007, pp. 41–62. Hardesty, J. L. “Separation Assault in the Context of Post-Divorce Parenting: An Integrative Review of the Literature.” Violence against Women, vol. 8, 2002, pp. 597–625. Hays, Sharon. The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood. Yale UP, 1996. Hazen, A., et al. “Female Caregivers’ Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Behavior Problems in Children Investigated as Victims of Maltreatment.” Pediatrics, vol. 117, no. 1, 2006, pp. 99–109. Hochschild, Arlie R., and Anne Machung. The Second Shift: Working Families and the Revolution at Home. Penguin Books, 2012. Holden, George W., and Kathy L. Ritchie. “Linking Extreme Marital Discord, Child Rearing, And Child Behavior Problems: Evidence from Battered Women.” Child Development, vol. 62, 1991, pp. 311–27. Holden, George W., et al. “Parenting Behaviors and Beliefs of Battered Women.” Children Exposed to Marital Violence: Theory, Research, and Applied Issues, edited by G. W. Holden et al., American Psychological Association, 1997, pp. 289–334. hooks, bell. Feminist Theory from Margin to Center. South End, 1984. Jasinski, J. L. “Theoretical Explanations for Violence against Women.” Sourcebook on Violence against Women, edited by C. M. Renzetti et al., Sage Publications, 2001, pp. 5–21. Jones, L., et al. “Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in Victims of Domestic Violence: A Review of the Research.” Trauma, Violence & Abuse, vol. 2, 2001, pp. 99–119. Kelly, U. A. “ ‘I’m a Mother First’: The Influence of Mothering in the Decision-Making Processes of Battered Immigrant Latino Women.” Research in Nursing & Health, vol. 32, 2009, pp. 286–97. Knowles, Jane Price, and Ellen Cole. Woman-defined Motherhood. Hawthorn Press, 1990. Krane, J., and L. Davies. “Sisterhood Is Not Enough: The Invisibility of Mothering in Shelter Practice with Battered Women.” Affilia, vol. 17, 2002, pp. 167–90. ———. “Mothering under Difficult Circumstances: Challenges to Working with Battered Women.” Affilia, vol. 22, no. 1, 2007, pp. 23–38.

263

Caroline McDonald-Harker Kurz, Demie. “Social Science Perspectives on Wife Abuse: Current Debates and Future Directions.” Gender & Society, vol. 3, no. 4, 1989, pp. 489–505. Ladd-Taylor, Molly. “Mother-work: Women, Child Welfare, and the State, 1890–1930.” Journal of Historical Geography, vol. 21, no. 2, 1994, pp. 231–33. Lapierre, Simon. “Mothering in the Context of Domestic Violence: The Pervasiveness of a Deficit Model of Mothering.” Child & Family Social Work, vol. 13, 2008, pp. 454–63. ———. “Striving to Be ‘Good’ Mothers: Abused Women’s Experiences of Mothering.” Child Abuse Review, vol. 19, 2010, pp. 342–57. Lenton, R. L. “Power Versus Feminist Theories of Wife Abuse.” Canadian Journal of Criminology, vol. 7, 1995, pp. 305–30. Leonard, V. W. “Mothering as a Practice.” Caregiving: Readings in Knowledge, Practice, Ethics, and Politics, edited by S. Gordon et al., U of Pennsylvania P, 1996, pp. 124–40. Letourneau, N. L., et al. “Mothering and Domestic Violence: A Longitudinal Analysis.” Journal of Family Violence, vol. 22, no. 8, 2007, pp. 649–59. Levendosky, Alytia A., and Sandra A. Graham-Bermann. “The Moderating Effects of Parenting Stress on Children’s Adjustment in Woman-Abusing Families.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence, vol. 13, 1998, pp. 383–97. ———. “Behavioral Observations of Parenting in Battered Women.” Journal of Family Psychology, vol. 14, 2000, pp. 80–94. Levendosky, Alytia A., et al. “The Impact of Domestic Violence on the Maternal-Child Relationship and Preschool-Age Children’s Functioning.” Journal of Family Psychology, vol. 17, no. 3, 2003, pp. 275–87. Levendosky, Alytia A., et al. “Mothers’ Perceptions of the Impact of Woman Abuse on Their Parenting.” Violence against Women, vol. 6, 2000, pp. 247–71. Luxton, Meg. Feminism and Families Critical Policies and Changing Practices. Fernwood, 1997. Maushart, Susan. Mask of Motherhood. Penguin Books, 1999. Mauthner, Natasha S. “ ‘Feeling Low and Feeling Really Bad about Feeling Low’: Women’s Experiences of Motherhood and Postpartum Depression.” Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, vol. 40, no. 2, 1999, pp. 143–61. McCloskey, Laura Ann, et al. “The Effects of Systemic Family Violence on Children’s Mental Health.” Child Development, vol. 66, 1995, pp. 1239. McDonald-Harker, Caroline. “Mothering in the Context of Domestic Violence and Encounters with Child Protection Services: From Victimized to “Criminalized” Mothers.” Criminalized Mothers: Criminalizing Motherhood, edited by J. Minaker and B. Hogeveen, Demeter Press, 2015, pp. 323–54. ———. Mothering in Marginalized Contexts: Narratives of Women Who Mother in and through Domestic Violence. Demeter Press, 2016. McMahon, Martha. Engendering Motherhood: Identity and Self-transformation in Women’s Lives. Guilford, 1995. Moore, T. E., and D. J. Peppler. “Correlates of Adjustment in Children at Risk.” Children Exposed to Marital Violence: Theory, Research, and Applied Issues, edited by G. W. Holden et al., American Psychological Association, 1988, pp. 157–84. Morrel, T. M., et al. “The Effect of Maternal Victimization on Children: A Cross-Information Study.” Journal of Family Violence, vol. 18, no. 1, 2003, pp. 29–41. Mullender, Audrey. Children’s Perspectives on Domestic Violence. SAGE, 2002. Nixon, K. L., et al. “Protective Strategies of Mothers Abused by Intimate Partners: Rethinking the Deficit Model.” Violence against Women, vol. 23, no. 11, 2017, pp. 1271–92. O’Brien Hallstein, D. Lynn. White Feminists and Contemporary Maternity: Purging Matrophobia. Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. O’Reilly, Andrea. Mother Matters: Motherhood as Discourse and Practice: Essays from the Journal of the Association for Research on Mothering. Association for Research on Mothering, 2004. ———. Mother Outlaws: Theories and Practices of Empowered Mothering. Women’s Press, 2004. ———. Rocking the Cradle: Thoughts on Feminism, Motherhood, and the Possibility of Empowered Mothering. Demeter, 2006. ———. Maternal Theory: Essential Readings. Demeter Press, 2007. Peled, E., and I. B. Gil. “The Mothering Perceptions of Women Abused by Their Partner.” Violence against Women, vol. 17, no. 4, 2011, pp. 457–79. Pleck, E., et al. “The Battered Data Syndrome: A Comment on Steinmetz’ Article.” Victimology: An International Journal, vol. 2, 1977–1978, pp. 690–84.

264

Abused women’s mothering experiences Radford, L., and M. Hester. “Introduction.” Women, Violence and Male Power, edited by M. Hester et al., Open UP, 1996, pp. 1–16. ———. “Overcoming Mother Blaming? Future Directions for Research on Mothering and Domestic Violence.” Domestic Violence in the Lives of Children: The Future of Research, Intervention, and Social Policy, edited by S. A. Graham-Bermann and J. L. Edleson, American Psychological Association, 2006, pp. 135–56. Rich, Adrienne. Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution. Norton, 1986. Ruddick, Sara. “Maternal Thinking.” Philosophy, Children, and the Family, vol. 6, no. 3, 1980, pp. 101–26. Russell, Diana E. H. Rape in Marriage. Macmillan, 1982. Sullivan, Cris M., et al. “Beyond Searching for Deficits.” Journal of Emotional Abuse, vol. 2, 2000, pp. 51–71. United Nations. Strategies for Confronting Domestic Violence: A Resource Manual (1993). United Nations, 2015. Van Horn, P., and A. Lieberman. Domestic Violence and Parenting: A Review of the Literature. Judicial Council of California, Center for Families, Children and the Courts. 2002. Walker, Lenore E. The Battered Woman. Harper & Row, 1980.

265

SECTION V

Mothering, families, and domestic space

21 FROM HOME TO HOUSE Neoliberalism, mothering, and the de-domestication of the private sphere? Melinda Vandenbeld Giles

Introduction In At Home: An Anthropology of Domestic Space, John Rennie Short writes, “Given the huge significance of the home, there is comparatively little work on its meaning” (Short ix). Short is referring specifically to the “home” as conceptualized in the Euro-American imagination. It is important to note that he made this statement in 1999. Two decades later, exploring, analyzing, fretting, and writing about the meaning of “the home,” “mothering,” and “the family” has become a favourite North American past-time. Given the 2008 economic “crisis,” the meaning of the “home” has become particularly imperative. If the “home,” particularly the “suburban home” is the site of the American dream, is it any wonder this dream is considered in threat of collapse given the fallout from the housing mortgage crisis? Although greater bank regulation has provided protection in Canada, our social imaginaries remain intimately connected with the American context, thereby creating an affective anxiety with “housing” at its core. The plethora of real estate shows and home improvement books and magazines quickly reveal this societal preoccupation with the “home.” In “Home Improvement: Domestic Taste, DIY, and the Property Market,” Buck Clifford Rosenberg discusses the DIY culture and the imperative to depersonalize one’s home to increase future sale prospects. In an effort to avoid the “grandma effect,” affect associated with materialism is erased and replaced with homogenized “style” (Rosenberg). Rosenberg links this depersonalized aesthetic conversion of the home to the wider processes of neoliberal selfhood in which the “branding” of self becomes a marketing tool. There is a particular and homogenized moral imperative induced within home improvement shows that reduces individuality to market demands. Rosenberg writes, “The makeover has removed . . . personalization from the house – and potentially the status of ‘home’ along with it – for the materialized identities of its owners are no longer present” (Rosenberg 17). In other words, have neoliberal imperatives reduced the “home” to being a “house?” Has the “home” become merely another site of investment devoid of symbolic significance? Has the “home” figuratively become a “hotel” – a place perceived to be devoid of personal aesthetic, a place of anonymity and mobility? Given the moral imperative of the “home” in the North American imagination, the perceived loss of this symbolic space could produce significant societal anxiety. As Dolores Hayden writes, the American ideal life is embodied in the suburban 269

Melinda Vandenbeld Giles

home as the site of individualism, privacy, and idealized family and gender norms. If this symbolic significance is apparently stripped by economic imperatives, does this alter our very understandings of “family” and “motherhood?” (Blunt and Dowling 7) Or is this assumption regarding the loss of the symbolic erroneous?

Background and context In The Managed Heart, Arlie Hochschild discusses the economic coopting of emotion in the movement from a Fordist labour economy based on material relations to a post-Fordist service economy based on social relations. Value is to be found in people, not things (Hochschild). The shifting space of the “home” in the North American imagination is emblematic of larger neoliberal societal narratives in which we are witnessing increasing financialization of the “social” (Haiven). How are neoliberal discourses governing morality and subjectivity implicitly informing and altering conceptualizations of the “home” and associated presumptions of domesticity? In Enjoying Neoliberalism, Jodi Dean writes, “Neoliberalism relies on the production of imaginary rather than symbolic identities” (Dean 60). I will refer to Lacan in describing the symbolic order as the everyday order of language and meaning. Jodi Dean utilizes Žižek in her theorizing, suggesting a “loss of symbolic efficiency” (Dean 61). In essence, Žižek suggests a loss of “common sense” or “what everyone knows.” The argument is that the Fordist era produced specific subjectivities or roles to play. The diversity and chaos of the post-Fordist neoliberal era, however, produces anxiety due to a loss of established meaning. In other words, there is a disconnect between the signifier and the signified leading to the erosion of symbolic efficiency. This relates back to popularized perceptions of the home wherein the “home” as an established material and symbolic entity representing a definitive concept of how things “ought to be” (the American dream) is transforming into a physical house given no meaning beyond market value. It is precisely this connection between the symbolic and the material that I wish to explore further. To what degree are normative conceptualizations of “the home” still relevant? Governmentality theorists suggest the categories of meaning have become even more entrenched, albeit implicitly rather than explicitly. I will borrow from Jesook Song to define governmentality as “liberal political reasoning and technologies that are suffused throughout society by various social actors and spheres, such as NGOs, businesses, residential communities, families, schools, and individuals as well as state administrative institutes” (Song xii). While “the home,” “the family,” and “good mothering” have always been defined in a way that is consistent with particular economic/political imperatives, in the post-1970s neoliberal era, instead of signifying social roles, they now signify particular economic positions masked as the social. The more disconnected the signifier from the signified, the more entrenched must these categories become thereby leading to increased surveillance to ensure complicity. Thus, instead of viewing home decorating shows or the perceived transition from “home” to “house” as a loss of the symbolic, it could alternately be viewed in terms of increased moral/social imperatives to follow even more homogenized roles masked by the fiction of depersonalization.

Historical overview What does “home” mean? What are the current meanings of “home,” “family,” and “mothering”? If we are to understand the specificity of the neoliberal mothering paradigm, we must first place it within historical context. In American Kinship, David Schneider effectively reveals the extent to which this 270

From home to house

unification of the “family” and the “home” has always been an implicit and naturalized assumption in the Euro-American imagination. Schneider writes, “A family is a mated pair raising its offspring in a home of its own. A family without a home, a husband, a wife, or a child is not complete” (Schneider 50). He discusses the pivotal and rather unique perceived segregation in American society between the realm of “work” and “home.” Since kinship has been segregated to the realm of the “home,” the “home” has become a defining symbol of family life. “Work” has been defined as the place of productivity, progress, and money, where “man” has governed the forces of “nature.” In sharp contrast, “home” has been the place of the maternal, love, and familial relationships, governed by what is “natural” (Schneider 46–48). In Home: A Short History of an Idea, Witold Rybczynski traces the historical transition in Europe from the public feudal household to the private family home. Rybczynski discusses the public/private divide and the creation of a feminized domestic economy. Rybczynski writes, “Before the idea of home as the seat of family life could enter the human consciousness, it required the experience of both privacy and intimacy, neither of which had been possible in the medieval hall” (Rybczynski 48). Although Rybczynski acknowledges the impossibility of defining a singular moment when the modern idea of the family home first entered the human consciousness, he does discuss the domestic interior of seventeenth-century Netherlands as exemplary. From 1609 to 1660, the Netherlands became the world center for international finance. As primarily merchants and landowners, the Dutch social fabric developed within an urban context. Increasingly, the Dutch owned their own homes and built separate establishments for their businesses. With education being prioritized, children remained at home instead of being sent out to work. Given the Calvinist emphasis on independence, the Dutch hired few servants and imposed special taxes on those who did employ domestic help. These various shifts led to the positioning of women with their children isolated within the private “family home.” Rybczynski highlights the central importance of words in defining our realities. “We use words not only to describe objects but also to express ideas, and the introduction of words into the language marks the simultaneous introduction of ideas into the consciousness” (Rybczynski 21). The concept of the “home” as we understand it today in the Euro-American imagination could not exist without first developing the concepts of “domesticity” and “comfort.” As the domestic world became increasingly isolated from the public realm, the word “home” emerged to define the site of family, intimacy, and child-rearing.

Central themes Imagining the “home” in a neoliberal era David Schneider interpreted the core symbols of American kinship as revealed amongst primarily white, middle-class Americans during the 1960s. He revealed the processes of domesticity that had been occurring for hundreds of years, as Rybczynski illustrated. He also provided a pivotal framework within which to consider both stability and change. How are social, economic, and political forces constantly redefining and reinterpreting these core symbols, particularly since the mid-1970s with increasing neoliberalism and globalization? In A Brief History of Neoliberalism, David Harvey writes, “Future historians may well look upon the years 1978–80 as a revolutionary turning-point in the world’s social and economic history” (Harvey 1). Harvey defines neoliberalism as a theory of political economic practices that proposes that human well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an 271

Melinda Vandenbeld Giles

institutional framework characterized by strong private property rights, free markets, and free trade. . . . It holds that the social good will be maximized by maximizing the reach and frequency of market transactions, and it seeks to bring all human action into the domain of the market. (Harvey 2–3) In what ways does this increasing market imperative then influence how these core symbols are to be interpreted in the North American societal imagination? Increasing neoconservative discourses of familial domesticity within the “home” coincide with the growing prevalence of families experiencing homelessness. The vision of wealth and productivity evoked by the construction of shiny new condos eclipses the massive dispossession of social housing. These “homeless” families subvert the neoliberal individualistic ideologies of productivity wherein the “family” provides the essential educational/emotional/ physical space within which to socially reproduce future creative and entrepreneurial neoliberal subjects (Vandenbeld Giles, “Making Invisible” 162). Within an increasingly competitive and capitalistic world where the perceived loss of the “social” has become paramount, how might these associations of the “family home” as the site of “love” and “selflessness” become further strengthened? Alternately, is the “family home” still conceptualized as the site of “love” as Schneider established, or have these symbolic categories been submerged by neoliberal narratives of investment? Can the “home” be both a depersonalized site for investment purposes and a moralistic space of social reproduction? In “Complexio Oppositorum: Notes on the Left in Neoliberal Italy,” Andrea Muehlebach writes, “Neoliberalism is often better understood as a form that can contain the oppositional . . . and fold them into a single moral order” (Muehlebach 495). Neoliberal discourses frame the merging of this home/work, public/private dichotomy as a positive element of creativity. Leftist postmodern criticisms of modernist home/work dualisms ironically bolster neoliberal “flexible labour” and entrepreneurial imperatives. Mothers are encouraged to financialize the domestic space through “work-from-home” ideals despite precariousness and often poor remuneration. Yet within the neoliberal framework, this creative “freedom” only applies to a privileged sector of the population. How do the majority of citizens experience this mobility/flexibility imperative, particularly those who do not “choose” to live in constant transience and insecurity? There are no easy answers or solutions for these questions, but in the asking we can hope to begin a more nuanced and critical dialogue regarding the normalized assumptions of the neoliberal world in which we live.

Further reading Blunt, Alison, and Robyn Dowling. Home. Routledge, 2006. Haiven, Max. Cultures of Financialization: Fictitious Capital in Popular Culture and Everyday Life. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. Harvey, David. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford UP, 2005. Hochschild, Arlie Russell. The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. U of California P, 1983. Rybczynski, Witold. Home: A Short History of an Idea. Penguin Books, 1987. Schneider, David. American Kinship: A Cultural Account. 1968. 2nd ed., U of Chicago P, 1980. Short, John Rennie. At Home: An Anthropology of Domestic Space. Syracuse UP, 1999. Vandenbeld Giles, Melinda. “ ‘Making Invisible’: The Eradication of ‘Homeless Mothers’ from Public Policy in Ontario, Canada.” Mothering in the Age of Neoliberalism, edited by Melinda Vandenbeld Giles, Demeter Press, 2014.

272

From home to house

Conclusion It is always in moments of transition when hegemonic fantasies reveal their inconsistencies thereby necessitating increased enforcement. If we return to earlier conceptualizations of “home,” we have witnessed a perceived neoliberal transition from “home” as a symbolic place of love and nurturance to “house” as a depersonalized space of investment. But does this depersonalized conceptualization of home mask an increasingly gendered moralistic environment? Equally, it would seem diverse interpretations of mothering mask an increasingly stringent moral regulation of mothers. How do neoliberal conceptualizations of the “home” and “mothering” work together to reinforce each other, increasingly placing the “mother” in the “home” despite overt narratives of “choice”? (Vandenbeld Giles, “Introduction” 4) Given the multiple ways in which neoliberalism can be viewed as a tool enfolding dichotomous narratives, the more “home” becomes a depersonalized site of regulation co-opted by the market, the more must it thus be identified as a site of “maternal love” defined by intrinsic biological and thus seemingly irrefutable imperatives.

Works cited Blunt, Alison, and Robyn Dowling. Home. Routledge, 2006. Dean, Jodi. “Enjoying Neoliberalism.” Cultural Politics, vol. 4, no. 1, 2008, pp. 47–72. Haiven, Max. Cultures of Financialization: Fictitious Capital in Popular Culture and Everyday Life. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. Harvey, David. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford UP, 2005. Hochschild, Arlie Russell. The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. U of California P, 1983. Muehlebach, Andrea. “Complexio Oppositorum: Notes on the Left in Neoliberal Italy.” Public Culture, vol. 21, no. 3, Fall 2009, pp. 495–515. Rosenberg, Buck Clifford. “Home Improvement: Domestic Taste, DIY, and the Property Market.” Home Cultures, vol. 8, no. 1, Mar. 2011, pp. 5–23. Rybczynski, Witold. Home: A Short History of an Idea. Penguin Books, 1987. Schneider, David. American Kinship: A Cultural Account. 1968. 2nd ed., U of Chicago P, 1980. Short, John Rennie. At Home: An Anthropology of Domestic Space. Syracuse UP, 1999. Song, Jesook. South Koreans in the Debt Crisis: The Creation of a Neoliberal Welfare Society. Duke UP, 2009. Vandenbeld Giles, Melinda. “Introduction: An Alternative Mother-Centred Economic Paradigm.” Mothering in the Age of Neoliberalism, edited by Melinda Vandenbeld Giles, Demeter Press, 2014, pp. 1–30. ———. “ ‘Making Invisible’: The Eradication of ‘Homeless Mothers’ from Public Policy in Ontario, Canada.” Mothering in the Age of Neoliberalism, edited by Melinda Vandenbeld Giles, Demeter Press, 2014, pp. 153–168.

273

22 MOTHERING OR PARENTING? Linda Rose Ennis

Do the parents’ needs always coincide with the child’s? How do we decide what is in the “best interests of the child”? How can we ensure that it’s not at the expense of the mother? How is parenting different or similar in marriage than it is in divorce? How can parenting work effectively when society promotes intensive mothering within marriage, which is enacted by mothers, yet upon divorce, some fathers, who previously did not adequately parent, then advocate for equal coparenting? In addressing these questions, it needs to be said that this chapter is not about excluding fathers in parenting, but rather balancing the parenting role in an appropriate way with divorce as an extension of parental behavior within marriage. Both parents are important to their children but perhaps may contribute in different ways to parenting, not necessarily in equal measures.

Contemporary context: parenting today In this context, there is not only a need to examine the impact of the patriarchal system on mothers’ potential oppression but also to further explore the myth of how such a system can only operate at the expense of a matriarchal one. Taking into account that we aspire to have co-parenting in marriage, this is not always realistic. Increased father recognition in divorce may undermine motherhood by reinforcing the injustice of equalizing parenting by not addressing the lack of equalization when it comes to women’s relationship to work once they become mothers. Alternatively, there are instances, particularly in separation, when partners become oppressive to each other when one chooses not to take on financial responsibility within the relationship, despite disempowering themselves in the process. As we generalize mothering into parenting, it needs to be said that parental thinking “denies the ongoing presence of gender imbalance and the fact that the actual work of parenting continues to be done largely by women” (Frye 16), namely mothers. In understanding parenting today in North American culture, there is a need to explore the conflicting narratives about fathers, which is that fathers today are more involved in parenting and, paradoxically, that mothers do the bulk of parenting. As Podnieks has noted, “The definitions of fatherhood have shifted in the twenty-first century as paternal subjectivities, conflicts, and desires have registered in new ways in the contemporary family.” Although there has been increased parental participation by fathers in marriage, the literature notes that leisure time for part-time working mothers is scattered while men have more unbroken leisure time (Schulte 28) and that stay-at-home women feel guilty and do everything (168). As Doucet, in her earlier 274

Mothering or parenting?

work, has said: “Men do not mother, even when they are primary caregivers, they enact their role as fathers. Women adjust their lives to accommodate children not usually men” (250). To help explain this behavior, Harrington et al. have suggested that most of the fathers in their study aspire to share equally in caregiving with their spouse/partner, but often are unable to bring this desire to reality. In addition, they concluded that fathers need time to develop parenting skills, especially in the United States, which they don’t have, because it isn’t particularly a family supportive culture (Harrington et al. 33). From this we can surmise that there is a need to focus on wider gendered relations, which is not happening at an equal rate at this point in time. Even while fathers have been reworking their role as nurturers over the last two decades, as Doucet has noted (Podnieks), the patriarchal system is still operating and determining how parents should perform their roles. There is also a relationship between societal expectations and the individual mother’s style of mothering. There needs to be a greater respect for motherhood and a necessity to promote societal changes that will address what actions to take regarding all that is “on one plate”, namely mothers’ (Brown). It may also be about the perception of the value of the work, not the income and expectations the couple has (Maushart). Spousal earnings should be equally owned, since dependent wives have been shaped by a patriarchal system that adopts pro-marriage policies rather than offering equal job opportunity especially for women and mothers. At this point in time in Ontario, women do 50% more work at home than men, according to Statscan, choose more flexible lower-paying jobs to cope with responsibilities at home and are expected to put caring over career (Kaplan).

Personal view of my father I became interested in this topic because of my own father’s intense involvement in parenting. He made lunches, wrote notes, which he placed in his children’s lunches, wishing them a good day or good luck on a test. He sewed jumpers for their home economics classes, took his children to school and picked them up, did the shopping, took them skating, looked after them when they were sick, took them to the doctor, and went to all parent and teacher meetings in addition to working outside of the home. This parental involvement sounds like our mothers of today. He encouraged his daughters to be self-sufficient and have careers because “you never know what tomorrow brings.” He was an equal co-parent in marriage, who had flexible hours, owned his own business, and was compensating for enormous loss in his life. In addition, he took on parenting when he wasn’t working outside of the home. Because of his role modeling, the question for me is and has always been; Are they all like that? Can fathers parent or should we even be comparing the mothering and fathering role? I subsequently conducted a qualitative study entitled “Paternal Involvement and Maternal Employment,” which explored whether fathers are more involved in marriage when their partners are employed. The result of that study indicated that it wasn’t so much maternal employment that determined paternal involvement but rather the relationship that the father had with his own mother and the losses he experienced, which resulted in the desire to re-create the parent-child bond, as well as to model effective parenting by his own father (Ennis, “Paternal Involvement and Maternal Employment”). In addition, it was noted that mothers who are insecure as mothers, or in their career, may not be as open to father involvement as secure mothers.

Historical background and context While it is recognized that parenting for fathers is important, both for a child’s well-being, as well as for the father, mother, and couple relationship, the desire to be an involved and 275

Linda Rose Ennis

nurturing parent may not be the same as what is actually occurring for all fathers. Having said that, while historically fathers were relegated to the role of primary breadwinner and mothers to the sole caregiving of children, this has shifted to a more fluid involvement by both parents, depending on the definition of the marriage as more traditional or egalitarian, as well as the degree of involvement in the workforce and income earnings. Marriage has become more optional and fragile with more mutual choices to be made and has become more democratized although traditional elements still exist within more egalitarian marriages (Ennis, After the Happily Ever After). It is unclear whether more paternal involvement actually frees up mothers to be more engaged in their careers, which was likely the logic of the second-wave feminists. However, research does suggest that “high father involvement with children is associated with a positive couple relationship in that the better parents are getting along, the more likely dads are to be doing things with their children” (Pleck et al.). Recent analysis of the first five years of the Millennium Cohort Study has supported these findings and found evidence which supported the “spillover” model – that marital conflict affects parenting behaviour which in turn affects children – rather than the “compensatory” model which suggests parents try to compensate for poor partner relationships with good child relationships (Poole et al.). Having said that, in contemporary North American society, “intensive mothering” determines the degree of father involvement in that the primary preoccupation with the children is attributed to the mother in that she is often the one who “holds the child in her head.” While intensive parenting has also become more popular today, the quality and nature of that relationship may be quite different for both parents. In addition, parental involvement is very much related to the financial stability of the parties involved (i.e., who earns more) and the practicality of who should be the primary caregiver (i.e., who works from home).

Controversies and challenges Are fathers all the same? Mothers don’t mother the same but societal expectation is clear about the role of mothers. Even though it seems as if fathers parent differently than mothers, do fathers parent the same as each other? Men may not mother, but parent in their own unique way and often do so at their own discretion. Why are we juxtaposing mothers and fathers against each other and expecting equal parenting arrangements if none existed during the marriage? If the father’s primary contribution was monetary and the mother’s was mothering, after the divorce, the mother will be expected to take on financial obligations to survive and the father more parenting arrangements during his co-parenting time with the children. How can parents, particularly mothers, suddenly shift onto the career path without adequate employment or training as co-primary breadwinners (which wasn’t as much of a concern within the marriage) while fathers are expected to transform into equal, nurturing parents, which didn’t exist prior to divorce?

Gender essentialism and the new momism When we think about parenting, one controversy that needs to be addressed is “gender essentialism,” which is a stereotypic and biased view that women and men are inherently different because of intrinsic differences between the genders. It suggests that men and women act differently and have different options in life because of these essential differences between the sexes (Boskey). This term is often used to excuse patriarchal behavior towards women, lower pay, or

276

Mothering or parenting?

traditional views on caregiving. Frye in “Parental Thinking” said that “parental thinking” is “a practice deriving from the ongoing and active commitment to caring for children, shaped by constructions of gender but available to both men and women” (15). She continues that this way of thinking “denies the ongoing presence of gender imbalance and the fact that the actual work of parenting continues to be done largely by women” (16). Many fathers embrace fatherhood but rely on the women in their lives for emotional guidance in parenting. Alternatively, they may have a fear that they are compromising their careers and fear the stigma of caring for children (Marotte). We try to equate paternal involvement with equity between the sexes and are afraid of being accused of gender differentiation or, at the very least, narrow-minded by adopting rigid thinking. As a result, we try to encourage those of different races, cultures, and sexual orientation to embrace parenting equally. This is, of course, imperative to the future of our society, but as it stands now, studies show that, even though fathers develop a similar attachment relationship with babies, mothers engage in more parenting activities than fathers do. Maybe, the parenting is still more of an attachment, nurturing type rather than an affiliative, playful one, and we need to understand why. The construction of our society, even if we don’t want to admit it, is still patriarchal. We want equality for women and encourage them to be involved in the workforce for their family security as well as to justify having an equal education to men. However, we do not offer encouragement to anyone for raising children, neither to mothers nor for fathers. Why would anyone, other than those in a lesser financial position or who have bought into the expectation of intensive mothering, want to engage in an activity that isn’t respected and doesn’t offer remuneration? The new momism, a type of gender essentialism, “insists that if you want to do anything else, you’d better first prove that you’re a doting, totally involved mother before proceeding” (Douglas and Michaels 22). The issue with this philosophy is that if, as a mother, she embraces it, the financial fallout is huge. An intensively involved mother may end up sharing parenting even where equal parenting may not have existed within the marriage. The controversy around equal co-parenting has been huge especially in areas pertaining to family law when the question arises whether fathers matter as much as mothers and whether they should be granted equal co-parenting rights.

The lived experience of mothering Another challenge related to parenting and mothering is the lived experiences of mothers during marriage, separation, and divorce. I was once invited to give a talk to young mothers who desperately were seeking advice about their partners forcing them back to work after the maternity leave period elapsed because “that’s not what they signed up for.” The desire to continue in the mothering mode, as the primary caregiver, was apparent for these mothers, which is reinforced by our society yet not always by one’s partner. In addition, it is curious how mothers engaging in primary parenting, even while working, seems to function in marriage but its value is further reassessed in divorce. There is often no acknowledgement by divorcing ex-partners that the individual who parents longer hours should pay less support payments. The rationalization often is that the uninvolved parent didn’t want to be around his/her family because he/she felt uncomfortable being around his/her ex-spouse and, as a result, parented less. However, now that his/her ex-partner is gone on his/her days, he/she can be a good parent. How can parents co-parent effectively if they avoid each other? How can one parent effectively if he/she hasn’t done so up to this point?

277

Linda Rose Ennis

The risks of avoiding gender essentialism, intensive mothering, and the mommy track It is necessary to examine our distaste for the term “gender essentialism” particularly as it relates to motherhood. Even though we are in denial over gender essentialism in parenting, it is still factually true that it remains in parenting because mothers do the overwhelming majority of parenting work. We compensate for this discomfort, specifically as it relates to fatherhood care, by diluting motherhood to “the other” who engages in childcare. In a utopian world, there would be no differences between gender, race, sexual orientation, and culture. Even I, as the author of this chapter, tried to be inclusive and attempted to recognize the involved father by not identifying, specifically, which parent was being discussed when elaborating upon parental involvement. Even though, in a previous context, it was suggested that expanding upon the model of “intensive mothering” to “intensive parenting” through education and more paternal involvement was optimal (Ennis, After the Happily Ever After), it was recognized that fathers intensively parent differently (Ennis, Intensive Mothering). “Intensive Mothering” is defined as parenting primarily being conducted by mothers (both stay-at-home and working), centered on children’s needs with methods informed by experts, which are labour-intensive and costly simply because children are entitled to this maternal investment (Hays; O’Reilly, “Introduction”). However, despite our hope for equality, there is the possibility that increased father recognition may undermine and fail to acknowledge the maternal role, in some cases, and may be further devaluing the motherhood model. While fathers can mother, many fathers do not choose to do so, as it is still not the norm, just as some mothers are trained to be successful in careers and sometimes it doesn’t play out that way, in reality, due to work-motherhood imbalance and an oppressive patriarchal system. In divorce, is it in the best interest of the child for a mother to lose her financial status on a career path because she lingered too long on the mommy track, who opted to sacrifice promotions and pay raises in order to devote more time to raising her children? Many women lose their financial status because they couldn’t veer off the mommy track, in addition to losing their children to joint parenting with a partner, who may have shown no interest in being involved in parenting. This is a critical issue when it comes to divorce proceedings where joint parenting is granted to fathers, who may not have been engaged with their children prior to separation. There is a mistaken assumption or myth that the less involved parent will “step up to the plate,” if given the opportunity, when the mother is not preventing it, which sounds a lot like “mother blame,” once again. The question is how to encourage father involvement but not at the expense of motherhood and how not to further disempower mothers, who have been repeatedly disenfranchised by the patriarchy. We need to think about how to reconcile our need to be all-inclusive in parenting, while recognizing that the best interests of the child, as well as the mother’s, must be adequately served. By being gender inclusive, as a vehicle to avoid gender essentialism, we have to be careful to not, inadvertently, run the risk of devaluing the work that mothers actually do.

Best interests and co-parenting Another challenge related to co-parenting is that often there is some confusion, in the North American context, what the term “best interests of the child” actually means, especially the subtle nuances of the term in situations, which are not as obvious. In the context of child custody cases, focusing on the child’s “best interests” means that all custody and visitation discussions and 278

Mothering or parenting?

decisions are made with the ultimate goal of fostering and encouraging the child’s happiness, security, mental health, and emotional development into young adulthood. Generally speaking, it is often in the child’s best interests to maintain a close and loving relationship with both parents, but the practicalities of promoting and maintaining such relationships can be the main challenge in resolving a child custody dispute. Taking this definition into account, is it always in the best interests of the child for parents to adopt an equal co-parenting arrangement in divorce if one of the parents had no interest in being one during the marriage? Even though in most situations, joint custody, which entails joint decision-making, is warranted, co-parenting refers to the care of the child and the time each parent spends with him/her. How can we get uninvolved parents reinvested in parenting before the court decides that there should be co-parenting in separation because we believe in equality and because it is politically correct? While not restricting parenting to mothers in both marriage and divorce, there is a need to question whether co-parenting is a means of disempowerment to the newly divorced mother, since theoretically we are advocating equal parenting. Yet, our neoliberal society still ensures that the bulk of parenting is done by both working and non-working mothers. When the uninvolved parent within marriage is suddenly expected to parent on his or her own after separation or divorce, he/she may then offload the child onto someone else to serve the function that the primary parent provided. As such, is it in the best interests for a child to be looked after by the uninvolved parent’s relative or a nanny rather than the primary caregiver he/she was accustomed to? To clarify, not all fathers are negligent and mothers engaged. How can we get the uninvolved parent more involved in a proper co-parenting arrangement? Within marriage, women often take maternity leave and use that opportunity to connect with their baby. Fathers still do not take paternity leave as often as mothers, even though it is offered, because of the stigma associated with it in many work environments, which also needs to change. How can we get fathers reinvested in parenting before we decide that there should just be co-parenting because we believe in equality even though this is not the case for most women financially? In divorce, there is a sudden shift whereby the uninvolved parent may feel entitled to joint parenting, not because they want to do it. We rationalize that this parent has realized the error of his ways and mourns the loss of his family but in fact, it appears to be more of an issue of a fair settlement, as it is with property division, in the form of the parent paying less child maintenance if he has the child for longer periods of time. Perhaps we need to consider how to equalize the financial loss of the mother, who withdrew from full-time work, as a primary caregiver, by equalizing the status of living upon divorce between the divorcing parents. Although it is possible that joint parenting may free up the mother to engage in a new career that often has been derailed by motherhood, in our quest for equality, are we further disempowering mothers by considering the father’s sense of inequality in cases where he sought no such equality within the marriage? We need to finally shatter the myth of how a patriarchal system can only operate at the expense of a matriarchal one.

The Ontario 40% rule and transitioning parents into an equitable parenting arrangement Another issue is that there have been different perspectives regarding the involvement of fathers with their children upon divorce. “The Changing Identity of Mothers in Situations of Separation and Divorce” noted that, while “historically the ideology of motherhood in Irish society was very much defined by a connection to and immersion in the family, upon separation however, analysis showed that there is a shift in the pattern of responsibility whereby there is 279

Linda Rose Ennis

significant disengagement by fathers and mothers’ responsibilities become all encompassing” (Crosse and Millar). Alternatively, Olerenshaw may have looked at the flip-side of the aforementioned study, which noted how a patriarchal system and increased father recognition, at the expense of motherhood, is undermining motherhood when she commented,“The reality is stark: mothers are, in gradual steps, losing the rights, freedom and economic ability to raise their own children, within the patriarchal and capitalist project” (22). While in the Crosse and Millar study, fathers seemed to distance themselves from their children upon divorce, this is not really so different from what is actually happening in other contexts except fathers are automatically feeling entitled to coparenting arrangements. The relationship between the Ontario 40% residency rule and co-parenting becomes more apparent when we examine the trend for the uninvolved parent to request more parenting time in exchange for paying less child support. The law in Ontario provides that shared custody exists where a parent exercises access or has physical custody for no less than 40% of the time over the course of a year. Whether or not co-parenting is actually being implemented is in question and the gains for the access parent, namely the 40% threshold requirement, indicate a reduction in child support to the mother by acknowledging that arrangement. This has been disputed by legal practitioners, who profess that when the father engages in equal shared parenting, the child support is applied in his parenting. As Colman says: My experience has almost universally been that my father clients simply want to maintain and even expand their parent/child relationships. The motivation is not money. If you have the child 50% and that reduces your child support, your other costs re child care (food, housing, trips, clothing, etc.) then go up. So, by having a 50/50 arrangement you are not saving any money at all. Nevertheless, it appears as if the way to change the status of mothers is still “by gaining real recognition for their motherhood work, (which) is the great unfinished business of the women’s movement” (Crittenden 7). For this reason, mothers need a feminism of their own and more empowerment in the form of “matricentric feminism” (O’Reilly, Matricentric Feminism). Ennis argues, a solution to this conundrum of how to balance an effective co-parenting relationship between mothers and fathers is a comfortable “transitioning into an equitable parenting arrangement,” not necessarily an equal parenting one (Ennis, “Best Interests”). By this, she suggested that offering mentoring, modeling, and education to the uninvolved parent to bring them to a higher plane of parenting is a good start (Ennis, After the Happily Ever After). “Transitioning the father into an equitable parenting arrangement” (Ennis, “Best Interests”) is a strategy we can utilize with an uninvolved parent, who truly wants to become more involved with his/her child after the marriage, is over. This is possible if we can move the individual from where they are to where they ought to be through modeling and education similar to Vygotsky’s “scaffolding.” “Scaffolding” is part of the educational concept “zone of proximal development,” or ZPD. The ZPD is a set of skills or knowledge that a student can’t do on his/ her own but can do with the help or guidance of someone else. The transitioning of the less involved parent into an equitable parenting arrangement will be a transitional phase, whereby, rather than merely offering co-parenting and immersing an unprepared parent into parenting, it is more of an easing of him/her into the role of co-parenting through modeling and education. We need to reassess the mistaken notion of blaming mothers for fathers’ lack of involvement in marriage and that after the divorce, fathers are naturally freed up for parenting and mothers 280

Mothering or parenting?

for work. It doesn’t just happen automatically after the separation and divorce. It is imperative to examine the parents’ degree of involvement during the marriage, perhaps after work hours, weekends, and on vacations to determine the real nature and amount of involvement in the child’s life rather than assuming that it is healthy for a child, who has undergone an enormous change in his/her life, to spend half the time with a parent who is unfamiliar with the child’s needs and routines. It is more important to note that consistency and predictability are imperative to a child at this time of transition. Regarding finances, it is crucial to re-examine the lack of equal distribution of funds where equitable distribution is offered, which is problematic for mothers. In addition, we need to be aware that spousal payments are often decreased if fathers pay for special expenses like daycare and extra-curricular activities, which needs further re-examination. In addition, we have to be particularly astute at noting manipulative strategies whereby parents begin working less hours, quitting their jobs, or getting fired for the purpose of reducing their support obligations and/ or becoming more dependent upon their ex-partners as a strategy to minimize their financial obligations.

Choices and expectations of parenting A more recent controversy is whether fathers matter. Indeed, fathers do matter and can be a caring parent, but do they choose to be during the hours when they are not working? Alternatively, there is a contradictory narrative that mothers should work full-time for financial security, especially in divorce, and be equal partners within marriage with mothers that should be available at all times for their children. Since change begins within the family, that may be the best place to change the influence of a patriarchal society. This may happen in the form of choices made prior to marriage or before having children. Ideally, both parents may have decided, preceding parenthood, their parenting roles and have outlined their expectations (O’Brien Hallstein). They may have determined that both have maternal and paternal leave. Both may share parenting, including on vacations, weekends, and after work when, often, the higher paid partner feels they are entitled to leisure time, basically determining the division of labour. Sometimes there is a reversal where the parents have taken on a more gender-fluid parenting relationship (O’Reilly, “Have Your Cake and Eat It Too”), which is an effective alternative to the rigid view of parenting that still exists, in most cases. Having said that, while idealistically we strive towards equal parenting, at this point in time, it isn’t that way for most families within marriage, which will determine what happens after marriage in divorce.

Directions for future research In examining questions to ask for future research, it is imperative to recognize that motherhood has replaced marriage as true adulthood and perhaps so has fatherhood but in different ways. What are those ways that are unique to each? We need to explore how fatherhood feels for men and its impact on male development. In addition, we are a long way from acknowledging that one can participate to accepting that one has equal obligation to do so; in other words “helping out” is not the same as living it (Maushart 21). In what capacity are fathers and mothers involved with their children? How is “equitable distribution” different than the “equal distribution” of finances upon divorce? If motherhood is a precarious position to be in and still is (Crittenden; Hirshman), are we requesting, as Olerenshaw says, equality in the workplace, which only exacerbates what is expected of mothers at home? Won’t the expectations of mothers still be the same, as well as 281

Linda Rose Ennis

the guilt that mothers should be intensively mothering, let alone mothering in our existing patriarchal society? One of the main questions for future research would then be: How is increased father recognition possibly undermining motherhood? Equalizing parenting, but not work, suggests that anyone can mother even without experience. This is often what happens in divorce when the uninvolved father takes on joint parenting in which he was not adequately engaged. Within marriage, work is often used as a justification for not engaging in parenting work. Should there be a movement towards “restrict(ing) how much of our lives are taken over by economic workplace productivity and exploitation” (Olerenshaw 25)? In addition, should there be changes to the structure of market work, freeing up more time for family life? Since mothers need to be valued in their role, shouldn’t public services and community projects need to support mothers, socially and economically, to mother by governments offering fair tax policies? Also, shouldn’t mothers “be supported to exclusively care, delegate care or share care and participate in the workplace on their terms?” (Olerenshaw 28). Finally, how can we ensure that fathers are not discriminated for assuming a parenting role and working fewer hours? It is critical not to compare fathers’ roles with mothers’ in that each has a unique relationship with their children. In considering the “best interests of the child” in divorce, we need to ask whether we are harming our children by asking for equality in parenting. Where the father was not adequately engaged with the child in marriage, why would we assume that he would be more engaged afterwards? How can we differentiate between fathers who can effectively parent with those who actually will?

Further reading Crittenden, Ann. The Price of Motherhood. Henry Holt & Co, 2001. Hirshman, Linda. Get to Work. Viking, 2006. Kaplan, Sarah. “The Motherhood Penalty.” University of Toronto Magazine, 25 Sept. 2018, https://magazine. utoronto.ca/opinion/the-motherhood-penalty-gender-wage-gap-sarah-kaplan/. Maushart, Susan. Wifework. Bloomsbury, 2002. Olerenshaw, Vanessa. Liberating Motherhood. Womancraft Publishing, 2016. Raeburn, Paul. Do Fathers Matter?: What Science is Telling Us about the Parent We’ve Overlooked. Scientific American/Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2015.

Conclusion Working and motherhood depend on each other’s success. If mothers are not paid enough or do not have enough work opportunities, mothers will not give up even a portion of motherhood if that gives them a sense of self-worth and purpose, which is what likely results in maternal “gatekeeping,” the perceived behaviour of mothers “encouraging and curtailing fathers’ involvement” (Raeburn 218). We need to think about how to make parenting more appealing financially, as well as socially, so more parents will choose to engage in this activity. There is a need for parents to jointly decide what fathers can hold in their head regarding parenting and be responsible for it in order to free up mothers’ thoughts because, as it stands, it is mostly mothers in marriage and divorce, who manage the parenting. As Frye said, “There is the need to develop the full richness of non-gendered parental thinking; understanding and incorporating the thinking of many different kinds of parents and embracing the full human complexity of each caregiving parent, regardless of gender” (29). This should, also, take into account that the kind and degree of parenting may be different, as well as the desire to do so, depending upon the individual.

282

Mothering or parenting?

Works cited Boskey, Elizabeth. “The Gender Essentialism Theory.” verywelhealth.com, 2019. Brown, Solveig. All on One Plate. Paragon House, 2016. Colman, Gene. “Equal Shared Parenting” (webinar). FDRIO, 2018. Crittenden, Ann. The Price of Motherhood. Henry Holt & Co, 2001. Crosse, Rosemary, and Michelle Millar.“The Changing Identity of Mothers in Situations of Separation and Divorce.” Paper Presented to MIRCI Conference, Galway, Ireland, July 2017. Doucet, Andrea. Do Men Mother? U of Toronto P, 2006. Douglas, Susan, and Meredith Michaels. The Mommy Myth: The Idealization of Motherhood. Free Press, 2005. Ennis, Linda. “Paternal Involvement and Maternal Employment: Who Is the Man We Call Father?” Women & Work, vol. 1, Spring 1999, pp. 1–10. ———, editor. Intensive Mothering: The Cultural Contradictions of Modern Motherhood. Demeter Press, 2014. ———. “Best Interests.” Paper Given to FDRIO Conference, Toronto, Canada, 2016. ———, editor. After the Happily Ever After: Empowering Women and Mothers in Relationships. Demeter Press, 2017. Frye, Joanne. “Parental Thinking.” Essential Breakthroughs, edited by Fiona Joy Green and Gary Pelletier, Demeter Press, 2015, pp. 14–31. Harrington, Brad, et al. The New Dad: Caring, Committed and Conflicted. Boston College Centre for Work & Family, 2011. Hays, Sharon. The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood. Yale UP, 1996. Hirshman, Linda. Get to Work. Viking, 2006. Kaplan, Sarah. “The Motherhood Penalty.” University of Toronto Magazine, 25 Sept. 2018, https://magazine. utoronto.ca/opinion/the-motherhood-penalty-gender-wage-gap-sarah-kaplan/. Marotte, Mary Ruth. et al. Papa, Ph.D.: Essays on Fatherhood by Men in the Academy. Rutgers UP, 2010. Maushart, Susan. Wifework. Bloomsbury, 2002. O’Brien Hallstein, Lynn. “But, Didn’t I Choose This? Laying the Groundwork to Empower Mothers by Closing the Choice Gap between Women and Men Before Becoming Mothers and Fathers.” After the Happily Ever: Empowering Women and Mothers in Relationships, edited by Linda Rose Ennis, Demeter Press, 2017, pp. 19–42. Olerenshaw, Vanessa. Liberating Motherhood. Womancraft Publishing, 2016. O’Reilly, Andrea. “Introduction.” Mother Outlaws: Theories and Practices of Empowered Mothering, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, Women’s Press, 2004, pp. 1–30. ———. Matricentric Feminism; Theory, Activism and Practice. Demeter Press, 2016. ———. “Have Your Cake and Eat It Too: Challenging and Changing Normative Gender Roles through Partnerships.” After the Happily Ever: Empowering Women and Mothers in Relationships, edited by Linda Rose Ennis, Demeter Press, 2017, pp. 234–245. Pleck, J. H., et al. Paternal involvement by US Residential Fathers. The Role of the Father in Child Development, edited by M. E. Lamb, 2004, pp. 222–71. Podnieks, Elizabeth. Pops in Pop Culture: Fatherhood, Masculinity, and the New Man. Palgrave Macmillan US, 2016. Poole, Eloise, et al. “Father Involvement with Children and Couple Relationships.” 2011, www.modern fatherhood.org. Raeburn, Paul. Do Fathers Matter? Scientific American/Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2014. Schulte, Brigid. Overwhelmed. HarperCollins Publishers, 2014. Vygotsky, Lev and Alex Kozulin. Thought and Language. The MIT Press, 1986.

283

23 HOMING IN ON DOMESTIC SPACE The boundaries and potential of home-making Jennifer L. Johnson Introduction The production of domestic space presents a long-standing source of contradictory and fascinating problems for critical motherhood studies and indeed, for feminism. Throughout much scholarship, domestic space is understood critically as a site through which femininity and motherhood are produced, either in relation to who occupies these spaces and animates them, or who is absent from them (Brown). In many Western narratives of feminist liberation, women, mothers, and other paid/unpaid caregivers grapple with domestic space as a source of oppression and exploitation (Friedan; Federici; Giddings). Simultaneously, domestic spaces and specifically one’s home is understood by many as a source of empowerment and an important shelter from racism and xenophobia in white-dominated Western societies (hooks). And when families and concurrent work roles in domestic spaces are chosen instead of imposed, the potential for shifting the burdens associated with gender and sexual oppression associated with nurturing family is just as great (Deutsch; Dunne; Gabb). These important discussions are taken up in many literatures and continue to dominate feminist theories of mothering and motherhood studies. A particularly important turn has been attention to research on the unfixedness of “home” and other domestic spaces through the experiences of those mothers who have migrated across time and place (Allen) or across the boundaries of social and economic class (Domínguez and Watkins). Together, they present the possibility that domesticity, domestic spaces, and their literal or symbolic existence can invoke a range of liberatory and oppressive experiences. In this chapter, I examine the extent to which a critical understanding of mothers and mothering might be produced within these various iterations of domestic spaces.

Background and context Historical overview: defining domestic space and domesticity How, first of all, should domestic space be defined? When asked this question, most people will intuitively express that domestic space is bounded, contained, and private. It is a space where groups of related individuals wash, sleep, and eat, and though sometimes domestic space can 284

Homing in on domestic space

be well-defined through the actions of at least two people, it is thought of as a place where all people go to rest when not doing paid work regardless of whether someone is waiting for them there. Some, in response to this question, might simply reply that domestic space is their “home” and leave it at that. But even from these initial responses, we learn that domestic space is profoundly dynamic, perhaps in ways that are often taken for granted because they are so culturally specific. If domestic spaces have to have boundaries in order to be recognized as private, then someone must maintain and define these. Whose job this is depends greatly on cultural context, time, and place. If domestic spaces can be known by who is in them (parents or a caregiver) and the tasks they perform (making supper, cleaning up), then there are people who belong and do not belong in domestic spaces. The practice of recognizing a domestic space by the people who occupy them (family, friends, and visitors but not people who deliver your parcels or your boss from work) is also subject to our social location. Consider, for example, that if you had to raise a young child in the context of an institution, as in the case of mothers who are imprisoned, you could not maintain that domestic space through the exclusion of strangers as most people do and would have to seek other ways of doing so. Or, if your social location ostracized you from your original family, defining domestic space through membership to kin would be especially challenging. And, if paid work is meant to be left elsewhere in order for domestic space to have special meaning, then someone should be at home ensuring that rest is possible. When domestic space is understood as being reliant upon social location and context, we begin to move from the notion of domestic spaces as relatively fixed and private, to seeing these spaces as dynamic, fluid, and permeable; a notion that many feminist thinkers advance in relation to the practice of mothering. The idea of domestic spaces as somehow needing to be contained is a profoundly gendered and classed idea that stems from the imposition of patriarchal order over domestic spaces and the people within them (Hayden). In one often referenced idea in literature on domestic violence, the seventeenth-century English judge Sir Edward Coke is said to have remarked that “the house of everyman is to him as his castle and fortress, as well as his defense against injury and violence, as for his repose” (Rykewert 58). Simply put, the idea that a man’s home is his castle denotes that individuals should have direction over a domestic space of their own (no matter how small) and that it provides protection and relief from an outside world. Given the time and cultural context of the passage though, the quote illustrates how domestic space is ideally organized through a hierarchy, with the homeowner or head of household, a white masculine patriarchal figure, acting as a recognizable master at its head. A wife (or wives), his children, other family members, paid servants, indentured workers, and possibly slaves figure as a part of the master’s possessions and are firmly under his direction within that space. These other characters are bound legally and socially to maintain domestic space for the purpose of ensuring the peace of their master just as much as he has a symbolic responsibility to defend this space. Organizing domestic space under the purview of a single person and their interests is the groundwork for many forms of abuse. Historians of patriarchal gender-based and colonial violence suggest that this space normalizes intimate partner violence, secures men’s sexual access and control of women’s energies, and ensures a heteronormative order to the family, be it a nuclear or extended family (McKenna). Throughout modern history in numerous colonial economies, the practice of slave holding is a primary feature in the creation of domestic spaces, largely for the benefit, rest, and repose of white masters and mistresses in European colonies (Finch). Black and Indigenous women are made invisible in these domestic spaces and at other times acknowledged as necessary companions for white men (Finch). Yet the creation of profitable homes in settler and plantation economies for white women would have been impossible without the exploited and free domestic and sexual labour of some Indigenous and later Black women, and later still 285

Jennifer L. Johnson

through the racialized occupational segregation of late industrial capitalism. In acknowledging the legacy of Black and other racialized women’s roles in mothering through domestic spaces, it is important to understand that this has been coerced labour done at the expense of women’s own families (Finch; Giddings; hooks). Domesticity, or the practice of being at home, and perhaps even the art of maintaining domestic spaces, is an activity of privilege. So it is not surprising that the creation and maintenance of domestic spaces has, for many marginalized groups of women been an accomplishment, while for those mothers whose reproductive capacities are/ were privileged, domesticity is more easily dismissed as an expectation and even a burden. A great deal of feminist scholarship on domestic spaces has focused on the material setting for activities associated with mothering, and this understanding is enhanced the notion of domestic spaces as imagined or symbolic. At once the idea of domestic space conjures images of home, in and of itself a complex idea that feminists have done much to develop. For example, transnational feminist scholars and those studying practices of migration are quick to note that the practice of creating domestic spaces that can be called “home” is a painstaking effort (Allen; Bonizzoni). For every family that has migrated from one place to another, there is a family member, often but not always a mother, whose task it is to draw together familiar objects and recognizable foods, and organize sleeping areas, into some semblance of domestic life, which in turn becomes the setting for new relationships and experiences. Where families or individuals become separated from one another, the possibility of domestic space may be more difficult to recreate, underscoring the idea that domestic space is constituted through relationships. In other words, the production of domestic spaces is a relational practice; it requires interactions with others and objects in order to exist. Mallett goes further to suggest that home exists in important ways through our imaginations as much as it does in our material everyday practices. Home, be it defined as a dwelling, a homeland, or even a constellation of relationships, is represented as a spatial and relational realm from which people venture into the world and to which they generally hope to return. It is a place of origin (however recent or relative) as well as a point of destination. (Mallett 78) Home is almost always a gendered and implicitly racialized space that assumes a source of personal identity. It is at this nexus of understanding home as constituted through people’s intimate relationships to one another that mothers figure predominantly.

Central theories: domestic space as relational If domestic space is defined and partially created through relationships between families and individuals, it is also at least partially dependent upon its relationship to other spaces for its meaning. Feminist geographers and others explore how the idea of domesticity – a commitment to the symbolic and material doings of everyday life – is an essential counterpoint to the notion of a public world beyond the home. As previously discussed, home is commonly referred to as a retreat from the outside world, a privileged but constant negotiation between private life and commercial and political spheres that threaten to open up how people live together (or alone) to scrutiny. As evidence for its importance to other scales of life, such as community or the nation, there are numerous examples of the ways in which home spaces are assumed to be relevant. In many times and places, governments or states have attempted to organize domestic life in service of its own image. Idealized notions of family life are certainly limiting but in many cases, representations of proper maternal activities in domestic spaces are considered reflective 286

Homing in on domestic space

of national wellness, such as in the cleanliness of one’s kitchen, home hygiene, and infant care (Floyd). In cases where mothers engage improperly in the creation of domestic spaces, if it isn’t clean enough, if it is decorated too much (or not enough), if the space is too sexually empowering or immodest in any way, a threat to the well-being of the nation is implied. As historian Joy Parr suggests, the domestic is a counter-space of the nation and thus can be subject to external scrutiny by officials interested in organizing motherhood through the professionalism of nutritional scientists, social workers, and the like. The actual work associated with mothering often proves difficult to contain. Instead of thinking of domestic spaces or the private (home) as always working in opposition to a public (outside world), many domestic spaces are actually configured to publicly emphasize mothering and caring roles. Such emphasis may or may not be empowering for the people doing the work. Some domestic spaces elevate motherhood by forcing it into the public eye, while others hide it away. Domestic spaces have long been used to reflect wealth and social status (Chapman). For example, some domestic spaces elevate the status of mothering and food work by making a show of concealing it, as in the construction of English Victorian households with kitchens placed at the rear of the home out of sight. In contrast, other homes put everything on display, deliberately creating what might otherwise be thought of as private spaces outside of the home. For example, public kitchens at important festivals in some Mexican communities allow a totally public role for a community matriarch (Christie). In other instances, the practices of mothering in relation to child care and food work is of necessity public for communities that historically hunt small and large game, with grandmothers and very young women leading by example (Brumbach and Jarvenpa). Mothers in urban areas create domestic space through their caring labour in play groups, malls, and other spaces (Aitken; Barker); mothers navigate the production of domestic spaces under the scrutiny of others where their housekeeping skills and moral virtues are being evaluated by professionals and even by one another (Little; Contreras and Griffith). Mothers also organize and recreate domestic spaces under duress as in the cases of migrants who have yet to find a place to call home or in refugee camps.

Central issues: spaces of mothering In reflecting on the contemporary architecture of domesticity and its relationship to the people who animate these spaces, Verschaffel comments that there is order to it and yet it differs from person to person as to who and what exactly happens within this place. Feminist architects reveal this ordering in the very deliberate and symbolic ways in which the rooms of the home can be gendered (Hayden). From the frequently more public hallways, salons, and living rooms to the intimate spaces of kitchens, laundries, and “master” bedrooms, feminist thinkers have examined the range of contexts in which mothers make meaning in domestic spaces (Cieraad; McMurry; Johnson; Johnson “Mothering and Food Work”; Johnson and Johnston). Not surprisingly, it is the myriad forms of kitchen spaces that have drawn the most attention, as this is historically where many women spend time in domestic labour and motherwork. In antithesis to Edward Coke’s patriarchal domestic space where mothers are just occupants to be directed, close visual and time-use analyses of mothering work illustrate how women’s efforts to act upon these spaces re-centralize them as nerve centres of the household (Brown). A great deal of scholarship exists on the aesthetic of domestic spaces and the extent to which design and decoration reflect not only the status of occupants but the ways in which these spaces signal gender identity and even sexuality or sexual orientation (Cohen). The form, placement, and number of cooking spaces can signal religious or ethnic identity and can even indicate adherence to a seasonal diet. Furthermore, the objects found within kitchens mark them as domestic spaces but 287

Jennifer L. Johnson

are also responsive to the tastes of their occupants. Feminists largely agree that the kitchen stove or cooking implements, as well as the trappings of child-rearing, take shape partly because of the way people mother. That is, the sex and age of the person doing this work may be less important than the cultural status assigned to say child feeding, washing children’s laundry, or caring for an ill or very elderly family member and could be reflected in the quality, care, and attention to objects within kitchens (Land; McMurry; Silva; Watkins).

Controversies or challenges: domestic life as limiting or liberating? As long as mothers continue to be represented in relation to their responsibility for domestic labour and raising children and babies, they will likely continue to be defined in relation to domestic spaces. None of these has been more controversial than women’s negotiation of paid versus unpaid work. Daily existence in a domestic space implies the repetitive labours involved in creating and maintaining the daily necessities of life, which are in turn dependent upon one’s income through paid work, or are they? Feminist thinkers who turn their attention to the relationship between visible economies of paid work and unpaid domestic labour categorize domestic space as the foundation of global economies. While some explore this idea through the documentation of women’s largely invisible domestic labour (Waring et al.), others envision an interlocking system of paid and unpaid work that constitutes provisioning for families, communities, and nations (Neysmith et al.). If domestic spaces are to be taken seriously as a site of work, then the figures employed there should be illuminated regardless of how humble or intermittent the material qualities of their workspace are. One of the major limitations placed on motherwork is that it is frequently bound to essentialist notions of biological destiny as well as to moral propriety. Critiques of how biology and morality shape the work of mothering, and indeed, domestic spaces, emerges in the research of many liberal and materialist feminists (Calixte et al.; Luxton). They note the perverse contradiction in the experiences of white, middle-class women who may have adequate resources to construct a safe domestic space for their families but simultaneously suffer the limitations of the gendered and classed expectations placed on mothers in their culture(s). The persistence of this contradiction over time is remarkable. The co-existence of wealth, racial empowerment, and gendered inequities echo from the observations of liberal and socialist feminists of the late nineteenth century (Giddings; Traikovski), to feminists of the 1950s and 1960s (Friedan) and into the early twenty-first century (Chappell). The idea that women’s embeddedness in domestic spaces is problematic also emerges in the work of socialist and materialist feminists who see the home as an exploitative site of free labour (Federici; Hartmann). In the context of legally sanctioned slavery and indentureship based upon racial, ethnic, or class stratification, domestic spaces are clearly exploitative. For example, Paula Giddings explores various forms of resistance mounted by Black women against white slaveholders, literally their captors. Paying for domestic labour or caring work does not elevate these tasks though, as evidenced in the devaluation of domestic labour through the intersections of sexism, racism, and classism (Nakano Glenn). Domestic spaces are decidedly oppressive sites of paid work when they are premised on the occupational segregation of women’s paid domestic service work in the private homes of wealthy classes. Whether on the small scale of home cleaning and child care by an individual or through the larger corporations that provide cleaning services to private homes, the maintenance of wealthier households is often done by women. Paid domestic labour is historically a female-dominated, racialized, and classed industry, through which many mothers have supported their own families, sometimes even leaving their own families as a requirement of this work (Pratt; Silvera). From a rights perspective then, domestic spaces constitute sites of 288

Homing in on domestic space

never-ending forms of unpaid or low paid work and are constructed as an obstacle to be overcome. The struggles of diverse mothers and caregivers in domestic spaces must be taken seriously in order for them to be seen as whole persons in realms of social and political life outside of child-rearing (Dillaway and Paré). The idea of domestic spaces as potentially liberating has historically been embraced by different groups of mothers for very different reasons. Among those who reclaim domestic space as a site of empowerment for mothers are those who imagine domestic space through an imperialist nostalgia of white settler motherhood. For example, maternalist feminists active during the temperance and later the suffragist movements in North America were interested in advancing the idea that mothers have essential characteristics that elevate the family and community (Calixte et al). While they should be distinguished from later iterations of maternal feminists who reject the limitations placed on cis-gendered women who take up mothering roles, maternalist feminists thoroughly embraced domestic spaces as the primary responsibility of mothers and suggest that the proper role of mothers is to prepare families by acting in their best interests, serving through unpaid work, and volunteer work in the community. Though often associated with early twentieth-century Western feminist movements, maternalist activism in promoting domestic spaces as feminine have their contemporary expression in some religious fundamentalist movements (REAL Women; Focus on the Family) and in separate (though not always unrelated) nostalgic back-to-the-land movements and “homesteading” (Bobel; Afflerback et al.). In these social movements, mothers figure in or lead their families out of urban areas to supposedly live off the land. With very few exceptions, these expressions of maternalism function through domestic spaces as though they were unimpacted by the world around and may also happen concurrently with latent white nationalism. Increasingly critical studies of motherhood and care work have shown that those who identify with a nurturing role of parenting and chosen family manipulate this space in creative ways. Scholars interrogate mothers’ resistance to racism, poverty, and other adversities and suggest that the act of creating and reorganizing the home to suit the needs of the community is to suit the needs and well-being of one’s family. bell hooks argues that within white-dominated states the possibility of resistance to oppression is located within the home. Without excusing the possibility of intimate partner violence towards mothers and children, she frames these struggles as resistance to racist violence in Western society. Domínguez and Watkins explore the networking and strategies of resistance of African American mothers facing the prospect of home creation in economic poverty, while Skelton reinterprets what might be considered a deficit of needing to move houses repeatedly amongst Indigenous mothers in urban areas as a strength and survival strategy. Furthermore, the legal establishment of lesbian, gay, and queer or poly families through parenting relationships unfixes domestic spaces from traditional gender and sexual roles (Dunne; Gabb). Feminist suspicions of calls to reclaim domestic spaces as sites of empowerment are perhaps not surprising but are well worth exploring further.

Directions for future research Feminist researchers continue to be joined by scholars from all disciplinary and interdisciplinary backgrounds in their studies of domestic space. Domestic space is of great conceptual importance to anyone interested in the production of motherhood as an identity, as it is frequently, rightly or wrongly, the backdrop against which mothers are defined as people. But what happens when mothers turn their gaze on the rest of the world? Some of the most interesting scholarship interrogates and tries to capture the perspectives of mothers about their environments. Motherhood scholars frequently turn to the production of domestic spaces through child-feeding and 289

Jennifer L. Johnson

childcare ( Johnson, “Mothering and Food Work”; O’Key and Hugh-Jones) and are suspicious of institutional narratives that seek to organize maternity through reference to ideals set out by public health and other organizations (Monterrosa et al). In some cases, this involves the study of specific caregiver perspectives on the construction of homes in the case of Yantzi and Rosenberg’s study of children and parents’ perspectives on the usefulness of their homes for kids with disabilities. Mothers’ perspectives as consumers in public places are also significant in defining a critical gaze. In their study of how mothers use consumer experiences to delineate time spent in childcare, the participants in Johnstone and Todd’s study reflect on public consumer spaces as extensions of their domestic life. In other research, practitioners scale up to learn how mothers assess the function and use of urban planning and architecture, usually with a goal to making these designs more equitable and inclusive (Meah and Jackson), if not environmentally friendly (Crabtree; Dowling). Returning to the theme of food, some mothers turn attention to food security in domestic spaces, often with focus on access to culturally appropriate food (Myers et al.) and access to sustenance in food insecure households (Frank). Further research is also needed on why and how the production of domestic space is so privileged. The right to create families and entitlement to a place to call one’s own is classed and racialized, a privilege denied to too many families (Mandell). The ability to create homes is also often limited by age and access to resources, as Pain and Francis argue in their studies of young people living homeless. For young mothers in particular the idea of being able to harness domestic spaces for privacy is often scuttled by child welfare professionals. Access to homeownership for some racialized groups has at times been legislated against or if not illegal, then made so difficult as to require community efforts in order to house families, as in the case of immigrants of African descent seeking housing in white-dominated cities (Danso and Grant).

Further reading Briganti, Chiara, and Kathy Mezei, editors. The Domestic Space Reader. U of Toronto P, 2012. Brown, Lori A. “Domesticity Transformed.” Journal of International Women’s Studies, vol. 7, no. 1, 2005, pp. 97–106. Dillaway, Heather, and Elizabeth Paré. “Locating Mothers: How Cultural Debates about Stay-at-Home versus Working Mothers Define Women and Home.” Journal of Family, vol. 29, no. 4, 2008, pp. 437–64. Gorman-Murray, Andrew. “Reconfiguring Domestic Values: Meaning of Home for Gay Men and Lesbians.” Housing, Theory and Society, vol. 24, no. 3, 2007, pp. 229–46. Hardy, Sarah, and Caroline Wiedmer, editors. Motherhood and Space: Configurations of the Maternal through Politics, Home, and the Body. Palgrave, 2005. hooks, bell. “Homeplace: A Site of Resistance.” Yearning: Race, Gender, and Cultural Politics. South End Press, 1990, pp. 41–51. Johnson, Jennifer L., and Krista Johnston, editors. Maternal Geographies: Mothering In and Out of Place. Demeter Press, 2019.

Conclusion In this chapter, the concept of domestic space as it relates to critical motherhood studies has been discussed in detail. Readers should consider the existence of domestic spaces as evocative, as spaces that contribute to the creation of mothers, motherhood, and mothering as social, cultural, and political practices. Readers should consider their understanding of domestic space in relation to all parts of this collection, but in particular the readings in Section 6: Moms and family, develop knowledge of how domestic space is relational and created through the responsibilities of intimate family relationships. Readers will also recognize the conceptual necessity of domestic space in descriptions of unpaid and paid work in Section 7: Mothering and work. 290

Homing in on domestic space

From here, the feminization of unpaid work in support of children and families through domestic spaces is fundamental to Section 8: Mothering, economics, and globalization. Finally, readers should consider interrogating their own relationship to domestic space and the times and places in which they have engaged in domesticity, whether or not they consider themselves mothers. What is the potential of home-making, and why does it continue to be of such importance?

Works cited Aitken, Stuart C. “Mothers, Communities and the Scale of Difference.” Social & Cultural Geography, vol. 1, no. 1, 2000, pp. 65–82. Afflerback, Sara, et al. “Infant-Feeding Consumerism in the Age of Intensive Mothering and Risk Society.” Journal of Consumer Culture, vol. 13, no. 3, 2013, pp. 387–405. Allen, Sarah. “Finding Home: Challenges Faced by Geographically Mobile Families.” Family Relations, vol. 57, 2008, pp. 84–99. Barker, John. “ ‘Manic Mums’ and ‘Distant Dads’? Gendered Geographies of Care and the Journey to School.” Health & Place, vol. 17, no. 2, 2011, pp. 413–21. Bobel, Chris. The Paradox of Natural Mothering. Temple University Press, 2002. Bonizzoni, Paola. “Here or There? Shifting Meanings and Practices in Mother-Child Relationships across Time and Space.” International Migration, vol. 53, no. 6, 2012, pp. 166–82. Briganti, Chiara, and Kathy Mezei, editors. The Domestic Space Reader. U of Toronto P, 2012. Brown, Lori A. “Domesticity Transformed.” Journal of International Women’s Studies, vol. 7, no. 1, 2005, pp. 97–106. Brumbach, Hetty Jo, and Robert Jarvenpa. “Woman the Hunter: Ethnoarcheological Lessons from Chipewyan Life-Cycle Dynamics.” In the Days of Our Grandmothers: A Reader in Aboriginal Women’s History in Canada, edited by Mary-Ellen Kelm and Lorna Townsend, U of Toronto P, 2006, pp. 200–215. Calixte, Shana, et al. “Theorizing Women’s Oppression and Social Change: Liberal, Socialist, Radical and Postmodern Feminisms.” Feminist Issues: Race, Class and Sexuality, edited by Nancy Mandell and Jennifer L. Johnson, 6th ed., Pearson Canada, 2016, pp. 1–34. Chapman, Tony. “Stage Sets for Ideal Lives: Images of Home in Contemporary Show Homes.” Ideal Homes?: Social Change and Domestic Life, edited by Tony Chapman and Jenny Hockey, Routledge, 1999, pp. 44–58. Chappell, Marisa. “If It Takes a Village, Why Am I Doing This Alone? Motherhood and Citizenship in Modern America.” Journal of Women’s History, vol. 17, no. 4, 2005, pp. 134–41. Christie, Maria Elisa. “Kitchenspace: Gendered Territory in Central Mexico.” Gender, Place and Culture, vol. 13, no. 6, 2006, pp. 653–61. Cieraad, Irene. “ ‘Out of my Kitchen!’ Architecture, Gender and Domestic Efficiency.” Journal of Architecture, vol. 7, no. 3, 2002, pp. 263–79. Cohen, Deborah. “In Possession: Men, Women, and Decoration.” Household Gods: The British and Their Possessions, edited by Debra Coleman et al., Yale UP, 2006, pp. 89–121. Contreras, Ricardo, and David Griffith. “Managing Migration, Managing Motherhood: The Moral Economy of Gendered Migration.” International Migration, vol. 50, no. 4, 2012, pp. 51–66. Crabtree, Louise. “Disintegrated Houses: Exploring Ecofeminist Housing and Urban Design Options.” Antipode, vol. 38, no. 4, 2006, pp. 711–34. Danso, Ransford K., and Miriam R. Grant. “Access to Housing as an Adaptive Strategy for Immigrant Groups: Africans in Calgary.” Canadian Ethnic Studies = Etudes Ethniques au Canada, vol. 32, no. 3, 2000, pp. 19–27. Deutsch, Tracey. “Memories of Mothers in the Kitchen.” Radical History Review, vol. 110, 2011, pp. 167–77. Dillaway, Heather, and Elizabeth Paré. “Locating Mothers: How Cultural Debates about Stay- at-Home versus Working Mothers Define Women and Home.” Journal of Family, vol. 29, no. 4, 2008, pp. 437–64. Domínguez, Silvia, and Celeste Watkins. “Creating Networks for Survival and Mobility: Social Capital among African-American and Latin-American Low-Income Mothers.” Social Problems, vol. 50, no. 1, 2003, pp. 111–35. Dowling, Robyn. “Cultures of Mothering and Car Use in Suburban Sydney: A Preliminary Investigation.” Geoforum, vol. 31, no. 3, 2000, pp. 345–53. Dunne, Gillian A. “Lesbians at Home: Why Can’t a Man Be More Like a Woman?” Family Patterns, Gender Relations, edited by Bonnie Fox, 3rd ed., Oxford UP, 2009, pp. 385–416.

291

Jennifer L. Johnson Federici, Silvia.“Wages against Housework.” Power of Women Collective and Falling Wall Press, 1975, caringlabor.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/federici-wages-against-housework.pdf. Accessed 1 Feb. 2019. Finch, Aisha K. “Scandalous Scarcities: Black Slave Women, Plantation Domesticity, and Travel Writing in Nineteenth-Century Cuba.” Journal of Historical Sociology, vol. 23, no. 1, 2010, pp. 101–43. Floyd, Janet. “Coming Out of the Kitchen: Texts, Contexts and Debates.” Cultural Geographies, vol. 11, no. 1, 2004, pp. 61–73. Frank, Lesley. “Exploring Infant Feeding Practices in Food Insecure Households: What Is the Real Issue?” Food and Foodways: Explorations in the History and Culture of Human Nourishment, vol. 23, no. 3, 2015, pp. 186–209. Friedan, Betty. The Feminine Mystique. Norton, 1963. Gabb, Jacqui. “Imag(in)ing the Queer Lesbian Family.” Mother Outlaws: Theories and Practices of Empowered Mothering, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, Women’s Press, 2004, pp. 123–30. Giddings, Paula. “Resistance.” When and Where I Enter: The Impact of Black Women on Race and Sex in America. W. Morrow, 1996 (1984). Hardy, Sarah, and Caroline Wiedmer, editors. Motherhood and Space: Configurations of the Maternal through Politics, Home, and the Body. Palgrave, 2005. Hartmann, Heidi. “The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism: Towards a More Progressive Union.” Women and Revolution: A Discussion of the Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism, edited by Lydia Sargent, South End Press Political Controversies Series, South End Press, 1981, pp. 1–42. Hayden, Dolores. The Grand Domestic Revolution: A History of Feminist Designs for American Homes, Neighborhoods, and Cities. 2nd ed., MIT Press, 1983. hooks, bell. “Homeplace: A Site of Resistance.” Yearning: Race, Gender, and Cultural Politics, South End Press, 1990, pp. 41–51. Johnson, Jennifer L. “Mothering and Food Work in the Nuclear Family Home: A Spatial Analysis of Feeding Children.” Mothers and Food: Negotiating Foodways from Maternal Perspectives, edited by Florence Pasche Guignard and Tanya M. Cassidy, Demeter Press, 2016, pp. 275–87. Johnson, Jennifer L., and Krista Johnston, editors. Maternal Geographies: Mothering In and Out of Place. Demeter Press, 2019. Johnson, Louise C.“Browsing the Modern Kitchen – a Feast of Gender, Place and Culture (Part 1).” Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, vol. 13, no. 2, 2006, pp. 123–32. ———. “Hybrid and Global Kitchens – First and Third World Intersections (Part 2).” Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, vol. 13, no. 6, 2006, pp. 647–52. Johnstone, Micael-Lee, and Sarah Todd. “Servicescapes: The role that place plays in stay-at-home mothers’ lives.” Journal of Consumer Behaviour, vol. 11, 2012, pp. 443–453. Land, Leslie. “Counterintuitive: How the Marketing of Modernism Hijacked the Kitchen Stove.” From Betty Crocker to Feminist Food Studies: Critical Perspectives on Women and Food, edited by Arlene Voski Avakian and Barbara Haber, U of Massachusetts P, 2005, pp. 41–61. Little, Margaret H. “ ‘Manhunts and Bingo Blabs’: The Moral Regulation of Ontario Single Mothers.” Canadian Journal of Sociology/Cahiers canadiens de sociologie, vol. 19, no. 2, Special Issue on Moral Regulation, Spring, 1994, pp. 233–47. Luxton, Meg. “Feminist Political Economy in Canada and the Politics of Social Reproduction.” Social Reproduction: Feminist Political Economy Challenges Neo-Liberalism, edited by Kate Bezanson and Meg Luxton, McGill-Queen’s UP, 2006, pp. 11–44. Mallett, Shelley. “Understanding Home: A Critical Review of the Literature.” Sociological Review, vol. 52, no. 1, 2004, pp. 62–89. Mandell, Nancy. “Making Families: Gender, Economics, Sexuality and Race.” Feminist Issues: Race, Class and Sexuality, edited by Nancy Mandell, Pearson, 2005, pp. 188–225. McKenna, Katherine J. “Violence against Women in Canada.” Feminist Issues: Race, Class and Sexuality, edited by Nancy Mandell and Jennifer L. Johnson, Pearson Canada, 2016, pp. 201–28. McMurry, Sally.“The Shape of Cooperation: The Farmstead as Workplace, 1830–1855.” Families and Farmhouses in Nineteenth-Century America: Vernacular Design and Social Change, Oxford UP, 1988, pp. 56–86. Meah, Angela, and Peter Jackson. “Crowded Kitchens: The ‘Democratisation’ of Domesticity?” Gender, Place & Culture, vol. 20, no. 5, 2013, pp. 578–96. Monterrosa, Eva C., et al. “Constructing Maternal Knowledge Frameworks: How Mothers Conceptualize Complementary Feeding.” Appetite, vol. 59, no. 2, 2012, pp. 377–84. Myers, Heather, et al. “Setting the Table for Food Security: Policy Impacts in Nunavut.” Canadian Journal of Native Studies, vol. 24, no. 2, 2004, pp. 425–45.

292

Homing in on domestic space Nakano Glenn, Evelyn. “Racial Ethnic Women’s Labor: The Intersection of Race, Gender and Class Oppression” Review of Radical Political Economics, vol. 17, no. 3, 1985, pp. 86–108. Neysmith, Sheila, et al. “Provisioning: Thinking about All of Women’s Work.” Canadian Woman Studies, vol. 23, no. 3, 2004, pp. 192–98. O’Key, Victoria, and Siobhan Hugh-Jones. “I Don’t Need Anybody to Tell me What I Should be Doing’. A Discursive Analysis of Maternal Accounts of (Mis) trust of Healthy Eating Information.” Appetite, vol. 54, no. 3, 2010, pp. 524–32. Pain, Rachel, and Peter Francis. “Living with Crime: Spaces of Risk for Homeless Young People.” Children’s Geographies, vol. 2, no. 1, 2004, pp. 95–110. Parr, Joy. “Editor’s Introduction: Modern Kitchen, Good Home, Strong Nation.” Technology and Culture, vol. 43, no. 4, 2002, pp. 657–67. Pratt, Geraldine. “From Registered Nurse to Registered Nanny.” Working Feminism, Geraldine Pratt, Temple UP, 2004, pp. 38–70. Rykewert, J. “The Idea of a Home: A Kind of Space” Social Research, vol. 58, no. 1, 1991, pp. 58–68. Silva, Elizabeth B. “The Cook, the Cooker, and the Gendering of the Kitchen.” Sociological Review, vol. 48, no. 4, 2000, pp. 612–29. Silvera, Makeda. “Introduction” and “Hyacinth.” Silenced: Talks with Working Class West Indian Women about Their Lives and Struggles as Domestic Workers in Canada, rev. ed. with a new Introduction, WilliamsWallace Publishers, 1984, pp. 11–21; 61–70. Skelton, Ian. “Residential Mobility of Aboriginal Single Mothers in Winnipeg: An Exploratory Study of Chronic Moving.” Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, vol. 17, no. 2, 2002, pp. 127–144. Traikovski, Louie. “The Housewives’ Wages Debate in the 1920s.” Journal of Australian Studies, no. 78, 2003, pp. 9–14. Verschaffel, Bart. “The Meanings of Domesticity.” The Journal of Architecture, vol. 7, no. 3, 2002, pp. 287–296. Waring, Marilyn, et al. “Who’s Counting?: Marilyn Waring on Sex, Lies & Global Economics.” Montreal: National Film Board of Canada, 1995. Watkins, Helen. “Beauty Queen, Bulletin Board and Browser: Rescripting the Refrigerator.” Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, vol. 13, no. 2, 2006, pp. 143–52. Yantzi, Nicole, and Mark Rosenberg. “The Contested Meanings of Home for Women Caring for Children with Long-Term Care Needs in Ontario, Canada.” Gender, Place, and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, vol. 15, no. 3, 2008, pp. 301–15.

293

24 CONFIGURING THE MOTHER-DAUGHTER DYAD Dorsía Smith Silva

Introduction “A daughter is a mother’s gender partner,” Victoria Secunda writes, “her closest ally in the family confederacy, an extension of her self. And mothers are their daughters’ role model, their biological and emotional road map, the arbiter of all their relationships” (Women 54). Yet, as Secunda further explains: At the same time, the daughters, in adulthood, must also make the effort to really know their mothers – which many daughters do not – in order to understand what forces shaped those mothers. These daughters need to discover what torment may have unwittingly informed their mothers’ parental choices, and to see their mothers as composites of strengths and weaknesses, rather than as all good or all bad. (When xxi) Secunda’s argument is important and essential to understanding the complexity of the motherdaughter dyad. In the same vein, the mother-daughter relationship must be perceived as a multifaceted one that moves beyond static and monolithic discourses often constructed by oppressive patriarchal frameworks. It also follows therefore that the mothering practices of daughters respond to bell hooks’s pivotal question: “How do we create an oppositional worldview, a consciousness, an identity, a standpoint that exists not only as that struggle which also opposes dehumanization but as that movement which enables creative, expansive self-actualization?” (15). As we search for answers and demand representations of the mother-daughter dyad that highlight various facets, we acknowledge the ways that mothering daughters is strongly interwoven with layers of personal and historical stories – stories that acknowledge the strengths, concerns, actions, conflicts, and voices of mothers and daughters. This chapter gives a comprehensive overview of mother-daughter relationships, so that this dyad can be more fully explored. In the background section, I will examine the mother-­ daughter dyad through the theories conveyed by Adrienne Rich, Nancy Chodorow, Carol Gilligan, Patricia Hill Collins, and Gloria Anzaldúa to provide a foundation for understanding how mothers and daughters have a bond that may include separation and connection. In the subsequent section, I call for the construction of the mother-daughter relationship to resist falling 294

Configuring the mother-daughter dyad

into a broad domain and argue that the scholarship on mother-daughter relationships must resist the heteronormative framework by incorporating race, class, and gender into the critical discussion. Moreover, I suggest that the foundation of mother-daughter relationships must include empowered mothering and consider how mothers and daughters gain agency and have a more powerful union when they feel a sense of empowerment. In the future directions section, I point out the need for a greater intersectionality1 of perspectives and representations of the motherdaughter dyad, especially in regard to the overlap of mothering and motherhood with various factors such as race, class, gender, sexuality, ability, “othermothers,”2 adopted mothers, and lesbian mothers. I suggest that future research fully embrace these diverse perspectives to develop new modes of exploring mother-daughter relationships. This chapter concludes with my urgent call to have new analyses of the mother-daughter relationship that reflect the political, cultural, and social realities of mothers and daughters to a greater extent.

Background and context There are many significant theories that explore mother-daughter relationships. In this section, the mother-daughter dyad is first explored through the theories developed by Adrienne Rich who notes the tension and love between the mother and daughter. Nancy Chodorow builds upon Rich’s theories and further extends them by examining the mother-daughter relationship and factors of psychology. Carol Gilligan includes some elements of psychology in her analysis of the mother-daughter relationship as well, particularly when she notes how male oppression affects mothers and daughters. Patricia Hill Collins and Gloria Anzaldúa represent new voices in the examination of mother-daughter relationships by explicitly noting how various factors, such as race and class, interact with mother-daughter relationships. They note that maternal theories must recognize the intersectionality of mothers and daughters, since the multiplicity of mothering circumstances influences the mother-daughter relationship.

Mother-daughter relationships and theories Adrienne Rich’s Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution (1976) initiated the discussion of mother-daughter relationships, especially in regard to how motherhood has been unduly influenced by patriarchy. By Rich account’s, motherhood is significantly defined through a male dominant perspective. Hence, mothering reinforces patriarchal frameworks, which are then adopted by mothers and instilled into their daughters. Rich situates the mother-daughter relationship as one that may present a double bind: daughters may yearn to separate themselves from their mothers in an attempt to escape their mothers’ complicity in conforming gender roles and/or affirm their connection to their mothers through their shared gender identity and experiences: The first knowledge any woman has of warmth, nourishment, tenderness, security, sensuality, mutuality, comes from her mother. That earliest enwrapment of one female body with another can sooner or later be denied or rejected, felt as choking possessiveness, as rejection, trap, or taboo, but it is, at the beginning, the whole world. (218) Essentially, Rich concludes that the mother-daughter unity constitutes a “verbally transmitted lore of female survival – a knowledge that is subliminal, subversive, preverbal: the knowledge flowing between two alike bodies, one of which has spent nine months inside the other” (220). 295

Dorsía Smith Silva

This rather primal foundation of the relationship suggests inherent factors, which entail connection and separation, attachment and autonomy in the mother-daughter dyad. Rich also asserts that “this cathexis between mother-daughter – essential, distorted, misused – is the greatest unwritten story” (225). She observes: Yet this [mother-daughter] relationship has been minimized and trivialized in the annals of patriarchy. Whether in theological doctrine or art or sociology or psychoanalytic theory, it is the mother and son who appear as the eternal, determinative dyad. Small wonder, since theology, art, and social theory have been produced by sons. Like intense relationships between women in general, the relationships between mothers and daughters has been profoundly threatening to men. (226) The discussion of mother-daughter relationships then – albeit through the distorted patriarchal contexts – situates the scholarship as a means to confront and challenge the dearth of theories, studies, texts, and stories about mother-daughter relationships. Yet, while mothers and daughters have a space, there is a gaping hole for mothers and daughters in which to share their subjectivity and construct strong identities. In this regard, the call for a transformation of understanding mother-daughter relationships – one that moves away from overlooking, silencing, and erasing their vital voices – is paramount to rewriting the mother-daughter dyad with embodiments of empowerment and multiple layers of complexity. Subsequent literature on mothers and daughters has provided similar accounts to Rich’s in terms of articulating mother-daughter relationships within patriarchy. In The Reproduction of Mothering (1978), Nancy Chodorow notes the significance of the institution of motherhood and the raising of daughters by mothers in a male-dominant environment. She posits that this imbalance of power rests partially on “post-Freudian psychology and sociology [that] have provided new rationales for the idealization and enforcement of women’s maternal role, as they have emphasized the substantial importance of the mother-child relationship for the child’s development” (5–6). Therefore, according to Chodorow, the mother-daughter relationship generates from women’s maternal capabilities in the female psyche. In this regard, she concludes that women have a deeper and stronger attachment to their daughters – unlike between mothers with their sons – because mothers identify with their daughters and recycle their own motherdaughter experiences (167). This union, however, can lead to strained relationships between mothers and daughters. As Chodorow asserts, with the mother-daughter dyad being intrinsically linked to women’s self-identity and viewed as the center of femininity, the mother-daughter relationship is then constructed with “a sense of relational self-preoccupied” dynamics associated “with mother-daughter issues” (155). By placing the emphasis on the role of gender and prioritizing the mother-daughter relationship within feminine identity, Chodorow has been criticized for disguising the effect of intersectionality in the role of mothering, especially in regard to the mother-daughter dyad. This is to say that mothering cannot occur in a one-sided vacuum, without considering how mothers are affected by factors such as race, class, sexual identity, and ability, and how these factors influence the mother-daughter relationship. As Elizabeth V. Spelman in Inessential Woman: Problems of Exclusion in Feminist Thought (1988) explains: What we develop at such an early stage, [according to Chodorow], is a general relational stance: girls see themselves in relation to their mothers and as connected to the world; boys see themselves as separate from and in opposition to their mothers and as 296

Configuring the mother-daughter dyad

separate from the world. And this supposedly is true no matter the race or class of the mother and children. . . . Is a girl only aware of her mother being a woman, and not of her mother’s being Black or white? (96, 110) Undoubtedly, Chodorow’s influential work provides a nuanced examination of mothers and daughters. However, even in this regard, the mother-daughter dyad is marginalized and does not take into account the multiple differences that make motherhood and maternal relationships with daughters unique. A Different Voice (1982) by Carol Gilligan builds upon Chodorow’s premise of a universal experience in the mother-daughter relationship and accentuates how Chodorow “replaces Freud’s negative and derivative description of female psychology with a positive and direct account of her own” (8). At the core of Gilligan’s argument is her claim that feminine identity, unlike masculine identity, is linked to attachment to the mother. Gilligan finds: In view of the evidence that women perceive and construe social reality differently from men and that these differences center around experiences of attachment and separation, life transitions that invariably engage these experiences can be expected to involve women in a distinctive way. And because women’s sense of integrity appears to be entwined with an ethic of care, so that to see themselves as women is to see themselves in a relationship of connection, the major transitions in women’s lives would seem to involve changes in the understanding and activities of care. (171) Therefore, according to Gilligan, women in their maternal roles are more likely to create a bond with their daughters, which affirms dependence and hinders mothers and daughters from forming their own discrete identities. Accordingly, mothers and daughters have limited selfactualization and recycle back into subjugated beings. While there is a paucity of empowered mothers and daughters in A Different Voice, Gilligan’s work is groundbreaking in the inclusion of the various subjectivities of mothers and daughters. By highlighting their various voices and experiences, she gives recognition to the responses of mothers and daughters and calls attention to their broad perspectives. According to Gilligan, her purpose was to have “the intersection of experience and thought, in different voices and the dialogues to which they give rise, in the way we listen to ourselves and to others, in the stories we tell about our lives” (2). Ultimately, the text points towards greater inclusiveness and a more multilayered portrayal of mother-daughter relationships. Nonetheless, Gilligan still prioritizes the experiences of heterosexual, white, affluent women and silences the narratives of others outside of this racial, political, cultural, socioeconomical, and gendered context. Spelman addresses this critique when she questions Chodorow’s study: But do families have no race or class or ethnic identity? Do they create children prepared to marry anymore, no matter the person’s race, class, ethnicity, religion? . . . Women mother in societies that may be racist and classist as well as sexist and heterosexist. Are we to believe that a woman’s mothering is to be informed only by her relation to a husband or male lover and her experience of living in a male-dominated society, but not by her relation to people of other classes and races and her experience of living in a society in which there are race and class hierarchies? (85–86) 297

Dorsía Smith Silva

Like Rich and Chodorow, Gilligan constructs integrated assumptions based on the universal notion that all mother-daughter dyads are equally shaped by the oppression of patriarchy. By failing to acknowledge the pointed differences in mother-daughter relationships, she continues the flawed tradition of simply accepting existing discourses on mother-daughters and not redefining and confronting them.

Mother-daughter relationships and intersectionality The intricacies of incorporating intersectionality in the mother-daughter discussion is a crucial one in the field of mothering and motherhood studies, especially since its apparent historical absence has not gone unrecognized by women of color. In 1987, Patricia Hill Collins challenged the status quo by rejecting the “private, nuclear family household” in regard to mother-daughter relationships with black women. She argued that in contrast to the isolation of the middle class White mother/daughter dyads, Black women-centered extended family networks foster an early identification with a much wider range of models of Black womanhood which can lead to a greater sense of empowerment in young Black girls. (7) In this extended kin network of “othermothers,” the definition and relationship between mothers and daughters is expanded to include non-biological mothers and women who become “mothers” through their emotional attachments and responsibilities as caretakers. Chicana theorist and writer Gloria Anzaldúa evokes in her work how Latina/Chicana mothers represent several empowered images: the giver of life, fierce warrior, and preserver of cultural heritage. However, according to Anzaldúa, Latina/Chicana mothers represent contradictions of empowerment because they communicate a variety of gendered ideas: Through our mothers, the culture gave us mixed messages: No voy a dejar que ningún pelado desgraciado maltrate a mis hijos (I’m not going to let any lowlife mistreat my children). Gendered messages that promoted gender roles are contested by the Latina daughters. La mujer tiene que hacer lo que diga el hombre (the woman has to do what the man says). Which was it to be – strong, submissive, rebellious or conforming? (18) Writers such as Esmeralda Santiago, Isabel Allende, Cristina Garcia, Nicholasa Mohr, Judith Ortiz Cofer, and Julia Alvarez are noted for examining Latina/Chicana mothers who perpetuate the patriarchal institutions and traditional cultural and social codes while raising their daughters. Thus, the figure of the Latina/Chicana mother usually becomes linked to a repressive construction, especially in regard to controlling her daughter’s sexuality and autonomy. Yet, these writers also show that not all Latinas/Chicanas act as a “castrating matriarch” or engage their daughters in the virgin/whore binary (Iglesias 509). They reveal that Latina/Chicana mothers can become victims of living in a sexist, classist, and racist society, a circumstance, which according to feminist, psychoanalyst, and social activist Jean Baker Miller is replicated in the mother-daughter dyad: It is easier to blame mothers than to comprehend the entire system that has restricted women. It is true that mothers have interacted most with daughters and, thus, were

298

Configuring the mother-daughter dyad

the most direct agents of an oppressive system. But mothers were themselves victims of the system. (139) As Latina/Chicana mothers engage in identity negotiation with their daughters, they begin to dismantle the systemic mechanism of alienation and repression in mother-daughter relationships. And in this process, they create chinks in patriarchal motherhood and inequalities of patriarchal culture to “stop the chain of events” and “free the daughter to love her own daughter” (Moraga, Loving 34). Calling attention to the complexity of Caribbean mothering in Feminist and Critical Perspectives on Caribbean Mothering (2013), Simone A. James Alexander and Dorsía Smith Silva argue that mothering discourses should incorporate the issues that are particular to Caribbean women: the dichotomies of maternal power and loss, binary of maternal loving and loathing, and mobility and restriction as fundamental aspects of the Caribbean’s colonial history. In this sense, scholarship on Caribbean mothers needs to contextualize how Caribbean mothering moves beyond the traditional concepts of the mothering experience and recognize how a part of Caribbean mothering is the parallel of the mother-child relationship to the colonizer-­ colonial role. According to Antiguan writer Jamaica Kincaid, the mother-daughter dyad represents a complex interplay of nourishment, power, and powerlessness: The mother shows her [the daughter] how to be in the world, but at the back of her mind, she thinks she never will get it. She’s deeply skeptical that this child could ever grow to be a self-possessed woman and, and in the end, she reveals her skepticism; yet even within the skepticism are, of course, dismissal and scorn. So it’s not unlike the relationship between the conqueror and the victim. (Vorda 87) In addition to Kincaid, several Caribbean authors such Haitian writer Edwidge Danticat and Barbadian American novelist Paule Marshall examine the mother-daughter and colonizer-­ colonized link and confront the impactful “wound” of colonialism on the mother-daughter dyad. As Kincaid states, “The truth is that the legacy of colonialism everywhere is cruelty and brutality and theft. What the colonizers did in a mild way we now do to each other in an exaggerated, grotesque way” (Wachtel 58). Illuminating the importance of the variable dynamics of women of color and the motherdaughter dyad, texts such as Patricia Bell-Scott et al.’s Double Stitch (1991), Elizabeth BrownGuillory’s Women of Color: Mother-Daughter Relationships in 20th-Century Literature (1996), Esmeralda Santiago and Joie Davidow’s Las Mamis: Favorite Latino Authors Remember Their Mothers (2000), Simone Alexander’s Mother Imagery in the Novels of Afro-American Women (2001), Wendy Ho’s In Her Mother’s House (1999), D. Memee Lavell-Harvard and Jeannette Corbiere Lavell’s “Until Our Hearts Are on the Ground:” Aboriginal Mothering, Oppression, Resistance and Rebirth (2006), and Dorsía Smith Silva’s Latina/Chicana Mothering (2012), reflect the burgeoning scholarship and professional interest in mother-daughter relationships with the interactions of race and ethnicity. While it is beyond the scope of this chapter to note every text that explores mothers of color and their daughters, it can be stated that there is a pervasive interest and demand for motherhood and mothering texts to extend the context and form of what it means to be a mother and daughter in racial ethnic communities. By challenging these boundaries of the institution of motherhood, contemporary texts can contribute fresh critical perspectives on

299

Dorsía Smith Silva

the mother-daughter dyad and bring the voices of new generations of mothers and daughters into the discussion.

Contemporary developments The pioneering interdisciplinary conference on mothers and daughters, entitled “Mothers and Daughters: Moving towards the Millennium” was hosted at Atkinson College, York University, Toronto, in September 1997, and was coordinated by motherhood and mothering scholar and professor Andrea O’Reilly. According to O’Reilly, the conference was a reflection of the increased need to fully explore the voices of mothers and daughters: During the last decade, the topic MOTHERS AND DAUGHTERS has emerged as a central issue in feminist scholarship. Writers and theorists have explored the ways in which mother-daughter relationships both empower and disempower participants, act as sites of identity construction, emerge as social and historical constructions, and reflect cultural norms of femininity. While patriarchal culture divides mothers and daughters, they in turn develop strategies in resisting this separation to achieve a lasting politics of empowerment. Differences of race, class, culture, ability, age and sexual orientation provide frameworks within which relationships are shaped. By bringing together the major scholars in this field with students, community activists, mothers and daughters, we offer a space in which to celebrate feminist scholarship. (“Mothers and Daughters: Moving into the Next Millennium”) It also brought together a global community of transdisciplinary feminist scholars and cultural activists to discuss, challenge, and rewrite the issues relating to mothers and daughters in feminist scholarship and activism. Two edited texts developed from this conference. The first, Looking Back, Looking Forward: Mothers, Daughters, and Feminism (1998), was published in the journal Canadian Woman Studies/ Les Cahiers de la femme as a part of honoring the journal’s twentieth anniversary. The theme was markedly apropos, O’Reilly states, since women were “at the threshold of the new millennium,” which called for a time to “reflect upon women’s achievements of the past and the challenges of the future, [since] our identities as feminists, mothers, daughters are central to our vision of the world we live in and the world we want” (“Mothers, Daughters, and Feminism Today” 16). The second text, Mothers and Daughters Connection, Empowerment, Transformation (2000), was edited by Andrea O’Reilly and Sharon Abbey and set the groundwork to continue the narrative on mothers and daughters in Mothers and Daughters,3 a special issue of the Journal of the Association for Research on Mothering in 2008. Most recently, the edited text Mothers and Daughters (2017) emerged as a part of the increasing attention given to the topic of mother-daughter relationships. The collection entails creative work, deep reflections, semi-(auto) biographies, heartrending memoires, and other writings that explore and examine the complications of mother-daughter relationships. To that end, Mothers and Daughters is a welcomed and awaited addition to the study of motherhood and mothering;4 it is nuanced with an engaging transdisciplinary format and serves as personal, collaborative, and academic discoveries for readers. Further, this collection of scholarship on mothers and daughters informs us of the diverse ways of approaching, reading, listening to, and understanding mother-daughter relationships through a global gathering of styles of representations and multifaceted explorations of compelling relational, social, and cultural dynamics. 300

Configuring the mother-daughter dyad

Challenges Mother-daughter relationships have far too often been examined in broad domains that fail to pay attention to the particular mothering circumstances that are at the forefront of many mother-daughter relationships. As they recognize that they have different experiences and that there is not “a single story” that represents the mother-daughter dyad, mothers and daughters have called for more diverse representations within the discussion and theories on motherdaughter relationships. A part of this call must be for the inclusion of factors, such as race, socioeconomic status, and sexual orientation into the framework of the scholarship on motherdaughter relationships. These changes will then, in turn, create empowered mothers and daughters and encourage more discussion of this worthy topic. In “Maternal Thinking,” Sara Ruddick asserts that all mothers share some concepts as a part of motherhood: “There are features of the mothering experience which are invariant and nearly unchangeable, and others which, though changeable, are nearly universal. It is therefore possible to identify interests that seem to govern maternal practice throughout the species” (346–47). In particular, she stated that a mother’s three primary interests in caring for her children are “preservation, growth, and acceptability” (348). While mothering may share some of Ruddick’s broad conceptualizations like mothers taking interest in the welfare of their children and protecting their lives, it relies singly on these concepts that negate the unique experiences of mothers and daughters. An important challenge for mothers and daughters then is, how to move from a singular story to recognize contemporary representations outside of the largely white, middle class, heteronormative, mother-daughter images. Patricia Hills Collins entered into this debate when she asserted that the mother-daughter dyad must be constructed in the contexts of the mother’s race, gender, and socioeconomic status: Motherhood occurs in specific historical situations framed by interlocking structures of race, class and gender. . . . For women of color, the subjective experience of ­mothering/motherhood is inextricably linked to the sociocultural concern of racial ethnic ­communities – one does not exist without the other. (“Shifting the Center” 45–47) Elizabeth Brown-Guillory extends the in-depth examination of women of color mothers and daughters in Women of Color: Mother-Daughter Relationships in the 20th Century (1996). Her edited compilation features essays about the mother-dyad in texts by Asian American, Chicana, Native American, and African American women writers and recognizes the significance of how race, class, and gender interplay in the mother-daughter relationship: “The mother tries painstakingly to convey knowledge about how to survive in a racist, sexist, and classist world while the daughter rejects her mother’s experiences as invalid in changing social times” (2). Another important text that explores the complexity of women of color in mother-daughter relationships is Nurturing Success: Successful Women of Color and Their Daughters (2000) by Essie E. Lee. By focusing on the stories of 17 mothers and their 19 daughters with diverse multi-ethnic backgrounds, Lee confirms that mothers and daughters of color face a myriad of barriers, especially in regard to race, gender, and class. As women of color mothers and daughters become a more integral part of mothering and motherhood studies, contemporary literature must study women of color mothers and daughters in a full spectrum and take into consideration their various lived experiences, concerns, and histories. If motherhood is truly to be studied thoroughly, then a part of the discussion that must be taken into account is mother-daughter relationships that resist patriarchal structures by rejecting 301

Dorsía Smith Silva

the heteronormative framework. Louise Rafkin explores mother-daughter relationships and lesbianism in Different Daughters: A Book by Mothers of Lesbians (1987). The text compiles the experiences of 30 mothers as they attempt to explore their feelings about their daughters’ sexuality. According to reviewer Regina Marier, “Even hostile parents can find some reassurance here in stories about mothers who were at first horrified by their daughters’ lesbianism and have struggled to achieve an uneasy peace with them. A wonderful gift, especially for mothers of lesbians who are newly out of the closet.” While it was a watershed development to include lesbianism as a part of the mother-daughter dyad, the text was incomplete as the daughters’ concerns were either underdeveloped or poorly inaccurate. In addition, Rafkin perpetuates the prevailing patriarchal beliefs, especially in regard to how the mother-daughter relationship is different from the father-daughter relationship. In her view, the mother acquires knowledge of her daughter’s lesbianism first and then tries to enact safeguards to protect her daughter from any perceived intolerance from family members. Rafkin finds that the mother’s desire to shield the daughter may partly lead to a “particularly intense” attachment (8). Katherine Arnup’s article, “Does the Word Lesbian Mean Anything to You? Lesbians Raising Daughters,” further recognizes lesbianism as a part of the identity of mothers and daughters. In this essay, she argues that lesbian mothers are diverse: Lesbian mothers may be women of colour or white; working class or middle class; able-bodied or disabled; young or old; immigrant or Canadian born; anglophone or francophone. Clearly, lesbian mothers reflect all the differences among women. In addition, the attitudes of the worlds that lesbian mothers live in can range from complete acceptance to total rejection. (60) She also notes how lesbian mothers are highly influential to their daughters, especially when they teach them egalitarian roles in the household: “For our daughters, that can provide an invaluable lesson about female resourcefulness, strength, and reliance – lessons that can, perhaps, combat some of the messages our daughters receive from the outside world about female helplessness and unworthiness” (64). However, lesbian mothers face opposition, due to society’s “anti-gay initiatives” and political and legal contexts that consider lesbianism a “crime against nature” (64). In addition, they lack representation in various forums (65). These issues raised by Arnup call for genuine concern about the lack of various discursive narratives of the lesbian mother-daughter relationship. Indeed, discourses on the mother-daughter dyad must incorporate accounts that reflect multiple subject positionings, concerns, and struggles. In her call to challenge the heralding of representations on mothers and daughters from a limited point of view, Cherríe Moraga composed her memoir, Waiting in the Wings: Portrait of a Queer Motherhood (1997). As a queer Chicana mother, Moraga asserts her relationship with her daughter as “beyond the confines of heterosexual family ties” (17). Similarly, Merle Woo’s “Letter to Ma” in Cherríe Moraga and Gloria Anzaldúa’s seminal edited text This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color (1981) embraces the idea that the mother-daughter relationship is multifaceted as she reflects upon her lesbianism and shared experiences of racism with her mother. This rewriting of motherhood is essential to understanding the mother-daughter dyad and opening the pathway for other lesbian women of color mothers and daughters to utilize their voices. In addition, it points to the greater need to expand the scholarship and representation of mother-daughter relationships to include the voices of members of the LGBTQIA communities. As it follows that there must be a continued effort to create and expand the layers of motherdaughter relationships and point to the intersections of class, race, gender, sexuality, ability, status, 302

Configuring the mother-daughter dyad

age, and other types of privilege, there must also be a stance to examine the mother-daughter dyad and feminism. While there are more texts today on mothers and daughters, the topic of empowered mothers and daughters in a feminist framework is a particularly noteworthy issue in maternal scholarship. According to Andrea O’ Reilly, “The scholarship on mothers, daughters, and feminism falls under four interconnected themes – . . . empowerment, agency, narrative, and the motherline”5 (“Mothers, Daughters, and Feminism” 16). One form of empowerment, according to Virginia Beane Rutter in Celebrating Girls: Nurturing and Empowering Our Daughters (1996) is for mothers to bolster their daughters’ self-esteem. With this strengthening of selfworth, Rutter asserts, daughters will then have a better self-assurance and healthier relationship with their mothers: The mother-daughter relationship is the ground for teaching, taking, and sharing the feminine experience and the more we empower that experience, the healthier our girls will be. We need to secure our daughters’ sense of self-worth, in their mind and their bodies, so that they will not turn away from us and from themselves. (250–51) Yet, the question remains how can mothers claim power and reconstitute it to their daughters, if they lack agency and/or reject autonomy? In addition, how can mothers build lives of authority when they fall within the patriarchal institutions of motherhood? The challenge, therein, is how to engage in a form of mothering that espouses empowerment for mothers and daughters and supports “mothers who want their own freedom and ours [their daughters] . . . because a woman who can believe in herself, who is a fighter, and who continues to struggle to create livable space around her, is demonstrating to her daughter that these possibilities exist” (Rich 204). Echoing O’Reilly, Fiona Joy Green in “Matroreform: Feminist Mothers and Their Daughters Creating Feminist Motherlines” examines how daughters and mothers display empowerment through matroreform – “an act, desire and process of claiming motherhood power” that “attempts to institute new mothering rules and practices apart from one’s motherline” (WongWylie 135). In this process, mothers create their own feminist mothering practices and instill in their daughters beliefs of “autonomy, self-assurance, and independence through their feminist parenting” (Green 17). Thus, these mother-daughter relationships “unravel the patriarchal script of motherhood to write their own stories of motherhood and daughterhood” (O’Reilly, “ ‘I Come from’ ” 145). On the other hand, Amber E. Kinser contends in “Mothering Feminist Daughters in Postfeminist Times,” that some daughters may resist the feminist influences of their mothers as a part of what Rich called “matrophobia” – “the fear of becoming one’s own mother” (235) and some “daughters of feminists can feel resentment, resignation, and a sense of neglect” (Kinser 32). Thus, feminist mothers and daughters must address the underlying tensions and lingering conflicts within the paradigms of feminism and the mother-daughter dyad to have truly empowered mothers and daughters.

Directions for future research Key questions to guide future research include: 1 How can texts and theories incorporate the intersectionality of the mother-daughter experience? 2 In what ways could mothers and daughters connect to their agency through empowered mothering practices? 303

Dorsía Smith Silva

3 The mother-daughter dyad can suffer from a daughter-centric bias. How can mothers and daughters have their own identity within the dyad to embody empowered motherdaughter relationships in current and future scholarship? The aforementioned questions acknowledge the existing challenges. Although there are many texts on mothers and daughters and theories that have explored the mother-daughter dyad, the critique that there is a lack of diversity within these texts and theories is a serious concern. Another strong argument is the fact that these texts and theories overlook how the subjective experiences of mothers and daughters and their multiple interactions with race, class, gender, sexuality, and ability greatly influence their mother-daughter relationships. An important conclusion to draw here is the need for developing more inclusive frameworks that embrace widespread representations of mothers and daughters and include mother-daughter relationships in more varied and empowering ways. While more personal narratives, ethnographies, case studies, theories, and research have emerged on mother-daughter relationships, there is still a gap in the intersectionality of perspectives and representations of the mother-daughter dyad, especially in regard to the overlap of mothering and motherhood with various factors such as race, class, gender, sexuality, ability, “othermothers,” adopted mothers, and lesbian mothers. A proliferation of writing about the intersectionality of mothers and daughters would not only extend the thinking of the mother-daughter dyad but would also represent mothers and daughters in more complex and self-determined ways. In what follows, we must work towards having a broader repertoire of mother-daughter representations, beginning with the push back against mostly white, patriarchal frameworks and push toward diverse empowered representations that are profoundly entrenched in the lives of mothers and daughters today. Contemporary scholarship on the mother-daughter dyad must also examine how some mothers and daughters express their sense of agency through empowered mothering practices. As Andrea O’Reilly notes, empowered mothering can redirect motherhood into “a political site wherein mothers can affect social change through the socialization of children, in terms of challenging traditional patterns of gender acculturation through feminist child rearing and the world at large through political – social activism” (Rocking 45). For mothers and daughters, this empowered relationship will then have great implication for their political, cultural, and social and individual and collective autonomy. However, what is also important is that these paradigms do not become daughter-centric – a critique that Suzanne Juhasz has found in several motherdaughter texts (91). Notably, Jo Malin in The Voice of the Mother: Embedded Maternal Narratives in Twentieth-Century Women’s Autobiographies (2000) recognizes the “daughter-centered bias”: “Why are there are few . . . texts written with a mother as subject of her own text?” (14). By examining both the mother’s identity and daughter’s identity, mothers will claim their empowerment and instill in their daughters narratives of resistance, possibilities, and transformation. Thus, future dialogue on the mother-daughter dyad should embody these empowered scripts of mother-daughter relationships and continue to explore the potential frictions within empowered mothering.

Further reading Caplan, Paula J. The New Don’t Blame Mother: Mending the Mother-Daughter Relationship. Routledge, 2000. Flax, Jane. “The Conflict between Nurturance and Autonomy in Mother-Daughter Relationships and within Feminism.” Feminist Studies, vol. 4, no. 2, 1978, pp. 171–89. Hirsch, Marianne. Mother/Daughter Plot: Narrative, Psychoanalysis, Feminism. Indiana UP, 1989. Kadane, J. M. The Empty Nest: A Mother’s Hidden Grief. Kindle Edition, 2012.

304

Configuring the mother-daughter dyad Lawler, Steph, editor. Mothering the Self: Mothers, Daughters, Subjects. Psychology Press, 2000. Lazarre, Jane. The Mother Knot. Duke UP, 1997. Nice, Vivian E. Mothers and Daughters: The Distortion of a Relationship. Palgrave, 1992. O’Reilly, Andrea, editor. Maternal Theory: Essential Readings. Demeter Press, 2007. ———. Maternal Thinking: Philosophy, Politics, Practice. Demeter Press, 2009. ———. Twenty-First Century Motherhood: Experience, Identity, Policy, Agency. Demeter Press, 2010.

Conclusion The mother-daughter dyad represents a broad spectrum of experiences and concerns of mothers and daughters and examines the intersections of mothers and daughters with the changing dynamics of everyday life such as, classism, racism, sexism, and lesbianism. In exploring how the institution of mother-daughter relationships is influenced by the narrow binaries of patriarchal motherhood, empowered mothers and daughters also reconfigure motherhood, challenge patriarchal authority, and create symbols of power and agency. By reclaiming their empowerment, mothers not only empower their individual selves but also their daughters. As Adrienne Rich states, The most important thing one woman can do for another is to illuminate and expand her sense of actual possibilities. For a mother, this means more than contending with the reductive images of females in children’s books. It means that the mother herself is trying to expand the limits of her life. To refuse to be a victim; and then to go on from there. (204) With new analyses on the mother-daughter relationship taking root and social movements developing, the mother-daughter dyad can conceive the possibilities of creating more complex models of motherhood that reflect the political, cultural, and social realities of mothers and daughters.

Notes 1 According to Kimberlé Crenshaw, intersectionality is a “provisional concept” that engages the “dominant assumptions that race and gender are essentially separate categories.” She states: “By tracing the categories to their intersections, I hope to suggest a methodology that will ultimately disrupt the tendencies to see race and gender as exclusive or separable. While the primary intersections that I explore here are between race and gender, the concept can and should be expanded by factoring in issues such as class, sexual orientation, age, and color” (378). 2 For a discussion of “othermothers” as women who raise children who are not biologically their own, see Sharon Abbey and Andrea O’Reilly, Simone A. James Alexander, Susan E. Chase and Mary F. Rogers, and Patricia Hill Collins. 3 This special issue includes 18 articles, 13 books reviews, a selection of poetry, and a poetry folio. 4 Andrea O’ Reilly and Sharon Abbey state that motherhood is “the institution of motherhood that is male-defined and – polarized” and mothering is “the experiences of mothering that are female-defined and – centered” (7). 5 Motherline, according to Naomi Lowinsky, is the imaginary thread from women that links every woman to her foremothers through the family’s culture and ancestral roots (211).

Works cited Alexander, Simone A. James. Mother Imagery in the Novels of Afro-Caribbean Women. U of Missouri P, 2001. Anzaldúa, Gloria. Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza. Aunt Lute Books, 1987. Arnup, Katherine. “Does the Word Lesbian Mean Anything to You? Lesbians Raising Daughters.” Redefining Motherhood: Changing Identities and Patterns, edited by Sharon Abbey and Andrea O’ Reilly, Second Story, 1998, pp. 59–68.

305

Dorsía Smith Silva Bell-Scott, Patricia, et al., editors. Double Stitch: Black Women Write about Mothers and Daughters. Beacon, 1991. Brown-Guillory, Elizabeth. Women of Color: Mother-Daughter Relationships in 20th-Century Literature. U of Texas P, 1996. Chase, Susan E., and Mary F. Rogers. Mothers and Children: Feminist Analyses and Personal Narratives. Rutgers UP, 2001. Chodorow, Nancy. The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of Gender. U of California P, 1978. Collins, Patricia Hill. “The Meaning of Motherhood in Black Culture and Black Mother/Daughter Relationships.” Sage: A Scholarly Journal on Black Women, vol. 4, 1987, pp. 3–10. ———. “Shifting the Center: Race, Class, and Feminist Theorizing about Motherhood.” Mothering, Ideology, Experience, and Agency, edited by Evelyn Nakano Glenn et al., Routledge, 1994, pp. 45–65. Crenshaw, Kimberlé, “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color.” Critical Race Theory, edited by Kimberlé Crenshaw et al., The New Press, 1995, pp. 357–83. Gilligan, Carol. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Harvard UP, 1982. Green, Fiona. “Matroreform: Feminist Mothers and Their Daughters Creating Feminist Motherlines.” Journal of the Association for Research on Mothering, vol. 10, no. 2, Fall/Winter 2008, pp. 11–21. Ho, Wendy. In Her Mother’s House: The Politics of Asian-American Mother-Daughter Writing. AltaMira, 1999. hooks, bell. Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. Routledge, 1994. Iglesias, Elizabeth M. “Maternal Power and the Deconstruction of Male Supremacy.” The Latino/a Condition, edited by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic. New York UP, 1998, pp. 505–15. Juhasz, Suzanne. A Desire for Women: Relational Psychoanalysis, Writing, and Relationships between Women. Rutgers UP, 2003. Kinser, Amber E. “Mothering Feminist Daughters in Postfeminist Times.” Journal of the Association for Research on Mothering, vol. 10, no. 2, Fall/Winter 2008, pp. 22–37. Kuwabong, Dannabang, et al., editors. Mothers and Daughters. Demeter Press, 2017. Lavell-Harvard, D. Memee, and Jeannette Corbiere Lavell, editors. “Until Our Hearts Are on the Ground”: Aboriginal Mothering, Oppression, Resistance and Rebirth. Demeter Press, 2006. Lee, Essie E. Nurturing Success: Successful Women of Color and Their Daughters. Greenwood, 2000. Lowinsky, Naomi. Stories from the Mothering: Reclaiming the Mother-Daughter Bond, Finding Our Female Souls. Tarcher, 1992. Malin, Jo. The Voice of the Mother: Embedded Maternal Narratives in Twentieth-Century Women’s Autobiographies. Southern Illinois UP, 2000. Marier, Regina. “Review of Different Daughters: A Book by Mothers of Lesbians.” Amazon.ca, www.amazon. ca/Different-Daughters-Book-Mothers-Lesbians/dp/1573441279. Accessed 2 Jan. 2018. Miller, Jean Baker. Toward a New Psychology of Women. 2nd ed., Beacon, 1986. Moraga, Cherríe. Loving in the War Years: Lo Que Nunca Por Sus Labios. South End, 1983. ———. Waiting in the Wings: Portrait of a Queer Motherhood. Firebrand, 1997. O’Reilly, Andrea. “Mothers, Daughters, and Feminism Today: Empowerment, Agency, Narrative.” Canadian Woman Studies/Les Cahiers de la femme, vol. 18, no. 2/3, Looking Back, Looking Forward: Mothers, Daughters, and Feminism, Summer/Fall 1998, pp. 16–21. ———. “ ‘I Come from a Long Line of Uppity Irate Black Women’: African American Feminist Thought on Motherhood, the Motherline, and the Mother-Daughter Relationship.” Mothers and Daughters: Connection, Empowerment, Transformation, edited by Andrea O’Reilly and Sharon Abbey, Rowman, 2000, pp. 143–60. ———. Rocking the Cradle: Thoughts on Motherhood, Feminism, and the Possibility of Empowered Mothering. Demeter Press, 2006. ———. “Mothers and Daughters: Moving into the Next Millennium.” Motherhood Initiative. http:// motherhoodinitiative.org/conferences/mothers-and-daughters-moving-into-the-next-millennium/. Accessed 2 Jan. 2018. O’Reilly, Andrea, and Sharon Abbey, editors. Mothers and Daughters: Connection, Empowerment, Transformation. Rowman, 2000. Rafkin, Louise. Different Daughters: A Book by Mothers of Lesbians. Doubleday, 1987. Rich, Adrienne. Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution. Norton, 1976. Ruddick, Sara. “Maternal Thinking.” Feminist Studies, vol. 2, no. 6, Summer 1980, pp. 342–67. Rutter, Virginia Beane. Celebrating Girls: Nurturing and Empowering Our Daughters. Conari, 1996.

306

Configuring the mother-daughter dyad Santiago, Esmeralda, and Joie Davidow, editors. Las Mamis: Favorite Latino Authors Remember Their Mothers. Knopf, 2000. Secunda, Victoria. When You and Your Mother Can’t Be Friends. Doubleday, 1990. ———. Women and Their Fathers: The Sexual and Romantic Impact of the First Man in Your Life. Delacorte, 1992. Smith Silva, Dorsía, editor. Latina/Chicana Mothering. Demeter Press, 2011. Smith Silva, Dorsía, and Simone A. James Alexander, editors. Feminist and Critical Perspectives on Caribbean Mothering. Africa World, 2013. Spelman, Elizabeth V. Inessential Woman: Problems of Exclusion in Feminist Thought. Beacon, 1988. Vorda, Allan. “I Come from a Place That’s Very Unreal: An Interview with Jamaica Kincaid.” Face to Face: Interviews with Contemporary Novelists, edited by Allan Vorda, Rice UP, 1993, pp. 77–106. Wachtel, Eleanor. “Eleanor Wachtel with Jamaica Kincaid.” The Malahat Review, vol. 116, Fall 1996, pp. 55–71. Wong-Wylie, Gina. “Images and Echoes in Matroreform: A Cultural Feminist Perspective.” Journal for the Association for Research on Mothering, vol. 8, no. 1/2, 2006, pp. 135–46. Woo, Merle. “Letter to Ma.” This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color, edited by Cherríe Moraga and Gloria Anzaldúa, 2nd ed., Kitchen House, 1983, pp. 140–47.

307

25 MOTHERS AND SONS Nicole L. Willey

This entry is both personal and collective in nature. I am a mother of sons. I am also a scholar who has delved into the conversation with other mothers of sons, primarily through their written words but also at conferences and over coffee, on social media, and in more personal communications. Like Andrea O’Reilly, I have realized that I need to tell my own narrative in order to understand the larger body of knowledge on mothers and sons (“A Mom and her Son” 388). I have published about that elsewhere, but it is one thing to tell the narrative of my life with boys when they are still in elementary school; it is another to tell it when they are in middle school, and it will continue to change as they grow into adulthood. Even then, I imagine it will remain a dynamic narrative, one that changes as new people (hopefully loving partners, maybe children) are added to our relationships, as geographical realities change, even as the technology that will, I hope, allow us to stay in communication, changes. That is all to say, this is an attempt to put down what the current state of knowledge about mothers and sons is, but this is a moving conversation and one that will change. As a feminist, I believe this narrative will continue to change for the better, better for both mothers and sons. This is a personal chapter because of who I am, the mother of two (white, comfortably middle-class) boys. My concern as a feminist mother is that they understand their privilege enough to question it, to not abuse it, to understand the responsibilities they have to speak for those who cannot speak as loudly. I want them to be part of the progress feminists have made to break all of us free from the patriarchy. I also want them to be whole, wise, loved, and loving. I want to have a full relationship with each of them throughout our lives. I want them and those they love to be safe. These are not small wishes. And yet I know that while these desires for health and wholeness are shared by virtually all mothers, not all mothers have the same odds that I do in seeing these wishes fulfilled. And so I join Audre Lorde who writes, “I have no golden message about the raising of sons. . . . We are women making connections within ourselves and with each other across the restrictions of a printed page, bent upon the use of our own/one another’s knowledges” (72). And so this is a collective piece, utilizing mother knowledge, which is “what mothers know subliminally and cognitively, and which they retrieve and apply actively or otherwise in different situations . . . [it] speaks to a unique insight, which is learned, acquired and embodied” (Muhonja 1). And so I hope to use this collective mother knowledge to trace our progress and find a way forward as we mother our sons.

308

Mothers and sons

This chapter will examine the history and context of research on mothers and sons, exploring problematic generalizations as well as the late start of this research due to, in part, maternal ambivalence about mothering sons, followed by naming the foremothers of this area of research. Next we will discuss the central issues in scholarship on mothers and sons today, including the fear of effeminizing sons, masculine violence, and the need for peacebuilding, followed by further context in the areas of African American mothering of sons and queering the mothering of sons. This will be followed by current research on mothering of sons, which includes feminist parenting, connection, and raising relational boys. Finally, new directions for further research will include the need to move away from gendered binary thinking about parenting and sons, with a suggestion for further reading in the field.

History and context Definitions and generalizations My disclaimer from the start is that while this chapter is an exercise in generalizations, I realize, with Linda Forcey, that generalizations are somewhat impossible: These women are unique. Reading between the lines we cannot but conclude there are rich, poor, strong, weak, conservative, liberal, ambitious, lazy, proud, humble, open, repressed, untroubled, and troubled mothers of sons. There can be no such thing, contrary to the popular portrayal of them, as the mother of sons, or for that matter the mother or the woman. (Mothers of Sons 136) Likewise, there can be no the son. The title of this chapter and the commonality in the works discussed utilize a reliance on binary definitions as well as assumptions about what each word, “mother” and “son,” mean. By the end, it will become clear that part of the way forward is moving outside of the binaries we have relied upon for too long. And yet, one generalization that Forcey and I agree upon is part of the premise of her hundreds of interviews with mothers that created the book Mothers of Sons: Toward an Understanding of Responsibility: mothers “consider themselves the primary parent for their sons, the one responsible for their well-being. This responsibility, from their perspective, does not end when their sons reach maturity: it lasts a lifetime” (137). So in order to understand the body of work related to mothers and sons, we must both generalize and specify.

Maternal ambivalence and the fear of mother blame: the beginnings of research on mothers and sons Judith Arcana describes the huge wave of writing about daughters but the lack of a concomitant wave for sons (vii). She posits this may have something to do with fear: We mothers of sons are afraid, afraid to try to influence male character, afraid of being blamed. We are hesitant to make too big of an impact, or to be too visible in our sons’ lives – at the same time that we are desperate to do so. (vii)

309

Nicole L. Willey

The scholarly ambivalence of treating the mothering of sons is present at the start of her study Every Mother’s Son and is echoed by O’Reilly who wonders: Have we, in our academic and personal interest in the mother-daughter relationship . . . wronged our sons, let them down, or simply forgotten about them? Have we in our negligence or disinterest, academic and otherwise, given our sons up to patriarchy, done to them what we have spent our lives fighting against for ourselves and daughters? (“A Mom and Her Son” 387–88) It seemed “natural” to many that the appropriate dyads for academic and personal pursuit were mothers and daughters, fathers and sons, and so feminist mothers, the ones perhaps most likely to write about mothering and the institution of motherhood, focused on daughters.

The foremothers to research on mothers and sons In the late 1970s, two hugely important works started to reframe the discussion. Adrienne Rich, who wrote Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution (1976), a touchstone for those in mothering studies, happened to be a mother of three boys. She famously takes down the patriarchy, naming it, theorizing it: Patriarchy is the power of the fathers: a familial-social, ideological, political system in which men – by force, direct pressure, or through ritual tradition, law and language, customs, etiquette, education, and the division of labor, determine what part women shall or shall not play, and in which the female is everywhere subsumed under the male. (57) And this power men have over women starts as early as sons realize they can manipulate their mothers (Rich 65). In Rich’s telling, “the mother-child relationship is the essential human relationship” even as “caged in a single aspect of her being – the maternal – she remains an object of mistrust, suspicion, misogyny in both overt and insidious forms” (127). In naming the institution of motherhood, and showing its patriarchal construction, she articulates mothering as an act that allowed her to “liv[e], at the deepest levels of passion and confusion” (194). Feminism, she shows, is a way forward not just for mothers of daughters but for mothers of sons as well: But it is absurd to think that women on the path of feminism wish to abandon their sons, emotionally or otherwise. Rather, the mother-son relationship – like all relationships – is undergoing revaluation, both in the light of the mother’s changing relationship to male ideology, and in terms of her hopes and fears for her sons. (207) Rich is quite literally our foremother here, showing the maternal ambivalence created by the patriarchy and the feminist call for love and a different type of future for our sons (and thus our daughters as well). Nancy Chodorow’s The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of Gender (1978) covers some of the same ground in her groundbreaking treatise on how we collectively have continued to reproduce the same division of labor in families for generations. She notes that “the father is rarely a child’s primary parent” (3) and that “women’s mothering is one of 310

Mothers and sons

the few universal and enduring elements of the sexual division of labor” (3). Showing that with the rise of capitalism and the public-private split of home and work, women’s role as mothers becomes more isolated and all-encompassing, she theorizes why this split remains so ingrained between mothers and fathers: Women, as mothers, produce daughters with mothering capacities and the desire to mother. These capacities and needs are built into and grow out of the motherdaughter relationship itself. By contrast, women as mothers (and men as not-mothers) produce sons whose nurturant capacities and needs have been systematically curtailed and repressed. This prepares men for their less affective later family role, and for primary participation in the impersonal extra-familial world of work and public life. The sexual and familial division of labor in which women mother and are more involved in interpersonal, affective relationships than men produces in daughters and sons a division of psychological capacities which leads them to reproduce this sexual and familial division of labor. (7) In detailing the reproduction of gender roles and the division of labor in the family unit, Chodorow points us to the problem of how to disrupt this pattern for a more egalitarian future. And these seemingly natural states of who a mother is and what she should do in relation to her children, and her sons in particular, do not fade away easily after being named. Very recently, Pamela Courtenay writes about the myths of mothering that she comfortably enjoyed as a mother of two sons while she was healthy; it was only when she had two severe illnesses simultaneously and became disabled that she was able to see the myths for what they are, tropes that “privilege those in power and provide ‘justification’ for the subordination of others – in this case women” (223). In Courtenay’s case, it was the dismantling of her physical abilities that allowed her to see the myth of the natural mother for what it is, debilitating to all women. For those who believe in so-called “natural mothering,” it “requires no particular knowledge, skills, or education and as a further consequence, deserves no economic return” (223). Her essay, “Disability and the Price of Myths about Mothering” (2016), shows us forty years after Rich, that we as feminist mothers of sons, still have work to do.

Central issues Mother blame and the fear of feminizing our sons A big part of our work is undoing the stigma attached to close connections between mothers and sons that last past early childhood. Noting the changes wrought by the Industrial Revolution on family life, Alison Thomas reminds us that it was precisely the separation of mothering activities into the private sphere and fathering into the public sphere (through providing) that precipitated fear about the effeminizing nature of mothering on sons in the mid-twentieth century (122). Mothers came seriously under attack during and after World War II, with Philip Wylie’s Generation of Vipers and David Levy’s Maternal Overprotection, which posited that women were emasculating their sons and “threatening the very fabric of this country” (Silverstein and Rashbaum 22). Books on parenting at this time “focused on how boys deprived of sufficient exposure to their father (and at the same time at risk of ‘coddling’ by their mothers) might be damaged by this” (Thomas 123). In particular, Benjamin Spock simultaneously blamed mothers and showed them that “perfection” in their children was possible (Silverstein and Rashbaum 311

Nicole L. Willey

22), a perfect storm that worked to “intimidate mothers, to make them doubt what are often their own best impulses” (Silverstein and Rashbaum 23). Mothers, then and now, fear two patterns of behavior in their relationships with their sons: “being either too loving (overprotective, overclose, smothering, seductive, devouring) or the reverse (unresponsive, rejecting, castrating, cold, hostile, angry)” (Silverstein and Rashbaum 23). Even feminist mothers admit to these fears. O’Reilly wonders if “I was spoiling him; or worse, because he was a boy, I was coddling and emasculating him, tying him to my apron strings and turning him into a Mama’s boy” (“A Mom and Her Son” 394). The term “mama’s boy” is at the heart of stigmatizing the closeness between mothers and sons. Darlene Drummond shows that in her recent case study, “Unanimously, participants agree that the term ‘mama’s boy’ has a negative connotation, intended to be an insult.” He is a male who is “socially awkward,” “Lacks self-reliance,” “dependent” on his mother, and “in need of excessive help with everything” (26). Only young boys are allowed to be close to their mothers (Drummond 26). While this study ultimately codifies different types of interdependence between adult sons and mothers, at least one model of which is positive and helpful to both parties, many mothers are so afraid of creating “mama’s boys” that they are themselves turning away from their boys subconsciously, initiating disconnection. At this point, the son “responds in kind, so that his mother, who wasn’t aware that she herself was the original actor in this scenario of withdrawal, eventually assumes that the withdrawal was his, not hers” (Silverstein and Rashbaum 31). In this disconnection, everyone loses. William Pollack cites “the emphasis society places on a boy’s separating emotionally from his mother at an unnecessarily early age, usually by the time the boys are six years old and then again in adolescence” as part of the reason boys’ “emotional expressiveness has been lost or has gone underground” by the start of elementary school (11). While connection and disconnection in relationships is a part of everyone’s life, and sometimes we pull away just when we need connection most (Dooley and Fedele 192): “Boys feel this paradox at a young age; they learn early not to represent themselves fully in relational encounters. Shamed by expressions of emotion, they begin to keep important parts of themselves hidden from others” (Dooley and Fedele 193). This disconnection that boys often learn in their relationships with their mothers can cause problems for them in the rest of their relationships, creating the portions of masculinity that seem unable to connect appropriately in adult relationships. In reality, disconnecting from the mother is not at all necessary for sons and is, in fact, harmful. Janet Sayers finds that “early loss of attachment to their mothers” (233) actually leads, in part, to “ill effects, including men’s stammering, recurring nightmares, self-division, schizophrenia, suicide, and manic self-glorification” (217). While she does not wish to attribute the fault for these ills completely to mothers, she does point to the fact that enforced early separation of mothers and sons can and does hurt boys. Sons, just like daughters, want connection (Pollack 18). And Pollack reminds us that Far from making boys weaker, the love of a mother can and does actually make boys stronger, emotionally and psychologically. Far from making boys dependent, the base of safety a loving mother can create – a connection that her son can rely on all his life – provides a boy with the courage to explore the outside world. (81) While I do not wish to overstate the case, to show that mothers are somehow solely responsible for their son’s emotional well-being, the anecdotal and formal evidence seems clear. Connection between mothers and sons is healthy; enforced disconnection is harmful. O’Reilly, who 312

Mothers and sons

admits to her fear of raising a mama’s boy, finds that what felt right for her son was “making sure he felt loved, protected, and good about himself. My son grew up with the knowledge that it was quite all right to be a sensitive boy and indeed quite normal to need your mother” (“A Mom and Her Son” 394). It is in fact “not mothers who are crippling our boys’ masculinity – it’s society’s myths about manhood that are preventing boys from being seen and trained as whole human beings, men who can work effectively and live in close relationships with other people” (Pollack 98). Living in connection is good for all of us, and the current crisis in masculinity – the rise of toxic masculinity – shows the very real consequences of holding onto these myths about mothering sons.

Masculinity and violence The way boys are mothered (and parented) matters, and the traditional ways are not working. Adam Jukes believes that “men have great difficulty with feelings and intimacy and this is because of the way we respond to shame and shame related emotions like embarrassment, humiliation, and guilt” (19). Part of the reason for men’s defensiveness around shame, for behaviors such as “projection, intellectualization, rationalization, reaction formation, overcompensation, grandiosity, devaluation and denigration and idealization” ( Jukes 19), is that shame is one of the tools used to discipline boys to get them to fall into prescripted behaviors. Pollack points to the “use of shame in the toughening up process by which it’s assumed boys need to be raised. Little boys are made to feel ashamed of their feelings, guilty especially about feelings of weakness, vulnerability, and despair” (11). Michael J. Diamond also attests to the use of shame in raising boys: Normative socialisation for males relies heavily on the aversive power of shame to shape acceptable male behaviour. For example, little boys are pressured to renounce gender-inconsistent traits far more than young girls are . . . and taboos against crossgender behaviour tend to be enforced much more brutally by parents, peers, and the society generally when exhibited by boys. (15) In other words, for many parents, boys not only will be boys, but boys should be boys (Pollack 62). We excuse aggressive and violent behavior in boys because the idea that boys should be aggressive and violent is all around us. Myriam Miedzian writes, “Many parents in fact encourage violent behavior in their sons by not setting distinct limits, by not making it clear that violence will not be tolerated” (30). For many women, giving birth to a boy leads to fear and worry about boys’ otherness and violence (Buchanan 5), traits that feel inherent. As Mary Kay Blakely writes, “the daily newspapers raise the most frightening questions of all for a mother of sons: Could my once sweet babes ever become violent men?” (17). Or as Rachel O’Donnel puts it, “there is something frightening about watching a boy grow up and the fear that he will become what you despise: masculinity in all its most militaristic forms” (172). As long as mothers do not question the traditional “knowledge” of “boys will be boys,” mothers will be both instruments and victims of patriarchal forms of masculinity in their own sons. Of course, it is true that not all men are violent, but it is also true that “most acts of violence are committed by men” (Miedzian 5). Hazel Rose Marks and Alan Conner show that across cultures, situations, settings, eras, ages, measures and flavors (physical or verbal, direct or indirect), men are the more agro half of the species. . . . They never lose their edge over women in the aggression department, and continue to clock higher rates of 313

Nicole L. Willey

homicide and other violent crimes until their dotage, when they are more likely than women to commit suicide. (46) If we know that this is the depressing reality, for more men than women, why do so many continue to raise boys with that same mix of shame, permissiveness, and disconnection that enables the problems? Miedzian posits that we largely continue as we are because “the questioning of assumptions, values, and patterns of behavior that have been taken for granted for so long can be threatening to people’s sense of identity and self-worth; it can create feelings of guilt” (4–5). For many, going with what seems “natural” is the only possibility in an effort to raise sons who won’t be considered mama’s boys or gender outsiders. And while feminist mothers (and feminist parenting practices) have been moving away from this type of socialization for our boys, we still have the culture working against us: Images of male dominance are projected by the media and modeled daily by older peers in countless ways. These expectations are not consciously taught or supported in most of our homes, schools, or communities. Rather, they are the insidious behavioral messages boys in our culture receive regarding boy behavior. These occur in the form of put-downs and intimidating threats in everyday interactions on the playground and in the halls of our schools. When we do nothing to intervene, thinking “boys will be boys,” we implicitly give our approval to and help normalize behaviors that are disconnecting and domineering and that can later lead to what has become a pervasive social problem of violence. (Dooley and Fedele 189) Masculinity is indeed in crisis, and it can be seen in the news every morning – acts of intimate partner violence, gang violence, incel activity (the work of “involuntary celibates,” or incels, in dark spots of the web that galvanize violence toward women), the public rise of white supremacy in all its forms, and randomized violence – are committed by men, daily.

Making our sons whole through feminist parenting and peacebuilding In addition to not separating from our sons, not using shame as a disciplinary tool, not enforcing the strict gender codes implicit in “boys will be boys” and “boys should be boys,” we need to give our boys the tools they need to relate to others and be whole people. Peggy Drexler in Raising Boys without Men: How Maverick Moms are Creating the Next Generation of Exceptional Men believes that one of the strongest weapons we have against violence in our neighborhoods and schools, as well as ultimately in the larger world, is our ability to communicate with our boys about what is going on in their lives. Simply put, we must talk to them, and listen to them. (xvi) The time has come to individually and collectively push back against these behaviors that are hurting all of us. The drive to raise our boys toward masculine values is strong. Individuals can make choices to change the script, but the structures around us are slow to change: 314

Mothers and sons

As mothers in this time, we are faced with a dilemma: we see that the old ways are not good; we wish to raise our boys differently – but we fear they’ll suffer ostracism, alienation, and loneliness in a society that has by no means given up its old definitions and restrictions. (Arcana 1) This fear, that we are mothering our sons away from their gender group, is perhaps part of what keeps many mothers from fully enacting a more relational parenting style with their sons. As Forcey notes, [Mothers] are not at all sure what “successful” raising of sons means these days. The “gender question” looms large. Its presence is reflected in these women’s struggles for a sense of personal worth outside their identity as mothers and in their ambivalence (for lesbian mothers interviewed too) toward the masculine values they feel impelled to foster in their sons. (Mothers of Sons 138) And when mothers do decide to flip the script on raising boys, we must consider not only whether our sons will be targeted for these changes but also if it is in fact a factor of our own and our sons’ privilege (whether that be about whiteness, class, heteronormativity, ability, etc.) that we can even think about raising our sons in different ways. For instance, Elizabeth Ann Bartlett writes, Is a non-dominating approach to discipline a white middle-class privilege? Is it fair, prudent, or simply privileged of me to suggest such an approach when the consequences for transgressing cultural norms or questioning authority for my white ­middle-class heterosexual son are likely to be far less severe than if he were black or queer or working class? (33) Sons of all types can be attacked for transgressions, but some are more of a target than others, and as will be discussed later, some mothers have far more to worry about when it comes to teaching their sons to transgress our society’s typical power structures and gender norms. O’Reilly shows that the problem of raising feminist children is that as their identities are formed, they can be attacked: A feminist mother, as a mother, is committed to the safety, wellbeing, and social acceptability of her children, yet as a feminist, that same mother knowingly and deliberately raises her child to be critical of the dominant culture and to cause, as a result, possible physical and psychological harm to her children. (“Feminist Mothering” 56) Feminist mothers persist in this important project but difficulties abound. Of course, a mother’s ability to mother, whether with or against the societal grain, can be impacted by the role of her son’s father. Fathers are increasingly members in dual-earner households in which their home and work lives reflect changes in gender dynamics, leading to both fathers and mothers “questioning the appropriateness of continuing to bring up sons and daughters to expect to take on gender-differentiated roles in adulthood” (Thomas 124). Fathers, 315

Nicole L. Willey

though, are for the most part not changing their parenting roles as quickly as mothers (Thomas 125). Pollack shows that while fathers are increasing the time spent fathering sons, this change is important though not yet concomitant with mothering: The trend is now moving toward expanded commitment, with a greater than 20 percent increase in fathers’ overall family involvement over the past ten years. Today fathers spend approximately 30 percent of their time (as opposed to mothers’ 70 percent) on family-related activities. (131) This change is important (if slow), as there is “resonance between the call for new ways of mothering sons, doing boyhood differently, and doing fathering and fatherhood in ways that benefit women, men, girls, and boys” (Doucet 175). Indeed, it is in realizing that we wish to discontinue the harmful ways we raise boys into masculinity, and working to change what is expected for boys, that we will eventually change how men father, and how families as a whole work. This is true for everyone but particularly true for families under extra stresses, one form of which is families containing children with special needs: “When the culture itself encourages mothers to be primary caregivers while encouraging sons to be recipients rather than givers of care, the task of mothering special needs sons can seem quite daunting” (Haessly 42). For all families, we must move the needle toward new ways of parenting sons. One of those movements is parenting toward peace. Sara Ruddick notes that “women, and perhaps especially mothers, have serviced and blessed the violent while denying the character of the violence they serve” (157). It is therefore important to realize that “mothers are not intrinsically peaceful,” and yet to see that “maternal practice is a ‘natural resource’ for peace politics” (Ruddick 157). Ruddick’s hope, not necessarily in individual mothers but in mothering practice collectively, is toward the idea that what mothers say matters, and that we can move our sons forward toward peace. Forcey also discusses the relationship between mothering and peace activities, noting three different types of work mothers do in this area: peacekeeping, peacemaking, and peacebuilding: I have concluded that many mothers see themselves as peacekeepers and peacemakers on the familial level, especially between sons and their fathers. They seldom see themselves as peacebuilders – that is, in a larger public sense. Women often define peace in the family as merely the absence of conflict, and this is one of the reasons their communication with sons becomes limited to the noncontroversial. They often feel impelled to sweep their differences with sons under the carpet. They tend to take a “peace at any price” approach, thus making for severe limitations on the sharing of experiences. (“Art of Peacebuilding” 72) Being responsible for all of the family dynamics and maintaining a peaceful home has put mothers in positions where they “did not speak their minds, avoided expressions of feelings and emotions, and, as often as not, suppressed much anger” (74). “Peace at any price,” then, is not real peace, and it exacts a real cost on the women responsible for making sure there is no conflict in the home. Jacqueline Haessly puts peacemaking in a more positive light, where she says peacemaking within the family is about “creating peaceful environments where everyone can feel safe” (48). The safety of every member of the family is important as a first step, but our sons need to live in the world, and so our peace activities must move outside of the family 316

Mothers and sons

unit. More to the point of Ruddick’s hope for maternal practice, the standard that should be sought after is peacebuilding, which moves further and can do real change in the world. Forcey recommends the philosophy of nonviolence, which “focuses on how people treat themselves and others and a strategy for change that seeks to implement standards of justice, nonviolent social institutions, and inclusive social norms” (“Art of Peacebuilding” 80). Mothers committed to peacebuilding can sometimes play a unique role in fostering in their sons (and daughters) a love of freedom, a consciousness and tolerance of worldviews, a global vision, a sensitivity to issues of gender, race, and class oppression. They dare to reflect aloud with their sons as they themselves humbly and unabashedly struggle to find coherence and meaning in the complex processes of social change around them. (Forcey, “Art of Peacebuilding” 81) In other words, mothering practice needs to prepare our sons for living in the world, and hopefully, for being prepared for (and even enacting) positive changes on that world. Haessly gives three tenets for peaceful parenting, in which we work toward “environments where a) affirmation of self and others, respect for individual differences, and cooperation in play and work are modeled; b) conflict is resolved peacefully; and c) our global citizenship is honored and celebrated” (48). It is difficult, she notes, to fully enact this model when our culture, which is “immersed in consumerism and militarism wreaks havoc on any family’s commitment to live simply in order to show respect for the needs of others who share life with us in our global village” (52), and yet our job as parents is to help our children learn strategies to move in the world with peace.

The African American context The world is, of course, not a peaceful place, and the reality is that survival for some of our sons is less likely due to the problems in our world. Marita Golden, author of Saving Our Sons: Raising Black Children in a Turbulent World, felt that she could write nothing else until she dealt with, in a personal and academic way, her fears for her son, which she describes here: As the mother of a black son, I have raised my child with a trembling hand that clutches and leads. I am no slave mother, my sleep plundered by images of the auction block. I dream instead of my son slaying the statistics that threaten to ensnare and cripple him, statistics that I know are a commentary on the odds for my son, who isn’t dead or in jail. And though I have paved a straight and narrow path for my son to tread, always there is the fear that he will make a fatal detour, be seduced, or be hijacked by a white or a black cop, or a young black predator, or a Nazi skinhead, or his own bad judgement, or a weakness that even I as his mother cannot love or punish or will out of him. (7) Black boys, too early seen by others as black men, are at a disadvantage in North American, and specifically, US culture. They are seen as the enemy by police and others for little or no reason; they have to learn to navigate the “streets,” Ta-Nehisi Coates’s shorthand for the type of masculinity required by black boys simply traversing their neighborhoods (22), they are targeted individually and collectively by white supremacists, and they are “discriminated against in every 317

Nicole L. Willey

endeavor . . . from hailing a taxi, to applying for a job or a mortgage, to buying a car” (Golden 187). A combination of necessary survival strategies and unfair chances in other areas can lead to entanglements with the law. Claudette Lee and Ethel Hill Williams note that “nearly one-third of the African-American male population is under some form of criminal justice supervision – through incarceration, probation, or parole” (56). So mothers of black sons worry, like Lynette L. Danley, watching “police officers, teachers, and special education counselors salivate at the thought of imprisoning Black men and boys” (475). In fact, once she knew she was carrying “a boy in my womb I wanted to keep him there forever. Because I knew, once he was born, I would worry about his life every day until there was no longer breath in his or my body” (475). All mothers want their sons to live, but mothers of black sons have reason to doubt that their sons will survive. Renata Ferdinand notes that, as a black mother of a black son, the odds are stacked against both of them: “I must rear a son to anticipate an antagonistic society” (94), even as she must herself contend with stereotypes about the black mother: “Hence, as my son and I both face the odds of failure, it is unfortunate that this is what binds us together” (94). The Moynihan Report, infamous for its insistence that “the overachievement of black women rather than the forced underachievement of black men caused the major problems in black families” helped promote “racism and blames black women for the problem of black families” (Lee and Williams 58). A ready-made cultural script, replete with stereotypes of black women, and black mothers in particular, represent elite White male interests in defining Black women’s sexuality and fertility. Moreover, by meshing smoothly with intersecting oppressions of race, class, gender, and sexuality, they help justify the social practices that characterize the matrix of domination in the United States. (Collins 93) Patricia Hill Collins famously named and debunked these stereotypes working in the service of the status quo: “Portraying African-American women as stereotypical mammies, matriarchs, welfare recipients, and hot mommas helps justify U.S. Black women’s oppression” (76). And so, black mothers must work for their sons’ survival even as their own personhood and individuality is undermined. It is precisely in this intersection of oppressions that a new way of thinking through feminism and motherwork has been lived and theorized. Collins notes that Black women’s motherwork reflects how political consciousness can emerge within everyday lived experience. In this case, Black women’s participation in a constellation of mothering activities, collectively called motherwork, often fostered a distinctive political sensibility. Viewing Black women as activists in both struggles for group survival and for institutional transformations not only challenges gender-specific assumptions of Black political theory and practice, it simultaneously questions basic definitions of public, private, and political. (224) Mothering by black mothers, with its history of slavery, lynching, Jim Crow, and current disenfranchisement, has led not only to embracing womanism over white feminism but also in emphasizing survival issues for their sons:

318

Mothers and sons

They would stress the issues of safety, general protection, and the need to provide skills that would help their sons combat racism and the effect it has on the physical, mental, and emotional aspects of black survival. Mothering would not be in an overwhelming controlling or “matriarchal” mode, as is often attributed to African-American women, but would permit and encourage masculinity. (Lee and Williams 65) Black mothers practice a different type of mothering, one that leads to an embrace of the political in the private spheres of their families; survival is paramount, and this can only be done through a “self-conscious struggle that empowers African-American women and men to actualize a humanist vision of community” (Lee and Williams 61). This holistic vision of womanism informs an ethos of mothering that embraces everyone, regardless of gender or sex. By definition, “Black motherhood is highly politicized, particularly in relation to mothering black sons” (Bernard, “Life Lessons” 206). Sometimes, of course, individual mothers cannot do the entire job, and so “othermothers and community mothers help to fill the gap when birth mothers are unable to provide for their children or when they need help” (Bernard, “Life Lessons” 206). Wanda Thomas Bernard notes that of the black men she surveyed, they praised “the significant roles their mothers, grandmothers, and othermothers played in their survival” (“Bringing Boyz” 332). In a later study “Life Lessons from My Mother: Reflections of an Adult Son,” Bernard summarized the lessons of survival they learned here: “Individual Problems are seen holistically and are rooted in family, community, and social structures” (201); “Individual and Collective Consciousness Raising” (202); “Recognizing a Collective Conscience” (203); “Critically Analyz[ing] the Intersecting Nature and the Lived Reality of Oppression” (203); “Empowerment that focuses on both individuals and the collective – building on strengths” (204); and “Seek[ing] Social Change and Social Transformation” (204). The common thread of collective resistance and empowerment of sons and the whole community can be seen in each of these headings, demonstrating the ways mothering is a site of political struggle. Black mothers also do their work privately and individually with their sons, and they provide us with some important lessons for black sons in particular. Danley writes, “So, I help my son, the only way a single Black mother can – the way I wish on a daily basis a Black man would – learn to love himself. Whole, complete, free of shame, and full of unwavering pride” (476). Grace Adeniyi Ogunyankin notes that her stress over her son’s survival marred her thoughts of him, so she found a new path: Since my son was born, I have spent most of my time thinking about the future; thus, I have often been more anxious than happy. However, I have moved on from my slate of helplessness by consciously deciding to focus less on my son’s potential dehumanization to focus more on humanizing him and teaching him to humanize others. (266) And while warning her son away from some of the more toxic traits of masculinity, Ferdinand notes that “divesting himself from masculine privilege will not be easy” (101), but nonetheless she hopes he will find “the ability to love deeply and without regret, to have patience in the midst of chaos, to show compassion and kindness when the world does not, and to possess strength and resilience in the face of turmoil” (99). I believe any mother would wish these things for her sons; while white mothers can learn from these wise words, they must also heed the

319

Nicole L. Willey

important call to divest themselves (and help their sons divest themselves) from white privilege as well as masculine privilege. Golden writes, White mothers insist, “I worry about my son too.” And well they should. For while I seek to protect my son’s life, any progressive, concerned white mother must strive to raise her son to resist and reject the legacy of his father. White mothers must raise their sons to welcome the necessary sharing of power, resources, and the world. White boys have to be taught to care whether my son lives or dies. (16–17) Yes, all mothers worry about their sons, and for good reason. But mothers should be aware of the different stakes for different communities, and work toward justice in their sons and in their worlds, ever cognizant of their positions of privilege. Lorde reminds us of the cause of the problems for black boys when she writes, “I wish to raise a Black man who will recognize that the legitimate objects of his hostility are not women, but the particulars of a structure that programs him to fear and despise women as well as his own Black self ” (74). Deprogramming masculine privilege and calling out white privilege for what it is are essential to mothering all of our sons well.

Queering the mothering of sons One theme that runs throughout most of the studies on mothers and sons is that when left to their own devices, without the constraints and worries of the outside world, mothers and sons can and do have loving relationships. As Dara J. Silberstein notes, “As long as my son and I were able to live relatively free from the ugly reality of gendered power and privilege, we enjoyed a very endearing relationship” (86). Like Rich, who decades before discovered that taking her three boys into the country, away from the father and society, she could truly her enjoy her boys (194), moms and sons can be themselves alone together. Society’s ideas about gender and familial roles press on all of us, but the censure of transgression falls harder on lesbian-headed households. Drexler notes, “In a world where the radical transformation of family and parenting has caused consternation, worry, outrage, and fear, the question of nonmarried mothers raising sons has become one of our most crucial and contentious social issues” (xi); in fact, much of the fear is really about families headed by gay and lesbian couples, so the homophobic tendency to judge these families more harshly is clear (xii). Interestingly, lesbian mothers have sons more often than the general population when they use IUI (Intrauterine Insemination) by frozen donors, in which the viable sperm more often produces boys (Graefe 128). That number has only grown. These families have pressures unique to their situations: custody battles when fathers are involved, multiple closets from which to come out (Wells 157–58), and “tense, awkward moments of confusion with customs officers, medical personnel, passport bureaucrats, and other gatekeepers who hold our family’s fate in the balance,” even when both mothers are legally married and legally listed as parents (Graefe 132). Despite these challenges, lesbian-headed households are collectively finding a way forward, and studies are showing that “children from lesbian homes are happier, more content, and more able than those in other families to express their emotions” (Wells 161). Drexler’s study shows that these boys had a wider range of interests and friendships than the boys I studied from heterosexual parents, and they appeared more at ease in situations of conflict. They developed their 320

Mothers and sons

“boyishness” at a normal rate, but their sense of justice and fairness and their ability to express their feelings were off the charts. They admired many kinds of men, from scientists to sports heroes, and they accepted their own quirks and interests (and those around them) more readily than did boys from traditional families. (209) This is an impressive outcome, one that is tested and shown precisely because queer women are having a larger number of sons than the general population, and because queer moms, perhaps more than most, are awake to the importance of raising their sons differently. Queer moms model alternate, empathetic, gender-neutral ways of parenting our sons. Despite the long-held, patriarchal bias that boys need a father to grow up into healthy, well-adjusted men, lesbian families . . . are proving otherwise. We are raising boys who are not only confident and competent but also more compassionate, less restrained by traditional gender roles and labels, and more open and accepting to a range of sexual orientations. As these boys grow up, they will ultimately redefine what it is to be a man in our society, as kinder, gentler, more inclusive partners, co-workers, and fathers, who embody new possibilities for their own sons, families and communities. (Graefe 139) Creating new men is a project to which those who study mothers and sons are devoted, and this group of women has found part of the key for success; mothers need to show their sons ways of being that don’t rely on old forms of gender-policing and disconnection.

Contributions of current research: raising relational boys through connection The problems, based on societal and personal expectations, for mothers of sons are seemingly insurmountable. Olga Silverstein and Beth Rashbaum sum them up here: • • • • • • • • •

Not wanting the boy to be seen as a “sissy” or “mama’s boy” Not wanting to “contaminate” her son with her femaleness Trying to ease the grief of his eventual departure from her life Feeling that as a woman she can’t model what a male child needs Not wanting to exert control and therefore emasculate the child Allowing the father to “own” the boy and take control Fear that he will be gay or otherwise different Believing men are “unknowable” Afraid of being “seductive” and playing into oedipal fears (137–38)

A close read of these fears, though, quickly reveals that they rely on two primary cultural beliefs: (1) that disconnection between a mother and son is warranted and desired; and (2) that the binary of man/woman is clearly defined, “natural,” and necessary. For mothers who learn to question these cultural beliefs, the work of mothering a son can become less fraught with fear. As we know from African American mothers of African American sons, we cannot remain blind to the problems of systemic oppressions in our society, and collective work – both in raising our sons and in undoing institutional racism, sexism, and material gaps – is necessary for 321

Nicole L. Willey

everyone’s survival. We have also learned that queer mothers of sons, mothers who are already pushing back against society’s gender and sexuality dictates, are having better outcomes for their sons. If we can mimic these groups of mothers, as well as utilize principles of connection and peacebuilding in our mothering practice, we will be closer to raising our sons in ways that will truly change the future. Additionally, we must find ways to relate personally with our sons in positive ways: Not to take away from the real struggles parents can face – income inequality, racism, addictions, and other serious problems – the central message . . . is surprisingly simple. Love your son. Acknowledge him in his uniqueness. Identify with and affirm him. Admittedly, in the throes of exhaustion and stress, these tasks can be difficult, but loving our sons for who they are, not for who society is telling them they should be, is our primary job. And doing this will help make them into healthier men. (Willey 284) Raising boys who turn into relational men is at least in part about unconditional love, and also loving them through societal and personal pressures to disconnect. In one case study, the therapist found for her client that “continued closeness with her son would not damage him but would reinforce in him the sense of empathy and sensitivity and the capacity to nurture that would serve him well in the future” (Silverstein and Rashbaum 136). Dooley and Fedele echo this idea of connection: Embracing the natural ebb and flow of relationship is the basis for a model of child raising we refer to as “parenting-in-connection.” The goal is to enhance connection and to circumvent distance and separation. . . . disconnections are opportunities to deepen and strengthen the relationship. Thus the inevitable disconnections of parenthood become a signal that work is needed in the relationship. Mothers can teach sons by example to move toward reconnection rather than becoming derailed by disconnection. A mother’s knowledge and ability can enable this learning process for boys and enrich the connection with her son. (198) If our goal is to raise boys who practice and learn to be men who are relational, who strive for connection even through the ebbs and flows of their relationships, then we can and should start by modeling that sense of connection with them ourselves. Part of this work is in acknowledging that our sons are not us, that they have their own personalities and ways of being. Another part of the answer to raising emotionally healthy boys is in a feminist parenting practice that confirms respect for both parties in this relationship, allowing us to “meet our children as a peer on a soul level while we recognize our parental responsibilities for their health, safety, nurturance, and care. At the same time, we require a mutual respect from them” (Bartlett 26). Connection, acknowledgement of difference, and mutual respect can help in the project of mothering sons. It can also help in the project of creating a more just world, because “feminist parenting affects the political, economic, emotional, symbolic, and physical conditions of women’s and men’s lives. To be a feminist parent is to confront and correct systemic gender inequalities and injustices associated with parenting children” (Comerford et al. 1). This is a tall order, but in moving from the personal to the political and back again, intentionally intersectional feminist parenting insists on creating justice in the home as well as in the society, or at least working toward it. 322

Mothers and sons

New directions for further research: moving away from binary thinking The other piece of moving away from harmful patterns when mothering sons is to move away from binary thinking altogether. First of all, as Ruddick so succinctly and clearly puts it, mothering is not actually the domain of women only: Briefly, a mother is a person who takes on responsibility for children’s lives and for whom providing child care is a significant part of her or his working life. I mean “her or his.” Although most mothers have been and are women, mothering is potentially work for men and women. (40) Drexler agrees that “parenting is either good or deficient, not male or female” (xiv). In other words, women can raise sons (and daughters) but also fathers can mother sons and daughters as well. If we “consider the idea of ‘parental thinking’ as a practice deriving from the ongoing and active commitment to caring for children, shaped by current constructions of gender but available to both men and women” (Frye 15), then we begin to move away from the dictate that only women are nurturing enough to mother. If the burden of mothering isn’t solely resting on them, women will have more time and freedom; it also provides children with models of nurturing parenting that don’t rest on outdated gender norms. As Forcey writes, “mothering must be shared” (Mothers of Sons 151). Recognizing that raising boys is not the sole responsibility of one person moves us away from the ability to mother blame, and it moves us squarely into the arena of working to change our institutions in ways that will help all families and individuals. Specifically, we can learn from trans parents that “unsexing parenting and ungendering bodies would remove acts, roles, and (un)embodied experiences from the holds of the binary-sex/gendered parental subject positions around which parenting discourse is currently framed” (Lowik 216). Once we realize, once and for all, that “men can and do care, it should be accordingly disproven that women have some natural affinity for care work” (Pelletier and Green 2). Removing gender binaries from parenting behavior will give everyone more options for living in nurturing and loving families. In order to get to this place of everyone, regardless of gender, being able to and expected to nurture children, we must begin to really move away from our ideas about what gender is. Alice Rutkowski utilizes queer and trans theory (even as a cis/het/able-bodied woman) to attempt to make sense of the impending birth of her child. She tells us that when reading a sonogram, most interpreters see it as “data,” with clear definitions: “penis = male, male = boy, boy = masculine. We could also suggest one additional term that always comes embedded in our heteronormative culture: masculine = desires women” (69). Refusing to label her child in such a clear-cut way, she instead acknowledges that “It’s a . . . Penis” and leaves it there. Sex, gender, gender expression, and sexual orientation are all facets of everyone’s identity, facets that vary and collide with traditional notions of what it means to be a boy (or girl). We need to push back against that because “failing” at gender causes us to feel shame, which we know leads to other problems for our boys. Again, we should allow our boys to show us who they are, instead of demanding premade answers that bow to societal dictates. O’Reilly shows us that her “son was both feminine and masculine; so too were his sisters” (“A Mom and Her Son” 396). Andrea Buchanan also acknowledges this, showing that “the range of what is ‘boy behavior’ and what is ‘girl behavior’ seems to be fluid, flexible, and highly specific to personal experience” (8). Don’t we want our boys to have access to “the full range 323

Nicole L. Willey

of human emotion, which knows no gender” (Buchanan 8)? I suggest we do. We have, almost universally, decided that both straight and gay couples deserve the right to be legally married. It is time to move a step further. Riki Wilchins contends that homophobia has been politically contested, but that “genderism” is still a fight, both in heteronormative circles and LGBTQ+ circles, that needs to be fought: It’s because gender is not just a system of laws and practices but also a way of thinking and seeing that it has taken so long to come to the fore as a political issue. Yet unlike the struggles against homophobia, racism, and sexism, the struggle against genderism will not only be about gaining rights for an oppressed class of men and women. It will be about gaining equality for all men and women. And paradoxically, it will be about the rights of some of us to not be men or women. (14) Wilchins reminds us that “gender is always a doing rather than a being” (12), and also that it is “the new frontier: the place to rebel, to create new individuality and uniqueness, to defy old, tired, outdated social norms” (13). The next generation has figured out that current gender norms do not fit everyone; it is time for all of us to pay attention to new ways of thinking about gender. The next generation wants to have access to a full range of behaviors, expressions, and emotions; it is our job to allow them to find themselves as they are on this journey. Systemic and organized resistance is important for all of us as we find ways to create a welcoming society for everyone, but Clare Howell believes also that “real change comes only from the bottom up, one heart and mind at a time” (20). Loving our sons, for who they are, is our job. Helping to create a world in which all of our sons is safe, is our goal. We should be looking for ways forward, not allowing ourselves to stay “trapped with our sons, imprisoned in false ways of being, blocked into ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’ by a culture whose very language turns mother into mocking profanity, son into demeaning insult” (Arcana 290). We must move away from oppressive patriarchal dictates, dictates that serve the status quo of white privilege, masculine privilege, and class privilege, dictates which hurt all of us. Creating new men, new people, to help raise the next generation means allowing our sons to move away from toxic masculinities and toward their own authenticities. This will benefit us individually and societally: “By redefining manhood, mothers have the chance to redefine not only the American family but also the face of our society” (Drexler 212). These goals are lofty but necessary to help move all of us away from the violence and oppression that are so present in the news and in our lives. Drexler writes: Society can benefit from their new men in the making. Sons who have been brought up to embrace diversity and inclusiveness, to communicate and to cooperate, to negotiate instead of resorting to aggression, not only will bring those qualities to their own families but will see their professional environment as an extension of their family and family values. (214) To move our mothering forward, we must move away from ideas that pigeonhole all of us into serving the status quo. Mothering, and allowing fathers and others to mother, toward connection and away from shame, humiliation, and gender straitjackets, will allow – finally – true family values, values that recognize the humanity and worth in everyone. 324

Mothers and sons

Further reading Comerford, Lynn, et al., editors. Feminist Parenting. Demeter Press, 2016. Drexler, Peggy. Raising Boys without Men: How Maverick Moms are Creating the Next Generation of Exceptional Men. Rodale, 2005. Golden, Marita. Saving Our Sons: Raising Black Children in a Turbulent World. Anchor Books, 1995. Green, Fiona Joy, and Gary Lee Pelletier, editors. Essential Breakthroughs: Conversations about Men, Mothers, and Mothering. Demeter Press, 2015. Muhonja, Besi Brillian, and Wanda Thomas Bernard, editors. Mothers and Sons: Centering Mother Knowledge. Demeter Press, 2016. O’Reilly, Andrea, editor. Mothers and Sons: Feminism, Masculinity, and the Struggle to Raise Our Sons. Routledge, 2001.

Conclusion While scholarship on mothers and sons has come fairly recently to mothering scholarship, a rich bed of resources already exists for us to build on. In moving away from traditional gendered and binary thinking, rejecting shame, disconnection, and a “boys will be boys” mentality in mothering our sons, expecting and including fathers and others to help with the raising of boys, and pushing for the systemic and structural change that will make it easier for the next generation to divest themselves of masculine, white, and class-based privilege, we will begin to see the fruits a true intersectional feminist parenting ethos can create for our future.

Works cited Arcana, Judith. Every Mother’s Son. Anchor Press, 1983. Bartlett, Elizabeth Ann. “Feminist Parenting as the Practice of Non-Domination: Lessons from Adrienne Rich, Audre Lorde, Sara Ruddick, and Iris Marion Young.” Feminist Parenting, edited by Lynn Comerford et al., Demeter Press, 2016, pp. 23–37. Bernard, Wanda Thomas. “Bringing Our Boyz to Men: Black Men’s Reflections on Their Mothers.” Mother Outlaws: Theories and Practices of Empowered Mothering, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, Women’s Press, 2004, pp. 241–329. ———. “Life Lessons from My Mother: Reflections of an Adult Son.” Mothers and Sons: Centering Mother Knowledge, edited by Besi Brillian Muhonja and Wanda Thomas Bernard, Demeter Press, 2016, pp. 197–208. Blakely, Mary Kay. American Mom: Motherhood, Politics, and Humble Pie. Algonquin Books, 1994. Buchanan, Andrea J. “Introduction.” It’s a Boy: Women Writers on Raising Sons. Seal Press, 2005, pp. 1–8. Chodorow, Nancy. The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of Gender. U of California P, 1978. Coates, Ta-Nehisi. Between the World and Me. Spiegel & Grau, 2015. Collins, Patricia Hill. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. Routledge, 2009. Comerford, Lynn, et al. “Introduction.” Feminist Parenting. Demeter Press, 2016, pp. 1–20. Courtenay, Pamela. “Disability and the Price of Myths about Mothering.” Mothers and Sons: Centering Mother Knowledge, edited by Besi Brillian Muhonja and Wanda Thomas Bernard, Demeter Press, 2016, pp. 222–34. Danley, Lynette L. “The Diary of a M.A.D. Black Mama: The Blessings of Reality.” Utah Law Review, vol. 11, no. 2, 2009, pp. 475–78. Diamond, Michael J. “Evolving Perspectives on Masculinity and Its Discontents: Reworking the Internal Phallic and Genital Positions.” Masculinity and Femininity Today, edited by Ester Palerm Mari and Frances Thomson-Salo. Karnac, 2013, pp. 1–24. Dooley, Cate, and Nikki Fedele. “Raising Relational Boys.” Mothers and Sons: Feminism, Masculinity, and the Struggle to Raise Our Sons, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, Routledge, 2001, pp. 185–216. Doucet, Andrea. “Can Boys Grow into Mothers?: Maternal Thinking and Fathers’ Reflections.” Mothers and Sons: Feminism, Masculinity, and the Struggle to Raise Our Sons, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, Routledge, 2001, pp. 163–82.

325

Nicole L. Willey Drexler, Peggy. Raising Boys without Men: How Maverick Moms are Creating the Next Generation of Exceptional Men. Rodale, 2005. Drummond, Darlene K. “Mama’s Boy: One Type of Identity Negotiated in Mother-Son Relationships.” Florida Communication Journal, vol. 44, no. 1, Spring 2016, pp. 25–32. Ferdinand, Renata. “Letters to My Son.” Mothers and Sons: Centering Mother Knowledge, edited by Besi Brillian Muhonja and Wanda Thomas Bernard, Demeter Press, 2016, pp. 93–106. Forcey, Linda Renney. Mothers of Sons: Toward an Understanding of Responsibility. Praeger, 1987. ———. “Mothers, Sons, and the Art of Peacebuilding.” Mothers and Sons: Feminism, Masculinity, and the Struggle to Raise Our Sons, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, Routledge, 2001, pp. 71–90. Frye, Joanne S. “Parental Thinking: What Does Gender Have to Do with It?” Essential Breakthroughs: Conversations about Men, Mothers, and Mothering, edited by Fiona Joy Green and Gary Lee Pelletier. Demeter Press, 2015, pp. 14–31. Golden, Marita. Saving Our Sons: Raising Black Children in a Turbulent World. Anchor Books, 1995. Graefe, Sara. “Mamas’ Boy: Queer Women Raising a Cohort of Men.” Mothers and Sons: Centering Mother Knowledge, edited by Besi Brillian Muhonja and Wanda Thomas Bernard, Demeter Press, 2016, pp. 126–42. Haessly, Jacqueline. “Mothering Sons with Special Needs: One Peacemaker’s Challenge.” Mothers and Sons: Feminism, Masculinity, and the Struggle to Raise Our Sons, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, Routledge, 2001, pp. 42–55. Howell, Clare. “Stories.” GenderQueer, edited by Joan Nestle et al. Alyson Books, 2002, pp. 18–20. Jukes, Adam E. Is There a Cure for Masculinity? Free Association Books, 2010. Lee, Claudette, and Ethel Hill Williams. “Masculinity, Matriarchy, and Math: A Black Feminist Perspective.” Mothers and Sons: Feminism, Masculinity, and the Struggle to Raise Our Sons, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, Routledge, 2001, pp. 56–70. Lowik, A. J. “The Ties That Bind Are Broken: Trans* Breastfeeding Practices, Ungendering Body Parts, and Unsexing Parenting Roles.” Essential Breakthroughs: Conversations about Men, Mothers, and Mothering, edited by Fiona Joy Green and Gary Lee Pelletier, Demeter Press, 2015, pp. 205–21. Lorde, Audre. “Man Child: A Black Lesbian Feminist’s Response.” Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches by Audre Lorde, The Crossing Press feminist series, 1984, pp. 72–80. Marks, Hazel Rose, and Alana Conner. Clash!: 8 Cultural Conflicts That Make Us Who We Are. Hudson Street Press, 2013. Miedzian, Myriam. Boys Will Be Boys: Breaking the Link between Masculinity and Violence. Doubleday, 1988. Muhonja, Besi Brillian. “Mothering at Intersections: Towards Centering Mother Knowledge.” Mothers and Sons: Centering Mother Knowledge, edited by Besi Brillian Muhonja and Wanda Thomas Bernard, Demeter Press, 2016, pp. 1–13. Muhonja, Besi Brillian, and Wanda Thomas Bernard, editors. Mothers and Sons: Centering Mother Knowledge. Demeter Press, 2016. O’Donnel, Rachel. “‘That’s Not What Boys Do’: Mothering a Boy Child, Resisting Masculinity, and Coming to Terms with Manhood.” Feminist Parenting, edited by Lynn Comerford et al., Demeter Press, 2016, pp. 168–177. Ogunyankin, Grace Adeniyi. “Parenting Cross-Culturally: Migritude and the Contradictions of Black Masculinity.” Mothers and Sons: Centering Mother Knowledge, edited by Besi Brillian Muhonja and Wanda Thomas Bernard, Demeter Press, 2016, pp. 255–69. O’Reilly, Andrea, editor. Mothers and Sons: Feminism, Masculinity, and the Struggle to Raise Our Sons. Routledge, 2001. ———. “A Mom and Her Son: Thoughts on Feminist Mothering.” Mother Outlaws: Theories and Practices of Empowered Mothering, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, Women’s Press, 2004, pp. 387–400. ———. “Feminist Mothering.” Feminist Parenting, edited by Lynn Comerford et al., Demeter Press, 2016, pp. 38–62. Pelletier, Gary Lee, and Fiona Joy Green. “Introduction.” Essential Breakthroughs: Conversations about Men, Mothers, and Mothering, edited by Fiona Joy Green and Gary Lee Pelletier. Demeter Press, 2015, pp. 1–13. Pollack, William. Real Boys: Rescuing Our Sons from the Myths of Boyhood. Random House, 1998. Rich, Adrienne. Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution. Norton, 1976. Ruddick, Sara. Maternal Thinking: Toward a Politics of Peace. Beacon Press, 1989. Rutkowski, Alice. “ ‘It’s a . . . Penis!’: Or the Epistemology of the Ultrasound.” Mothers and Sons: Centering Mother Knowledge, edited by Besi Brillian Muhonja and Wanda Thomas Bernard, Demeter Press, 2016, pp. 62–78.

326

Mothers and sons Sayers, Janet. “Attachment and Loss.” Mothers and Sons: Feminism, Masculinity, and the Struggle to Raise Our Sons, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, Routledge, 2001, pp. 217–34. Silberstein, Dara J. “But I Am a Feminist! Masculinity, Privilege, and Mothering.” Mothers and Sons: Centering Mother Knowledge, edited by Besi Brillian Muhonja and Wanda Thomas Bernard, Demeter Press, 2016, pp. 79–92. Silverstein, Olga, and Beth Rashbaum. The Courage to Raise Good Men. Viking, 1994. Thomas, Alison M. “Swimming against the Tide: Feminists’ Accounts of Mothering Sons.” Mothers and Sons: Feminism, Masculinity, and the Struggle to Raise Our Sons, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, Routledge, 2001, pp. 121–40. Wells, Jess. “Lesbians Raising Sons: Bringing Up a New Breed of Men.” Mothers and Sons: Feminism, Masculinity, and the Struggle to Raise Our Sons, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, Routledge, 2001, pp. 157–62. Wilchins, Riki. “A Continuous Nonverbal Communication.” GenderQueer, edited by Joan Nestle et al., Alyson Books, 2002, pp. 11–17. Willey, Nicole L. “Raising Men: My Two Boys, Co-Parenting, and the Fight against Culture.” Mothers and Sons: Centering Mother Knowledge, edited by Besi Brillian Muhonja and Wanda Thomas Bernard, Demeter Press, 2016, pp. 270–86.

327

SECTION VI

Mothering and work

26 MOTHERS AND WORK Social reproduction and the labours of motherhood Catherine Bryan

Mothers work. But when and where does their work begin? Where does it end? What constitutes the labour of motherhood and of mothering? What are its boundaries? Who determines those boundaries, and what lies beyond them? When a mother collects a wage, is that the labour that counts? Is that what we mean by “mothers and work”? Or do we mean the activities of care and the tasks associated with reproduction – the unwaged manual, material, emotional, and affective work that unfolds within domestic spaces in the service of kin? Or rather, does “mothers and work” inevitably encompass both, and beyond that, so much more? As many feminist scholars of political economy have argued, motherhood as a form of labour, and mothers as particular kinds of workers – both waged and unwaged – are pivotal to regimes of capitalist accumulation. On the one hand, the unwaged labour of mothering (that is, cooking, cleaning, and caring), underpins short- and long-term survival, while ensuring the reproduction of labour and of social systems more broadly. On the other, following from their socially constituted reproductive roles, mothers (and women more broadly) are often unequally positioned within waged labour markets. Drawing on the concept of social reproduction and its application by socialist and Marxist feminists since the 1960s, this chapter focuses on the messy intersection of work and mothering, and it tends to the ideological and material conditions that accompany the manifold labour of mothers. More precisely, it traces the early feminist debates concerning social reproductive labour and its relationship to capital accumulation as a means of elaborating the social, economic, and cultural position of those who mother overtime. From the insights of those debates, and read through the critical scholarship on neoliberal political economy, the chapter focuses on two issues that shape for many the labours of contemporary motherhood. Both correspond to the state’s diminished support of women’s reproductive labour in the wake of the neoliberal structural adjustment, and the concurrent and accelerated commodification of that labour. The first is the neoliberal transition away from welfare to workfare. Feminist scholarship has highlighted the extent to which, since the 1980s, low-income lone mothers have been disproportionately affected by the punitive criteria and requirements of workfare policy (Breitkreuz 147; Gazso, “Balancing Expectations” 454; Gingrich 380; Evans 29; Mayson 91). The second is the growing global reliance on migrant care workers, and the bureaucratic regimes put in place to ensure the availability of their labour. Again, feminist scholarship has effectively demonstrated

331

Catherine Bryan

those who arrive in Canada to provide live-in care are disproportionately mothers, and other women working to ensure the survival of non-migrant kin in the Global South (Arat-Koc 56; Bakan et al., 45; Barber, “Transnationalism and the Politics of Home” 40; Breitkreuz 147; Cohen 76; Constable 10; Madianou and Miller 457; Parreñas, “Care Crisis in the Philippines” 13; Parreñas, “Long Distance Intimacy” 317; Pratt 5). The chapter concludes with recommendations for future research.

Context and background: feminist political economy and the sexual division of labour In Canada, the number of women engaged in waged labour has grown steadily since the 1950s. In 1953, 24% of women aged 25 to 54 either held a paid job or were actively looking for one. By 1990, this had risen to 76%, and by 2014, it reached 82% (Statistics Canada 2017). Women’s inclusion in waged labour markets followed from their relative exclusion in the decades leading up to and immediately following World War II (1939–1946). These inroads were, in no small part, an outcome of the post-1950s women’s moment (Gazso, “Moral Codes of Mothering” 27; Hamilton 50), as well as feminist intervention, both practical and discursive, into the sexual division of labour so configured under the capitalist mode of production. Liberal feminists, for example, were highly successful in challenging “claims of women’s difference and superiority in the private sphere” (Gazso, “Moral Codes of Mothering” 34) and in arguing for women’s inclusion in all spheres of public life, including (but not limited to) waged labour markets. Although subject to considerable critique, Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique remains an iconic example. In it, she describes “the problem that has no name” – the unspoken malaise of gendered middle-class life, the “strange stirring,” “sense of dissatisfaction,” and “yearning” (Friedan 15) that plagued (some) American women in the middle of the twentieth century. Often taking as their subject well-educated, middle-class, white women, liberal feminists saw housework, the labour of motherhood, as unskilled and involuntary. “Serving the despised body and requiring little exercise of the respected mind” ( Jaggar 177), mothers, relegated to the home, were unable to realize their potential. Here, housework is regarded as oppressive because it is tedious, but more specifically, because it lies outside of the operations of capitalist production. According to the liberal feminist perspective, it is this secondary quality that is fatal to women, who by virtue of their roles as mothers and caregivers, were unable to access even the most modest benefits afforded to men (Mitchell 34). In a manner similar to liberal feminists, early socialist feminists aimed to free women from the domestic sphere through their integration into waged labour markets. Written anonymously under the initials S.G., “The Housewife” was published in the New Left Review in 1967. Offering a critical account of the married life of a young, university-educated, middle-class mother, S.G. writes: Life that does not move forward seems to me to stagnate, and in this sense, I cannot help seeing Carl (her son) as a parasite. . . . My life slips away uncharted precisely when I am most eager to find out what I am capable of. . . . Sometimes I want to stretch out my arms to bring the whole imprisoning structure of home and family crashing around me, annihilating me with the rest. . . . This, all around me, is my only creation so far, however incomplete and shoddily achieved; my split function goes too deep to be resolved by such a gesture. (52)

332

Mothers and work

In her essay, the author draws on her own experiences to explore the psychological and material conditions of middle-class motherhood in the heteronormative, patriarchal context of the 1960s. The text ends with a somewhat abrupt and discordant, yet revealing, postscript, in which S.G. adds, “it is obvious that Carl is quite the best thing that has ever happened to me. And Joe [her husband] isn’t a tyrant” (54). The problem, in other words, is the larger structure in which Joe, like S.G., acts. He represents a tyrannical system and he benefits from it, but he is not, himself, a tyrant. And yet, akin to more liberal accounts of women’s relegation to the domestic sphere, the solution offered by S.G. is escape. Her confinement stifles her potential in so far as it limits her ability to be “productive.” To be productive, she must move outside of the domestic and into waged labour. And yet, as Jaqueline Jones has effectively argued (45), despite undergoing considerable change over the last seventy years, women’s participation in waged labour has been equally marked by consistency. Women’s paid work has accelerated in the last century, expanding since the 1960s beyond a small number of labour markets, but for most, it continues to be poorly paid and insecure. The limited emancipatory potential of such work aside, women in large numbers remained responsible for domestic labour (Hochschild, “The Managed Heart” 45; Luxton and Corman 17). At the same time, many women – women of colour and working-class women – had long been integrated in waged labour markets and, in the case of black women in the United States and Canada, had labored under the brutality of slavery (Maynard 50). In each instance, “work,” defined as an activity outside of one’s own domicile and familial context, did little to redress the structural oppressions experienced by mothers. Indeed, compounded by race and class for many, women’s subordinate position relegated them to work that reproduced their subordination rather than remedying it. While at the same time, they remained tethered to the domestic sphere and therefore, “outside” of the operations of capitalist production. As early as the 1960s, however, a growing number of socialist and Marxist feminists began articulating a structural explanation for women’s generalized oppression under capitalist patriarchy through the specific mechanics of their (economic) exploitation as mothers and caregivers. Although not without its own internal debate, this developing line of feminist inquiry saw “renewing life as a form of work, a kind of production, as fundamental to the perpetuation of society as the production of things” (Laslett and Brenner 383). Tying women’s liberation to their participation in waged labour markets, liberal feminists, socialist and Marxist feminists argued, “abstractly reproduced what was, in fact, a defining historical feature of capitalism: the separation of production from consumption (or reproduction)” (Ferguson 4). In other words, through their emancipatory efforts, liberal feminists reified and reinforced, rather than redressed, the sexual division of labour. (While at the same time, they overestimated the emancipatory potential of waged labour.) This concentration of intellectual purpose intended to remedy what was perceived as a critical analytical fallacy of liberal feminism and mainstream Marxism. According to Marxist and socialist feminists, both failed to account for the structural significance of women’s reproductive labour, their roles as mothers, and their relative confinement to the domestic sphere. So, while mainstream Marxism overemphasized waged labour and production as the appropriate site of analysis, liberal feminist discourse and the early interventions of socialist feminists, uncritically offered it as the site of women’s liberation. Concerning the former, in “The Political Economy of Women’s Liberation,” Canadian feminist, Margaret Benston writes: The “woman question” is generally ignored in analyses of the class structure of society. This is so because, on the one hand, classes are generally defined by their relation to

333

Catherine Bryan

the means of production and, on the other hand, women are not supposed to have any unique relation to the means of production. The category seems instead to cut across all class; one speaks of working-class women, middle-class women, etc. The status of women is clearly inferior to that of men, but analysis of this condition usually falls into discussion of socialization, psychology, interpersonal relations, of the role of marriage as a social institution. (31) The tendency, Benston argues, to attribute women’s oppression to psychology, relationships, and/or socialization obscured the true and economic nature of their subordination. These psychological and personal factors were in fact outcomes of women’s unique relationship to the means of production (and more precisely, their exclusion from it). Reflecting her analytical upbringing, Benston explores the material conditions in capitalist societies that define the group “women.” These conditions, she argued, were the foundations of the capitalist mode of production (41). Household labour, she explained, constitutes a large portion of socially necessary production, and yet, in a society focused on commodity production, it goes unrecognized as “real work”; it falls outside of trade and the marketplace, and so, it is deemed “unproductive.” Moving beyond these dominant theoretical and political paradigms – and the dichotomy upon which they were largely derived – socialist and Marxist scholars rejected the disaggregation of reproduction and production, and subsequently, the view of the economy as an independent arena of commodity production, distinct from the daily and generational production of people’s lives. To this end, they turned their attention to the usefulness and centrality of women’s socially constituted domestic labour to the capitalist mode of production (Benston 32; Dalla Costa and James 14; Gardiner et al. 50; Gerstein 101; Vogel 10). Reflecting the economic aim of capitalism – that is, the production of exchange values and the generation of surplus – the sexual division of labour, and more precisely the manifold reproductive labour of those who mother, enables the capitalist mode of production to operate at a much higher level of productivity relative to other, earlier modes of production as two workers (one “productive,” the other “reproductive”) come to be exploited with one wage (Fortunati and Fleming 16). With this one wage (at times supplemented by the typically lower earnings of women engaged in waged labour), capital appropriates both surplus value and the time and labour necessary for survival and reproduction. Largely unpaid and systematically unacknowledged, reproductive labour diverts the cost of sustaining and reproducing labour (or rather, those who will work in the service of capital accumulation) away from capital, redirecting it to the domestic sphere. Within the domestic sphere, women and more precisely, women who mother (even those engaged in wage labour outside of the domestic sphere), become primarily responsible for reproduction and the unending physical and emotional labour associated with it – labour that necessarily underpins all other forms of labour and productivity (Mies 116). Accordingly, the space of domesticity is not discrete. Instead, it is the foundation upon which the capitalist mode of production is predicated. Moreover, the argument went, rather than biology turned to male benefit, the separation of production from reproduction and the social positioning of those responsible for the latter (women and women who mother) represents a strategic disassociation intended to obscure the value of reproductive labour while ensuring that that labour continues. In other words, the marginalization of women (of mothers) and the relegation of their reproductive labour to the domestic sphere may appear external to capitalism or, perhaps, a mere service to which capital avails, but they are, in fact, provinces of accumulation. As such, in practice they must be sustained 334

Mothers and work

and themselves, reproduced. Elaborating this point Italian scholar and feminist activist, Silvia Federici explains: The difference with housework [relative to waged labour] lies in the fact that not only has it been imposed on women, but it has been transformed into a natural attribute of our female physique and personality, an internal need, an aspiration, supposedly coming from the depth of our female character. Housework was transformed into a natural attribute, rather than being recognized as work, because it was destined to be unwaged. Capital had to convince us that it is a natural, unavoidable, and even fulfilling activity to make us accept working without a wage. In turn, the unwaged condition of housework has been the most powerful weapon in reinforcing the common assumption that housework is not work, thus preventing women from struggling against it, except in the privatized kitchen-bedroom quarrel that all society agrees to ridicule, thereby further reducing the protagonist of a struggle. (16) Under capitalism, then, mothers and women more broadly emerge as housewives, as caregivers, and as “nonproductive” entities not because they are these things but because they are constituted as such. Maria Mies provides an important conceptual language for this process. A counterpoint to the process of proletarianization (that is, the social construction of the working class), “housewifization” was achieved, she argues, through myriad state policies that enforced the bifurcation of production and reproduction, with women, at each turn, confined to the latter (74). However, as Glenn rightly and critically observes, while such “analyses draw attention to the dialectics of production and reproduction and male privilege in both realms . . . when they represent gender as the sole basis for assigning reproductive labour, they imply that all women have the same relationship to it and that it is therefore a universal female experience” (2). That “for most of the twentieth century an idealist model of motherhood, derived from the situation of the white, American Middle class, has been projected as universal” (Glenn 3) has had significant consequence for women of colour for whom gender and class are not the sole arbiters of reproductive labour; for whom the conflation of reproductive and productive labour has long been reality; and for whom, the family – rather than a site of oppression – is one of autonomy and activism ( Jones). These experiences have been largely obscured by the efforts of white feminist scholars and activists who situate women’s oppression solely in the gendered confines of reproduction, and more precisely, an assumption that reproductive work is inherently oppressive. Of critical importance, however, is that policy affecting mothers maps on to and confirms the “idealist model of motherhood,” applying its norms and expectations across a range of social identities regardless of positionality and material need. Shaped by the requirements of neoliberal capitalism, social policy in the contemporary moment reinforces this model, while it undercuts the resources required of it and subsequently and simultaneously, reproduces the social and economic inequalities demanded of highly precarious labour markets.

Contemporary issues: neoliberal motherhood and work Regardless of our shared and embodied need for reproductive labour (and its outcomes), the work of motherhood is dynamic and reflective of asymmetries of gender, class, ethnicity, and increasingly citizenship, so that not only does it vary culturally and historically, it does so according to the “balance of gender, class, and race/ethnic power relations” (Luxton and Bezanson 4). As a result, motherhood, and its adjoining labours (both waged and unwaged), is experienced, 335

Catherine Bryan

performed, achieved, and compensated for according to patterns of inequality and hierarchy that characterize specific historical moments and cultural contexts (Kofman 143). And yet, there remain important consistencies and continuities. As discussed in the previous section, the integration of women into waged labor markets has an extremely long history. While this longstanding participation has occurred across a diversity of sectors, there have been persistent trends and tensions concerning women’s positioning in and experiences of paid employment. Following from the sexual division of labour and the extent to which it is institutionalized within policy, even in the absence of dependent children, women’s socially constituted roles as mothers and caregivers have shaped the conditions of their waged labour. In other words, “women” regardless of whether they mother are informed by the social and cultural norms of “motherhood.” Feminist political economy draws attention to and problematizes this in three principle ways. In the first instance, women’s waged labour has, historically and in the contemporary moment, done little to alter the sexual division of labour, such that women remain primarily responsible for domestic work and the labours of motherhood regardless of their status within waged labour markets (Gazso-Windle and McMullin 341; Hochschild,“The Time Bind” 22; Hochschild and Machung 15). In the second, women have often found work within labour markets designated service, accommodation, and/or care (Huber and Stephens 323; Mandel and Semyonov). Here, assumptions underpinning the sexual division of labour concerning women’s perceived ability to cook, clean, and care – in other words, to mother – determines the form of work available to them. In the third instance, women’s wages have always been relatively lower than those of their male counterparts – a consequence of heteronormative and sexist social policy and labour practices that assumed the presence of a male breadwinner. These conditions have articulated forward, but they have adjusted to the neoliberal moment (McDaniel 126; Rosenberg 182). This section highlights two contemporary examples of how neoliberal ideology shapes the material conditions of motherhood vis-à-vis work that is both waged and unwaged. The first focuses on the imposition of workfare criteria as a means of accessing state support and its implications for lone-parent mothers in Canada. The second, assumes a more globalized perspective, turning to the labour migration of mothers from the Philippines. Although different in focus, these examples reveal the extent to which capitalist political economy, historically and contemporaneously, in both its global and more localized manifestations, configures and reconfigures the relationship between work and those who mother. Moreover, focusing on the contemporary moment, they illuminate the ways in which the logics of capital accumulation are harnessed differently in different contexts but often to similar ends. In each example, this is reflected in the reproduction of precarious, low-waged labour markets populated, or potentially so, by those who otherwise or additionally, mother. The neoliberal economy is one in which inequality is set to work by the state in the service of capital. As scholars have argued, in parts of the Global North, the tension between production and reproduction had been partially resolved with the advent of the welfare state during the latter part of the twentieth century. Diverging from the purported ideals of the welfare state, which sought to mediate the relationship between labour and capital through compromise and redistribution, the logic of neoliberalism prioritizes capital and as such, offers policy solutions inline with market-based principles and in support of low-wage, insecure, and precarious labour markets (Peck 76). Although economic in its framing, the realignment of motherhood and work in the neoliberal era has also required a reimagining and re-institutionalization of what constitutes entitlement, as well as the conditions under which entitlement is established (Gazso, “Balancing Expectations” 454). Reflected in this is a shift in how citizenship is conceptualized and experienced. Under neoliberalism, social citizenship (so configured under the welfare state) gives way to market citizenship: this has involved a reconfiguration of the relationships between 336

Mothers and work

individuals, the state, and the market, and it has required a significant change in the organization of social reproduction – that is, the ways in which individuals and families meet their daily needs and ensure intergenerational survival (Brodie 127). In Canada, as elsewhere in the Global North (Gazso, “Balancing Expectations” 455; Dwyer 265), workfare policy is both a mechanism and an outcome of this transition. Workfare, or work-oriented welfare links entitlement to labour market participation. As Lightman and Riches elaborate, this transition ties entitlement to benefits to the capacity to sell their labour (180). Often expressed in terms of facilitating independence through work and a means of alleviating poverty, these programs are, more accurately, intended to address the perceived problem of dependency (Peck 75) by removing people from welfare rosters and integrating them into labour markets. Revealed in the feminist scholarship (Gazso, “Balancing Expectations” 458; Gazso, “Moral Codes” 26; Evans 29; Mason 41; McMullin et al. 298), lone mothers in Canada, as elsewhere, are at the centre of this dynamic. Indeed, their bodies, their reproductive function, and their potential as waged-labour come to be mediated by the state as they work (in manifold ways) to ensure their survival and that of their children. It is not simply the work-centric nature of workfare that is problematic; rather, it is that such policies and programs rely on and are supportive of labour markets that are low-waged and insecure (Peck 78). Labelled nonstandard or contingent, these labour markets are, in fact, increasingly standard, and moreover, normalized as a steady stream of newly “activated” workers – often low-income, lone mothers – are rendered dependent on lowwaged employment. To this end, workfare pushes unemployed mothers into precarious labour markets, or it holds them in proximity to them. It does so rather than sanctioning nonparticipation, which is cast as a marker of disentitlement. The redirection of “dependency” away from the state and toward “contingent” labour markets occurs across sectors and populations of workers. In the Global South, it has been most explicitly revealed in the efforts of states to develop local economies through labour export. The Philippines is the prototypical example (Barber, “Cell Phones” 29). Formalized in the late 1960s as a means of utilizing the international economy to bolster domestic economic growth, labour export has grown exponentially over the last five decades. In 2006, for example, the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) processed contracts for over one million Filipinos, who would be deployed in foreign labour markets in 179 countries, equaling 3,000 daily departures (Barber, “Cell Phones” 29). Of significance for this discussion, are the ways in which Filipino women – and importantly, Filipino mothers have been encouraged to participate in this system. As Barber and others have observed, the neoliberal Philippine state directly manipulates “historically resonant, gendered cultural idioms in Philippine culture” (Barber, “Transnationalism and the Politics of Home” 41) to generate social identities and practices conducive to the project of labour export. This has entailed newly modified discursive and moral framings of motherhood, particularly in the Philippines, that posit that maternal love can be best achieved through the sacrifices of overseas labour migration (Tyner, “The Social Construction of Gendered Migration” 589; Tyner, “The Gendering of Philippine International Migration” 406; Tyner, “The Philippines” 15). Mobilizing pre-existing gender norms to capitalize on emerging economic opportunities, the most common labour migration pathways for Filipino women are those that bring them to domestic and care labour markets. Thus, migrant motherhood is often enacted through the physical, manual, and emotional labour associated with mothering for a wage in someone else’s home. Here, the logics and requirements of neoliberal capital simultaneously connect and distinguish between groups of mothers – those who migrate and those who employ migrant labour (Hochschild, “Global Care Chains” 121). In addition to reflecting the sexual division of labour as it emerged under capitalism, these increasingly ubiquitous arrangements reflect 337

Catherine Bryan

growing disparities between populations, between groups of mothers, and between nation-states as the reorganization of care moves some women away from their own children and families, while facilitating the availability of (typically) in-home, care labour for others. The influx of migrant domestic labour to Western markets must also be understood in relation to structural changes in the Global North that have prompted the disengagement of the state from social reproductive services (Truong 30). Under the welfare state, the state facilitated the labour market participation of mothers by subsidizing the costs associated with reproduction, while minimizing the risks associated with ill-health and unemployment (Wichterich 40). In the absence of other options, accessing waged domestic labour, but in particular, racialized waged domestic labour remerged, for some (often white and always middle class), as a central component of social reproduction. In Canada, as detailed earlier, this shift has run parallel to a dramatic reduction and redirection of the supports available to lone, low-income mothers who are forced into low-paid, low-status labour markets. Rather than tangential (an outcome of economic restructuring), these transformations in the organization and delivery of reproduction (and therefore, survival) are central to strategies of contemporary capital accumulation that draw on and manipulate long-standing ideologies and practices concerning the roles and responsibilities of motherhood. In the case of workfare, the rational of “any job is a good job” coalesces with long-standing assumptions concerning the value (or lack thereof ) of women’s socially constituted and unwaged social reproductive labour – work that, following from the feminist analysis offered in the preceding section, is necessary but regarded as marginal. Underpinning the insistence that lone mothers work or that they look for work is the assumption that, in the absence of paid labour, they are not actually working. In other words, their reproductive labour – the work of mothering – goes completely unacknowledged in the workfare calculation, wherein work is work only insofar as it is waged. Adding to the perceived credibility of this discourse are corresponding liberal feminist notions of the emancipatory potential of women’s participation in waged labour markets. And yet, evident in rates of minimum wage read against the cost of living, such employment does little to redress poverty (McMullin et al. 297; Weigt 332). It does, however, direct “dependency” away from the state and moreover, it serves as an important mechanism of capital accumulation as lone, low-income mothers become an infinitely flexible source of labour. They are capital’s “two workers for the cost of one” (one reproductive and one productive) realized through a single unit of labour. Migrant mothers serve a similar function, offsetting the costs associated with social reproduction for both the Philippine- and Canadian-states, while ensuring the participation of middle-class Canadian mothers in more lucrative labour markets. Further, while differently configured, each provides insight into the ways in which the state actively relies on labour markets in meeting the needs of mothers and their families, and each represents a further re-commodification of social reproductive labour and processes. In each case, the identity of “mother” is simultaneously harnessed, modified, and reproduced. The downloading of risks and regulatory responsibilities to the level of the individual is evident in workfare’s labour-regulatory functions because as the epitome of supply-side policymaking it seeks to make a virtue of individualized,“flexible” labour relations. Neoliberalism is not, in other words, about deregulation, but rather, it is about re-regulation, and more precisely, re-regulation in favour of capital. This happens through the “activation” of otherwise unintegrated (that is, unemployed) individuals, and through the creation of subjectivities and social identities conducive to flexible labour relations. Both the Filipino- and Canadian-states vis-à-vis different groups of mothers have been highly successful in this regard.

338

Mothers and work

New directions for future research Despite its globalized nature, the details and outcomes of neoliberal policy and practice are grounded in specific national, regional, and local contexts. As anthropologist Eric Wolf argues across his scholarship, rather than “encompassing the whole world in a homogeneous field of effects,” capitalism (and its neoliberal manifestations) generates “variability and differentiation not only through its combination with other modes [of production] but also in the very course of its own operations” (Wolf 303). The effects of neoliberalism, and more broadly of capitalism, then, are contingent. There are, however, consistencies that connect diversely positioned people and groups within the confines of these ubiquitous, albeit diffuse and variable, systems. The sexual division of labour is one such consistency. As a result, a considerable body of feminist scholarship has documented and analyzed the manifold outcomes of neoliberal policy vis-à-vis the work associated with motherhood and mothering. And yet, much of this research remains focused on those who mother and work on the margins. Moving forward, we might redirect our analytical gaze to those who, through their work (both waged and unwaged) reinforce and reproduce the objectives of neoliberal capitalism, while remaining (through class and race privilege) relatively immune to its more debilitating outcomes. The gender and migration literature – and in particular the global care chain scholarship – offers some insight into this dynamic, as it documents and problematizes the practice of employing migrant care labour. Under these arrangements, the costs of social reproduction are privatized (absorbed by individuals and families) as capitalism’s sexual division of labour is not resolved, but rather reorganized, shifted from one mother to an other. What is less explored, however, is the unique social location of these (often white) middle-class mothers under neoliberalism. Deeping our understanding of these domestic labour relations requires consideration of the ways in which race, gender, and class hierarchies are harnessed through the uptake of white, middle-class, neoliberal motherhood. This is not, however, a call to re-centre the subjectivities of white, middle-class mothers, or to re-assert their earlier apriori status within mainstream, though critical, feminist scholarship; but rather, a suggestion that to explore the intersection between state policy, contemporary ideologies of mothering, and forms of neoliberal work not captured by the literature on precarity may offer important insight, not only into the effects of these systems but also the ways in which they are reinforced and reproduced through the uncritical and often problematic practices of white, middle-class motherhood.

Further reading Barber, Pauline Gardiner. “Women’s Work Unbound: Philippine Development and Global Restructuring.” Gender and Global Restructuring: Sightings, Sites, and Resistances, edited by Marianne H. Merchand and Anne Sisson Runyan, Routledge, 2010, pp. 173–92. Bryan, Catherine. “Service Work as Reproductive Labour: A Feminist Political Economy of Filipino Migrant Hotel Workers in Rural Manitoba.” Global Currents in Gender and Feminisms: Canadian and International Perspectives, edited by Glenda Tibe Bonifacio, Emerald Publishing, 2017, pp. 141–53. Gazso, Amber.“Women’s Inequality in the Workplace as Framed in News Discourse: Refracting from Gender Ideology.” Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie, vol. 41, no. 4, 2004, pp. 449–73. Gazso, Amber, and Susan A. McDaniel. “The Risks of Being a Lone Mother on Income Support in Canada and the USA.” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, vol. 30, no. 7/8, 2010, pp. 368–86. Kofman, Eleonore, and Parvati Raghuram. Gendered Migrations and Global Social Reproduction. Springer, 2015. Laslett, Barbara, and Johanna Brenner. “Gender and Social Reproduction: Historical Perspectives.” Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 15, no. 1, 1989, pp. 381–404.

339

Catherine Bryan Luxton, Meg, and Kate Bezanson, editors. Social Reproduction: Feminist Political Economy Challenges Neoliberalism. McGill-Queen’s Press, 2006. Mies, Maria. Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the International Division of Labour. Zed Books, 2014. Parreñas, Rhacel Salazar. “Migrant Filipina Domestic Workers and the International Division of Reproductive Labor.” Gender & Society, vol. 14, no. 4, 2000, pp. 560–80. ———. Servants of Globalization: Migration and Domestic Work. Stanford UP, 2015.

Conclusion Corresponding to class and histories of racialization, there is considerable variation in the status and level of professionalization afforded to the paid work of women. Still, “women’s work” has historically been characterized by its interactive and affective qualities and it relational and often, embodied outcomes, as well as the extent to which these qualities and outcomes are undervalued. This is revealed in levels of compensation, which relative to the wages of men, have tended to be low regardless of the form of employment, and further reinforced by social policies that have sanctioned the lower rates of pay offered to women by virtue of the assumed presence and reliability of a “male breadwinner.” Finally, women have long served as labour reservists called on to fill gaps in the labour market as necessary. While wartime employment is the commonly cited example, this practice is far more ubiquitous than “simple” temporary replacement. Indeed, it reflects a long-standing practice of integrating previously unintegrated workers into waged labour markets, who may or may not be cycled out once they are no longer required. Responding to analytical shortcomings both within and outside of their academic tradition, Marxist feminists provided an account of the material conditions of housework that simultaneously defined that work in the terms of Marxist and feminist analysis. If liberal feminists underscored the “valuelessness” of domestic labour in so far as it limited women’s capacity for self-fulfillment, autonomy, and liberty, Marxist feminists sought to highlight the inherent value of that labour for the system. Was domestic labour “labour power”? Did it produce “use values” or surplus? What was the function of reproductive labour and how did it contribute to the workings of capital production? In answering these questions, Marxist feminists aimed to clarify the contributions of women’s domestic labour to capitalism. Through their analytical efforts, housework – the work of mothers – was revealed to be a fundamental element in the reproduction of labour, and as such to the process of capital accumulation. The sexual division of labour, in other words, which centres largely around women’s socially constructed role (or the potential thereof ) as mothers, is tapped as a source of capital, despite its pervasive undervaluing. In Canada, the establishment of localized social welfare programs intended to integrate economically insecure people into waged work has run alongside the development of immigration policy facilitating the recruitment of commodified, global domestic labour. In each instance – following the dictates of neoliberal social policy, the labour markets in question are characterized by insecurity, low-wages, and precarity. Moreover, they are now populated by mothers whose labour vis-à-vis their children is recast as either inherently problematic in its unwaged form or moderately valuable, in so far as it engenders aptitudes amenable to commodified forms of mothering.

Works cited Arat-Koc, Sedef. “From ‘Mothers of the Nation’ to Migrant Workers.” Not One of the Family: Foreign Domestic Workers in Canada, edited by Abigail Bess Bakan et al., U of Toronto P, 1997, pp. 53–79. Bakan, Abigail Bess, et al., editors. Not One of the Family: Foreign Domestic Workers in Canada. U of Toronto P, 1997.

340

Mothers and work Barber, Pauline Gardiner. “Transnationalism and the Politics of ‘Home’ for Philippine Domestic Workers.” Anthropologica, vol. 34, no. 1/2, 1997, pp. 39–52. ———. “Cell phones, Complicity, and Class Politics in the Philippine Labor Diaspora.” Focaal, no. 51, 2008, pp. 28–42. Benston, Margaret. “The Political Economy of Women’s Liberation.” Monthly Review, vol. 41, no. 7, 1989, pp. 31–44. Breitkreuz, Rhonda S. “Engendering Citizenship – A Critical Feminist Analysis of Canadian Welfare-toWork Policies and the Employment Experiences of Lone Mothers.” Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, vol. 32, 2005, p. 147–66. Brodie, Janine. “Restructuring and the New Citizenship.” Rethinking Restructuring: Gender and Change in Canada, edited by Isabella Bakker, U of Toronto P, 1996, pp. 126–40. Cohen, Rina. “ ‘Mom is a Stranger’: The Negative Impact of Immigration Policies on the Family Life of Filipina Domestic Workers.” Canadian Ethnic Studies, vol. 32, no. 3, 2000, pp. 76–88. Constable, Nicole. Born Out of Place: Migrant Mothers and the Politics of International Labor. U of California P, 2014. Dalla Costa, Mariarosa, and Selma James. The Power of Women and the Subversion of the Community. Falling Wall Press, 1973. Dwyer, Peter. Understanding Social Citizenship: Themes and Perspectives for Policy and Practice. Policy Press, 2010. Evans, Patricia M. “(Not) Taking Account of Precarious Employment: Workfare Policies and Lone Mothers in Ontario and the UK.” Social Policy & Administration, vol. 41, no. 1, 2007, pp. 29–49. Federici, Silvia. Revolution at Point Zero: Housework, Reproduction, and Feminist Struggle. PM Press, 2012. Ferguson, Sue. “Building on the Strengths of the Socialist Feminist Tradition.” Critical Sociology, vol. 25, no. 1, 1999, pp. 1–15. Fortunati, Leopoldina, and Jim Fleming. The Arcane of Reproduction: Housework, Prostitution, Labor and Capital. Autonomedia, 1995. Friedan, Betty. The Feminine Mystique. W. W. Norton & Company, 2010. Gardiner, Jean, et al. “Women’s Domestic Labour.” New Left Review, vol. 89, no. 1, 1975, pp. 47–58. Gazso, Amber. “Balancing Expectations for Employability and Family Responsibilities While on Social Assistance: Low-Income Mothers’ Experiences in Three Canadian Provinces.” Family Relations, vol. 56, no. 5, 2007, pp. 454–66. ———. “Moral Codes of Mothering and the Introduction of Welfare-to-Work in Ontario.” Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie, vol. 49, no. 1, 2012, pp. 26–49. Gazso-Windle, Amber, and Julie Ann McMullin. “Doing Domestic Labour: Strategising in a Gendered Domain.” Canadian Journal of Sociology/Cahiers canadiens de sociologie, 2003, pp. 341–66. Gerstein, Ira. “Domestic Work and Capitalism.” Radical America, vol. 7, nos. 4–5, 1973, pp. 101–28. Gingrich, Luann Good. “Social Exclusion and Double Jeopardy: The Management of Lone Mothers in the Market – State Social Field.” Social Policy & Administration, vol. 42, no. 4, 2008, pp. 379–95. Glenn, Evelyn Nakano. “From Servitude to Service Work: Historical Continuities in the Racial Division of Paid Reproductive Labor.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, vol. 18, no. 1, 1992, pp. 1–43. Hamilton, Roberta. Gendering the Vertical Mosaic: Feminist Perspectives on Canadian Society, Pearson Prentice Hall, 1996. Hochschild, Arlie Russell. The Managed Heart. U of California P, 1983. ———. The Time Bind: When Work Becomes Home and Home Becomes Work, Henry Holt and Company, 1997. ———. “Global Care Chains and Emotional Surplus Value.” On the Edge: Living with Global Capitalism, edited by Anthology Giddens and Will Hutton, Jonathan Cape, 2000, pp. 130–46. Hochschild, Arlie Russell, and Anne Machung. The Second Shift: Working Families and the Revolution at Home. Penguin, 2012. Huber, Evelyne, and John D. Stephens. “Partisan Governance, Women’s Employment, and the Social Democratic Service State.” American Sociological Review, vol. 65, no. 3, 2000, pp. 323–42. Jaggar, Alison M. Feminist Politics and Human Nature. Rowman & Allanheld, 1983. Jones, Jacqueline. Labour of Love, Labour of Sorrow: Black Women, Work, and the Family from Slavery to the Present. Basic Books, 1986. Kofman, Eleonore. “Rethinking Care through Social Reproduction: Articulating Circuits of Migration.” Social Politics, vol. 19, no. 1, 2012, pp. 142–62. Laslett, Barbara, and Johanna Brenner. “Gender and Social Reproduction: Historical Perspectives.” Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 15, no. 1, 1989, pp. 381–404.

341

Catherine Bryan Lightman, Ernie S., and Graham Riches. “Window on the World: From Modest Rights to Commodification in Canada’s Welfare State.” European Journal of Social Work, vol. 3, no. 2, 2000, pp. 179–90. Luxton, Meg, and Kate Bezanson, editors. Social Reproduction: Feminist Political Economy Challenges Neoliberalism. McGill-Queen’s Press, 2006. Luxton, Meg, and June Shirley Corman. Getting by in Hard Times: Gendered Labour at Home and on the Job. U of Toronto P, 2001. Madianou, Mirca, and Daniel Miller. “Mobile Phone Parenting: Reconfiguring Relationships between Filipina Migrant Mothers and their Left-Behind Children.” New Media & Society, vol. 13, no. 3, 2011, pp. 457–70. Mandel, Hadas, and Moshe Semyonov.“A Welfare State Paradox: State Interventions and Women’s Employment Opportunities in 22 Countries.” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 111, no. 6, 2006, pp. 1910–49. Mason, Robin. “Listening to Lone Mothers: Paid Work, Family Life, and Childcare in Canada.” Journal of Children and Poverty, vol. 9, no. 1, 2003, pp. 41–54. Maynard, Robyn. Policing Black Lives: State Violence in Canada from Slavery to the Present. Fernwood Publishing, 2017. Mayson, Melodie. “Ontario Works and Single Mothers: Redefining ‘Deservedness and the Social Contract.’ ” Journal of Canadian Studies, vol. 34, no. 2, 1999, pp. 89–109. McDaniel, Susan A. “Women’s Changing Relations to the State and Citizenship: Caring and Intergenerational Relations in Globalizing Western Democracies.” Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie, vol. 39, no. 2, 2002, pp. 125–50. McMullin, Julie Ann, et al. “Welfare Reform in Ontario: Tough Times in Mothers’ Lives.” Canadian Public Policy/Analyse de Politiques, vol. 28, no. 2, 2002, pp. 297–314. Mies, Maria. Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the International Division of Labour. Zed Books, 2014. Mitchell, Juliet. Women: The Longest Revolution: Essays on Feminism, Literature and Psychoanalysis. Virago, 1984. Parreñas, Rhacel Salazar. “The Care Crisis in the Philippines: Children and Transnational Families in the New Global Economy”. Global Woman: Nannies, Maids, and Sex Workers in the New Economy, edited by Barbara Ehrenreich and Arlie Russell Hochschild, Metropolitan/Owl Books, 2004, pp. 39–54. ———. “Long Distance Intimacy: Class, Gender and Intergenerational Relations between Mothers and Children in Filipino Transnational Families.” Global Networks, vol. 5, no. 4, 2005, pp. 317–36. Peck, Jamie. “The Rise of the Workfare State.” Kurswechsel, vol. 3, 2003, pp. 75–87. Pratt, Geraldine. Families Apart: Migrant Mothers and the Conflicts of Labor and Love. U of Minnesota P, 2012. S.G. “The Housewife.” New Left Review, vol. 1, no. 38, 1967, pp. 45–54. Statistics Canada. The Surge of Women in the Workforce. 2017. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11630-x/11-630-x2015009-eng.htm Truong, Thanh-Dam. “Gender, International Migration and Social Reproduction: Implications for Theory, Policy, Research and Networking.” Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, vol. 5, no. 1, 1996, pp. 27–52. Tyner, James A. “The Social Construction of Gendered Migration from the Philippines.” Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, vol. 3, no. 4, 1994, pp. 589–618. ———. “The Gendering of Philippine International Labor Migration.” The Professional Geographer, vol. 48, no. 4, 1996, pp. 405–16. ———. The Philippines: Mobilities, Identities, Globalization. Routledge, 2010. Vogel, Lise. “The Earthly Family.” Radical America, vol. 7, no. 4, 1973, pp. 9–50. Weigt, Jill. “Compromises to Carework: The Social Organization of Mothers’ Experiences in the LowWage Labor Market after Welfare Reform.” Social Problems, vol. 53, no. 3, 2006, pp. 332–51. Wichterich, Christa. The Globalized Woman: Reports from a Future of Inequality. Spinifex Press, 2000. Wolf, Eric R. Europe and the People without History. U of California P, 1982.

342

27 THE LASTING IMPACTS OF “THE OPT OUT REVOLUTION” Disciplining working mothers Jennifer L. Borda

When Lisa Belkin published “The Opt Out Revolution” in the New York Times Magazine in October 2003, the notion of women returning home from the professional realm out of a natural desire to embrace domesticity, including the care and nurture of their children, had been recycled through “new social trend” journalism reporting for decades. In the 1980s, there were stories of women’s desires to “cocoon” or “nest,” which alluded to former professional women’s decisions to reposition their priorities by refocusing on their home and the needs of their children. During the 1990s, media stories featured women who believed they had been “mommy tracked” in their careers (the experience of gender bias in the workplace due to diminished expectations of women who are pregnant or new mothers). Other stories featured women who, consequently, decided to “sequence” their careers instead by stepping off their professional trajectory temporarily with the hope of re-entering the workforce when their maternal desire was less of a distraction (also known as “on ramps and off ramps”). Whether these stories documented the return of women’s “new traditionalism,” the growing trend of “opting out” (or “leaning out”), or the rise of the “retro housewife,” they also represent a flashpoint of American culture’s ongoing attempts to discipline women’s and particularly mothers’ roles and behaviors both in the workplace and in the home. While the working mom’s retreat from the professional world trend story has resurfaced in the media over nearly four decades, the particular resonance of Belkin’s term “opt out” has continued to frame emerging debates about women, work, and family dynamics for more than a decade and also elicited perhaps the most virulent response of all. The media framing of opting out moms integrate several rhetorical strategies, including reaffirmation of gendered traditions, essentialist feminism, rhetorics of “choice,” neoliberal “common sense,” and ideologies about the ideal worker versus the perfect mother, all of which have functioned as disciplining rhetorics that demarcate particular assumptions about motherhood, mothers’ work, and mothers’ choices surrounding family and career.

Background and context Belkin’s reporting incorporated anecdotal experiences of about a dozen, mostly Ivy League educated, professional women from a wealthy Atlanta suburb and a weekly playgroup in San Francisco, as well as a few women of high status in education and other professions. Belkin’s 343

Jennifer L. Borda

piece builds a narrative of elite, white, women who stepped off the trajectory of their highpowered careers to become stay-at-home moms. In an effort to diagnose several contradictory cultural, political, and even biological forces that may explain this phenomenon of women “opting out,” Belkin begins by arguing that the “opt out revolution” may be evidence of a feminist “revolution stalled.” Belkin notes that among female graduates of schools such as Princeton, Harvard, Stanford, and Columbia from the late 1980s through the 1990s, only a low percentage still work full-time. Belkin’s conclusion is that: “It’s not just that the workplace has failed women. It is also that women are rejecting the workplace” (Belkin 44). Belkin’s underlying assumption is that women have not met workplace challenges with the same ambition they applied to their aspirations for higher education and their early careers but rather have responded with resignation (both literally and figuratively). The remainder of her essay focuses on possible reasons why women who had achieved so much early on in their professional lives would suddenly call it quits. While noting that the numbers of women working part-time are still substantial (two-thirds of working mothers), that the number of female entrepreneurs grew by an impressive 11% in the final years of the twentieth century, and that the number of African American women in the workforce is comparable to men, Belkin surprisingly neglects to consider structural issues that may influence Ivy League educated women’s departures from full-time professional careers. Instead, she advances what she admits is “a dangerous and loaded statement,” which is that perhaps women work differently than men and leave more easily because they find other parts of life more fulfilling. She argues that these women – women with partners “who have substantial salaries and health insurance” or women who can afford to leave – are choosing to redefine success and redefine work. Yet, such redefinitions do not include reimagining a more familyfriendly workplace culture but rather a retreat back into the home that allows for greater “satisfaction, balance and sanity.” Belkin ultimately proposes that this new “revolution” being charted by these women via their decisions to “opt out” may not be evidence of a women’s movement failed but rather as one “reborn,” in which women feel free to embrace a less harried life and return to “the stereotypical role of female/mother/caregiver.” However, another small group of baby boomer “high achievers” that Belkin interviews in the second half of the piece present a different picture: having come of age and graduated from college during the height of second-wave feminism, these women pragmatically recognize the trade-offs of professional success and the brass ring of a balanced life, both for men and women. Belkin seizes on this “shades of grey world” as the contribution that these “revolutionary” opting out women can make by rejecting the current workplace and holding out for jobs, and lives, that generate much greater satisfaction. Belkin ends her piece writing, Women started this conversation about life and work – a conversation that is slowly coming to include men. Sanity, balance, and a new definition of success, it seems, just might be contagious. . . . this is not a failure of revolution, but the start of a new one. It is about a door opened but a crack by women that usher in a new environment for us all. (86) In “The Case for Staying Home,” which appeared in Time in March 2004, Claudia Wallis opens with the story of a labor lawyer for the Chicago board of education who is pregnant with her third child and about to take an extended leave from work without a predetermined end date. This piece, as well as a 60 Minutes profile of New York women titled “Staying at Home” (October 2004), echo Belkin’s findings by featuring highly educated, upper-middle-class, white 344

The lasting impacts of “The Opt Out Revolution”

women in their thirties who left prestigious, high-paying jobs. Similar to Belkin, Wallis interviews just a handful of women and suggests several hypotheses as to why such women are choosing to opt out. These reasons include a generational shift (Gen Xers who, in surveys, rate “personal and family goals higher than career goals”), the pull of maternal desire and “family values” (“most women who step out of their careers find expected delights on the home front, not to mention the enormous relief of no longer worrying about shortchanging their kids”), and a lack of options in an extremely inflexible workplace culture (Wallis). Like Belkin, Wallis refers to this trend as a “reluctant revolt” in “the professional and managerial classes, where higher incomes permit more choices.” Wallis concludes that this freedom of personal choice has, for many women, resulted in a “nonlinear approach to building a career and an insistence on restoring some kind of sanity.” Perhaps the most maligned follow-up to Belkin’s prediction of an oncoming revolution of female values was the September 20, 2005, New York Times article by Louise Story that claimed in its title, “Many Women at Elite Colleges Set Career Path to Motherhood.” Story interviews several Yale and other Ivy League co-eds and asserts that “what seems new is that while many of their mothers expected to have hard-charging careers, then scaled back their professional plans only after having children, the women of this generation expect their careers to take second place to child rearing.” Wallis contends that more than half of 138 female students surveyed by e-mail predicted that they would cut back on work or stop working entirely once they had children. The overall assertion of the piece is that highly educated, high-achieving women of the millennial generation have already chosen to opt out before they even have the opportunity to opt in.

Controversies and challenges The critiques that followed the 2003–2005 wave of “Opt Out” trend stories were wide and varied. One vein of controversy regarding such reporting focused on the problems of methodology, sample size, and lack of journalistic evidence. For example, Jack Shafer impugns Story’s piece for its unscientific poll of college undergrads, the method of which is never revealed (readers do not know the questions asked, whether the survey was already made more attractive to a certain respondent, and how many surveys were sent out). Economist Heather Boushey explicitly criticizes opt-out trend stories by noting that the anecdotal accounts used are not backed by evidence. Rather, labor and economic data show that the declining labor force participation rates among women were caused more by the weakness of the labor market than whether or not a woman had a child in the home. She also reveals that the women at the center of this reporting (highly educated, thirty-something mothers) make up just 3.2% of the workforce of working mothers. Boushey contends that the overwhelming majority of thirty-something women with advanced degrees do not opt out, even after they have kids. Other challenges raised about this reporting include the lack of analysis regarding the reasons behind this “trend,” and whether “opting out” is a personal choice or a result of structural problems that particularly affect working women and mothers. As E. J. Graff points out in the Columbia Journalism Review, some of the observations of these trend stories remain true, especially that some women do feel forced to choose between work and family (or, more specifically, between feeling that they’ve either failed to be good mothers or failed to be good workers). However, Graff also notes that, journalistically, these “stories’ statistics are selective, their anecdotes about upper-echelon white women are misleading, and their ‘counterintuitive’ narrative line parrots conventional ideas about gender roles.” These narratives matter because focusing on individual, personal stories deflects from public issues and, as Graff argues, “if journalism repeatedly frames 345

Jennifer L. Borda

the wrong problem, then the folks who make public policy may very well deliver the wrong solution.” Recognizing the persistence of this journalistic framing, Joan Williams analyzed how the press has covered work/family conflict through 119 examples of “opt out” stories over a twenty-fiveyear period (1980–2006). By focusing on the materialist impact of women’s choice to step out of the workforce, Williams found that many of these stories misrepresent women’s experiences of the workplace, and “underplay the serious economic consequences of female unemployment to society, to the women themselves, and to their families” (Williams et al., “ ‘Opt Out or Pushed Out’ ” 6). Williams argues that Belkin’s success in naming and framing the story as a “revolution” reshaped and refreshed the recycled storyline by focusing on women’s “choice” to return home as “the result of an internal psychological or biological ‘pull’ rather than a workplace ‘push’ ” (Williams, “The Opt-Out” 1). What Williams found was that more often these women felt pushed out the workplace due to gender bias (what she terms “the maternal wall” and others refer to as “the mommy penalty”), workplace inflexibility, and failures of public policy to support working parents and families. Further, because these women had options, due to the fact that most had husbands with high salaries and benefits in equally ambitious professional careers, this select group of upper-class, white moms could make a “choice” between the all or nothing workplace and the pressures of “intensive motherhood” (Williams, “The Opt Out”). Coined by sociologist Sharon Hays, “intensive mothering” refers to “the contemporary cultural model of socially appropriate mothering,” which is “a gendered model that advises mothers to expend a tremendous amount of time, energy, and money in raising their children,” a mothering philosophy largely incompatible with full-time careers outside of the home (Hays x). The focus of opt-out stories on the “choice gap” or “rhetorics of choice,” meaning the assumption that working mothers have the ability to make their own, individual and personal choice to stay home with their children if they find the workplace lacking in flexibility or work-life balance overly stressful, is another controversial aspect of these stories. Linda Hirshman refers to this as “choice feminism” and notes that in the context of cultural discourse of the 1990s and 2000s, “a woman could work, stay home, have 10 children or one, marry or stay single. It all counted as ‘feminist’ as long as she chose it” (14). What Hirshman argues is that these women are ultimately choosing “gendered lives” and that what liberal feminism failed to do was examine the traditional family and the domestic sphere as sites of gender subordination. Sociologist Pamela Stone, who conducted in-depth, extensive interviews of fifty-four women in a variety of professional positions for her book Opting Out: Why Women Really Quit Their Careers and Head Home, describes the choice gap as “the disjuncture between the feminist rhetorics of choice and the reality of constraints” in which “spiraling parenting (read: ‘mothering’) demands on the home front collide with the increasing pace of work in the gilded cage of elite professions” (Stone, “The Rhetoric” 14). Mary Douglas Vavrus also identifies these two recurring patterns in coverage of women “opting out”: the rhetoric of choice and the absence of materialist analysis of the impact of structural or public policy issues. She attributes the exaggeration of the rhetoric of choice and the oversight of structural impacts as a result of the overarching political and economic context of neoliberalism as it intersects with the cultural discourse of post-feminism. Vavrus argues that these stories “legitimate dangerously archaic notions about women, work, and family used to justify sex discrimination and reproduce an unjust system of family labor,” and under the “common sense” logic of neoliberalism “if women fail to succeed under these conditions, they have only themselves to blame” (Vavrus 49). What is overlooked in opt out stories is that “the personal is political” and that women’s individual, personal choices are not the most prudent response to the problems of intractable work and parenting expectations. Rather structural, 346

The lasting impacts of “The Opt Out Revolution”

policy-level changes, such as family-friendly workplace cultures, compensated family leave time, access to high-quality and affordable childcare, and protected flexible and temporary workload adjustments, would better serve to address the economic crisis of highly skilled and productive laborers who feel they have no choice but to opt out once they have children. What is most surprising is that, despite a half decade or more of scholars, public policy experts, columnists, journalists, and a growing public dialogue devoted to challenging, critiquing, debunking, and outright resisting the various controversies regarding the near mythical opt-out narrative, similar stories saw a resurgence ten years after the publication of Belkin’s article. When Anne Marie Slaughter published, “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All” in The Atlantic in the summer of 2012 (which broke records as the most accessed online article in the magazine’s history), she admitted to her own complicity in blaming women for their inability to climb the ladder as fast as men, while also managing a family and an active home life (and staying fit and beautiful). However, after leaving her job in Hillary Clinton’s State Department after just two years to return to her adolescent sons in New Jersey at a challenging stage in their adolescent childhood, Slaughter saw things differently. In Slaughter’s essay, she argues that women, and men, can “have it all,” just not at the same time. Again, here, Slaughter is mostly referring to women in high-powered careers, although she does consider any person who works long hours on someone else’s schedule as caught in the Catch-22 of work-life “balance.” Slaughter argues that closing the gendered “leadership gap” would go a long way to improving the barriers and flaws in the system that make “having it all” impossible, especially for women (assuming there are women who can succeed to that level under present conditions). She also illuminates several “half-truths” that women have bought into about making it all work (mostly platitudes from Sheryl Sandberg’s speeches about women who need to “lean in” by closing the ambition gap, keeping a foot on the gas pedal, and making your partner an equal partner). Slaughter concludes that much of this professional empowerment advice just is not plausible for most women in most careers. Finally, she argues we need to change expectations about an unrelenting culture that expects workers to be on site fifty, sixty, or more hours a week, and we need to reevaluate family values and appreciate the care work that sustains our collective families, workers, and communities – work that tends to fall onto women. While Slaughter’s piece pointed to structural changes (but not yet the policy changes she outlines in her later book Unfinished Business), Sheryl Sandberg’s Lean In (published in March 2013), reinforced the mother blame of the “opt out” stories of a decade before. In that book, Sandberg derides working women for making poor professional and personal choices that land them in “mommy tracked” positions and offers that the solution is for women to focus on “internal obstacles” rather than institutional barriers to change. Here, Sandberg declares that women are held back less by corporate structures, government policies, or sexist double standards but rather by their unwillingness to embrace the masculine models of corporate success and to conform their personal lives to their professional ambitions (Borda). The backlash to Sandberg’s was swift with indictments of her “trickle down,” “neoliberal,” and “corporate feminism,” meaning that her concerns were biased by a masculine corporate leadership model and privileging the goal of corporate financial gains (and workers who boost profit-margins) versus remaking workplace culture to privilege working mothers’ needs. Controversy surrounding the impacts of Slaughter’s and Sandberg’s treatises on working motherhood have continued for the half decade since they were launched into the public domain. The underlying assumption of Slaughter’s essay was that women could not yet achieve both work and family success; that is, reaching the pinnacle of unyielding male-dominated professions and meeting ambitious parenting expectations, especially when society deems mothers 347

Jennifer L. Borda

uniquely qualified to fill children’s nurturing needs. The underlying assumption of Sandberg’s Lean In discourse was that women can succeed in male power structures and manage a home and children, but only if they make the right series of choices involving career staging and finding the right husband along the way. Many women voiced their dissatisfaction with both of these assumptions and, in the form of editorials, blog posts, and online comments, many have continued to deliberate whether women really work and parent differently than men, and if so, if that was their personal problem or one greater than themselves (Borda). Such debates over women leaning in or leaning out also opened up a news hole for the resurgence of social trend pieces about women choosing to opt out altogether. A September, 2012 article in Forbes, titled,“Is ‘Opting Out’ the New American Dream for Working Women?” reported that out of one thousand US women surveyed, a whopping 84% of working women said that staying home to raise children is a financial luxury they aspire to. The article’s author, Meghan Casserly, notes that “it seems a remarkable chasm between what we’d like to see (more women in the corporate ranks) and what we’d like for ourselves (getting out of Dodge).” Lisa Miller’s March 2013 New York Magazine essay, “The Retro Wife,” was, in fact, the opt-out revolution story all over again. Miller’s piece featured the story of one “retro wife,” Kelly Makino, a social worker who graduated magna cum laude from the University of Pennsylvania, but who decided to step away from her career when her kids were in preschool. The article reproduces the rhetoric of Belkin’s original, but here with only the story of two women on which to base the prediction of a new (or ongoing?) trend (the second is a retro mommy blogger). Miller claims that “feminism has fizzled, its promise only half fulfilled” and that “generally speaking, mothers instinctively want to devote themselves to home more than fathers do.” Miller also reinforces the rhetoric of feminist “choice” writing: If feminism is not only about creating an equitable society but also a means to fulfillment for individual women, and if the rewards of working are insufficient and uncertain, and the tug of motherhood inexorable, then a new calculus can take hold: For some women, the solution to resolving the long-running tensions between work and life is not more parent-friendly offices or savvier career moves, but the full embrace of domesticity. Here Miller argues that women essentially are best suited for the home, and feminism should be about supporting women’s choice to find their fulfillment in their family and the domestic sphere. She notes that, for these women, motherhood “is a demanding, full-time endeavor, requiring all of their creativity, energy, and ingenuity.” She refers to this as “maternal ambition.” Following the widespread coverage and response to Miller’s piece, was an article by Kay Hymowitz in Time that asked: “Do Women Really Want Equality?” Here Hymowitz reproduces the rhetorics of women’s essentialism and difference by arguing that “equality-by-thenumbers advocates should be thinking about women’s progress in terms of what women show that they want, not what the spreadsheets say they should want,” which includes recognizing that women “approach their work differently than men” and are “far more likely to cite time for family and flexible hours as ‘very important’ and to prefer limited management responsibilities” (Hymowitz 2). Here Hymowitz joins a number of writers, including Belkin, Wallis, Story, Casserly, and Miller (as charted in this chapter) who have contributed to this narrative that women’s revolution in the twenty-first century is not the continued rejection of the “feminine mystique” that defined liberal feminism in the 1960s but rather a recognition of the limitations of the “professional mystique” for white, middle-class, working women with children. For the women profiled in these stories, Friedan’s promise of the rewards of professional opportunity 348

The lasting impacts of “The Opt Out Revolution”

and fulfillment is a feminist promise unfulfilled for many women who found they could not, or didn’t want to, “have it all.” Despite many studies, reports, challenges, and scholarly critiques that have demonstrated the myth of the “Opt Out Revolution,” the rhetoric persists. Katha Pollitt refers to such stories as “journalistic evergreens;” in this case, it’s the resurgent trend of “privileged white women [who] quit their high-powered jobs to find ‘balance’ and ‘sanity’ raising their kids” (Pollitt 1). She points out that these stories rest on a misinterpretation of feminism: feminism was never the power grab that Belkin describes, or trying to succeed like men as Sandberg instructs, rather it was about changing the ground rules so that both sexes could enjoy “a more humane and flexible and less hierarchical workplace,” and regard child-rearing as a task for both parents and society as a whole. Gender equality with regard to women becoming more like men was never the goal, and more gender traditionalism seems like an ineffective solution. However, the working motherhood rhetorics reproduced in these pieces is perhaps less significant than what is left out. As already discussed, these pieces largely leave out structural and policy solutions that could create more family-friendly workplaces and more humane integration of work and life. As Heather Hewett writes, “Perhaps the popularity of the opt-out story suggests that our country still prefers to think about family and motherhood in terms of personal values and not in socioeconomic or political terms; and that to do so, many believe would require us to adopt very un-American, European-style social policies interfering with our competitive capitalist edge.” As Hewett suggests, at the expense of a focus on “family values,” there are many factors that remain absent from these “opt out” stories, including political and economic structures of power that unequally impact the kinds of mothers not featured in these “trends.”

Directions for future research In a 2006 special issue of the Electronic Journal of Communication devoted to communication perspectives on the issue of work-life balance and the resonance of the “Opt Out Revolution,” communication scholars analyzed the social environment in which the opt-out revolution occurs and examined the discursive work of framing, justifying, or passing judgment that result in particular constructions of identity, power, and privilege. For example, Jennifer Simpson and Erika Kirby analyze the online response to Belkin’s article to demonstrate the white privilege/ social class analysis conducted by readers as they ask “choices for whom?” Simpson and Kirby argue that “struggling to ensure the well-being of their children in an era of welfare-to-work has forced many low-income women into finding childcare arrangements that are substandard.” The authors further explain that while white women are more likely to work due to personal preference, African American women more often work out of economic necessity and face insecure decisions about health care, childcare, and other standards of living. In another essay in that special issue, Phyllis Japp argues, “Belkin’s story of opting out clearly operates within master narratives of capitalism, gender, race, class, and other pervasive stories that construct dominant and interlocking beliefs and values in U.S. culture.” Japp explains that these values include “individuality, freedom of choice, maximization of asset . . . moral values of achievement, natural superiority of achievers, and the faith that what benefits elite classes will benefit us all.” Within this moral framework, Japp argues, wealth, education, and power are moral as well as economic values. What the scholars in this special issue conclude is: “a need to complicate our understandings of socio-economic and ethnic affiliations to reflect the multiplicity of sources for identity construction and behavioral commitments, and a need to consider the dynamic communication processes continually constituting and altering families 349

Jennifer L. Borda

and organizations” rather than associating these processes solely as individuals’ personal decisionmaking (Kuhn). Complication of our understanding of how intersectionality, or the compounding relevance of socioeconomic, racialized, gendered, and heteronormative values influence identity, power, and privilege, remains an often overlooked and under-analyzed aspect of gender, work, and family research. Further, Bernie D. Jones and contributors to her edited collection, Women Who Opt Out: The Debate over Working Mothers and Work-Family Balance, ask questions such as “How has the failure to consider the significance of class and race limited perceptions of women’s workplace participation? Might ‘opting out’ have implications for workplace policies that are harmful to working mothers?” (17). Here, the concern is that if “opting out” is viewed as the solution and not the problem, how will this influence employers’ decisions to hire or efforts to retain working women and mothers? Further, as essays in this volume illustrate, women in low-wage and lowskilled positions lack the flexibility and job security of professional workers, and so their problem is less a “choice” of opting out for work-life balance but rather decisions about how to work enough hours to earn a living wage that will allow them to barely hang on. Future research in this area should continue to interrogate the rhetorical strategies that continue to frame the story of “opting out” mothers as shaped by individual, personal choice rather than lack of workplace or government supports for workers and their families. Scholars also should aim to make more transparent which mothers have agency in making such “choices” (and who does not) along the intersections of gender, class, race, and sexuality. Some questions for further consideration include: What might offer women a third way rather than the “choice” to stay in an impossible situation or opt out? How might advancement in technologies and new entrepreneurial opportunities have shifted women’s decisions over this same period about whether and how to work? Also, are there possibilities for a fourth wave of feminism for addressing some of these issues and questions? These are all questions that invite further areas of study and a continued cultural conversation that opens up possibilities for all women, and especially working mothers, to reimagine and redefine their work and their lives in livable, sane, and humane terms.

Further reading Belkin, Lisa. “The Opt-Out Revolution.” The New York Times Magazine, 26 Oct. 2003, www.nytimes. com/2003/10/26/magazine/the-opt-out-revolution.html. Coontz, Stephanie. “Why Gender Equality Stalled.” New York Times, 16 Feb. 2013, www.nytimes. com/2013/02/17/opinion/sunday/why-gender-equality-stalled.html. England, Paula. “The Gender Revolution: Uneven and Stalled.” Gender & Society, vol. 24, no. 2, 2010, pp. 149–66. Friedman, Jaclyn. “Have You Heard? Feminism’s Over!” The American Prospect, 21 Mar. 2013, prospect.org/ article/have-you-heard-feminisms-over. Hewett, Heather. “Telling It Like It Is: Rewriting the “Opting Out” Narrative.” The Mothers Movement Online, Oct. 2005, www.mothersmovement.com. Jones, Bernie D., editor. Women Who Opt Out: The Debate over Working Mothers and Work-Family Balance. New York UP, 2012. Kuhn, Tomothy. “Identity, Discourse, and Community in the Opt-Out Revolution: A Concluding Essay.” The Electronic Journal of Communication, vol. 16, nos. 3 & 4, 2006. Smythe, Mary-Jeanette. “Of Angst, Anecdote, and Anger: A Gender Communication Response to The Opt-Out Revolution.” The Electronic Journal of Communication, vol. 16, nos. 3 & 4, 2006. Stone, Pamela. Opting Out? Why Women Really Quit Careers and Head Home. U of California P, 2007. Williams, Joan. “The Opt-Out Revolution Revisited.” The American Prospect, 19 Feb. 2007, prospect.org/ article/opt-out-revolution-revisited.

350

The lasting impacts of “The Opt Out Revolution”

Conclusion Clearly, the more than a decade long conversation about whether or not women are truly “opting out” reveals a lot about ongoing twenty-first-century cultural deliberations regarding the successes and failures of second-wave feminism and our fraught ignorance of the complex and intersecting power structures of class, race, and gender. The strategies of rhetorical invention that can be seen across the decade of “opting out” trend stories includes upholding women of privilege as the universal standard for all women and reification of gendered difference and “traditions” as explanation for women’s “choices.” Further, the perpetual reinforcing of such choices as valid through this re-emerging story of the “opt out revolution” functions as a means of disciplining women who dare to ask for non-traditional arrangements at work (including flex-time and parental leave), or who seem to repudiate traditional arrangements at home by requiring more equality with regard to parenting and household chores. In these stories, it is always women, not men, who are required to choose between family harmony and “sanity” versus personal ambition and achievement. As Jaclyn Friedman explains, “The more gender roles shift, economic inequality widens, and the country slowly turns brown, the more comforting it is to people whose cultural power is being challenged to lose themselves in glossy stories about playing by the old rules and winning.” Also, by focusing on women’s choice in terms of stark dichotomies (opting for balance or chaos, opting for work or family), “opt out revolution” stories attempt to deflect from potential complexities in women’s lives that can still be negotiable, the liminal spaces in which some exist (somewhere between ideal worker and perfect mother), or in Belkin’s own term, those committed to living “a shades of grey life.”

Works cited Belkin, Lisa. “The Opt-Out Revolution.” The New York Times Magazine, 26 Oct. 2003, www.nytimes. com/2003/10/26/magazine/the-opt-out-revolution.html. Borda, Jennifer L. “Lean in or Leave Before You Leave? False Dichotomies of Choice and Blame in Public Debates about Working Motherhood.” The Mother-Blame Game, edited by Vanessa Reimer and Sarah Sahagian, Demeter Press, 2015, pp. 219–36. Boushey, Heather. “Are Women Opting Out? Debunking the Myth.” Executive Summary, Center for Economic Policy Research, Nov. 2005, cepr.net/documents/publications/opt_out_2005_11_2.pdf. ———. “Opt-Out Hype.” TomPaine.com, 7 Dec. 2005, cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/opt-out-hype. Cahn, Naomi, and June Carbone.“Five Myths about Working Mothers.” The Washington Post, 30 May 2010, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/28/AR2010052802268.html. Casserly, Meghan. “Is ‘Opting Out’ the New American Dream for Working Women?” Forbes, 12 Sept. 2012, www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2012/09/12/is-opting-out-the-new-american-dreamfor-working-women/#7e6d822623a2. Friedman, Jaclyn. “Have You Heard? Feminism’s Over!” The American Prospect, 21 Mar. 2013, prospect.org/ article/have-you-heard-feminisms-over. Graff, E. J. “The Opt-Out Myth.” Columbia Journalism Review, 1 Mar. 2007, archives.cjr.org/essay/the_ optout_myth.php. Hays, Sharon. The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood. Yale UP, 1996. Hewett, Heather. “Telling It Like It Is: Rewriting the “Opting Out” Narrative.” The Mothers Movement Online, Oct. 2005, www.mothersmovement.com. Hirshman, Linda R. “Homeward Bound.” The American Prospect, Dec. 2005, pp. 20–26. Hymowitz, Kay. “Do Women Really Want Equality?” Time, 4 Sept. 2013, www.ideas.time.com/2013/ 09/04/do-women-really-want-equality/. Japp, Phyllis M. “Mothering in the Sudan and at Starbucks: A Cultural Studies Response to the Opt Out Revolution.” The Electronic Journal of Communication, vol. 16, nos. 3 & 4, 2006. Jones, Bernie D., editor. Women Who Opt Out: The Debate over Working Mothers and Work-Family Balance. New York UP, 2012.

351

Jennifer L. Borda Kuhn, Tomothy. “Identity, Discourse, and Community in the Opt-Out Revolution: A Concluding Essay.” The Electronic Journal of Communication, vol. 16, nos. 3 & 4, 2006. Kuperberg, Arielle, and Pamela Stone.“The Media Depiction of Women Who Opt Out.” Gender & Society, vol. 22, no. 4, Aug. 2008, pp. 497–517. doi: 10.1177/0891243208319767. Miller, Claire Cain. “Even among Harvard Graduates, Women Fall Short of Their Work Expectations.” The New York Times, 28 Nov. 2014, www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/upshot/even-among-harvardgraduates-women-fall-short-of-their-work-expectations.html. Miller, Lisa. “The Retro Wife.” New York Magazine, 17 Mar. 2013, nymag.com/news/features/retro-wife2013–3/. Pollitt, Katha. “There They Go Again.” The Nation, 17 Nov. 2003, www.thenation.com/article/there-theygo-again/. Sandberg, Sheryl. Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead. Alfred A. Knopf, 2013. Shafer, Jack. “Weasel-Words Rip My Flesh!” Slate, 20 Sept. 2005, www.slate.com/articles/news_and_poli tics/press_box/2005/09/weaselwords_rip_my_flesh.html. Simpson, Jennifer Lyn, and Erika L. Kirby. “ ‘Choices’ for Whom? A White Privilege/Social Class Communicative Response to the Opt-Out Revolution.” The Electronic Journal of Communication, vol. 16, nos. 3 & 4, 2006. Slaughter, Anne-Marie. “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All.” The Atlantic, July/Aug. 2012, www.the atlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-cant-have-it-all/309020/. Smythe, Mary-Jeanette. “Of Angst, Anecdote, and Anger: A Gender Communication Response to The Opt-Out Revolution.” The Electronic Journal of Communication, vol. 16, nos. 3 & 4, 2006. Stone, Pamela. Opting Out? Why Women Really Quit Careers and Head Home. U of California P, 2007. ———. “The Rhetoric and Reality of ‘Opting Out.’ ” Contexts, vol. 6, no. 4, Fall 2007, pp. 14–19. doi: 10.1525/ctx.2007.6.4.14. Story, Louise. “Many Women at Elite Colleges Set Career Path to Motherhood.” New York Times, 20 Sept. 2005, www.nytimes.com/2005/09/20/us/many-women-at-elite-colleges-set-career-path-tomotherhood.html?_r=0. Vavrus, Mary Douglas. “Opting Out Moms in the News.” Feminist Media Studies, vol. 7, no. 1, 2007, pp. 47–61. doi: 10.1080/14680770601103704. Wallis, Claudia. “The Case for Staying Home.” Time, 22 Mar. 2004, content.time.com/time/magazine/ article/0,9171,993641,00.html. Wieland, Stacey M. “Discourses of Careerism, Separatism, and Individualism: A Work/Life Communication Response to the Opt-Out Revolution.” The Electronic Journal of Communication, vol. 16, nos. 3 & 4, 2006. Williams, Joan C.“Maternal Wall.” Harvard Business Review, Oct. 2004, hbr.org/2004/10/the-maternal-wall. ———. “The Opt-Out Revolution Revisited.” The American Prospect, 19 Feb. 2007, prospect.org/article/ opt-out-revolution-revisited. Williams, Joan C., et al. “Opt Out” or Pushed Out?: How the Press Covers Work/Family Conflict.” Advance Library Collection, Paper 575, 2006, https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/advance/575.

352

28 SHIFTING GENDER NORMS AND CHILDCARE IN CANADA Brooke Richardson

Introduction Accessing affordable, high-quality childcare has been a persistent and constant challenge for mothers and their children in Canada in the post–World War II period. Since 2008, when Canadian Early Childhood Education and Care policy was ranked 25 out of 25 wealthy nations by UNICEF (UNICEF), little progress has been made on a national level to provide children and families access to the basic, non-parental care services they were promised in Article 18 of the United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1989 (Friendly). Childcare services remain unaffordable for the majority of Canadian families, particularly in urban areas where the cost of an infant or toddler space may exceed $20,000/year (Macdonald). Regulated childcare spaces are available for only about 20% of Canadian children under age 12 even though upwards of 75% of mothers of children work (Friendly et al.). Infant spaces (children less than 18 months) are even more scarce, while the overall quality of childcare in Canada has been described as “mediocre” at best (Organization for Economic and Community Development). While some provinces are embracing childcare as a policy priority – most notably Prince Edward Island with its commitment to a publicly coordinated and funded system of childcare services for all families – necessary and meaningful progress on the national level has yet to materialize. The lack of high-quality, affordable childcare options for Canadian mothers provides stubborn, structural barriers to shifting traditional gender roles situating women as the primary caregivers for young children. While there is some evidence that societal attitudes towards who “should” care for children are beginning to change, structural constraints (which must be addressed on a policy level) act as a persistent roadblock to changing the realities of women struggling to fulfill both their formal, paid responsibilities and informal, unpaid care work. The chapter will begin with a brief overview of the types and structure of childcare service in Canada as it is important to appreciate the complex, uncoordinated, and inadequate childcare “system” in which mothers must navigate. It will go on to describe the historical and contemporary childcare infrastructure in Canada through a review of past and current policy developments. Both contextual perspectives are essential to appreciate how the systemic devaluation of care work impacts the lived experiences of Canadian mothers struggling to “balance” caregiving

353

Brooke Richardson

responsibilities with formal economic reproduction responsibilities. Contemporary, comparative, national and international empirical research that has examined the relationship between gender role attitudes and childcare arrangements will also be explored. Ultimately this chapter will illustrate that the widespread inaccessibility of childcare in Canada continues to act as an insurmountable barrier to progressively shifting gender roles beyond the traditional, motheras-primary-caregiver model. It is suggested that the state must play a greater role to ensure all mothers have access to the structural supports needed – particularly access to regulated childcare services – for equitable participation in society.

Background and context Types and structure of childcare services in Canada While the federal government’s role in childcare is central to addressing the outstanding issues in the sector across the country (discussed in detail later), provincial governments have always and continue to play the primary role in administering and regulating childcare programs. The large majority of regulated childcare services (those operating with a license and meeting basic health and safety requirements) in Canada are operated privately, either through for-profit (centres operated by an individual or corporate owner) or nonprofit organizations (centres operated by a board of directors with legal charitable status). Publicly delivered childcare services, where public authorities govern, fund, administer, and deliver services, accounts for less than 1% of services nationally. Provinces have the responsibility of licensing all formal, group childcare centres, which includes initial licensing inspections and issuing compliance orders from government officials in cases of regulation violations (it is exceedingly rare for the Ministry in any province to actually close down a childcare centre for violations of regulations). Family/home childcare providers caring for children in the home of a provider have the option in all provinces of becoming licensed or operating legal, unregulated programs. In all provinces, the only rule unregulated home providers must adhere to is not exceeding the provincially determined maximum of the number of children permitted to be in their care. In contrast, licensed home childcare providers must adhere to regular home inspections, basic CPR/First aid training, and criminal background checks. Given there are not nearly enough regulated childcare spaces for mothers, parents, and children who require them, it stands to reason that a large proportion of Canadian children are currently being cared for in unregulated childcare environments (Friendly et al.). The lack of government oversight in unregulated childcare homes across Canada has resulted in many unregulated providers caring for more children than their provinces allows, sometimes in deplorable conditions (Foxcroft). Sadly, there have been more than a dozen preventable infant/ toddler deaths across Canada in such settings over the last decade (four in Ontario in a sevenmonth period between 2013 and 2014) (Marin; Ferns and Friendly). Clearly the widespread reliance on unregulated childcare is concerning for Canadian mothers and their children who often do not have any other option. All provinces and territories also have in place a fee subsidy program, which helps to offset the cost of parent fees for families unable to afford the full or part of the cost of childcare services. Parents may appeal to the provincial government (municipally administered in Ontario) to have a portion or all of their fees covered by the government. All provinces/territories require that subsidized families secure a regulated, full-time childcare space (a separate process from securing a subsidy) while providing documentation proving they are actively looking for work or engaged in full-time studies or paid employment.

354

Shifting gender norms and childcare

Historical overview In Canada childcare formally falls within provincial jurisdiction, traditionally falling under the domain of “community services.” In the past decade, many provincial ministries have shifted childcare into the Ministry of Education, though this has yet to rectify the significant differences in accessing care and education services. Every child has a right to universal, public education beginning at age four or five (depending on the province), while childcare services remain rooted in a market, fee-for-service model (Ferns and Beach). As mentioned earlier, provincial governments are responsible for ensuring the basic health and safety of childcare programs through licensing as well as providing (limited) fee subsides. In no province has an affordable, high-quality childcare system been achieved (including Quebec where fees are significantly lower than the rest of the country but still mediocre in quality). The much-needed leadership and funding from the federal government is largely nascent, though some historical and contemporary policy initiatives acknowledge the federal government has an important role to play in creating consistent, affordable, high-quality services across the country. Perhaps the most important historical childcare policy action of the federal government took place during World War II when the Federal-Provincial Wartime Day Nurseries Act provided government funds to create “daycare” spaces for women working in essential wartime industries. Even then, however, only a handful of childcare centres opened under the program and most were immediately closed when the program was cancelled at the conclusion of the war. This remains the only “national” childcare program Canada has ever seen. Half a century later, under the leadership of Prime Minister Paul Martin in 2004–2005, a national Early Learning and Child Care program was in the process of being rolled out across Canada when a no-confidence motion in the House of Commons in 2005 resulted in an early election in 2006. The victorious Conservative Party under the leadership of Stephen Harper cancelled the program and “replaced” it with a cash transfer of a taxable $100/month paid directly to parents. The Universal Child Care Benefit (UCCB) was “sold” as providing “choice” through token cash transfers to parents with no strings attached (Richardson et al.). The reality was that $100/ month (typically less after tax deductions) did little for parents struggling to afford the high cost of childcare services, and it did not stimulate any growth in the regulated childcare sector. The UCCB unapologetically reinforced traditional gender roles in that dual-parent families with a stay-at-home parent (typically Mom) fared best. The UCCB was taxed at the lower earner’s income level allowing families with the highest income bracket with a stay-at-home parent to receive the full benefit, whereas two-parent working families and/or single-parent families (of which more than 80% are headed by mothers) virtually always had to pay back a portion of their benefit. For a decade, on the heels of what had almost been a national childcare system, mothers’ access to childcare stagnated. In 2015, childcare policy once again became an important issue in the federal election campaign, though this time it was Mulcair’s New Democratic Party (NDP) promising a national, $15/day childcare program. While the proposal was a central plank of the NDP platform, there was little substance behind how the program would be funded, how it would achieve its $15/day price tag, and how the federal government would approach the creation of a million new regulated childcare spaces. Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party platform included a loose commitment to revisit a national Early Learning and Child Care policy framework – with a focus on the care of Indigenous children – though their commitment was vague and a relatively minor component of their campaign. In contrast both to Mulcair’s NDP proposal and Martin’s previous Liberal government, the incumbent Liberal Party was not focused on childcare but on revamping child

355

Brooke Richardson

tax benefits through amalgamating the various tax breaks and child benefits into a new Canada Child Benefit (CCB). Unlike the UCCB, which had an inherently gendered bias favouring traditional gender roles, the CCB provides a more generous benefit to low- and middle-income families and little to no benefit for families in the highest tax bracket. In contrast to both of these changes, Harper’s Conservatives implemented an increase to the dollar amount of the UCCB (from $100 to $160 month) for families with children under age six as well as expanded it to include $60/month for families with children between the ages of 7 and 18 a few months before Election Day. Again, the “choice” discourse was used to market the enhanced UCCB though this time it did not prove to be successful as Trudeau’s Liberals swept the House of Commons with a majority government. While the CCB is unquestionably an improvement in taxation/benefits for mothers compared to the UCCB, neither of these policies was/is specific to childcare. In the spring of 2017, the federal government released its new Multilateral Early Learning and Child Care Framework (MELCCF), at least recognizing the federal government has a role to play in establishing affordable, accessible childcare spaces in Canada. However, this document (a follow up to the Liberal policy platform) is still vague and once again places the primary responsibility for childcare services on provinces that simply do not have the fiscal resources or authority to ensure universally accessible and affordable childcare services across the country (MELCCF Government of Canada; Langford and Richardson). Proving some hope, the 2017 federal budget promised $7.5 billion to a national early learning and child care system over 10 years, though these funds would not begin to flow until after (and if ) the Liberals win another majority government in the 2019 and 2023 federal elections. The 2018 federal budget yielded a more accurate picture of where childcare falls on the current political agenda. Trudeau’s Liberals allocated only $100 million for “early learning and childcare innovation” and “$95 million to close data gaps” (Equality Growth, Government of Canada 52) in addition to the $360 million (spread out over three years) devoted to a separate Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Framework. While these funds are most welcome, the dollar amount pales in comparison what is needed to truly actualize affordable, accessible, quality childcare for Canadian children and families across the country. It’s also important to mention Prime Minster Justin Trudeau’s other recently enacted campaign promise relevant to the care of young children – the extension of parental leave from 12 to 18 months. With no additional funds dedicated to this federal Employment Insurance program, mothers must choose between receiving 55% of their earnings for a 12-month period or 33% of their earnings for an 18-month period. While this may initially appear to be “empowering” for women in that it may alleviate the stress of securing/affording infant childcare, the lowincome replacement levels mean this option is only available to mothers who are eligible for these benefits (worked 600 hours for the same formal employer over the previous year) and able to afford the low-income replacement levels. Again, a socially conservative undertone is present reinforcing traditional gender roles in that partnered women in upper income brackets are the main beneficiaries. The majority of women cannot afford this option in the short and/or long term as to exit the paid labour force for an extended period of time entails other career penalties (i.e., lack of promotion, losing currency, vulnerability to lay-offs). Finally, the other phenomenon that has taken Canada by storm over the past several decades is the growth of for-profit childcare – particularly in provinces where for-profit providers are permitted access to government funds (either through the fee subsidy system or operating grants). Both Kids and Company and Brightpath Early Learning are two large-scale corporate childcare chains with upwards of 50 childcare centres in Canada. While centres owned and operated by these companies meet provincial operating criteria, preliminary evidence suggests 356

Shifting gender norms and childcare

there have been some major concerns about ongoing compliance with the regulatory standards. More specifically, Richardson notes that Brightpath Early Learning centres in Alberta was four times as likely to violate regulatory requirements as geographically comparable nonprofit centres. An extensive body of literature is highly critical of the for-profit governance model of childcare, since parent fees are the primary source of revenue and staff wages comprise upwards of 80% of expenditures. Profit typically comes at the expense of affordability and quality as parent fees are maximized and staff wages minimized. The larger childcare corporations, typically backed by capital in unrelated industries, exist solely in their pursuit of large-scale profit. In July 2017, Brightpath was bought out by the UK-based, international childcare conglomerate Busy Bees heightening the level of concern about the quality of care in these centres. Mothers and children are ultimately the losers as they are unable to access the services they need to equitably participate in society. The bottom line is that without widespread access to high-quality (let alone safe), affordable, and accessible childcare spaces parents – often mothers – face incredibly difficult decisions about how to care for their children. There are very few viable options. Deeply entrenched gender roles by default position mothers as responsible for solving this impossible dilemma, essentially having to balance their own needs for childcare services against their children’s needs for safe, quality care experiences. Furthermore, a mother’s (whether partnered or not) need for services stems from the requirement that their own and their children’s other basic needs are met. The mechanism of accessing food, shelter, and clothing is a pay cheque through production in the formal market economy. The next section problematizes the lack of social infrastructure that leaves mothers in these incredibly difficult, near impossible situations where moving beyond traditional gender roles is stubbornly difficult.

Controversies and challenges related to gender roles and childcare Bezanson suggests that women, particularly those with dependents, are “internalizing insecurity” (Bezanson 26) in that they hold themselves solely responsible for the struggle to meet labour market and social reproduction responsibilities rather than conceptualizing issues as a social problem in need of social policy solutions. Traditional gender role expectations by default continue to position mothers as primary caregivers regardless of their paid labour commitments. Even when mothers do not provide full-time care directly, they are typically responsible for organizing and overseeing who cares for the children in their absence. It is typically mothers who arrange childcare, enroll children in extracurricular activities outside of care/school hours, get children from point A to point B to attend these childcare/school/activities (or at least figure out who will do this) as well as take the lead role on other domestic tasks (whether doing the work themselves or delegating to others) (Principe). When mothers (understandably) struggle to do all this, too often they take it on as their own individual inadequacy rather than a structural impossibility. In this way, gender roles are unconsciously reinforced as women struggle on their own rather than coming together and engaging in social upheaval. The “women can do it all” discourses places mothers in direct competition with each other, fathers, and those without children though “not from the same starting point or at the sound of the same gun” (Braedley and Luxton 8). Even when mothers are able to find and secure childcare, it is often difficult to reconcile dominant notions of the “good mother” and being a mother who uses childcare. A stubborn, socially conservative “good mother” discourse continues to perpetuate the stay-at-home, fully devoted, always available mother as the ideal (Rock). At the same, a neoliberal political economy necessitates and celebrates mothers working in the formal market economy. Canadian mothers 357

Brooke Richardson

are required to flawlessly dance between the conflicting roles of the “good” mother and “good” worker without ever breaking a sweat. This struggle is particularly pronounced for single mothers, mothers with low socioeconomic status, and/or from racialized groups, given the structural inequities they face in accessing full-time, consistent, adequately paid employment. Dependency (on the state or others) has become the hallmark indicator of personal failure rather than an inevitable outcome of neoliberally infused, unsustainable, gender blind expectations of mothers. This means that outside of the very practical difficulties of securing childcare, mothers must often manage feelings of anxiety and guilt in deviating from the sociocultural construct of the “good mother” – either through not “caring” enough or not “working” enough. Particularly for mothers who are not engaged in paid labour full-time or at all, Fothergill (2013) observed that mothers struggle with feelings of being “selfish” (428) for using childcare. For mothers who do engage in paid employment, research indicates that they try to “minimize the effect of paid work hours on the time spent with their children, typically cutting back on leisure, sleep and household chores” (Argyrous et al. 833). As mentioned earlier, lone mothers are in a particularly difficult situation in Canada given the widespread inaccessibility of regulated childcare services. Unlike partnered women (particularly those with well-paying careers and the benefit of their partner’s income) who typically have at least some (albeit minimum) options in deciding who cares for the children, single mothers often must choose between living off social assistance (and caring for their children) or working and finding some sort of childcare arrangement. While each province has a childcare fee subsidy program (described earlier), there are typically long waiting lists, the subsidy rarely covers the full cost of care and they must independently find a regulated childcare space in which to use the subsidy (if they receive it at all). Not surprisingly, 21% of single mothers in Canada are raising their children in poverty often because they cannot access regulated, affordable childcare (Canadian Women’s Foundation; 2015 Report Card Campaign 2000). Through interviews with lone mothers in Canada, Mason illustrates the unique struggles of these mothers as they try to negotiate the same competing responsibilities as partnered women but typically with much higher stakes. For the women who were able to secure childcare and engage in paid employment – a major feat in and of itself – they often struggled to remain employed without significant support from friends/family and/or a family-friendly work environment (Mason). When a child is sick (a frequent occurrence particularly when a young child enters group-based childcare), needs to go to an appointment, or another emergency arises, single mothers require support. Unfortunately, a lack of one or both forces many mothers out of paid employment only to lose their childcare subsidy and therefore childcare space and be back at square one. Interestingly, single mothers often rationalize their engagement in paid labour in a way that does not emerge in the literature around partnered mothers. Of the single mothers interviewed by Mason, the discourse of being a “good mother” was connected to paid employment. These mothers felt that engaging in paid work provided a positive example to their children about the value of independence and competence while also bolstering their own self-worth. This speaks to larger neoliberal discourses that frame the “good” mother as independent and needless, valuable to society and her children through her paid employment rather than caring for her children in the absence of enough childcare facilities. Class differences are also evident here as neoliberal ideals dictate mothers on social assistance can only be “good mothers” through work, while middle-class mothers can be “good mothers” while being full-time caregivers (because they are not “costing” the system). This echoes the Victorian Age discourse of “deserving” and “undeserving” mothers. Fothergill (2013) also observed that being a part of the childcare centre’s community offered mothers the opportunity to connect with and talk with other mothers struggling to negotiate 358

Shifting gender norms and childcare

dominant conceptualizations of the “good mother” and their deviation from this. The other significant factor that helped mothers to manage feelings of anxiety and guilt around enrolling their children in childcare was when they felt their children were enrolled in high-quality programs. Many of the interviewed mothers felt they could not offer the same level of care and programming available in the centre, while others felt that the socialization aspect of the groupcare environment was necessary for children’s development (Fothergill). However, these same authors note a fundamental mismatch between this conscious response from respondents in their study and the reality that mothers are still far more likely to make sacrifices in their careers and experience the “child penalty” than are fathers (Vincent). The gap between the earnings of mothers and other women is 12% lower on average, increasing with the number of children (one child, 9%; two children, 12%; and three or more children, 20%) (Moyser). Canadian data illustrates that the wage gap between women with and without children is greatest for the most highly educated women (Zhang). According to Williams and Austin et al, the lack of affordable childcare plays a significant role in explaining this gap. Ironically, one of the worst-off groups of mothers in Canada are those employed in caring professions – particularly childcare. Early childhood educators and childcare workers, of which 97% are female and the majority are racialized, earn some of the lowest wages of any sector (Child Care Human Resources Sector Council). The most recent available data indicate that the average hourly wage for the childcare workforce in Canada (including qualified early childhood educators) was $16.50. Furthermore, less than half of non-unionized childcare staff had access to benefits (CCHRSC). Ironically, only 11% non-unionized and 35% of unionized childcare staff have access to maternity benefits (CCHRSC). The low wages coupled with lack of benefits leave those providing care and education to young children incredibly vulnerable to poverty, especially if they have children of their own. In this way, it is rare for childcare staff to be able to afford the very service they provide. The widespread social devaluing of care work associated with traditional gender roles intersects in that both their unpaid and poorly paid work is takenfor-granted and made invisible from the larger sociopolitical/economic order.

Recommendations for further research One area of childcare that has received relatively little attention in Canada is the impact of nonstandard employment (contract, temporary, seasonal, hours outside of the 9–5 work day) on the experiences and opportunities of mothers. Regulated, safe childcare environments for children whose parents are employed in nonstandard work are rare in Canada (Halfon and Friendly). While some international literature speaks to the impact of nonstandard parental employment on children’s development (Li et al.; Strazdins et al.), little is known about how an increasing societal reliance on nonstandard work is impacting mothers. For example, it would be interesting to know the extent to which mothers “choose” or are forced into nonstandard employment because of an overall lack of safe, affordable childcare in Canada. Given Canadian mothers are much more likely than fathers to take paid/unpaid leave to accommodate a birth or adoption (Findlay and Kohen), it is possible that opting for nonstandard work to accommodate a partner or family member’s standard paid employment is similarly gendered. Once again, this could have a significant impact on the opportunity for mother’s equitable participation in society. Overall, action research is needed that gives voice to Canadian mothers tirelessly navigating the conflicting roles of “mother” and “worker” in a context where safe, affordable childcare is chronically lacking. Working Canadian mothers have been muddling through with a lack of institutional supports for decades – indeed, it is now virtually expected that mothers will privately find a way to piece together childcare arrangements with little or no government support. 359

Brooke Richardson

The costs to mothers, personally, financially, and professionally, have been and remain hidden without research that highlights their (our) perspective. While a public policy that focuses on children’s development and well-being is important, it is problematic when the experiences and opportunities of primary caregivers – typically mothers – remain invisible.

Further readings Friendly, Martha, et al. Early Childhood Education and Care in Canada 2016, www.childcarecanada.org/sites/ default/files/ECEC-in-Canada-2016.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan. 2019. Langford, Rachel, et al. Caring for Children: Social Movements and Public Policy in Canada. UBC Press, 2017. Moyser, Melissa. Women and Paid Work. Statistics Canada, 2017, https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/ pub/89-503-x/2015001/article/14694-eng.htm. Accessed 14 Jan. 2019. Pasolli, Lisa. Working Mothers and the Child Care Dilemma: A History of British Columbia’s Social Policy. UBC Press, 2015. Principe, Cornelia. The Motherload. CBC Doc Zone. January 9, 2014. Border City Pictures, Bob Culbert. https://www.cbc.ca/doczone/episodes/motherload

Conclusion Canada is still far from being a country of equal opportunity for all – particularly mothers. While our current Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is overt in proclaiming himself a “feminist,” increasing access to affordable, regulated, high-quality childcare for children of all ages does not appear to be a policy priority for his government. In some cases, provinces are stepping up to the plate to address the long-standing issues of affordability, accessibility, and quality in the sector. However, this has yet to translate into widespread childcare options for parents – ­typically mothers who by default remain the primary caregiver for children. The care of young children continues to be relegated to the private sector – both families and nonprofit/for-profit ­organizations – where women carry both a disproportionate load of childcare work and the consequences of inadequate childcare resources. This chapter has articulated the importance of the State stepping up to play a leadership role in building the “ramp to women’s equality” identified 30 years ago by Supreme Court Justice Rosalie Abella (Friendly and Prentice 26). A laissez-faire approach to the funding and delivering of childcare services, despite women’s increased labour force participation over the last century, has clearly not been effective in closing the gender-wage gap between men and women, and mothers and “others,” nor actualizing women’s and children’s basic rights to quality care services. It is well past time that Canadian mothers in all demographic groups have access to the same opportunities to engage in civil society as their male and female counterparts. This simply cannot happen without comprehensive, national childcare policy leadership and funding to create an affordable, accessible, regulated, high-quality childcare system across the country.

Works cited Argyrous, George, et al. “The Effect of a First Born Child on Work and Childcare Time Allocation: PrePost Analysis of Australian Couples.” Social Indicators Research, vol. 131, no. 2, 2017, pp. 831–51. Austin, Nancy, et al. Final Report and Recommendations of the Gender Wage Gap Strategy Steering Committee. 2016. Braedley, Susan, and Meg Luxton. Neoliberalism and Everyday Life. McGill-Queens UP, 2010. Campaign2000. Let’s Do This, Let’s End Child Poverty in Canada 2015 Report Card on Child and Family Poverty in Canada. Toronto, ON, 2015. ———. A Road Map to Eradicate Child & Family Poverty. Campaign 2000, 2016.

360

Shifting gender norms and childcare Canadian Women’s Foundation. “The Facts about Women and Poverty.” Canadian Women’s Foundation 2017, 12 Aug. 2017. CCHRSC. You Bet We Still Care! A Survey of Centre-Based Early Childhood Education and Care Canada. 2013. Child Care Human Resources Sector Council. A Portrait of Canada’s Ecec Workforce. 2009. Ferns, Carolyn, and Jane Beach. “From Childcare Market to Childcare System.” Our Schools, Our Selves, 1 Sept. 2015, pp. 53–61. Ferns, Carolyn, and Martha Friendly. Background Paper on Unregulated Child Care for the Home Child Care: More Than a Home Project. 2015. Findlay, Leane, and Dafna Kohen. “Leave Practices of Parents after the Birth or Adoption of Young Children.” Statistics Canada, 2012, https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-008-x/2012002/article/ 11697-eng.htm#a6. Accessed 14 Jan. 2019. Fothergill, Alice. “Managing Childcare: The Experiences of Mothers and Childcare Workers.” Sociological Inquiry, vol. 83, no. 3, 2013, 421–47. Foxcroft, Tiffany. “Who’s Watching the Kids?”, February 22, 2013. CBC Marketplace. https://www.cbc. ca/marketplace/episodes/2012-2013/whos-watching-the-kids Friendly, Martha. Canadian Early Learning and Child Care and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. 2006. Friendly, Martha, and Susan Prentice. About Canada: Childcare. Fernwood Publishing, 2009. Friendly, Martha, et al. Early Childhood Education and Care in Canada 2014. 2015. Government of Canada. Multilateral Early Learning and Child Care Framework. Ed. Canada, Employment and Social Development. Employment and Social Development Canada, 2017. ———. “Equality Growth: A Strong Middle Class.” Ministry of Ed. Finance. Government of Canada, 2018. Halfon, Shani, and Martha Friendly. Work around the Clock: A Snapshot of Non-standard Hours Child Care in Canada. 2012. Langford, Rachel, and Brooke Richardson. “Rethinking Canadian Care Work in Early Childhood Care and Education Theory, Policy and Practice.” International Step by Step Association. ISSA, 2017. Li, Jianghong, et al. “Parents’ Nonstandard Work Schedules and Child Well-Being: A Critical Review of the Literature.” Journal of Prevention, vol. 35, no. 1, 2012, pp. 52–73. Macdonald, David. A Growing Concern: 2016 Child Care Fees in Canada’s Big Cities. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, 2016. Marin, Andre. Careless about Childcare: Investigation into How the Ministry of Education Responds to Complaints and Concerns Related to Unregulated Daycare Providers. 2014. Mason, Robin. “Listening to Lone Mothers: Paid Work, Family Life, and Childcare in Canada.” Journal of Children & Poverty, vol. 9, no. 1, 2003, pp. 41–54. Moyser, Melissa. Women and Paid Work. Statistics Canada, 2017. Organization for Economic and Community Development. Early Childhood Education and Care Policy: Canada Country Note. 2004. Principe, Cornelia. The Motherload. CBC Doc Zone. January 9, 2014. Border City Pictures, Bob Culbert. https://www.cbc.ca/doczone/episodes/motherload Richardson, Brooke, et al. “From Choice to Change: An Analysis of the ‘Choice’ Discourse in Canada’s 2006 Federal Election.” Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, vol. 2, no. 14, 2013, pp. 155–67. Rock, Lindsay. “The ‘Good Mother’ vs. The ‘Other’ Mother the Girl-Mom.” Journal of the Motherhood Initiative for Research and Community Involvement, vol. 9, no. 1, 2007, pp. 20–28. Richardson, Brooke. “Taking Stock of Corporate Childcare in Alberta: Licensing Inspection Data in Notfor-Profit and Corporate Childcare Centres.” Caring for Children: Social Movements and Public Policy in Canada, edited by Rachel Langford et al., U of British Columbia P, 2017. Strazdins, Lyndall. et al. “Around-the-Clock: Parent Work Schedules and Children’s Well-Being in a 24-h Economy.” Social Science & Medicine, vol. 59, 2004, pp. 1517–27. UNICEF Office of Research. The Child Care Transition: A League Table of Early Childhood Education and Care in Economically Advanced Countries: Innocenti Report Card 8. 2008. Vincent, Carol. Why Do Women Earn Less Than Men? A Synthesis of Findings from Canadian Microdata. Canadian Research Data Centre Network, 2013. Zhang, Xuelin. “Earnings of Women with and without Children.” Perspectives, vol. 75-001-X, 2009, pp. 5–13.

361

29 POOR AND WORKING-CLASS MOTHERS Patrice M. Buzzanell

This chapter describes the lives of two different kinds of mothers – poor and working-class mothers – whose categorizations and lived experiences may overlap. Poor mothers typically are defined economically, namely, by their household rather than individual income levels, as well as by resources, quality of life, relative poverty (i.e., income, basic needs, and capability or empowerment), and structural factors (i.e., housing, health, and time; UNESCO). International standards of extreme poverty align with possession of less than $1 USD per day (UNESCO). Poor mothers typically are single mothers with precarious or low-income employment, young age, and low educational levels contributing to poverty (Brady and Burroway). These factors are not deterministic, since there are variations and motivational influences within this general portrait of poor mothers. Among 18 affluent Western democracies, the United States has the highest rates of single mothers living in poverty. For US poverty levels, the family income must be calculated to fall at or below the money income (before taxes) threshold levels (US Census Bureau). Poverty thresholds neither vary geographically nor include capital gains or benefits such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid. In the website example using the US Census Bureau calculator, a family of five with three adults earning a total of $30,000 would not qualify for benefits because their family income exceeds their calculated “poverty threshold” of $29,360. Whereas macro approaches to class that focus on classifying mothers into particular categories provide generalizable results useful for resource allocations and policy discussions, dynamic class approaches provide insight into how class is lived, reproduced, and (de)valued through cultural processes – how class is done – that take into consideration women’s identities, employment, work-life considerations, and other issues that provide a fuller view of poor and working-class mothers (Hebson). Given this fairly recent movement in scholarship and understanding, the structure of this chapter first examines broad profiles of poor and working-class mothers then shifts to more complex considerations regarding class. This structure aligns with (a) background and context, before moving into (b) controversies or challenges, (c) current directions for future research, and (d) conclusion.

Background and context This section builds upon the earlier discussion about what factors define poverty and workingclass for mothers. In particular, this section presents the most common definitions and forms of 362

Poor and working-class mothers

scholarship on the characteristics, risks, and support of poor and working-class mothers. Single motherhood often is associated with poverty and working class, this overview describes characteristics of motherhood in which members are poor, working class, and/or single, differentiating when appropriate, then moves into a section on risks and needed support associated with poor and working-class motherhood.

Characteristics Working-class mothers are defined by the type of work that they do and household income, with some working-class mothers living in dual-earner households. Working-class often connotes blue-collar workers who range in income depending on skill levels. The most technologically sophisticated jobs in the blue-collar work type categories provide high incomes as well as employability security and marketability. Thus, there are income, skill, and employability variations among working-class mothers and households, meaning that some but not all might also be categorized as poor mothers. According to the Georgetown University Kalmanovitz Institute for Labor and the Working Poor, class is defined by hierarchy of society (income and opportunity), economics, and politics (whose interests are served by legislation; how population segments vote), and culture (working-class people place higher value on common good, everyday life; Linkon). These class definitions combine economic and cultural aspects. For working-class mothers, then, the defining characteristics typically are lack of college education and employment conditions in which they work for hourly wages and under close supervision. They may not choose the types of jobs or mothering that they do, since they are constrained – albeit not in a strictly deterministic sense – by limited education, childcare obligations, and orientations toward mothering that are socially and culturally created (Hebson). In short, there may be some overlap in these poor and working-class mothers by definition, assumption, demography, and income – but there are differences as well. These differences emerge as researchers delve into the relationships among employability and normalized class behaviors, values, and attitudes. This scholarship redresses deficit approaches with a social constructionist perspective whereby people reproduce (and can change) their different understandings of the world through language, interaction, and the understandings of institutions as well as other structures, such as educational and political systems. As a case in point, most national and cross-national research on poor and working-class mothers has focused on educational deficits and aspirations for children, maternal depression, lack of mobility or “being stuck” in particular jobs and certain kinds of jobs, and stressors in raising children. This research exposes the systemic reasons for the reproduction of class disadvantage and the constrained agency, despite needs for greater personal and familial well being, among poor and working-class mothers. These systemic factors and processes are represented in media and in scholarship. In the second episode of Season 7 (series #55) of the award-winning CNN show, Anthony Bourdain: Parts Unknown, the host depicted food and everyday life in the Philippines by focusing on mothers who have had to leave children and family behind to live in other countries so that they could provide income for their families. Global and national migratory patterns among poor and working-class mothers show the same kinds of arrangements. Research also indicates that both poor and working-class mothers vary in parenting styles but often discipline children through reasoning, considered authoritative parenting (Bluestone and Tamis-LeMonda). These mothers tend not to intervene in school, perhaps because of relationships with institutional authority figures and perhaps because of time and energy, since many work second and third shifts, often sharing different shifts with partners and other adult or teenage family members. If 363

Patrice M. Buzzanell

single parenting, the mothers experience daily constraints in their scheduling of employment, care, and leisure (Bakker and Karsten). Furthermore, the culture of poverty and (un)deserving poor ideology reproduce inequalities that are associated with inadequate resources and US Welfare-to-Work program demands that often undermine mothers’ attempts to enact intensive or child-centered mothering (Bernstein; Turgeon). However, African American and white low-income mothers engage in their own versions of intensive mothering that attempt to prevent youth from addictions, drug dealing, early pregnancies, and “the street” (Verduzco-Baker). Verduzco-Baker’s analysis indicates that comparison to mothers’ caregiving in other class systems may misrepresent poor mothers insofar as they are exerting effort appropriately to protect and prepare their children, much as workingclass mothers did to train their children to anticipate economic hardship and work precarity with strategic food and budget choices as well as sideline careers in the event that their main income sources were disrupted (Lucas and Buzzanell). Such intense low-income mothering requires emotion management and moral justifications of childcare and job necessities, according to an institutional ethnography examining institutional practices and interviews with Israeli mothers (Lavee and Benjamin). Rather than being a diluted or structurally constrained version of mainstream intensive mothering, these mothers parent to protect, prepare, and armour children against the harsh realities of their classed lives (Bell and Nkomo), attesting to class as cultural and emotional, as well as economic, structural, and political (Hebson). As Lucas pointed out in her explication of the “Working Class Promise,” four core working-class values – strong work ethic, provider orientation, dignity of all work and workers, and humility – form the foundation for the US working class. These values operate paradoxically with those associated with the American Dream of class mobility and achievement, resulting in ambivalences and tensions in work and personal life decisions, including mothering.

Risks A second main area of consideration in the background and context of poor and working-class mothers is risk. Risk is considered a “prevailing and enduring feature of American poverty research” (Brady et al. 740) with risk itself captured in individual-level variables that numerous studies indicate to be predictors of poverty and around which reforms designed to eradicate poverty are organized (Brady et al.). The variables are family and labor market characteristics (risks) as well as needed supports that often focus on poor and working-class motherhood and mothers themselves more so than the institutional contexts that also are documented in numerous studies. Demographic risks or vulnerabilities center around single motherhood and low education, as noted earlier, as well as young headship and unemployment (Brady et al.). As Brady et al. point out about prevalence of risk or share of the population with one or more of these characteristics, less than 1% of people in the 29 rich democracies covered by the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS) had three or four of these risks, making studies that focus on all combined risks not as generalizable as those that focus on one or two risks. To these main four factors, other studies add substance abuse, relational abuses, lack of relationships with children’s father(s), and/or social isolation. To combat risks, empirical quantitative and qualitative research indicates that support by friends, family, community, social networks and social agencies are required. Such supports shift intergenerationally and through policy. Intergenerational poverty assessments report that second-generation mothers have less education and more partner violence and depression than the previous generation of mothers on welfare (Fusco). Furthermore, mothers in previous

364

Poor and working-class mothers

generations were more grounded in family life that included fathers and community supports, and less exposed to harsher parenting styles (Woodward et al.). These studies focus on individual, familial, and relational community dynamics but not how the institutional, particularly governmental, structures provide context. Moreover, Brady et al. further distinguish risk by examining penalties, defined as the “increased probability of poverty associated with a risk” (742). By examining institutional/policy contexts of and penalties found in the 29 rich democracies in the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS) dataset, Brady et al. found that the penalties for risks were highest in the United States thus accounting for the unusually high rate of US poverty. For instance, the cumulative effects of penalties for all risks (young, unmarried, unemployed mothers with low educational levels who are heads of households) are almost certain to be poor at 91.4% points higher probability of poverty (754). Additional statistical modeling indicates that countries with low penalties do not have greater prevalence of risks, meaning that welfare generosity may erode poverty by moderating two risks (unemployment and low education). For the United States, the harsher penalties that emerged from the 1996 Welfare Reforms may have reduced the number of mothers on welfare who were unemployed but also may have created other conditions that caused disadvantages associated with high poverty. Brady et al. caution that “welfare generosity is not a panacea for managing the risks of poverty, nor is it the only factor explaining variation in penalties” (771).

Supports Based on the analyses of poverty in the earlier sections and with definitions of success for welfare programs being measured by mothers being off of welfare rather than mothers being in viable living experiences, dangerous conditions are produced. These conditions can be lessened through different kinds of supports. Regarding conditions, some mothers might have to return to abusive home situations if they have exceeded welfare time allotments. Such limits also compromise the health and well-being in general of poor young mothers (Narain et al.). For instance, the inability to obtain, afford, or fully utilize health insurance in good quality urgent care and hospitals is problematic in a country (United States) where health care is a privilege and not a right. There are other issues such as transportation (type, time schedules, cost) to medical facilities, costs for prescription drugs and healthy foods, ability to take off work for preventive care for self and others, and familial or community support for childcare and eldercare should there be a need to seek emergency or routine health care. For members of other classes and employment that provide paid time off work and single work shifts, these considerations would seem relatively minor. In addition, rent may amount to over half of salaries with the waiting lists for US government subsidized housing being lengthy and unpredictable. Having family and friends close by who can provide shelter or funds for rent, especially in emergencies, can assist poor and working-class mothers. Other federal and state benefits such as childcare vouchers require employment, limiting abilities of poor and working-class mothers to obtain the education that might help them move out of poverty. Finally, there are particular clusters of mothers who are more at risk than others for poverty. For instance, many Latinx mothers have excess burden and vulnerabilities in comparison to other mothers (Radey). Latinx often are defined as Mexican or Puerto Rican descent but also more broadly include Latin American origins (with Latinx being a gender inclusive term). Their burdens – immigrant, single parent, and unsafe neighborhoods – are compounded by having vulnerabilities of little emotional and few material supports, according to Radey.

365

Patrice M. Buzzanell

In sum, exploring the backgrounds and contexts of poor and working-class mothers have focused on contemporary policies and reforms designed to lessen the risks and effects of poverty on mothers and their families. Multinational sociological data and reports indicate variations based on how countries manage and justify resources for the well-being of citizenry. By definition social welfare states provide more and diverse resources, whereas neoliberal political economies place blame on individuals who lack assets in terms of structural and relational supports. Furthermore, in the Global South, there are urban-rural divides and political parties’ interests linked to resource allocations and distributions that prevent both men and women from escaping poverty (Lipton). In addition to urban-rural disparities, poor women of the Global South struggle with other factors that are different in kind and severity but that still situate both mothers and children at risk for basic needs and resources. Some of the challenges they face include indentured labor, colonialism, genocide, migration, sexual assault, and nation-state contestations (Mohanty et al.). These conditions affect motherhood. Moreover, mothers, particularly single mothers, often need to leave their families behind when they immigrate (Mohanty et al.).

Challenges As noted, poor and working-class mothers worldwide face particular risks. These risks lessen their own and their children’s opportunities for food security, safe housing, education, adequate incomes, and familial support to cushion economic hardships and other effects of poverty. Yet the greatest impediment to elevating their well-being is ideological. Ideologies, or widespread systems of beliefs and ideas, promote the interests of particular groups in society who typically are already privileged and discount or make invisible the marginalization of those already disadvantaged. In this section of this chapter, the ideologies that construct popular imagery of (un)deserving poor and ideal roles for worker and mother are addressed. Long-standing work ethics and idealized roles of worker and mother confound poor and working mothers’ attempts to lessen constraints on their work and personal lives including their mothering practices. According to Bernstein, distinctions between the deserving and undeserving poor result from continuities in American work ethics, that is, the symbolic meanings of work over the course of the nation’s existence. This particular continuity, along with the other continuities of hard work, job insecurity, and opportunity, reaffirm faith in the notion that hard work is the stepping stone to a better future. The American Dream, with its self-made success stories, individual competitiveness, and beliefs in progress and meritocracy all feed into the idea that mothers should engage in paid employment despite labor force indicators affirming difficulties in moving from poverty and maintaining higher income quartiles, especially for nonwhite, poor, less well educated women (Buzzanell). Imagery of deserving and undeserving poor plus worker and mother ideals affects poor and working-class motherhood. US discourse about poor mothers frames them as deficient (Verduzco-Baker) and as (mis)managing childcare and avoiding personal responsibility (Turgeon). The stereotypical urban “welfare queen” has several children fathered by different men and has problems with drugs, unemployment, abusive boyfriends, laziness, poverty, and lack of job prospects. She is black, hyperfertile, and vigilant about collecting food stamps (David). Such imagery is a layered rhetorical fiction that frames poor and working-class mothers as incapable of constructing ideal worker and ideal mother lives, that is, the 24/7 work or intensive mothering ideals, with which many middle- and upper-class women also have difficulty. However, for poor and working-class mothers, such imagery impacts governmental policies and lack of social service and institutional supports to sustain viable living conditions and obtain education and training for more secure futures for poor and working-class mothers and for their children. 366

Poor and working-class mothers

Current directions for future research Key questions to guide future research include: 1 In what ways could ideological and institutional constraints associated with poverty for poor and working-class mothers be decoupled? 2 How do the popular media, especially social network sites, promote politicization of poverty, risks, and (un)deservingness of poor mothers? 3 Policy is never static – it is always under revision. How might welfare-to-work policies be changed to reflect current research results on its effects for poor and working-class mothers? These questions suggest that there are many issues and challenges that remain unaddressed. The questions can be studied in many different ways. Scholarship on poor and working-class motherhood has been conducted through surveys, in-depth interviews, institutional ethnographies, narratives, statistical modeling, and document or textual analyses including critiques and empirical analyses of US Census Reports and other national and international databases. Indeed, this chapter includes cross-national and national scholarship from countries around the globe. The characteristics, risks, and needed supports are similar. However, the institutional structures, popular imagery and media depictions, and lived experiences in particular contexts vary for poor and working-class mothers. At present, there seems to be difficulty in re-educating publics and policy makers about poor and working-class motherhood imagery and presumed deficit mothering that have become sedimented in public imagination. Even when confronted with empirical data and live examples of people who counteract stereotypes of welfare queens, individuals still persist in stereotypical thinking and associated behaviors and values (David). Research devoted to changing the conversation could do much to resituate poor and working-class mothers for better opportunities for their own, their children’s, and their communities’ well-being. In addition, there is insufficient information on how technologies are used for managing work and personal life and how technologies such as artificial insemination and surrogacy (re)produce (in)equalities (see David). There is less scholarship on how mothers who self-identify as lesbian or trans maneuver in families and communities, in comparison to that on heterosexual mothers (exceptions include reports from the National Lesbian Family Study and research programs initiated by such scholars as: Golombok, Tasker and Murray; Kirkpatrick, Smith and Roy). Moreover, studies on resilience can provide further insight into how poor and working-class mothers confronted by stigma and discrimination in general and based on difference (e.g., age, race, ethnicity, nationality, immigrant status, gender, sexuality) constitute motherhood interactively and materially for adaptation and change (Buzzanell; Prendergast and MacPhee).

Further reading ABC News. 2017. “Americans Struggling to Make Ends Meet: A Hidden America with Diane Sawyer (Nightline).” www.youtube.com/watch?v=I28_9eAwEW4. Ali, Samira, et al. “Feeling Less than a Second Class Citizen: Examining the Emotional Consequences of Poverty in New York City.” Journal of Family Issues, vol. 39, no. 10, 2018, pp. 2781–805. Bregman, Rutger. 2017. “Poverty Isn’t a Lack of Character; It’s a Lack of Cash.” www.ted.com/talks/ rutger_bregman_poverty_isn_t_a_lack_of_character_it_s_a_lack_of_cash/discussion. Ceballo, Rosario, and Vonnie C. McLoyd. “Social Support and Parenting in Poor, Dangerous . . . Neighborhoods.” Child Development, vol. 73, no. 4, 2002, pp. 1310–21. Gillies, Val. Marginalised Mothers: Exploring Working-Class Experiences of Parenting. Routledge, 2006. Weitzman, Lenore J. The Divorce Revolution: The Unexpected Social and Economic Consequences for Women and Children in America. Free Press, 1985.

367

Patrice M. Buzzanell

Conclusion Poor and working-class mothers face barriers to security and well-being for themselves and their children. The greater the prevalence of their demographic risk factors (single, unmarried, heads of household without viable or sometimes any employment and with low education) and the extent to which the societies in which they live dictate penalties for these risks, the greater the likelihood that they live in poverty. The familial and social support structures along with institutional assistance that existed for previous generations have eroded, thus making it difficult for mothers to access the resources they require. Furthermore, ideological contestations of deserving and undeserving poor pit influential stakeholders in policy reform together. These stakeholders include governmental agencies, policy and reform activists, and the general public, amongst others. Notwithstanding findings of large-scale quantitative and more localized interpretive social scientific studies that provide evidence for advocating for the infusion of funds into welfare system, poor and working-class mothers often need to carve out their own means of lifting their own and their children’s lives from poverty and its effects. Toward this end, studies that indicate that poor and working-class motherhood is designed to provide, protect, and prepare their children to survive in (and exceed) their lived circumstances should do much to change the belief systems that equate risk factors with justifications of poverty.

Works cited Bakker, Wilma, and Lia Karsten. “Balancing Paid Work, Care and Leisure in Post-Separation Households: A Comparison of Single Parents with Co-parents.” Acta Sociologica, vol. 56, no. 2, 2013, pp. 173–87. Bell, Ella L. J. Edmondson, and Stella M. Nkomo. “Armoring: Learning to Withstand Racial Oppression.” Journal of Comparative Family Studies, vol. 29, no. 2, 1998, pp. 285–95. Bernstein, Paul. American Work Values: Their Origin and Development. SUNY Press, 1997. Bluestone, Cheryl, and Catherine S. Tamis-LeMonda. “Correlates of Parenting Styles in Predominantly Working- and Middle-Class African American Mothers.” Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol. 61, no. 4, 1999, pp. 881–93. Brady, David, and Rebekah Burroway. “Targeting, Universalism, and Single-Mother Poverty: A Multilevel Analysis across 18 Affluent Democracies.” Demography, vol. 49, no. 2, 2012, pp. 719–46. Brady, David, et al. “Rethinking the Risks of Poverty: A Framework for Analyzing Prevalences and Penalties.” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 123, no. 3, 2017, pp. 740–86. Buzzanell, Patrice M. “The Promise and Practice of the New Career and Social Contract.” Rethinking Organizational and Managerial Communication from Feminist Perspectives, edited by Patrice M. Buzzanell, Sage, 2000, pp. 209–35. ———. “Resilience: Talking, Resisting, and Imagining New Normalcies into Being.” Journal of Communication, vol. 60, no. 1, 2010, pp. 1–14. David, Marlo. Mama’s Gun: Black Maternal Figures and the Politics of Transgression. Ohio UP, 2016. Fusco, Rachel A. “Second Generation Mothers in the Child Welfare System: Factors that Predict Engagement.” Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, vol. 32, no. 6, 2015, pp. 545–54. Golombok, Susan, et al. “Children Raised in Fatherless Families from Infancy: Family Relationships and the Socioemotional Development of Children of Lesbian and Single Heterosexual Mothers.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, vol. 38, no. 7, 1997, pp. 783–91. Hebson, Gail. “Renewing Class Analysis in Studies of the Workplace: A Comparison of Working-Class and Middle-Class Women’s Aspirations and Identities.” Sociology, vol. 43, no. 1, 2009, pp. 27–44. Henderson, Angie, et al. “The Price Mothers Pay, Even When They Are Not Buying It: Mental Health Consequences of Idealized Motherhood.” Sex Roles, vol. 74, nos. 11–12, 2016, pp. 512–26. Kirkpatrick, Martha, et al. “Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A Comparative Survey.” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, vol. 51, no. 3, 1981, pp. 545–551. Lavee, Einat, and Orly Benjamin. “I’ve Got No Choice” Low-Income Mothers’ Emotional Management of Caring Crisis.” Journal of Family Issues, vol. 37, no. 7, 2016, pp. 997–1021. Linkon, Sherry. “Who Is Working-Class?” Working-Class Perspectives, Georgetown University, 28 July 2008, https://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2008/07/28/who-is-working-class/.

368

Poor and working-class mothers Lipton, Michael. Why Poor People Stay Poor: A Study of Urban Bias in World Development. Temple Smith; Australian National UP, 1977. Lucas, Kristen. “The Working-Class Promise: A Communicative Account of Mobility-Based Ambivalences.” Communication Monographs, vol. 78, no. 3, 2011, pp. 347–69. Lucas, Kristen, and Patrice M. Buzzanell. “Memorable Messages of Hard Times: Constructing Short- and Long-Term Resiliencies through Family Communication.” Journal of Family Communication, vol. 12, no. 3, 2012, pp. 189–208. Mohanty, Chandra Talpade, et al., editors. Third World Women and the Politics of Feminism. Vol. 632. Indiana UP, 1991. Narain, Kimberly, et al. “The Impact of Welfare Reform on the Health Insurance Coverage, Utilization and Health of Low Education Single Mothers.” Social Science & Medicine, vol. 180, 2017, pp. 28–35. Prendergast, Sarah, and David MacPhee. “Family Resilience Amid Stigma and Discrimination: A Conceptual Model for Families Headed by Same-Sex Parents.” Family Relations, vol. 67, no. 1, 2018, pp. 26–40. Radey, Melissa. “The Role of Race/Ethnicity and Acculturation in the Functioning of Disadvantaged Mothers’ Social Support Networks.” Family Relations, vol. 64, no. 5, 2015, pp. 592–605. Turgeon, Brianna. “A Critical Discourse Analysis of Welfare-to-Work Program Managers’ Expectations and Evaluations of Their Clients’ Mothering.” Critical Sociology, vol. 44, no. 1, 2018, pp. 127–40. United Nations Educational, Social and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). “Poverty,” 2018, www.unesco. org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/international-migration/glossary/poverty/. United States Census Bureau. “How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty,” 2018, www.census.gov/topics/ income-poverty/poverty/guidance/poverty-measures.html. Verduzco-Baker, Lynn. “ ‘I Don’t Want Them to be a Statistic’: Mothering Practices of Low-Income Mothers.” Journal of Family Issues, vol. 38, no. 7, 2017, pp. 1010–38. Woodward, Lianne J., et al. “Intergenerational Changes in the Context of Early Motherhood.” Journal of Family Studies, vol. 19, no. 3, 2013, pp. 306–14.

369

SECTION VII

Mothering, economics, and globalization

30 MOTHERING, NEOLIBERALISM, AND GLOBALIZATION Melinda Vandenbeld Giles

No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged (Smith, 88).

Introduction Mothers are the primary producers, consumers, and reproducers of the neoliberal world. And yet, contrary to optimistic pronouncements regarding the ascent of women,1 neoliberalism has also produced a globalized space in which of the one billion people living in absolute poverty (less than one US dollar per day), 70 percent are women (Braedley and Luxton 21). And the majority of those women living in absolute poverty are mothers. While there has been an increasing global interest in reducing childhood poverty and maternal mortality within an international right to health framework,2 there has not been a corresponding economic acknowledgement of the centrality of mothers as essential to the neoliberal paradigm.

Background and context Historical overview “Mothering,” “neoliberalism,” and “globalization” are terms weighted with presumed assumptions and political contestations. It is for this very reason that such terms provide a potent discursive space within which to actively reconfigure ingrained understandings and thereby create new imaginaries. In Fortunes of Feminism, Nancy Fraser asks the question: “How does it happen, under conditions of domination, that people come together, arrange themselves under the banner of collective identities, and constitute themselves as collective social agents?” (142) Fraser discusses the intentional use of language to give legitimacy to fragmented identities – particularly those of women – and establish a political collectivity that can claim rights based on its created membership. Fraser goes on to discuss Gramsci’s concept of hegemony as “the power to establish the ‘common sense,’ ” discussing how perceptions of previously marginalized identities can be altered to claim political power (142). In other words, how can we specifically 373

Melinda Vandenbeld Giles

reconfigure and reclaim the “mothering” identity to create a global collectivity that can push for localized economic alternatives prioritizing the needs of mothers and children? It is about harnessing the discursive power of universal “mothering” without sacrificing the very particular realities of what it means to do “mothering” in everyday life. “Mothering” refers to the work of primary caregiving, being responsible for the economic, educational, and social care of another human being. Such an expansive definition means fathers, grandparents, LGBTQ parents etc. can perform “mothering.” However, the reality is that caregiving continues to be highly gendered. It is women who are globally performing the majority of this mothering work. Thus, it is this highly gendered reality of mothering that is prioritized in this chapter. “Neoliberalism” refers to not only an economic free-market paradigm but a political morality as well, which will be further discussed. “Globalization” with a capital G can be understood as an economic and political paradigm of international expansion and free-trade promulgated by neoliberal policies and ideology since the 1970s. However, it should be mentioned that globalization with a small g can refer in a more generic way to the processes of international trade and the breakdown of barriers across societies, which has always been a pivotal aspect of human civilization. For the purposes of this chapter, it is Globalization that I am referring to.

Central theories Theorizing “Mothering” It is no coincidence that the height of global neoliberal restructuring in the mid-1990s coincided with a flurry of mothering research given how the neoliberal paradigm necessitates mothers take on the primary role of caregiving with the depletion of state resources. And yet at the same time, women entered the labour force in unprecedented numbers. A number of factors including the deindustrialization of “traditional” well-paid male wage labour being replaced by increasingly feminized, precarious, and low-wage service-sector jobs led to an increasingly “feminized” workforce with global repercussions. However, despite the overt connection between popular and academic interest in mothering and neoliberal economics, the majority of theorists analyzing mothering did so within the cultural realm and the majority of theorists analyzing neoliberalism excluded any discussion of mothering. The flurry of everything mothering arising in the mid-1990s and continuing to proliferate in the 2000s created renewed academic interest in kinship, the family, and reproduction. However, as Kawash writes in the “New Directions in Motherhood Studies,” motherhood is “frequently subsumed into discussions of women and work, migration, or reproduction (including abortion on one side and reproductive biotechnologies on the other)” (971). Feminist Political Economy has been pivotal in producing a sustained anti-capitalist critique.3 However, there is little reference to mothering but rather social reproduction. Social reproduction provides an expansive analysis in terms of opening the space to a discussion of caregiving performed by all social actors and institutions including the state and NGOs rather than exclusively mothers. Bezanson and Luxton define social reproduction as the processes involved in maintaining and reproducing people, specifically the labouring population, and their labour power on a daily and generational basis. It involves the provision of food, clothing, shelter, basic safety, and health care, along with the development and transmission of knowledge, social values, and cultural practices and the construction of individual and collective identities. (Bezanson and Luxton 4) 374

Mothering, neoliberalism

However, the continued reality is that the individuals who are globally doing the majority of this work of social reproduction are women. Within a neoliberal paradigm in which gender is erased, it becomes even more necessary to actively acknowledge the specific positionality of women who collectively perform such labour. In response to the increasing “crisis of care” as a result of multiple neoliberal policies since the 1980s eroding the welfare state, a global network of remunerated care work has arisen (see Baines et al.; Fine). There has been crucial interdisciplinary research studying the specifics of mothering and migration, domestic work, and the crisis of care.4 Such work is pivotal in revealing the extent to which mothers are central in the global neoliberal nexus of care and reproduction. However, while such research often incorporates a discussion of mothers within a discussion of women and children, the focus is on caregiving as a systemic political-economic issue, thus mothering in terms of everyday situated meanings and practices is not often the principle site of investigation. More research uniting the cultural specifics of mothering with the political economy of global care work and migration is required, particularly when considering the multiple ways in which neoliberalism has shifted from entitled-based to merit-based citizenship delineated by “deserving” versus “undeserving” individuals based on categorizations of race and gender. Entitled-based citizenship is premised on a philosophy of universal human rights where individuals are entitled equally to access resources and citizenship rights. Merit-based citizenship, however, is based upon the neoliberal construct of “proving” one is “worthy” of resources and citizenship status, thereby creating a hierarchy of worth. This neoliberal mindset is based on an assumption that since everyone is “equal,” everyone is equally capable of proving their economic and productive value. This inherently ignores any structural differences such as race, class, gender, ability or any other way in which individuals do not begin from the same “equal” starting point including a complete denial of racism, sexism, ableism, etc. making the concept of merit-based social services fundamentally flawed. One of the neoliberal paradoxes is that while gender and race become invisible in public policy, such ingrained conceptualizations are further entrenched in the popular imagination thus creating disjuncture between state rhetoric and lived realities. Additionally, the neoliberal push to prioritize individualized entrepreneurialism above family reunification has altered the landscape of migration globally. Given that it is women and mothers who are performing the majority of care work globally, they are thus primarily implicated in such policy change. In Fortunes of Feminism, Nancy Fraser discusses an emerging transnational feminism that has been pivotal in contributing to anti-neoliberal activism.5 Feminism shifted from secondwave radicalism to cultural politics just as rising neoliberalism declared war on social equality. However, as neoliberalism has entered its current crisis, feminist radical second-wave potential is reviving, particularly given the neoliberal erasure of gender and race (Fraser 2). And yet, in Nancy Fraser’s analysis of feminism, there is no mention of mothering. This is particularly striking given the increasing predominance of maternal activism as a global anti-neoliberal force.

Maternal studies Much of the maternal theorizing arising in the 1990s and continuing in the 2000s focuses on identifying what is termed “intensive mothering.”6 Intensive mothering involves positioning children as social capital to be “invested in.” In “Why Can’t a Mother Be More Like a Businessman?” Sharon Hays defines intensive mothering as “child-centred, expert-guided, emotionally absorbing, labor-intensive, and financially expensive” (Hays 414). Ann Crittenden’s The Price of Motherhood and Janelle Taylor et al.’s edited collection Consuming Motherhood reveal the 375

Melinda Vandenbeld Giles

inconsistency of a neoliberal paradigm necessitating economic actors yet demanding full-time motherhood. Despite increasing popular focus on all things mothering, far from moving the discussion away from biological conceptualizations, neoliberalism has further entrenched ingrained understandings of what it means to be a “good mother,” thus magnifying the domestic goddess image. Given the shift from Keynesian social democracy (Keynes) to neoliberal individual responsibility, the erosion of the welfare state has had the most detrimental material consequences for women and mothers (see Braedley and Luxton; Jenson et al.; and Razavi). The idealization of the “domestic goddess” and the intensive mothering image only obscure the increasing feminization of poverty as a direct result of neoliberal policies eroding social supports for mothers. In addition, while the domestic goddess image idealizes biological motherhood, it provides no structural support for the increasing majority of working mothers. Thus, the “working mother” becomes de-gendered within a framework of “equality” while the mythical intensive mother becomes fixed within biological gendered assumptions. Within this paradigm, it becomes advantageous for the state to offload social reproduction onto the shoulders of mothers while simultaneously creating a “feminist” contradictory narrative of emancipation through “choice.” While neoliberal individualism appears to “emancipate” all people within a discourse of “equality,” in reality it further entrenches inequalities by obscuring structural factors of poverty, gender, and race. Thus, such “good mothering” assumptions predicated on Anglo white, middleclass positionality further marginalize those who exist outside these normative categories, in particular, resulting in the further erosion of welfare support through governance structures that implicate racialized mothers as “undeserving.” While there has been some research regarding the concept of intensive mothering in the Global South (see Donner), this is an area in dire need of further research. Given the rising influence of supranational organizations and global financing colluding with local state imperatives, the degree to which “good mothering” ideals become implicated in global paradigms of aid and investment in determining those mothers “deserving” or “undeserving” of support is crucial. The ways in which mothering subjectivities and material lives are formulated within these circulating discourses of “good” mothering must be explored in their local context. While I have revealed much maternal theorizing relating to the economy, globalization, and cultural studies in terms of connecting neoliberalism and mothering, there has been little crossdisciplinary knowledge moving from maternal studies to political economy.

“Neoliberal” theorizing Liberalism Given the extensive academic research encompassing what has been defined as “neoliberal,” a good starting point from which to analyze “neoliberal” is to first analyze “liberal.” We cannot fundamentally understand the shifting position of mothers within the neoliberal paradigm until we also fully grasp the philosophical basis of liberalism, particularly in terms of gender ideology. The main tenants of philosophical liberalism – the political guarantee of freedom, government according to abstract laws and rules, and moral and economic individualism – arose from the primary philosophical thinkers of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. These included Adam Smith and his laissez-faire economic doctrine, John Locke and his “doctrine of natural rights,” and Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution that conveniently justified the

376

Mothering, neoliberalism

stratification inherent within moralistic liberal philosophy (O’Brien and Penna 20). The result of this potent moralizing mix was a nineteenth-century British liberal government inherently disjunctive, built on moral philosophies encouraging “freedom” yet also necessitating paternalistic regulation and reform. It is this aspect of paternalism that most clearly differentiates liberalism from neoliberalism in terms of gender. Neoliberal philosophy does not differentiate in terms of gender (theoretically); therefore, the concept of paternalism is absent. Regardless of the gender essentialism inherent within paternalism, there was an explicit recognition of mothers as providing a crucial role in society (albeit in a particular, highly regulated way of service to the patriarchal capitalist order). Within the discourse of neoliberal “equality,” all individuals are first identified according to their economic productivity thereby giving no inherent “value” to the work of mothering. And yet paradoxically, as will be discussed further, certain aspects of neoliberalism – especially under Friedrich Hayek – also contain an implicit gender essentialized moralism that places mothers at the core of the economic philosophy because not only are they required to produce but also reproduce future neoliberal productive workers. It is of particular note that moralistic liberal philosophy fundamentally relied upon a biological conceptualization of “mothering” within the familial institution as the fundamental basis of the utopian exchange system of wage-labour. As Smith writes, “the lowest species of common labourers must everywhere earn at least double their own maintenance, in order that . . . they may be enabled to bring up two children; the labour of the wife, on account of her necessary attendance on the children” (Smith, 79). Thus, in many ways, the gendered paternalism of liberal philosophy did provide greater legal and economic protection for mothers than the merit-based and gender-neutral neoliberal paradigm. The fundamental difference is that liberal philosophy considered the “household” the primary economic unit based upon the wage labour of the adult male. Neoliberal philosophy does not consider “households” but rather “individuals” with the assumption that all individuals are income earners, though not necessarily wage labourers. Within this neoliberal construct, “mothers” cease to exist. Anything outside the realm of economic “productivity” or “value” ceases to exist. And yet, mothers remain integral to the functioning of this neoliberal system despite the lack of explicit recognition.

Neoliberalism It is within this historical framework of liberal philosophy that we can begin to position neoliberalism and further understand the impact of gender-neutral discourses. Despite mothers providing the primary nexus of labour, consumption, and reproduction upon which global neoliberalism is reliant, mothering is peculiarly absent in neoliberal theorizing. While liberalism, including Keynesian economics, was entrenched within the paradigm of enlightenment philosophy, the late 1960s disillusionment with the “establishment” as revealed in popular culture morphed into an emergence of subjectivist anti-enlightenment philosophies in the 1970s. With the 1970s perceived “crisis” of the Keynesian welfare state, the enlightenment-inspired modernist doctrine from which it arose came under severe attack. The Vietnam War, the 1973–74 market crash, emerging globalization, all factored into an overwhelming disillusionment with the thesis of state interference “for the common good.” As a reactionary discourse, anti-enlightenment philosophies began to dominate, including both neoliberalism and postmodernism/post-structuralism. O’Brien and Penna discuss the post1968 “crisis of representation,” which involved “undermining the legitimacy of representative democracy, reinterpreting the historical origins of Western cultural traditions, and contesting

377

Melinda Vandenbeld Giles

the validity of scientific claims to absolute or universal truth” (O’Brien and Penna 108). In Postmodernism and the Other: The New Imperialism of Western Culture, Ziauddin Sardar writes, Postmodernism emerged from western critical movements in art and architecture. It was, is, largely a reaction against the suffocating embrace of modernity, its instrumental rationality, the alienating idea of perpetual, linear progress and elitist notions of culture. Postmodernism grew as a rebellion against the Enlightenment, the eighteenth-century European movement that grounded all human thought and behavior in a specific notion of Reason. (Sardar 6) According to Sardar, a defining aspect of the postmodern world is “the triumph of the market economy and the emergence of the pathological concern with consumer ‘choice’ ” (7). Indeed, “The postmodern world is being built by the mass media. The glue that binds it all together: the postmodern economy” (8). Neoliberal philosophy is most often attributed to the Austrian micro economist, Friedrich Hayek. Hayek’s philosophical orientation was a direct response to Keynes’s economic theory, popular at the time of his early writing. Hayek continued his sustained critique of regulated markets by spending his entire life combating what he perceived as The Errors of Socialism (Hayek). There are some distinct differences between early liberal philosophical ideologies and Hayek’s neoliberalism. As an enlightenment-inspired philosophy, liberalism, even the early forms of Smith-inspired laissez-faire liberalism, has always been first and foremost based upon a paternalistic ideological conception of linear progression toward “the common good.” Thus, liberal morality is premised upon a modernist rationalism that retains a concept of social conscience. The individual is assumed to be a fully conscious subject capable of self-knowledge. In Hayek’s neoliberal conceptions, being an anti-enlightenment philosophy, there is no belief in linear progression, ultimate truth, positivist science, or rationality. Hayek utilizes long-debunked social anthropological theorizing regarding “primitive” versus “complex” societies as the basis for his theoretical position of “non-interference.”7 According to Hayek, “primitive” societies are so inherently “simple,” an individual is able to achieve self-knowledge because all knowledge required to regulate society in a rational way can be known. However, in contrast, “complex” societies have become so inherently chaotic, it is impossible for an individual to achieve self-knowledge because knowledge is too disseminated. Therefore, the only knowledge available to an individual in “complex” societies is “tacit” knowledge. A type of active subconscious knowledge acquired over the generations through doing, with the market as the method of transmission. Therefore, theoretically, if the market is not given free reign, this tacit knowledge could be disrupted, thus disrupting the internal mechanisms required for societal functioning (O’Brien and Penna 214). Later anthropologists, including Lévi-Strauss and Clifford Geertz, have debunked the myth of the “noble savage,” or the false assumption that there is a divisionary thinking process between “primitive” and “complex” societies. Yet, the only theoretical justification for Hayek’s “non-interference” thesis is this extreme and faulty assumption regarding the acquisition of knowledge. In The Fatal Conceit, Hayek further utilizes this conceptualization of tacit knowledge to build a theoretical argument against the communal basis of socialism, which he equates with “savage instinct” (12). Thus, within Hayek’s neoliberal theorizing there is no longer any pretention toward “the common good.” There exists an entirely unrecognizable morality, one based on “those non-instinctive rules that enabled mankind to expand into an extended order” (12).

378

Mothering, neoliberalism

According to Hayek, morality exists in a space between instinct (savage primitive) and reason (socialism), and in this way Hayek identifies capitalism (as governed by learnt tacit knowledge) to represent advanced civilization. At the heart of both liberalism and neoliberalism is morality. While Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, and later neoliberal policy makers prioritized their interpretation of homo oeconomicus to be rational thereby elevating the market to a domain of individual choice and denying the fundamental inherent morality, Hayek diverged distinctly from the Austrian school by explicitly making morality the very basis of his neoliberal theorizing. If neoliberalism is to be defined by the philosophies of Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Ludwig von Mises, then neoliberalism incorporates both morality and rationality, thus explaining this apparent disjuncture. Liberalism prioritized the protection of mothers and children within a paternalistic paradigm. Within neoliberalism, there is an inherent contradiction in that while everyone exists fundamentally as an individual and is thus “equal under the law,” the system of neoliberal market exchange relies upon the transmission of tacit knowledge through which mothers are essential reproducers. While the liberal paradigm positioned mothers and children as outside the economic framework, in the Hayekian neoliberal framework mothers and children are the very centre of the economic paradigm. Mothers are integral to the neoliberal economic order in reproducing the tacit knowledge necessary for future neoliberal citizens. Within liberalism, mothers were not workers; they were reproducers inherent to the capitalist functioning of a male wage-labour-based society. The economic order of neoliberalism does not necessarily require wage labour and therefore the position of the “stay-at-home” mom required in the nuclear family wage-labour system is no longer given “value” in the neoliberal paradigm. In the neoliberal order, all individuals must participate to their maximum capabilities in producing economic value that can be identified in the market. And yet, this is what creates the fundamental paradox. How can mothers be both full-time economic participants and yet also be essential to the reproducing of future neoliberal citizens? Since the 1970s, neoliberal philosophy has increasingly dominated the global landscape. The direct association between neoliberal market ideology and Augusto Pinochet’s repressive dictatorial Chilean regime is often erased from the historical trajectory of neoliberal thought with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan providing the starting points. However, it should be acknowledged that the Chicago school economists used Latin America as a testing ground for their neoliberal theories and worked directly within Pinochet’s government negotiating loans with the International Monetary Fund (Harvey 8). Neoliberal policies continued to erode the governments of Latin America during the 1970s and 1980s, including Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil (102), Nicaragua (161), Bolivia (169), and Mexico (103). Neoliberalism is most often associated with Ronald Reagan’s 1980 victory, deregulation, tax cuts, budget cuts, and attacks on trade union and professional power in the United States (25); however, it was in the 1990s when neoliberal policies became globally predominate, particularly given the 1989 collapse of the Berlin Wall. During the 1980s, the free-market economist John Williamson coined the term “Washington Consensus” to indicate a global framework for free-market economic development to counter the previous highly regulated international developmentalist model (Steger and Roy 19). It is this free-market model that thereafter became the global articulation for neoliberalism. Given that the social sciences and humanities for the past thirty years have been predicated upon a critique of modernity, neoliberalism provides an unrecognizable challenge. In “Neoliberalism and the End of Liberal Democracy,” Wendy Brown writes, “We are not simply in the throes of a right-wing or conservative positioning within liberal democracy but rather at the threshold of a different political formation, one that

379

Melinda Vandenbeld Giles

conducts and legitimates itself on different grounds from liberal democracy even as it does not immediately divest itself of the name” (12). Thus, even post-structuralist opposition to capitalism remains framed within the very same anti-enlightenment critique within which neoliberal subjectivist economics arose. As Swift writes in At Risk: Social Justice in Child Welfare and Other Human Services, “Neo-liberalism has benefitted from and perhaps is made possible by postmodern challenges to modernist forms of authority, challenges to the welfare state, and challenges to professional expertise” (7). Wendy Brown discusses the need for devising “an intelligent Left challenge to the neo-liberal politicaleconomic formation now taking shape and an intelligent left counter-vision to this formation.” She goes on to write “the politically exploitable hollowness in formal promises of freedom and equality has largely vanished to the extent that both freedom and equality have been redefined by neo-liberalism . . . not only liberal democratic principles but democratic morality has been largely eviscerated” (13). Neoliberalism has become so enshrined within the popular imagination that it has been naturalized. Dominant conceptualizations of merit-based access to social services have been normalized. This merit-based paradigm has filtered into all aspects of societal functioning including our legal systems and family law. Despite the gender essentialism inherent within a paternalist philosophy, as mentioned, there was an ideology of a “social contract” or “social responsibility” to all citizens, and particularly women and mothers based on gendered assumptions regarding biology and reproduction. This gender essentialism has been replaced in neoliberalism with a universalized worker model in which all individuals are equal and thereby equally capable of maximizing their own profitability and value. Both systems have severe repercussions for mothers. I will specifically discuss how this shift toward a de-gendered and merit-based neoliberal paradigm has adversely affected women and mothers globally.

Challenges From the feminization of poverty to the emancipation of women “One of the central distinguishing features of neoliberalism is the gender regime that anchors it” (Braedley and Luxton 12). Indeed, inherent within neoliberalism is a morality that places mothers at its very core. And yet, while neoliberal philosophy prioritizes the role of mothers and the institution of the family in reproducing and producing the learnt tacit knowledge required for the self-regulating market to function, it contradictorily recognizes only individual market actors. In this way, identifying mothering within a market realm appears to erase the public/private divide upon which liberal economics was based. This does suggest a fundamental difference between liberal and neoliberal philosophy in terms of gender. And yet, it must be acknowledged that this dichotomy was only made relevant for primarily white, middle-class mothers. Thus, in many ways, the specific identification of mothering in the market realm only further entrenches dualistic conceptualizations of motherhood by creating a sudden exclusive “working mother” categorization that does not incorporate reproduction or caregiving. Mothers must be neoliberal self-optimizing economic agents in the “public” realm and maternalist self-sacrificing mothers in the “private” realm. The more mothers become integrated within the market, the more do essentialist maternalist conceptualizations of mothering predominate. “Unlike liberalism, which rested upon the legal subordination of women, neoliberalism assumes that the individual can be male or female (and perhaps trans). The result is a new gender regime; one that is a consequence of an economy in which men and women are income 380

Mothering, neoliberalism

earners” (Braedley and Luxton 13). And yet, income potential does not necessarily equate to economic independence. While those who are “privileged” may enter the global capitalist creative class (see Florida), the majority must enter the increasingly poorly remunerated and precarious wage-labour market in unprecedented numbers. And the majority of those entering this neoliberal global wage-labour market are women and mothers. Such a fundamental shift in gender conceptualizations has sparked a popular fascination with the “feminization of society.” Framed within a “feminist” language of empowerment, this discourse can be highly persuasive: “The earth is shifting. A new age is dawning. From Kabul to Cairo to Cape Town and New York, women are claiming their space at home, at work and in the public square” (Armstrong 1). The United Nations Millennium Development Project claims that the status of women is directly related to the economy. “The World Bank asserts that if women and girls are treated fairly, the economy of a village will improve” (1). In Kevin Voigt’s CNN article “Women: Saviors of the World Economy?” he writes “the largest growing economic force in the world isn’t China or India – it’s women” (Edgar 2). Women in the United States control 80 percent of all consumer purchasing decisions (and consumer purchases make up two-thirds of US gross domestic product) (2). According to the United Nations Development Fund for Women, women do 66 percent of the world’s work (3). The United Nations World Food Programme reports that women in developing countries produce 80 percent of the food (3). “Furthering a woman’s economic position directly affects her ability to purchase needed improvements in health, housing, and education; her bargaining position and power in the family; and her ability to act against violence in her home and in her world. Expanding economic opportunities for women decreases a woman’s vulnerability to human trafficking, HIV/ AIDS, and violence” (4). While it is indeed true that women and mothers form the productive, reproductive, and consumptive basis to ensure neoliberalization, we are still a long ways from claiming collective power and material gain for ourselves and our children. UN initiatives and global campaigns such as Because I am a Girl offer powerful images for reframing the global failure of neoliberalism toward a more positive opportunity for change. However, such empowerment programs, while acknowledging material poverty, offer solutions that reside within the very framework upon which the poverty emerged. While these narratives reveal the failure of neoliberalism toward mothers, they do nothing to challenge the inherent political economic basis upon which neoliberalism is built – the poorly remunerated labour of women and mothers. There is an assumption that “feminism” is equated with wage labour for women thereby assuming increasing women’s access to the workforce equates with “freedom” and “equality.” This discourse fundamentally does not acknowledge or give any value to “mothering,” domestic labour, or even the informal labour market. The reality is that increasing pressure to perform all the necessary work of social reproduction in addition to underpaid formalized wage labour often leads to increasing inequality and lack of freedom for women and mothers. In the Feminization of the Labor Force, Jane Jenson et al. write, “One of the most dramatic changes in industrial societies in the postwar years has been the intensification of women’s participation in the paid labor force” (3). And yet, women’s work in the reproductive sphere as mothers and caregivers has equally increased in direct response to the reduction of government funding for social and community services. “Mothering/caring was being garnered as a means to fill in the gaps left by economic reform” (Simon-Kumar 147). Women who are caregivers in the home are placed within an essentialist maternalist framework of reproduction and given no state support. Yet, women performing care work in the marketplace (many who are also mothering transnationally), are placed within the neoliberal efficiency framework of production, as in the case of Filipina care-work migration (Bryan). Such dualistic categorizations of 381

Melinda Vandenbeld Giles

“mothering” lead to massive structures of inequality that benefit neither mothers nor children. The marketization of mothering has also meant that reproduction itself becomes a commodity (Craven). Just as the bodies of individuals become identified in terms of economic potentiality, so, too, do the bodies of mothers become economized as experimental markets for pharmaceuticals, particularly contraceptives (Simon-Kumar 148). “Neoliberalism’s core theoretical premise and its practice . . . has resulted in a global decline in women’s positions and material well-being” (Braedley and Luxton 13). Braedley and Luxton identify three important dynamics in how the neoliberal project has had global negative consequences for women: 1 Women’s work is so poorly remunerated that women are the majority of poor people in the world. In many areas of the world, the promotion of international agribusiness has undermined women’s subsistence farming thus effecting the survival of their households and communities. At the same time, while more waged labour opportunities arise, they are predominantly low paid and insecure. 2 While neoliberalism identifies women only as economic actors, the work of mothering must still be performed and is in fact integral to the reproduction of future neoliberal workers. However, due to the neoliberal commitment of reducing state expenditures such as paid maternity leave and childcare, mothers are left with no support systems (15). 3 Despite the emancipatory potential within the “feminization of society,” neoliberalism remains an inherently male paradigm in terms of who controls the capital assets. “So neoliberalism allows space for women who are willing or able to live like men, who present themselves as men do and who are able to compete as men do” (15). Neoliberalism ensures mothers who are responsible for caregiving remain marginalized and thus dependent upon poorly remunerated wage labour, disenabling them from entering the “male” category of capital assets by eroding community and state caregiving structures and independent agricultural-based means for household survival (14). In this way, while a few “privileged” mothers may “choose” to enter the neoliberal space of masculine virility by offloading the responsibilities of mothering onto other mothers and caregivers, for the majority, whether to perform labour in the “public” sphere or perform mothering work in the “private” sphere is not a question of “choice,” but rather economic necessity. And even for those “privileged” few garnering success through becoming the ideal “male” neoliberal worker, there is no space in this patriarchal paradigm to be a mother. For those mothers attempting to merge the worker and maternalist spheres through part-time labour, working from “home” etc. (contradictorily encouraged given the lack of state support for childcare), they are faced directly with the difficulties of merging two realms that have been constructed as diametrically opposed. Creating a divisionary paradigm in which mothers as economic agents become antithetical to mothering ensures a maternal/child separation for all mothers. Far from creating more “choice,” such a paradigm in effect takes all choices away by necessitating the majority of mothers either enter the poorly remunerated work sphere or become full-time caregivers due to lack of childcare supports. Hayek’s emancipatory social justice in which “everyone is equal under the law” obscures the structural realities of gender, race, and class, thus intensifying existent inequalities. The very magnification of such inequalities is the foundation upon which neoliberal capital relies. While the neoliberal paradigm theoretically creates spaces in which a few women and mothers can thrive, we cannot call neoliberalism a feminist emancipatory paradigm until all mothers, women, and children are able to thrive globally.

382

Mothering, neoliberalism

Directions for future research An interdisciplinary approach to theorizing mothering, neoliberalism, and globalization Just as mothering became a recognized space for interdisciplinary academic discussion in the 1990s, so, too, did neoliberalism. While social theorists had been actively theorizing globalization, identifying a separate thread of academic knowledge as neoliberalism did not fully emerge until the 1990s and has since become prolific. And yet, despite mothering and neoliberalism being intimately connected, they have remained predominately disconnected within the academy. Thus, I argue for an interdisciplinary approach that centralizes the positionality of mothers within the neoliberal landscape. Establishing mothers as central to the neoliberal paradigm within academic discourse is a first step toward centralizing a discussion of mothering within the globalized political-economic realm. Mothers need to be framed beyond a dualistic maternalist caregiving or worker paradigm. A holistic approach integrates mothers as central to the neoliberal world. In this way, discursive legitimation leads to material change. In order to explicate some methods in which mothering and neoliberalism can be further theorized, I will borrow from Hilgers and define three primary approaches to neoliberalism thus far: governmentality, culturalist, and systemic (Hilgers 352). In the culturalist approach, “we treat neoliberalism as a cultural formation, a set of cultural meanings and practices related to the constitution of proper personhood, markets and the state” (Kingfisher and Maskovsky 120). Indeed, the concept of culture as a set of bounded practices has been subject to sustained critique.8 Thus, identifying culture as a formation rather than a homogenized system is crucial to this approach. A culturalist perspective investigates how neoliberalism is altering our understandings of self, life, social relationships, and material realities thereby incorporating analysis of lifestyle, institutions, economic structures, symbols, and intergenerational relations.9 In many ways, the increasing financialization of society has created an arbitrary postmodern realm in which realities are fragmented and meanings unclear thus potentially altering subjectivities and social relations. However, the degree to which such fragmented identities are increasingly coalescing into collectivities must equally be considered. Such an approach is particularly conducive to ethnographic research in which the homogeneous processes of neoliberalism can be located in specific spaces and places. This approach has been especially effective in highlighting the interconnections between culture and mothering subjectivity. By positioning such research within specific localities, the particularities of this potentially overarching concept of “neoliberal culture” can be further explored. Thus, cultural texts and maternal subjectivities are analyzed within the larger spaces of political economy. Another approach to understanding neoliberalism is through an analysis of governing structures. The governmentality approach draws inspiration from Foucault, particularly his 1978/79 lectures regarding biopolitics (Hilgers 358). Within the governmentality approach, neoliberalism is understood in terms of practice. How do technologies of neoliberal subjectivity encourage individuals to become self-optimizing subjects within a market economy based on competition? Additionally, how do technologies of subjugation regulate populations to ensure such optimal productivity?10 How do such identifications lead to particularizing public policies that delineate “deserving” versus “undeserving” citizens in terms of specific supports? And how are such “undeserving” citizens made into appropriate self-optimizing neoliberal subjects through forms of regulation? Despite the optimistic neoliberal narrative of equality for all who can accomplish such self-maximizing behaviors and dispositions, such research is

383

Melinda Vandenbeld Giles

imperative in revealing the structural elements of sexism, racism, classism, and ableism implicit within such universalism. Ethnography is essential in preventing overarching rationalities such as governmentality to become decontextualized. By revealing the specifics in which governance occurs, some of the mystique of the neoliberal market can thus be explicated thereby losing its mythical persuasion. How do mothers identify themselves and how do they work and negotiate their lives and positionalities within these governance frameworks? Far more research connecting mothering to structures of neoliberal governance is required. The mythical image of the independent self-optimizing taxpayer completely eliminates all aspects of mothering and communality. Given the centrality of mothering within neoliberalism in terms of social reproduction and production, it is imperative that governmentality theorists directly centralize further discussion of mothering. A third approach to studies of neoliberalism is systemic. Within this approach, neoliberalism is described as “a system or structure constituting a network or relations between different positions in the social space” (Hilgers 355). Within this paradigm, it is assumed there are certain patterns internal to the development of a neoliberal society.11 Specifically, in certain industrialized nations, how did a shift from a nationalized Fordist manufacturing economy to a global service economy occur? What are the structures and patterns of capital accumulation and how have such patterns resulted in the “absurdity” of over-production (Marx and Engels 15) in the midst of famine? How has capital become so disarticulated from its productive source that we are now in the midst of an arbitrary financialized world in which entire cities of investment are built with no residents (Bar-On)? By situating the material realities of mothers’ lives within the historical, political, economic, social trajectory, this has the capacity to destabilize and de-legitimate the neoliberal narrative of mystical markets. While a discussion of discursive neoliberal maternal subjectivity and cultural formations are essential, such theorizing must always remain grounded within localized political-economic material realities. Equally, the power of systemic theorizing is lost should it become disconnected with the everyday subjectivities and experiences of mothering. In this way bringing together mothering and neoliberalism creates an imperative space in which the perceived dominant depoliticizing neoliberal narrative can be grounded and thus destabilized. The homogenizing spectre of “equality” can be made accountable and the massive failures of neoliberalism toward mothers can be made explicit.

Further reading Bezanson, Kate, and Meg Luxton. Social Reproduction: Feminist Political Economy Challenges Neo-Liberalism. McGill-Queen’s UP, 2006. Braedley, Susan, and Meg Luxton. “Competing Philosophies: Neoliberalism and Challenges of Everyday Life.” Neoliberalism and Everyday Life, edited by Susan Braedley and Meg Luxton, McGill-Queen’s UP, 2010, pp. 3–21. Brodie, Janine, and Isabella Bakker. Where Are the Women? Gender Equity, Budgets and Canadian Public Policy. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, 2008. Bryan, Catherine. “Multiplying Mothers: Migration and the Work of Mothering in Canada and the Philippines.” Mothering in the Age of Neoliberalism, edited by Melinda Vandenbeld Giles, Demeter Press, 2014, pp. 35–49. Chavkin, Wendy, and JaneMaree Maher. The Globalization of Motherhood: Deconstructions and Reconstructions of Biology and Care. Routledge, 2010. Ehrenreich, Barbara, and Arlie Hochschild, editors. Global Woman: Nannies, Maids and Sex Workers in the New Economy. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2002. Fraser, Nancy. Fortunes of Feminism: From State-Managed Capitalism to Neoliberal Crisis. Verso, 2013. Jenson, Jane, et al., editors. Feminization of the Labor Force: Paradoxes and Promises. Oxford UP, 1988. Parreñas, Rhacel Salazar. Servants of Globalization: Women, Migration and Domestic Work. Stanford UP, 2001.

384

Mothering, neoliberalism Simon-Kumar, Rachel. “ ‘Productive’ Reproducers: The Political Identity of Mothering in Contemporary India.” Mothering and Poverty: Journal of the Association for Research on Mothering, vol. 11, no. 2, 2009, pp. 143–52. Vandenbeld Giles, Melinda. “Introduction: An Alternative Mother-Centred Economic Paradigm.” Mothering in the Age of Neoliberalism, edited by Melinda Vandenbeld Giles, Bradford, ON: Demeter Press, 2014, pp. 1–30.

Conclusion Mothers of the world unite! Within the wake of global neoliberal destruction, there is arising a crucial discourse of human rights, corporate social responsibility, and sustainable development. Given the massive evidence of neoliberal failure producing increasing global inequality, labour instability, and ecological unsustainability – all of which directly impact mothers and children – such a discourse is pivotal to deconstructing previous utopian dreams of a harmonious globalized future that subsumed recognition of its material destruction. Such anti-neoliberal critiques provide a powerful starting point. However, they do not fundamentally break down the neoliberal philosophy upon which such destruction is built. They are reactive in that for the most part they offer alternatives that involve working with corporations and neoliberal states to effect change rather than working to effect change within the political structures of power. Such calls for participatory democracy – while directly establishing an assault on neoliberal marketization and political/corporate corruption – fail to re-politicize neoliberal governmental spaces. The desire to create a “global civil society,” while powerful within the imaginary, fails to acknowledge the very real changes required at the local levels of governance. Esoteric cultural dreams must be grounded in political economic realities. While the emancipatory potential of global democracy proliferates, our democratic institutions are being eviscerated. Women and mothers are being erased from public policy through the de-funding of research programs and ministries specifically related to gender, and through the erosion of policies and supports that unequivocally impact mothers and children the most (see Brodie and Bakker). As a starting point, this discussion can only cover the very edge of what it means to do mothering in a neoliberal world. Far more research and action is required. Thus, it is to the words of a Bhopali mother-activist from India, Rashida Bi, who can provide inspiration for all mothers: We are not expendable. We are not flowers to be offered at the altar of profit and power. We are dancing flames committed to conquering darkness. We are challenging those who threaten the survival of the planet and the magic and mystery of life. Through our struggle, through our refusal to be victims, we have become survivors. And we are on our way to becoming victors. (Shadaan 351) Thank you to Demeter Press for giving permission to reprint certain sections of this chapter from “Introduction: An Alternative Mother-Centred Economic Paradigm.” Mothering in the Age of Neoliberalism, edited by Melinda Vandenbeld Giles, Demeter Press, 2014.

Notes 1 For popular references regarding the neoliberal ascent of women, see Armstrong; Mundy; and Sandberg. 2 For research regarding access to medicines and UN initiatives for maternal and child health, see Forman and Kohler; and Toure et al.

385

Melinda Vandenbeld Giles 3 For further reading regarding feminist political economy, see Bezanson; Bezanson and Luxton; Braedley and Luxton; Brodie and Bakker; and Connell. 4 For further reading regarding globalization and care work, see Chavkin and Maher; Ehrenreich and Hochschild; and Parreñas. 5 For further reading regarding transnational feminism, see Dean; Fraser; and Mohanty. 6 For further reading regarding intensive mothering, see Douglas and Michaels; Hays; Horwitz; Maushart; Morris; O’Reilly; Rubenstein; Thurer; Walkerdine and Lucey; and Warner. 7 For reading regarding cultural evolution, see Frazer; and Tylor. 8 For further reading regarding the deconstruction of “culture,” see Abu-Lughod; Clifford and Marcus; Gupta and Ferguson; and Rosaldo and Lamphere. 9 For further reading regarding culturalist approaches to neoliberalism, see Boltanski and Chiapello; Comaroff and Comaroff; J. Friedman; Muehlebach; and Sennett. 10 For further reading regarding governmentality approaches to neoliberalism, see Agamben; Foucault; Ferguson; Lazzarato; Li; Ong; Rose; Song; and Vandenbeld Giles “From ‘Need’ to ‘Risk.’ ” 11 For further reading regarding systemic approaches to neoliberalism, see Arrighi; Harvey; and Wallerstein.

Works cited Abu-Lughod, Lila. Writing Women’s Worlds: Bedouin Stories. 1993. U of California P, 2008. Agamben, Giorgio. “Form-of-Life.” Radical Thoughts in Italy: A Potential Politics, edited by Paolo Virno and Michael Hardt, U of Minnesota P, 1996, pp. 151–56. Armstrong, Sally. Ascent of Women: Our Turn, Our Way – a Remarkable Story of Worldwide Change. Random House Canada, 2013. Arrighi, Giovanni. The Long Twentieth Century: Money, Power, and the Origins of Our Times. 1994. Verso, 2002. Baines, Carol, et al. Women’s Caring: Feminist Perspectives on Social Welfare. McClelland & Stewart Inc., 1991. Bar-On, Shachar, producer, and Lesley Stahl, reporter. “China’s Real Estate Bubble.” 60 Minutes. Aired, 3 Mar. 2013. Bezanson, Kate. Gender, the State, and Social Reproduction: Household Insecurity in Neo-liberal Times. U of Toronto P, 2006. Bezanson, Kate, and Meg Luxton. Social Reproduction: Feminist Political Economy Challenges Neo-Liberalism. McGill-Queen’s UP, 2006. Boltanski, Luc, and Eve Chiapello. The New Spirit of Capitalism. Verso, 2005. Braedley, Susan, and Meg Luxton. “Competing Philosophies: Neoliberalism and Challenges of Everyday Life.” Neoliberalism and Everyday Life, edited by Susan Braedley and Meg Luxton, McGill-Queen’s UP, 2010, pp. 3–21. Brodie, Janine, and Isabella Bakker. Where Are the Women? Gender Equity, Budgets and Canadian Public Policy. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, 2008. Brown, Wendy. “Neo-liberalism and the End of Liberal Democracy.” Theory and Event, vol. 7, no. 1, 2003, pp. 1–25. Bryan, Catherine. “Multiplying Mothers: Migration and the Work of Mothering in Canada and the Philippines.” Mothering in the Age of Neoliberalism, edited by Melinda Vandenbeld Giles, Demeter Press, 2014. Chavkin, Wendy, and JaneMaree Maher. The Globalization of Motherhood: Deconstructions and Reconstructions of Biology and Care. Routledge, 2010. Clifford, James, and George Marcus, editors. Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. U of California P, 1986. Comaroff, J., and L. Comaroff.“Millennial Capitalism: First Thoughts on a Second Coming.” Public Culture, vol. 12, no. 2, 2000, pp. 291–343. Connell, Raewyn. Confronting Equality: Gender, Knowledge and Global Change. Polity Press, 2011. Craven, Christa. Pushing for Midwives: Homebirth Mothers and the Reproductive Rights Movement. Temple UP, 2010. Crittenden, Ann. The Price of Motherhood: Why the Most Important Job in the World Is Still the Least Valued. Metropolitan Books, 2001. Dean, Jodi. Solidarity of Strangers: Feminism after Identity Politics. U of California P, 1996 Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. John Hopkins UP, 1976. Donner, Henrike. Domestic Goddesses: Maternity, Globalization and Middle-Class Identity in Contemporary India. Ashgate Publishing, 2008.

386

Mothering, neoliberalism Douglas, Susan J. and Meredith W. Michaels. The Mommy Myth: The Idealization of Motherhood and How It Has Undermined Women. Free Press, a Division of Simon & Schuster, 2004. Edgar, Stacey. Global Girlfriends: How One Mom Made It Her Business to Help Women in Poverty Worldwide. St. Martin’s Griffin, 2011. Ehrenreich, Barbara, and Arlie Hochschild, editors. Global Woman: Nannies, Maids and Sex Workers in the New Economy. Henry Holt and Company, 2002. Ferguson, James. The Anti-Politics Machine: Development, Depoliticization and Bureaucratic Power. Cambridge UP, 1990. Fine, Michael. A Caring Society? Care and the Dilemmas of Human Service in the 21st Century. Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. Florida, Richard. The Rise of the Creative Class. 2002. Basic Books, 2012. Forman, Lisa, and Jillian Clare Kohler. Access to Medicines as a Human Right: Implications for Pharmaceutical Industry Responsibility. U of Toronto P, 2012. Foucault, Michel. The Birth of Biopolitics. Lectures at the Collège de France 1978–79. Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. Fraser, Nancy. Fortunes of Feminism: From State-Managed Capitalism to Neoliberal Crisis. Verso, 2013. Frazer, James. Psyche’s Task: A Discourse Concerning the Influence of Superstition on the Growth of Institutions. Macmillan, 1909. Friedman, Milton. Capitalism and Freedom. U of Chicago P, 1962. Friedman, Jonathan. Cultural Identity and Global Process. Sage, 1994. Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Cultures. 1973. Basic Books, 2000. Gupta, Akhil, and James Ferguson, editors. Culture, Power, Place: Explorations in Critical Anthropology. Duke UP, 1997. Harvey, David. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford UP, 2005. Hayek, Friedrich. The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism. U of Chicago P, 1988. Hays, Sharon. The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood. Yale UP, 1996. ———. “Why Can’t a Mother Be More Like a Businessman?” Maternal Theory: Essential Readings, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, Demeter Press, 2007, pp. 408–430. Hedges, Chris. The World as It Is: Dispatches on the Myth of Human Progress. 2001. Nation Books, 2013. Heilbroner, Robert. The Worldly Philosophers: The Lives, Times, and Ideas of the Great Economic Thinkers. 1953. Simon and Schuster Inc., 1995. Henderson, David. Anti-Liberalism 2000: The Rise of New Millennium Collectivism. The Institute of Economic Affairs, 2001. Hilgers, Mathieu. “The Three Anthropological Approaches to Neoliberalism.” UNESCO, Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2011, pp. 351–63. Horwitz, Erika. “Resistance As a Site of Empowerment: The Journey Away from Maternal Sacrifice.” Mother Outlaws, edited by Andrea O’Reilly. Women’s Press, an imprint of Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc., 2004. pp. 43–57. Jenson, Jane, et al., editors. Feminization of the Labor Force: Paradoxes and Promises. Oxford UP, 1988. Kawash, Samira.“New Directions in Motherhood Studies.” Signs, vol. 36, no. 4, Summer 2011, pp. 969–1003. Keynes, John Maynard. The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. Macmillan, 1973. Kingfisher, Catherine, and Jeff Maskovsky. “The Limits of Neoliberalism.” Critique of Anthropology, vol. 28, no. 2, 2008, pp. 115–26. Klein, Naomi. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Knopf Canada, 2007. Lazzarato, Maurizio. “Neoliberalism in Action, Inequality, Insecurity and the Reconstitution of the Social.” Theory, Culture and Society, vol. 26, 2009, pp. 109–33. Lévi-Strauss, Claude. The Savage Mind. 1966. Chicago UP, 1968. Li, Tania. The Will to Improve: Governmentality, Development and the Practice of Politics. Duke UP, 2007. Marx, Karl. Capital. Volume I, II, III. 1886. Penguin, 1990. Marx, Karl, and Frederick Engels. The Communist Manifesto. 1948. International Publishers Co., 2007. Mises, Ludwig von. Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. Yale UP, 1949. Maushart, Susan. The Mask of Motherhood: How Becoming a Mother Changes Everything and Why We Pretend It Doesn’t. The New Press, 1999. Mohanty, Chandra Talpade. Feminism without Borders: Decolonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity. Duke UP, 2003. Morris, Anne. “Too Attached To Attachment Theory?” Theorising and Representing Maternal Realities, edited by Marie Porter and Julie Kelso. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2008, pp. 107–118. Muehlebach, Andrea. The Moral Neoliberal: Welfare and Citizenship in Italy. U of Chicago P, 2012.

387

Melinda Vandenbeld Giles Mundy, Liza. The Richer Sex: How the New Majority of Female Breadwinners Is Transforming Sex, Love, and Family. Simon and Schuster, 2012. O’Brien, Martin, and Sue Penna. Theorizing Welfare: Enlightenment and Modern Society. Sage, 1998. Ong, Aihwa. Neoliberalism as Exception: Mutations in Citizenship and Sovereignty. Duke UP, 2006. O’Reilly, Andrea. Rocking the Cradle: Thoughts on Motherhood, Feminism and the Possibility of Empowered Mothering. Demeter Press, 2006. Parreñas, Rhacel Salazar. Servants of Globalization: Women, Migration and Domestic Work. Stanford UP, 2001. Polanyi, Karl. The Great Transformation. 1944. Beacon Press, 1957. Razavi, Shahra, editor. The Gendered Impacts of Liberalization: Towards “Embedded Liberalism?” Routledge, 2009. Rosaldo, Michelle, and Louise Lamphere, editors. Woman, Culture and Society. Stanford UP, 1974. Rose, Nikolas. Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge UP, 1999. Rubenstein, Carin. The Sacrificial Mother: Escaping the Trap of Self-Denial. Hyperion, 1998. Sandberg, Sheryl. Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead. Alfred A. Knopf, 2013. Sardar, Ziauddin. Postmodernism and the Other: The New Imperialism of Western Culture. Pluto Press, 1998. Sennett, R. The Culture of the New Capitalism. Yale UP, 2006. Shadaan, Reena. “Maternal Activism in the International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal (ICJB), India.” Mothering in the Age of Neoliberalism, edited by Melinda Vandenbeld Giles, Demeter Press, 2014, pp. 343–53. Simon-Kumar, Rachel. “ ‘Productive’ Reproducers: The Political Identity of Mothering in Contemporary India.” Mothering and Poverty: Journal of the Association for Research on Mothering, vol. 11, no. 2, 2009, pp. 143–52. Smith, Adam. The Wealth of Nations. 1779. Capstone Publishing Ltd., 2010. Song, Jesook. South Koreans in the Debt Crisis: The Creation of a Neoliberal Welfare Society. Duke UP, 2009. Steger, Manfred, and Ravi Roy. Neoliberalism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford UP, 2010. Swift, Karen, and Marilyn Callahan. At Risk: Social Justice in Child Welfare and Other Human Services. U of Toronto P, 2009. Taylor, Janelle, et al., editors. Consuming Motherhood. Rutgers UP, 2004. Thurer, Shari L. The Myths of Motherhood. Houghton Mifflin Company, 1994. Toure, Kadidiatou, et al. “Positioning Women’s and Children’s Health in African Union Policy-Making Analysis.” Globalization and Health, vol. 8, no. 3, 2012, pp. 1–15. Tylor, Edward B. Primitive Culture. 1871. Harper and Row, 1958. Vandenbeld Giles, Melinda. “From ‘Need’ to ‘Risk’: The Neoliberal Construction of the ‘Bad’ Mother.” Mothers and the Economy: The Economics of Mothering. JMI ( Journal of the Motherhood Initiative for Research and Community Involvement), vol. 3, no. 1, July 2012, pp. 112–33. ———. “Introduction: An Alternative Mother-Centred Economic Paradigm.” Mothering in the Age of Neoliberalism, edited by Melinda Vandenbeld Giles, Demeter Press, 2014, pp. 1–30. Walkerdine, Valerie and Helen Lucey. Democracy in the Kitchen: Regulating Mothers and Socialising Daughters. Virago Press, 1989. Wallerstein, Immanuel. Historical Capitalism. 1983. Verso, 2011. Warner, Judith. “The Motherhood Religion.” Maternal Theory: Essential Readings, edited by Andrea O’Reilly. Demeter Press, 2007. Weber, Max. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Simon and Schuster Inc., 1947. Whitecross, Matt, and Michael Winterbottom, directors, and Naomi Klein, writer. The Shock Doctrine. 2009 documentary film.

388

31 MOTHERING AND THE ECONOMY Margunn Bjørnholt

Introduction Access to means of existence – which in most contemporary societies depends on access to money – is necessary for living and participating in society, yet it is so basic and trivial that it is often overlooked. The relations between mothering and the formal economy are particularly contentious. Economics as a discipline rests on the exclusion of motherwork. The father of market economy, Adam Smith, invented “economic man,” the self-interested model actor who is at the foundation of economic thinking and modeling, with this famous argument: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest” (26–27). According to Smith, society is made up of self-interested individuals, and it is through markets that these individuals make collective life possible. In her book, Who Cooked Adam Smith’s Dinner, Katrine Marçal argues that Adam Smith’s own experience could have taught him otherwise, as dinner has to be prepared before it can be consumed, and every night Smith’s mother cooked his dinner – not out of self-interest but for free, perhaps even for love. In fact, his mother came to live with him, thus supporting with her unpaid labour the writing of his major work, The Wealth of Nations. Only by ignoring his mother’s unpaid work, Smith could arrive at the idea of self-interest as the main human characteristic and the “invisible hand of the market” as the main mechanism in the making of society. The exclusion of “mom’s invisible hand” is a fundamental error in economic ideology: Without this basic flaw in economic thinking, the story of mothering and the economy could have turned out differently. As it is, mothering, motherwork, and its inherent tension with the economic systems of valuation and accounting and with paid work is at the core of economic inequality. This chapter will introduce some of the main issues, including the valuation or lack thereof of mothering and motherwork in the formal economy and mothers’ contribution to the economy, mothering and mothers’ participation in the formal economy, mothers’ access to economic resources, including earnings from paid work, mothers’ access to paid work, balancing paid work and family, the motherhood wage penalty, the gender divided labour market and the concentration of women in motherlike professions, the shifting valuation of mothering and motherwork in relation to paid work leading to shifts in the public support of mothers and mothering, changes in family law, taxation, and how these interact and change. 389

Margunn Bjørnholt

Background and context Historical overview In first-wave feminism, formal rights such as suffrage, rights to education, and paid work were the core issues. Mothering and the combination of motherhood and participation in society, including paid work, was not a main topic, although it was raised by women in the labour movement. For the affluent at that time, in a class society with domestic servants, and before the emergence of an ideology of intensive mothering, most aspects of mothering could be, and were indeed, delegated to servants or nannies. However, from the mid-nineteenth century, there was a concern about working-class mothers’ inferior mothering and the separation of mothers and children due to long days in the factories (Reynolds). Yet the tension between mothering and the pursuit of professional and societal interests as an issue of general concern arose later, with the emergence of more egalitarian societies in which domestic servants were no longer self-evident in middle-class households, and mothers were increasingly expected to take on domestic work as well as mothering themselves. At the dawn of second-wave feminism, in the 1960s, Betty Friedan saw hiring domestic help as the solution that would liberate women from the family so that they could pursue careers. The influence of psychological studies of child development and attachment theory (Bowlby; Ainsworth) throughout the twentieth century contributed to strengthening the moral obligations for mothers to be involved in the daily upbringing of their children. In the 1970s, second-wave feminists found themselves caught between the rising expectations of women’s participation in all parts of society (education, paid labour, and politics) and the norms of hands-on mothering (Hrdy). The combination of the moral imperative of increasingly intensified mother-child relations and the call for women’s economic independency through paid work, as well as the persistent lack of adequate structures of institutional and economic support for working mothers, became one of the core issues in the second-wave feminist movement in the 1970s and still forms the basis of the current “mothering and the economy” problem.

Mothers’ labour and paid labour Even if mothers and mothering were not at the core of early feminist debates, the question of maternalism and women’s liberation lurked behind arguments of equal treatment or differential treatment (the Wollstonecraft dilemma) as a strategy of gender equality. Equal treatment risks ignoring mothers’ bodily work as female mammals – of pregnancy, birth and breastfeeding, and the time, effort, risks, and cost of it to women (Deleuran and Holm-Nielsen) – as well as the social practices of mothering and motherwork, which are still also disproportionately undertaken by women. On the other hand, history has also taught us the pitfalls of arguments of biological difference, using women’s biology as an excuse for paternalism and exclusion. In the struggle for women’s equal rights, feminists have always had to navigate this difficult terrain and have fought over worker protection laws, married women’s right to work and equal pay, and individual taxation. They have fought against the idea of the “family wage” and the male breadwinner as arguments for women’s lower wages, and against joint taxation of couples, which subsumes women’s unpaid work under a male head of household and acts as a disincentive to women’s labour market participation and thereby access to their own money. Paid maternity leave is another issue over which feminists have dissented, although today it’s mainly in the United States that the argument against paid maternity leave is still being made from a feminist point of view. For example, the renowned feminist economist Barbara Bergmann has 390

Mothering and the economy

argued against prolonged leave for mothers (and parents) on the ground that it would exclude women from the labour market. The provision of childcare services, on the other hand, has been widely embraced as a feminist issue also in the United States, although its framing and the discourses that tend to go with it, such as human capital and education arguments, are also opposed as they position institutional care as superior to mothers’ (and fathers’) care for their own children, thus devaluing mothering and motherwork. These struggles to a large extent follow class divisions, in particular, in the United States. Cobble argues that the continuing lack of basic public structures of support for working mothers is due to the lack of support for minorities and the poor, and the strength of liberal feminism relying on equal treatment in contrast to notions of substantive equality (2). Labour feminists in the United States in the 1960s and 1970s, arguing for job security for pregnant women, parental leave, and childcare facilities, were thus unsuccessful in mobilizing social support for entitlements for working mothers. This contrasts with Europe, where such claims gradually received widespread support as part of expanding welfare states and led to the development of parental leave systems, childcare facilities, and other entitlements for working parents that have helped alleviate the conflict between mothering and paid work. While mothers in the latter half of the twentieth century were torn between the conflicting ideological demands of paid work and caring for their children themselves, over the last two decades, there has been a general shift in ideologies. Orloff argues that maternalism and the expectation that mothers should care full-time for their children at home have been replaced by an ideology of full-time work for all. Policies that assume an “adult worker model” in which full-time employment over the life course forms the basis of policies and entitlements, despite many women still working part-time, have been criticized for a lack of recognition of care and for having negative financial consequences for women (Lewis, The decline; The adult worker). On the other hand, the expansion of family policies across the OECD countries may also be seen as a recognition of and support of care and motherwork (Daly). Nevertheless, despite the expansion of family policies that facilitate the combination of paid work and childcare, a large literature on how families organize paid work and care still finds that the problem of combining paid work and care persists, even in countries with generous support systems for working parents (Gatrell). Further, the overall responsibility for managing families, including balancing paid work and care, remains gendered and tends to fall more on mothers (Hochschild, Time bind; Kan et al.), although in some countries, fathers increasingly feel the tension, too (Allard et al.).

Single mothers The view on and support for single mothers can be seen as the litmus test for the valuation, inclusion, or exclusion of mothers in the economy and in society (Fineman, Neutered Mother). Following the neoliberal restructuration of welfare systems and the increasing moral obligation to engage in paid work, single mothers are increasingly targeted with welfare-to-work (workfare) programmes (Brady, Governing; Handler; Lewis, Lone mothers). At the same time, labour markets are changing towards low-paid, irregular, inflexible, and insecure jobs. For lone mothers, precarious employment creates special problems (Evans). Brady illustrates how there has been a shift in activation frameworks in Australia from framing single mothers as vulnerable but resourceful and in need of self-development and self-confidence towards positioning and managing single mothers in terms of risk categories (Brady,“Targeting”), a development she sees as a result of the emergence of contracted employment services and quasi-market governance technologies and their in-built performance measures. 391

Margunn Bjørnholt

Lack of valuation of motherwork The lack of valuation of unpaid work in the household was institutionalized with the introduction of the international standard of national accounts (SNA) in the 1950s. Marilyn Waring critiqued the explicit exclusion of unpaid work and non-market production in the design of SNA, which is used by all countries as a measure of economic activity. Waring’s critique revealed that the system of national accounts relied on the active and deliberate exclusion of unpaid household work (and subsistence production). Prior to the adoption of the international standard some countries, such as Norway, did include unpaid household production in their measures of economic activity (Aslaksen and Koren). In the 1970s, Norwegian sociologist Kari Wærness calculated the contribution of unpaid household work to the GDP in Norway based on the first Norwegian time use survey. The lack of recognition of unpaid work may to a large extent be seen as a lack of valuation of mothers’ work, as a lot of the unpaid work in the household, such as cooking, cleaning, helping children with homework, etc., as well as subsistence production, is done as part of mothering. Waring also drew attention to a more direct maternal product, mothers’ milk, as one of her examples of a valuable product, as well as breastfeeding as time-consuming work “counting for nothing” in the market economy, in contrast to inferior cow milk powder, which is sold in markets and is counted as contributing to a country’s gross domestic product (GDP) (see also J. Smith). The importance, productivity, and value of the bodily work of mothers in terms of producing children – and mother’s milk – has received relatively little attention and remains largely silenced even in feminist economics, compared to the social work of mothering, as noted by Galtry and Sturmfels.

Central theories/themes Mothering and motherwork as productive An important question in economic thinking is the distinction between what is productive and produces value, and what is not. Rather than being external to or marginal to the economy, mothering, both in its biological dimensions and its social dimensions, should be seen as productive. The production of children, through pregnancy, birth, and often breastfeeding, and the nurturing and raising them into fully contributing human beings, citizens, taxpayers, etc., is central, necessary, and indeed the aim of any economy. The idea of (social) mothering as productive is also to some extent reflected in theories of human capital, seeing parents’ use of time and transfer of skills to their children as investment in human capital (Becker).

Counting unpaid household work Marilyn Waring’s groundbreaking critique of the SNA accounts led to changes, and in 1993, several of the injustices she had addressed were amended, such as counting unpaid subsistence production. Although the unpaid work in the household remained outside of what is seen as economic activity, the concept of satellite accounts was developed to be able to also account for economic activities outside of the market. The fourth UN conference on women in Beijing in 1995 demanded that women’s economic contribution should be made visible in statistics, and in the 1990s, regional and national statistics offices developed methodologies for measuring and valuing unpaid work. However, the development has been slow and the impact on policies and in the general public has been moderate (Varjonen and Kirjavainen). Debates on unpaid household production have been reinvigorated with the renewed emphasis 392

Mothering and the economy

on well-being and happiness as alternatives to the GDP as a measure of economics and performance (Stiglitz et al.).

From wages for housework to universal basic income As early as in the 1920s, wages for housework was discussed in Parliament in Australia based on calculation of the monetary valuation of housewives’ work in the home (Traikovski). In the early 1970s, Marxist feminists demanded wages for housework, arguing that the production of paid labour and the paid work of male breadwinners relied on housewives’ unpaid work (Dalla Costa and James). Weeks discusses the legacy of the wages for housework movement, and she argues that this debate could inspire and inform new claims of radical reforms, such as a basic universal income and a reduction of the work day. Ailsa McKay and others (see also Cantillon and McLean) have argued that a universal, unconditional basic income for all would reduce the cost of unpaid care work and other important social activities and raise the bargaining power of those at the bottom of the labour market.

Mothers’ access to money The Norwegian feminist legal scholar Tove Stang Dahl argued that women had three main sources of access to money: marriage, paid work, and the state. In the early to mid-twentieth century, marriage was the main source of money and the housewife contract in many countries secured women compensation at divorce for the unpaid work in the family. During the 1970s and 1980s, women increasingly entered the labour market – a development that coincided with the introduction of gender-neutral family laws in most countries, both of which were largely supported by feminists (see Fineman, Neutered Mother). As a result, women were increasingly seen as autonomous and equal breadwinners of their own. As a result of mothers’ inclusion in paid work, the shift towards gender-neutral legislation at divorce, and the retrenchment of state support for direct mothering (Orloff ), mothers increasingly rely on paid work as their main source of income.

Male organizing assumptions Mothers are discriminated against in the labour market by male organizing assumptions. The idea of the generalized employee takes for granted an autonomous individual, free of other obligations (“the unencumbered worker model”) and holds expectations of unlimited dedication to work and a working culture of long hours. Measured against this standard, mothers and other carers are seen as abnormal. Managing the sometimes conflicting maternal body and the embodied worker may come at the cost of the former and the child, as pregnant women try to comply with the expectations of the dedicated worker (Gatrell). Changing such cultures is very difficult, as Arlie Hochschild’s study of a “family-friendly” company revealed: despite generous family policies, the company culture of long hours and work dedication made it difficult for parents to use the available opportunities for fear of being stigmatized and having negative career effects.

The motherhood penalty The motherhood penalty is the difference in earnings between mothers and women without children. The motherhood penalty varies across countries and between different groups of mothers. The penalty varies from 42% on average for developing countries to zero for Denmark, France, and Norway. For the United States, it is zero for married women (Grimshaw and 393

Margunn Bjørnholt

Rubery). Budig and Hodges found that in the United States, the motherhood penalty is much higher for mothers at the lower income levels, while for the highest income groups, the differences in wages between mothers and non-mothers are largely due to the time spent in childcare. The antipode to the motherhood penalty is the fatherhood premium: the relative advantage of men who are fathers, compared to non-fathers. If the fatherhood premium remains high or even increases, the difference between mothers and fathers may remain despite a decrease, or even in the absence, of a motherhood penalty. Finally, wage difference is not the only difference that matters: a recent Norwegian study found a substantial difference between fathers’ and mothers’ prospects of obtaining management positions (Hardoy et al.).

The gender division of paid work One of the major changes in the last half of the twentieth century was the entry of women into the formal labour market and the shift from household production to market production of many goods and services as the housewife era gave way to the dual-earner model as the dominant model for heterosexual couples. The outsourcing of care to the formal labour market has been important in freeing women from private care work to pursue paid work. However, as employees in the formal labour force, a large share of women continue to do much of the same (motherlike) work, in pink-collar professions in health, care, education, and services. As a consequence of the neoliberal reorganization of the economy and retrenchment of public services, there is also a privatization and commercialization of care, and in this process, women’s entrepreneurship is often used as an argument for privatization of care and welfare services (Ahl and Tillmar). However, rather than leading to numerous successful woman-led businesses, self-employment often offers precarious work. Further, the global corporations that dominate the care market offer less secure jobs and inferior pension schemes compared to the public providers they replace.

Violence, mothering, and the economy The links between violence and economic and material circumstances are well established (Edwards and Hearn) and many victims of violence are mothers. Intimate partner violence has a negative impact on health and thus on capacity to work (Adams, Tolman, Bybee, Sullivan and Kennedy). Access to money and housing, as well as divorce laws and support services for victims of intimate partner violence (IPV), facilitate victims’ leaving an abusive relationship and may be life-saving for the victim as well as the perpetrator. Some studies find that the increase in women’s labour market participation rate was accompanied by a corresponding fall in IPV (see Blau and Winkler, 50–51). However, the relations between women’s economic empowerment and domestic violence are complex and are mediated by culture. Bhattacharya, for instance, found that in India, married women exposed to violence were more likely to be employed. In the wake of austerity policies in the United Kingdom, with cutbacks on jobs in the public sector as well as of public services that are important for women to be able to take paid employment, and cuts to services for victims of violence, there was an increase in violence against women (Towers and Walby).

Central issues Mothering and inequality Mothering is at the core of economic inequality – between men and women, and between women with the outsourcing of mothering to institutions typically employing lower-paid 394

Mothering and the economy

women who may also be mothers, or to transnational female migrants, who are often mothers themselves, and who in turn outsource their mothering to others who are also mothers and so forth (see Melinda Vandenbeld Giles, this volume). Very broadly, the cost of mothering, the time and effort it takes, as well as the value that is its outcome: people, families, and life worlds, in short: the production of society, is not fully reflected in the systems of what count in the economy and the social systems of compensation and remuneration in most countries, which leaves many mothers inadequately provided for.

Production of children, birth, and breastfeeding Seeing motherwork as productive, including its biological aspects – childbearing and the production of mother’s milk, and the time and effort it takes – as work, leads us to the problem that arguments of differential treatment based on biology are difficult for feminists. Arguments of biological difference have long been used against women as arguments for exclusion, paternalism, and lack of recognition of women. Claiming valuation and recognition of the bodywork of producing and feeding children is thus more contested than arguments related to the social work of parenting. On the other hand, reproduction and biological motherhood has increasingly been drawn into the realm of commodities. Wombs can be rented, eggs and sperm and even children can be bought and sold through commercial surrogacy (Hewitson). There is also a growing market for mothers’ milk and even wet-nurses ( J. Smith).

Recognition and valuation of the social work of mothering The upbringing of children is productive work, turning them into useful members of society, and installing in them the values, the beliefs, knowledge, know-how, and capabilities that make up the specificities of each culture. In a response to Greg Mankiw, professor and chairman of the economics department at Harvard University, who likened having a child with choosing a new car, feminist legal scholar Martha Fineman (“Having a Child”) gave a crash course in children as common goods and the need for investing in them: The state and the market are major consumers of the products of reproduction and caretaking labour. Parental reproduction also reproduces society, providing the taxpayers, consumers, workers, and employers who will populate our future. . . . It makes it mandatory that society, including the market, share the costs and burdens associated with not only bearing but also caring for the next generation.

Paid work and mothering Despite the feminization of labour and the rise globally in women’s labour market participation, in countries with inadequate support structures for working parents, women still have to choose between paid work and having children. The birth rates in countries such as Poland, Japan, Italy, and Germany indicate that paid work is prioritized, although low birth rates also go with low levels of female labour market participation. However, a country such as the United States, which has the lowest level of support for working parents, still has a relatively high birth rate. And in Norway, a Nordic country with extensive public support for parents and children, and which used to be an example of how women could have it all, with high labour market participation and high birth levels, has seen a decline in fertility since 2009, back to 1980s levels. There is general agreement about the importance of support structures for working parents, parental 395

Margunn Bjørnholt

leave, affordable and good kindergartens, sick leaves, welfare states, etc. for work-life balance, and there has been an expansion of family policies globally, facilitating work-life balance, with the United States as the exception, with no paid parental leave. Welfare state entitlements and pensions increasingly rely on lifelong, full-time paid work (adult worker model, Lewis, The adult worker). Mothers’ working patterns, which typically include care breaks and part-time employment, lead to lower lifetime earnings, less access to welfare state entitlements (which rely on participation in paid work), and lower pensions. On the other hand, the expansion of family policies in most OECD countries may also be a recognition and valuation of unpaid work, which has greatly improved mothers’ opportunities to combine paid work and care in many countries (Daly). However, changes in legislation towards gender-equal/gender-neutral parenting have had negative economic effects at divorce on mothers who have taken a larger responsibility for the family at the cost of their own earnings and career (Fineman, Neutered Mother). Gender neutrality does not recognize the continued inequality in parental responsibility and the higher costs of mothering to career and wages for many women.

Controversies Valuing mothering and motherwork without reinforcing gender stereotypes One core controversy is the question of valuing mothering (care) without reinforcing the gender stereotypical division of labour. This question relates to the design of family policies. Should family policies be part of or subsumed under gender-equality policies and designed to predominantly facilitate mothers’ paid work, or should family policies support different family models, including mothers (and fathers) caring for their children themselves? In “After the Family Wage,” Nancy Fraser discusses different models for supporting carers and providing economic gender justice; either by making care costless for women within gendered arrangements of paid work and care, which would recognize and value care but also perpetuate the gender division of paid and unpaid work; or the universal breadwinner model, promoting paid work for mothers, at par with men, which would give mothers access to paid work and their own wages but disregarding care; or, finally, the universal caregiver model, within which care is shared between mothers, fathers, caring institutions, and the wider society. Many see the Nordic countries as having come very close to the realization of Fraser’s universal caregiver model with generous welfare state entitlements for all children and for working parents. The Norwegian political scientist Helga Hernes famously formulated the concept of state feminism, arguing that the Nordic countries could realize a vision of woman-friendly welfare states. In the Nordic context, family policies today are designed to promote a dual-earner/dual-carer model, facilitated by generous entitlements for working parents and in some countries by reserved entitlements to care for fathers. Nevertheless, Nordic family policies have been criticized from a class perspective for being modelled on a middle-class ideal of parenting, ignoring and neglecting working-class parents’ needs and family ideals (Stefansen and Farstad). Mulinari has similarly criticized from a postcolonial perspective the prevailing idea of “gender equality,” for neglecting issues of racial discrimination and exclusion. Bjørnholt (“From Work-Sharing”) has criticized the emphasis on family policies as gender-equality policies for diverting attention from economic gender equality and from issues of redistribution.

396

Mothering and the economy

Paid work as the main/only strategy for access to resources for mothers The question of how family policies should support mothers and mothering is related to how paid work is viewed. Is (all) paid work (always) liberating? While this was a contested issue in the past, today, as women have entered the labour force, there is relative consensus on the need for women to engage in paid work, and the critique of paid work from a feminist perspective has disappeared. However, the question remains: Is lifelong full-time paid work a viable strategy for securing mothers’ access to means of existence and their autonomy? In the context of increasingly precarious work arrangements, intensification of paid work, stagnating or even falling wages, gender-neutral family laws, and the neoliberal restructuration of welfare states, mothers and motherwork remain insufficiently supported in many societies. Mothers are also increasingly primary breadwinners, both as single parents and in married couples (Wang et al.).

Family policies as social engineering Many see the gender division of paid and unpaid work within families and mothers’ larger parenting responsibilities as the cause of the economic inequality in the labour market. Many see the paternal quota of parental leave, a nontransferable share of paid parental leave reserved for fathers in some of the Nordic countries, as a reform which might lead to shifting parental responsibility from mothers to fathers. Norway and Sweden were the first countries to introduce a paternal quota of parental leave in 1993 and 1995, respectively. Despite a cultural change towards involved fatherhood, widespread uptake by fathers of their reserved share of paid parental leave, and fathers increasingly also reporting work–family strain (Allard et al.), these changes in attitudes and practices have so far not had an observable effect on the gender pay gap. Individual fathers who take on the responsibility as primary carers may have similar experiences as mothers (Doucet), but gendered hierarchies of valuation may moderate or distort the effect on gender equality of more genderequal parenting. In a longitudinal follow-up study (Bjørnholt, “Norwegian Work-Sharing”) of fathers who shared care and household work, Bjørnholt (“Part-Time Work”) found that their caring experience easily translated into managerial skills. Another problem with relying on rearranging the interior of heterosexual families as a main strategy of gender equality is its heteronormative assumption. Many mothers do not live in heterosexual couple relationships and reallocating childcare to men is at best only a partial solution.

Directions for future research How are we to better account for, value, and understand the various economic aspects of mothering in future research? In my view, it would be important to mainstream mothering into economics and to mainstream economic perspectives on care and mothering in other disciplines. This would include accounting for unpaid care work and household economics but also studying and theorizing how the formal economy and society – including its organizations and institutions – rely on mothering and motherwork. It requires recognizing mothering as productive, including its biological aspects. Further, there is a need for further research on the effects on mothers and mothering on economic developments, economic policies and decision-making, and regulations and institutions at local, regional, national, and international levels.

397

Margunn Bjørnholt

How to provide for and support mothers and mothering is a key issue of theoretical and political importance. Is it possible to make the labour market work for mothers? What is the role of employers and what should states do? What role should the transformation of heterosexual relationships have? There is a need for exploring transformative approaches, reforms, and innovative solutions at systems level: Could a universal basic income be part of such a solution? How could such a radical transformation be achieved? Another transformative approach that needs further exploration, is working time reform: Would a six-hour day for all solve some of the tension between full-time work and mothering? How could it be achieved?

Further readings Benería, Lourdes, et al. Gender, Development and Globalization: Economics as If All People Mattered. Routledge, 2015. Folbre, Nancy. The Invisible Heart: Economics and Family Values. New Press, 2001. McKay, Ailsa. “Rethinking Work and Income Maintenance Policy: Promoting Gender Equality through a Citizens’ Basic Income.” Feminist Economics, vol. 7, no. 1, 2001, pp. 97–118. Smith, Julie P. “Making Mothers’ Milk Count.” Counting on Marilyn Waring: New Advances in Feminist Economics, edited by Margunn Bjørnholt and Ailsa McKay, Demeter Press, 2014, pp. 213–28. Waring, Marilyn. If Women Counted: A New Feminist Economics. Harper & Row, 1988. Weeks, Kathi. The Problem with Work: Feminism, Marxism, Antiwork Politics, and Postwork Imaginaries. Duke UP, 2011. Yeates, Nicola. “Global Care Chains: A State-of-the-Art Review and Future Directions in Care Transnationalization Research.” Global Networks, vol. 12, no. 2, 2012, pp. 135–54.

Conclusion Mothering is part of and interwoven with the economy at all levels from the bodily work of producing children and human milk to global flows of care and money. The formal economy continues to rely on the life-producing and social reproductive work in families and households, which largely goes unrecognized and uncounted. Mother(like) work makes up a large share of the formal economy in terms of pink-collar professions in the health, care, service, and education sectors, where it is often undervalued and underpaid. Mothering is excluded from economic thinking, accounting, and systems of valuation, and mothering often causes women’s exclusion or marginalization in the formal economy and the workplace.

Works cited Adams, Adrienne E., et al.“The Impact of Intimate Partner Violence on Low-Income Women’s Economic Well-Being: The Mediating Role of Job Stability.” Violence against Women, vol. 18, 2013, pp. 1345–67. doi: 10.1177/1077801212474294. Ahl, Helene, and Malin Tillmar. “Swedish Welfare State Retrenchment and the Call for Women’s Entrepreneurship to Fill the Void.” Paper presented at the 4th European Conference on Politics and Gender, Uppsala, 11–13 June 2015. https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/96ea44b4-42c5-43be-b376-5cccf2d1c514.pdf. Ainsworth, Mary D. Salter et al. Patterns of Attachment: A psychological Study of the Strange Situation. Erlbaum, 1978. Albelda, Randy, et al., editors. The Dilemmas of Lone Motherhood: Essays from Feminist Economics. Routledge, 2013. Allard, Karin, et al. “Experiences of Flexible Working Arrangements and Work-Family Conflict among Managerial Fathers in Sweden.” Community, Work and Family, vol. 10, no. 4, 2007, pp. 475–93.

398

Mothering and the economy Aslaksen, Iulie, and Charlotte Koren. “Reflections on Unpaid Household Work, Economic Growth, and Consumption Possibilities.” Counting on Marilyn Waring: New Advances in Feminist Economics, edited by Margunn Bjørnholt and Ailsa McKay, Demeter Press, Bradford, 2014, pp. 57–71. Becker, Gary S. “Investment in Human Capital: A Theoretical Analysis.” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 70, no. 5, 1962, pp. 9–49. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1829103. Benería, Lourdes. “The Crisis of Care, International Migration, and Public Policy.” Feminist Economics, vol. 14, no. 3, 2008, pp. 1–21. Benería, Lourdes, et al. Gender, Development and Globalization: Economics as If All People Mattered, Routledge, 2016. Bergmann, Barbara R. “Long Leaves, Child Well-Being, and Gender Equality.” Politics & Society, vol. 36, no. 3, 2008, pp. 350–59. http://doi.org/10.1177/0032329208320564. Bhattacharya, Haimantu. “Spousal Violence and Women’s Employment in India.” Feminist Economics, vol. 21, no. 2, 2015, pp. 30–52. doi:10.1080/13545701.2014.994653. Bjørnholt, Margunn. “Norwegian Work-Sharing Couples Project 30 Years Later: Revisiting an Experimental Research Project for Gender Equality in the Family.” Equal Opportunities International, vol. 28, no. 4, 2009, pp. 304–23. doi: 10.1108/02610150910954773. ———. “Part-Time Work and the Career and Life Choices of the Men from the Work-Sharing Couples Study.” Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, vol. 29, no. 6, 2010, pp. 573–92. doi: 10.1108/02610151011067513. ———. “From Work-Sharing Couples to Equal Parents: Changing Perspectives of Men and Gender Equality.” Gender and Change: Power, Politics and Everyday Practices, edited by Maria Jansdotter Samuelsson et al., Karlstad UP, 2012, pp. 53–72. Blau, Francine D., and Anne E. Winkler. The Economics of Women, Men and Work. Oxford UP, 2018. Bowlby, John. Attachment and loss, Vol. 1: Attachment. Basic Books, 1969. Brady, Michelle Anne. Governing Single Mothers through Personalized Planning Programs. 2011. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, PhD dissertation. ———. “Targeting Single Mothers? Dynamics of Contracting Australian Employment Services and Activation Policies at the Street Level.” Journal of Social Policy, 2018, pp. 1–19. doi: 10.1017/S0047279 418000223. Budig, Michelle J. “The Fatherhood Bonus and the Motherhood Penalty: Parenthood and the Gender Gap in Pay.” Third Way, 2014, www.thirdway.org/report/the-fatherhood-bonus-and-the-motherhoodpenalty-parenthood-and-the-gender-gap-in-pay. Budig, Michelle J., and Melissa J. Hodges. “Differences in Disadvantage: Variation in the Motherhood Penalty across White Women’s Earnings Distribution.” American Sociological Review, vol. 75, no. 5, 2010, pp. 705–28. Budig, Michelle J., et al. “The Motherhood Penalty in Cross-National Perspective: The Importance of Work–Family Policies and Cultural Attitudes.” Social Politics, vol. 19, no. 2, 2012, pp. 163–93. Cantillon, Sara, and Caitlin McLean. “Basic Income Guarantee: The Gender Impact within Households.” Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, vol. 43, no. 3, 2016, pp. 99–120. Cobble, Dorothy Sue. The Other Women’s Movement: Workplace Justice and Social Rights in Modern America. Princeton UP, 2004. Dahl, Tove Stang. “Kvinners Rett til Penger” [Women’s right to money]. Kvinnerett II [Women’s law II], Universitetsforlaget, 1985. Dalla Costa, Mariarosa, and Selma James. Women and the Subversion of the Community. Falling Wall Press, 1972. Daly, Mary. “What Adult Worker Model? A Critical Look at Recent Social Policy Reform in Europe from a Gender and Family Perspective.” Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, vol. 18, no. 1, 2011, pp. 1–23. Deleuran, Pia, and Bente Holm-Nielsen, “The Woman’s Share in the Reproductive Chain.” Scandinavian Women’s Law in the 21st Century, edited by Ruth Nielsen and Christina D. Tvarnø, Djøf Publishing, 2012. Doucet, Andrea. Do Men Mother?: Fathering, Care, and Domestic Responsibility. U of Toronto P, 2006. Edwards, Susan M., and Jeff Hearn. Working against Men’s “Domestic Violence”: Priority Policies and Practices for Men in Intervention, Prevention and Societal Change. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2005. Evans, Patricia M. “(Not) Taking Account of Precarious Employment: Workfare Policies and Lone Mothers in Ontario and the UK.” Social Policy & Administration, vol. 41, no. 1, 2007, pp. 29–49. Fineman, Martha. The Neutered Mother, the Sexual Family, and Other Twentieth Century Tragedies. Psychology Press, 1995.

399

Margunn Bjørnholt ———. The Autonomy Myth: A Theory of Dependency. New Press, 2004. ———. “Having a Child Is Nothing Like Having a Porsche.” The Guardian, 1 Dec. 2013, www.theguardian. com/commentisfree/2013/dec/01/harvard-professor-maternity-coverage-children-porsche. Folbre, Nancy. The Invisible Heart: Economics and Family Values. New Press, 2001. Fraser, Nancy. “After the Family Wage: Gender Equity and the Welfare State.” Political Theory, vol. 22, no. 4, 1994, pp. 591–618. ———. “Contradictions of Capital and Care.” New Left Review, vol. 100, 2016, https://newleftreview.org/ II/100/nancy-fraser-contradictions-of-capital-and-care. Galtry, Judith, and Barbara Sturmfels. “The Treatment of Breastfeeding in Counting on Marilyn Waring.” Book Review. Women’s Studies Journal, vol. 28, no. 2, 2014, pp. 106–9. Gatrell, Caroline Jane. “ ‘I’m a Bad Mum’: Pregnant Presenteeism and Poor Health at Work.” Social Science & Medicine, vol. 72, no. 4, 2011, pp. 478–85. Grimshaw, Damian, and Jill Rubery. “The Motherhood Pay Gap: A Review of the Issues, Theory and International Evidence.” Conditions of Work and Employment Series, No 57, International Labour Office, 2015. Handler, Joel F. “The Rise and Spread of Workfare, Activation, Devolution, and Privatization, and the Changing Status of Citizenship.” UCLA School of Law Working Paper Series, Public Law & Legal Theory Paper No. 08–05, 2008. Published also in SIRN Poverty, Income Distribution & Income Assistance APS, vol. 5, no. 3/14/2008. Hardoy, Inés, et al. “Children and the Gender Gap in Management.” Labour Economics, vol. 47, no. C, 2017, pp. 124–37. doi: 10.1016/j.labeco.2017.05.009. Hernes, Helga Maria. Welfare State and Woman Power Essays in State Feminism. Norwegian UP, 1987. Hewitson, Gillian. “The Commodified Womb and Neoliberal Families.” Review of Radical Political Economics, vol. 46, no. 4, 2014, pp. 489–95. doi: 10.1177/0486613414537989. Hochschild, Arlie Russell. The Time Bind: When Home Becomes Work and Work Becomes Home. Metropolitan Books, 1997. ———. “Global Care Chains and Emotional Surplus Value.” On the Edge: Living with Global Capitalism, edited by Will Hutton and Anthony Giddens, Jonathan Cape, 2000, pp. 130–46. Hrdy, Sarah Blaffer. Mother Nature: Maternal Instincts and How They Shape the Human Species. Ballantine Books, 2000. Kan, Man Yee, et al. “Gender Convergence in Domestic Work: Discerning the Effects of Interactional and Institutional Barriers from Large-Scale Data.” Sociology, vol. 45, no. 2, 2011, pp. 234–51. Lewis, Jane, editor. Lone Mothers in European Welfare Regimes: Shifting Policy Logics. Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 1997. ———. “The Decline of the Male Breadwinner Model: Implications for Work and Care.” Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, vol. 8, no. 2, 2001, pp. 152–69. ———. “The Adult Worker Model Family, Care and the Problem of Gender Equality.” The Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, vol. 1, no. 1, 2006, pp. 33–8. Marçal, Katrine. Who Cooked Adam Smith’s Dinner?: A Story of Women and Economics. Pegasus Books, 2016. McKay, Ailsa. “Rethinking Work and Income Maintenance Policy: Promoting Gender Equality through a Citizens’ Basic Income.” Feminist Economics, vol. 7, no. 1, 2001, pp. 97–118. McKay, Ailsa, and Jo Vanevery. “Gender, Family, and Income Maintenance: A Feminist Case for Citizens Basic Income.” Social Politics, vol. 7, no. 2, 2000, pp. 266–84. McLean, Caitlyn. “. . . And Justice for All? Basic Income and the Principles of Gender Equity.” Juncture, vol. 22, no. 4, 2016, pp. 284–88. ———. The Future of Social Security Policy: Women, Work and a Citizen’s Basic Income. Routledge, 2005. ———. “Why a Citizens’ Basic Income? A Question of Gender Equality or Gender Bias.” Work Employment & Society, vol. 21, no. 2, 2007, pp. 337–48. Mulinari, Diana. “Women Friendly? Understanding Gendered Racism in Sweden.” Gender Equality and Welfare Politics in Scandinavia: The Limits of Political Ambition?, edited by Anna-Birte Ravn and Christina Carlsson Wetterberg, Policy Press, 2009, pp. 167–82. Oakley, Ann. The Sociology of Housework. Martin Robertson, 1974. Orloff, Ann Shola. “From Maternalism to ‘Employment for All.’ ” The State after Statism – New State Activities in the Age of Liberalization, edited by Jonah D. Levy, Harvard UP, 2006, pp. 230–68. Parliament of Australia, Finance and Public Administration References Committee. Gender Segregation in the Workplace and Its Impact on Women’s Economic Equality, 2017.

400

Mothering and the economy Reynolds, Melanie. (2011). Brutal and Negligent? 19th Century Factory Mothers and Child Care. Community Practitioner, vol. 84, no. 10, pp. 31–33. Smith, Adam. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, 1776. Republished, Dent, 1910, vol. I, p. 189. Smith, Julie P. “Making Mothers’ Milk Count.” Counting on Marilyn Waring: New Advances in Feminist Economics, edited by Margunn Bjørnholt and Ailsa McKay, 2014, pp. 213–28. Stefansen, Kari, and Gunhild R. Farstad. “Classed Parental Practices in a Modern Welfare State: Caring for the Under Threes in Norway.” Critical Social Policy, vol. 30, no. 1, 2010, pp. 120–41. Stiglitz, Joseph, et al. The Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress Revisited: Reflections and Overview. Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, Paris, 2009. Suh, Jooyeoun, and Nancy Folbre. “Time, Money, and Inequality.” Economia, vol. 7, no. 1, 2017, pp. 3–24. Towers, Jude, and Sylvia Walby. Measuring the Impact of Cuts in Public Expenditure on the Provision of Services to Prevent Violence against Women and Girls. Lancaster University, 2012. Traikovski, Louie “The Housewives’ Wages Debate in the 1920s.” Journal of Australian Studies, no. 78, 2003, pp. 9–15. Varjonen, Johanna, and Leena M. Kirjavainen. “Women’s Unpaid Work Was Counted but . . .” Counting on Marilyn Waring: New Advances in Feminist Economics, edited by Margunn Bjørnholt and Ailsa McKay, Demeter Press, 2014, pp. 73–90. Wærnes, Kari. “The Invisible Welfare State. Women’s Work at Home.” Acta Sociologica, vol. 21, 1978, pp. 193–208. Wang, Wendy, et al. “Breadwinner Moms: Mothers Are the Sole or Primary Provider in Four-in-Ten Households with Children; Public Conflicted about the Growing Trend.” Pew Research Center, Social & Demographic Trends, 2012. Waring, Marilyn. If Women Counted: Towards a Feminist Economics. Harper & Row, 1988. Weeks, Kathi. The Problem with Work: Feminism, Marxism, Antiwork Politics, and Postwork Imaginaries. Duke UP, 2011.

401

32 TRANSNATIONAL MOTHERHOOD Conceptualizing ideas of care here and there Gabrielle Oliveira

On one cold morning in a neighborhood in Brooklyn, New York, I went to interview Carla. Carla was from Puebla, Mexico, and had been in the United States for seven years. Her son Elias was toddling around the house with his pacifier in his mouth and holding a bottle of warm milk. “Sit, sit,” she told me. I had brought a small gift to 18-month-old Elias and some pastries to Carla. I had met Carla a couple months before at another participant’s house for a celebration. She told me she wanted to tell me her story of coming to the United States and also her feelings about being a mother for children here and there. Carla took the arduous trip to the United States via the southern border. She left her home in Puebla one Saturday morning in June 2005 and kissed her oldest son Cristian goodbye as he slept. Cristian was 18 months old then, the same age as Elias was during the time of our visit. Carla took a bus from the city of Puebla all the way to the border with Texas. She faced what she described as “the monster of Rio Grande” and crossed into the US side. She walked in the desert for days with a group of 23 people. There were only two women including herself. She finally arrived Houston and made her way via a van to New York City. Her entire trip cost her a little more than $5,000. Multiple family members and friends pitched in to help her. Upon her arrival in New York City, Carla stayed with friends and extended family and worked to pay the rest of the money she owed. “I needed to also send money home. The thought of my hijito in Mexico made me work three, four jobs a week.” Carla struggles when she says the word hijito. Her voice breaks up. Elias comes running back to her lap saying “mamá, mamá”. She picks him up and holds him tight, pressing her cheek against the top his head. “I am here with Elias, but my heart is also there Cristian, you know? I just pray and I just pray everyone stays healthy and happy. My heart aches, you know? Here and there.” This story is not unique to Carla or to realities that involve Mexico and the United States. Women across the globe are engaging in practices of transnational mothering every day. The narratives of care and love permeate women’s sense of their role in their children’s lives. Thus, the very idea of caring is, in many ways, what propels women to leave their homes in the first place. To be a transnational mother is to reassemble the meanings of motherhood while recognizing the physical distance and rupture that borders bring to people’s lives. There are two goals in this chapter: the first one is to theorize transnational motherhood using the gender and migration literature. The second is to understand in more qualitative detail how women who are migrants are negotiating the meanings of motherhood as they live 402

Transnational motherhood

transnational lives. To do that this chapter will expand on one particular case study, the story of Carla.

Transnational motherhood Rhacel Salazar Parreñas states, Transnational mothering refers to the organizational reconstitution of motherhood that accommodates the temporal and spatial separations forced by migration. This arrangement forms new meanings of motherhood and expands the concept of “mothering” to encompass breadwinning. (“Transnational Mothering” 1827) As Hondagneu-Sotelo and Avila explain, “immigrant women who work and reside in the United States while their children remain in their countries of origin constitute one variation in the organizational arrangements, meanings and priorities of motherhood” (139). While these definitions and descriptions inspired the very origin of my own work, in this research I expand this concept by examining how these women engage with the perceived duties of motherhood. I use the concept of transnational care constellations to address the recognizable pattern of who is involved in the caregiving, everyday teaching and educating of children. In contrast to men, when women migrate they undertake a journey that may clash with the gender ideology present in their country of origin. This journey may be transformative for women, but it can also reproduce patriarchal structures of their home country. During the Bracero Program, for example, Mexican men migrated to the United States as breadwinners to fulfill that role for the family. Immigrant women, on the other hand, have had to cope with prejudice, gossip, stigma and guilt (Hirsh). In part because of gendered stereotypes, women are more likely to find work in the domestic world, taking care of other children. Studies of migrant women who leave the Philippines or Sri Lanka show precisely the difficulties they face when trying to “keep up” with the expectations of the role mothers fulfill in their countries. Geraldine Pratt argues that transnational mothering simply cannot overcome distance. She calls the experience of being separated from children “genuinely traumatic” and asserts that “cyborg mothering,” or the use of technology to fulfill maternal roles, is an illusion for most poor migrant mothers (Pratt 70). In her book So, How’s the Family?, Arlie Hochschild describes how the concept of an “ideal mother” varied from one ethnic or religious group to another within Kerala (154). However, she states that “migrants from all these groups shared roughly the same vision of the ideal mother as a woman who lives with her children” (154). Like Scheper-Hughes and Hondagneu-Sotelo and Avila, I understand motherhood as not biologically predetermined but instead as socially constructed. Even when mothers describe the physical aspects of being pregnant and giving birth, their narratives are socioculturally patterned and expressed. Transnational mothers are embedded in transnational families. The definition of family, according to the Oxford Dictionary of Sociology (Scott and Marshall), is “a group made up of individuals who are related by bonds of blood, sexual mating or legal ties.” Family, as conceptualized by feminists, has been described as a gendered system of reproduction and cultural transmission or a space for gendered social relations (Sørensen 3). In migration studies, the identification of family with a domestic, bounded group is problematic. Portrayals that equate migration with family disintegration are sometimes founded on ethnocentric bias (Zentgraff and Chinchilla). Parreñas (“Transnational Mothering”) describes the backlash against mothers who have chosen to migrate and are “vilified in the news media and 403

Gabrielle Oliveira

local communities” (1830). Transnational families, “being here and there” (Hondagneu-Sotelo and Avila; Dreby), are more fluid; they do not belong to only one nation or place. This fluidity influences the ideals behind caregiving. Women find themselves struggling between what is expected from them as mothers versus what they want and can do for their children. Thus, to analyze how members of families negotiate obligations and care for each other – especially the children involved – across borders, I take as a starting point the separation of kin, where biological mothers are physically separated from some of their children (see Baldassar). Duties such as taking care of children and parenting do not end when people move from one nation to another; instead, these concepts shift and adapt. I look at the practices and processes of transnational caregiving that are mediated by both mothers and caregivers, as well as cultural notions of obligation that appear through negotiated commitments within but not restricted to migrant female mothers in New York City, their children and their children’s caregivers in Mexico (Baldassar et al.).

Background and context Women’s stories in this chapter represent patterns in intergenerational relationships as well as in caregiving practices. The first pattern is that women struggle with a range of ideologies of motherhood as they make sense of their choices. They discuss the concepts of abandoning and leaving family members behind. Mothers and caregivers shared an understanding of the decision behind the biological mother’s departure. The decision to leave was described by mothers as fundamentally linked to the idea of being a good mother. At the same time, mothers developed high expectations for children left in Mexico; they constantly insisted that their own migration “had to be worth it,” with a visible payoff. Thus, the idea of motherhood is a blend of moralities, a set of habits that are constantly sanctioned. Finally, changing or adapting these customs was an everyday process, expressed, for example, by the act of leaving. The act of migrating is done in order to uphold and maintain norms of care and motherhood, yet the migration requires constant negotiation of ideologies of motherhood.

Mexican migrant mothers Women in Mexico deal with a range of ideologies of motherhood, which influence their own practices. First, there is a strong tradition, rooted in a Catholic matrix, of marianismo. As Maria Fernanda (age 44) answered when I asked her what motherhood meant to her, “It is what God and what the Virgin of Guadalupe want from us . . . to be good mothers and good women.” Many of the women I interviewed frequently referred to God and the Virgin of Guadalupe when discussing their responsibilities and duties toward their children and families. References to God and the Virgin of Guadalupe as a “good” role model versus “bad” and/or “disgraced” can be traced to symbols, myths and models of femininity in Mexico (Paz; Anzaldúa). In Mexico, Mexican mothers’ caregiving role is often celebrated and linked to the selfsacrificing characteristics of the Virgin of Guadalupe (Dreby). According to Matthew C. Gutmann, “certain prevailing notions of maternal instincts are some of the products and reflections of standard Catholic doctrine promoting female domesticity” (64). Anthropologist Antonella Fagetti explains that motherhood is a rare source of prestige for some women: Motherhood is highly valued by men and women, because to be a mother the woman fulfills the destiny God assigned for her and they should implement God’s will. The duty of a couple is to care for their children in a relationship where they complement 404

Transnational motherhood

each other: the man should find through his work a way of supporting his family, and the woman should suffer the pains of giving birth, should nurture and raise her children. (303–4) Marianismo is a strong, traditional gender ideology that influenced many of the women I interviewed. However, this research was conducted in a context of significant social transformation. Other gender ideologies emerging from Protestant traditions, secular discussions, popular culture and feminism were also ambient. Certainly, these women encountered new ideologies as they migrated. Thus, they drew upon a broad repertoire of gender ideologies in their efforts to recast transnational motherhood. Napolitano in her book Migrant Hearts and the Atlantic Return (2016) also explores the complex feelings Latin American women have while living in Rome. Even though they are closer to the Catholic religion, they struggle with the lived experience of religion which differs from what is being preached. Women in New York described their experience as being mothers “here” and “from here,” comparing their relationships with their children who were in the United States and in Mexico. These comparisons involved discussions of school, money, curfew, respect and how to discipline children. Even though most caregivers in Mexico were not actively trying to take over the role of the biological mothers, intergenerational tensions between mothers in New York and grandmothers in Mexico became apparent. I observed mothers disciplining their children in their homes in the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens. Some were impatient with the children, putting them in “time out,” yelling, smacking them on the top of the head or threatening them with “no playing today” or “no soda.” Caregivers in Mexico were more permissive and affectionate with the grandchildren they were raising. I observed multiple phone calls between mothers in New York City and caregivers in Mexico during which the mother would warn the grandmother to be stricter and the grandmother would imply that strict discipline is for the mother to mete out. For example, in one weekly phone call about everyday decisions regarding her daughters in Mexico, Emilia in the Bronx insisted, “you know you can’t let her do that,” and Ester in Mexico responded, “well I can only do so much, you are the mother.” Emilia then questioned why Ester had been such a strict mother and pointed out how differently she is now raising her granddaughters. The fact that mothers in New York provided for all their children – through different strategies and choices that included money, gifts, cocaregiving and single caregiving – created spaces and ways of “taking care” that they had not known could exist. As much as archetypes in Mexican literature shed light on the phenomenon of transnational motherhood, they are also easy traps to fall into when analyzing women’s words. Throughout multiple interviews over a period of two years, I found that the use of the Virgin of Guadalupe and the language of sacrifice also worked as ways to comfort these mothers and help them deal with the guilt they have suffered. To lock the analysis within the symbols of marianismo and the cultural analysis of the role of women and religion in Mexico is to ignore the narratives these women had after talking about sacrifice, the duty of motherhood and God’s expectations. They were also women with desires for a better life for themselves. As Sara struggled to verbally express the fact that she also wanted a “chance” to live a better life, she told me, “it’s hard to say [it] because it sounds so selfish I feel bad, but I didn’t want to stay in that little town, there was nothing there for me [to do].” She paused and then continued, “you know the things women are supposed to do . . . I didn’t want that.” The lines were blurred between the private and public roles of women, the desires of discovering a better life and finding love, and work and caring for children. Symbols and traditional 405

Gabrielle Oliveira

roles presented in the literature help explain women’s use of the language of sacrifice, God and the Virgin; however, they do not determine or fully explain women’s practices of care. Horton points out that current scholarship on transnational mothers has focused on gender constructs and ideologies. I do not disagree. My contribution through this research is to show that, beyond analyzing migrant women’s roles from the point of view of gender ideologies, research must focus on what parts of this “ideology” are used, when and with what purpose. As Brianna, a mother in Queens, told me: Of course my instinct is to think about my children first . . . they are my heart. But I also think the husband-wife relationship is very important and I wanted to be with Ronald, that’s why I came with him and left my three girls. Is that a crime? I don’t think so. But people talk. Most immigration/migration research has focused on gender ideology and the roles women have “here and there” and how, through migration, these roles can transform and empower women (Hondagneu-Sotelo, Domestica) or simply reproduce the roles from the society of origin (Parreñas, “Mothering from a Distance”). I argue that the issue is more complex and less localized than this debate suggests. One of the interesting things about the interview with Sara is that she allowed herself to speak about her own ambitions: she recognized the potential selfishness of acting on her own ambitions but also acknowledged that class and race ultimately collapse into distinct forms of personhood for different groups of women. As women establish transnational arrangements of familial ties, their roles become more fluid as they are constantly negotiating everyday decisions regarding children in Mexico and children in the United States. To say that their roles are completely transformed and that these women become “empowered” through the process of migration because of their breadwinner status is to disregard the constant connections they make with what they have learned while growing up about what a good mother and a good woman “should” be. At the same time, to state that women only reproduce the gender roles present in the host society is to ignore the active and creative ways in which mothers care “for them all” here and there. In addition, theoretically, if the very decision to leave was purely informed by marianismo and other symbols, leaving would be synonymous with being a “bad” mother. Instead, women used the social space of our interviews to discuss stereotypes and symbols of what it means to be an “absent” mother. Several had also begun to explore the possibility of freedom from at least a few of the expectations they face in their hometowns, sometimes by giving precedence to one traditional value over another.

Critical issues and topics Theorizing migration and transnationalism Nina Glick-Schiller et al. have convincingly argued that transnationalism is part of an effort to reconfigure anthropological thinking so that it will reflect current transformations in the way in which time and space are lived. As in the United States, caregivers and children in Mexico are actively creating new arrangements to keep their status as members of the same group. Just as (for Barth) the idea of an ethnic group or a community becomes unbounded, parenting – and more specifically mothering – becomes an unbounded practice, where mothers do not necessarily live in the same household but are very much present and involved in the everyday lives of the children they have left behind. 406

Transnational motherhood

The questions that have traditionally shaped studies of migration in anthropology have focused less on migration flows and more on how individuals respond to these global processes. Culture, which includes the study of the interaction between beliefs and behavior and social relationships, has resulted in an emphasis on adaptation, culture change, identity and ethnicity (Brettel and Hollifield, “Theorizing Migration in Anthropology”). Historically, the discipline has articulated migration studies as belonging to two analytical approaches: the first was rooted in modernization theory, and the other was rooted in a historical structuralist perspective based on concepts of political economy and the effects of global capitalism.

Feminization of migration The feminization of migration brings to the forefront of migration studies an important discussion regarding everyday care practices. How is it done? Who is involved? And, finally, what do these practices mean to mothers, caregivers and children? On one hand, mothers have the ideals and the meanings that they attach to motherhood and care; on the other hand, these gendered ideals are transformed and complemented by mothers’ interpretations and actions of care. The ideals of motherhood, some have suggested, are challenged when mothers migrate as family breadwinners (Hondagneu-Sotelo and Avila). In her study of children in the Philippines whose migrant mothers were away, Parreñas (Children of Global Migration) describes how a “gender ideology” affects the impact of maternal immigration on the children that stay behind. She explains that the ideology of women’s domesticity in the Philippines has been recast to be performed in a transnational terrain by migrant mothers, meaning that tasks mothers have at home in the Philippines are performed also in the host country (168). Parreñas’s work belongs to an important body of literature that regards women as central actors in immigration. In the contemporary period, “Thanks to the process we loosely call globalization, women are on the move as never before in history” (Ehrenreich and Hochschild 2). And today, even as there is growing literature on the feminization of migration and the central role of immigrant women’s labor in contemporary capitalist formations in industrialized countries, the role of women in migration is still overlooked. Where are they coming from or being pulled from? How many have children or care for children as their job? If we are to understand transnational motherhood, we must look not only at the children in the country of origin but also the children brought to the United States by the same mothers or born in America. Principally, we must look at the pre-migration care arrangements and the arrangements created between mothers in the host society and their own mothers in the sending country. Mothers in the host country are also somebody’s children, and they have also experienced separation. This aspect of transnational mothering has not received attention to date.

Care chains Previous studies have theorized on the concept of “care chains” (Ehrenreich and Hochschild; Sassen, “Global Cities and Survival Circuits”; “Strategic Gendering”; Yeates) and focused on the migrant women on one side of the border; some scholars have also moved further to consider the families they left behind (Parreñas “Transnational Mothering”; Dreby; Madianou and Miller; Yarris). The political economy of care and the feminist critique on which the care chains approach is based have made significant contributions to the literature on migration, with their emphasis on the economic motivations for migration. Yet, the focus on structural factors does not acknowledge the empowering potential of migration for women as it assumes a normative and universal perspective of motherhood that should be performed in a situation 407

Gabrielle Oliveira

of co-presence (physically living in the same household). Ethnographically based studies such as those by Filomeno V. Aguilar Jr. et al. and Joanna Dreby demonstrate that both global feminist discourse employed by Parreñas (“Mothering from a Distance”) and globalized ideas about women’s responsibilities have to be complemented by grounded studies within countries, which may reveal very different and more nuanced expectations about mother-child relationships.

Ideologies of motherhood Anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss argued that “Myth is language, functioning on an especially high level where meaning succeeds practically at ‘taking off ’ from the linguistic ground on which it keeps rolling” (96). Lévi-Strauss breaks down his argument into three main parts. First, meaning is not isolated within the specific fundamental parts of the myth but rather within the composition and the interaction of these parts. Second, although myth and language are of similar categories, language functions differently in myth. Finally, unlike the constituents of language, the constituents of a myth, which he labels “mythemes,” function as “bundles of relations.” The idea of bundles of relations becomes important when assessing how mothers in New York City relate to their children “here and there” and thus construct meanings for “caregiving.” In any society, Lévi-Strauss maintained, “the purpose of a myth is to provide a logical model capable of overcoming a contradiction” (99). As he saw it, the human mind tends to organize thought and culture around binary opposites and tries to resolve the resulting tension through the creative act of mythmaking. Roland Barthes defined a myth as an uncontested and unconscious assumption so widely accepted that its historical and cultural origins are often forgotten. Ideologies, thus, are born when myths are combined into coherent philosophies and politically sanctioned by the culture. Feminist scholarship has long challenged myths of family and motherhood that relegate women to the domestic arena of private/public dichotomies and rely on the ideological conflation of family, woman, reproduction and nurturance (Collier and Yanagisako 36). Different scholars, including Nancy Chodorow, Sara Ruddick and Sharon Hays, agree that maternal myths perpetuate patriarchy. Nancy Scheper-Hughes explains, “Mother love is anything other than natural and instead represents a matrix of images, meanings, sentiments, and practices that are everywhere socially and culturally produced. . . . Consequently, mother love is best bracketed and understood as (m)other loves” (341–2). Widespread ideologies of motherhood also hold that mothering involves the preservation, nurturance and training of children so they will have a full adult life (Ruddick). As feminists have argued, mothers are held more responsible for this outcome than fathers. The ideology depends upon biologically and culturally essentialist notions of motherhood that have been critiqued by anthropologists. For example, in her ethnography of motherhood in a deeply impoverished community in northeastern Brazil, Scheper-Hughes shows that mothers delayed attachment until they saw that their child would survive. ScheperHughes insists, “As fatherhood is social, so is motherhood. Motherhood entails a choice. One as a woman is, you might say, existentially thrown into the world as a potential mother. But motherhood begins with an acceptance, an enfolding, a willingness to nurture a child” (4). Thus, even the biological is social; that is, humans interpret the biological in sociocultural ways. Hays termed this the “cultural contradictions of motherhood,” the concept of ideologies of motherhood that are often internally conflicting. As Lee Drummond argues, “the cultural unit of mother is internally contradictory, and it should be emphasized that this means more than simple normative variation in the way particular women in particular societies mother” (12). Hays, in her work with American mothers, explains that women who are working mothers struggle with the demands on their time and also with how they are supposed to behave. Hays 408

Transnational motherhood

argues that the societies in which women live generate ambivalence if women are expected to work outside the home but are also expected to take on child-rearing as a full-time job. She calls this ideology intensive mothering and discusses how children become sacred and mothers become the primary responsible parties. In a similar vein, much of the discussion of sacrifice within female migration places tremendous pressure on migrant mothers to succeed and provide for their children. Thus, the very act of leaving their children in search of a better future, for them, goes against much of the discourse regarding what a “good” mother is. A mother is both a normative concept – the ideal as to what a mother should be – and the experiences of actually being, or having, a mother. What do we mean when we use the word mother? Mirca Madianou and Daniel Miller explain, “Moral panics regularly erupt about what constitutes good, or ‘good-enough’ mothering” (10). In addition, motherhood is a constant trope in ideological debate. In Gender Transitions (2003) Hondagneu-Sotelo states, “ ‘Rethinking the family’ prompts the rethinking of motherhood, allowing us to see that the glorification and exaltation of isolationist, privatized mothering is historically and culturally specific” (319).

Illuminating transnational motherhood: a case study The case study that follows illustrates the ideas and frameworks discussed in the previous sections. Even though this particular case study is situated between Mexico and the United States, these narratives resonate with stories of transnational mothers who engage with everyday sacrifice in order to provide a better life for their children. The phenomenon of transnational mothering is not exclusive to one region of the world – quite the contrary. Different countries and regions of the world have entire histories that are based on women leaving in order to parent according to cultural ideologies.

Methods Data for this case study is a sliver of a larger multi-sited ethnographic study that seeks to “follow the people” and their stories (Marcus, “Ethnography in/of the World System” 106). Data was collected through my engagement with members of what I refer to as “transnational care constellations” made up of mothers, their children and children’s caregivers. I used multi-sited methods to be able to more fully explain the social phenomenon of transnational motherhood. As such, I traveled between different states in Mexico and New York numerous times over a 32-month period in order to capture the dynamism of communities which are both “here and there.” In Mexico I did research in six states. In the United States I did research in the New York City. Drawing on ethnographic method as well as surveys, I examined transnational caregiving practices among women with mixed-status children in New York and Mexico.

Carla, Elias, Cristian, Juan and Lupe “My mother always told me, hija, you are doing the right thing, for your baby, you know?” Carla told me as we walked to the grocery store in Brooklyn. Elias was in the stroller asleep. Carla continued telling me, “The thing is there was nothing there for me, where I was, so I came here. But it hurts sometimes so much because people talk about you not being una buena mamá (a good mom)”. Carla lived in the first floor of a brownstone in a neighborhood in Brooklyn. She shared the small apartment with her cousin, her cousin’s husband and their two children. The six of them had been living there since Carla’s husband, Juan, moved out and went to work in New Jersey. They still saw one another during the weekends, but Carla preferred to stay with 409

Gabrielle Oliveira

her cousin in Brooklyn than to go live with her partner and “seven other unknown men” in an apartment in New Jersey. Carla’s journey started back in Puebla when she became pregnant and her partner Juan left to work in the United States almost as soon as they found out about her pregnancy. He worried that he would not be able to support her and their new growing family. Carla affirmed that she preferred a “poor life” versus a “divided life,” but Juan decided to go anyway. Carla stayed behind and seven months later gave birth to Cristian, a healthy baby boy. Carla’s life had become increasingly difficult in Mexico. She was living with her mother and extended family in a house in a small rural town Puebla, not having much money, and she was unable to find work. Juan’s remittances started to come a few months after he arrived in the United States, but a year later they had significantly dropped. Carla worried about her husband being with other people and felt that her financial debt was increasing. When Cristian turned one, Carla started considering the trip to the United States, I thought that if I am with Juan . . . it’s also my role as his wife to be next to him. And then we could bring Cristian next. Juan told me that, “it’s dangerous, it’s expensive, are you sure?” But I thought this is my chance to help my mother and my son. I did not just depend on Juan, you know? I could also do it. And . . . why was he not sending cash? Why not? And you can ask my mom, I always send my hijito money and my mom too. I never forget, I didn’t abandon him. Carla started working in a laundromat when she first arrived. She had several bouts of depression and longed for her son. She then became a cleaner and a part-time nanny. She suffered four miscarriages. After becoming pregnant with Elias and making it to term she decided to stay home with Elias while taking on cleaning two or three times a week. The money she earned, between 100 and 300 dollars a week, was sent to Mexico every Friday before 5 p.m. Carla struggled with coming to terms of what her transnational life looked like, “sometimes I think about the things that I do as someone’s mother . . . like if God has a plan. If God has a plan, then . . . I have to stay calm, but sometimes I think about who I am taking care of? Not me . . . not me.” Working one or more jobs was a reality to migrant Mexican women. They often compared the amount of work they now had with how much they worked in Mexico before leaving. As soon as they became mothers in Mexico, the majority of their time was spent at home. Even if they worked outside of the house it normally involved making tortillas, selling chicken, or working at the small family stores that were usually attached to their homes. Some women, however, had held jobs as housekeepers in towns that were farther away from their pueblos. Even women with those jobs felt like they had more time to dedicate to their children, and that was synonymous with “good mothering.” In New York, women found themselves facing three different mothering realities. For the children they left behind, they became the breadwinners who cared for and supported them financially; transnational mothers are not replacing “caregiving” with “breadwinning” in their definitions of motherhood, but they are expanding their definitions of motherhood to encompass breadwinning, and they recognize that this may require long-term physical separations as the ultimate sacrifice (HondagneuSotelo and Avila). When I interviewed Lupe, Carla’s mother, she was nostalgic for a time that was no more. “I wish my daughter was here to see her boy grow . . . he is a good boy, you know. But it’s her sacrifice to make to choose, and I am grateful.” The different meanings of sacrifice and choice here are startling. As mothers, Carla and Lupe tried to reconcile with the breaking in the nexus of physical presence as the main way to mother and care. 410

Transnational motherhood

Among the constellations in my research, when the mothers had originally departed from Mexico the average age of their children was 7 years (though this ranged from 8 months to 13 years), and the mothers’ and caregivers’ average ages were 23 and 42, respectively. Before migrating, women were living in one of two conditions: with their partners but close to their mothers or with their mothers. In all cases children were left with kin who had directly participated in their care prior to migration. Women already relied on the help of kin in order to work and support their families. However, the role of the biological mother, the one who gave birth, was recognized as the most important and sacred role. This does not mean that children “love” or “respect” their biological mothers more than their caregivers; in fact, the contrary is closer to the truth. What it means is that caregivers keep biological mothers as co-parents at a distance and mothers feel it is their duty to maintain and in many cases to attempt to strengthen bonds with the children they leave behind.

Further reading Abrego, L. Sacrificing Families: Navigating Laws, Labor, and Love Across Borders. Stanford UP, 2014. Dyrness, Andrea. Mothers United: An Immigrant Struggle for Socially Just Education. U of Minnesota P, 2011. Ehrenreich, B., and Hochschild, A. Global Women: Nannies, Maids and Sex Workers in the New Economy. Metropolitan Books, 2002. Gamburd, M.R. The Kitchen’s Spoon Handle: Transnationalism and Sri Lanka Migrant Households. Cornell UP, 2000. Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. Domestica: Immigrant Workers Cleaning and Caring in the Shadows of Affluence. U of California P, 2001. Oliveira, G. Motherhood Across Borders: Immigrants and their Children in Mexico and New York. New York UP, 2018. Parreñas, R.S. Children of Global Migration: Transnational Families and Gendered Woes. Ateneo de Manila UP, 2005. Pratt, G. Families Apart: Migrant Mothers and the Conflicts of Labor and Love. U of Minnesota P, 2012.

Conclusion While child-rearing patterns vary widely from one society to another, in most it is primarily mothers who are expected to perform this vital function. Yet in many families in developing societies, many mothers are physically absent. In the majority of the countries in the world, women engage in domestic internal migration prior to international migration. In the United States, there is a strong tradition of quantitative studies that link child development with mothers’ physical presence. For the past several decades, hundreds of thousands of women, many of them mothers, have been migrating from poorer countries to wealthier countries in search of employment. Contrary to ideas that they are abandoning their children (Parreñas Children of Global Migration) or turning them into “Euro-orphans” (Lutz), these “transnational mothers” believe they can fulfill their maternal responsibilities by earning much-needed cash for better food, clothing, shelter, and – above all – improved chances for an education (Segura). This chapter demonstrated how ideals and practices of transnational motherhood that may seem at odds are actually adaptations of what mothers consider to be “good” and “caring” mothers. The dualism of “good and bad” mothers is part of the narrative of women; however, the reality appears to be more nuanced. The very act of leaving and migrating represents a “break” in the nexus of motherhood that includes physical presence. However, for many this act is justified by the very reason of trying to be a good mother and care for one’s children. 411

Gabrielle Oliveira

Works cited Aguilar, Filomeno V., Jr., et al. Maalwang Buhay: Family, Overseas Migration and Cultures of Relatedness in Barangay Paraiso. Ateneo de Manila UP, 2019. Anzaldúa, Gloria. Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza. Spinsters/Aunt Lute, 1987. Baldassar, Loretta. “Transnational Families and the Provision of Moral and Emotional Support: The Relationship between Truth and Distance.” Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, vol. 14, no. 4. Special Issue: Emotions and Globalization, 2007. Baldassar, Loretta, et al. Families Caring Across Borders: Migration, Aging and Transnational Caregiving. Palgrave MacMillan, 2007. Barthes, Roland. Mythologies. Hill and Wang, 1972. Brettel, Caroline B. Anthropology and Migration: Essays in Transnationalism, Ethnicity and Identity. Altamira Press, 2003. Brettel, Caroline B., and James F. Hollifield. Migration Theory: Talking Across Disciplines. Routledge, 2000. ———. Migration Theory: Talking Across Disciplines. 2nd ed., Routledge, 2008. Includes “Introduction” by Caroline B. Brettell and James F. Hollifield, and “Theorizing Migration in Anthropology: The Social Construction of Networks, Identities, Communities, and Globalscapes” by Caroline B. Brettell. Chodorow, Nancy. The Reproduction of Mothering. U of California P, 1978. Collier, Jane F., and Sylvia J. Yanagisako. Gender and Kinship: Essays Toward a Unified Analysis. Stanford UP, 1987. Dreby, Joanna. Divided by Borders: Mexican Migrants and Their Children. U of California P, 2010. Dreby, Joanna. “Transnational Gossip.” Qualitative Sociology, vol. 32, no. 1, March 2009, pp. 33–52. Drummond, Lee. “The Transatlantic Nanny: Notes on a Comparative Semiotics of the Family in English Speaking Societies.” American Ethnologist, vol. 5, no. 1, Feb. 1978, pp. 30–43. Ehrenreich, Barbara, and A. Hochschild. Global Women: Nannies, Maids and Sex Workers in the New Economy. Metropolitan Books, 2002. Fagetti, Antonella. “Relaciones de Genero y Transformaciones Agrarias.” Estudios sobre el campo mexicano, edited by Soledad Gonzalez Montes and Vania Salles, El Colegio de Mexico, 1995, pp. 301–338. Glick-Schiller, Nina, et al. “From Immigrant to Transmigrant: Theorizing Transnational Migration.” Anthropological Quarterly, vol. 68, no. 1, Jan. 1995, pp. 48–63. Gutmann, Matthew C. The Meanings of Macho: Being a Man in Mexico City. U of California P, 2007. Hays, Sharon. The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood. Yale UP, 1996. Hirsch, Jennifer H. A Courtship After Marriage: Sexuality and Love in Mexican Transnational Families. U of California P, 2003. Hochschild, Arlie. So How’s the Family?: And Other Essays. U of California P, 2013. Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. Domestica: Immigrant Workers Cleaning and Caring in the Shadows of Affluence. U of California P, 2001. Hondagneu-Sotelo, Pierrette. Gender and U.S. Immigration: Contemporary Trends. UC Press, 2003. Hondagneu-Sotelo, Pierette, and Enerstine Avila. “I’m not Here but I’m There: The Meanings of Latina Transnational Motherhood.” Gender and Society, vol. 11, 1997, pp. 548–60. Horton, Sarah. “A Mother’s Heart is Weighed Down With Stones: A Phenomenological Approach to the Experience of Transnational Motherhood.” Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, vol. 33, no. 1, 2009, pp. 21–40. doi: 10.1007/s11013-008-9117-z Lévi-Strauss, Claude. Myth and Meaning. Shocken Books, 1995. Lutz, Helma. “Care Workers, Care Drain, and Care Chains: Reflections on Care, Migration, and Citizenship.” Social Politics, vol. 19, no. 1, Spring 2012, pp. 15–37. Madianou, Mirca, and Daniel Miller. Migration and New Media: Transnational Families and Polymedia. Routledge, 2012. Marcus, George. “Ethnography in/of the World System: The Emergence of Multi-sited Ethnography.” Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 24, 1995, pp. 95–117. ———. Ethnography Through Thick and Thin. Princeton UP, 1998. Napolitano, Valentina. Migrant Hearts and the Atlantic Return: Transnationalism and the Roman Catholic Church. Fordham UP, 2016. Parreñas, Rhacel S. “Mothering from a Distance: Emotions, Gender and Intergenerational Relations in Filipino Transnational Families.” Feminist Studies, vol. 27, no. 2, 2001, pp. 261–90. ———. Children of Global Migration: Transnational Families and Gendered Woes. Ateneo de Manila UP, 2005. ———. “The Gender Paradox in the Transnational Families of Filipino Migrant Women.” Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, vol. 4, no. 3, 2005b, pp. 243–68.

412

Transnational motherhood ———. “Transnational Mothering: A Source of Gender Conflicts in the Family.” University of North Carolina Law Review, vol. 88, no. 5, 2010, pp. 1825–56. Paz, Octavio. The Labyrinth of Solitude and Other Writings. Grove Press, 1985. Pratt, Geraldine. Families Apart: Migrant Mothers and the Conflicts of Labor and Love. U of Minnesota P, 2012. Ruddick, Sara. “Maternal Thinking.” Feminist Studies, vol. 6, no. 2, Summer 1983, pp. 342–67. ———. Maternal Thinking: Toward a Politics of Peace. Beacon, 1989. Sassen, Saskia. “Global Cities and Survival Circuits.” Global Woman: Nannies, Maids, and Sex Workers in the New Economy, edited by A.R. Hochschild and B. Ehrenreich, Henry Holt and Company, 2002, pp. 254–74. ———. “Strategic Gendering: One Factor in the Constituting of Novel Political Economies.” International Handbook of Gender and Poverty: Concepts, Research, Policy, edited by S. Chant, Edward Elgar, 2010, pp. 29–34. Scheper-Hughes, Nancy. Death without Weeping: The Violence of Everyday Life in Brazil. U of California P, 1992. Scott, John, and Gordon Marshall. A Dictionary of Sociology Oxford. Oxford UP, 2009. Segura, Denise. “Working at Motherhood: Chicana and Mexican Immigrant Mothers and Employment.” Mothering: Ideology, Experience, and Agency, edited by Evelyn Nakano Glenn et al., Routledge, 1994. Sørensen, Ninna N. “Transnational Family Life Across the Atlantic: The Experience of Colombian and Dominican Migrants in Europe.” Paper presented at the International Conference on Migration and Domestic Work in a Global Perspective, 26–29 May 2005. Yarris. Kristin. “The Pain of ‘Thinking too Much’: Dolor de Cerebro and the Embodiment of Social Hardship among Nicaraguan Women.” Ethos, vol. 39, no. 2, May, 2011, pp. 226–248. Yeates, Nicola. “Global Care Chain: A Critical Introduction.” Global Migration Perspectives. No. 44. Global Commission on International Migration. www.refworld.org/pdfid/435f85a84.pdf, 2005. Zentgraf, Kristine M., and Norma S. Chinchilla. “Separation and Reunification: The Experiences of Central American Immigrant Families.” San Juan, Puerto Rico: Paper Presented to the Latin American Studies Association meeting, 15–18 Mar. 2006.

413

33 MOTHERING, URBANIZATION, AND AFRICA Grace Adeniyi Ogunyankin

In sub-Saharan Africa, there is unprecedented rapid urbanization rates and economic growth. According to UN-HABITAT estimates, “the global share of African dwellers is projected to rise from 11.3 per cent in 2010 to 20.2 per cent by 2050” (23); thus, the African urban population will increase from 400 million to 1.2 billion. More so, since the 2007/2008 economic crisis, global attention has shifted towards Africa as the “last frontier” for international investment. Several countries in sub-Saharan Africa have consistently had high growth rates (over 5%) and are now among the world’s fastest growing economies. After years of being viewed as the “hopeless continent,” Africa is now seen to be rising. However, in order to successfully continue in this trajectory, policy makers and urban planners have to deal with urban “problems” of overcrowding, informality, mismanagement, and chaos that have often been associated with Africa. As such, elected leaders, policy makers, and urban planners have embarked on urban renewal projects to make African cities more manageable, efficient, and sophisticated. These projects, operating within a neoliberal framework that privileges the “free” hand of the market and discourages the provision of public welfare, competition, “promise to modernize African cities and turn them into gateways for international investors and showpieces for ambitious politicians” (Watson 215). Although these city plans symbolize a wind of change, prosperity, and a “new face” for Africa, some scholars like urban planner Vanessa Watson are less optimistic because these cities are not supposed to be inhabited by low-income and poor people. This sobering reality thus begs the questions: Whose problems are overlooked in the pursuit of a more prosperous and globally recognizable African city? Who should contribute to, and what should be taken into consideration in, the planning of Africa’s cities? The majority of lowincome women’s urban experiences and sociopolitical views are excluded from the theoretical and political spaces that inform neoliberal urban projects/policies in Africa. In this chapter, I examine women’s struggle with mothering in increasingly neoliberalizing cities. It is important to have a good understanding of how mothers are navigating these changes and dealing with neoliberal demands. I begin by contextualizing women’s colonial and postcolonial relationship with urbanization in Africa. I next discuss the key themes that have emerged in the literature on mothering and urbanization. These themes are: land and urban exclusions, economic mothering, and women’s activism and struggle for urban space. After this discussion, I next examine the central issues of skills acquisition training and urban displacement, as they respectively relate to the quest to empower mothers and make them more economically 414

Mothering, urbanization and Africa

autonomous, and to government efforts to hide poverty and make urban space more viable for regional and global capital. I then discuss emerging scholarship that challenges the narratives of Africa rising and the projected urban explosion. I also engage with the literature that challenges the representation of African mothers as poor and that also suggest that poverty is falling among female-headed households. Lastly, I provide some recommendations for future research in the field of mothering and urbanization in Africa.

Background and context Historical overview In the modern history of Africa’s urbanization, specifically under colonialism, the city was not seen as a place for women, and women’s mobility was constrained and controlled (Chauncey; Jackson; Obbo). Women were sometimes perceived as vectors of disease. For example, in colonial Zimbabwe, single African women were subjected to compulsory venereal disease examination whenever they travelled to towns or near sites of production. These women were suspected of being disreputable and thus inscribed into colonial space as stray women who were responsible for spreading disease ( Jackson 191). Colonial policies discouraged the migration of females into cities, and women were excluded from urban waged labour and capitalist enterprises. The colonial urban economy prioritized and valued male labour; and as James and Etim have argued,“the contacts made between foreign colonial rulers and African men led to the long-term working relationships and institutional establishment that excluded women” (xi). Women’s exclusion is an ongoing legacy of colonialism in urban Africa. Although women resisted the colonial restrictions, their role in the city has often been portrayed as outside of the colonial economy and characterized as illegal and immoral because of their engagement in activities such as beer brewing and “prostitution” (Little). Some scholars have argued that such activities afforded women – as in the case of urban Ghana – the opportunity to accumulate wealth and define their autonomy outside of marriage and motherhood (Akyeampong 223). Despite the depictions of African women’s work and mobility as illegal, Chauncey has noted that women were consciously recruited into towns in Northern Rhodesia because the ability of capital to extract greater surplus value depended on its success in relocating women’s reproductive labour to the urban areas (135). Companies in Northern Rhodesia viewed the sexual, domestic, and other services women provided men in their compounds as non-monetary inducements for men to work in the copperbelt (Chauncey 137). Since gaining independence from colonial rule – starting from the late 1950s and onward – sub-Saharan African cities have become more feminized in demographic terms and there are fewer restrictions on women’s mobility (Kinyanjui 155). Although women’s presence in cities has been more abundant, they face the colonial legacies of the gender-based economy whereby a higher percentage of waged labour is available for men, and women dominate the informal economy. This feminization of urbanization has become increasingly interconnected with the feminization of urban poverty, particularly since neoliberal ideology and policy – initially imposed by international financial institutions (IFIs) in the form of structural adjustment programmes (SAPs), and recently as Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) – became prominent in the 1980s. There are more women in cities due to the rise in rural-urban migration that has been precipitated by neoliberal reforms that affected rural agricultural economies (see Kinyanjui; Oberhauser and Yeboah).1 Thus, several studies have pointed to the increase in the number of women migrating to the city in search of better economic opportunities and to escape 415

Grace Adeniyi Ogunyankin

widespread food insecurity (Companion 169). As pointed out by the International Organization for Migration, female migration is a family survival strategy “often caused by fundamental concerns about poverty and done in an attempt to ensure household survival by maximizing and diversifying the household income through remittances” (2). Rural migrants arrive in the city and have to compete with the urban poor who have also “been marginalized with the implementation of structural adjustments that have resulted in declines in formal employment and provisions of subsidized social services, and in widening wage gaps between skilled and unskilled employments” (Oberhauser and Yeboah 22). Thus, most of the job opportunities are in the informal sector and are often precarious (Awumbila 138). Most of these opportunities are “scarce and are characterised by poor returns and lack of benefits such as health insurance or pensions” (Goebel 382). Many women wake up early in the morning in search of odd jobs, which could differ from day to day. Some women who have a small amount of capital to start a small trading business spend a large part of their day hawking their products – or in their kiosks competing with several individuals with similar businesses – thus limiting their profit margin. Those female labour migrants who are able to secure waged labour are occupied in sectors that are “characterized by poor working conditions, low pay, withheld wages, considerable insecurity and high risk of sexual harassment, exploitation and abuse” (Awumbila 139). The majority of the women who are mothers have had to make the difficult decision to not migrate with their children. In Kenya, for example, mothers engaged in labour migration to Nairobi often live in informal settlements such as the Kibera “slum”2 because accommodation is more affordable there. However, the poor access to services and other environmental insecurity such as “dangers stemming from poor sanitation, accidents, and violence” (Clark et al. 1187) that come with living in informal settlement has been seen as too risky for young children (Archambault et al.). Thus, mothers often take advantage of rural fostering if they are single or have migrated with their partner, or they leave the children behind with their partners (Muzenda). However, when left behind with their fathers, the children in such male-headed households may be most vulnerable because the men do not spend female remittances effectively as demonstrated in a Zimbabwean study (Moyo and Kawewe 175). Nevertheless, migrating with the children is not necessarily a better option as it often includes the added burden of working and caring for young children with little access to affordable childcare services (Clark et al.). Single mothers who migrate with their children are particularly at a disadvantage because they are often unlikely to receive kin support (Clark et al. 1187). However, the labour migrants who leave their children behind are often involved in cyclical labour migration – as is the case of female porters in Accra, Ghana – their family responsibilities restrict their time away from home (Oberhauser and Yeboah 29).

Central themes Colonial continuities: land and urban exclusions Many scholars have made an effort to contextualize women’s contemporary experiences of urban poverty and neoliberal polices within an understanding of the role the colonial legal framework played in marginalizing women and exacerbating gender inequities (Nasong’o; Njoh). Of particular importance here is the European epistemological understanding of land as property. Njoh points out that in Cameroon, the customary land tenure system promoted group ownership over individual landholdings (123). Under colonial rule, access to land was limited and land use control was used to order urban space. This legacy continues in the postcolony. Land use control discriminates against women’s economic activities in the informal sector by 416

Mothering, urbanization and Africa

directly inhibiting the economic advancement of urban women, and facilitates the relocation of women who contravene zoning ordinances (Njoh 119). Cameroon’s urban development policy emphasizes a vast spatial separation between the “private” and the “public.” Since mothers bear more responsibility for child-rearing and homemaking, the separation of the domestic and income-generating activities in the absence of efficient transportation systems is a major economic impediment. Such land use control legislations have implications for women and mothers, particularly during times of austerity when they may need to rely on home-based enterprises for their livelihood (Njoh 120). Similarly, the vast gap between the number of housing units produced by the formal sector and the growth of urban populations in most African cities can be explained by the continued application of the colonial legal framework for urban development (Tranberg Hansen and Vaa 9). This framework was designed to contain settlement rather than to deal with rapid growth. Since independence in several countries, colonial zoning laws, building standards, and many other planning regulations have been in use and restrict the provision of housing affordable to the poor. The result is the emergence of unauthorized or illegal settlements (Tranberg Hansen and Vaa 9). The majority of poor urban women can be found in these settlements, and for mothers these are not the most environmentally conducive places to raise children. Moreover, such precarious housing situations are often framed as illegal and pose the threat of possible ­eviction/displacement – an unnecessary additional stressor for these mothers given their economic burdens. Women’s socioeconomic vulnerability is further compounded by the inheritance of the colonial legal framework that treated women as property. Nasong’o contends that because the inherited legal framework treats Kenyan women as dependents rather than independent individuals (44), it is thus more difficult for them to secure loans required to engage in their own economic enterprises. With limited employment options and restricted access to capital, some mothers are in a difficult position considering that the neoliberal economic reforms have increased their financial responsibilities in the maintenance of their families. Under structural adjustment, women pay increased costs for food, transportation, education, and health care for themselves and their children, since the government has removed the subsidies from many vital services.

Economic mothering and maternal responsibilities Prior to the implementation of the structural adjustment programmes, more men were working in the formal urban economy. SAPs policy of privatization, government divestiture, retrenchment and downsizing sharply affected incomes and led to an increase in unemployment. Consequently, household survival strategies entail increased economic activity for women and children mainly in the form of un-waged labour (Nasong’o 45). This has particularly been the case in some African countries where women have not been historically engaged in economic activities as was prevalent in West Africa. In Kenya, for example, men were more actively engaged in trade than women but by the late 1980s, approximately 74%–80% of all Kenyan women engaged in small-scale urban enterprises (House-Midamba 82). Women’s participation in trade has enabled them to be independent or self-sufficient in meeting their own needs and those of their children (House-Midamba 94). In contrast to urban Kenya, women who were employed in the informal market or food sales in urban Ghana were adversely affected by the new price levels under structural adjustment and became more impoverished (Mikell 107). In the Ghanaian context, women have a long history of engagement in trading to the extent that among biological mothers, economic 417

Grace Adeniyi Ogunyankin

obligation is central to motherhood and income generation is considered a maternal responsibility (G. Clark) – with the expectation of role-complementarity provided by husbands and lineage members when required (Schoepf 313). Clark underscores that Asante ideals and practices underline the importance of economic support in enacting motherhood, as a continuation of childbirth itself (719). Clark calls this “economic mothering,” and it has been under threat by neoliberal restructuring. Mikell argues that Akan mothers in Accra sharpened their definitions of paternal responsibilities, through increased expectations of financial support, as a result of their economic dislocation. They were forced to use the courts to “seek relief by asking the courts to place new demands on the fathers of their children” (116). Men who had also become more precarious as a result of structural adjustment had “economic reasons to deny paternity” (Mikell 107) and did not want to be financially responsible for their children. While some mothers fought for paternal financial responsibilities in Ghana, mothers in southwest Nigeria propel the masculine breadwinner ideal, introduced during the colonial economy (Lindsay), to avoid hurting their husband’s pride. Similarly to Ghana, women in Southwest Nigeria have been involved in income-generating activities that sometimes yielded more income than their husband’s in the waged economy. However, they either hid their higher income or did not openly discuss it as the ideology of the male breadwinner required the deployment of the term “housewife” that placed women in an economically subordinate position to men whereby their income is viewed as supplementary (Lindsay). This ideology continues to persist even as male real income has decreased and unemployment has increased under economic restructuring. As such, women are the ones who are providing for both their husbands and children. Many spend long hours trading, while some engage in multiple activities, sometimes both in the informal and formal economy. In addition, the precariousness has extended women’s economic mothering as their children live at home much longer due to unemployment and/or they take care of their grandchildren when their children are unable. The ideology of the male breadwinner was also very prominent in cities in South Africa in the 1960s and 1970s. Women were expected to embrace their femininity and be homemakers. Even when economic conditions worsened, some men discouraged women from supplementing their income and wanted them to focus on their mothering responsibilities. However, a compromise was finally reached through the establishment of home-based businesses (Bank 158). The male breadwinner concept, however, was irrelevant to female-headed households in the city of Mdantsane whose livelihood depended on factory jobs in low-wage sweatshops (Bank 135). To make ends meet, two and three generational female-headed households lived together. The daughters worked their factory jobs and the mothers added their welfare grants, pensions and occasional earnings to the income pool. These households were profoundly affected in the mid-1990s when “widespread industrialization due to global competition led to the loss of thousands of jobs in the feminized textile sector, leading more female-headed households into unemployment and poverty” (Bank 135).

Women’s activism and struggle for space in the city Despite the overwhelming amount of evidence detailing women’s experiences of poverty and the increased feminization of responsibility and obligation placed upon them as a result of economic reforms, some scholars have argued that it must not be mistaken that the women are passive victims. Women are actively engaged in critiquing neoliberal policies, particularly the retrenchment of the state. In this activism, the state is strongly viewed as the site of change. In Kinshasa, in 1989 and 1990, several women, frustrated by their inability to fulfill their mothering

418

Mothering, urbanization and Africa

obligations, “demonstrated against government policies that had led to hyperinflation” (Schoepf 314). Alison Goebel argues that women demand a “full loaf of bread” (388) from the South African government and not just the “slice of bread,” (388), that is, piecemeal social welfare provisions. Specifically, Goebel notes that AbM, a shack-dweller’s movement in Durban, South Africa, led largely by women, “fights for the constitutional rights of the poor to housing, services and a dignified life out of poverty” (388). Adeniyi Ogunyankin in her research in Ibadan has also pointed out that women advocate for a feminist ethics of care approach to the urban as an alternative to neoliberal policies.

Issues: skill acquisition and urban displacement The majority of research on African women and motherhood has been limited to the discourse on development which focuses on women’s socioeconomic poverty and interventions to promote economic growth, industrialization, and modernization. In this discourse, since the 1970s, the question of (how to attain) women’s empowerment has been raised. Over the years, as part of the former Millennium Development Goal 3 and recent Sustainable Development Goal 5’s focus on empowering women, much intervention has targeted poor urban mothers via skills acquisition and micro-credit. NGOs and governments have focused on developing women’s entrepreneurial skills. For example, women of the Kawempe “slum” in the city of Kampala, Uganda, were mentored and trained under the Slum Women Economic Empowerment Program (Kyotalengerire) to reduce the financial constraints women face in executing their economic responsibilities for their families. According to Rehmah Kasule, founder of Century Enterprise Development Agency (CEDA) International, women were empowered with “critical practical business skills in catering, baking, hairdressing, pedicure, manicure, art and crafts to enable them start income-generating activities so that they gain financial freedom” (Kyotalengerire par. 2). However, it is insufficient to view empowerment projects as successful based on the measure that women have begun to work or generate income. If the women working in their newly acquired skilled trade experience financial insecurity due to low profit margins because they “lack regular salaries and are completely dependent on consumer demand for purchases of their goods and services” (Osirim 541), can one say they have been empowered? Because skill acquisition training entrenches gendered notions of women’s work and mostly prepares women for work in the informal economy, it may not necessarily be a key to lifting women out of ­poverty – especially women from female-headed households – given that the current economy has greatly destabilized and saturated the informal market. Moreover, it has been noted that micro-credit schemes are not always a positive experience for women. In a study on urban Tanzania, Sigalla and Carney argue that many women face “intense pressure to conform to the norms of the market economy” (551). In order to break even, many worked long hours, which upset their family routines. The women also noted that the disciplining devices and regulatory aspects of loans were anxiety-inducing in terms of repayments, and time-consuming in terms of the required weekly and monthly meetings. The additional irony of the empowerment focus, particularly those celebrated by the government, is that the spaces where these women practice their trade – such as catering and hairdressing – and where they live, as well, have been earmarked as an “eyesore” by municipal governments and urban planners. These spaces are seen as informal and thereby candidates for demolition, particularly in the recent bid to make several African cities “world/global” cities. For example, in June 2015, “the Accra Metropolitan Assembly demolished the largest informal settlement in Accra, Old Fadama, evicting an estimated 50,000 people, mostly migrants from

419

Grace Adeniyi Ogunyankin

the northern regions of Ghana and from West Africa” (Awumbila 141). And in Ibadan, Nigeria, the government has been demolishing shops and kiosks that are viewed as unsightly or violating building codes (Adeniyi Ogunyankin). These punitive measures clearly contradict government “goals” to empower women, particularly mothers. Instead, these mothers face the additional stress of displacement and struggle to provide for their children. In addition to the demolitions, governments target individuals who engage in petty trading in the streets. For example, it has been widely publicized that many women street vendors, including pregnant women and women with babies on their back, have suffered violence from police and had their goods confiscated in Luanda, Angola (Human Rights Watch). Other than their unaesthetic appeal, street traders are associated with congestion, unhygienic conditions, increase in street crime, and spread of disease (Bromley and Mackie 1491), and thereby considered a threat to a progressive neoliberal urbanity. Thus, street traders are often expelled from the streets or relocated; oftentimes, unwillingness to comply can lead to state-sanctioned violence and/or fines and/or confiscation of goods. While being relocated is often the better of these options, the new relocation sites cannot accommodate all of the displaced/expelled street traders (Bromley and Mackie). Additionally, they may require fees, be inconveniently located, and may not be conducive for business. Equally stressful for mothers, petty trading is increasingly being dominated by men. For example, in Mozambique, men have “taken over a traditionally ‘female’ occupation [and] their participation patterns have resulted in the increasing marginalization of women” (Companion 164). Similarly, in Ghana, an activity such as water vending that has been the domain of women, is being taken over by men due to the high levels of unemployment, which has left men looking for employment including in jobs that have been segregated as female (Amankwaa). This encroachment has meant that women work even longer hours to generate enough income to provide for their families.

Controversies and challenges Africa rising, urban explosion, and fallen poverty Some scholars have started to issue warnings about the dangers of the Africa Rising discourse’s focus on economic growth and increased purchasing power (Pieterse 38). It has been pointed out that this is not the story of the majority of Africa. It further individualizes poverty and does not address structural issues that contribute to the prevalence and persistence of poverty. Ongoing efforts to hide poverty in major African cities combined with recent global attention to African cities as spaces of potential investment divert attention from gendered urban insecurities experienced by mothers. Given the adaptation of UN HABITAT III’s New Urban Agenda global standard for sustainable development by many world leaders – including African ones – and SDGs 5 (“Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls”) and 11 (“Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable”), governments must be held accountable in the reconfiguration of inequalities and rights to the city (Bain and Peake 433). In addition to critiques of the sensationalizing of Africa Rising, some scholars have pointed out that the narrative about the rate of urbanization and rural-urban migration is misleading (Potts 26). Rather, it is argued that the prediction about an urban population explosion is highly unlikely given that urbanization rates are slowing down and urban-rural migration is on the increase because of vulnerable urban livelihoods (Potts 26). This calls into question the underlying premise of the Africa Rising narrative that frames urban economies as attractive and key

420

Mothering, urbanization and Africa

sites of GDP growth. However, because Africa is such a large continent with multiple cities, it is likely that both phenomena are taking place depending on the context of each locale. Although some have argued that it is too early to celebrate Africa’s economic growth and prosperity while many are still impoverished, a recent study indicates that poverty has fallen since the late 1990s (Milazzo and van de Walle 2). More specifically, poverty has fallen fastest in female-head households (FFH). However, the explanation for this fallen rate among FFHs is still inconclusive. This new finding challenges previous scholarship on FFH as poorer but also raises concerns about implications of such new findings for local and international policy.

More than poor mothers There is a growing resistance to the homogenization of African women as poor and those whose identity are limited to that of “mother.” Some scholars challenge the “bread and butter” survivalist (see Mikell) focus on African mothers that narrowly emphasizes essential daily needs and natal issues. For example, Everjoice Win critiques how development agencies only seem to attend to the stereotypical poor, powerless, and invariably pregnant women who are overburdened by their motherhood responsibilities to their numerous children. Win argues that the development framework must broaden its conceptualizations of marginalization and disempowerment and consider how middle-class women are also affected by development issues, HIV/ AIDS, and gender inequalities. While the discussion in this chapter has centered on poor women, it is important to note that not all informal sector entrepreneurship result in poverty; in fact, “Mama Benz” figures (female merchants who monopolize the African textile market and drive Mercedes Benz vehicles) are pervasive in African cities (Khor 167). The Mama Benzes of African cities send their children to the best private schools and to foreign universities (Khor 167). Moreover, recent research on the increased usage of social media by “stay-at-home” mom entrepreneurs in Sudan, for example, demonstrates that the informal life is not all about survival (Steel 240). There has also been a challenge to the reproductive focus on African women – that is, how the African woman is often synonymous with mother. Kristy Leissle in her work on cosmopolitan cocoa farmers and their chocolate advertisements argues that women do not stylize themselves as reproductive labourers. She notes that they are “unfettered by husband or children . . . they do not seem responsible for anyone’s development but their own – a hugely different arrangement of responsibility for black African women, whose labor is often seen as instrumental to the uplift of family, community, or nation” (132).

Directions for future research Diversifying African mothers Research on African mothers often features able-bodied women. More research should include women with disabilities. Further, the vast majority of scholarship on African women frames them as either being a single mother or in a heterosexual relationship. There is a paucity of literature, outside of South Africa, on lesbian mothering and their experiences in urban Africa. More research on this topic will add diversity and richness to what we know about mothering and urbanization in Africa. Lastly, as indicated in this chapter, there has been a disproportionate focus on poor African women. There is a need for better understanding of middle-class women and their relationship with motherhood, urbanization, and neoliberal globalization.

421

Grace Adeniyi Ogunyankin

Life histories and longitudinal studies The scholarship on African women and poverty tend to focus on their immediate experiences and pressing needs, while quantitative studies provide statistics on poverty and macro changes in poverty over time. There is less information on how women, particularly mothers, move in and out of wealth and poverty over their lifetime. More research needs to capture the changes that take place in the lives of mothers as well as their livelihood strategies during different stages of motherhood.

Urbanization, equity, and rights to the city A SSHRC funded (2017–2023) research is currently underway to explore how the relationship between poverty and inequality is being transformed by the dynamic early twentyfirst-­century context of urbanization, resulting in the reconstituting of gender relations and gendered rights to the city in Ibadan, Nigeria. This research is timely given that in the post 2007 global financial crisis world, the majority of sub-Sahara Africa’s population will be living in urban centres for the first time in history, with largely unrestrained capital mobility and accumulation, and new global urban development platforms. The large-scale, rapid pace and relative newness of these urban transformations means little is known about how they are affecting the lives of the largest marginalized groups in urban areas, namely poor working women. The research will examine how these changes are reconfiguring opportunities and inequalities between women and men, producing new urban subjectivities and urban places, and the impact they are having upon women’s rights to the city, raising issues that speak to equity, belonging, and justice, which are vital for democratic and sustainable urban development. This research could be further expanded to other cities in sub-Saharan Africa with a specific focus on mothers (heterosexual and queer) while accounting for differences in class, age, and ability.

Further reading Akyeampong, Emmanuel. “ ‘Wo Pe Tam Won Pe Ba’ (‘You like Cloth but You Don’t Want Children’) Urbanization, Individualism & Gender Relations in Colonial Ghana c 1900–1939.” Africa’s Urban Past, edited by David Anderson and Richard Rathbone, James Currey Publishers, 2000, pp. 222–34. Amankwaa, Ebenezer Forkuo. “Women and Men at the Traffic Lights: The (Re)Configuration and (Re)Gendering of Street Water Vending in Ghana.” GeoJournal, vol. 82, no. 2, Apr. 2017, pp. 329–44. link-springer-com.proxy.library.carleton.ca. doi: 10.1007/s10708-015-9685-8. Bank, Leslie. “Matrifocality, Patriarchy and Globalization: Changing Family Forms in a South African City.” Frontiers of Globalization: Kinship and Family Structures in Africa, edited by Ana Marta González et al., Africa World Press, 2011, pp. 133–72. Johnston-Anumonwo, Ibipo, and Donna L. Doane. “Globalization, Economic Crisis and Africa’s Informal Economy Women Workers.” Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, vol. 32, no. 1, Mar. 2011, pp. 8–21. Wiley Online Library. doi: 10.1111/j.1467–9493.2011.00416.x. Khor, Lena. “Mama Benz and the Taste of Money: A Critical View of a ‘Homespun’ Rags-to-Riches Story of Post-Independence Africa.” On the Edges of Development: Cultural Interventions, edited by Kum-Kum Bhavnani et al., Routledge, 2009, pp. 167–87. Nasong’o, Shadrach. “Women and Economic Liberalization in Kenya: The Impact and Challenges of Globalization.” Women in African Development: The Challenges of Globalization and Liberalization in the 21st Century, edited by Sylvain Hounkponou Boko et al., Africa World Press, 2005, pp. 33–52. Osirim, Mary Johnson. “Trade, Economy, and Family in Urban Zimbabwe.” African Market Women and Economic Power: The Role of Women in African Economic Development, edited by Bessie House-Midamba and Felix K. Ekechi, Greenwood Press, 1995, pp. 157–75.

422

Mothering, urbanization and Africa

Conclusion Sweet mother, I no go forget you For this suffer wey you suffer for me . . . When I dey hungry, my mother go run up and down She dey find me something wey I go chop oh (Prince Nico Mbarga)

In many cities of sub-Saharan Africa, “good,” sweet mothers are celebrated in popular culture as denoted by the song lyrics above. “Good” mothers are those who sacrifice and prioritize their children’s well-being, particularly in the face of increasing urban poverty, which has become exacerbated by rapid urbanization. These same “good” mothers have also become a menace to the entrepreneurial state because their livelihood strategies that rely on informality (housing and work) are unaesthetic and make cities unappealing for global investment. The ideal “good” neoliberal mother would be that of the Mama Benz figure, triumphing against the odds (Khor 167) and forsaking a life of poverty. But these celebrations of motherhood, both the suffering one and the triumphant one, need to be challenged. Instead, structural inequalities must be addressed and municipal valorization of capital over the large majority of urban dwellers should be curbed. As the impact of the globalization of neoliberal urbanism continues to affect urban lives in sub-Saharan Africa, more research needs to be done on diverse forms of mothering, and deeper understanding is needed on how mothers move in and out of wealth to better inform policies and interventions that are more suitable to their needs and a more just life in the city.

Notes 1 Rural agricultural economies were affected by neoliberal reforms that encouraged export crops and diverted subsidies from subsistence farming. 2 I put the word “slum” in quotation marks to signal that it is a politicized terminology. The term is often used from an outsider’s perspective and is a value judgment on those living in areas designated as “slums.” The outsider’s perspective often discounts the insider’s perspectives and masks the experience and everyday reality of those living there (Sanjek; Low).

Works cited Adeniyi Ogunyankin, Grace. “ ‘The City of Our Dream’: Owambe Urbanism and Low-Income Women’s Resistance in Ibadan, Nigeria.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol. 43, no. 3, 2019, pp. 423–41. Wiley Online Library. doi: 10.1111/1468-2427.12732 Akyeampong, Emmanuel. “ ‘Wo Pe Tam Won Pe Ba’ (‘You like Cloth but You Don’t Want Children’) Urbanization, Individualism & Gender Relations in Colonial Ghana c 1900–1939.” Africa’s Urban Past, edited by David Anderson and Richard Rathbone, James Currey Publishers, 2000, pp. 222–34. Amankwaa, Ebenezer Forkuo. “Women and Men at the Traffic Lights: The (Re)Configuration and (Re)Gendering of Street Water Vending in Ghana.” GeoJournal, vol. 82, no. 2, Apr. 2017, pp. 329–44. link-springer-com.proxy.library.carleton.ca. doi: 10.1007/s10708-015-9685-8 Archambault, C., et al. “Urban Services and Child Migration to the Slums of Nairobi.” World Development, vol. 40, no. 9, 2012, pp. 1854–69. Awumbila, Mariama. “Women Moving within Borders: Gender and Internal Migration Dynamics in Ghana.” Ghana Journal of Geography, vol. 7, no. 2, 2015, pp. 132–45. Bain, Alison L., and Linda Peake. “Conclusion: Envisioning Global Urban Futures.” Urbanization in a Global Context, edited by Alison Bain and Linda Peake, UK ed., Oxford UP Canada, 2017, pp. 426–33.

423

Grace Adeniyi Ogunyankin Bank, Leslie. “Matrifocality, Patriarchy and Globalization: Changing Family Forms in a South African City.” Frontiers of Globalization: Kinship and Family Structures in Africa, edited by Ana Marta González et al., Africa World Press, 2011, pp. 133–72. Bromley, Rosemary D. F., and Peter K. Mackie. “Displacement and the New Spaces for Informal Trade in the Latin American City Centre.” Urban Studies, vol. 46, no. 7, June 2009, pp. 1485–506. SAGE Journals. doi: 10.1177/0042098009104577. Chauncey, George. “The Locus of Reproduction: Women’s Labour in the Zambian Copperbelt, 1927– 1953.” Journal of Southern African Studies, vol. 7, no. 2, 1981, pp. 135–64. Clark, Gracia. “Mothering, Work, and Gender in Urban Asante Ideology and Practice.” American Anthropologist, vol. 101, no. 4, 1999, pp. 717–29. Clark, Shelley, et al. “Who Helps Single Mothers in Nairobi? The Role of Kin Support.” Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 79, no. 4, Aug. 2017, pp. 1186–204. Wiley Online Library. doi: 10.1111/jomf.12404. Companion, Michèle. “Commodities and Competition: The Economic Marginalization of Female Food Vendors in Northern Mozambique.” WSQ: Women’s Studies Quarterly, vol. 38, no. 3, Jan. 2011, pp. 163– 81. Project MUSE. doi: 10.1353/wsq.2010.0026. Goebel, Allison. “ ‘Our Struggle Is for the Full Loaf ’: Protests, Social Welfare and Gendered Citizenship in South Africa.” Journal of Southern African Studies, vol. 37, no. 2, June 2011, pp. 369–88. Taylor and Francis+NEJM. doi: 10.1080/03057070.2011.579437. House-Midamba, Bessie. “Kikuyu Market Women Traders and the Struggle for Economic Empowerment in Kenya.” African Market Women and Economic Power: The Role of Women in African Economic Development, edited by Bessie House-Midamba and Felix K. Ekechi, Greenwood Press, 1995, pp. 81–97. Human Rights Watch. “ ‘Take That Filth Away’ | Police Abuses against Street Vendors in Angola.” Human Rights Watch, 29 Sept. 2013, www.hrw.org/report/2013/09/29/take-filth-away/police-abusesagainst-street-vendors-angola. International Organization for Migration. Rural Women and Migration. 2012, www.iom.int/jahia/webdav/ shared/shared/mainsite/published_docs/brochures_and_info_sheets/Rural-Women-and-MigrationFact-Sheet-2012.pdf. Jackson, Lynette. “When in the White Man’s Town.” Women in African Colonial Histories, edited by Susan Geiger et al., Indiana UP, 2002, pp. 191–215. James, Valentine Udoh, and James Etim. The Feminization of Development Processes in Africa: Current and Future Perspectives. Greenwood Publishing Group, 1999, pp. xi–xiv. Khor, Lena. “Mama Benz and the Taste of Money: A Critical View of a ‘Homespun’ Rags-to-Riches Story of Post-Independence Africa.” On the Edges of Development: Cultural Interventions, edited by Kum-Kum Bhavnani et al., Routledge, 2009, pp. 167–87. Kinyanjui, Mary Njeri. “Women Informal Garment Traders in Taveta Road, Nairobi: From the Margins to the Center.” African Studies Review, vol. 56, no. 3, Dec. 2013, pp. 147–64. Kyotalengerire, Agnes. “Kawempe Slum Single Mothers Equipped with Business Skills.” www.Newvision. Co.Ug, www.newvision.co.ug/new_vision/news/1328833/kawempe-slum-single-mothers-equippedbusiness-skills. Accessed 8 Oct. 2017. Leissle, Kristy. “Cosmopolitan Cocoa Farmers: Refashioning Africa in Divine Chocolate Advertisements.” Journal of African Cultural Studies, vol. 24, no. 2, Dec. 2012, pp. 121–39. Taylor and Francis+NEJM. doi: 10.1080/13696815.2012.736194. Lindsay, Lisa A. Working with Gender: Wage Labor and Social Change in Southwestern Nigeria. Greenwood Publishing Group, Incorporated, 2003. Little, Kenneth. African Women in Towns: An Aspect of Africa’s Social Revolution. Cambridge UP Archive, 1973. Low, Setha M. “The Anthropology of Cities: Imagining and Theorizing the City.” Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 25, Jan. 1996, pp. 383–409. Mikell, Gwendolyn. “Pleas for Domestic Relief: Akan Women and Family Courts.” African Feminisms: The Politics of Survival in Sub-Saharan Africa, edited by Gwendolyn Mikell, U of Pennsylvania, 1997, pp. 96–126. Milazzo, Annamaria, and Dominique P. van de Walle. Women Left behind? Poverty and Headship in Africa, World Bank Group. 2015. Moyo, Otrude N., and Saliwe M. Kawewe. “The Dynamics of a Racialized, Gendered, Ethnicized, and Economically Stratified Society: Understanding the Socio-Economic Status of Women in Zimbabwe.” Feminist Economics, vol. 8, no. 2, Jan. 2002, pp. 163–81. Taylor and Francis+NEJM. doi: 10.1080/13545700220000175. Muzenda, Glenda. “Choiceless Choices of Women in Migration.” Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa, Mar. 2017, www.osisa.org/womens-rights/regional/choiceless-choices-women-migration.

424

Mothering, urbanization and Africa Nasong’o, Shadrach. “Women and Economic Liberalization in Kenya: The Impact and Challenges of Globalization.” Women in African Development: The Challenges of Globalization and Liberalization in the 21st Century, edited by Sylvain Hounkponou Boko et al., Africa World Press, 2005, pp. 33–52. Njoh, Ambe. “Gender-Based Discrimination in Housing and Urban Development Policies in Cameroon.” The Feminization of Development Processes in Africa: Current and Future Perspectives, edited by Valentine Udoh James and James Etim, Greenwood Publishing Group, 1999, pp. 113–30. Obbo, Christine. African Women: Their Struggle for Economic Independence. Zed Press, 1980. Oberhauser, Ann M., and Muriel A. Yeboah. “Heavy Burdens: Gendered Livelihood Strategies of Porters in Accra, Ghana.” Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, vol. 32, no. 1, Mar. 2011, pp. 22–37. Wiley Online Library. doi: 10.1111/j.1467–9493.2011.00417.x. Osirim, Mary Johnson. “Carrying the Burdens of Adjustment and Globalization: Women and Microenterprise Development in Urban Zimbabwe.” International Sociology, vol. 18, no. 3, Sept. 2003, pp. 535–58. SAGE Journals. doi: 10.1177/02685809030183005. Pieterse, Edgar. “High Wire Acts: Knowledge Imperatives of Southern Urbanisms.” The Salon, vol. 5, 2012, pp. 37–50. Potts, Deborah. “Rural–Urban and Urban–Rural Migration Flows as Indicators of Economic Opportunity in Sub-Saharan Africa: What Do the Data Tell Us.” Migrating out of Poverty Research Programme Working Paper, 2013. Sanjek, Roger. “Urban Anthropology in the 1980s: A World View.” Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 19, no. 1, 1990, pp. 151–86. Annual Reviews. doi: 10.1146/annurev.an.19.100190.001055. Schoepf, Brooke. “AIDS, Gender, and Sexuality during Economic Crisis.” African Feminism: The Politics of Survival in Sub-Saharan Africa, edited by Gwendolyn Mikell, U of Pennsylvania P, 1997, pp. 310–332. Sigalla, Rachel Jactan, and Stephen Carney. “Poverty Reduction through Entrepreneurship: Microcredit, Learning and Ambivalence amongst Women in Urban Tanzania.” International Journal of Educational Development, vol. 32, no. 4, 2012, pp. 546–54. Scholars Portal Journals. doi: 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2012.02.011. Steel, Griet. “Navigating (Im)Mobility: Female Entrepreneurship and Social Media in Khartoum.” Africa, vol. 87, no. 2, May 2017, pp. 233–52. Cambridge Core. doi: 10.1017/S0001972016000930. Tranberg Hansen, Karen, and Mariken Vaa. “Introduction.” Reconsidering Informality: Perspectives from Urban Africa, edited by Karen Tranberg Hansen and Mariken Vaa, Nordic Africa Institute, 2004, pp. 7–24. UN-HABITAT. State of African Cities Re-Imagining Sustainable Urban Transitions. UN-HABITAT, 2014. unhabitat.org, https://unhabitat.org/books/state-of-african-cities-2014-re-imagining-sustainableurban-transitions/. Watson, Vanessa. “African Urban Fantasies: Dreams or Nightmares?” Environment and Urbanization, vol. 26, no. 1, Apr. 2014, pp. 215–31. Crossref. doi: 10.1177/0956247813513705. Win, Everjoice J. “Not Very Poor, Powerless or Pregnant: The African Woman Forgotten by Development.” IDS Bulletin, vol. 35, no. 4, Oct. 2004, pp. 61–64. Wiley Online Library. doi: 10.1111/j.1759– 5436.2004.tb00156.x.

425

SECTION VIII

Mothering, governance, and politics

34 FORMAL GOVERNANCE OF AND BY MOTHERS Mothers, public policy, and law Rebecca Jaremko Bromwich

Introduction Definitions of the “good” and “bad” mother are discourses with governmental effects (Foucault), shaping and curtailing the conduct of those actors identified as mothers (Rich). Throughout this volume, it is made evident that mothers are subject to a wide variety of forms of social regulation, including through discourses of “intensive mothering” (Hays; O’Reilly; Ennis) through which term feminist researchers have critically unpacked how performing gendered expectations of self-sacrifice and submissiveness is mandatory for mothers. Feminist criticism by many scholars has unpacked how cultural expectations of what constitutes “good motherhood” are very narrow and exclusionary (O’Reilly; Hughes-Miller et al.). Far from becoming a freer space in the contemporary moment than in the past, the identity and work of motherhood are social locations in which mothers are more than ever before judged, demonized, and stigmatized for issues and problems in their children’s lives. This chapter looks at a particular genre of social regulation, that is, formal mechanisms by which mothers govern and are governed. No clear, bright line can be drawn between formal and informal means of regulation of mothers. Legal regulation has its moral and cultural content, while moral regulation can and often does invoke the law (Glasbeek). Popular culture, too, can act as a source of governmentality inasmuch as it informs popular understandings of law that have themselves a materiality (Sarat), affecting what laws are enforced, through reporting rates and choices made to commence civil legal action. Where mothers are formally governed through processes of public policy and law, official texts intersect with cultural understandings of who mothers are, and normative assumptions about who mothers should be and how they should behave. Consequently, it will be beneficial for those reading this chapter to also consider the content of other chapters in this volume that deal with discourses of intensive mothering in seeking to critically analyze the complex dimensions of how mothers are regulated and how they participate in regulation. As a working definition of its particular subject matter of formal governance, the chapter relies on a social constructivist understanding of regulation and law. It takes a positivist approach to discerning the content of laws and regulations which is, in turn, informed by an artifactual approach to those texts that understands law as socially embedded (Silbey). Formal governance is understood as a set of “sovereign commands,” that is, general orders made by a designated authority. These commands are sets of positive social norms that characterize and constrain actions and people, 429

Rebecca Jaremko Bromwich

and uniquely amongst forms of social government, they are backed up explicitly by threats of sanction, which include socially legitimized force (Austin; Bentham). The chapter, therefore, starts by focusing on describing legal and regulatory frameworks in lieu of starting from a judgment on their moral or ethical legitimacy (Saunders and Bromwich 8). The textual location of these commands is in officially recognized documents, such as formal legislative provisions, case law, and regulatory provisions of a variety of kinds. Understanding that these commands and their social context are mutually constitutive, the chapter considers those formal governmental frameworks critically in their social and discursive contexts. While, as Foucault’s work makes evident, the governmental effects of informal mechanisms of social control should not be underestimated (1978), it would also be a mistake to underestimate the power of law and other formal discourses of regulation (Golder and Fitzpatrick). Formal mechanisms by which mothers govern and are governed are of tremendous significance to study in large part because of their important material effects. Formal mechanisms of regulation can restrict mothers’ liberty, affect their access to resources (e.g., social welfare funding), and remove their children from their care. As such, formal mechanisms of government significantly impact and shape mothers’ lives, and in particular impact the lives of mothers living at the margins, which are too many. Accordingly, this chapter identifies and discusses how law, public policy and governmental administration, management, and operations significantly impact and shape mothers’ lives. It explores how systems of law, regulatory measures, courses of action, and funding priorities concerning mothering and motherhood shape and impact mothers’ lives. It also looks at how mothers participate as social actors in the production, maintenance, and enforcement of formal governance. In the pages that follow, this chapter surveys a variety of kinds of formal governance to which mothers are subject and looks at ways in which they participate in that government. The chapter starts from the most to least overt ways in which mothering, mothers, and motherhood are formally governed. The less overt, or less direct, means by which mothers are formally governed are not less important than the more obvious ones. They are simply more insidious. First, the chapter looks at ways in which mothers are directly governed by explicit formal governance. In this section, it discusses child protection, criminal, health, and education law. Second, it discusses formal regulation that indirectly shapes and channels mothers’ conduct and experiences, by affecting mothers’ financial and social circumstances, such as maternity and parental leave policies, and how those regulatory frameworks govern mothers’ conduct. Finally, it looks, in historical and social context, at rates and mechanisms of mothers’ participation in the construction, maintenance, and enforcement of formal governance frameworks. Of necessity, this chapter provides a survey sampling of forms of formal governance. It neither seeks nor claims to be exhaustive but rather puts forward illustrative examples of prevalent social and legal phenomena.

Background and context Direct and indirect formal regulation Direct regulation – child protection and family law Of most obvious significance to consider when contemplating formal regulation of mothers are the legislative and regulatory regimes that overtly and directly determine who is legally (dis) entitled to occupy the status, and carry on the roles, of mother. The legal regimes that have these governmental effects are found in child protection law and family law. 430

Formal governance of and by mothers

Formal regimes for child welfare law are ubiquitous throughout Western democracies. While these regimes claim explicitly, in varying ways, to set up formal regimes to protect children from harm and support their “best interests” (Bala et al.), these are legislative and regulatory regimes that attach the concept of the “good” or “bad” mother to legal obligations. They define and constrain who is recognized legally, ultimately, as the mother of a child by empowering the state to remove children from their parents if there is a need to protect them. Thus, child protection laws have, by operation of their processes, the power to strip a mother of her maternal status by finally making her child a state ward or ruling the child is to be placed for adoption (Bala et al.). The existence of child protection regimes is hard to critique – who, after all, would speak against protecting children? However, there are important ways in which these regimes are often problematic. Research has shown legal regimes for child welfare to involve power differentials and have a disproportionate impact, across jurisdictions, on financially underresourced, racialized, Indigenous, or otherwise marginalized mothers. Decisions whether to report protection concerns, and how to deal with them, are made in these systems by social workers, health care providers, educators, and community members, as well as lawyers and judges, rendering the systems vulnerable to any discriminatory attitudes prevalent in those communities (Bromwich, “Still Wearing Scarlet?” 2017). Many social researchers have critically unpacked how performing gendered expectations of selfsacrifice and submissiveness is mandatory for mothers. While the obligation to mandatorily perform “good” motherhood is imposed on all mothers, it is more possible to attain for some than others. Women excluded from, unable to comply with, or resistant to, the stereotypical requirements of white, middle-class, appropriately feminine, self-abnegating motherhood have disproportionately been found to be legally “unfit” under child welfare laws (Bromwich,“Still Wearing Scarlet?” 2017). Indigenous women, single mothers, and even working-class women have been excluded from the stereotype of the “good mother” and hegemonic understandings of motherhood (Bromwich, “Still Wearing Scarlet?” 2017; O’Reilly) in ways that render the construct of the “unfit mother” problematic as always already constructed in discriminatory, exclusionary, and oppressive ways. Legal reforms have done less than is assumed to erode or eradicate the prevalence of stereotypes about class, race, and socioeconomic status as defining the “bad” or “unfit” mother in legal decision-making (Bromwich, “Still Wearing Scarlet?” 2017). Law reform has not overwhelmed the power of the discursive figure of the “unfit” mother in contributing to inequality and marginalization for racialized minority mothers, including Indigenous women, mothers of lower socioeconomic status, and mothers with disabilities. A variety of representative figures in discourse of the “unfit mother” continue to contribute in complex ways to the disempowerment of mothers across a variety of contexts in their involvements with child protection systems. Child protection decisions are manifold micro processes taken in an opaque web in which child protection law is neither majestically separate from social structures, conflicts, and inequalities, nor purified from the “ordinary meaning” of its terms. Further, it shows that, circulating within that context, are problematic discourses of what constitutes maternal fitness and overlapping assumptions about fathers and patriarchy (Bromwich, “Still Wearing Scarlet?” 2017). Further, in principle, the laws and structures made available by child protection systems are often constructed in ways that do not support marginalized mothers in developing skills, improving health, and accumulating resources but too often focus on removing children into state care. Removing children into state care places them into systems for foster care and adoption that are in far too many cases substandard in what measures of safety, education – and in a situation of tragic irony – protection they can provide (Weinberg). Far too many children are harmed in foster care (Weinberg), and far too many children who have been raised in state care go on to become criminalized and incarcerated as adults. Finally, it is clear that widely held 431

Rebecca Jaremko Bromwich

stereotypes about who can be a “good mother” too often inform the ways in which a myriad of decision-makers in child welfare systems make determinations about whether parents are “fit” to care for their children (Bromwich, “Still Wearing Scarlet?”). Across jurisdictions, there are invariably formal laws that systematize how kinship, that is, family membership, is reckoned and provide processes for determining who is legally recognized as a parent to a child, as well as who is entitled to have custody of, and access to, those children (Eekelaar and Thandabantu Nhlapo). These laws include legislative and regulatory regimes for marriage, separation, divorce, child support, custody, and access, as well as adoption. Family law presents another set of laws and formal regulations that is connected to child welfare law and is a technology through which mothers’ foundational roles and status as mothers are formally governed. Through the machinations of family law, determinations are made as to whether mothers reside with, or even see, their children. Family law legislation, regulations, and processes also determine how much, if any, support children are entitled to from their parents, including their fathers as well as their mothers (which is significant as, in the majority of cases, children still reside with their mothers after parental separation) (Fodden). Finally, family law determines who is legally a child’s mother, and also affects the legal recognition of other familial relationships, such as who is assumed to be a child’s father, and what entitlements or obligations flow from those relationships. Through adoption law as well as family law more generally, legal determinations are made as to who a person’s legal parents are. While regimes for family law arrange private matters between parents, other family members, and children, they also have public effects in that they determine who is legally a mother to a child, and under what conditions in terms of time, authority, and economics to a large extent, the mother can parent (Fodden; Herring). Child and spousal support are also set by these family law regimes (Fodden; Herring). Although it is generally simpler under the law to determine who is a mother to a child (as opposed to legally ascribing paternity), there are situations in which determining maternity is more complex. For instance, mothers who are same-sex partners of other mothers are not always legally recognized as mothers to their partners’ children, even if they have acted in the place of a parent to those children since birth (Cahill and Tobias). Another complicated situation arises where there are more than two adults who would like to be legally recognized as parents to a child, and, at least theoretically, all of them could be mothers. This might arise in a polygynous or polyamorous household, or could become controversial even without any conjugal relationship between adults who are friends. Adoption is another situation where legally determining who is a mother to a child can be complex, as is the sometimes ambiguous legal status of stepparents. While this is no longer the case in Canada, in some places, a mother’s matrimonial fault, such as her alleged adultery, can be used as a basis to prevent her from having custody of, or even contacting, her children (Eekelaar and Thandabantu Nhlapo). At the level of international law, the Hague convention reinforces family law by setting out where children should reside, or continue to reside, and assuring the return of children removed from their habitual residences to other signatory countries (Bromwich, “International Law Criminalizing Motherhood”). Thus, systems and processes of family and child protection law are obvious and significant dimensions of how mothers are formally regulated.

Direct and indirect regulation through criminal law, justice, and corrections Another area of formal regulation that plays an important role in formally regulating mothers is the criminal field. The formal legal texts comprised by criminal law, as well as the processes, 432

Formal governance of and by mothers

regulations, and other policies in place in the criminal justice and correctional systems of a jurisdiction are important mechanisms through which mothers are formally governed in overt and also in less obvious ways. Mothers can, by law as a form of social regulation, be criminalized. They, and women overall, are criminalized and incarcerated at rates lower than men in general (Eldjupovic and Bromwich), but their incarceration tends statistically to have a more significant and more immediately devastating impact on family units because mothers tend more often than fathers to have primary care and custody of children (Eldjupovic and Bromwich). The criminalization of mothers relates to social (in)justice, mass incarceration, oppression, and marginalization. Pre-existing, widely assumed figures of the “unfit mother” are involved in how governmentality operates in criminal justice and correctional systems. When considering formal regulation of mothers, it is tremendously important to bear in mind mothers’ encounters with systems of control, confinement, and criminalization, as well as their experiences of care (Minaker and Hogeveen). In general, “true” criminal laws, or mala in se, are those provisions that assign legitimate penal consequences, stigma, and loss of liberty for breaches of what is understood by a society to reflect its basic moral order (Saunders and Bromwich). Like all other areas of law, criminal laws are different in different jurisdictions. The proportion of criminalized and incarcerated women in Canada’s Federal and Provincial custody systems is quite small relative to that of men (Minaker and Hogeveen; Eldjupovic and Bromwich). Other countries also consistently report significantly smaller proportions of incarcerated women, compared to men. However, while the rate of incarceration overall is increasing, incarceration rates of women are growing faster than those of men. In recent years, across many countries including Canada, there has been overwhelming growth in the numbers, both total, and per capita, of incarcerated women. Racialized women are increasingly overrepresented in the criminal justice and correctional systems; in Canada this concern extends especially to Indigenous women (Eldjupovic and Bromwich). Certain criminal laws have historically been applied, and some continue to apply specifically to mothers. For instance, provisions for infanticide apply specially only to mothers. This is a criminal offence for which mothers are assigned lower criminal penalties in relation to the death of their own infant than they would be where they found responsible for the death of another human being, as is provided for by s. 223 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Other provisions affect mothers disproportionately, while they can be applied to others, such as obligations to provide children the “necessaries of life” under s. 215 of the Code. Also relevant here are the criminal provisions that limit what forms of birth control are available and can have the governmental effect of ensuring that women who do not wish to carry a pregnancy to term nonetheless become mothers. This would include the provision, under s. 287 of the Criminal Code of Canada that formerly made it a criminal offence to bring about a miscarriage. Historically, mothers specifically, and women and girls in general, were subjected to criminal penalties for offences, such as the status offence of “incorrigibility” in Canada in relation to allegations of “promiscuity” in ways different from persons socially located with different identities (Sangster). Similarly, laws against prostitution also disproportionately affect women in general, and mothers in particular. If they are sex workers consensually, or prostituted without their consent, these mothers run the risk of both incarceration and of losing their children through the machinations of the child welfare system (Bromwich and DeJong). In addition to being disproportionately charged for different types of criminal offences relative to other classes of persons, mothers also have different experiences in the criminal justice system than do others. Mothering, criminalization, and incarceration are generally perceived as being contradictory. Mothering is distinctly or primarily a female phenomenon, while incarceration is primarily, statistically, and stereotypically, male (Eldjupovic and Bromwich). Similarly, 433

Rebecca Jaremko Bromwich

it is consistent across countries that the number of incarcerated males by far exceeds the number of women. As a result, incarcerated mothers are “doubly stigmatized” or “double odd” (Eldjupovic and Bromwich). Incarcerated mothers are not doing what social expectations dictate that “good” mothers should do (Hughes-Miller et al.). On the one hand, being a mother may support the argument that there exist mitigating factors for the purposes of s. 718 of the Criminal Code, factors that can serve to alleviate the sentence imposed on a convicted person. On the other hand, involvement with the criminal justice system can have a tremendous negative impact on mothers. Women may be forced to give birth and become mothers in custody while shackled, and without proper medical assistance or support (Eldjupovic and Bromwich). Furthermore, mothers involved in the criminal justice system as accused or inmates are at risk of losing their children through the operation of child welfare laws (Hughes-Miller et al.). They may have no access to their children for long periods of time, and their children may be made wards of the state, and even adopted into different families while they are in custody. While the written law is important, it is not all-important. It is, of course, significant to remember that the criminal justice system is more than just the expressly written laws contained in a text such as Canada’s Criminal Code (Saunders and Bromwich). It is clear that the criminal justice system involves the operation of many micro processes taken in an opaque web in which law is neither majestically separate from social structures, conflicts, and inequalities, nor purified from the “ordinary meaning” of its terms. It is important to be aware that the experiences of mothers in the criminal justice and correctional systems are not identical. Mother is an intersectional identity and mothers who are financially poor, racialized, or Indigenous, often experience discriminatory treatment and higher incarceration rates than mothers who are white and middle class, in Canada as elsewhere.

Indirect formal governance Formal regulation and governance through the law and public policy does not only prohibit: it also directs, facilitates, channels, and otherwise structures social life (Saunders and Bromwich). Governance is formally imposed upon mothers indirectly through formal discourses that do not just prohibit but also structure. The mundane formal texts that provide laws, rules, regulations, and processes of fiscal, tax, health, education, and other laws and policies have significant governmental effects on mothers. Ways in which maternity and parental leaves are regulated, pay and benefits, and status and stigma merit mention here because they are formal mechanisms by which mothers are regulated indirectly. For example, the ways that zoning bylaws, licensing provisions, and human rights duties of accommodation intersect dictates in what spaces a mother can comfortably and legally breastfeed. This intersection of regulatory provisions both reflects and reinscribes widely held attitudes and assumptions about breastfeeding in a particular location: it can normalize, sanction, prohibit, stigmatize, or impose pressure towards breastfeeding (OHRC). For further example, the ways in which fiscal policies and the relevant jurisdiction’s tax and benefits systems deal with pregnancy, child-rearing, and periods spent outside of the paid workforce profoundly affect the material circumstances in which mothers live. Perhaps the most obvious fiscal policy that affects mothers’ lives is maternity and parental leave entitlement. In Canada, for example, mothers are entitled to take 17 weeks off work in relation to pregnancy, and there is also an entitlement to 35 weeks parental leave that is in addition to the 17 weeks and can be taken by either parent, or split between the two (ESA). Through Canada’s Employment Insurance system (EI), biological mothers, fathers, and adoptive parents, can also generally qualify 434

Formal governance of and by mothers

for payment during the leave period. In contrast, only a few hours’ journey away, in the United States, there is no entitlement to paid pregnancy or parental leave, and the mandated time for leave is only 12 weeks for biological mothers (FMLA). This difference in leave entitlements and benefits contributes to different expectations and divergent workplace cultures around the questions of what childcare arrangements, and plans for breast or bottle feeding, might be normally expected of a mother, as well as what might be economically viable for young families. Similarly, health care legislation, including what are provided as benefits, what health care costs, and what gaps exist in the provision of health care and home care, can impose a care burden on mothers, who are widely assumed to be available to do the unpaid labour of caregiving for the ill and elderly. Mothers are often blamed for social ills and their children’s mental health or obesity issues (Reimer and Sahagian). As Valverde has genealogized, making mothers responsible for the physical and metaphorical moral cleanliness not just of children but also of communities, has a long-standing history of being part of Canada’s colonial project of nationbuilding (Valverde). When something goes wrong in the lives of children and teens, it is very often the child’s mother who is blamed for it (Reimer and Sahagian). Mothers are often blamed and shamed in a wide variety of ways, including through the operation of regulatory provisions such as education laws requiring children to attend school, and guidelines addressing matters as mundane as school lunches, for perceived deficiencies in their maternal practices. Mother are subjected to, but also actively resist, ideologies of mother blame by engaging in feminist mothering practices and by publicly challenging patriarchal discourses of “good motherhood” (Hughes-Miller et al.). Economic inequality along the matrices of gender and race, and gaps or failures in regulation that do not compensate for, or address, the inequalities in the systems of capitalism, contribute to gendered violence, devalued care work, and lone parenting. Aging women tend disproportionately to live in poverty, and this includes many mothers: indeed, years out of the paid workforce while engaged in caregiving for young children can and does often adversely affect an aging mother’s financial security. The foregoing is not an exhaustive list but rather a smattering of illustrative examples that highlight how it is important to research how laws of expedience (or mala prohibita) (Saunders and Bromwich) intended for general application specifically, differently, and, uniquely impact mothers by reinforcing and reinscribing the assumed dimensions of, and possibilities for, what constitutes a good mother and what is involved in good mothering. While the obligation to mandatorily perform “good” motherhood is imposed on all mothers, it is more possible to attain for some than others. Women excluded from, unable to comply with, or resistant to, the stereotypical requirements of white, middle-class, appropriately feminine, self-abnegating motherhood have been found to be legally “unfit.” Indigenous women, single mothers, and even working-class women have been excluded from the stereotype of the “good mother” and hegemonic understandings of motherhood (O’Reilly; Bassin) in ways that render the construct of the “unfit mother” problematic as always already constructed in discriminatory, exclusionary, and oppressive ways.

Controversies and debates: mothers as regulators Patriarchal systems locate mothers in complex social locations where they are both powerful and powerless (Rich). While they have been disproportionately subordinated and subjugated relative to men, and to fathers, and socially marginalized in some ways relative to other women, mothers have always been social actors as well as subjects of social regulation. It is reductive to understand the mother role as produced entirely by oppressive forces; mothers are agentic social actors who make choices in difficult circumstances, and who are accorded power over, and 435

Rebecca Jaremko Bromwich

responsibility for, their children in a variety of ways (Eldjupovic and Bromwich). In a variety of visible and obscured ways, mothers agentically participate in the production and enforcement of the discourses of formal governance, such as policy and law, by which mothers are, in turn, governed. As discussed later, mothers have always been involved as regulators in informal capacities through their work in parenting and their agencies as advocates. In fields of endeavour involving the protection of and care for children, women can derive power and credibility from invoking their roles as mothers, either to individual children, or to the nation. To a statistically lesser extent, some mothers have also long been involved in official and paid roles in creating, enforcing, and administering public policy and formal governance through roles in politics, law, and the judiciary. Mothers have moved into official roles as paid regulators in larger numbers, but they have not yet attained equality as workers within those fields. Historically, women’s roles in producing and enforcing formal governance have been largely unpaid and informal, and in relation to fields pertaining to the nurturing and protection of children. The activism of mothers was historically largely obscured from the historical record because mothers acted primarily in unpaid capacities on a voluntary basis, on single issues and not in paid jobs as career politicians, lawyers, or judges. Although the level to which women participate in paid leadership roles in the legal profession, policy-making, public life, and the judiciary is changing, it has not yet fundamentally changed in principle. Larger numbers of women are in leadership roles in general, but the progress of mothers in particular to leadership roles in the professions and public life has largely stalled in North America. Invoking the role of mother in formal governance, women gain authority and credibility in patriarchal systems when they speak from their “proper” place as mothers, not as advocates for themselves but in their role as mothers of children. Women have spoken with authority from their social location as “good and proper” (white, Christian, middle-class) mothers in formal and informal leadership roles in social reform movements, historically as today. For example, the temperance movement that successfully fought for alcohol prohibition in Canada as well as in the United States had strong leadership in “Women’s Temperance Unions” (Sheehan) whose rhetoric frequently derived its persuasive force from the role of their woman members as mothers. Further, the advocacies of mothers acting explicitly in their capacity as such also contributed significantly to the ultimate repeal of alcohol prohibition both in Canada and the United States (Rose). Mothers’ active involvement with the temperance movement is part and parcel of their more general implication in twentieth-century nation-building movements towards social purity and white national strength (Valverde), as well as in the forging of the welfare state in the first half of the twentieth century (Bock and Thane). It is intertwined with the mandatory role of white mothers as nation builders and primary culture bearers as nurturers of white children (Comacchio). Relatedly, middle-class white mothers were key figures in the “child savers” movement at the turn of the nineteenth to the twentieth century that led to the establishment of juvenile courts to tranform the state to act in its parens patriae jurisdiction as “the great mother of all its children” (Clapp). The roles mothers have taken in advocacy are not historically unproblematic. Many famous white, middle-class first-wave feminists at the turn of the twentieth century were not just associated with suffrage, temperance, and hygiene movements but also movements in furtherance of eugenics and forced sterilization of indigenous women, such as Canada’s “famous five,” as well as US first-wave feminist Margaret Sanger, whose work also had a troubling association with eugenics (Kome; Douglas). It has historically been risky for mothers to engage publicly in processes of formal government, especially by engaging in activism. It is a cultural paradox that, while mothers are supposed 436

Formal governance of and by mothers

to speak out to guide, socialize, and protect children, they are in another discursive sense also not supposed to, as women, publicly speak. Activism by racialized, Indigenous, or poor mothers, in particular, has historically been received differently by the cultural mainstream in North America than the activism of white, middle-class mothers. Across racial and socioeconomic lines, mothers often receive criticism in popular texts if they spend too much time working, as politicians, lawyers, or activists, and not singly devoting themselves to care for their children. Public engagement, even in principle, contradicts with the assumed, traditional private role they have as caregivers for children. The discourse of “intensive mothering” demands their total self-abnegation in service of their children’s care needs all of the time (O’Reilly). When mothers have spoken publicly or engaged in protests, they have often been criticized for harming their children, and have sometimes become the subjects of child protection proceedings, where their children are sought to be apprehended from them to protect them from the harms effected by their mothers’ activism (Poe). Mothers also run the risk of criminalization and incarceration when they engage in civil disobedience. These risks are compounded where the mothers are activists on issues falling afield of the traditional sphere of mothers’ expected expertise, as when they speak in relation to the environment, nuclear weapons, peace, or other issues not directly and only about children (Poe). It remains the case that, while the majority of women in prisons are mothers, the majority of the lawmakers who craft the policies and laws that put them there, whether politicians, lawyers, or judges, are men. There are significant barriers presented by discourses of where mothers properly belong (Rich; O’Reilly), combined with mothers’ disproportionate caregiving burdens that prevent them in many instances from participating in public office or sustaining legal careers (Bohn and Parmaksız). While the work and social role expectations involved in motherhood limit the time and ability of mothers to become involved in political life in many circumstances, mothers subjectively often report that the experience of motherhood “politicized them,” providing an impetus for them to at least want to become politically active and involved in shaping public policy (Bohn and Parmaksız). Since the Industrial Revolution, across Western countries in the developed North, mothers were consigned to live and labour in unpaid capacities in the private sphere. Participation of mothers in formal processes of governance and regulation was generally discouraged, and remains rarer than participation for other persons. Until the late twentieth century, in Western democracies, women were neither lawmakers nor lawyers, except for a very small few. Indeed, women did not have the vote and could not even participate in selecting their formal governmental leaders until the early twentieth century. However, mothers have participated in processes of formal governance in complex ways. It is not, in fact, true that mothers did not participate in the public sphere historically, despite their small numbers in the professions. They were present in informal ways, as volunteers, and advocates, daughters, and wives of leaders all along. For example, it was the advocacy of mothers that featured most prominently in the “temperance” movement that led to alcohol prohibition, and it was mothers who, through references to their status and roles as mothers, were at the forefront of the “child savers” movement that ushered in youth criminal justice regimes to soften the impact of criminal law on youths with age-appropriate modifications. Mothers have also been involved and have invoked their maternal status in claiming authority in speaking about the care for children. The social location of motherhood confers some authority over certain social fields, and in particular those relating to children, while it has historically also implied the disqualification of even those mothers from speaking out on other subjects, such as economics, technology, and science – associating mothers with children and nature, and men and fathers with culture 437

Rebecca Jaremko Bromwich

and science. Furthermore, other mothers have not been understood generally in widely held assumptions to count as good and proper mothers: these other mothers include working-class women, racialized women, LGBT women, and more. Mothers’ relationships to government in the Foucauldian sense are complex and manifold. Mothering, understood as caregiving labour, has at its core a regulatory dimension as well as a supportive one. Mothering is double-edged as supportive and nurturing but also providing the epistemic violence (Spivak) through which the unruly bodies of children are shaped into civilized persons. Mothers are understood not just to meet their children’s physical needs but also to be tasked with civilizing children. Mothers are held to account discursively, “blamed” for their children’s issues from autism to schizophrenia to obesity. It is fundamentally in relation to this governmental role that it is justified for mothers to attract intense governmental scrutiny on their own: the reality that the ideology of “intensive mothering” subjects mothers to intense scrutiny is rationalized on the basis of the necessity of their behaviour to be closely circumscribed in regulating children.

Controversies, challenges, and directions for future research It is an old adage that the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. As is evident from the feminist research about intersections between mothers, motherhood, and formal governance, the saying is neither simplistically true nor false. More research is needed to make visible ways in which mothers have exerted in the past and continue to exert influence and negotiate power in constructing and maintaining systems of formal governance. Equally, research is also warranted that takes mothers seriously as subjects of formal regulation. Given that the roles, status, and circumstances of mothers in contemporary Western societies are changing, while at the same time the law is constantly changing, it is tremendously important that intersectional and nuanced study of how mothers affect and are affected by formal discourses of regulation should be conducted on an ongoing basis. Intersectional analyses of how mothers are involved in constructing regulatory frameworks that examine particular cases are an area for further study in the law – criminalization at the intersection of indigenous heritage and maternality, in Canada, for example, or African American mothers. The potential for mothers to productively invoke their roles as mothers to gain credibility, and their strategic mobilization of discourses, also needs further research. Advocates and legal scholars alike would do well to consider how strategic essentialism (Spivak) could be involved in the deployment of maternal identities and discourses to further progressive ends. More scholarship needs to be produced that engages with debates around the roles of formal governmental discourses in the oppression of mothers and the social participation of mothers. Research and advocacy should engage questions of whether mothers should have particular or special rights in relation to the parenting of children. Should family law continue to be officially gender neutral in most jurisdictions? Should mothers receive different levels of maternity and parental benefits and leave entitlements than fathers? More scholarship should also consider whether contemporary societies are in a post-motherhood moment: Are we post-gender and post-feminism? Should we be crafting a parenting or care movement rather than a mother’s movement now? Further reading that would be of use to those interested in how mothers are formally governed could include studies of governmentality and law generally. Demeter Press has greatly contributed to academic understanding of how mothers are formally governed by publishing multiple anthologies in recent years that deal with specific aspects of the governance of mothers, both formal and informal. It would be of great value to read this growing Demeter Press collection of texts that engages in feminist and critical studies of motherhood, texts in the genre 438

Formal governance of and by mothers

of feminist legal studies, as well as to do critical readings of direct, primary sources of law and policy including legislation, cases, and regulatory provisions. At the heart of the formal government of mothers is the traditional function of mothers in informal governance of children. Much formal regulation of mothers is undertaken with the rationale of ensuring that their mothering work is undertaken in ways that comply with widely accepted social norms. More research should be conducted into the interplay between formal and informal discourses in the governance of mothers. Further, future critical studies should be undertaken to examine and theorize how mothers and mothering are represented in, and affected by, the recognized discourses of law and public policy involved in formal governance. One key theme for future research will be to grapple with the ethics and epistemology involved in considering intersections between identity politics and motherhood (O’Reilly). Advocates and academics alike should consider how the identities and agencies of mothers can be deployed in ways that don’t support implicit assertions that white, middle-class mothers are the only legitimate, or at least more legitimate, ones.

Further reading Hughes, Michelle, et al. Bad Mothers: Regulations, Representations, and Resistance. Demeter Press, 2016. Kome, Penney. Women of Influence: Canadian Women and Politics. 1st ed., Doubleday, 1985. Minaker, Joanne, and Brian Hogeveen. Criminalized Mothers: Criminalizing Mothering. Demeter Press, 2015. O’Reilly, Andrea. Maternal Theory: Essential Readings. Demeter Press, 2015. Saunders, Ron, and Rebecca Bromwich. Criminal Law in Canada: An Introduction to the Social, Theoretical, and Legal Contexts. Carswell, 2016.

Conclusion This chapter has discussed how mothers are governed formally by operation of the complex and murky interactions between law, society, and culture that together constitute intersecting formal and informal regulatory orders. It has looked at how the formal texts and social practices that comprise law, public policy, and governmental administration, management, and operations significantly impact and shape mothers’ lives. It has explored how systems of law, regulatory measures, courses of action, and funding priorities concerning mothering and motherhood directly and indirectly shape and impact mothers’ lives. Rather than understanding mothers as passive recipients, it has looked at ways in which mothers have been, and are, agentically involved in the development and enforcement of formal governance mechanisms affecting mothers. As is made clear throughout this chapter, the discourses of law, policy, and formal regulation are embedded within society, meaning that there is no clear, bright line between formal and informal mechanisms of government. The construct of the “bad mother” or “unfit mother” is a persistent and pervasive discursive figure that remains present in the government of mothers and motherhood across Western democracies, informing the “ordinary” meaning of mother deployed in processes of sense-making undertaken by actors across bureaucratic systems, in public policy and law (Hughes-Miller et al.). Topics relating to discursive government of mothers are of crucial significance to understanding how formal governance actually works. Contemporary mothers are subjected to the rigorous scrutiny of the discourses of intensive motherhood (O’Reilly) across the field of social interaction. The operation of the processes and discourses of the formal regulatory apparatus – including public policy and law – is situated within the social and cultural life of a community, not majestically separated from it. Accordingly, to move towards a more emancipatory and egalitarian regime of formal governance of mothers in any jurisdiction, law reform and (re)education of actors and officials in 439

Rebecca Jaremko Bromwich

legal systems – including lawyers, police, social workers, and health care providers – is necessary. However, to change the ways in which mothers are governed by formal regulatory discourses of public policy and law, it is at least as important to engage with popular culture and the public at large through the deliberate construction of counter-discourses of equality in parenting and empowered mothering.

Works cited Austin, John. The Province of Jurisprudence Determined. 1832. Edited by W. E. Rumble, Cambridge UP, 1995. Bala, Nicholas, et al. Canadian Child Protection Law: Children, Families, and the State. 2nd ed. Thompson, 2004. Bentham, Jeremy. Of Laws in General. 1782. Edited by H. L. A. Hart, Athlone Press, 1970. Bock, G., and P. Thane, editors. Maternity and Gender Policies: Women and the Rise of the European Welfare States, 1880s–1950s. Routledge, 1991. Bohn, Simone, and Pinar Parmaksız. Mothers in Public and Political Life. Demeter Press, 2017. Bromwich, Rebecca. “International Law Criminalizing Motherhood: Examining the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction.” Criminalized Mothers, Criminalizing Mothering, edited by Joanne Minnaker and Brian Hogeveen, Demeter Press, 2015, pp. 139–163. ———. Looking for Ashley: Re-reading What the Smith Case Reveals about the Governance of Girls, Mothers and Families in Canada. Demeter Press, 2015. ———. “Still Wearing Scarlet? Discursive Figures of the Unfit Mother as Pervasive Phantoms Active in Governing Mothers through Ontario’s Child Protection Regime.” Bad Mothers: Representations, Regulations and Resistance, edited by Michelle Hughes Miller et al., Demeter Press, 2016, pp. 26–47. Bromwich, Rebecca, and Monique Marie DeJong. Mothers, Mothering, and Sex Work. Demeter Press, 2015. Cahill, Sean, and Sarah Tobias. Policy Issues Affecting Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Families. U of Michigan P, 2006. Clapp J. Elizabeth. Mothers of All Children: Women Reformers and the Rise of Juvenile Courts in Progressive-Era America. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998. Comacchio, C. Nations Are Built of Babies: Saving Ontario’s Mothers and Children, 1900–1940. McGillQueen’s UP, 1993. Criminal Code of Canada, RSC 1985 C-46. Douglas, Emily. Margaret Sanger: Pioneer of the Future. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1970. Eekelaar, John, and Thandabantu Nhlapo. The Changing Family: International Perspectives on the Family and Family Law. Hart Publishing, 1998. Eldjupovic, Gordana, and Bromwich, Rebecca. Incarcerated Mothers: Oppression and Resistance. Demeter Press, 2013. Employment Standards Act (ESA) Ontario, RSO 2000. Ennis, Linda. Intensive Mothering: The Cultural Contradictions of Modern Motherhood. Demeter Press, 2014. Family Medical Leave Act, 1993 (USA). Fodden, Simon. Family Law. Irwin Law, 1999. Foucault, Michel. “Governmentality” (Lecture at the Collège de France, 1 Feb. 1978). The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, 1978, edited by Graham Burchell et al., Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991, pp. 87–104. Glasbeek, Amanda. Moral Regulation and Governance in Canada: History, Context and Critical Issues. Canadian Scholars’ Press, 1997. Golder, Ben, and Peter Fitzpatrick. Foucault and the Law. Routledge, 2010. Hays, Sharon. The Cultural Contradictions of Modern Motherhood. Yale UP, 1998. Herring, Jonathan. Family Law: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford UP, 2014. Hughes, Michelle, et al. Bad Mothers: Regulations, Representations, and Resistance. Demeter Press, 2016. Kome, Penney. Women of Influence: Canadian Women and Politics. 1st ed., Doubleday, 1985. Minaker, Joanne, and Brian Hogeveen. Criminalized Mothers, Criminalizing Mothering. Demeter Press, 2015. OHRC, Policy and Guidelines on Disability and the Duty to Accommodate, OHRC, 2000, www.ohrc. on.ca/en/policy-and-guidelines-disability-and-duty-accommodate. O’Reilly, Andrea. Maternal Theory: Essential Readings. Demeter Press, 2015. Poe, Danielle. Maternal Activism. SUNY Press, 2016. Reimer, Vanessa, and Sarah Sahagian. The Mother-Blame Game. Demeter Press, 2015. Rich, Adrienne. Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution. Norton, 1976.

440

Formal governance of and by mothers Rose, Kenneth. American Women and the Repeal of Prohibition. New York UP, 1995. Sangster, Joan. Regulating Girls and Women: Sexuality, Family, and the Law in Ontario 1920–1960 (Canadian Social History Series). Oxford UP, 2001. Sarat, Austin. Imagining Legality: When Law Meets Popular Culture. U of Alabama P, 2011. Saunders, Ron, and Rebecca Bromwich. Criminal Law in Canada: An Introduction to the Social, Theoretical, and Legal Contexts. Carswell, 2016. Sheehan, Nancy M. “The WCTU and Educational Strategies on the Canadian Prairie.” History of Education Quarterly, vol. 24, no. 1, Spring 1984, pp. 101–119. Silbey, Susan S. “A Sociological Interpretation of the Relationship between Law and Society.” Law and the Ordering of Our Life Together, edited by Richard John Neuhaus, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989, pp. 142–175. Slaughter, Anne-Marie. Unfinished Business: Women, Men, Work, Family. Random House, 2015. Spivak, Gayatri Chakrovotry. Other Asias. Blackwell Publishing, 2008. Valverde, Mariana. The Age of Light, Soap, and Water. U of Toronto P, 2008. Weinberg, Lois. The Systematic Mistreatment of Children in the Foster Care System: Through the Cracks (Maltreatment, Trauma and Interpersonal Aggression). Routledge, 2014.

441

35 MOTHERING AND POLITICS Simone Bohn

Introduction How do mothering and politics intersect? The macro-societal and cultural context of any given society shapes motherhood and its roles in powerful ways, as it sets dominant expectations regarding what “motherhood” and “mothering” entail (e.g., who can mother and how parenting should be performed by mothers). Thus, a fulsome understanding of motherhood as a social artifact (with its strong individual undertones) cannot take place when dissociated from an analysis of its overarching social structure, with its different conflations of class domination, and ethnic, racial, and religious belonging (Collins). Nevertheless, motherhood is not just an epiphenomenon of social structures. As this chapter will discuss in detail, mothers do have agency and have effectively and firmly chosen to challenge dominant practices and narratives, even in perilous contexts, marked by lack of freedom and sheer state brutality. Each subsection of this chapter explores the ways in which political power (in its different empirical manifestations) have shaped mothering as well as how mothers have contested its influence. The first section discusses how narratives about nation and nationality define not only what the country is and who its citizens (and noncitizens) are but also demarcate mothers’ social and political roles. The second unit emphasizes that nation-states are more than repositories, guarantors, and enforcers of the ideas of nation and nationality. As regulatory bodies, nationstates attempt and, in many cases, manage to control motherhood and how mothering should be performed. One of the ways in which mothers and women in general have reacted to this control has been by seeking to “enter” the state, which primarily involves getting elected to existing political institutions, with a view to shaping public policies in a women- and mother-friendly fashion. Section three describes the advances, challenges, and problems associated with this strategy. Political power also expresses itself in dominant narratives not directly associated with the functioning of the state apparatus, such as in prevailing views about what constitutes a family, who can mother, and how mothering should be done. Mothers, in turn, have reacted to this “microphysics of power” (Foucault) by becoming formidable social activists who contest these diverse sets of predominant normativity. Interestingly, as unit four further emphasizes, mothers exercise a fundamental role in transmitting values, norms, attitudes, and behaviors to the next generation.

442

Mothering and politics

As a consequence, as this chapter will highlight in its conclusions, mothers can be guardians of conservatism in its different varieties (including its racist, xenophobic, and ethnocentric aspects) or those who help foster social values of tolerance, inclusion, and acceptance of diversity.

Background and context Historical overview: mothers and the nation Mothers occupy a central role for the nation – the soul of the nation-state – regardless of how the latter is defined. Anderson’s classic approach proposes that nation is “an imagined community” (B. Anderson) or the long-term by-product of a common history, culture, tradition, habits, heroes, and language. From this perspective, citizenship, as directly derived from the idea of nation, can be acquired, as it is open to non-natives (i.e., to individuals born in other nation-states). Other authors define nation very differently. O’Connor, for example, highlights the direct ties between nation and a common ancestry. From this last viewpoint, nationals share a common ethnic and/or racial belonging, which implies that citizenship in this context is inherited and open only to those actually born into that particular lineage. Needless to say, nation-states founded upon this ethno-nationalist perspective over time have developed rather restrictive immigration policies and usually have legal prohibition against dual citizenship for their own citizens (Bauder). What do these two highly dissimilar views of the nation imply for mothers? Parents are key transmitters of values, norms, and attitudes to their children (Parke and Buriel). Intentionally or unintentionally, mothers perform this task rather regularly, as historically in most social contexts, they have tended to be the primary childcare providers (something which they have contested). As a consequence, mothers do contribute to the maintenance and reinforcement of, or changes in, the systems of mass beliefs (Converse). Herein lies one of the most controversial issues regarding mothering and politics. Historically, mothering has not necessarily been associated with a particular ideology, viewpoint, or value. Some groups of mothers – especially in countries where an ethno-nationalist view of nation prevails – have lent support and legitimacy to a Nazi regime, with its pronounced supremacist ideology (Scheck); others have become Ku Klux Klan members (Blee) or skinheads (Dobie). On the other hand, other groups of mothers have attempted to teach non-antagonist racial messages to their children (Greene), have fought for environmental justice (Krauss), for peace when their nation-states were engaged in wars (Yaszek), and so on. In other words, historically, there has not been a universal motherly political agenda, to which all mothers have converged. In addition, in several social contexts, mothers tend to be seen as the biological procreators of the nation, which usually implies that they have to understand what their “proper role” and places are (Moghadam, Pinto). In this regard, Hammami, for instance, shows how, in Palestine, mothers of fallen combatants are hailed for their share in the martyrdom, whereas those who actually engage in combat are deemed “bad mothers,” who do not know their place in the nation-state. Mothers have, by and large, challenged patriarchy in a variety of contexts, but there are also those who have embraced it. Queen mothers, for example, have contributed to reinforcing patriarchal normativity, by inculcating in their princess daughters the notion that their arranged marriage is vital for both the nation-state and their lineage (Duarte). Mothering’s political engagement, thus, has been highly context-dependent (Ruddick) and has challenged or embraced very different views of the nation.

443

Simone Bohn

Central themes: mothers and the state Whereas the relationship between mothers and the nation centers on the impact, constraints, and opportunities inherent to how definitions of nation help foster particular types of normativity, other sets of challenges and possibilities are visible when the focus is on the state as a regulatory body. When looked at from this perspective, one of the first manifestations of state power is its control over reproductive rights, which firmly define especially the circumstances around which women can choose not to become mothers. States define and implement public policies that allow (or not) for planned motherhood. They also legally determine and enforce the country’s abortion laws. Evidently, these types of legal regulations are the by-product of a constellation of social forces from which the prevailing religious, cultural, and social norms stem (Hare-Mustin et al.), and which have evolved – albeit not necessarily in a linear fashion – over time. Typically in traditional societies, based primarily on an agrarian economy, large, extended families accentuated motherhood as women’s primary job – and not as a choice – which clearly delimited home as their “proper place” (Chaney). Despite the fact that there are contemporary communities labeled as “traditional” that cannot be necessarily characterized as patriarchal (see K. Anderson; and Bohn and Grossi, for examples), with the passage from agrarian to industrial economies, women’s initial entry into the workforce sparked discussions regarding the previously existing division of family labor and progressive (though small) changes in the mothers’ share in child-rearing responsibilities (Nielson and Stanfors; Ferree). Post-industrial societies, in turn, tend to be marked, among other things, by a substantial increase in the overall educational level, and the weakening of the social strength of religious authorities, which in several countries have contributed to a greater acceptance of gender equity in the marketplace, in politics, and in other social spheres (Norris, “From Traditional Roles”). New types of family structure have arisen (Allen et al.) and women with children can commonly be seen holding paid jobs, having professional careers, leading organizations, and contesting elections. In other words, these macro-societal transformations have impacted – albeit in different degrees in different contexts – society’s normativity regarding motherhood and mothering, as well as the state’s sanctioning of that normativity. Nevertheless, still in several societies, some states prohibit homosexual would-be mothers (and fathers) from parenting, by denying them adoption rights (Sharkey, Smith). As a form of the state to control the sexuality of lower-class mothers (Edmonds-Cady), in some countries, they are victims of forced sterilization in public hospitals (Essack and Strode; Kendall and Albert; Pegoraro). Similarly, destitute, racialized mothers and adolescent mothers report being poorly treated by public health care or welfare agents (Auslander et al.; Caldwell; Parker Weis). Some states impose strict limits on the ability of incarcerated women to mother (Eljdupovic and Bromwich). In some nations, mothers are still pressed to conceive boys, and girl infanticide and selective abortions have state leniency (Nayak). Some social groups follow family and legal codes that deny the same rights to mothers and fathers and assign full parental authority to fathers only, both during marriage, and in the case of a divorce (Kibria). In these particular contexts, it is common as well for fathers to enjoy exclusive property rights (Lepervanche), and for mothers to experience limitations to their freedom of movement (Barakat and Wardell). Lastly and needless to say, the state’s childcare policies and labor regulations (especially those pertaining to parental leave) directly impact mothers and mothering (Clark and Gallagher; Kamerman), as they powerfully shape mothers’ ability to stay active in the labor force. In other words, the state’s regulatory power, which usually tends to mirror social normativity, does exert a powerful influence over motherhood and mothering. These norms-based state regulations, thus, play a 444

Mothering and politics

key role in shaping not only the freedom to choose motherhood but also mothers’ roles within the family, society, and politics. For some, this link exposes the conflictual relationship between motherhood and feminism. Some authors deem motherhood the port of entry of gender domination, as it allows the state and the overall society to oppress women in general (Morgan). From this particular perspective, motherhood concerns should have no place within the feminist struggle. “Matricentric” (O’Reilly) feminist scholars, as it will be discussed, do not partake in this view; as, for them, feminist mothering can successfully address both societal and state’s constraints. How have mothers responded to oppressive manifestations of state power? They have contested this influence in multiple ways. The next section describes their attempts at shaping public policies in a mother-friendly way by “entering” the state.

Central issues: mothers and elected political institutions In most pre-modern societies, formal political institutions, in their early incarnations (e.g., the first parliaments, courts, etc.) were not deemed as “proper” places for women, let alone for women with children. Aristotle, for instance, regarded women as highly emotional and, as a consequence, inferior to men when it comes to their ability to exercise political leadership. As such, this Greek philosopher argued that women have no place in the res publica; instead, they should devote themselves to what defines their gender, e.g., their reproductive work (and nonessential productive work) in the private realm. From this perspective, motherhood had no space in politics. In fact, the key theoreticians of the liberal representative initial formations of the nationstates, who saw the latter essentially as “social contracts” among “equals,” maintained this strict separation between the public and private realms. As Pateman remarked, those gender inequalities in the private realm evidently belie the purported citizen equality embedded in the “social contract” narrative, transforming it into a de facto “sexual contract,” with women being denied political citizenship in their own countries. Interestingly, against this perspective, John Stuart Mill, in 1869, contended that the political inclusion of women was essential to improving societal well-being, as “the principle which regulates the existing social relations between the two sexes – the legal subordination of one sex to the other – is wrong in itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human improvement; and that it ought to be replaced by a principle of perfect equality, admitting no power or privilege on the one side, nor disability on the other” (Stuart Mill 1). Despite this change in attitude regarding the political inclusion of women, they had a very long path ahead of themselves to conquer the rights to vote and to get elected in most societies. Mothers faced an even tougher battle to enter the electoral arena. As Bohn discusses at length, some see motherhood as a severe handicap for women in electoral politics, whereas others point to its advantages in the elected political world. Studies show that voters perceive mothers as having less available time to be part of the political world and fewer chances of electoral success (Stalsburg). In addition, though the topic has been clearly underresearched, the (few) existing analyses point to the fact that, in most political systems, elected women are indeed childless, or have grown children (Lawless and Fox). Whereas those studies highlight the difficulties that motherhood creates for women to participate successfully in electoral politics, others show that voters see women with children with more expertise regarding particular issues, commonly referred to as “women’s issues” – such as family affairs, children’s health and education, women’s health, etc. and that that know-how can provide mothers with an important electoral advantage (Carroll). Moreover, motherhood is said 445

Simone Bohn

to develop in women values that voters deem important for modern-day electoral politics, such as honesty, a self-sacrificing attitude, tolerance and compassion (Greenlee). Once elected, mothers realize that the organizational structure of formal political institutions is not particularly friendly for women with children. Parliamentary sessions, for instance, may last hours in a row, and extend well into the evening and dawn (Knight et al.); which means that the specific difficulties that mother-politicians face do not end with their election. In addition, according to some studies, after taking up congressional (or parliamentary) office, women (from different countries and regardless of their parental status) tend to place “women’s issues” at the center of their legislative agenda (Chaney; Norris, “Women Politicians”; Swers; Wängnerud). That means that they have specific legislative priorities (that are significantly different from the ones espoused by their male counterparts), and that, in several national cases, those priorities reflect on their bill initiation pattern. Interestingly, these findings cast a new light on the (purportedly) tense relationship between feminism and motherhood, as they highlight that female legislators – both those who are mothers and those who are not – do have matricentric priorities that guide their behavior in politics. In other words, motherhood and mothering do have a place in the feminist struggle, and rather than creating a problem for the fight against gender oppression, they enable the incorporation of all different female voices. Finally, mothers have also “entered” the state by taking part in the so-called women’s policy agencies (Mazur and McBride Stetson). In fact, the spread of the latter, particularly when they become institutionalized and autonomous, has tended to contribute to gendering public policy making, and in some cases to clear advancements in policy outcomes, such as the passage of anti-violence laws that benefit women in general, but especially women with children, as they create social safety nets for mothers in situations of violence, for instance.

Controversies or challenges: mothers as activists Another way in which mothers have contested political power’s constraints on motherhood and mothering has been by becoming powerful social activists. It is important to state that mothers have overcome “collective action problems” (Olson) and managed to forge impressive solidarity networks not only in new or established democracies but under almost any type of political regime and circumstance. Matricentric activism has taken place amidst bloody, prolonged civil wars, as in the case of Guatemala (O’Donnell); amidst ethnic strife, as 1990s Bosnia (Takševa) illustrates; and even in the middle of violent exchanges among drug dealers, paralegal forces, and state actors in the slums of Rio de Janeiro (Rocha). If the political decay associated with failed or failing states did not deter mothers from becoming activists, neither did non-democratic regimes. The paradigmatic example is the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo, from Argentina, who relentlessly challenged the brutality of a military dictatorship in 1970s and 1980s, in search of their disappeared children, and husbands, and nowadays, in their golden years, still struggle to find their grandchildren (the “stolen babies”) and to defend human rights (Schoellkopf ). Interestingly, mothers have agitated or contested political power with very distinct agendas. In the same South America, which is home to the Plaza de Mayo mothers, different claims can be observed. Whereas the Plaza de Mayo mothers fought against a ruthless military dictatorship that has been found responsible for the extra-judicial killing and disappearance of thousands of individuals, conservative women and mothers in the neighboring Chile called (in 1973) for the Armed Forces to intervene and to impose a democratic breakdown as a means to bringing an elected socialist government to an end, just like their counterparts in Brazil had done in 1964 against a left-leaning president (Power). Evidently, these examples further illustrate a point 446

Mothering and politics

already made: that mothering is a practice not necessarily tied to a specific political position or standpoint. Mothers speak, and have spoken, truth to power but very different kinds of truth. Nevertheless, the encounter of a matricentric perspective with feminism does add a particular political content to motherhood and mothering. It calls for the development of a maternal practice that it is mindful of the differences among mothers, their struggles, and the contexts in which they mother, and that at the same time empowers women with children to be at the forefront against diverse systems of oppression, be they gender-based, ethno-racial-centric, religious-focused, or other types of social normativity (O’Reilly). In addition, mothers can help foster changes in the system of mass beliefs by nurturing in their children values of tolerance and acceptance of all forms of social diversity.

Directions for future research Several areas of motherhood-related inquiry remain underresearched or in need of further investigation, given preliminary or contradictory findings. One important area pertains to mothers’ role in fostering changes in the system of mass beliefs. Given the contemporary rise of identity politics and the increase in the frequency of hate crimes, how can matricentric feminism be a counter-force and foster values of acceptance and tolerance in the new generations? Another field that deserves additional attention is the impact of the political and societal structures on motherhood and mothering. How can mothers contest the growing influence and power of religious-based authorities over the state? How can they protest or seek the approval and implementation of new divorce laws, childcare policies, reproductive regulations, and the mothering rights of sexual-minority individuals, particularly in contexts where the separation between religion and the state seems to be evanescing rather than becoming more salient? Finally, given the centrality of the state as a regulatory entity, new studies on the obstacles that mothers face to enter and to successfully navigate formal political institutions (such as parliaments, courts, the military, the executive power at all levels) are particularly welcome.

Further reading Bohn, Simone, and Pınar Melis Yelsalı Parmaksız. “Researching Mothers in Public and Political Life. An Introduction.” Mothers in Public and Political Life, edited by Simone Bohn and Pınar Melis Yelsalı Parmaksız. Demeter Press, 2017, pp. 1–10. Ergas, Yasmine, et al. “Negotiating ‘Mother’ in the Twenty-First Century: Between Choice and Constraint.” Reassembling Motherhood: Procreation and Care in a Globalized World, edited by Yasmine Ergas et al., Columbia UP, 2017, pp. 1–15. Friedan, Betty. The Feminine Mystique. W. W. Norton and Company, 1968. Koven, Seth, and Sonya Michel. “Introduction: Mother Worlds.” Mothers of a New World: Maternalist Politics and the Origins of Welfare States, edited by Seth Koven and Sonya Michel, Routledge, 1993, pp. 1–41. Plant, Rebecca Jo. “Patriotic Maternalism and Its Critics.” Mom: The Transformation of Motherhood in Modern America. U of Chicago P, 2010, pp. 55–84.

Conclusion This chapter highlighted the dialectical relationship between mothering and politics. On the one hand, political power – in its different empirical forms – does constrain mothers by enforcing prevalent social normativity regarding who can mother, how mothering should be done, and what mothers’ proper place is. As discussed, mothers have contested these diverse forms of domination by, among other things, becoming elected officials, entering the state and shaping public policy, seeking mother-friendly labor rights, challenging the sexual division of family 447

Simone Bohn

labor, advocating in favor of the acceptance of different family structures, and especially by using motherhood as a springboard for matricentric social activism. In addition, this text noted the absence of a universal motherly agenda. Historically, mothers have embraced very different platforms of action, ideologies, and political programs. Running counter to this perspective of motherhood as an empty political vessel, feminist mothering advocates for a specific platform of action. It is one that emphasizes mothers’ unity in their diversity, as it creates (in all those who mother) awareness of the different forms of mothering and of the potential that motherhood has when it comes to shaping the values of the next generation, and fighting gender-based as well as other forms of oppression.

Works cited Allen, Katherine R., et al. “An Overview of Family Diversity: Controversies, Questions and Values.” Handbook of Family Diversity, edited by David Demo et al., Oxford UP, 2000, pp. 1–13. Anderson, Benedict. “The Origins of National Consciousness.” Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, Verso, 2006, pp. 39–48. Anderson, Kim. “Leading by Action: Female Chiefs and the Political Landscape.” Restoring the Balance: First Nations Women, Community and Culture, edited by Gail Guthrie Valaskakis et al., U of Manitoba P, 2009, pp. 99–123. Aristotle. Politics. Oxford UP, 1998. Auslander, Wendy, et al.“Mothers’ Satisfaction with Medical Care: Perceptions of Racism, Family Stress, and Medical Outcomes in Children with Diabetes.” Health and Social Work, vol. 22, no. 3, 1997, pp. 190–99. Barakat, Sultan, and Gareth Wardell. “Exploited by Whom: An Alternative Perspective on Humanitarian Assistance to Afghan Women.” Third World Quarterly, vol. 23, no. 5, 2002, pp. 909–30. Bauder, Harald. “Re-Imagining the Nation: Lessons from the Debates of Immigration in a Settler Society and an Ethnic Nation.” Comparative Migration Studies, vol. 2, no. 1, 2014, pp. 9–27. Blee, Kathleen. Women of the Klan: Racism and Gender in the 1920s. U of California P, 1991. Bohn, Simone. “Mothers and Electoral Politics: A Research Agenda.” Mothers in Public and Political Life, edited by Simone Bohn and Pınar Melis Yelsalı Parmaksız, Demeter Press, 2017, pp. 13–29. Bohn, Simone, and Patricia Krieger Grossi.“The Quilombolas’ Refuge in Brazil: Solidarity Economy, Communal Space, and Shared Identity.” The Black Social Economy: Diverse Community Economies in the United States, Canada, and Latin America and the Caribbean, edited by Caroline Shenaz Hossein, Palgrave MacMillan, 2018, pp. 161–86. Caldwell, Kia Lilly. Health Equity in Brazil: Intersections of Gender, Race and Policy. U of Illinois P, 2017. Carroll, Susan J. Women as Candidates in American Politics. Indiana UP, 1994. Chaney, Elsa M. Supermadre: Women in Politics in Latin America. U of Texas P, 1979. Clark, Clair, and Sally K. Gallagher. “The Influence of State Maternity Leave Policies on US Mothers’ Employment.” Community, Work & Family, vol. 20, no. 4, 2017, pp. 459–78. Collins, Patricia Hill. “Shifting the Center: Race, Class and Feminist Theorizing about Motherhood.” Representations of Motherhood, edited by Donna Bassin et al., Yale UP, 1994, pp. 56–73. Converse, Philip. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” Ideology and Discontent, edited by David Apter, Free Press of Glencoe, 1964, pp. 206–61. Dobie, Kathy.“Skingirl Mothers: From Thelma and Louise to Ozzie and Harriet.” The Politics of Motherhood: Activist Voices from Left to Right, edited by Alexis Jetter et al., UP of New England, 1997, pp. 257–67. Duarte, Mary. “Shared Advice for Political Marriages, the Epistolary Dialogues between Mothers and Daughters.” Mothers in Public and Political Life, edited by Simone Bohn and Pınar Melis Yelsalı Parmaksız, Demeter Press, 2017, pp. 79–96. Edmonds-Cady, Cynthia. “Motherhood and Agency: American Welfare Rights Activists’ Resistance to State Control over Sexuality and Reproduction.” The Journal of the Motherhood Initiative for Research and Community Involvement, vol. 3, no. 2, 2012, pp. 134–49. Eljdupovic, Gordana, and Rebecca Jaremko Bromwich. “Introduction.” Incarcerated Mothers: Oppression and Resistance, edited by Gordana Eljdupovic and Rebecca Jaremko Bromwich, Demeter Press, 2013. Essack, Zaynab, and Ann Strode. “ ‘I Feel Like Half a Woman all the Time’: The Impacts of Coerced and Forced Sterilisations on HIV-Positive Women in South Africa.” Agenda, vol. 26, no. 2, 2012, pp. 24–34.

448

Mothering and politics Ferree, Myra Marx. “Beyond Separate Spheres: Feminism and Family History.” Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol. 52, no. 4, 1990, pp. 866–84. Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of a Prison. Vintage Books, 1995. Greene, Beverly A. “What Has Gone Before: The Legacy of Racism and Sexism in the Lives of Black Mothers and Daughters.” Women & Therapy, vol. 9, nos. 1–2, 1990, pp. 207–30. Greenlee, Jill. The Political Consequences of Motherhood. U of Michigan P, 2014. Hammami, Rema. “Palestinian Motherhood and Political Activism on the West Bank and Gaza Strip.” The Politics of Motherhood. Activist Voices from Left to Right, edited by Alexis Jetter et al., UP of New England, 1997, pp. 161–68. Hare-Mustin, Rachel, et al. “Attitude toward Motherhood: Gender, Generational, and Religious Comparisons.” Sex Roles, vol. 9, no. 5, 1983, pp. 643–61. Kamerman, Sheila B. “Child Care and Family Benefits: Policies of Six Industrialized Countries.” Monthly Labor Review, vol. 103, no. 11, 1980, pp. 23–28. Kendall, Tamil, and Claire Albert. “Experiences of Coercion to Sterilize and Forced Sterilization among Women Living with HIV in Latin America.” Journal of the International AIDS Society, vol. 18, no. 1, 2015, pp. 1–7. Kibria, Nazli. “Power, Patriarchy, and Gender Conflict in the Vietnamese Immigrant Community.” Gender & Society, vol. 4, no. 1, 1990, pp. 9–24. Knight, Kathleen, et al. “Equalizing Opportunities for Women in Electoral Politics in Ireland.” Women & Politics, vol. 26, no. 1, 2004, pp. 1–20. Krauss, Celene. “Women and Toxic Waste Protests: Race, Class and Gender as Resources of Resistance.” Quantitative Sociology, vol. 16, no. 3, 1993, pp. 247–62. Lawless, Jennifer L., and Richard L. Fox. It Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office. Cambridge UP, 2005. Lepervanche, Marie de. “Women, Nation and the State in Australia.” Women, Nation, State, edited by Nira Yuval-Davis and Floya Anthias, Palgrave MacMillan, 1989, pp. 36–57. Mazur, Amy, and Dorothy McBride Stetson. “State Feminism since the 1980s: From Loose Notion to Operationalized Concept.” Politics & Gender, vol. 3, no. 4, 2007, pp. 501–13. Moghadam, Valentine. “Patriarchy and the Politics of Gender in Modernising Societies: Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.” International Sociology, vol. 7, no. 1, 1992, pp. 35–53. Morgan, Robin. Going Too Far: The Personal Chronicle of a Feminist. Random House, 1968. Nayak, Krupasindhu. “Female Infanticide and Patriarchal Attitude: Declining Sex Ratio in India.” Journal of Education and Social Policy, vol. 1, no. 1, 2014, pp. 49–54. Neilson, Jeffrey, and Maria Stanfors. “About Time! Gender, Parenthood, and Household Divisions of Labor under Different Welfare Regimes.” Journal of Family Issues, vol. 35, no. 8, 2014, pp. 1066–88. Norris, Pippa. “Women Politicians: Transforming Westminster?” Women in Politics, edited by Joni Lovenduski and Pippa Norris, Oxford UP, 1996, pp. 91–104. ———. “From Traditional Roles toward Gender Equality.” Rising Tide. Gender Equality and Cultural Change around the World, edited by Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris, Cambridge UP, 2003. O’Connor, Walter. “Terminological Chaos.” Ethnonationalism, Princeton UP, 1994, pp. 89–118. O’Donnell, Rachel. “ ‘The Change Was Very Strong’: Rural Mayan Activism during the Guatemalan Civil War.” Mothers under Fire: Mothering in Conflict Areas, edited by Tatjana Takševa and Arlene Sgoutas, Demeter Press, 2015, pp. 282–303. Olson, Mancur. The Logic of Collective Action. Harvard UP, 1965. O’Reilly, Andrea. Matricentric Feminism: Theory, Activism and Practice. Demeter Press, 2016. Parke, Ross D., and Raymond Buriel. “Socialization in the Family: Ethnic and Ecological Perspectives.” Handbook of Child Psychology, Volume 3: Social, Emotional, and Personality Development, edited by William Damon and Richard Lerner, 6th ed., Wiley, 2006, pp. 429–504. Parker Weis, Julianne.“ ‘I Can Be a Mother’: Reinserting Choice as a Right for At-Risk Adolescent Mothers in Brazil.” The Journal of the Motherhood Initiative for Research and Community Involvement, vol. 3, no. 2, 2012, pp. 150–62. Pateman, Carole. The Sexual Contract. Stanford UP, 1988. Pegoraro, Leonardo. “Second-Rate Victims: The Forced Sterilization of Indigenous Peoples in the USA and Canada.” Settler Colonial Studies, vol. 5, no. 2, 2015, pp. 161–73. Pinto, Vânia Carvalho. Nation-Building, State and the Gender Framing of Women’s Rights in the United Arab Emirates (1971–2009). Ithaca Press, 2012.

449

Simone Bohn Power, Margaret. “Allende Must Go!” Right-Wing Women in Chile: Feminine Power and the Struggle against Allende, 1964–1973. Pennsylvania State UP, 1998, pp. 217–48. Rocha, Luciane de Oliveira. “Black Mothers’ Experiences of Violence in Rio de Janeiro.” Cultural Dynamics, vol. 24, no. 1, 2012, pp. 59–73. Ruddick, Sara. “Rethinking ‘Maternal’ Politics.” The Politics of Motherhood: Activist Voices from Left to Right, edited by Alexis Jetter et al., UP of New England, 1997, pp. 369–81. Scheck, Raffael. “Women on the Weimar Right: The Role of Female Politicians in the Deustchnationale Volkspartei (DNVP).” Journal of Contemporary History, vol. 36, no. 4, 2001, pp. 547–60. Schoellkopf, Sarah.“The Disappearing of the Disappeared in the Plaza de Mayo: Who Will Hold the Space of the Madres Once They Are Gone?” Mothers in Public and Political Life, edited by Simone Bohn and Pınar Melis Yelsalı Parmaksız, Demeter Press, 2017, pp. 269–86. Sharkey, April. “Lesbian Adoption: Transcending the Boundaries of Motherhood.” Adoption and Mothering, edited by Frances Latchford, Demeter Press, 2012, pp. 172–88. Smith, Miriam. Political Institutions and Lesbian and Gay Rights in the United States and Canada. Routledge, 2008. Stalsburg, Brittany L. “Voting for Mom: The Political Consequences of Being a Parent for Male and Female Candidates.” Politics & Gender, vol. 6, no. 3, 2010, pp. 373–404. Stuart Mill, John. The Subjection of Women. 1869. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1970. Swers, Michele L. The Difference Women Make: The Policy Impact of Women in Congress. U of Chicago P, 2002. Takševa, Tatjana. “Raising Children Born of Wartime Rape in Bosnia: A Maternal Philosophy Perspective.” Mothers under Fire: Mothering in Conflict Areas, edited by Tatjana Takševa and Arlene Sgoutas, Demeter Press, 2015, pp. 155–80. Wängnerud, Lena. “Representing Women.” Beyond Westminster and Congress: The Nordic Experience, edited by Peter Esaiasson and Knut Heidar, The Ohio State UP, 2000, pp. 132–54. Yaszek, Lisa. “Stories ‘that Only a Mother’ Could Write: Midcentury Peace Activism, Maternalist Politics, and Judith Merril’s Early Fiction.” NWSA Journal, vol. 16, no. 2, 2004, pp. 70–97.

450

36 THE CRIMINALIZATION AND INCARCERATION OF MOTHERS IN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES Catherine Borshuk and Gordana Eljdupovic Introduction Motherhood, perceived as a private, idealized family role, is in reality subject to regulation by laws and state policies. When mothers become involved with the criminal justice system, effects are wide-ranging. As Loper and Clarke wrote, “When a mother is incarcerated, especially when she has functioned as the primary caregiver for her child, the structure of the family is disrupted” (41), and the effects rebound to communities and future generations (Ritchie 177). Maternal criminalization raises issues about racial discrimination, economic injustice, and violence against women, while maternal incarceration may create fault lines in family relationships and jeopardize the well-being of children and mothers. This chapter examines these issues from social, psychological, and public policy perspectives, focusing particularly on Canada and the United States.

Background and context Recent decades have witnessed more women in jails and prisons: as the overall world prison population increased by approximately 20% since 2000, the incarceration rate of women and girls increased 50% (Walmsley). In North America, the majority of these women are from marginalized backgrounds marked by racial discrimination, poverty, histories of abuse, and mental health issues (Swavola et al. 11). The percentage of women incarcerated in Canadian federal penitentiaries reflects the global trend, increasing 35% for all women in the past decade, and 57% for Indigenous women (Sapers, Annual Report of the Office of the Correctional Investigator 2015–2016 ). Even sharper increases in the rate of incarcerated women have been witnessed in the United States, increasing by more than 700% since 1980 (Fact Sheet on Justice-Involved Women in 2016 ). This growth has disproportionately affected women of colour. In Canada, although Indigenous people represent 3%–4% of Canada’s total population, they are consistently overrepresented among the incarcerated, and more so for women than for men; 38% of women in provincial and territorial custody were Indigenous (26% for men), and Indigenous women accounted for 31% of all female federal inmates (23% for men; Reitano). In the United States, 451

Catherine Borshuk and Gordana Eljdupovic

the imprisonment rate for African American women was more than twice the rate of imprisonment for white women, while Hispanic women were incarcerated at 1.2 times the rate of white women (Fact Sheet on Justice-Involved Women in 2016 ). In Canada, 70% of federally incarcerated women were mothers of at least one minor child (Sapers, Annual Report of the Office of the Correctional Investigator 2014–2015), and were significantly more likely than incarcerated fathers to be single parents (Barrett et al.). More than 4 in 10 women in state prisons in the United States were sole care providers to at least one minor child prior to being incarcerated (Glaze and Maruschak).

Criminalization of mothers: central issues As the data suggest, women, and by extension mothers, have become increasingly criminalized over recent decades. We define the process of criminalization as a change in both public perception of what constitutes criminal activity and public policies tied to over-policing and, in some cases, state actions against mothers and families, especially families of colour. There are a number of key issues that help explain the increasing criminalization of mothers: racial injustice in policing and prosecution; poverty and economic inequality; and intimate partner violence. Although we discuss them separately, these factors are interrelated, as most of incarcerated mothers experience multiple marginalities: they are poor women of colour who have faced discrimination, trauma, and abuse and subsequently experience mental health problems which, for many, remain untreated (Borja et al.; Glaze and Maruschak; Kennedy; Murphey and Cooper).

Racial discrimination Women of colour bear the brunt of policing and criminalization and suffer its effects disproportionately (Ritchie 17). For instance, in municipal or county jails where more than half of incarcerated women in the United States serve their sentences, the majority are women of colour, and 44% are African American, although African American women make up only 13% of the US population (Swavola et al.). People of colour in general are routinely policed, arrested, and convicted for crimes that are overlooked for white people. Recent data show that street stops and traffic stops by police are far more likely to be experienced by members of racial minorities than by whites (Miller et al. 27). Similarly, drug arrests reflect racial bias: black, Latina, and Indigenous women are overrepresented among women incarcerated for drug offenses (Ritchie 46). According to a 2013 ACLU report, while black and white Americans are equally likely to possess and use marijuana, African Americans were nearly four times more likely to be arrested for possession. It is well-documented that women of colour have overwhelmingly been the victims of the United States’ so-called war on drugs of the late twentieth century; Ritchie has termed it the “war on women of colour” (47). In the United States, black women who are caught with small amounts of illegal drugs, have low-level involvement in the drug trade, or are affiliated with male partners or family members in the drug trade are often easier targets for arrest simply because, as mothers, they prove more stable and therefore more easily policed than their male counterparts – with children in school, they are embedded in communities and neighbourhoods (Allen et al. 167). The war on drugs, together with inflexible sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimum sentencing in the United States led to mass incarceration of African American citizens by the early 2000s (Glazer). Violent and sometimes militarized policing of black communities in the United States led to more African American mothers in jails or prisons, and more families and children under state control in the foster system than ever before, resulting 452

Criminalization and incarceration

in 30% of the nation’s foster care population being black children (Roberts 1778). Similarly in Canada, Indigenous children represent 30%–40% of children and youth placed in out-of-home care (Eljdupovic et al.). There are also racial disparities in the public perception of criminalized mothers. Media outlets appear to extol white and middle-class mothers’ use of illegal substances: so-called marijuana moms claim that smoking pot made them better parents – “more focused and attentive” (Stump); professional white women celebrate the virtues of micro-dosing LSD, noting that ingesting small doses improved their mood and their family life (Williams); and white mothers advocate for legalized marijuana treatment for sick family members (Burgess), all stories recently featured in lifestyle rather than crime sections of major US publications. Public perception feeds into public policy; another reason racial minority women are incarcerated at a disproportionate rate is due to over-policing of their communities. “Women of colour are more likely than white women to be monitored and supervised by the state, and more likely to experience state control over their bodies and their children. Call it a holdover from slavery, when Black women had no right to privacy, were violated at will, and could not make decisions regarding themselves, their bodies or their families” (Love). Indigenous women’s experiences with Canada’s criminal justice system was documented in a Human Rights Watch report, which detailed brutal police treatment of Indigenous women and girls, including over-surveillance, physical beatings, sexual abuse and exploitation, indiscriminate arrest, use of force in arrests, and inhumane jail conditions (Rhoad and Muscati). Such chilling descriptions, together with years of under-investigation of crimes against Indigenous women, exemplify a national politics of settler colonialism to many Indigenous feminist scholars (Dhillon 9).

Poverty and economics Women involved in the criminal justice system are more likely to be low-income, unemployed or underemployed, and to have fewer years of education and less vocational training (Flower). In fact, 60% of women in US jails lacked full-time employment at the time of arrest (compared with 40% of men), although women were more likely to be sole-support parents of young children (Swavola et al. 29). Homeless mothers are easily criminalized: some have been arrested for leaving their children unattended while trying to secure social services or even, in one case, while interviewing for a job (Ritchie 169). The feminization of poverty is an important factor in the criminalization of mothers. US women are 35% more likely than men to live in poverty, while over 20% of single mothers in Canada are poor, compared with a national poverty rate of 10% (“The Facts about Women and Poverty”). Poverty and economic inequality leads mothers to participate in economic crimes for the sake of family survival (Kennedy; Moe and Ferraro; deVuono-Powell et al.), and can also lead to recidivism: it was estimated that being poor increases a woman’s chance of rearrest by a factor of 4.6 (Van Voorhis et al.) Just as communities of colour are over-policed, mothers living in poverty are criminalized in ways that more affluent mothers may be shielded from. Consider a recent case in New York City, in which a five-year-old child who woke up and wandered from her apartment while her mother was taking a bath was removed from a stable single-parent home and placed in foster care (Clifford and Silver-Greenberg). As the public defender in the case said of poor mothers: “Society both infantilizes them and holds them to superhuman standards. In another community, your kid’s found outside looking for you because you’re in the bathtub, it’s ‘Oh, my God’ ” – a story to tell later. In a poor community, it’s called endangering the welfare of your child” (Clifford and Silver-Greenberg). 453

Catherine Borshuk and Gordana Eljdupovic

Women are generally arrested for nonviolent crimes; second only to drug offenses, mothers commit economic crimes such as fraud and theft, often to support their children (Allen et al. 161). According to a 2012 report: “The desire to preserve and maintain relationships can be linked to the very reasons women commit crimes. For instance, women will often override their personal values and beliefs in the commission of a crime to meet the needs of their children, or to please or demonstrate loyalty to a significant other” (Ney et al. 3). Poor women are also being increasingly criminalized as a money-making enterprise by the state. Some rural counties in the United States have witnessed a recent flood of women into local jails for small offenses such as failure to appear for summons, not paying fines or tickets, or missing appointments or drug tests with probation officers (Swavola et al. 26). The money bail system in the United States and Canada disproportionately impacts people with fewer economic resources, as those who cannot pay bail await their trials in local or county jails, rather than being able allowed to stay in their own homes, keeping their jobs, and caring for their children (“Selling Off Our Freedom”). Such practices reveal a punitive approach by the state. A political emphasis on welfare fraud and the creation of a public perception of poor women of colour as “welfare queens” have served to impact not only poor communities but also poor families, especially those headed by African American women: “while . . . governments enforce welfare policies that penalize poor women of colour for raising children outside of marriage, they perpetuate a prison policy that discourages stable relationships, such as marriage, in these women’s communities” (Roberts 1780).

Intimate Partner Violence It is estimated that 86% of women in US prisons are victims of sexual violence and 77% are intimate partner violence (IPV) survivors (Swavola et al.); an older Justice Department study determined that one-quarter of women in US federal prisons had survived child sexual abuse (1999). The numbers are similar in Canada: nearly 86% of incarcerated women reported past physical abuse, and over 68% reported having been sexually abused at some time in their lives (Barrett et al.). The very experience of IPV often causes mothers to become justice-involved. Survivors of domestic violence are frequently charged with crimes that are a result of self-defence, coercion, violence/threats of violence and coping. These crimes include assault or homicide against the abuser, crimes which the abuser forces the survivor to participate in, like being a getaway driver to a robbery or engaging in sex work, and economic crimes like shoplifting, because an abuser is controlling the survivor’s finances. (Vasadani and Santana) Some women have no involvement with the justice system at all prior to experiencing IPV; a well-known case is that of Marissa Alexander, a Florida mother who was arrested on a firearms charge after firing a single warning shot into the ceiling to keep her threatening, abusive ex-husband away from her children, who was subsequently tried, convicted, and sentenced to 20 years in prison (Hauser 2017). Victims of IPV may become criminalized or further victimized for reporting abuse to law enforcement. A recent major survey (Coker et al.) found that many IPV survivors faced demeaning or dismissive officers who threatened them with arrest or met their complaints with outright violence or assault. The vast majority felt police blamed them for the abuse. Mothers, especially 454

Criminalization and incarceration

those who had called authorities multiple times, were threatened with having their children removed; black women reported being ridiculed or not believed, and Indigenous women were sometimes locked up temporarily under the belief that they were drunk or abusing substances (Coker et al.). Some women of colour who tried to report IPV were threatened with arrest if they did not give in to officers’ sexual demands (Ritchie 188). Because of an unfounded belief that women are as equally violent as men in intimate relationships (DeKeseredy and Dragiewicz 880), policing practices in jurisdictions that allow for investigator discretion policies on IPV calls often end up with arrests of both parties in a domestic dispute. Women subject to IPV, therefore, know they risk arrest if they report violence to the authorities. With over half of all female homicide victims in the United States killed by intimate partners (Petrosky et al.), it is problematic that abused women refrain from reporting violence, fearing criminalization by a system intended to protect them. The lengths to which battered mothers will go to protect their children from an abusive partner – fighting back to protect children from immediate physical harm; separating, hiding, or isolating children from abusive fathers (Nixon et al.) – are behaviours that can lead to criminal complaints against the mothers. However, for IPV survivors who use force or weapons to protect themselves and their children, or who fight back and harm or kill an abuser, reports of the abuse may not even be brought up as a mitigating factor at their criminal trials, leaving abused and otherwise nonviolent offenders with lengthy prison sentences. As Gail T. Smith of the Women in Prison Project noted, “It is not uncommon for judges to exclude evidence of domestic violence.”

Incarcerated mothers: central issues The cultural ideology surrounding motherhood plays an outsize role in our perception and treatment of incarcerated mothers, as such women threaten the social construction of mothers as innocent or pure. Maternal incarceration also exacts a price on children, families, and communities. Children are left to cope with instability, often in costly foster care arrangements; the parent-child bond may be threatened, causing psychological harm to both parent and child; and the state cost of determining best interests of the child gives short shrift to preventative preincarceration factors.

Ideology of the true woman/good mother In addition to the stress of incarceration, mothers who are imprisoned carry the guilt and shame of apparent maternal failure for not living up to an idealized role. “Motherhood, for centuries considered simple, idyllic, natural and normal for women, is in fact multi-layered, complex and socially constructed, embedded in existing socio-economic and historical contexts and a source of oppression for women” (Eljdupovic and Jaremko Bromwich, “Introduction” 4). Women of colour have long challenged the idealized notion of motherhood. During slavery, African American women represented economic value for their owners through pregnancy and motherhood, and more recently were portrayed as welfare queens. Indigenous mothers have always challenged the colonial project, which sought to erase Indigenous peoples from the landscape by removing children from their homes to residential schools ( Johnston; Tasker). In feminist scholarship, the traditional division of labour is seen as based on patriarchal norms which keep women subjugated and lacking access to resources and decision-making. Traditional patriarchal discourse justified this division of labour with arguments about women’s nature – the fact that women are able to give birth – from which, it followed, they would be responsible for 455

Catherine Borshuk and Gordana Eljdupovic

raising the children, attending to others’ needs, and taking care of associated domestic chores. Feminist scholars have pointed out the extent to which such gender roles remain a powerful mechanism to keep women in the domestic sphere (Beauvoir; Irigaray; O’Reilly; Ruddick; Young). According to this ideology, women should want to mother, take care of others’ needs, and invest their energy and abilities in unpaid, domestic labour. These norms, however, are predominantly derived from white, middle-class contexts. Patricia Hill Collins has argued that this ideal family and the attendant normalized expectations associated with good mothering stem from capitalist and bourgeois economic and social models that reflect attributes such as a family home, employed father, and career-rejecting mother (Collins). This is, clearly, an unattainable standard for poor and marginalized women, rendering them to feelings of guilt and inadequacy. Mothers who are incarcerated, therefore, carry the burden of living outside the idealized feminine image; they certainly do not and cannot “fit the idealized portrayal of motherhood. Consequently, they may be perceived as not only inadequate mothers but as inadequate women” (Allen et al. 162). The stress of trying to be good parents while separated from their children may exacerbate mental health issues for incarcerated mothers (Moe and Ferraro 158). A recent report indicated that 51% of federally incarcerated women in Canada have mental health needs, compared to 26% of men (Sapers, Annual Report of the Office of the Correctional Investigator 2015–2016). Incarcerated Canadian women were more likely than their male counterparts to suffer from substance abuse disorder, trauma-related illnesses, and depression (Bloom et al.), and were particularly vulnerable to co-occurring disorders. The situation in the United States is even worse: 73% of women, compared to 55% of men in state prisons exhibited mental health problems, and 32% of women in jails had a serious mental illness, while another 82% have struggled with addiction to substances (Swavola et al. 16). Incarcerated women were more likely than incarcerated men to suffer from most major psychiatric illnesses, especially serious forms of depression (Laishes). Given that most mothers will continue to have contact with their minor children during or post-incarceration (Moe and Ferraro 138), it is not surprising that the experience of incarceration, coupled with their mothers’ mental health can have a tremendous impact on children.

Impact on children: the best interests of the child Maternal incarceration affects children more directly than paternal incarceration. Largely due to changes in policing strategies and the expansion of the US prison system, the number of mothers in US prisons grew by 122% between 1991 and 2007, nearly twice the rate as for fathers. As a result, the number of American minor children with an incarcerated mother increased by 131% (Glaze and Maruschak). Incarcerated mothers were five times more likely than fathers to have children in the care of a foster home, agency, or institution. Sudden separation from a single parent plus instability in living arrangements can have a profoundly unsettling impact on a child’s daily life, although it should be noted that not all incarcerated mothers took good care of their children prior to incarceration, and not all children wish to maintain contact with their incarcerated mothers (Glaze and Maruschak). Parental incarceration represents an adverse childhood experience (ACE), stressful or traumatic events that predict maladaptive outcomes in later life (Murphey and Cooper; “Adverse Childhood Experiences”; “Children of Incarcerated Parents”). Other ACEs include childhood abuse and neglect, parental IPV, household substance abuse and mental illness, and parental separation or divorce (“Adverse Childhood Experiences”). ACEs are related to a higher number of medical conditions, mental illnesses and social development difficulties in adulthood (Kerker 456

Criminalization and incarceration

et al.; Oral et al.); in particular, a higher number of ACEs is associated with poorer health and life satisfaction, more frequent depressive symptoms, and increased substance abuse (Mersky et al.). Moreover, experiencing a parent’s incarceration often occurs together with other adverse events such as witnessing violence or having a parent with mental health issues. Parental incarceration then, combined with racism, poverty, and other adverse factors leads to children demonstrating maladaptive coping strategies and suffering emotional problems, having problems in school, and becoming involved with the justice system (Murphey and Cooper; Borja et al.). Incarcerated parents themselves were found to have experienced multiple adversities as children, such as witnessing or being victims of violence, being exposed to racism and poverty, and involvement with foster homes (Borja et al.; Glaze and Maruschak). This highlights another effect of parental incarceration, the intergenerational transmission of patterns that may predict future incarceration of their children. As Dorothy Roberts noted, “locking up black mothers transfers racial disadvantage to the next generation” (1481). Maternal incarceration disproportionately impacts families because more women than men are the primary or sole care providers of children prior to incarceration; with a mother incarcerated, children are more at risk of being removed to foster homes (Parke and Clarke-Stewart; Murphey and Cooper; “Children of Incarcerated Parents”). Living in a foster home represents another risk factor for children and adolescents, who have been found to be more likely to develop “complex and serious” physical and mental health issues (Szilagyi et al.); additionally, by the time children of incarcerated mothers are removed to foster care, they have already likely experienced multiple childhood adversities. Such childhood stress and trauma can affect the developing brain, leading to difficulties with emotional regulation, attention, executive function, and memory (Kerker et al.).

Costs of maternal incarceration A related effect of maternal incarceration is cost. Foster homes, court proceedings over custody or to determine parental fitness, and various other state/government interventions are mandated to be in the best interest of the child. Such interventions are costly, requiring significant budgets and allocation of personnel. While in some instances removing children from their homes may be justified, this nevertheless raises the following issue: while there appears to be substantial public support for financial commitments to support the best interest of the child after a mother is arrested, sentenced, and incarcerated, there is demonstrably less interest in investing in early family interventions. There appears to be little public or political will in either Canada or the United States to direct public monies to mitigate adversities related to poverty, drug addiction, mental illness, and quality child care services which would also, in terms of child development and family function, be in the best interest of the child. In her analysis of incarcerated mothers’ legal struggles to show their fitness to maintain custody of children, Kennedy showed how a lack of contact with children during incarceration is often interpreted as neglect or abandonment, which is then used as a justification, “in the best interests of the child,” for taking away custody. As Kennedy convincingly demonstrates, there is not an equal emphasis on the child’s best interest when it comes to investing in improving environments and alleviating stressors that may lead to incarceration as there is for harnessing the resources needed to deem the mother unfit. Similarly, Dorothy Roberts pointed out that the United States spends more money on out-of-home care and less on in-home services to struggling single parents. A resource allocation analysis for Canadian Indigenous mothers and children showed that the cost of incarceration: “including courts, parole boards, numerous administrative costs, foster 457

Catherine Borshuk and Gordana Eljdupovic

homes and various fall outs . . . by far supersede investments in building communities, infrastructure, access to education and provision of systematic support for raising children and building communities” (Eljdupovic et al. 54). While this refers to Canadian Indigenous women in particular, in light of the shared socioeconomic background characteristics and risk factors of incarcerated women in the United States, it applies equally to all incarcerated women.

Future research Future research is needed on the long-term impact of maternal incarceration on children, Indigenous families, and all communities of colour. We are starting to get a better understanding of the impact of this adverse childhood experience but need more insight into the group-based impacts of the trauma particular to maternal separation due to incarceration, especially over the long term. It would also be helpful to learn how well judges, prosecutors, and policy makers understand these impacts as they propose changes to policing practices and the justice system. Do those who have the power to impact justice policy, for instance, take intergenerational effects of maternal incarceration into account? As the current US administration promises to pursue a new war on drugs, has the overrepresentation of justice-involved mothers of colour been considered? And in the wake of the Canadian government’s apology to Aboriginal people for the cultural loss and assimilationism associated with residential schools, what new specific policies might be pursued to address not only the overrepresentation of Indigenous mothers in Canadian jails and prisons but also their offspring who have been relocated to foster homes? Finally, it is imperative that research finds better ways to support mothers living in situations of poverty and abuse in order to prevent criminalization in the first place. We need the best information at our disposal in order to make better-informed decisions about resource allocation. We suspect a thorough review would demonstrate that the goal of reducing maternal criminalization would best be met by moving resources away from policing and incarceration, to providing families with pre-incarceration support in the areas of childcare, housing, and employment.

Further reading Boyd, S. “Gendered Drug Policy: Motherisk and the Regulation of Mothering in Canada.” International Journal of Drug Policy. Published online first, 21 Dec. 2018. Accessed 22 Jan. 2019. Fauth, Rebecca C., et al. “Home Visiting for System Involved Young Mothers: A Longitudinal Investigation of Risks, Supports, and Outcomes.” Tufts University Research Brief, May 2018, www.aecf.org/ blog/home-visiting-program-shows-benefits-for-young-justice-involved-mothers/. Accessed 18 Jan. 2019. Flower, Shawn M.“Gender-Responsive Strategies for Women Offenders.” US Department of Justice National Institute of Corrections, Nov. 2010. Kearney, Joan A., and Mary W. Byrne. “Reflective Functioning in Criminal Justice Involved Women Enrolled in a Mother/Baby Co-residence Prison Intervention Program.” Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, vol. 32, 2018, pp. 517–23. Martin, Eric.“Hidden Consequences: The Impact of Incarceration on Dependent Children.” National Institute of Justice, No. 278, 2017, www.nij.gov/journals/278/Pages/impact-of-incarceration-on-dependentchildren.aspx. Accessed 18 Jan. 2019. Paynter, Martha, J. “Policy and Legal Protection for Breastfeeding and Incarcerated Women in Canada.” Journal of Human Lactation, vol. 34, no. 2, 2018, pp. 276–81. Pedlar, Alison, et al. Community Re-Entry: Uncertain Future for Women Leaving Prison. Routledge, 2018. Peterson, Bryce, et al. “Children of Incarcerated Parents Framework Document: Promising Practices, Challenges, and Recommendations to the Field.” June 2015, Justice Policy Center, Urban Institute.

458

Criminalization and incarceration

Conclusion The number of incarcerated women in Canada and the United States continues to grow. Poor women continue to be at risk for criminalization, incarceration, and child removal. Women of colour are disproportionately criminalized due to racial discrimination in justice system practices, and mothers who are victims of domestic violence are often re-victimized by patterns of policing and prosecution. While justice-involved individuals are significantly more likely to be members of marginalized groups, even within the incarcerated population, women are significantly more disadvantaged than men. Justice-involved women present more and more serious mental health needs than their male counterparts, and incarcerated mothers in particular undergo significant stressors. Long-term effects of maternal incarceration have been found on children’s mental and physical health outcomes, and in the intergenerational cycle of criminal justice involvement. Researchers have presented evidence of the need for family-responsive models to guide criminal justice policy, yet such models are in sharp contrast with current practices of challenging the custody of criminalized mothers while investing significant resources in policing, incarceration, and subsequent foster home placements. One may argue that to truly take seriously the best interest of the child, the mother, and the community, there needs to develop significantly greater resources for pre-incarceration interventions.

Works cited “Adverse Childhood Experiences.” Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 9 May 2017, www.samhsa.gov/capt/practicing-effective-prevention/prevention-behavioral-health/adverse-child hood-experiences. Accessed 23 Oct. 2017. Allen, Suzanne, et al. “Throwaway Moms: Maternal Incarceration and the Criminalization of Female Poverty.” Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, vol. 25, 2010, pp. 160–72. Barrett, Meredith Robeson, et al. Twenty Years Later: Revisiting the Task Force on Federally Sentenced Women. Correctional Service of Canada, 2010, www.csc-cc.gc.ca/005/008/092/005008–0222–01-eng.pdf. Bloom, Barbara, et al. “A Summary of Research, Practice, and Guiding Principles for Women Offenders.” Gender-Responsive Strategies for Women Offenders, National Institute of Corrections, US Department of Justice, 2005, www.nicic.gov/library/020418. Borja, Sharon, et al. “Adversity across the Life Course of Incarcerated Parents: Gender Differences.” Journal of Forensic Social Work, vol. 5, nos. 1–3, 2015, pp. 167–85. Burgess, Joel. “GOP Blocks Medical Pot Backed by Asheville Council, Hospital CEO.” Citizen-Times, 30 June 2017, www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2017/06/30/gop-blocks-medical-pot-backedasheville-council-regions-hospital-ceo/442676001. Accessed 28 Oct. 2017. “Children of Incarcerated Parents.” youth.gov, www.youth.gov/youth-topics/children-of-incarceratedparents. Accessed 20 Oct. 2017. Clifford, Stephanie, and Jessica Silver-Greenberg. “Foster Care as Punishment: The New Reality of ‘Jane Crow.’ ” New York Times, 21 July 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/07/21/nyregion/foster-care-nycjane-crow.html. Accessed 28 Oct. 2017. Coker, Donna, et al. Responses from the Field: Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, and Policing. ACLU Foundation, 2015, www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/2015.10.20_highlights_-_responses_ from_the_field.pdf Collins, Patricia Hill. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. Routledge, 2008. de Beauvoir, Simone. The Coming of Age. Warner Books, 1978. DeKeseredy, Walter S., and Molly Dragiewicz. “Understanding the Complexities of Feminist Perspectives on Woman Abuse: A Commentary on Donald G. Dutton’s Rethinking Domestic Violence.” Violence against Women, vol. 13, no. 8, 2007, pp. 874–84.

459

Catherine Borshuk and Gordana Eljdupovic deVuono-Powell, Saneta, et al. Who Pays? The True Cost of Incarceration on Families. Ella Baker Center, Forward Together, Research Action Design, 2015. Dhillon, Jaskiran K. “Indigenous Girls and the Violence of Settler Colonial Policing.” Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, vol. 4, no. 2, 2015, pp. 1–31. Eljdupovic, Gordana, and Rebecca Jaremko Bromwich, editors. Incarcerated Mothers: Oppression and Resistance. Demeter Press, 2013. ———. “Introduction.” Incarcerated Mothers: Oppression and Resistance, edited by Gordana Eljdupovic and Rebecca Jaremko Bromwich, Demeter Press, 2013, pp. 1–25. Eljdupovic, Gordana, et al. “Incarcerating Aboriginal Mothers: A Cost Too Great.” Incarcerated Mothers: Oppression and Resistance, edited by Gordana Eljdupovic and Rebecca Jaremko Bromwich, Demeter Press, 2013, pp. 43–58. “The Facts about Women and Poverty.” Canadian Women’s Foundation, www.canadianwomen.org/factsabout-women-and-poverty. Accessed 28 Oct. 2017. Fact Sheet on Justice-Involved Women 2016. National Resource Center on Justice-Involved Women, 2016, www.cjinvolvedwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Fact-Sheet.pdf. Flower, Shawn M. “Employment and Female Offenders: An Update of the Empirical Research.” GenderResponsive Strategies for Women Offenders, National Institute of Corrections, US Department of Justice, 2010, www.nicic.gov/Library/024662. Glaze, Lauren E., and Laura M. Maruschak. Parents in Prison and Their Minor Children. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice, 2008. Glazer, Sarah. “Women in Prison.” CQ Researcher, vol. 27, pp. 193–216. Harlow, Caroline W. “Prior Abuse Reported by Inmates and Probationers.” Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Department of Justice, 1999, www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=837 Hauser, Christine. “Florida Woman Whose ‘Stand Your Ground’ Defense Was Rejected Is Released.” New York Times, 7 Feb. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/us/marissa-alexander-released-standyour-ground.html Irigaray, Luce. Je, Tu, Nous; Toward a Culture of Difference. Routledge, 1993. Johnston, Patrick. Native Children and the Child Welfare System. Lorimer, 1983. Kennedy, Deseriee A. “ ‘The Good Mother:’ Mothering, Feminism, and Incarceration.” William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law, vol. 12, no. 2, 2012, pp. 161–200. Kerker, Bonnie D., et al. “Adverse Childhood Experiences and Mental Health, Chronic Medical Conditions, and Development in Young Children.” Academic Pediatrics, vol. 15, no. 5, 2015, pp. 510–17. Laishes, Jane. The 2002 Mental Health Strategy for Women Offenders. Correctional Service of Canada, 2002, www.csc-scc.gc.ca/publications/fsw/mhealth/toc-eng.shtml. Loper, Ann Booker, and Caitlin Novero Clarke. “IV. Attachment Representations of Imprisoned Mothers as Related to Child Contact and the Caregiving Alliance: The Moderating Effect of Children’s Placement with Maternal Grandmothers.” Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, vol. 78, no. 3, 2013, pp. 41–56. Love, David A. “On the Criminalization of Black Motherhood.” Black Commentator, 8 May 2008, www.black commentator.com/276/276_col_criminalization_of_black_motherhood.html. Accessed 12 Oct. 2017. Mersky, J.P., et al. “Impacts of Adverse Childhood Experiences on Health, Mental Health, and Substance Use in Early Adulthood: A Cohort Study of an Urban, Minority Sample in the US” Child Abuse & Neglect, vol. 37, no. 11, 2013, pp. 917–25. Miller, Ted R., et al. “Perils of Police Action: A Cautionary Tale from US Data Sets.” Injury Prevention, vol. 23, no. 1, 2017, pp. 27–32. Moe, Angela M., and Kathleen J. Ferraro. “Criminalized Mothers: The Value and Devaluation of Parenthood from Behind Bars.” Women & Therapy, vol. 29, nos. 3–4, 2006, pp. 135–64. Moser, Andrea.“The Correctional Service of Canada’s Comprehensive Mental Health Strategy.” 12th Symposium on Violence and Aggression, June 2008, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Session A1. Murphey, David, and P. Mae Cooper. Parents Behind Bars: What Happens to Their Children? Child Trends, 2015, www.courts.ca.gov/documents/BTB_23_4K_6.pdf. Ney, Becki, et al., editors. Ten Truths That Matter When Working with Justice Involved Women. National Resource Center on Justice Involved Women, 2012, www.cjinvolvedwomen.org/wp-content/ uploads/2015/09/Ten_Truths_Brief.pdf. Nixon, Kendra L., et al. “Challenging the Notion of Failure to Protect: Exploring the Protective Strategies of Abused Mothers Living in Urban and Remote Communities and Implications for Practice.” Child Abuse Review, vol. 26, 2015, pp. 63–74.

460

Criminalization and incarceration Oral, Resmiye, et al. “Adverse Childhood Experiences and Trauma Informed Care: The Future of Health Care.” Pediatric Research, vol. 79, nos. 1–2, 2016, pp. 227–33. O’Reilly, Andrea, editor. Feminist Mothering. New York UP, 2008. Parke, Ross D., and K. Alison Clarke-Stewart. “Effects of Parental Incarceration on Young Children.” From Prison to Home: The Effect of Incarceration and Reentry on Children, Families, and Communities. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, US Department of Health and Human Services, 2001. Petrosky, Emiko, et al. “Racial and Ethnic Differences in Homicides of Adult Women and the Role of Intimate Partner Violence – United States, 2003–2014.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, vol. 66, no. 28, 2017, pp. 741–46. Reitano, Julie. Adult Correctional Statistics in Canada, 2015/2016. Statistics Canada, 2017, www.statcan. gc.ca/access_acces/alternative_alternatif.action?l=eng&loc=/pub/85-002-x/2017001/article/14700eng.pdf. Rhoad, Meghan, and Samer Muscati. Those Who Take Us Away: Abusive Policing and Failures in Protection of Indigenous Women and Girls in Northern British Columbia, Canada. Human Rights Watch, 2013, www. hrw.org/report/2013/02/13/those-who-take-us-away/abusive-policing-and-failures-protectionindigenous-women. Ritchie, Andrea. Invisible No More: Police Violence against Black Women and Women of Color. Beacon Press, 2017. Roberts, Dorothy. “Prison, Foster Care, and the Systemic Punishment of Black Mothers.” UCLA Law Review, vol. 59, 2012, pp. 1474–1500. Roberts, Dorothy. “Complicating the Triangle of Race, Class and State: The Insights of Black Feminists.” Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol. 37, no. 10, 2014, pp. 1776–82. Ruddick, Sara. Maternal Thinking: Toward a Politics of Peace. Beacon Press, 1995. Sapers, Howard. Annual Report of the Office of the Correctional Investigator 2014–2015. The Office of the Correctional Investigator of Canada, 2015, www.oci-bec.gc.ca/cnt/rpt/annrpt/annrpt20142015-eng.aspx. ———. Annual Report of the Office of the Correctional Investigator 2015–2016. The Office of the Correctional Investigator of Canada, 2016, ww.ocibec.gc.ca/cnt/rpt/pdf/annrpt/annrpt2015–2016-eng.pdf. Accessed 23 Oct. 2017. “Selling Off Our Freedom: How Insurance Companies Have Taken Over Our Bail System.” Color of Change and ACLU Campaign for Smart Justice, May 2017, www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_ document/059_bail_report_2_1.pdf. Accessed 30 Oct. 2017. Stump, Scott. “ ‘Marijuana Moms’ Say Smoking Pot Makes Them Better Parents.” TODAY.com, 1 Aug. 2017, www.today.com/parents/marijuana-moms-say-smoking-pot-makes-them-better-parentst114510. Accessed 28 Oct. 2017. Swavola, Elizabeth, et al. Overlooked: Women and Jails in an Era of Reform. Vera Institute of Justice, 2016. Szilagyi, Moira A., et al. “Health Care Issues for Children and Adolescents in Foster Care and Kinship Care.” American Academy of Pediatrics, vol. 136, no. 4, 2015, pp. 1142–66. Tasker, John Paul. “Ottawa Announces $800M Settlement with Indigenous Survivors of Sixties Scoop.” CBC News, 5 Oct. 2017, www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-settle-60s-scoop-survivors-1.4342462. Accessed 28 Oct. 2017. Tucker, Jasmine, and Caitlin Lowell. National Snapshot: Poverty among Women & Families, 2015. National Women’s Law Center, 2015, https://nwlc.org/resources/national-snapshot-poverty-among-womenfamilies-2015. Van Voorhis, Patricia, et al. “Women’s Risk Factors and Their Contributions to Existing Risk/Needs Assessment: The Current Status of a Gender-Responsive Supplement.” Criminal Justice and Behavior, vol. 37, no. 3, 2010, pp. 261–88. Vasadani, Jaya, and Jesenia Santana. “Winter 2014 OPDV Bulletin Winter 2017: Incarcerated Victims.” New York State Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence, www.opdv.ny.gov/public_aware ness/bulletins/winter2014/victimsprison.html. Accessed 30 Oct. 2017. Walmsley, Roy. World Female Imprisonment List. 3rd ed., Institute for Criminal Policy Research, 2015. The War on Marijuana in Black and White. American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, 2013, www. aclu.org/report/report-war-marijuana-black-and-white?redirect=criminal-law-reform/war-marijuanablack-and-white. Williams, Alex. “How LSD Saved One Woman’s Marriage.” New York Times, 7 Jan. 2017, nyti.ms/2i3oska. Accessed 23 Oct. 2017. Young, Iris Marion. On Female Body Experiences: “Thrown Like a Girl” and Other Essays. Oxford UP, 2005.

461

37 THE GOVERNANCE OF MOTHERS Michelle Hughes Miller

Introduction The behaviors and identities of mothers, in mothering and as mothers, are more heavily surveilled and regulated than might be assumed by the glorification of mothers in much Western popular culture. In this chapter, I discuss the routes by which mothers are governed, beginning with an historical and theoretical discussion of the formal governance of mothers by state or state-sponsored institutions. Formally, law and policy serve to control mothers’ behaviors and to punish mothers’ identities through regulations and interventions, often singling out mothers as the source (or potential source) of risk and/or harm to their children (see, e.g., Fentiman). I then consider challenges and controversies to this legal and policy focus from research on the ideology of motherhood and the surveillance of mothering. Ideologically, the hegemonic ideal of intensive mothering dictates unrealistic yet widely accepted and socially policed mother/ing expectations (Douglas and Michaels; Hays). Finally, I invoke the concept of self-surveillance from Foucault to argue that the work of formal institutions to manage mothers and dictate mothering has permeated how mothers understand their own roles and responsibilities. Together, ideological and coercive mechanisms convince mothers that they need to blame themselves for their inevitable “failures” through an internalization of the Good and Bad Mother myths (Caplan; Hughes Miller et al.). Combined, formal, ideological, and self-governance intersect to construct a fluid, contested, yet symbiotic net of social control, what Wong (95) refers to as a panopticon.1 Formal institutions and practices serve to define mothers/ing and claim authority over the ability to regulate and punish mothering, made possible by the power inherent in or granted to their agencies. In Foucault’s terms, our concern here is governmentality, or “all the tactics, strategies, and methods made available for governing or regulating a population” (Phillips and Pon 94). To discipline mothers, social policies representing regulatory power detail “norms against which individual behaviours and bodies are judged” (Sawicki 68). Maternal bodies, both pregnant and parenting, are intended to become “docile” through this governance, and particularly through the systems of surveillance it entails (Foucault, Discipline and Punish 136). Thus, governmental, legal, medical, social welfare, and other institutions collectively, and separately, create and maintain a judgmental context within which mothers live and raise their children. Though marginalized mothers are often targeted, privilege may not shield those who are less marginalized from the judgments of these organizations or agencies (see, e.g., Chesler). In contrast to 462

The governance of mothers

this model of governance, community actors and, in particular, other mothers, observe, question, and police the identities and activities of mothers using ideological expectations typically rooted in oppressive discourses (i.e., ableism, racism, classism). In doing so, the community environment and networks within which mothers interact serve as sources of support and condemnation, further constructing mothers as always already potentially problematic. Representations of the Bad Mother (see, e.g., Hughes Miller et al. 6) in media, news, and art further the possibility of ideological governance and intensive surveillance as stories of bad mothering across the spectrum permeate culture and are utilized by moral entrepreneurs to share expectations for maternal practice widely (see, e.g., Douglas and Michaels 113). Finally, in Foucauldian fashion, institutional and cultural standards of mothering and depictions of ideal mothers become internalized, leading to self-governance and self-surveillance (Henderson et al. 235). Mothers’ expressions of guilt in this context may represent an awareness of differences between mothers’ lived choices or identities and external demands and judgments about who mothers should be and how they should mother. At the micro level, then, governance occurs by the acceptance of, resignation to, or the constrained ability to resist racist, classist, heteropatriarchal, unrealistic, and unsustainable standards of motherhood.

Background and context: formal governance The regulation of mothers through formal systems is not new. The earliest attempts to formally regulate procreation were through infanticide laws, which historically gendered the crime by defining it as the murder of infants by their mothers (Loughnan 687). Infanticide by primarily single or poor mothers was criminalized beginning in the 1600s in the United Kingdom (Vallillee). Later renditions of the British infanticide law that softened punishments by treating the crime as a lesser form of homicide were replicated in both Canada and the United States by the 1800s (Vallillee; Oberman). Beyond infanticide, the understanding of child neglect and a corresponding incorporation of mother-blame into child protective legislation generally began around the turn of the twentieth century in both the United States (Gordon) and Canada (Swift). Criminalization of pregnant bodies, such as through drug laws and abortion restrictions (see, e.g., Minaker and Hogeveen) has been argued to begin somewhat later, though the roots of pregnancy intervention started being popularized under the ideology of scientific motherhood, which also developed in the late 1800s (Ladd-Taylor and Umansky). State regulation and control of mothers of color and indigenous mothers has been particularly violent historically, such as the violence toward Black women’s pregnant and parenting bodies in the United States under the institution of slavery (see Roberts, Killing the Black Body), and the violent colonial negation of Indigenous mothers/ing that led to the creation of the Aboriginal residential school system in Canada (see Veenstra and Keenan). The contemporary violences of state governance of mothers marginalized by race, ethnicity, or indigeneity reflect a pervasive institutionalization of racism along with classism, ableism, heterosexism, etc., into the policies and practices of state and statemanaged institutions, such as child welfare (Swift) and criminal justice ( Jaremko Bromwich). As Foucault so aptly described it, law and policy serve as a “discourse of truth” that constitutes our lives (Discipline and Punish). Carol Smart noted that the legal institution of motherhood that formalized state control arose during late modernity because of two types of class-based forces. First, proto-feminist campaigns were created by middle- and upper-class (predominantly white) mothers who sought legal recognition in custody cases, which they believed would lead to “an appreciation of the work of caring and the importance of mother-love for the welfare of children” (44). Thus, motherhood was perceived as a route to greater (white) women’s legal rights. Second, philanthropic organizations, 463

Michelle Hughes Miller

followed by social work, health, and psychological organizations “sought to impose specific standards of motherhood on working-class women through health education, child protection legislation, and various activities associated with poor relief, such as demands for maternity benefits that would have ‘strings’ attached” (45). The goal was and still is to turn “ ‘bad’ [lower-class] women into ‘good’ ones” (Appell 377). Thus, from the beginning, formal governance of mothers sought to differentiate among mothers in ways that endorsed and perpetuated existing forms of oppression. The outcome has been a centralizing of the authority of state and state-sponsored agencies to define, regulate, and criminalize all motherhood (Hughes Miller, Criminalization; Minaker and Hogeveen), steeped in the discourse of mother-blame (Ladd-Taylor and Umansky; Reimer and Sahagian), that is disproportionately applied against marginalized mothers. As Smart and others have noted, feminist legal theorists and advocates have alternatively called for equality under the law, a liberal recognition of the discriminatory impacts of policies on those a priori marginalized by the legal system (especially poor, Indigenous, and racialized mothers), and arguing for progressive actions that incorporate such mothers’ experiences into the law. Calls for equality or neutrality in discourse have been particularly problematic and have had an explicit effect in the United States of drastically increasing imprisonment for women and mothers of color through mandatory sentencing policies (Roberts, “Prison” 1482). These purportedly neutral discourses also guide the system of child welfare in Canada (Swift; Jaremko Bromwich) and the system of divorce and custody in the United States (Behounek). In Canada, Swift described how child neglect was constructed within policy as both gender and class-­ neutral, when it was quite clearly neither (9, 101). Similarly, Jaremko Bromwich demonstrates how the absence of definitions of appropriate mothering in child welfare policy creates a discursive space that allows front-line child welfare workers to invoke normative understandings of “unfit mothers” that perpetuate classist and racist systems of evaluation. Within divorce and custody mediation, Behounek illustrates that presumptions of equally shared parenting are so dominant that they are used to ignore vastly unequal parenting and, more problematically, histories of coercive control and intimate partner violence. Thus, in heterosexual marriages “the difference between male custodial rights and female custodial obligations” is often ignored (Chesler x). The call for progressive restructuring of law and policy by motherhood activists and feminist and critical legal scholars is built upon the feminist standpoint model (Harding) and recognizes intersectionality2 theory (Crenshaw). Unfortunately, it has been limited in its positive effect. Consider the issue of social welfare. In the United States, the current welfare system, called the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, was a not-tooveiled response to perceived feminist successes. The law attempts to empower “welfare mothers” to take responsibility for themselves and get jobs, ignoring patterns of discrimination, availability or accessibility of jobs, or costs of the childcare needed for the mothers to work (see Kinser 119). Similarly, Ontario Works, Ontario’s welfare policy, strives for recipients’ “self-reliance” (Maki 48) while increasing the vulnerability of single racialized mothers through enhanced surveillance because of expanded understandings of fraud and the ready availability of fraud hotlines (Maki 55). In both of these examples, it is the marginality of the recipients that serves as a justification for the behavioral mandates and surveillance. Regardless of whether policy is written to ignore mothers’ uniqueness or to recognize it, mothers are interpreted through socially constructed ideas about race, gender, nationality, sexuality, ability, social class, and other categorizations of oppression. Beyond the state, the “insidious form” (Rich 127) of governance within nonstate institutions has incredibly damaging effects on pregnant individuals and mothers. In part, this is because institutional actors still define or utilize state-sanctioned power in what has been called a “­punitive-therapeutic” mode (Dewey and St. Germain 3) and because mothers have more 464

The governance of mothers

frequent interactions with nonstate institutions than they do formal systems of justice (Appell 377). Foucault’s understanding of what it means to govern is important here: “to govern is to structure the possible field of action of others” (“The Subject and Power” 790). By working with and through governing mechanisms of the state, nonstate institutions delimit mothering. For example, the “stunning” prioritization of profit possible because of the interconnections between the US government and industry has led to incredible duress in mothers’ lives constructed by the lack of “guaranteed paid maternity leave; decent, affordable child care; health coverage; and good flexible work options,” part of what Lerner has described as a war on mothers (Lerner 21–22). Each of these institutionalized political decisions then constrains mothers’ choices of how to mother, or even if they can mother, an issue of extreme importance within many marginalized communities (see Ross 2). An excellent example of the interplay between multiple state and nonstate actors in the governance of mothers is control over reproduction, defined as: the mechanisms through which different historical configurations of actors – such as state institutions, churches, donor agencies, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) – use legislative controls, economic inducements, moral injunctions, direct coercion, and ethical incitements to produce, monitor and control reproductive behaviours and practices. (Morgan and Roberts 243) Using this framework, Singer has illustrated that reproductive justice in Mexico for Catholic women represents a complex reconciliation of religious doctrine and precarious neoliberal economic conditions within a framework of legalized abortion (28). For activists and mothers, then, addressing any singular set of policies or regulations is insufficient to ensure women have reproductive rights, because reproductive justice considers the context of those rights within which pregnancy and parenting decisions are made (Ross 2). Nonstate entities collaborate with state entities to govern reproduction. A key institution in the control of mothers and reproduction is medicine. Medical professionals are often considered the experts about what it takes to make a healthy fetus and child (Ehrenreich and English 34; Frederick 75). Beginning with scientific motherhood (Hays; Ladd-Taylor and Umansky), embracing technologies (Rothman), and flowing into today’s concerns about maternal risk (Frederick 75), medical and mental health professionals serve as legal experts, participating in the criminalizing of some maternal behaviors, and therefore of some pregnant individuals, as dangerous to fetuses and/or children. Pregnancy is particularly fraught: “Nowhere else across her body has there been an internecine struggle between the state and a suspect class to determine whether that space – the reproductive realm – deserves a right to privacy or is subject to public regulation and social scrutiny” (Goodwin 660). From taking custody of a fetus to allegedly protect it from its mother’s potential behaviors (Gallagher) to the removal of children from mothers with addictions (Dewey and St. Germain 146), the range of medicalized “moral failings” (Phillips and Pon 94) of mothers is extensive. Yet rarely are medical professionals asked to express their biases about motherhood, including their expectations of who can be “good mothers” and what that entails (other than perfection) in this criminalizing process (Hughes Miller, “Witnessing” 82). Regardless, researchers have unpacked the incursion of the ideology of motherhood in medicalized policies and practices about such topics as breastfeeding and “breast is best” (see, e.g., Malatzky 357), early motherhood (Breheny and Stephens), disability (Frederick 77), and HIV status (Greene et al. 2090), exploring intersectionality in the lived experiences of mothers. 465

Michelle Hughes Miller

Ongoing controversies and contemporary challenges: ideological and self-surveillance As these examples suggest, formal governance relies upon and enacts ideological understandings of motherhood. Because of this, it is insufficient to only consider formal processes in the governance of motherhood.

Ideological surveillance For Rich, patriarchal motherhood incorporates both structural and cultural/ideological governance. Because the law often considers motherhood a privacy concern (Goodwin 660), incursion into the private domain necessitates a different strategy for governance, a strategy that does not require that mothers come before the state or state-affiliated institutions. The solution is to govern mothers within the private sphere. As Cornell states, “Under the patriarchal scheme, a woman is entitled to protection by the state because she takes up her duties as caretaker of her family” (559) and thus is identified as a “good mother.” The question then arises – how do women know what duties they must perform, and how they must be performed? The answer lies in the pervasiveness of the ideology of motherhood and the intensive surveillance and therefore governance it inspires. Articulated and critiqued by authors such as Hays, Douglas and Michaels, and Rich, the ideology of motherhood, or intensive mothering (Hays), is rooted in patriarchal values that assert motherhood is the core of women’s lives. For Douglas and Michaels, this means “no woman is truly complete or fulfilled unless she has kids, that women remain the best primary caretakers of children, and that to be a remotely decent mother, a woman has to devote her entire physical, psychological, emotional, and intellectual being, 24/7, to her children” (4). Hays assures us that this understanding of motherhood is ideological and also intentional, succinctly linking formal governance with the ideological trap patriarchy sets for women: In concrete terms, this means that the family is invaded not only by public schools, the courts, social service workers, gardeners, housekeepers, day-care providers, lawyers, doctors, televisions, frozen dinners, pizza delivery, manufactured clothing, and disposable diapers, but also, and more critically, by the ideology behind such institutions, persons, and products. (11) Women of color have long challenged the relevance of intensive mothering expectations within racialized communities (see, e.g., Hill Collins, “Shifting the Center”). However, scholars continue to argue that counter-narratives of good mothering are overshadowed by the hegemony and inculcation of intensive mothering into dominant Western institutions (Arendell 1194) and public discourse, and therefore intensive mothering is used to define and regulate mothers across intersectional differences. By the end of the twentieth century, media, corporate, and religious dialogue had all adopted pro-motherhood discourse alongside ideologies of blame for individual mothers derived from intensive motherhood (Kinser 121). For instance, a mother could work, “as long as she manipulated her work life so that children remained her primary focus, and as long as she was willing to take the heat if anything in the child’s life went awry” (Kinser 120). Indeed, a key component to the ideology of motherhood is the pervasive mother-blame that transcends differences among mothers, yet targets its most vituperative forms (e.g., stigmatization, criminalization, 466

The governance of mothers

loss of children) against mothers who are already structurally or culturally marginalized in the social world (Reimer and Sahagian 1). For instance, Kennedy writes about the termination of parental rights of incarcerated mothers, who are also often poor women of color, as driven by the intersection of policy and stereotype because incarcerated mothers are perceived as already bad mothers. Indeed, very little mothering is protected from potential mother-blame (Reimer and Sahagian). Mother-blame, as an ideological tool of governance, requires both definitions of bad mothering and mechanisms to ensure its application (Hughes Miller et al. 8). The definitions are frequently derived from institutional and/or self-claiming expert discourse (Caplan 55; LaddTaylor and Umansky 2) and may vary widely across geographic, temporal, and cultural domains. For instance, Quaggin Harkin describes the challenges of mothering a child with disabilities in two different time periods: one characterized by institutionalization and eugenics, the other by medicalized demands that mothers maintain a healthy utero and attempt to prevent the birth of children with disabilities. While children with disabilities are spurned in both eras, motherblame is increasingly individualized and medicalized today (282). The variability and fluidity of these definitions serve the ideological purpose of making good mothering a moving target and, for most mothers, an unreachable one. At the same time, mothers’ “partnership” with (Frederick 75) or acquiescence to experts is a consistent condition of avoiding mother-blame (Craig and Scambler 1123; Ladd-Taylor and Umansky 9). Thus, expert advice is a key source of ideological governance. A dominant mechanism by which intensive mothering is maintained is surveillance, “the pre-eminent form of social control” for Foucault (Couch et al. 129). Wong’s reinterpretation of Foucault’s panopticon is relevant here: “the ubiquitous ‘observational gaze’ that mothers are conscripted into by virtue of gender and fertility” (95). Surveillance permeates mothers’ experiences, going well beyond interactions with institutional actors in justice, medical, or social welfare systems (see Swift). In Wong’s words, the panopticon “is a figurative embodiment of the imprisonment that keeps mothers under malevolent, omnipresent surveillance” (95). Institutional actors are the primary purveyors of ideological governance weaponized by state-­ sanctioned power, disproportionately affecting marginalized women who are brought into contact with such systems more frequently (Appell 377). The “medical stare” experienced by mothers with disabilities is a case in point. Described by Frederick as a “uniquely forceful and pathologizing medical gaze upon disabled bodies,” the stare leads to intense and intrusive forms of state surveillance, increasing the risks that mothers with disabilities will be officially and socially defined as “incompetent” (77). Such mothers are not the “risk” to their children; rather, it is the harsh, sanctioned surveillance of them by professionals that risks the well-being of both mother and child. Ideological surveillance of mothers is also performed by non-institutional actors. “With intensive mothering, everyone watches us, we watch ourselves, and we watch ourselves watching ourselves. Motherhood has become a psychological police state” (Douglas and Michaels 6). Although Douglas and Michaels are alluding to an internalization of intensive mothering, discussed next, the importance of the watchful eyes of social others should not be neglected in our discussion of governance. For the Black and Hispanic low-income US mothers in one study, even members of their own churches and staff at local nonprofit agencies providing food and other forms of support are feared as potential sources of gossip about the mothers’ inability to feed their children. Such gossip could cause significant risks to the mothers’ reputations and identities as good mothers (Hughes 25) and lead to someone making an anonymous call to child services, which could result in an investigation and potential loss of custody (26). For similar reasons, Grant et al.’s white low-income Welsh mother respondents reported “a sense of 467

Michelle Hughes Miller

competition [with other mothers] to be the most selfless maternal subject” (438) when they fed their infants in public. This sense of perpetual competition between mothers in regards mothering choices has been defined as the ideology of combative mothering (Moore and Abetz 49). Indeed, Henderson and colleagues describe how “the pressure to be perfect is most powerfully perpetuated mother-to-mother through interpersonal interaction” (234). Participants in their study, who were overwhelmingly white, middle or upper class, and highly educated, reported being surveilled by other moms and engaging in such surveillance themselves, with both actions leading to increased feelings of pressure to be perfect mothers (239).

Internalization and self-governance Internalization of the ideology of motherhood by mothers is the anticipated and desired outcome of both formal and ideological governance. Foucault theorized this process when he claimed prisoners in the panopticon internalize the gaze of the guards, whether or not the guards are actually watching (Discipline and Punish 203), modifying their behavior accordingly. Similarly, the pervasiveness of the surveillance of mothers – both formal and informal – demands mothers internalize the gaze steeped in intensive mothering and, in doing so, act according to those ideological expectations by policing themselves. Ideology, then, serves both a political purpose and an expedient purpose. By focusing attention onto the behaviors of mothers and off of intensive mothering and sociocultural conditions that make mothering more difficult – such as poverty, racism, and a lack of institutional support – we can scapegoat individual mothers. In turn, as Rich argued in 1976, “the scapegoat is different from the martyr; she cannot teach resistance or revolt. She represents a terrible temptation: to suffer uniquely, to assume that I, the individual woman, am the ‘problem’ ” (277). To convince mothers that they are the “problem,” to move mothers from an externalization of responsibility for the challenges of motherhood toward this internalization of mother-blame, decreases the burden of surveillance and governance on institutional and non-institutional actors. It is the neoliberal solution to surveillance; self-surveillance demands individual action to appease perceived institutional expectations (Manji 308). Further, self-governance controls mothers in ways that even our most punitive systems cannot: by demanding levels of perfection that are both unattainable (Hays; Douglas and Michaels; Henderson et al.) and central to mothers’ self-image. In this way internalization is the “most poignant” form of governance (Caplan 43). One way to understand this process is to consider the role of media in self-governance. Widespread awareness of the ideology of motherhood for mothers and non-mothers alike is possible, in part, because of the omnipresence of media in our lives (Douglas and Michaels; Henderson et al. 235). Through various platforms, affordances, and formats, narratives about mothers and mothering provide images of bad mothers/ing and their social stigmatization as a cautionary tale for all mothers, but particularly marginalized mothers, leading Couch and her colleagues to claim: “spectacle as social control is not dead” (133). Couch et al. also consider the dyadic relationship between the panopticon and what is termed the synopticon (citing Mathiesen 219), which allows “the many to see the few” across a bombardment of media messages (Couch et al. 130). Using statistics, metaphors, images, binaries, and judgments (like risk), the system of synoptic messages constructs a generic and generalizable representation of social phenomenon (131). In the case of mothering, elements of intensive mothering, such as who should become mothers or how mothers should care for their children, are broadcast across media forms, synergistically alerting viewers to social expectations and providing social pressure to conform, pressure that if not internalized through self-governance can be backed up by formal and informal systems of surveillance. Although Wong originally described surveillance 468

The governance of mothers

as so prevalent to make it virtually invisible (9), its omnipresence in media and in daily life today may belie that argument. But media is not monolithic (Moore and Abetz 57), and this is becoming increasing so through the advent of social media that may provide opportunities for an expanded discourse and even counter-hegemonic messages (Couch et al. 132). Thus, though “controlling images” (Hill Collins, Black Feminist Thought 69) of Black mothers and other marginalized mothers in popular culture have distorted our understandings of their experiences and lives (Hill Collins, “Shifting the Center”; Craddock, “Pushing Back” 44), we are also now seeing shows where Black mothers are not portrayed as stereotypical Baby Mamas, dysfunctional matriarchs, or welfare queens. Social media also has presented the opportunity for an online mom culture to develop, particularly in the “mommy blogs.” These online representations of motherhood often strengthen the possibility of surveillance and separation between mothers (Moore and Abetz 59) and contribute to even further demands for self-surveillance. At the same time, mommy blogging has allowed for diverse voices, images, and messages to proliferate, leading to a sense that such blogging can be resistance (Abetz and Moore 267). However, there is also the suggestion that online motherhood discourse across blogs, news, and social media facilitates contemporary online “mommy wars” rooted in the ideology of motherhood discourse (Abetz and Moore 266) which, again, provides justification and support for mothers to self-surveil. Institutional and non-institutional actors increasingly rely on self-surveilling behaviors to discipline maternal bodies into docile bodies. For instance, “legislated bio-power in child welfare means that failure on the part of parents to self-regulate and self-adjust in accordance with such laws, places them in conflict with juridical and societal norms, which can result in the removal of their children” (Phillips and Pon 94). Thus, it is frequently the possibility – strong possibility for Indigenous, racialized, impoverished and other already marginalized mothers – of criminalization or loss of custody or parental rights that incentivizes self-surveillance. At the same time, disciplinary power can also create opportunities for success. As Ruddick claimed, “a ‘good’ mother may well be praised for colluding in her own subordination, with destructive consequences to herself and her children” (221). In this argument, self-governance is a route to social respectability. Even actions that support children, such as seeking food and support from nonprofit agencies, can expose mothers to the critical surveillance of others and engender “symbolic consequences for African American mothers’ self-understanding and sense of dignity” (Hughes 30). Thus, seeking ways to receive respect rather than suspicion can be both socially and emotionally rewarding, even as stigmatization is problematic. Indeed, scholars have argued that emotions such as embarrassment – such as due to perceived failures to adequately perform intensive mothering – and “felt stigma” (Craig and Scambler 1115) are also constructed through governmentality and power (Malatzky 358), serving as yet another way to produce docile mothering bodies.

Directions for future research Despite research that provides some details about the range and effects of governance on mothers and mothering, there is significant room for more scholarship on how and when resistance to governance can be effective for mothers, and which mothers. There is evidence that resistance to all forms of governance is occurring, even among those populations most at risk for punitive social control (see, e.g., Craddock; Kennedy; Wong). Yet there is little systematic research on the effectiveness of such resistance or, more important, ways to undo the panopticon’s success. To be clear, I will not be talking about empowered mothering here, though my arguments do support the recent call for a matricentric feminism (O’Reilly). 469

Michelle Hughes Miller

For instance, governance requires a framework for assessment; I have argued here that the ideology of intensive mothering overwhelmingly fills that role. Yet, while scholars continue to recognize the pervasiveness of tenets of intensive mothering within governance, a few scholars have begun to find evidence of a challenge to its predominance. What has been alluded to as an adaptation may be, in fact, a cohesive reorganization of core mothering principles guided by intersectional differences (see, e.g., Craddock, Black Motherhood(s)). New media forms and engagements also may have potential, as there are intriguing online assertions of “Bad Mom” identities that could be the basis for significant, albeit still problematic, counter-narratives (Powell 38). How might such a proposed or shared identity speak back to elements of ideological governance in the public online community, or provide a basis by which self-representation may mute the internalization of mother-blame? Another place to consider resistance is in the opportunity structure within which such resistance might lie. Although the dominance of the state among institutions does not appear to be lifting, neoliberalism’s incursion into state policies ironically may have unintended consequences. For instance, “in the 1990s and 2000s, the power and ubiquity of heteronormative ideology shaped the boundaries of what was imaginable and permissible in the realms of queer parenthood” in the United Kingdom (Gabb 1009). Yet class status facilitated motherhood anyway, as privileged lesbian mothers used a law unintended for lesbian mothers along with subversively shared knowledge to legally create families, “and in so doing conjoined parental and partnership rights” (1008) across a broader spectrum of queer families. How might similar opportunities be identified and used to allow change, even within the system of governance? Changes to work, such as increases in telecommuting, may lead to extensive mothering (an adaptation of intensive mothering that delegates intensive mothering behaviors, see, e.g., Christopher 74), but it also may lead to adaptations to the patriarchal bargain. The challenge, of course, is to not outsource the burden of caregiving for some mothers onto other mothers who might already be economically or structurally trapped in the global care chain, such as immigrants (Gammage and Stevanovic 7). The growing literature on resistance to governance is promising but tends to highlight micro-interactional strategies that, while empowering for individual mothers, may do little to address the hegemony of intensive mothering and its institutional embracement. As motherhood scholars we need to think bigger; prison abolishment is daunting but would significantly lessen the threat of the criminalization of mothers, for instance. Expanding and strengthening activist/advocacy groups to hold medical professionals accountable in ways that individual clients cannot is another approach. Regardless, there is room for scholarship that considers both the how and the why of resistance. Yet it is also important to consider how we understand resistance in the first place. Rozmarin has questioned the valorization of resistance over conformity for mothers, which presupposes that embracement of intensive mothering is an endorsement of patriarchal values. In her formulation, those who reject the Good Mother trope are granted agency by motherhood scholars, while those who accept the trope appear to have lost their autonomy and agency. She argues we must “go beyond the ‘chooser-loser’ paradigm of power” (330) and instead consider an ethical critique of motherhood.

Further reading Fentiman, Linda C. Blaming Mothers: American Law and the Risks to Children’s Health. New York UP, 2017. Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Vintage Books, 1979.

470

The governance of mothers Frederick, Angela. “Risky Mothers and the Normalcy Project: Women with Disabilities Negotiate Scientific Motherhood.” Gender & Society, vol. 31, no. 1, Feb. 2017, pp. 74–95. Goodwin, Michele Bratcher. “Precarious Moorings: Tying Fetal Drug Law Policy to Social Profiling.” Rutgers Law Journal, vol. 42, 2011, pp. 659–84. Henderson, Angela C., et al. “A New State of Surveillance? An Application of Michel Foucault to Modern Motherhood.” Surveillance & Society, vol. 7, no. 3/4, 2010, pp. 231–47. Hughes Miller, Michelle, et al., editors. Bad Mothers: Regulations, Representations, and Resistance. Demeter Press, 2017. Smart, Carol. “Deconstructing Motherhood.” Good Enough Mothering? Feminist Perspectives on Lone Motherhood, edited by Elizabeth Bortolaia Silva, Routledge, 1996, pp. 37–57.

Conclusion In 1997, I defined the criminalization of motherhood as “the process whereby ideological definitions of motherhood are incorporated and perpetuated by the justice system, resulting in a punitive response to mothers who enter the system, and a cultural reliance on justice activities to maintain the motherhood myths” (Hughes Miller, Criminalization 3). In agreement with feminist scholars of the day from the fields of critical feminist theory, I considered the criminalization of motherhood a tool that had been wielded widely and inappropriately to control women through custody, parental rights, and employment and abortion decisions, primarily by state and state-affiliated actors. However, I could have gone further, as the research on ideological and self-governance presented in this chapter articulate. In fact, I could have asked instead: “Is mother-blaming merely a symptom of our society’s misogyny?” (Ladd-Taylor and Umansky 2). Describing and theorizing the governance of mothers necessitates such a question. The regulation and restriction of motherhood has been a subject of concern among feminist scholars for decades (Kinser). Governance, through formal law and policy or through ideological incursion into institutions and social practices, is pervasive and powerful. It has also been targeted; for instance, governance has tended to be particularly harsh against mothers who are not under the “governance of fathers” (Smart 55). Women have struggled to achieve reproductive justice, facing medicalized and criminalized restrictions on their choices about pregnancy and as pregnant women, not to mention a lack of access to safe and healthy environments where they can raise their children. Countless mothers have been shamed and stigmatized for their failures to fulfill impossible motherhood expectations. Children have been taken away from their mothers, and mothers taken away from their children, not because of harmful behaviors but because of a perceived risk of mothers as harmful themselves. Certain mothers, identifiable through social identities that are stigmatized or marginalized, have found their mothering called into question simply because of who they are. Literal imprisonment has also occurred, including criminalized reproductive and mothering choices (see, e.g., Goodwin). It is no wonder that the pressure to self-surveil in this oppressive social context is immense, both as a means to self-governance and as hoped-for protection from external punitive forces. Collectively, the governance of pregnant bodies and mothers controls (predominantly) women. It is overwhelmingly women’s bodies that are made docile through such means, and women’s behaviors that are criminalized or shamed, with the extreme differential burden of such docility and criminalization on women who already experience some forms of marginalization. This intense management of marginalized women through their reproductive activities speaks to larger concerns about such women as decision-makers, in their own lives and over the lives of others. Calling out this panopticon and its cumulative effects on the lives of women, especially marginalized women, must be done, for the benefit of all.

471

Michelle Hughes Miller

Notes 1 In using this imagery, Wong references Foucault’s arguments about the panopticon in his critique of punishment in Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (1979): “The panopticon (Foucault 1979, 1989) is a figurative embodiment of the imprisonment that keeps mothers under malevolent, omnipresent surveillance. This metaphor captures that an observer (opticon) sees all (pan) prisoners without prisoners knowing whether and when they are being watched” (95). 2 Intersectionality theory was conceived by Crenshaw to address the multiplicity of identities experienced simultaneously by individuals in a similarly complex social world. In using the metaphor of “intersections,” Crenshaw argued that single axis thinking ignored and disadvantaged subjects within law and in the social world, where mutually constituting identities engage. See Cho et al. for additional information.

Works cited Abetz, Jenna, and Julia Moore. “‘Welcome to the Mommy Wars, Ladies’: Making Sense of the Ideology of Combative Mothering in Mommy Blogs.” Communication, Culture & Critique, vol. 11, 2018, pp. 265–81. Appell, Annette R. “On Fixing ‘Bad’ Mothers and Saving Their Children.” “Bad” Mothers: The Politics of Blame in Twentieth-Century America, edited by Molly Ladd-Taylor and Lauri Umansky, New York UP, 1998, pp. 356–80. Arendell, Terry. “Conceiving and Investigating Motherhood: The Decade’s Scholarship.” Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol. 62, no. 4, 2000, pp. 1192–207. Behounek, Elaina. Mediated Relationships: An Ethnography of Family Law Mediation. 2016. U of South Florida, PhD dissertation. Breheny, Mary, and Christine Stephens. “Youth or Disadvantage? The Construction of Teenage Mothers in Medical Journals.” Culture, Health & Sexuality, vol. 12, no. 3, Apr. 2010, pp. 307–22. Caplan, Paula J. The New Don’t Blame Mother: Mending the Mother-Daughter Relationship. Routledge, 2000. Chesler, Phyllis. Mothers on Trial: The Battle for Children and Custody. 2nd ed., Chicago Review Press, 2011. Cho, Sumi, et al. “Toward a Field of Intersectionality Studies: Theory, Applications, and Praxis.” Signs, vol. 38, no. 4, 2013, pp. 785–810. Christopher, Karen. “Extensive Mothering: Employed Mothers’ Constructions of the Good Mother.” Gender & Society, vol. 26, no. 1, Feb. 2012, pp. 73–96. Cornell, Drucilla. “Reimagining Adoption and Family Law.” Maternal Theory: Essential Readings, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, Demeter Press, 2007, pp. 556–73. Couch, Danielle, et al. “Public Health Surveillance and the Media: A Dyad of Panoptic and Synoptic Social Control.” Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine, vol. 3, no. 1, 2015, pp. 128–41. Craddock, Karen T., editor. Black Motherhood(s): Contours, Contexts and Considerations. Demeter Press, 2015. ———. “Pushing Back with Our Souls Intact: Young Black Mother’s Resistance to Marginalization.” Black Motherhood(s): Contours, Contexts and Considerations, Karen T. Craddock, Demeter Press, 2015, pp. 36–70. Craig, Gillian M., and Graham Scambler. “Negotiating Mothering against the Odds: Gastrostomy Tube Feeding, Stigma, Governmentality and Disabled Children.” Social Science & Medicine, vol. 62, 2006, pp. 1115–25. Crenshaw, Kimberlé. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review, vol. 43, 1991, pp. 1241–99. Dewey, Susan, and Tonia St. Germain. Women of the Street: How the Criminal Justice-Social Services Alliance Fails Women in Prostitution. New York UP, 2017. Douglas, Susan J., and Meredith W. Michaels. The Mommy Myth: The Idealization of Motherhood and How It Has Undermined All Women. Free Press, 2004. Ehrenreich, Barbara, and Dierdre English. For Her Own Good: One Hundred Fifty Years of the Experts’ Advice to Women. Doubleday, 1979. Fentiman, Linda C. Blaming Mothers: American Law and the Risks to Children’s Health. New York UP, 2017. Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Vintage Books, 1979. ———. The History of Sexuality. Volume I: An Introduction. Pantheon Books, 1980. ———. “The Subject and Power.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 8, no. 4, Summer 1982, pp. 777–795. Frederick, Angela. “Risky Mothers and the Normalcy Project: Women with Disabilities Negotiate Scientific Motherhood.” Gender & Society, vol. 31, no. 1, Feb. 2017, pp. 74–95.

472

The governance of mothers Gabb, Jacqui. “Unsettling Lesbian Motherhood: Critical Reflections over a Generation (1990–2015).” Sexualities, vol. 21, no. 7, 2018, pp. 1002–20. Gallagher, Janet. “Eggs, Embryos and Foetuses: Anxiety and the Law.” Reproductive Technologies: Gender, Motherhood and Medicine, edited by Michelle Stanworth, U of Minnesota P, 1987, pp. 139–50. Gammage, Sarah, and Natacha Stevanovic. “Gender, Migration and Care Deficits: What Role for the Sustainable Development Goals?” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 2018. doi: 10.1080/1369183X. 2018.1456751. Accessed 7 Feb. 2019. Goodwin, Michele Bratcher. “Precarious Moorings: Tying Fetal Drug Law Policy to Social Profiling.” Rutgers Law Journal, vol. 42, 2011, pp. 659–84. Gordon, Linda. “What Does Welfare Regulate?” Social Research, vol. 55, 1988, pp. 609–30. Grant, Aimee, et al. “ ‘People Try and Police your Behaviour’: The Impact of Surveillance on Mothers and Grandmothers’ Perceptions and Experiences of Infant Feeding.” Families, Relationships and Societies, vol. 7, no. 3, 2018, pp. 431–47. Greene, Saara, et al.“Surviving Surveillance: How Pregnant Women and Mothers Living With HIV Respond to Medical and Social Surveillance.” Qualitative Health Research, vol. 27, no. 14, 2017, pp. 2088–2099. Harding, Sandra. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women’s Lives. Cornell UP, 1991. Hays, Sharon. The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood. Yale UP, 1996. Henderson, Angela C., et al. “A New State of Surveillance? An Application of Michel Foucault to Modern Motherhood.” Surveillance & Society, vol. 7, no. 3/4, 2010, pp. 231–47. Hill Collins, Patricia. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. Routledge, 1990. ———. “Shifting the Center: Race, Class, and Feminist Theorizing about Motherhood.” Mothering: Ideology, Experience and Agency, edited by Evelyn Nakano Glenn et al., Routledge, 1994, pp. 45–65. Hughes, Cayce C. “From the Long Arm of the State to Eyes on the Street: How Poor African American Mothers Navigate Surveillance in the Social Safety Net.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 2018, pp. 1–38. doi: 10.1177/0891241618784151. Accessed 7 Feb. 2019. Hughes Miller, Michelle. The Criminalization of Motherhood: The Intersection of Gendered Policy and Familial Ideology. 1997. U of Nebraska-Lincoln, PhD dissertation. ———. “Witnessing Good Mothering: Experts and Expertise in Family Law Decisions.” The Journal of the Association for Research on Mothering, vol. 6, no. 1, 2004, pp. 75–84. Hughes Miller, Michelle, et al. “The Bad Mother in Relief.” Bad Mothers: Regulations, Representations, and Resistance, edited by Michelle Hughes Miller et al., Demeter Press, 2017, pp. 1–21. Jaremko Bromwich, Rebecca. “Still Wearing Scarlet? Discursive Figures of the Unfit Mother as Pervasive Phantoms Active in Governing Mothers through Ontario’s Child Protection Regime.” Bad Mothers: Regulations, Representations, and Resistance, edited by Michelle Hughes Miller et al., Demeter Press, 2017, pp. 26–47. Kennedy, Desiriee. “Love Behind Bars: The Darker Side of Incarcerating Mothers.” Incarcerated Mothers: Oppression and Resistance, edited by Gordana Eljdupovic and Rebecca Jaremko Bromwich, Demeter Press, 2013, pp. 82–92. Kinser, Amber E. Feminism and Motherhood. Seal Press, 2010. Ladd-Taylor, Molly, and Lauri Umansky, editors. “Bad” Mothers: The Politics of Blame in Twentieth Century America. New York UP, 1998. Lerner, Sharon. War on Moms: On Life in a Family-Unfriendly Nation. Wiley, 2010. Loughnan, Arlie. “The ‘Strange’ Case of the Infanticide Doctrine.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 32, no. 4, 2012, pp. 685–711. Malatzky, Christina. “Abnormal Mothers: Breastfeeding, Governmentality and Emotion amongst Regional Australian Women.” Gender Issues, vol. 34, 2017, pp. 355–70. Maki, Krystle. “Neoliberal Deviants and Surveillance: Welfare Recipients under the Watchful Eye of Ontario Works.” Surveillance & Society, vol. 9, no. 1/2, 2011, pp. 47–63. Manji, Kainde. “Social Security Reform and the Surveillance State: Exploring the Operation of ‘Hidden Conditionality’ in the Reform of Disability Benefits Since 2010.” Social Policy & Society, vol. 16, no. 2, 2017, pp. 305–14. Mathiesen, Thomas. “The Viewer Society: Michel Foucault’s ‘Panopticon’ Revisited.” Theoretical Criminology, vol. 1, no. 2, 1997, pp. 215–34. Minaker, Joanne, and Bryan Hogeveen, editors. Criminalized Mothers, Criminalizing Mothering. Demeter Press, 2015.

473

Michelle Hughes Miller Moore, Julie, and Jenna Abetz. “ ‘Uh oh. Cue the [new] Mommy Wars’: The Ideology of Combative Mothering in Popular US Newspaper Articles about Attachment Parenting.” Southern Communication Journal, vol. 81, 2016, pp. 49–62. Morgan, Lynn M., and Elizabeth F. S. Roberts. “Reproductive Governance in Latin America.” Anthropology & Medicine, vol. 19, no. 2, 2012, pp. 241–54. Oberman, Michelle. “Mothers Who Kill: Coming to Terms with Modern American Infanticide.” DePaul Journal of Health Care Law, vol. 8, 2004, pp. 3–107. O’Reilly, Andrea. Matricentric Feminism: Theory, Activism, and Practice. Demeter Press, 2016. Phillips, Doret, and Gordon Pon. “Anti-Black Racism, Bio-Power, and Governmentality: Deconstructing the Suffering of Black Families Involved with Child Welfare.” Journal of Law and Social Policy, vol. 28, 2018, pp. 81–100. Powell, Rebecca. “Good Mothers, Bad Mothers and Mommy Bloggers: Rhetorical Resistance and Fluid Subjectivities.” MP: An Online Feminist Journal, Feb. 2010, pp. 37–50. http://academinist.org/wp-con tent/uploads/2010/02/03_Powell_Bloggers.pdf. Accessed 17 July 2017. Quaggin Harkin, Alison. “ ‘Disabling’ Motherhood in 1914 and 2014: Stories of Two Women.” The Mother-Blame Game, edited by Vanessa Reimer and Sarah Sahagian, Demeter Press, 2015, pp. 275–89. Reimer, Vanessa, and Sarah Sahagian, editors. The Mother-Blame Game. Demeter Press, 2015. Rich, Adrienne. Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution. Norton, 1976. Roberts, Dorothy E. Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty. Vintage, 1997. ———. “Prison, Foster Care, and the Systemic Punishment of Black Mothers.” UCLA Law Review, vol. 59, 2012, pp. 1474–500. Ross, Loretta J. Understanding Reproductive Justice. SisterSong, 2006. https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ rrfp/pages/33/attachments/original/1456425809/Understanding_RJ_Sistersong.pdf?1456425809. Accessed 7 Feb. 2019. Rothman, Barbara Katz. Recreating Motherhood. W. W. Norton, 1989. Rozmarin, Miri. “Medea Chic: On the Necessity of Ethics as Part of the Critique of Motherhood.” Bad Mothers: Regulations, Representations, and Resistance, edited by Michelle Hughes Miller et al., Demeter Press, 2017, pp. 321–37. Ruddick, Sara. Maternal Thinking: Toward a Politics of Peace. Beacon Press, 1995. Sawicki, Jana. Disciplining Foucault: Feminism, Power, and the Body. Routledge, 1991. Singer, Elyse Ona. “Lawful Sinners: Reproductive Governance and Moral Agency around Abortion in Mexico.” Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, vol. 42, 2018, pp. 11–31. Smart, Carol. “Deconstructing Motherhood.” Good Enough Mothering? Feminist Perspectives on Lone Motherhood, edited by Elizabeth Bortolaia Silva, Routledge, 1996, pp. 37–57. Swift, Karen J. Manufacturing ‘Bad Mothers’: A Critical Perspective on Child Neglect. U of Toronto P, 1995. Vallillee, Eric. “Deconstructing Infanticide.” Western Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 5, no. 4, 2015, http://ir.lib. uwo.ca/uwojls/vol5/iss4/1. Accessed 17 Oct. 2017. Veenstra, Mandi, and Marlee Keenan. “Manufacturing Ideologies of the ‘Bad’ Mother: Aboriginal Mothering, ‘Neglectful’ Caregiving, and Symbolic Violence in the Ontario Child Welfare System.” Bad Mothers: Regulations, Representations, and Resistance, edited by Michelle Hughes Miller et al., Demeter Press, 2017, pp. 48–72. Wong, Gina. “Introduction.” Moms Gone Mad: Motherhood and Madness, Oppression and Resistance, edited by Gina Wong. Demeter Press, 2012.

474

SECTION IX

Mothering and activism

38 THE POLITICS OF MOTHERHOOD Maternal appeals in the public sphere Sara Hayden

Introduction Mothering is a quintessentially private sphere activity.1 It is largely in their homes and local communities that mothers and children engage in the daily, intimate interactions necessary to raise a child from infancy to adulthood. As other chapters in this volume have argued, however, motherhood is not a “natural” practice. Rather, motherhood is an institution created through a nexus of social relationships and public institutions. Numerous feminist scholars have discussed the ways the institution of motherhood oppresses women. In this chapter, I explore the flip side of the coin, investigating how women have brought private sphere mothering to the public stage in efforts to effect change for their children and for their communities.

Historical overview As Karlyn Kohrs Campbell points out, women joined men as political actors relatively recently. Focusing on women’s rhetorical activity, Campbell notes that “for much of their history women have been prohibited from speaking, a prohibition reinforced by such powerful cultural authorities as Homer, Aristotle, and Scripture” (1). Ironically, women’s ability to break into the public realm coincided with the nineteenth-century rise of domestic ideologies that stressed women’s differences from men (Koven and Michel 1077). In the mid-1800s, Western countries experienced a rapid period of industrialization and urbanization. These technological and demographic trends led to an ideological separation between the public world of work and the private sphere of the home. Work was understood to be man’s domain; the home was woman’s realm. Linked to distinct spheres, men and women were thought to embody distinct values. Reflecting the requirements of the public world, men were expected to be tough, strong, competitive, lustful, and ambitious. Associated with the private sphere and called on to care for the young and to make warm homes for their husbands, women were presumed to be nurturing, domestic, selfless, and moral (Campbell 10). Although the ideological separation of the public and private spheres reified women’s place in the home, paradoxically, it awoke in some women a desire to become public actors. As the moral centers of their families, women viewed the sins of the public sphere – including slavery, child labor, alcohol abuse, and prostitution – with distress. Particularly concerned about issues 477

Sara Hayden

relating to children and mothers, some women began to organize around their concerns in female reform societies, and female reformers justified their foray into the public world as an extension of their gender roles. Their efforts, they argued, reflected their desire, and indeed their responsibility, to “mother” the larger community (Koven and Michel). Women’s invocation of maternity as the impetus for public action has ebbed and flowed since its nineteenth-century inception. According to Cynthia Stavrianos, as the Progressive Era ended, women became less involved in social reform efforts. As a result, she writes, “Maternal justifications for political action nearly vanished from the mid-[twentieth]-century political scene” (20). Moreover, when a significant number of women returned to political activism later in the century, most, especially those who were younger and politically liberal, eschewed maternal justifications, focusing instead on women’s equal right to participate in the public sphere. Recent history, however, has seen a re-emergence of maternal appeals. Stavrianos documents the existence of thousands of motherhood groups, and her analysis leads her to argue that “the use of the maternal identity as a frame for collective action may well be on the upswing” (117). This is worldwide trend.

Central themes Patrice DiQuinzio defines maternalist politics as “political activism and political movements that invoke motherhood as the basis of women’s political agency” (58). Some women’s forays into political action arise directly out of their experiences as mothers. Such women see the risks that social norms, public policy, and political institutions pose to their children and they seek to mitigate those risks. Lois Gibbs, for example, led the fight to relocate the citizens of Love Canal when she discovered her son’s elementary school sat atop a toxic waste dump. Originally focused on her own child, Gibbs sought out other mothers and formed the Love Canal Homeowners’ Association with the goal of protecting all of the community’s children ( Jetter et al.). Candace Lightner founded Mothers Against Drunk Driving after her 13-year-old daughter was killed by a drunk driver; her objective was to ensure that other mothers did not suffer the pain and loss she had experienced ( Jetter et al.). Outside the United States, one of the most well-known maternalist groups, the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo, was organized by Argentinian women demanding information about their children who “disappeared” during the late twentieth-century military dictatorship (Fabj; Foss and Domenici). Concern for the welfare of one’s own children is not the only reason women invoke maternal politics, however. According to Stavrianos, of the thousands of maternalist groups she investigated, only 29% “were formed by mothers who mentioned such a personal experience of harm or concern” (43). Moreover, the use of maternal appeals to advocate for issues unrelated to one’s own children is not a contemporary phenomenon. Many of the late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century women who utilized maternal appeals were single women who did not have children of their own (Alanso). Thus, whereas some maternalists believe that the “attitudes and skills required by mothering work are applicable or transferable to political activism,” others use maternal appeals strategically (DiQuinzio 59; Jetter et al.). Strategic appeals to maternity are not based on the assumption that mothers are essentially or uniquely qualified to engage in public work; rather, those who present such appeals recognize the persuasive potential that comes from making demands based on women’s responsibilities to “mother” the community at large. The women who utilize maternal appeals vary widely and so too do the causes for which they advocate. Annelise Orleck points out that maternalists vary by race, class, geography, sexual

478

The politics of motherhood

orientation, marital status, and culture. Some promote progressive issues; others seek conservative reforms. Some are militarists; some are antimilitarist. Some are racist; some are antiracists. “Indeed,” she writes, “they have few commonalities but for the fact that they all have found in motherhood a spark of radical change” (“Tradition Unbound” 4). In spite of this variety, there are a handful of issues for which maternal appeals have been particularly useful. Many maternalists have extended arguments suggesting that maternity is a powerful basis for peace-making. One of the most prominent scholars to espouse this view is Sara Ruddick, who argues that there “is a peacefulness latent in maternal practice and that a transformed maternal thinking could make a distinctive contribution to peace politics” (137). In Peace as a Women’s Issue: A History of the U.S. Movement for World Peace and Women’s Rights, Harriet Hyman Alanso notes that one of the themes “that permeates the organizations discussed in this book is the idea that women, as the childbearers of society, have a particular interest in peace – namely, not wanting to see our offspring murdered either as soldiers or as innocent victims of war” (10–11). Maternalist peace-making efforts can be found worldwide. Allison M. Prasch examines “how Liberian peace activist [Leymah] Gbowee and other members of the Liberia Mass Action for Peace (LMAP) movement . . . drew on their traditional maternal powers and framed their demand for peace as one motivated by the need to help their children” (188). Similarly, Simona Sharoni, Daniela Mansbach, and Dafna Lemish and Inbal Barzel turn their attention to the various ways Israeli women use motherhood in their peace activism. A second area where maternal appeals have been particularly useful is labor reform. Focusing on Mary Harris “Mother” Jones, Mari Boor Tonn notes that “symbolic motherhood” was a “central and constant rather than occasional strategy in the careers of labor figures” (2), leading her to assert that “maternal roles had particular efficacy for women as union organizers” (2). Moreover, whereas many scholars focus on the ways women bring values such as love, cooperation, and caregiving to the public stage, Tonn emphasizes the militant nature of maternal practices among labor activists. Arguing that “maternal love entails the fierce protection of children, often at any cost,” Tonn insists that “while a maternal persona may be warmly nurturing, it also may be confrontational, both in challenging those who threaten a rhetor’s constituency and in challenging those audiences themselves to resist” (3). A third area where maternal appeals find frequent expression is environmental activism. According to Orleck,“the environmental justice movement was galvanized by mothers – mostly poor, and mostly women of color – who were horrified at the effect that toxic waste dumping, pesticide runoff and deforestation were having on their children and families” (“Overview” 23). Like peace activists who point to the tension between their roles as givers of life and war’s insistence on taking life, environmental justice maternalists “mark women’s role in giving and maintaining life and . . . draw attention to its antithesis: the illness and death of children” that results from environmental degradation (Peeples and DeLuca 69). Another environmental area where maternal appeals are common is eco-feminism. Lynn M. Stearney explores these efforts; however, whereas many scholars offer positive assessments of this sort of work, Stearney argues that it may “have adverse consequences for both feminism and the environment as it undertheorizes and overemphasizes the role of motherhood in women’s lives” (154). Stearney worries that an emphasis on maternal appeals may function to essentialize women, thereby implying that nurturing and caregiving are fundamentally feminine traits. She warns that when motherhood is presented as the impetus for public activism, it has the potential to imply that women, and only women, have a responsibility to care for the planet. Stearney is not alone in her concern over the essentialist implications of maternalist politics; other scholars, however, resist such conclusions. This is one of several issues related to maternal appeals about which scholars disagree.

479

Sara Hayden

Controversies/challenges Karrin Vasby Anderson echoes Stearney’s concern about the essentialist implications of maternal feminism. “Maternal feminists,” Anderson maintains, “seek to highlight, rather than occlude, the differences between women and men, celebrating femininity and locating power in maternal sensibilities” (8). Like Stearney, Anderson warns of the troubling consequences of this move. Maternal feminism, she writes, “is not just an innocuous appreciation of the feminine. Maternal feminism has a tendency to reify women’s role as mothers, negating many of the other subject positions women occupy” (8). Like Stearney, Anderson fears that this move will lead to women assuming more public obligations, thereby ignoring men’s responsibility to participate in repairing our world. She writes: “the suggestion that women have a unique capacity for maternal thinking places the burden of social transformation entirely on women’s shoulders, while ‘men’s position remains curiously static’ ” (8, emphasis in the original). Katie L. Gibson and Amy L. Heyse are similarly critical of Sarah Palin’s appeal to maternity as a political base. Palin invited women to join her as “mama grizzlies” fighting for conservative political change on behalf of their children; yet Gibson and Heyse argue that this “romancing of motherhood radically limits the political agency of the mama grizzly. . . . [Palin’s] essentialism reduces women’s value to their wombs, limits their agency to motherhood, and disqualifies all those who fail to identity with her exclusionary view of the conservative feminist-as-mother” (“Depoliticizing Feminism” 108). While many scholars issue warnings about the essentialism that undergirds maternal politics, other scholars push back at these interpretations. Referencing Judith Butler’s discussion of performance, Daniela Mansbach argues that the Israeli women she studied strategically parodied motherhood in order to justify their actions on behalf of Palestinians seeking to cross checkpoints between Israel and occupied Palestine. They accomplished this, Mansbach writes, through their more inclusive and expanded understanding of the “humanness” of Palestinians combined with the “subversive repetition” of maternal behaviors (50–51). Sara Hayden similarly draws on the notion of performance in her discussion of the Million Mom March, a 2000 rally in Washington, DC, aimed at stemming gun violence. Hayden writes: “When women bring maternity to the public stage, they unmoor the role from its essentialist foundations. Motherhood becomes a performance, enabling those who use maternal appeals to redefine ‘the meanings of ‘mothers,’ ‘family,’ and home’ ” (209). Kristin A. Goss and Michael T. Heaney support this interpretation in their essay on the Million Mom March, arguing that the speakers and marchers appealed to “hybrid” frames that enabled them to avoid the essentialist implications that might otherwise arise when women highlight motherhood as the impetus for public activism (37). A second area of disagreement emerges when scholars discuss the potential for maternal appeals to reinforce or challenge hierarchies around race and class. On one hand, scholars see maternity as a subject position that has the potential to unite diverse groups of people. Koven and Michel refer to maternalism as “an extraordinarily protean ideology” capable of drawing together what might otherwise be unlikely coalitions (1085). Peeples and DeLuca likewise see the potential of maternal appeals to bridge divisions, arguing that “because of motherhood’s omnipresence, the discussion of motherhood may help to facilitate alliances between organizations that may not share the same racial identification or geography, but share the same environmental, communal, and physiological situation” (82). There is some evidence that maternal politics have brought together people across lines of race and class. Deborah Gray White notes that the Million Mom March “represented the first coalition between suburban, mostly white mothers and urban mothers mostly of color” (173). Yet White also points to the limitations of that coalition. She argues that most of the white 480

The politics of motherhood

women who helped organize the march had little understanding of race; subsequently, some aspects of their rhetoric reinforced rather than challenged racist assumptions about gun violence. When the marchers “made the case that Americans were not safe, that violence was spreading like a disease,” she argues, “they unwittingly helped to resurrect the template on which so many of America’s racist and sexist practices were built” (185). Moreover, White notes that many of the white women who participated in the march became concerned about gun violence only when it encroached on white communities. Not only was this troubling to black mothers, it put black women in the position of needing to educate their white colleagues that gang violence is gun violence and that black children should be mourned as children, not criminals. Goss and Heaney also address the Million Mom March’s inability to connect “with non-white or working-class/poor constituencies” even though organizers were motivated to do so, suggesting that much work needs to be done before the potential for maternal appeals to promote diverse coalitions is met (44). A third issue debated by scholars is the persuasive power of maternal appeals. As discussed earlier, maternalist politics allow women to justify their public activism when such activism is considered taboo. It was through reference to maternity that nineteenth- and early twentiethcentury women in Western countries were able to make their voices heard. Although women’s participation in the public sphere no longer demands maternal justifications in many parts of the world, in some places, such justifications remain necessary. Valeria Fabj argues that the reason the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo were allowed to march when other forms of political protest were brutally suppressed was “the myth of the mother: a woman who must be forgiven for her public demonstration of the grief that has made her ‘mad’ ” (6). Similarly, according to Dafna Lemish and Inbal Barzel, in Israel, “the main route of formal protest through institutionalized politics is quite closed to women” (150); thus, when a group of women known as the “Four Mothers” wanted to call for Israel’s withdrawal from the occupied territories of southern Lebanon, they had few resources to call on. By employing their maternity, the Four Mothers managed to have their voices heard. In addition to legitimizing women’s public presence when such presence is frowned upon, maternal appeals’ value rests in their broad base. As maternalist groups like to point out, everyone has, or has had, a mother (Stavrianos). Moreover, although motherhood manifests in a variety of ways, it is very often a highly cherished and respected position. Allison Prasch asserts that motherhood is the “sin qua non of an African woman’s existence” and she continues: “African women wield special authority as mothers of the nation and often serve as ‘mediators, interceders, and negotiators’ in their families and the larger community” (190). Cynthia Stavrianos discusses the status of motherhood in the United States, arguing that “ideas about mothers and motherhood are deeply ingrained in our culture. Mothers are afforded a special respect and considered especially moral and caring. These widely shared and deeply held beliefs about motherhood make maternal frames especially resonant and, therefore, potentially very politically powerful tools of mobilization” (118). Lindal Buchanan reinforces this argument, asserting that in the United States, “the mother . . . operates as a god term within public discourse and connotes a myriad of positive associations, including children, love, protection, home, nourishment, altruism, morality, religion, self-sacrifice, strength, the reproductive body, the private sphere, and the nation” (8). By calling on their maternity, mothers have the potential to bring an alternative set of values to the public stage. Referencing nineteenth-century female reformers in the Western world, Koven and Michel argue: Maternalist women put an unmistakable stamp on emerging welfare administrations. . . . Without maternalist politics, welfare states would surely have been less responsive to 481

Sara Hayden

the needs of women and children, for maternalists raised issues – or highlighted them in specific ways – that seldom occurred to male politicians. (1107) Sara Hayden suggests that maternal appeals can function similarly in contemporary contexts. Building on George Lakoff ’s discussion of the variations of the nation-as-family metaphors that circulate throughout the United States, Hayden argues that participants in the Million Mom March displaced the dominant “Strict Father Morality” with a mother-led “Nuturant Family” moral vision. The Million Moms, she argues, employed “maternity to challenge the dominant social and political order and to promote an alternative set of values based in their daily interactions with their children” (196). Gibson and Heyse agree, arguing that “the significant advantage of maternal rhetoric is its potential to introduce feminine values into public life that have previously been disqualified by the scripts of hegemonic masculinity” (“ ‘The Difference between a Hocky Mom and a Pit Bull’ ” 239). Whether or not they are necessary to legitimize women’s public activism, and perhaps because of their ability to bring an alternative set of values to the public stage, maternal appeals are often well-received. Dafna Lemish and Inbal Barzel note that according to some journalists, the Four Mothers have “become synonymous with the public debate demanding a withdrawal from Lebanon, and . . . media practitioners now actively seek their reactions to any event related to the issue” (160). Valeria Fabj similarly notes that the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo are hailed as heroines, as “Argentina’s ‘voice of conscience’ ” (11). And, Lindal Buchanan discusses Sarah Palin’s introduction to a national audience at the 2008 Republican National Convention, arguing that her “impressive debut . . . suggests that motherhood is still golden in the public forum – even in the twenty-first century” (3). Clearly, then, there are many reasons women might turn to maternal appeals in their efforts to effect social change. Yet as numerous scholars have argued, the persuasive power of those appeals is offset by their limitations. Perhaps most significantly, some scholars warn that by appealing to maternity, maternalists suggest that they are focused only on a limited set of concerns. Tasha N. Dubriwny discusses how US first ladies traditionally situate their public work within the tradition of Republican motherhood. Such efforts, she maintains, are “both constraining and liberatory, as [they confirm] women’s political role but usually only in the areas of ‘women’s issues’ ” (88) Lemish and Barzel echo this argument in their discussion of the Four Mothers, noting that “the opinion that mothers lack the skills, experience, and knowledge to make judgments related to security matters was often stated” (155) in journalistic accounts of the Four Mothers’ efforts. In addition to limiting the issues about which women may be seen to make legitimate contributions, scholars worry that maternal appeals can be dismissed as driven by emotion rather than reason. Again in reference to the Four Mothers, Lemish and Barzel note that the activists “were presented as egocentric, emotional, inconsiderate members of society, worrying ‘only’ about the welfare of their own flesh and blood, and not about the common good of society” (155). Karen A. Foss and Kathy L. Domenici make a similar claim about the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo, arguing “As ‘Las Locas,’ the Mothers’ actions and requests were seen as irrational and without political import and thus as easily dismissed” (240).

Directions for future research While it seems unlikely that these controversies will be resolved, it would be useful for maternalist scholars to explore when and how maternalist appeals seem to function productively and when they do not. For example, are some kinds of maternalist appeals more likely to promote 482

The politics of motherhood

essentialist notions of women than others? Does the cause for which the appeals are being utilized affect the likelihood that the appeal will lead to essentialist notions of womanhood? Does it make a difference if the person utilizing maternal appeals is a private citizen seeking to effect change versus a politician or someone who otherwise has access to the public stage? Similarly, exploring when and how maternal politics seem to reinforce or challenge racial and class norms is a promising line of inquiry. Are there maternalist groups that have successfully navigated racial or class divides, and if so, how have they accomplished this? Also useful would be continued careful consideration of how maternal appeals function when utilized for progressive versus conservative causes. Are there certain kinds of maternal appeals more common for one sort of cause than another? Do maternal appeals in support of progressive causes look different from those that support conservative politics? Are maternal appeals more effective when applied to one or the other? Finally, it is important to recognize that the contours of maternity are in flux. In the United States, the number of working mothers continues to rise; similarly, new reproductive technologies have changed how people become mothers and who can become a mother. These shifts in maternal realities likely will lead to shifts in how maternity is deployed on public stages. Scholars of maternity would be wise to track these changes.

Further reading Buchanan, Lindal. “A Study of Maternal Rehtoric: Anne Hutchinson, Monsters, and the Antinomian Controversy.” Rhetoric Review, vol. 25, no. 3, 2006, pp. 239–59. Edwards, Janis L., and Amanda Leigh Brozana. “Gendering Anti-War Rhetoric: Cindy Sheehan’s Symbolic Motherhood.” Journal of the Northwest Communication Association, vol. 37, 2008, pp. 78–102. Harris, Leslie J. “Motherhood, Race, and Gender: The Rhetoric of Women’s Antislavery Activism in the Liberty Bell Giftbooks.” Women’s Studies in Communication, vol. 32, no. 3, 2009, pp. 293–319. Hartzell, Stephanie. “An (In)Visible Universe of Grief: Performative Disidentifications with White Motherhood in the We are not Trayvon Martin Blog.” Journal of International & Intercultural Communication, vol. 10, no. 1, 2017, pp. 62–79. Hayden, Sara. “Michelle Obama, Mom-in-Chief: The Racialized Rhetorical Contexts of Maternity.” Women’s Studies in Communication, vol. 40, no. 1, 2016, pp. 11–28. Heyse, Amy. “Women’s Rhetorical Authority and Collective Memory: The United Daughters of the Confederacy Remember the South.” Women & Language, vol. 33, no. 2, 2010, pp. 31–53. Knudson, Laura. “Cindy Sheehan and the Rhetoric of Motherhood: A Textual Analysis.” Peace & Change, vol. 34, no. 2, 2009, pp. 164–83. Mastrangelo, Lisa. “Changing Ideographs of Motherhood: Defining and Conscribing Women’s Rheteorical Practices During World War I.” Rhetoric Review, vol. 36, no. 3, 2017, pp. 214–31. McCarver, Virginia. “The Rhetoric of Choice and 21st-Century Feminism: Online Conversations about Work, Family, and Sarah Palin.” Women’s Studies in Communication, vol. 34, no. 1, 2011, pp. 20–41. Miller, Katrina L. “What Will They Call You? Rhetorical Listening to Lesbian Maternal Narratives.” International Journal of Listening, vol. 26, no. 3, 2012, pp. 134–45. Murphy, Mollie K. “What’s in the World Is in the Womb: Converging Environmental and Reproductive Justice through Synecdoche.” Women’s Studies in Communication, vol. 40, no. 2, 2017, pp. 155–71. West, Isaac. “Performing Resistance in/from the Kitchen: The Practice of Maternal Pacifist Politics and La WISP’s Cookbooks.” Women’s Studies in Communication, vol. 30, no. 3, 2007, pp. 358–83.

Conclusion As this review makes clear, women across the globe have used maternal appeals to demand social and political change for hundreds of years. Maternal appeals have given women an avenue to raise their voices when the public activism of women was otherwise shunned; maternal appeals have been vehicles for articulating an alternative set of values on the public stage; and they offer the potential to bridge divides across race and class. Nonetheless, there are clear pitfalls associated 483

Sara Hayden

with maternalism. It can limit the set of issues for which women are seen as legitimate public actors; it can essentialize women, placing the responsibility for social reform solely on women’s shoulders; and women who use such appeals can be dismissed as irrational, their demands reduced to the emotional pleas of mothers concerned only about the welfare of their children. In spite of the varied assessments scholars put forth about the value of maternalism, Stavrianos warns that abandoning maternal appeals would be dangerous, especially for progressives. She writes: “Women who believe that mothers should strive to live up to the ideology of intensive mothering can use normative mothering frames unproblematically. If women on the left choose not to reference ideas about mothering and motherhood at all, they will cede the social construction of mothers in the political sphere to women on the right” (130). Perhaps the best approach to maternal appeals, then, is to follow the lead of Lindal Buchanan, who writes “my own policy is to adopt a both/and approach . . . recognizing that the topos produces rich rhetorical resources capable of advancing women and their civic agendas while simultaneously reinforcing limiting stereotypes and inequitable gender relations” (14). Maternity is a potentially powerful stance from which to effect change, but it must be used carefully, with awareness of both the benefits and the pitfalls that accompany it.

Note 1 Of course, children are also cared for by fathers, other relatives, friends, and paid caregivers. Nonetheless, mothers continue to do the bulk of childcare, spending approximately twice the amount of time per week on childcare than fathers. Additionally, while on average only about 29% percent of mothers are “stay-at-home moms,” even children whose parents work outside the home spend a significant amount of time with their parents/guardians in the private sphere (Cohn; Parker).

Works cited Alanso, Harriet Hyman. Peace as a Woman’s Issue: A History of the U.S. Movement for World Peace and Women’s Rights. Syracuse UP, 1993. Anderson, Karrin Vasby. “Hillary Rodham Clinton as ‘Madonna’: The Role of Metaphor and Oxymoron in Image Restoration.” Women’s Studies in Communication, vol. 25, no. 1, 2002, pp. 1–24. Buchanan, Lindal. Rhetorics of Motherhood. Southern U of Illinois P, 2013. Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs. Man Cannot Speak for Her: A Critical Study of Early Feminist Rhetoric. Vol. 1. Praeger, 1989. 2 vols. Cohn, D’Vera. “A Rise in Stay-at-Home Mothers Reverses a Long Trend.” Pew Research Center, 8 Apr. 2014. DiQuinzio, Patrice. “The Politics of the Mothers’ Movement in the United States: Possibilities and Pitfalls.” Journal of the Association for Research on Mothering, vol. 8, nos. 1, 2, 2006, pp. 55–71. Dubriwny, Tasha. “First Ladies and Feminism: Laura Bush as Advocate for Women’s and Children’s Rights.” Women’s Studies in Communication, vol. 28, no. 1, 2005, pp. 84–114. Fabj, Valeria. “Motherhood as Political Voice: The Rhetoric of the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo.” Communication Studies, vol. 44, no. 1, 1993, pp. 1–18. Foss, Karen A., and Kathy L. Domenici. “Haunting Argentina: Synecdoche in the Protests of the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo.” Quarterly Journal of Speech, vol. 87, no. 3, 2001, pp. 237–58. Gibson, Katie L., and Amy L. Heyse. “ ‘The Difference between a Hocky Mom and a Pit Bull’: Sarah Palin’s Faux Maternal Persona and Performance of Hegemonic Masculinity at the 2008 Republican National Convention.” Communication Quarterly, vol. 58, no. 3, 2010, pp. 235–56. ———. “Depoliticizing Feminism: Frontier Mythology and Sarah Palin’s ‘The Rise of the Mama Grizzlies.’ ” Women’s Studies in Communication, vol. 78, no. 1, 2014, pp. 97–117. Goss, Kristin A., and Michael T. Heaney. “Organizing Women as Women: Hybridity and Grassroots Collective Action in the 21st Century.” Perspectives on Politics, vol. 8, no. 1, 2010, pp. 27–52. Hayden, Sara. “Family Metaphors and the Nation: Promoting a Politics of Care through the Million Mom March.” Quarterly Journal of Speech, vol. 89, no. 3, 2003, pp. 196–215.

484

The politics of motherhood Jetter, Alexis, et al. The Politics of Motherhood: Activist Voices from Left to Right. UP of New England, 1997. Koven, Seth, and Sonya Michel. “Womanly Duties: Maternalist Politics and the Origins of Welfare States in France, Germany, Great Britain, and the United States, 1880–1920.” The American Historical Review, vol. 95, no. 4, 1990, pp. 1076–108. Lemish, Dafna, and Inbal Barzel. “ ‘Four Mothers’: The Womb in the Public Sphere.” European Journal of Communication, vol. 15, no. 2, 2000, pp. 147–69. Mansbach, Daniela. “The Strategic Use of the Politics of Care: The Israeli Checkpoint Watch Movement.” Feminist Theory, vol. 13, no. 1, 2012, pp. 43–58. Orleck, Annelise. “Overview: Environmental Justice.” The Politics of Motherhood: Activist Voices from Left to Right. UP of New England, 1997, pp. 23–27. ———. “Tradition Unbound: Radical Mothers in International Perspective.” The Politics of Motherhood: Activist Voices from Left to Right, edited by Alexis Jetter et al., UP of New England, 1997. Parker, Kim. “6 Facts about American Fathers.” Pew Research Center, 15 June 2017. Peeples, Jennifer A., and Kevin M. DeLuca. “The Truth of the Matter: Motherhood, Community and Environmental Justice.” Women’s Studies in Communication, vol. 29, no. 1, 2006, pp. 59–87. Prasch, Allison M. “Maternal Bodies in Militant Protest: Leymah Gbowee and the Rhetorical Agency of African Motherhood.” Women’s Studies in Communication, vol. 38, no. 2, 2015, pp. 187–205. Ruddick, Sara. Maternal Thinking: Toward a Politics of Peace. Beacon Press, 1995. Sharoni, Simona. “Motherhood and the Politics of Women’s Resistance: Israeli Women Organizing for Peace.” The Politics of Motherhood: Activist Voices from Left to Right, edited by Alexis Jetter et al., UP of New England, 1997, pp. 144–60. Stavrianos, Cynthia. The Political Uses of Motherhood in America. Routledge, 2015. Stearney, Lynn M. “Feminism, Ecofeminism, and the Maternal Archetype: Motherhood as a Feminine Universal.” Communication Quarterly, vol. 42, no. 2, 1994, pp. 145–59. Tonn, Mari Boor. “Militant Motherhood: Labor’s Mary Harris ‘Mother’ Jones.” Quarterly Journal of Speech, vol. 82, no. 1, 1996, pp. 1–21. White, Deborah Gray. “The Million Mom March: The Perils of Color-Blind Maternalism.” Writing Women’s History: A Tribute to Anne Firor Scott, edited by Elizabeth Anne Payne. UP of Mississippi, 2011, pp. 172–202.

485

39 MOTHERING AND ACTIVISM Reena Shadaan

Introduction Many movements have been sustained by the labour of mothers, often acting on behalf of themselves, children, families, and wider communities. The issues that spur maternal activism are diverse – from Las Madres de Plaza de Mayo in Argentina, who sought justice in response to the disappearances of their children in Argentina’s “Dirty War” to the Mothers of East Los Angeles (MELA), who mobilized in response to environmental racism. The following details the labour of maternal activism as based on current literature in the field. This includes historical perspectives, key debates, controversies and challenges within the scholarship, as well as pertinent themes that should guide future research. In sum, while maternal activism has been both celebrated and critiqued in movement scholarship, much of the existing literature assumes a universality of “the patriarchal institution of motherhood” (per Adrienne Rich) or “normative motherhood” (O’Reilly, Mothers, Mothering and Motherhood 15) – henceforth referred to as patriarchal motherhood. These approaches assume that mothering is individualized, biological, “natural,” and apolitical, and as such, obscures the diversity that connotes mothering labour across various contexts. To account for such diversities, it is crucial to understand the distinct histories and contexts that have impacted who can mother, and how that labour is performed. As such, mothering and activism scholarship additionally requires a reproductive justice (RJ) lens. RJ refers to “the right not to have children using safe birth control, abortion, or abstinence; the right to have children under the conditions we choose; and the right to parent the children we have in safe and healthy environments” (Ross et al. 14). An RJ lens evokes a vital consideration in mothering and activism scholarship. That is, mothering in the context of reproductive injustice is political labour.

Background and context There is a lengthy history of women utilizing maternal frames to approach their activism. However, space constraints, as well as limitations in the available literature, prevent a comprehensive overview of the various arenas of injustice that have produced maternal activisms and the various groups that utilize maternal frames. While this section highlights dominant historic themes in the field of maternal activism, it is crucial to acknowledge: (1) the blind-spots in the 486

Mothering and activism

documented histories of maternal activism and (2) the power dynamics that determine whose stories are told and whose stories are undocumented, under-documented, or erased. Theda Skocpol traces the use of maternal frames by white, middle-class women to the women’s clubs of the Progressive Era in the United States – a period that coincides with the development of first-wave feminism. These clubs pursued social reforms that sought to improve quality of life for mothers and children (Skocpol 319). Susan Logsdon-Conradsen points out that maternalist frames were crucial in this period; however, Judith Stadtman Tucker critiques the use of maternalism on the basis that it “conforms to the dominant ideology of motherhood” (2). Maternalism assumes women are “naturally” suited to provide care and therefore promotes feminization, individualization, and essentialization. Maternalist discourse allowed women to engage in political advocacy in the public spaces that they were excluded from (LogsdonConradsen 16). However, maternal activism in these voluntary associations often rested upon a problematic assumption of “backwardness” amongst marginalized populations. Margaret D. Jacobs discusses the work of Estelle Reel, a reformer in the American West. Per the colonial aims of assimilation and genocide, Reel felt it her “maternalistic duty to rescue indigenous children from what she considered a savage background and to raise them instead in a ‘civilized’ environment” ( Jacobs 454). Reel and other reformers sought to impose patriarchal motherhood in Indigenous Nations. As such, while these early reformers challenged the gendered separation of public and private in their work, they simultaneously imposed patriarchal motherhood as per the colonial goals of assimilation and cultural genocide. Katrina Bell McDonald traces the Black Women’s Club movement to 1793 but contends that informal activisms carried out by both enslaved and free women pre-date the activism of clubwomen (782). McDonald discusses the tradition of maternal activism carried out by middle-class African American clubwomen to improve the quality of life in impoverished Black communities, particularly in and after the Reconstruction period following the Civil War (782). For instance, Glenda Elizabeth Gilmore discusses the Salisbury Colored Women’s Civic League. Founded in 1913 by Lula Kelsey, the league’s central aim was “the general civic interest of our people” and advocated for improvements in public health, education, homeownership, and sanitation (Gilmore 168). Per McDonald, these middle-class women’s work in poor communities was rooted in the shared experiences of racial oppression, as well as the responsibility assumed by middle-class Black women to ensure racial upliftment (775–76). However, this tradition was not limited to middle-class Black women. Maternal activism was no less salient amongst economically marginalized Black women, whose activism was tied to the gendered responsibility for community upliftment and occurred in the context of mutual aid societies and church-based organizations (McDonald 777, 793). In both contexts, maternal activism finds roots in othermothering and community mothers – a tradition in which mothering is extended to unrelated children and the community in general (Edwards 88–89). Patricia Hill Collins locates the practice of othermothering within an “Afrocentric ideology of motherhood,” which is a result of racial oppression and economic exploitation and finds roots in West African mothering practices sustained by enslaved African women and their descendants (“Meaning of Motherhood” 45–46). Logsdon-Conradsen points to the use of maternal activism in mainstream environmental movements during the 1950s and 1960s – spurred in part by Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (17). Logsdon-Conradsen notes that women active in these movements were primarily “white, well educated, in their thirties and forties, married mothers who lived in metropolitan areas and saw being active in the environmental movement as a natural extension of their domestic sphere” (17–18). As per eco-feminist scholarship in the 1970s, maternalism was seen as the basis for an “alternate politics of compassion” (MacGregor 60). Sherilyn MacGregor has critiqued this view. MacGregor argues that maternalism reinforces the feminization and privatization of care labour, 487

Reena Shadaan

thus it intensifies the exploitation of women in capitalist societies (67). Although anti-toxic activists of the time did not explicitly evoke an eco-feminist lens, maternal frames were utilized by activists in Love Canal, Three Mile Island, and other well-known environmental incidents from the 1970s and onwards (Logsdon-Conradsen 20–25). Motherist frames continued to be utilized in the environmental justice (EJ) movement in the early 1980s – an apt association given the relationship between EJ and reproductive justice (de Onís, 2019; Shadaan, forthcoming). A key site in the emergence of the EJ movement was Warren County, North Carolina, where mothers and others mobilized in response to the siting of a polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) waste dump in their predominantly Black community. One of these mothers, Dollie Burwell, writes, “I believe that without the mothers of Warren County, there would not have been an environmental justice movement” (279). Reflecting on the disproportionate participation of mothers in the early EJ movement, Celene Krauss has noted, “This is not surprising, as the gender-division of labor in a capitalistic society gives workingclass women the responsibility for the health of their children” (“Women of Color on the Front Line” 260). However, the use of motherist frames produces different results based on activist’s racial identities and class status. Elizabeth Blum’s discussion of Love Canal is a pertinent example. Blum notes that Black women renting in the area were excluded by the media, officials, the public, and the mainstream Love Canal movement itself. Both Black women and white women utilized the maternal language of protecting their families and children; however, it is only Gibbs and the white homeowners that garnered some level of attention. In contrast, maternal frames did not afford Black renters attention or protection (Blum 63–85). Maternal activism has also played a historic role in anti-war and anti-violence movements. Various examples can be drawn upon – from the often-cited Las Madres de Plaza de Mayo, who advocated for children who disappeared during the “Dirty War” in Argentina (Nathanson 245) to the Mother’s Front, a collective of Tamil mothers who organized in response to their children’s disappearances during the Sri Lankan civil war (Kailasapathy 98–112). Sara Ruddick’s contributions in the 1980s have been highly influential, as Ruddick linked maternal practice to nonviolence. Joni Seager critiqued Ruddick’s argument, noting that the association of maternalism and nonviolence is a problematic one, as “motherist politics can undermine the cause of peace itself by reinforcing a gender system that encourages male violence in the state (and family) in the first place” (239). Evoking the example of the American group, Women Strike for Peace, Crystal Whetstone highlights a further issue in maternal anti-war activism. Women Strike for Peace utilized maternal frames to mobilize in opposition to the Vietnam War; however, their activism constructed Vietnamese women as in need of rescue. As such, Judy Wu characterizes Women Strike for Peace as engaged in “ ‘paternalistic’ maternalism” (254). While the association between maternal activism and peace movements is subject to various apt critiques, it is likewise important to highlight motherist movements that advocate for destructive ends, as based on reactionary politics (Nathanson 249). Bloch and Taylor point to the example of Mothers Against Illegal Aliens (MAIA). MAIA was an Arizona-based group that engaged in xenophobic rhetoric and accused undocumented women of child abuse due to the perception that they “steal” from the mouths of “legal children” (Bloch and Taylor 206). Likewise, Moravec discusses the use of maternalist frames by conservative American women to advocate for aggressive foreign policies during the Cold War era (11). In the 1990s, Nancy Naples termed “activist mothering” – a practice of engaging in activism on behalf of children and the community at large. Activist mothering transcends gendered divisions of labour, as mothering, community work, paid work, and activism are interconnected spheres (442). Naples drew activist mothering from the community work of African American

488

Mothering and activism

and Latina (primarily Puerto Rican) organizers in New York City and Philadelphia. For these activist mothers, “good mothering” is broadened to include social activism on behalf of children and the wider community (448). The practice is rooted in surviving amidst conditions of oppression and, for Black women, stems from the tradition of othermothering and community mothering (443). Per Wilson, activist mothering is an important shift in the continuum of maternal activism. Wilson notes that early manifestations of maternal activism utilized maternalism – or “the mythology of motherhood” (231). That is, they employed the essentialist notions of mothers as inherent nurturers and emphasized mothering as foundational to their activism. In contrast, Wilson observes that activist mothering in the past two decades constructs mothering as a “launch point rather than a base” (233). Giovanna Di Chiro has made this point in the context of the environmental justice movement. That is, although activist’s may utilize their identity as mothers to frame their motivations, motherhood is not necessarily central to their activism. Rather, wider contexts of oppression and exploitation ground their activism (Di Chiro 115). Wilson notes that unlike early maternalist frames that utilized patriarchal and essentialized notions of “good” motherhood in activism, activist mothering defies patriarchal mothering by being explicitly political, vocal, and aggressive (233).

Controversies or challenges in relation to the topic The core argument within scholarship on maternal activism concerns whether the practice challenges or reinforces gendered binaries. Andrea O’Reilly writes that “maternal activism, in rendering the personal political, blurring the boundaries between the private and the public, and in inverting traditional gender roles, both disrupts and dislodges the gender essentialism . . . that grounds and structures modern patriarchy” (21st Century Motherhood 24). O’Reilly has termed this activism as a manifestation of matricentric feminism (Matricentric Feminism 130). Likewise, Krauss observes, “Ideologies of motherhood, traditionally relegated to private sphere, become political sources that working-class women use to initiate and justify their resistance” (“Women of Color on the Front Line” 261). Accordingly, maternal activism is viewed as blurring the boundaries between gendered dichotomies, as it facilitates a politicization of the private. Megan Gibbons discusses the concept of experiential essentialism – a combination of Spivak’s strategic essentialism and Butler’s theory of gender performativity. Gibbons examines the case studies of Las Madres de Plaza de Mayo in Argentina and Another Mother for Peace, which was active during the Vietnam War. Per Gibbons, the activists in these groups strategically performed patriarchal motherhood but transcend, redefine, and politicize this motherhood through their activism (254–55). LogsdonConradsen evokes the example of mothers pushing strollers during anti-nuclear protest actions as an example. The former is an example of “good” mothering, but coupled with anti-nuclear protest, the notion of “good” mothering is both challenged and redefined. (Logsdon-Conradsen 18). However, Tracy E. Perkins cautions that “this strategic framing of women’s activism could not only influence how activists portray themselves in public but also skew academic analysis of women’s entry into activism that uses women’s public narrations as data” (Perkins 79). Motherhood scholars have pointed to the feminist potential of maternal activism. O’Reilly notes, “Motherhood activism – whether such is expressed as maternalism, equal rights for mothers, or as an ethics of care – works to empower mothers; I argue that this makes it feminist” (Matricentric Feminism 128). However, elsewhere O’Reilly affirms that maternal activism must be matricentric to be feminist. O’Reilly’s concern stems from the fact that in maternal activism “the mother . . . frequently becomes instrumental to larger and seemingly more important social change objectives. . . . [M]others are accorded agency to affect social change . . . but little

489

Reena Shadaan

attention is paid to what this agency does or means for the mother herself in the context of her own life” (21st Century Motherhood 368). Janice Nathanson terms maternal activism feminist praxis on the basis that it: (1) reflects the personal as political; (2) counters patriarchal motherhood, which is oppressive and maledefined; and (3) challenges gender/power dynamics (244). Nathanson also discusses how traditional gender roles are challenged via maternal activism (251). Elsewhere I have pointed to the transformative potential of maternal activism in the movement groups that emerged following the 1984 Bhopal gas disaster. Because of the knowledge and skills gained through their movement participation, the women activists involved: (1) developed a greater sense of personal agency, resulting in increased confidence (Shadaan, “Maternal Activism” 348); (2) actively challenged gender/power dynamics (349); and (3) facilitated intergenerational participation, as they encouraged their daughters to engage in social activism through their words and example (350). This is consistent with Naples’s identification of the cross-generational participation facilitated through activist mothering (454). However, there are important critiques of motherist frames in activism. Perkins argues that an emphasis on political action as stemming from the private sphere “discounts women’s capacity for holding abstract political commitments and values, their political experiences, and their capacity for strategic thinking” (89). Sherilyn MacGregor proposes the term “feminist ecological citizenship” as an alternative to motherist frames in the context of environmental movements (3). Feminist ecological citizenship emphasizes citizenship over care, as MacGregor, like Perkins, is critical of the notion that women’s political labour emerges from the private sphere (5–7). Citing Dietz, it is noted that framing political concerns as an extension of the private sphere only reinforces the relegation of women to the household – the very reason women are excluded from the political sphere (MacGregor 72–73). M. Bahati Kuumba has identified the implications of this in social movement practice. Kuumba discusses how South African women utilized motherist frames to legitimize their participation in the anti-pass campaign in the 1950s. This framing ultimately backfired, as motherist frames were later used by male leadership to limit women’s participation in the anti-apartheid movement (Kuumba 19). In addition, MacGregor is concerned that maternal frames reinforce the feminization and privatization of care labour under capitalism (67). Miller rightly points to the gendered connotations of maternal activism, and the absence of inquiry on paternal activism. Like MacGregor, Miller concludes “it remains the case that it is women, and often mothers, specifically, who are usually assumed to be primarily qualified to advocate on behalf of children” (13). Prominent motherhood scholars, such as Black feminist scholar, Patricia Hill Collins and Cree-Métis scholar Kim Anderson have pointed to the tension of overburdening mothers with the responsibility to ensure community-wide survival (Anderson 775; Story 191). As such, Cynthia Dewi Oka advocates for collective caregiving. Oka refers to this as “one of the most neglected interventions in revolutionary struggle” and alludes to individualized burdens of caregiving as barriers to mother’s and caregiver’s movement participation. Oka notes that this issue is particularly salient for poor mothers, who must compensate for the capitalist state’s withdrawal from providing accessible socioeconomic care (51–57). In addition, Tucker advocates for a feminist ethics of care, which broadens care ethics to a collective responsibility to ensure public good (201). In effect, while motherist frames can facilitate women’s participation in movements, feminized and individualized burdens of care labour can also prevent mothers’ participation in movements. Perkins further points to motherist frames as exclusionary on the basis that it “negates women activists who have no children, or reduces them to being valued only for their future reproductive capacity” (89). A limitation of this view is that is rests upon the assumption of motherhood

490

Mothering and activism

as biological identity. This negates collective mothering practices – from othermothering and community mothering in Black communities (Edwards 88–89) to nonexclusive mothering in Chicanx families (Segura and Pierce 64) and mothering in Anishinaabe contexts, which extends beyond biological children (Bédard 66). The Mothers of East Los Angeles (MELA) utilized “mother” as a symbolic identity to connote the protection of the family and community, irrespective of gender (Di Chiro 119). Thus, a fundamental issue in discussions of maternal activism is that scholars often assume patriarchal motherhood to be a universal phenomenon and utilize this definition of motherhood to frame their support or critique of maternal activism. This perspective does not account for the diverse interpretations and practices associated with mothering, as well as the diverse beliefs about who mothers, which can vary. O’Reilly notes that patriarchal motherhood rests upon the notion that mothering is individualized, biological, and depoliticized (Mothers, Mothering and Motherhood 1). The transformative narrative – from apolitical to political, or the blurring of the private and public – that is often utilized to celebrate maternal activism rests upon an assumption that motherhood is inherently apolitical labour but becomes politicized via activism. However, scholars have noted that this transformative narrative is less relevant for racialized and Indigenous mothers, who are often politically engaged due to racial oppression, colonization, and economic exploitation, in addition to occupying roles in community leadership (Krauss, “Women and Toxic Waste Protests”; Epstein). Black feminist scholarship has long pointed to the politicization of motherhood. As Patricia Hill Collins notes, There are political dimensions to motherhood, especially for African American women. . . . They were preparing their children to go out into a world that did not want them to be fully human . . . and these women understood that motherhood was a site where politics happened. (Interview with Collins by Story 182) Likewise, Sangha and Gonsalves interview Zohra, a Brown, Muslim mother, who notes, “To me mothering is being an activist; it’s a political act, particularly when you are raising kids who are racialized, in western societies” (71). Zohra goes on to note the labour of “having to work on your kids to make sure they feel strong within – to withstand the prejudice/racism outside and that they don’t either end up hating society, or end up hating who they are, or internalize all the hatred and end up violating themselves because they can’t live with it” (Sangha and Gonsalves 75). These and other scholars point to mothering as political labour prior to engagement in formal activism.

Directions for future research Scholarship on maternal activism would benefit from deeper engagement with diverse perspectives on mothering praxis. Indigenous, Black, and other racialized scholars have contributed vital knowledge to expand and complicate motherhood studies. However, these perspectives are often not properly acknowledged in social movement scholarship on maternal activism. Consider that while protests in the aftermath of the Three Mile Island nuclear disaster are often cited as an example of maternal activism, the Women of All Red Nations (WARN) had linked the uranium industry to reproductive injustice years prior to Three Mile Island (Voyles 141). While WARN may not have framed their work as maternal activism, this example illustrates that there are power dimensions that influence whose activism is highlighted in social movement

491

Reena Shadaan

literature. Accordingly, while both club women and the settlement house movement in general are routinely cited as the earliest examples of maternal activism, it is likely that other forms of maternal activism pre-date and co-existed with these predominantly middle- to upper-class manifestations. Diverse motherhood scholars and activists shed light on the distinct ways in which mothering is imagined and practised, and the various meanings that underlie this labour – such as in Collins’s conception of motherwork (Black Feminist Thought 209). These perspectives are fundamental to exploring maternal activisms. Consider that while many feminists constructed motherhood and the household as the crux of women’s oppression, bell hooks clarified that for Black communities, “Homeplace has been a site of resistance. Its structure was defined less by whether or not Black women and men were conforming to sexist behaviour norms and more by our own struggle to uplift ourselves as people, our struggle to resist racist domination and oppression” (388). Diverse perspectives on mothering affirm that reproductive justice is fundamental to maternal activism scholarship. As previously noted, RJ refers to “the right not to have children using safe birth control, abortion, or abstinence; the right to have children under the conditions we choose; and the right to parent the children we have in safe and healthy environments” (Ross et al. 14). Consider the contexts of oppression that impede the ability to parent in safe and healthy conditions, as well as the historic and ongoing issues of sterilization abuse and child removal, “justified” by the vilification of Indigenous mothers, Black mothers and other mothers of colour, poor mothers, and mothers with disabilities (Davis; Duncan and Wong; Lavell-Harvard and Anderson; Lavell-Harvard and Lavell; Roberts; Sangha and Gonsalves; and Stote). Contrary to some critiques of maternal activism, Rachel Stein has pointed out that in a context in which oppressed families have been systematically denied the right to parent, “a ‘politics of care’ – in which mothers and others strive for cultural survival by working to assure the viability of future generations – strikes me as a radical politics, rather than a reactionary one” (16). It is, therefore, important to complicate the narrative of maternal activism as a reflection of Spivak’s “strategic essentialism.” How strategic are maternal frames for mothers who are vilified in the dominant gaze, and, accordingly, denied the opportunity to parent or to parent in safe and healthy conditions? The issue of reproductive injustice is explored in depth within Revolutionary Mothering: Love on the Front Lines – a collection edited by Alexis Pauline Gumbs, China Martens, and Mai’a Williams. Revolutionary Mothering builds upon the scholarly foundations laid by feminists, womanists, and activists of colour. The editors and contributors reiterate mothering as revolutionary practice, particularly in the context of reproductive injustice. In addition, several contributors point to mothering and maternal activism as disproportionately feminized and often individualized labour, which Krauss identifies as a “third shift” (“Mothering at the Crossroads” 69). This uneven burden of reproductive labour is yet another manifestation of reproductive injustice (Ross). Like Revolutionary Mothering, future scholarship on mothering and activism must adopt a lens that accounts for multiple interlocking oppressions. In addition, future scholarship would benefit from deeper analysis of the gendered connotations of mothering. Literature on maternal activisms often rest upon an assumption that mothering is gendered labour, carried out by women. This is rooted in the very real issue of the feminization of care labour. However, can maternal activism expand beyond gendered connotations and would it still constitute maternal practice? While Ruddick advocated for transcending the gendered connotations of mothering by encouraging men to engage in maternal practice, hooks argued that the use of maternal language implies and affirms child-rearing as feminized labour (139). The absence of literature on nonbinary mothering or parenting and fathering in the contexts of activist movements is a notable gap. 492

Mothering and activism

Further reading Bourassa, Carrie, Elder Betty McKenna, and Darlene Juschka. Listening to the Beat of Our Drum: Indigenous Parenting in Contemporary Society. Demeter Press, 2017. Caballero, Cecilia, Yvette Martínez-Vu, Judith Pérez-Torres, Michelle Téllez, and Christine Vega. The Chicana Motherwork Anthology. The University of Arizona Press, 2019. Doty, Kori, and A. J. Lowik. Reproduction and Parenting beyond the Binary. Demeter Press, forthcoming. Gumbs, Alexis Pauline, China Martens, and Mai’a Williams. Revolutionary Mothering: Love on the Front Lines. PM Press, 2016. O’Reilly, Andrea. Matricentric Feminism: Theory, Activism, and Practice. Demeter Press, 2016. Ross, Loretta J., Lynn Roberts, Erika Derkas, Whitney Peoples, and Pamela Bridgewater Toure. Radical Reproductive Justice. Feminist Press, 2017. Shadaan, Reena. Mothers Making Movements: Maternal Politics of Care. Demeter Press, forthcoming. Williams, Mai’a. This Is How We Survive: Revolutionary Mothering, War, and Exile in the 21st Century. PM Press, 2019.

Conclusion Future scholarship on maternal activism must more explicitly utilize a reproductive justice lens, which highlights that mothering amidst broader systems of injustice is necessarily political labour. In addition, discussions on maternal activism must extend beyond patriarchal motherhood and engage with broader perspectives on how mothering is imagined and practiced, as well as who mothers. Such an approach would result in a broadened understanding of the diverse expressions of maternal activisms.

Works cited Anderson, Kim. “Giving Life to the People: An Indigenous Ideology of Motherhood.” Maternal Theory: Essential Readings, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, Demeter Press, 2007, pp. 761–81. Bédard, Renée Elizabeth Mzinegiizhigo-kwe. “An Anishinaabe-kwe Ideology on Mothering and Motherhood.” “Until Our Hearts Are on the Ground”: Aboriginal Mothering, Oppression, Resistance and Rebirth, edited by Dawn Lavell-Harvard and Jeanette Corbiere Lavell, Demeter Press, 2006, pp. 65–75. Bloch, Katrina, and Tiffany Taylor. “Welfare Queens and Anchor Babies: A Comparative Study of Stigmatized Mothers in the United States.” Mothering in the Age of Neoliberalism, edited by Melinda Vandenbeld Giles, Demeter Press, 2014, pp. 199–210. Blum, Elizabeth D. Love Canal Revisited: Race, Class and Gender in Environmental. UP of Kansas, 2008. Burwell, Dollie. “Sometimes the Road Gets Lonely.” Mothers and Children: Feminist Analyses and Personal Narratives, edited by Susan E. Chase and Mary F. Rogers, Rutgers UP, 2001, pp. 275–81. Collins, Patricia Hill. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. Unwin Hyman, 1990. ———. “The Meaning of Motherhood in Black Culture and Black Mother-Daughter Relationships.” Double Stitch: Black Women Write about Mothers and Daughters, edited by Patricia Bell-Scott, Beacon Press, 1991, pp. 42–60. Davis, Angela.“Racism, Birth Control and Reproductive Rights.” The Reproductive Rights Reader: Law, Medicine, and the Construction of Motherhood, edited by Nancy Ehrenreich, New York UP, 2008, pp. 86–93. de Onís, Catalina M. “Reproductive Justice as Environmental Justice: Contexts, Coalitions, and Cautions.” The Routledge Companion to Motherhood, edited by Lynn O’Brien Hallstein, Andrea O’Reilly, and Melinda Vandenbeld Giles. Routledge, 2019. Di Chiro, Giovanna. “Environmental Justice from the Grassroots: Reflections on History, Gender, and Expertise.” The Struggle for Ecological Democracy: Environmental Justice Movements in the United States, edited by Daniel Faber, Guilford Press, 1998, pp. 104–36. Duncan, Patti, and Gina Wong. Mothering in East Asian Communities: Policies and Practices. Demeter Press, 2014. Edwards, Arlene E. “Community Mothering: The Relationship between Mothering and the Community Work of Black Women.” Journal of the Association for Research on Mothering, vol. 2, no. 2, 2000, pp. 87–100.

493

Reena Shadaan Epstein, Barbara. “Grassroots Environmentalism and Strategies for Social Change.” New Political Science, vol. 16, no. 1, 1995, pp. 1–24. Gibbons, Meghan. “Political Motherhood in the United States and Argentina.” Mothers Who Deliver: Feminist Interventions in Public and Interpersonal Discourse, edited by Jocelyn Fenton Stitt and Pegeen Reichert Powell, State U of New York P, 2010, pp. 253–77. Gilmore, Glenda Elizabeth. Gender and Jim Crow: Women and the Politics of White Supremacy in North Carolina, 1896–1920. U of North Carolina P, 1996. Gumbs, Alexis Pauline, et al. Revolutionary Mothering: Love on the Front Lines. PM Press, 2016. hooks, bell. Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center. Routledge, 1984. ———. “Homeplace: A Site of Resistance.” Maternal Theory: Essential Readings, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, Demeter Press, 1990, pp. 266–73. Jacobs, Margaret. “Maternal Colonialism: White Women and Indigenous Child Removal in the American West.” Western Historical Quarterly, vol. 36, 2005, pp. 453–76. Kailasapathy, Sarvam. “Women’s Activism in Jaffna, Sri Lanka: Defiant Mother Politics.” Women Transforming Peace Activism in a Fierce New World: South and Southeast Asia, edited by Kumudini Samuel, Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era, 2012, pp. 98–112. Krauss, Celene. “Women and Toxic Waste Protests: Race, Class and Gender as Resources of Resistance.” Qualitative Sociology, vol. 16, no. 3, 1993, pp. 247–62. ———. “Women of Color on the Front Line.” Unequal Protection: Communities of Color and Environmental Justice, edited by Robert D. Bullard, Sierra Club Books, 1994, pp. 256–72. ———. “Mothering at the Crossroads: African American Women and the Emergence of the Movement against Environmental Racism.” Environmental Justice in the New Millennium: Global Perspectives on Race, Ethnicity, and Human Rights, edited by Filomina Chioma Steady, Palgrave Macmillan, 2009, pp. 65–89. Kuumba, M. Bahati. Gender and Social Movements. AltaMira Press, 2001. Lavell-Harvard, Dawn, and Kim Anderson. Mothers of the Nations: Indigenous Mothering as Global Resistance, Reclaiming and Recovery. Demeter Press, 2014. Lavell-Harvard, Dawn, and Jeannette Corbiere Lavell. “Until Our Hearts Are on the Ground”: Aboriginal Mothering, Oppression, Resistance and Rebirth. Demeter Press, 2006. Logsdon-Conradsen, Susan. “From Maternalism to Activist Mothering.” Journal of the Motherhood Initiative, vol. 2, no. 1, 2011, pp. 9–36. MacGregor, Sherilyn. Beyond Mothering Earth: Ecological Citizenship and the Politics of Care. U of British Columbia P, 2006. McDonald, Katrina Bell. “Black Activist Mothering: A Historical Intersection of Race, Gender, and Class.” Gender and Society, vol. 11, no. 6, 1997, pp. 773–95. Miller, Kim. “Activism, Maternal.” Encyclopedia of Motherhood, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, SAGE Publications, 2010, pp. 11–13. Moravec, Michelle. “Another Mother for Peace: Reconsidering Maternalist Peace Rhetoric from a Historical Perspective, 1967–2007.” Journal of the Motherhood Initiative, vol. 1, no. 1, 2010, pp. 9–30. Naples, Nancy. “Activist Mothering: Cross-Generational Continuity in the Community Work of Women from Low-Income Urban Neighbourhoods.” Gender & Society, vol. 6, no. 3, 1992, pp. 441–63. Nathanson, Janice.“Maternal Activism: How Feminist Is It?” Feminist Mothering, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, State U of New York P, 2008, pp. 243–88. Oka, Cynthia Dewi. “Mothering as Revolutionary Praxis.” Revolutionary Mothering: Love on the Front Lines, edited by Alexis Pauline Gumbs et al., PM Press, 2016, pp. 51–57. O’Reilly, Andrea. 21st Century Motherhood: Experience, Identity, Policy, Agency. Columbia UP, 2010. ———. Mothers, Mothering and Motherhood across Cultural Differences: A Reader. Demeter Press, 2014. ———. Matricentric Feminism: Theory, Activism, and Practice. Demeter Press, 2016. Perkins, Tracy E. “Women’s Pathways into Activism: Rethinking the Women’s Environmental Justice Narrative in California’s San Joaquin Valley.” Organization & Environment, vol. 25, no. 1, 2012, pp. 76–94. Roberts, Dorothy E. Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty. Pantheon Books, 1997. Ross, Loretta J. Personal communication. 11 Nov. 2018. Ross, Loretta J., et al. Radical Reproductive Justice. Feminist Press, 2017. Ruddick, Sara. Maternal Thinking: Towards a Politics of Peace. Ballantine Books, 1989. Sangha, Jasjit K., and Tahira Gonsalves. South Asian Mothering: Negotiating Culture, Family and Selfhood. Demeter Press, 2013. Seager, Joni. Earth Follies: Coming to Feminist Terms with the Global Environmental Crisis. Routledge, 1993.

494

Mothering and activism Segura, Denise A., and Jennifer L. Pierce. “Chicana/o Family Structure Gender Personality: Chodorow, Familism, and Psychoanalytic Sociology Revisited.” Signs, vol. 19, no. 1, 1993, pp. 62–91. Shadaan, Reena. “Maternal Activism in the International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal (ICJB), India.” Mothering in the Age of Neoliberalism, edited by Melinda Vandenbeld Giles, Demeter Press, 2014, pp. 343–353. ———. Mothers Making Movements: Maternal Politics of Care. Demeter Press, forthcoming. Sillman, Jael, et al. Undivided Rights: Women of Color Organize for Reproductive Justice. Haymarket Books, 2004. Skocpol, Theda. Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States. The Belknap Press of Harvard UP, 1992. Stein, Rachel. New Perspectives on Environmental Justice: Gender, Sexuality and Activism. Rutgers UP, 2004. Story, Kaila Adia.“Living My Material: An Interview with Patricia Hill Collins.” Patricia Hill Collins: Reconceiving Motherhood, edited by Kaila Adia Story, Demeter Press, 2014, pp. 181–91. Stote, Karen. An Act of Genocide: Colonialism and the Sterilization of Aboriginal Woman. Fernwood Publishing, 2015. Tucker, Judith Stradtman. “Motherhood and its Discontents: The Political and Ideological Grounding of the 21st Century Mothers’ Movement.” Mothering and Feminism, Association for Research on Mothering, Toronto, Ontario, 2004. Voyles, Traci Brynne. Wastelanding: Legacies of Uranium Mining in Navajo Country. U of Minnesota P, 2015. Whetstone, Crystal. “Mothers for and against the Nation: Complexities of a Maternal Politics of Care.” Mothers Making Movements: Maternal Activisms and the Politics of Care, edited by Reena Shadaan, Demeter Press, forthcoming. Wilson, Natalie. “From Gestation to Delivery: The Embodied Activist Mothering of Cindy Sheehan and Jennifer Schumaker.” Mothers Who Deliver: Feminist Interventions in “Public and Interpersonal Discourse,” edited by Jocelyn Fenton Stitt and Pegeen Reichert Powell, State U of New York P, 2010, pp. 231–52. Wu, Judy Tzu-Chun. Radicals on the Road: Internationalism, Orientalism, and Feminism during the Vietnam War. Cornell UP, 2013.

495

40 REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE AS ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Contexts, coalitions, and cautions Catalina M. de Onís

Introduction Some struggles go together. In the case of reproductive justice (RJ) and environmental justice (EJ), women and mothers often are the first to confront and to signal the intersection of these movements and discourses. I engage this research area with a focus on motherhood and mothering, as securing the right to parent and to parent with sufficient resources and in personally desirable ways has been vital in forming RJ. In this chapter, first, I offer a historical overview of RJ and EJ, including key assumptions and events and contributors for each movement. Second, I turn to overlapping RJ-EJ concerns and discuss three issues that give shape and urgency to these movements and discourses. Third, I discuss existing research by attending to eco-feminism and the linkages of criminalization, contamination, and maternity. Finally, I pose some cautions, coalitional possibilities, and future directions for studying how RJ and EJ can animate and advance each other, which I hope will be useful in a variety of contexts, whether examining organizing tactics in a lecture hall or enacting them on the Washington Mall.

Contextualizing reproductive justice and environmental justice movements and discourses Mobilizing against the exploitation of women, mothers and their children, and the environment long has been a rallying point for communities confronted by logics and practices of domination throughout the globe. While this chapter charts RJ and EJ histories by primarily focusing on North American, especially US, movements because of the space from which I write and the naming origins of these frameworks, other countries – ranging from South Africa to India – also are engaged. I begin with a brief review of US RJ history, before turning to a longer discussion of US EJ organizing, given my interest in this latter movement’s ties to motherhood.

Reproductive justice Women and mothers have long-organized against barriers to their reproductive health and advocated for resources needed to support their parenting, including the right to terminate unwanted pregnancies.1 In the mid-1960s, to resonate with libertarian appeals,“choice” emerged 496

Reproductive and environmental justice

as the slogan of abortion rights advocacy, obscuring the previous focus on equality and abortion laws that discriminated based on class and economic resources (Hayden). With the spread of white, liberal feminism, “pro-choice” emerged as the ideological counterpart to “pro-life” discourses (Condit). This binary framing tends to work well for supposed “pro-life” advocates, who paint their opponents as anti-life and place hyper-attention on the fetus, while erasing the woman and her body (Hayden). Many US Third World feminists critique white, middle-class feminism’s use of choice, arguing the term oppresses, rather than liberates, women confronting interlocking, systemic barriers (de Onís, “Lost in Translation”; Roberts, Ross, and Kuumba; Silliman et al.). “The pro-choice and pro-life camps on the abortion debate often are articulated as polar opposites; [however], they both depend on similar operating assumptions that do nothing to support either life or real choice for women of color” (Smith 120). A narrow focus on choice also serves to deflect attention from maternity and the difficulties faced by mothers – difficulties that are experienced at varying degrees based on social identities and material realities. Thus, ways to move beyond the choice-life divide and its simplifications marked and continue to mark a significant exigency. In 1994, a group of women of color met in Chicago to discuss the power inequities that shaped their lives, including impediments to reproductive health access (SisterSong). Such obstacles include economic injustice, racism, xenophobia, monolingualism, lack of health insurance and access to care, heteropatriarchy, legal status criminalization, and environmental and climate injustice. This intersectional emphasis, conceptualized by Kimberlé Crenshaw and Patricia Hill Collins, reveals how limiting positionalities and perspectives excludes and erases the imperative of breaking interlocking structures that normalize violence, oppression, and social and actual death. RJ expands and complicates mainstream assumptions about abortion and rejects a capitalistic, consumerist choice-driven logic (Smith). In addition to other problems, the dominant discourse of abortion choice reduces the many factors shaping pregnancy termination to a procedure, while also highlighting the importance of access to contraception. Other considerations, such as transportation and deportation risks when seeking health care, tend to be elided. Including and exceeding abortion, the RJ framework supports those who are childless as well as those who desire to be and who already are mothers. This position also insists that the resources required for mothering and quality health care be accessible and affordable (Hayden).

Environmental justice Similar to RJ challenges to white, liberal feminism, EJ brings a social justice perspective to mainstream environmentalism. The US environmental movement’s origins in preservation and conservation erased and benefited from US empire building’s extermination campaigns of Indigenous (ways of ) life. These green groups’ advocacy efforts exhibited a single-issue position and gatekeeping that failed to adopt an intersectional framework recognizing and working with the reality of “socio-ecological interdependence” (Di Chiro 279). In response to mainstream US environmentalism and its downplaying of interconnection – both in terms of peoples and places – EJ advocates have critiqued the dominance of white, financially privileged men and the racist, colonial assumptions guiding advocacy efforts that focused on advancing environmental protection often to the detriment of Indigenous communities, people of color, and poor neighborhoods (Bullard, The Quest for Environmental Justice). In 1991, the First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit convened in Washington, DC. Delegates critiqued “over 500 years of colonization and oppression, resulting in the poisoning of our communities and land and the genocide of our peoples” (Alston 16). 497

Catalina M. de Onís

Participants also drafted seventeen “Principles of Environmental Justice,” including a focus on interconnection, intergenerational justice, opposing colonization and militarism, advocating for nondiscriminatory public policy and the sovereignty of Native peoples, ensuring healthy workplace conditions, health care access, conserving resources, and demanding “the strict enforcement of principles of informed consent, and a halt to the testing of experimental reproductive and medical procedures and vaccinations on people of color” (Bullard, The Quest for Environmental Justice 301). These EJ principles point to a host of environmental and other interrelated problems that must be addressed to create just, equitable, and sustainable conditions for living. EJ advocates, many of whom are women and mothers, work to expose and eliminate disproportionate pollution risks and other forms of environmental degradation that sicken and oftentimes kill frontline communities that are considered “appropriately polluted” sacrifice zones (Bullard, Confronting Environmental Racism 12). EJ movement members seek to interrupt this violent history and its legacies by understanding the environment as part of our everyday lives to include “the places where people live, work, play, and bury the dead” (Pezzullo, Toxic Tourism 103). This inclusion of play not only speaks to recreation but also to the play of children. Discourses supporting EJ are indebted to countless Indigenous women and women of color, including Beverly Wright, Dolores Huerta, Laura Pulido, Dorceta Taylor, Gail Small, Cassandra Roberts, Susana Almanza, Sylvia Herrera, Winona LaDuke, Julie Sze, and Ruth “Tata” Santiago. These same activists and activist academics have built and supported movement organizations, including the Deep South Center for Environmental Justice, Native Action, Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services, People Organized in Defense of Earth and Her Resources, the Hyde and Aragon Park Improvement Committee, the Asian Pacific Environmental Network (Sze, “Asian American Activism”), and the Comité Diálogo Ambiental/Environmental Dialogue Committee. This final organization is co-led by Ruth “Tata” Santiago, an activist lawyer in Puerto Rico, who has called attention to how developmental harms caused by coal by-products pollute across geographic and mother-fetus corporeal borders (de Onís, “Energy Colonialism Powers the Ungoing Unnatural Disaster”). The labor of these key figures and organizations evinces several RJ-EJ maternal ties.

Critical issues for interconnecting reproductive justice and environmental justice Several concerns arise when considering maternity with RJ and EJ movements and discourses. I categorize these issues into three interrelated areas: (1) the importance of exposing and centering the disproportionate impacts of climate disruption and environmental degradation on women, mothers, and children; (2) the possibilities and pitfalls of maternal appeals for shaping RJ-EJ movements; and (3) the interconnection of RJ and EJ for coalition building. The first concern at the RJ-EJ intersection involves attending to and centering the disproportionate impacts of environmental degradation and climate disruption on women’s and children’s bodies and lives (Women’s Earth and Climate Action Network). Vandana Shiva argues there is a gendered dimension to environmental injustice, suggesting the importance of studying how women and children are impacted, especially in low-income and nonwhite communities that are targeted by polluters as expendable sacrifice zones that rely on colonial logics. Cherríe Moraga writes, Truly radical environmentalists are beginning to recognize that – without the counsel and active engagement of people of color, whose homes “neighbor” the majority of dumping sites in the United States; without the leadership models of traditional and 498

Reproductive and environmental justice

innovative Indigenous practices of sustainability; and, without the organized outcry of mothers, who personally suffer the illness of their children due to environmental contamination – no mass movement to literally “save our planet” can occur. (xix) The inequities and injustices produced by an extractivist economy threaten the survival and well-being of Indigenous women and girls. Activist Lissa Yellowbird-Chase links fracking “man camps,” Indigenous women’s rapes, disappearances, and murders, and unjust colonial workings of tribal and nontribal relational dynamics. Her advocacy intervenes in mainstream climate disruption conversations by centering crimes against Indigenous bodies, including mothers, their children, and the land and water (Bynum and McDonnell). Similarly, the Native Youth Sexual Health Network explains that “a core area of our work is the impacts of environmental violence including extractive industries (i.e. mining, gas, oil, logging) to our sexual and reproductive health, rights, and justice” (1). Recognizing these same sites of violence, Idle No More and the land defenders who support this movement across Turtle Island (North America) call for “hold[ing] a national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls” and two-spirit people (7). Cree journalist Connie Walker reports on these realities in her “Missing and Murdered” podcast. The impacts of RJ and EJ also are experienced unevenly in terms of toxic chemicals, which contain hormone disrupters, carcinogens, and other health hazards. Just a few of the harmful links bridging RJ and EJ include neurological harms, sterility, birth defects, such as encephalopathy in infants, carcinogenic, hormone-disrupting PCBs, and spontaneous abortions (Klein; Pezzullo, Toxic Tourism; Steingraber). Reproductive harms not only impact mothers and future mothers; given the ubiquity and quantity of toxic chemicals in the human blood stream, the unborn also are polluted. “According to a recent study, newborn babies in the United States absorb an average of 200 industrial chemicals and pollutants into their bodies via their mother’s wombs” (Sze, “Boundaries and Border Wars” 791). This statistic points to how our youngest humans are pre-polluted, even before they take their first breath outside of the womb (Pezzullo, “Contaminated Children”). The Endocrine Disruption Exchange, among other entities and groups, seeks to document and resist the normalization of these toxic practices and their health outcomes (Musil). Alongside corporate impunity and lack of transparency, the standards used to determine “safe” and “unsafe” environmental risks fail to account for age, gender, ethnic, racial, and other differences. In the United States, assessing toxic thresholds and exposure impacts is based on a “universal” body: a tall, white male (Pezzullo, “Contaminated Children”). Such a measure simplifies, homogenizes, and ignores how toxic chemicals impact anyone not fitting this description. This one-size-fits-all measurement is especially untenable because women of color tend to work in industries linked to high toxic exposures, including textiles and electronics (de Onís, “Looking Both Ways”). These experiences have motivated many women working in these industries, along with various scholars, practitioners, and other allies, to articulate discursively the ways that mothers are on the frontlines of bodily and community harms. Second, the possibilities and pitfalls of maternal appeals merit engagement because they evince the role that mothering plays in shaping rhetorical moves that constitute the RJ-EJ intersection. Scholarly writings and other texts point to how arguments linked to maternity carry implications for advancing RJ and EJ. Many EJ struggles have been and continue to be headed by mothers, primarily low-income moms and women of color, who experience pesticide exposures, unsustainable forestry practices, and toxic dumping (Orleck). In some cases, women have transformed the perceived liability 499

Catalina M. de Onís

of their gender into a resource for advancing intertwined concerns by focusing on mothering, corporeality, and community (Peeples and DeLuca), while other activists have pushed the boundaries of what defines a “good” mother. Recognizing the many facets and complexities of criminalization and the importance of living free from both literal and figurative toxicity, Mothers of East Los Angeles, a group started by Mexican immigrant Juana Gutiérrez, mobilized against toxic pollution and prisons (Pardo; Pellow). Lois Gibbs led efforts to relocate Love Canal residents when she learned her child’s elementary school had been placed on a toxic waste dump, which ultimately motivated her to advocate for all children in the community, not only her own (see Sara Hayden’s chapter in this volume). Dolores Huerta, the mother of eleven children, led the United Farm Workers labor union by emphasizing gender, race, ethnicity, and class as integral to environmental justice (Sowards). Her farmworker activism often required that she be apart from her children. In the film Dolores, one of her children remarked, “The movement became her most important child.” Huerta describes that her leadership was not sparked by maternal motivations but rather because she viewed her activist work as something she desired personally and that exceeded her familial concerns. Concurrently, she hoped that her efforts to live and agitate alongside farmworkers, when she could have had a more comfortable life, would instill anti-materialist values and social justice commitments in her children. More recently, biologist Sandra Steingraber has argued that being the best mother to her children sometimes requires separation, resulting from being arrested and jailed for civil disobedience that calls out fracking and other fossil fuel industry practices that jeopardize her son’s and daughter’s future (Murphy). Steingraber benefits from her class, race, and other privileges that make her law breaking far less risky compared to women who are always-already criminalized and confronted with heightened violence based on skin color, accent, documentation status, and other factors (Gutiérrez). These organizational and individual examples point to various possibilities for rhetorically mobilizing motherhood in different defensive efforts – from protecting one’s community and children in the name of “mothers” to seeking to defend one’s actions in a legal case. Mother Earth, or Gaia, also functions as a signifier conjoining maternal appeals with RJ and EJ. Native and Indigenous teachings explain that we must honor the fecundity and regenerating abilities of our planet and our interconnection to resist the environmental devastation and harms inflicted upon this giver and nurturer of life (Mihesuah; Pezzullo, “Contaminated Children”; Weaver). For example, Leanne Guy, executive director of the Southwest Indigenous Women’s Coalition, insists that “violence against Mother Earth is violence against our women. And, that is part of what we stand for. Trying to end the violence – sexual and domestic violence, and also making that connection to Mother Earth, to the water, to our lands and to us as people” (Women’s Earth and Climate Action Network). Naomi Klein also attends to this maternal-earthly connection by writing about her motherhood experiences, including barriers to maternity via miscarriage, and the fertility problems of Mother Earth. She argues that both women and the planet need RJ, so that life cycles might return. From a material feminisms and performance studies perspective, Stacy Alaimo examines naked protests and argues for transcorporeality to understand how human bodies are entangled with each other, other non-human animals, and the surrounding environments, evinced in the actions of “La Tigresa,” a woman who embodies Mother Earth to block the logging of old-growth forests. Some scholars caution against using the trope because of its potential to reduce women to care-taking positions and to perpetuate capitalism, heteropatriarchy, racism, and conquest, when situated within neocolonial narratives that articulate nature with mother in dominant representations of Mother Earth (Buescher and Ono). The third issue shaping RJ-EJ links to motherhood involves acknowledging the interconnection of these movements and discourses to advance coalitional politics. This focus merits attention, given concerns with how to work at this nexus strategically and effectively. Such 500

Reproductive and environmental justice

insights and commitments to addressing controversies and injustices interconnecting RJ and EJ are derived from lived experiences demonstrating that when RJ is threatened, there can be no EJ, just as when environmental injustice exists, so too does reproductive injustice. Historically and in the present day, many organizations fuse RJ-EJ with maternal and youth concerns. These groups include Mothers Out Front: Mobilizing for a Livable Climate and Moms Clean Air Force. Mothers Out Front works to mobilize nationally the individual and collective power of mothers so that all children may have livable lives. The group seeks to foreground and center mothers’ perspectives using a climate justice framework, exemplified by its partnership with El Puente, a Brooklyn-based group agitating for a just transition to a lowcarbon economy. Similarly, Moms Clean Air Force work[s] across the US on national and local policy issues, through a vibrant network of state-based field teams. Our moms meet with lawmakers at every level of government to build support for commonsense solutions to pollution. . . . Moms have passion and power – an unbeatable combination. We are harnessing the strength of mother love to fight back against polluters. (1) This “mother love” points to possibilities for advancing RJ-EJ work via broad-based movements. Studies examining coalitional transformations argue for the positive benefits of fusing these social movements and discourses. For example, a 2008 report by the Movement Strategy Center and the Women’s Foundation of California explains the advantages of combining RJ-EJ efforts. The authors of the document urge individuals and groups committed to these movements to determine measures for success, write grants for cross-movement building, organize diverse group meetings with shared commitments, invest in and advocate for policy change, including education for policy makers to better understand frontline realities, and foreground difference to acknowledge that impacted communities are not monolithic and do not always share the same experiences. Similarly, a 2009 report by Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice (now Forward Together) demonstrates that epistemological and political transformations can unfold in local, national, and global contexts when “looking both ways” at intersecting RJ and environmental degradation and climate change concerns (de Onís, “Looking Both Ways” 310).2 Drawing on policy reform to mitigate toxic chemical production and exposure, the report finds that when RJ and EJ are approached together, movement advocates are positioned to push for regulating, labeling, and banning toxic chemicals for consumers and to trouble how industry employees are exposed to these toxins, and thus reproductive harms, in the workplace (de Onís, “Looking Both Ways”). These findings point to the potential benefits of interweaving RJ, EJ, and motherhood, which also has been studied in academic scholarship.

Current conversations and challenges Eco-feminism is one area of research that engages the intersection of RJ, EJ, and maternity. “Many ecofeminists [believe] that all environmental issues are reproductive issues” (Di Chiro 278, emphasis in original). However, some scholars have discussed the limitations of such assumptions because of gender essentializing that associates women with a public persona of caretaker (Stearney). Additionally, women of color, who often were and continue to be first to draw links between maternity and environmental justice tend not to identify with the eco-feminist label. Considering naming resonance is important for addressing diverse belongings and working to avoid eliding experiences. That written, eco-feminism has been studied in a variety of 501

Catalina M. de Onís

contexts, including beyond the United States. For instance, Judith Stevenson examined how Tswana women in South Africa reconfigured their mothering to support their mobilizations against apartheid. She writes, “As these multiple discourses and ideologies of womanhood and motherhood coalesced during the 1980s, Black women identified a space where they were able to reclaim their traditional roles as public decision makers, leaders, and actors” (Stevenson 133). Research documenting the RJ-EJ intersection also evinces how the indignities facing marginalized communities are entrenched in both material pollution and nativist, xenophobic discourses about population (control), whereby movement actors (en)/counter linkages between criminalization and contamination (Cisneros). This xenophobic violence marks nonwhite, presumably reproductive (i.e. women’s) bodies as threatening (Gutiérrez). Their predetermined illegality exists both in terms of documentation status and in their perceived capacity to “pollute” via reproduction. Women of color, Indigenous, poor, and incarcerated women have been targeted routinely by measures that seek to vilify and discipline them for being “always already reproductive” subjects who threaten white supremacy and racist state institutions (Luibhéid 194). Such perceptions are entwined with the “welfare mother” trope and the accompanying narrative that reduces these women to “breeders,” who supposedly exploit the system, when, in fact, they are the exploited ones (Roberts). The ubiquity and tenacity of the welfare metaphor, which functions to Other and scapegoat black women and other women of color in popular and political culture, provides a rhetorical resource for certain lawmakers and their cronies to incentivize sterilizations and other reproductive injustices (Gutiérrez; Phillips and Griffin; Silliman et al.). This scapegoating carries several consequences, including offering lawmakers a means for skirting responsibility for failed policies and governance (de Onís, “Looking Both Ways”). However, it is not only some opinion leaders who perpetuate the pollutant trope. Population control arguments continue to surface in pro-environmental, green capitalist discourses. As Lisa Sun-Hee Park and David Naguib Pellow assert in their work on environmental privilege, focusing on overpopulation situates Third World Women as pawns, blaming and burdening them with the weight of an ecological emergency they did not create. To be sure, we cannot deny our planetary limits and the strains placed on Earth’s resources by the world’s 7.5 billion inhabitants (Pezzullo, “Contaminated Children”). However, scapegoating those most vulnerable to environmental degradation and climate chaos displaces attention from root causes by obscuring the role of privileged, hyper-consumers, the fossil fuel industry, and green capitalism/racism in sustaining the current system. These substantial obstacles require approaching RJ and EJ urgencies with an intersectional focus that resonates with the lived realities and epistemologies of those individuals and communities who are most impacted. While this chapter has revealed how RJ and EJ advocates share commitments to progressive root transformations and social justice, these movements have their own unique histories, a reality that carries implications for coalitional politics. Thus, these synergies are not without their potential stumbling blocks.

Future research and realities RJ-EJ collaborative histories have much to teach more mainstream movements and each other, including questions relating to maternity that have proven to be generative for grappling with interlocking concerns (Di Chiro). Yet, coalition building is “no easy task” (Chávez 151). Shared and disparate histories must be considered carefully when organizing and researching at this nexus to enact radical transformations that uproot entwined oppressive policies and practices and that point to promising possibilities for curtailing harms and cultivating hope. While working at the RJ-EJ intersection is essential, this approach must carefully attend to what strategies, 502

Reproductive and environmental justice

tactics, and discourses might be beneficial and detrimental, when, with what gains and losses, and for whom. Thus, Ronald Sandler and Pezzullo’s discussion of “Working Together and Working Apart” to describe the future of EJ and mainstream environmental organizing resonates here (309). One such opportunity for mobilizing coalitional energies involves intergenerational justice. Take, for example, opposition to the Dow Chemical company’s intergenerational toxic assault on residents in Bhopal, India. These calls are rooted in an ethic of care that considers community impacts, including for those who were not alive when the disaster occurred. The corporate violence and impunity characterizing the Bhopal case has been resisted largely by women, who often are motivated by maternal concerns constituting the RJ and EJ intersection. According to Reena Shadaan, who studies maternal activism in this handbook, the struggle for justice in Bhopal is rooted in addressing the intergenerational impacts of the disaster, including illness, developmental disabilities, and congenital health harms, as well as mothers encouraging their daughters to find inspiration from their own participation in activist efforts, thus resisting a solely damage-centered narrative. Future research on the topic of intergenerational justice might be helpfully complicated by queer ecologies (Mortimer-Sandilands and Erickson). Such a perspective conjoins concerns with sexuality and lived environments to advocate for alternatives to traditional familial ties via wide-reaching kinships rooted in more capacious understandings of reproduction (Sturgeon). Queer ecologies urge scholars and practitioners to rethink narrow, normative, and binary cisheteropatriarchal assumptions about what constitutes “nature,” “natural,” and “abnormal” characteristics, which may be impacted by toxic exposures and that can lead to “sex panic” (Chen; Di Chiro, “Polluted Politics”). This non-normative critical intervention also points to possibilities for nonhuman and human solidarity, creating a space for considering tensions and overlaps for confronting “multi-species miscarriage[s]” and other reproductive challenges fueled by unsustainable energy and economic systems (Klein 427). While intergenerational justice and appeals to future generations can create spaces for common ground, social movement actors should not assume that arguments invoking “our children” and “our grandchildren” resonate with everyone and in the same ways, including for those who are childless. Pezzullo finds children to be “a contested signifier in US public culture,” with some scholars highlighting the heteronormativity imbuing appeals to children as the future and others asserting that even though children and the future tend to be articulated, these same kids are devalued by society (“Contaminated Children” 3). Further investigation of these aforementioned areas in specific situations might offer instructive insights into the complexities of these controversies, their consequences, and for whom. In addition to intergenerational justice concerns, “looking both ways” at RJ and EJ must create space for other interrelated social justice causes. These movements and action areas include, but are not limited to, climate justice, energy justice, decolonization and sovereignty, queer ecologies, anti-militarism, prison abolition, anti-ableism, and migrant justice. Bringing many of these movements and discourses together, Sze (“Denormalizing embodied toxicity”) describes the importance of past and ongoing efforts by activists and scholars to understand miscarriages, disabilities since birth, lactation and pollution, anti-immigrant politics and the labor abuses of globalization as entwined struggles and discourses. To do so, she engages the case of Kettleman City, California, which is 97 percent Latino, many of whom are farmworkers. In response to contaminated drinking water in their community, which resulted in various congenital disabilities, including cleft palates, Sze finds residents enacted an intersectional understanding of race, gender, labor, and disability. This focus on multiple identities, experiences, and structures also animates the Disability Studies and the Environmental Humanities: Toward an Eco-Crip Theory 503

Catalina M. de Onís

edited collection, which delves into the entwinement of disability studies and the environmental humanities, including an emphasis on “(Re)Producing Toxicity” (Ray and Sibara). Valerie Ann Johnson describes mothering a child with a disability who is committed to environmentalism, while Mel Chen troubles how dominant US discourses regarding lead in toys for white middleclass children ignore and do not care for the lives of people in China who are impacted directly by toxic manufacturing. And Elizabeth Wheeler focuses on picture books to examine representations and relationships between non-human animals and kids with disabilities. Intersectional concerns with dis/ability and maternity also must consider climate disruption and abolition ecologies. For example, as fires devastated California in 2018, many incarcerated individuals, including women and mothers, were fighting the blazes. This exploitative arrangement of prison slave labor only compensates imprisoned individuals with $1 an hour when actively fighting fires and also incentivizes incarcerated mothers to place themselves in danger because firefighting can reduce sentences, prompting participation in the hopes of being reunited with their children sooner. The California Coalition for Women Prisoners works to expose and uproot these injustices and their maternal implications (Democracy Now!, “$1 an Hour to Fight Largest Fire in CA History: Are Prison Firefighting Programs Slave Labor?”). Linked to criminalization and mother-child separations, border politics mark a vital area of critical engagement. The Trump administration’s focus on the US-Mexico border epitomizes a brutal, dehumanizing, and deadly agenda, embodied in the viral image of Honduran mother Maria Meza running from tear gas with two of her children; youth deaths while in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody, after being forcibly separated from their parents; and still-born births (Democracy Now!, “Mexico: Human Rights Activists Say Femicides a ‘National Emergency’ ”; Democracy Now!, “Honduran Woman Gives Birth to Stillborn While Detained by ICE”). As feminist border studies scholars elucidate, the stress, trauma, and cruelties of these practices are nothing new for US empire and nation building (Flores). Leandra Hinojosa Hernández, who reads family separation as reproductive injustice, writes: Trump’s zero-tolerance policy and treatment of migrant Latin American families and children is another cog in the historical American machine of racist, assimilationist policies that have separated children of color – black children, Native American children, and Mexican children – from their families over the past several centuries. (132) Recognizing long histories of violence, Stacey K. Sowards discusses ICE’s discharge process, which releases individuals without resources and often with little to no knowledge of their location. She recalls: I spoke with one nineteen-year-old woman who came from Guatemala with her four-month-old child and twenty-one-year-old brother. I let her use my phone so that she could call her mother; while on the phone she was sobbing. She eventually asked me where she was and if I knew where her brother was; she did not know what city or state she was in, nor what would happen next. Local nonprofit organizations and community members have come together to clothe, feed, and shelter people like this young woman (asylum seekers, refugees, immigrants) with no support from the U.S. government. My friends, colleagues, and I (all of whom are women, incidentally) have served several dinners to hundreds of people to prevent a true humanitarian disaster, but this is not a sustainable practice. (122–3) 504

Reproductive and environmental justice

Making visible this trauma and the labor of women to support them, Sowards offers transformative alternatives by conceptualizing “differential bordering,” which she theorizes as “feminist resistive approaches that engage difference to explore new ways of thinking, being, and acting in the world that often come from lived experiences . . . that demonstrate how place/s, difference/s, and language/s inform our knowledges as border feminist theories and identities” (121). Thus, for Sowards and many others, existing at the border, including the liminal spaces inherent to this existence, implicates both containment and abuse and resistance and community building that requires examining connections between maternity, the brown and black reproductive “threat,” and the politics of movement(s) (Pulido). Also relating to borders is the permeable boundary between mother and fetus and the impacts of climate disruption on this maternal-corporeal relationship before and after birth. The rise of climate-linked viruses and diseases, such as Zika and Lyme disease, point to this public and reproductive health concern. Leandra Hinojosa Hernández and Sarah de los Santos Upton study media framing of Zika in Latin America and engage Catholic Church contradictions and the disproportionate responsibility placed on women to avoid pregnancy, highlighting consequences for reproductive agency. Similarly, as tick-borne diseases spread, like Lyme and other contested illnesses, evidence suggests they often can be passed from mother to child during pregnancy, revealing the need to consider congenital factors and the consequences for women and mothers. Dominant discourses often discount women and especially mothers as mentally ill, given their concerns with their children being infected with the disease and many health care providers assuming that these individuals are hyperbolic, among other troubling assumptions (Weintraub). The existing trope of “Hysterical Hispanic Housewives” suggests that ethnic and racial factors also are significant. With current realities and cruelties in mind, and as the entwinements of environmental degradation and climate disruption continue to worsen, numerous questions relating to motherhood and mothering arise. These queries might include: What RJ issues must be acknowledged and amplified when anticipating and responding to the collision of everyday stressors (e.g., anti-blackness, transphobia, and settler colonialism) and extreme shock events (e.g., fires, tsunamis, and hurricanes)? In what ways do the US-Mexico border and other borders – both figural and material – become inscribed corporeally on the bodies of asylum-seeker, refugee, and immigrant mothers and children, and how might this outcome of white supremacist and nationalist discourses be dismantled? What is the role of maternity in shaping discourses opposed to extractivist logics and economic policies and practices that enable and constrain a just transition to a low-carbon economy and that impede or advance sovereignty struggles? What are the limits of maternal appeals, especially when considering nonreproductive relationships and kinships? How might the disciplining and curtailing of women’s agency be resisted in public health discourses?

Further reading To contemplate these aforementioned questions, possible further readings that engage the RJ-EJ intersection and maternal concerns are many and range from popular press pieces to books by scholars and journalists. Ahtone, Tristan. “Bringing Up the Bodies: One Women’s Search for Remains in the Bakken Oil Fields.” Al Jazeera America, 18 July 2015, http://projects.aljazeera.com/2015/07/yellowbird/. Hernández, Leandra Hinojosa, and Sarah de los Santos Upton. Challenging Reproductive Control and Gendered Violence in the Américas: Intersectionality, Power, and Struggles for Rights. Lexington Books, 2018. Pulido, Laura. “Immigration Politics and Motherhood.” Ameriasia Journal, vol. 35, no. 1, 2009, pp. 169–78. Ross, Loretta, and Rickie Solinger. Reproductive Justice: An Introduction. U of California P, 2017.

505

Catalina M. de Onís Sowards, Stacey K. Sí, Ella Puede: The Rhetorical Legacy of Dolores Huerta and the United Farm Workers. U of Texas P, 2019. Steingraber, Sandra. Having Faith: An Ecologist’s Journey to Motherhood. The Berkley Publishing Group, 2003. Washington, Harriet A. A Terrible Thing to Waste: Environmental Racism and Its Assault on the American Mind. Hatchette Book Group, 2019. Weintraub, Pamela. Cure Unknown: Inside the Lyme Epidemic. St. Martin’s Press, 2008.

Conclusion Our shared and unevenly experienced socio-ecological challenges will continue to grow and intensify in the years ahead. Building connections at the RJ-EJ intersection and the many facets of maternity mark a vital space for radical coalitions committed to root transformations. In addition to mapping movement histories, this chapter exposes and centers the disproportionate impacts on women, mothers, and children – especially in low-income, people of color, and Indigenous communities; charts the role of maternal appeals in shaping RJ and EJ; and considers possibilities for RJ-EJ coalition building. This chapter also examines eco-feminism and articulations of contamination and criminalization as important extant and future research areas. The different studies and stories engaged here point to the roles that mothering, RJ, and EJ have played and will continue to play in shaping the future of life on this planet.

Notes 1 See Natalie Fixmer-Oraiz’s “Motherhood and the Struggle for Reproductive Justice” chapter for a more extensive reproductive justice discussion. 2 The report focuses on climate justice, rather than environmental justice, inviting consideration of the overlaps and differences between these two environmentally focused social justice movements and their relationship to reproductive justice.

Works cited Alaimo, Stacy. “The Naked Word: The Trans-corporeal Ethics of the Protesting Body.” Women & Performance: A Journal of Feminist Theory, vol. 20, no. 1, 2010, pp. 15–36. doi: 10.1080/07407701003589253. Alston, Dana. We Speak for Ourselves: Social Justice, Race and Environment. Panos Institute, 1990. Buescher, Derek T., and Kent A. Ono. “Civilized Colonialism: Pocahontas as Neocolonial Rhetoric.” Women’s Studies in Communication, vol. 19, no. 2, 1996, pp. 127–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/07491409. 1996.11089810. Bullard, Robert. Confronting Environmental Racism: Voices from the Grassroots. South End Press, 1993. ———. The Quest for Environmental Justice: Human Rights and the Politics of Pollution. Sierra Club Books, 2005. Bynum, Steve, and Jermoe McDonnell. “Rapes and Murders of Indigenous Women at Oil and Fracking ‘Man Camps.’ ” WBEZ, 13 Mar. 2018, www.wbez.org/shows/worldview/rapes-and-murders-of-indi genous-women-at-oil-and-fracking-man-camps/5e741ac4-a51d-4ab9-bebf-e54c8d1788ce. Chávez, Karma. “Border (In)securities: Normative and Differential Belonging in LGBTQ and Immigrant Rights Discourse.” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, vol. 7, no. 2, 2010, pp. 136–51. doi: 10.1080/14791421003763291. Chen, Mel. Animacies: Biopolitics, Racial Mattering, and Queer Affect. Duke UP, 2012. Cisneros, J. David. “Contaminated Communities: The Metaphor of ‘Immigrant as Pollutant’ in Media Representations of Immigration.” Rhetoric & Public Affairs, vol. 11, no. 4, 2008, pp. 569–601. doi: 10.1353/rap.0.0068. Collins, Patricia Hill. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. Routledge, 2000. Condit, Celeste M. Decoding Abortion Rhetoric: Communicating Social Change. U of Illinois P, 1990. Crenshaw, Kimberlé. “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory, and Antiracist Politics.” U of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989, pp. 139–67.

506

Reproductive and environmental justice Democracy Now!, “$1 an Hour to Fight Largest Fire in CA History: Are Prison Firefighting Programs Slave Labor?,” 9 Aug. 2018, www.democracynow.org/2018/8/9/1_an_hour_to_fight_largest. Accessed 2 Mar. 2019. ———. “Honduran Woman Gives Birth to Stillborn While Detained by ICE,” 27 Feb. 2019, www.demo cracynow.org/2019/2/27/headlines/honduran_woman_gives_birth_to_stillborn_while_detained_ by_ice. Accessed 2 Mar. 2019. ———. “Mexico: Human Rights Activists Say Femicides a ‘National Emergency.’ ” 30 Apr. 2015, www. democracynow.org/2015/4/30/headlines/mexico_human_rights_activists_say_femicides_a_national_ emergency. Accessed 2 Mar. 2019. de Onís, Catalina M. “ ‘Looking Both Ways’: Metaphor and the Rhetorical Alignment of Intersectional Climate Justice and Reproductive Justice Concerns.” Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, vol. 6, no. 3, 2012, pp. 308–27. ———. “Lost in Translation: Challenging (White, Monolingual Feminism’s) with Justicia Reproductiva.” Women’s Studies in Communication, vol. 38, no. 1, 2015, pp. 1–19. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1080/07491409.2014.989462. ———. “Energy Colonialism Powers the Ungoing Unnatural Disaster in Puerto Rico.” Frontiers, vol. 3, no. 2, 2018. doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2018.00002. Di Chiro, Giovanna.“Living Environmentalisms: Coalition Politics, Social Reproduction, and Environmental Justice.” Environmental Politics, vol. 17, no. 2, 2008, pp. 276–98. doi: 10.1080/09644010801936230. Di Chiro, Giovanna. “Polluted Politics?: Confronting Toxic Discourse, Sex Panic, and Eco-Normativity.” Queer Ecologies: Sex, Nature, Politics, Desire, edited by Mortimer-Sandilands Catriona and Erickson Bruce. Indiana University Press, 2010, pp. 199–230. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt16gzhnz.11. Dolores. Dir. Peter Bratt. Prod. Peter Benson. 2017. Documentary film. Flores, Lisa A. “At the Intersections: Feminist Border Theory.” Women’s Studies in Communication, vol. 42, no. 2, 2019, pp. 113–15. doi: 10.1080/07491409.2019.1605127. Gutiérrez, Elena R. Fertile Matters: The Politics of Mexican-Origin Women’s Reproduction. U of Texas P, 2008. Hayden, Sara. “Revitalizing the Debate Between and : The 2004 March for Women’s Lives.” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, vol. 6, no. 2, 2009, pp. 111–31. doi: 10.1080=14791 420902833189. Hernández, Leandra Hinojosa. “Feminist Approaches to Border Studies and Gender Violence: Family Separation as Reproductive Injustice.” Women’s Studies in Communication, vol. 42, no. 2, 2019, pp. 130–4. doi: 10.1080/07491409.2019.1605213. Idle No More. “Calls for Change.” www.idlenomore.ca/calls_for_change. Klein, Naomi. This Changes Everything. Simon & Schuster, 2014. Luibhéid, Eithne. Pregnant on Arrival: Making the Illegal Immigrant. U of Minnesota P, 2013. Mihesuah, Devon Abbott. Indigenous American Women: Decolonization, Empowerment, Activism. U of Nebraska P, 2003. Moms Clean Air Task Force. “Mission.” www.momscleanairforce.org/mission/. Moraga, Cherríe. “Catching Fire: Preface to the Fourth Edition.” This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color, edited by Cherríe Moraga and Gloria Anzaldúa, 4th ed., SUNY Press, 2015, pp. xv–xxvi. Mortimer-Sandilands, Catriona, and Bruce Erickson. Queer Ecologies: Sex, Nature, Politics, Desire. Indiana UP, 2010. Movement Strategy Center Women’s Foundation of California. Executive Summary. 2009, http://move mentstrategy.org/b/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/MSC-ExecutiveSummary-Fertile_Ground-Cli mate_of_Opportunity.pdf. Accessed 3 Sept. 2017. Murphy, Mollie. “What’s in the World Is in the Womb: Converging Environmental and Reproductive Justice through Synecdoche.” Women’s Studies in Communication, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 155–71. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/07491409.2017.1285839. Musil, Robert K. Rachel Carson and Her Sisters: Extraordinary Women Who Have Shaped America’s Environment. Rutgers UP, 2014. Native Youth Sexual Health Network. “Environmental Violence and Reproductive Justice.” www.native youthsexualhealth.com/environmentalviolenceandreproductivejustice. html. Accessed 3 Sept. 2017. Orleck, Annelise. “Overview: Environmental Justice.” The Politics of Motherhood: Activist Voices from Left to Right. UP of New England, 1997, pp. 23–27. Pardo, Mary.“Mexican American Women Grassroots Community Activists: ‘Mothers of East Los Angeles.’ ” Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, vol. 11, no. 1, 1990, pp. 1–7. doi: www.jstor.org/stable/3346696.

507

Catalina M. de Onís Park, Lisa Sun-Hee, and David Naguib Pellow. The Slums of Aspen: Immigrants vs. the Environment in America’s Eden. New York UP, 2011. Peeples, Jennifer, and Kevin DeLuca. “The Truth of the Matter: Motherhood, Community and Environmental Justice.” Women’s Studies in Communication, vol. 29, no. 1, 2006, pp. 59–87. doi: 10.1080/ 07491409.2006.10757628. Pellow, David Naguib. What Is Critical Environmental Justice? Polity, 2018. Pezzullo, Phaedra C. Toxic Tourism: Rhetorics of Pollution, Travel, and Environmental Justice. U of Alabama P, 2007. ———. “Contaminated Children: Debating the Banality, Precarity, and Futurity of Chemical Safety.” Resilience: A Journal of the Environmental Humanities, vol. 1, no. 2, 2014, pp. 1–21. doi: 10.5250/resilience.1.2.004. Pezzullo, Phaedra C., and Catalina M. de Onís. “Rethinking Rhetorical Field Methods on a Precarious Planet.” Communication Monographs, vol. 85, no. 1, pp. 103–22. doi: 10.1080/03637751.2017.1336780. Phillips, Joshua D., and Rachel Alicia Griffin. “Crystal Mangum as Hypervisible Object and Invisible Subject: Black Feminist Thought, Sexual Violence, and the Pedagogical Repercussions of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case.” Women’s Studies in Communication, vol. 38, no. 1, 2015, pp. 36–56. doi: 10.1080/ 07491409.2014.964896. Ray, Sarah Jaquette, and Jay Sibara. Disability Studies and the Environmental Humanities: Toward an Eco-Crip Theory. U of Nebraska P, 2017. Roberts, Dorothy. Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 1999. Roberts, Lynn, Loretta Ross and M. Bahati Kuumba. “The Reproductive Health and Sexual Rights of Women of Color: Still Building a Movement.” NWSA Journal, vol. 17, no. 1, 2005, pp. 93–98. doi: 10.2979/NWS.2005.17.1.93. Sandler, Ronald, and Phaedra C. Pezzullo. Environmental Justice and Environmentalism: The Social Justice Challenge to the Environmental Movement. MIT Press, 2007. Shadaan, Reena.“Maternal Activism in the International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal (ICJB), India.” Mothering in the Age of Neoliberalism, edited by Melinda Vandenbeld Giles, Demeter Press, 2014, pp. 343–354. Shiva, Vandana. Water Wars: Privatization, Pollution, and Profit. South End Press, 2002. Silliman, Jael, et al. Undivided Rights: Women of Color Organize for Reproductive Justice. South End Press, 2004. SisterSong. “What Is Reproductive Justice?” www.sistersong.net/. Accessed 3 Sept. 2017. Smith, Andrea.“Beyond Pro-Choice Versus Pro-Life: Women of Color and Reproductive Justice.” NWSA Journal, vol. 17, no. 1, 2005, pp. 119–40. http://web.clark.edu/ssendak/ws%20 web%20stuff/readings/ beyond%20pro-choice%20versus%20pro-life.pdf. Sowards, Stacey K. “Rhetorical Agency as Haciendo Caras and Differential Consciousness through Lens of Gender, Race, Ethnicity, and Class: An Examination of Dolores Huerta’s Rhetoric.” Communication Theory, vol. 20, 2010, pp. 223–47. doi: 10.1111/j.1468–2885.2010.01361.x. Sowards, Stacey K. “Bordering Through Place/s, Difference/s, and Language/s: Intersections of Border and Feminist Theories.” Women’s Studies in Communication, vol. 42, no. 2, 2019, pp. 120–24. doi: 10.1080/07491409.2019.1605131. Stearney, Lynn M. “Feminism, Ecofeminism, and the Maternal Archetype: Motherhood as a Feminine Universal.” Communication Quarterly, vol. 42, no. 2, 1994, pp. 145–59. Steingraber, Sandra. Raising Elijah: Protecting Our Children in an Age of Environmental Crisis. Da Capo Press, 2011. Stevenson, Judith. “ ‘The Mamas Were Ripe”: Ideologies of Motherhood and Public Resistance in a South African Township.” Feminist Formations, 23, no. 2 (2011): 132–163. doi: 10.1353/ff.2011.0027. Sturgeon, Noël. “Penguin Family Values: The Nature of Planetary Environmental Reproductive Justice.” Queer Ecologies: Sex, Nature, Politics, Desire, edited by Catriona Mortimer-Sandilands and Bruce Erickson, Indiana UP, 2010, pp. 102–33. Sze, Julie. “Asian American Activism for Environmental Justice.” Peace Review, vol. 16, no. 2, 2004, pp. 149– 56. doi: 10.1080/1040265042000237680. ———. “Boundaries and Border Wars: DES, Technology, and Environmental Justice.” American Quarterly, vol. 58, no. 3. 2006, pp. 791–814. doi: 10.1353/aq.2006.0070. ———. “Denormalizing Embodied Toxicity: The Case of Kettleman City.” Racial Ecologies, edited by LeiLani Nishime and Kim Hester-Williams. University of Washington Press, 2018, pp. 107–122. Taylor, Dorceta E. “The State of Diversity in Environmental Organizations: Mainstream NGOs, Foundations, and Government Agencies.” Green 2.0, 2014. http://diversegreen.org/wp-content/uploads/ sites/4/2014/07/FullReport_Green2.0_FINAL.pdf.

508

Reproductive and environmental justice Walker, Connie. Missing and Murdered. www.cbc.ca/missingandmurdered/podcast. Weaver, Jace. Defending Mother Earth. Orbis Books, 1996. Weintraub, Pamela. Cure Unknown: Inside the Lyme Epidemic. St. Martin’s Press, 2008. Women’s Earth and Climate Action Network. “15 Indigenous Women on the Frontlines of the Dakota Access Pipeline Resistance.” Ecowatch.com. www.ecowatch.com/indigenous-women-dakota-accesspipeline-2069613663.html.

509

41 MOTHERHOOD AND THE STRUGGLE FOR REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE Natalie Fixmer-Oraiz

To ensure that all people and all families have the opportunity to thrive, our political platforms must be intersectional, so that the most marginalized are centered and our whole lives are honored. – Monica Simpson, Executive Director of SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective

Introduction The capacity for all people to decide whether, when, and with whom to create a family in safety and dignity hinges on reproductive justice. The concept of reproductive justice emerges from the lives and experiences of women of color, and, more specifically, from the organizing and theorizing of black women in the United States. Integrating reproductive rights into a broader vision of social justice in novel and generative ways, reproductive justice provides both a critical framework and an organizing strategy that has fundamentally reshaped feminist struggles for reproductive health, access, and rights within the United States and, increasingly, in transnational settings as well. What follows is an overview of the history of reproductive justice, its central tenets and principles, and the defining challenges and horizons of possibility for the early twenty-first century.

Historical perspectives on reproductive justice While the term reproductive justice was not coined until 1994, its guiding tenets are evident in early struggles of black, indigenous, and Latinx feminists against reproductive oppression and subsequent challenges to pro-choice frameworks of privacy and individualism (Ross). The language of choice dominated movements for reproductive rights from the 1960s forward (Condit; Ginsburg). These movements centered almost exclusively on compulsory motherhood and the right to decide not to bear children – the rhetoric of choice or “right to choose” – a bias that reflects how white, middle-class women’s experiences shaped mainstream reproductive rights advocacy. “Choice” failed to resonate with the lives and experiences of many women marginalized by race, class, ability, sexuality, immigration, and/or nation (Davis; Ross and Solinger; Silliman et al.); in short, the rhetoric of choice shores up privilege while eliding 510

The struggle for reproductive justice

cultural difference (de Onís). As legal scholar Dorothy Roberts explains, choice promotes a negative conception of liberty in which freedom is reduced to an absence of restrictions. Choice thus fails to address structural conditions that render meaningful options more or less available (Roberts). The histories of women marginalized within heteronuclear white supremacist culture reveal institutionalized efforts to punish or deny motherhood to women who desire it (Solinger); these same women are also more vulnerable to state refusal “to ensure the social conditions and resources necessary for self-determination and autonomous decision making” (Roberts 309). In short, “choice” has been rightly critiqued for centering elite women, which undermines its inability to secure reproductive freedom and dignity for all. The quest for reproductive justice arises from this insight and interrogates contemporary politics with an intersectional lens – one that can account for the complexity of identity, multiple forms of displacement, and the interlocking nature of oppression (Chávez and Griffin). Unprecedented and autonomous organizing for reproductive rights by women of color flourished in the 1980s and 1990s (Ross; Silliman et al.). In 1994, following the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo and deeply informed by insights gleaned in collaboration with feminists of the Global South, a small alliance of black women organized a caucus at a large pro-choice conference in Chicago. They worked to develop an intersectional framework specific to US contexts that could better account for reproductive oppression and integrate reproductive rights into a holistic vision of social justice. As Loretta Ross, a key figure in the movement for reproductive justice and one of the twelve women assembled in Chicago that day, recollects: “The twelve Black women at the pro-choice conference in 1994 collectively questioned the primacy of abortion, but not its necessity. We placed ourselves in the center of our analysis and made the case that while abortion was a crucial resource for us, we also needed health care, education, jobs, day care, and the right to motherhood” (Ross and Solinger 64). From this, reproductive justice was named and theorized. Acceptance of reproductive justice as a critical framework was not instantaneous but ebbed and flowed in the decade that followed. The term appeared in a signature ad in the Washington Post, and principles of reproductive justice were integrated into the unifying framework of the SisterSong collective.1 Reproductive justice was used to organize a national SisterSong conference in 2003, where leading advocates – including Luz Alvarez Martinez, Dorothy Roberts, Loretta Ross, Malika Saada Saar, Jael Silliman, and Barbara Smith – participated in conference sessions dedicated to elaborating the term and sketching out its organizing principles (Ross). In 2004, the grassroots coalition Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice (recently renamed Forward Together) was the first to fold the concept of reproductive justice into its organizational title. From the start, this coalition worked diligently to advance the intersectional framework and politics of reproductive justice, including through the publication of a vision paper that continues to inform movement politics to this day (Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice; Simpson). Led by the visionary work of US-based feminists of color, reproductive justice has increasingly informed mainstream US organizing and advocacy efforts, although not without conflict. The 2004 March for Women’s Lives provides an early example of shifting terminology and frameworks, as women of color-led organizations successfully urged a replacement of “choice” with “women’s lives” in the official title of the demonstration (Hayden; Simpson). This renaming was remarkably successful in expanding the coalition of organizations at the center of the March, as well as the grassroots mobilization that followed. On April 25, 2004, the March for Women’s Lives coalition brought over 1.15 million people to Washington, DC. In a stunning display of intersectional advocacy and solidarity, this march remains one of the largest marches in US history to date, second only to the 2017 Women’s March that followed the inauguration of Donald Trump. 511

Natalie Fixmer-Oraiz

Despite its theorizing and development within US organizations led by women of color, the framework of reproductive justice is not exclusive to US contexts. Scholars have used the framework of reproductive ethics and justice to address questions that straddle borders, such as those raised by globalization, transnational gestational surrogacy, and international adoption (Bailey; Chrisler; Price; Shapiro). Given its critical approach to globalization and its intersectional ethic, the framework of reproductive justice may also prove useful within particular communities and locales across the globe (Chrisler; Price). And, of course, as mentioned earlier, the initial articulation between reproductive rights and social justice was encouraged by feminists of color collaborating across borders of region and nation at the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo. In this setting, feminists drew on familiar human rights frameworks to challenge dominant policies that advanced access to birth control and abortion through the logic of population control – evident, for example, in international aid that incentivized sterilization by attaching it to other critical health services. Subsequent conventions hosted by the United Nations have adopted positions influenced by reproductive justice advocacy – promoting gender equality, women’s empowerment, and maternal health as key components of reproductive health.

Central definitions and themes Reproductive justice is widely understood to mean the right to determine whether, when, and with whom one creates family, in safety and with dignity. It centers three values: “(1) the right not to have a child; (2) the right to have a child; and (3) the right to parent children in safe and healthy environments” (Ross and Solinger 65, emphasis original). I will draw on this definition to elaborate the themes of reproductive justice. First, to expand on whether one creates family, reproductive justice includes the right not to have a child. This core principle has long resided at the heart of feminist organizing, whether under the banner of voluntary motherhood, family planning, or reproductive choice (Gordon). It is a principle that highlights access to compassionate and comprehensive health care – including abortion and birth control – as well as medically accurate sex education and sexually transmitted infection (STI) treatment. The capacity to freely decide not to have a child also includes freedom from compulsory motherhood as an institution (Rich), as well as from related forms of reproductive violence – whether interpersonal in nature (e.g., date rape or intimate partner abuse) or authorized by the state (e.g., refusal of critical health care services). The right not to have a child also demands a fuller, richer account of personhood/womanhood that refuses to conflate womanhood with pregnancy, childbirth, or mothering – a move that is perhaps just as important to childfree cisgender women (Rich; Safer) as it is to trans and gender nonconforming people who carry, birth, and parent children outside of gender binaries. In addition, reproductive justice champions the right to have a child. Foregrounding this principle highlights the experiences of marginalized women and communities – immigrants, people of color, indigenous citizens, working- and poverty-class peoples, LGBTQ folk, young and/or single mothers, people with disabilities, and incarcerated peoples, to name a few. Examples of state interference in the right to have a child abound, enmeshed with eugenic logics that have long deemed some too “feeble-minded” or “unfit” to parent. Early state investments in family planning services were largely about population control – distributing birth control to impoverished communities and communities of color in lieu of a range of critical health and public services (Davis; Gordon). Sterilization abuse in the United States was widespread throughout most of the twentieth century; state programs targeted mostly black, Latinx, Asian, and Indigenous communities, as well as immigrants, inmates, people with disabilities, poor 512

The struggle for reproductive justice

people, and unmarried women (Smith; Stern). This form of reproductive violence persists in more recent history as well – from 2006 to 2010, the state of California forcibly sterilized nearly 150 incarcerated women, until investigative reporting generated public outcry and condemnation (Ko; Liss-Schultz). In short, the right to have a child insists on a fundamental recognition of the dignity of all humans and families, including, as Deborah Reid notes: “the obligation of the government and larger society to create laws, policies, and systems conducive to supporting [a range of reproductive] decisions” (quoted in Ko). The right to have a child also includes comprehensive health care access, including treatment for STIs, fertility assistance, and prenatal and postpartum care for all. The disproportionate impact of infertility on low-income communities and people of color has been traced to a paucity of health care services, which can result in long-term reproductive health damage. Relatedly, low-income people and people of color are more likely to suffer from infertility than their wealthy, white peers (Greil et al.). Still, no public assistance program in the United States to date supports treatment for infertility and the US fertility industry lacks federal oversight, regulation, and standardization. Access to fertility treatment as the exclusive purview of the social and economic elite remains a largely unchecked assumption of US American life. Compounding the health access disparities that shape fertility politics, the United States has the worst maternal morality rate in the developed world – a rate that is steadily on the rise, whereas rates in other countries have declined due to concerted, coordinated efforts to deliver high-quality care to new and expectant birthing parents (Martin and Montagne, “U.S. Has the Worst Rate”). Black women in the United States are three to four times more likely than their white peers to die from complications related to pregnancy or childbirth (Martin and Montagne, “Black Mothers Keep Dying”). This statistic reflects a lethal convergence of medical racism, obstetric violence, and the cultural devaluation of black women’s lives that Dána-Ain Davis recently termed “obstetric racism” (Davis). Most maternal deaths are preventable; high maternal mortality thus reflects a range of unjust conditions in dire need of redress (Davis; Ellison and Martin). Second, the question of reproductive justice pivots not only on the right to decide whether but also when one creates family. Possessing some degree of control over timing requires access to safe, reliable birth control and abortion care. But a reproductive justice framework invites additional considerations that impact the capacity of individuals and couples to make empowered decisions about when they might wish to create or expand family; such conditions include economic security, relationship recognition, decent childcare, and paid parental leave. In short, a commitment to reproductive justice is a commitment to working for livable wages, humane working conditions, educational opportunity and access, LGBTQ rights, and affordable housing, childcare, and health care for all. Moreover, in the absence of these conditions, a reproductive justice framework recognizes that for some young women in particular, the decision to become a parent is an adaptive response to poverty – a means of ensuring the support of extended family in the early years of a child’s life, as well as a way to make life meaningful while providing a powerful motivator for the pursuit of education and decent employment (Edin and Kefalas; Roberts). Thus, reproductive justice includes also the empowerment of young (“aka teen”) parents – and in particular, young mothers – as well as support for the social services and resources necessary for their well-being and success (Young Women United). The right to determine with whom one creates family broadens the stakes of reproductive justice in myriad, important ways. For one, it challenges the privilege accorded heteronuclear family formation and asserts the inherent dignity and worth of single-parent and LGBTQ families. Policies that, for example, bar single parents from fertility treatment or adoption or those that deny legal recognition of parenthood based on sexual orientation or gender identity fall squarely within the parameters of reproductive injustice. 513

Natalie Fixmer-Oraiz

And as a more capacious understanding of family comes into view, reproductive justice advocates must grapple with matters related to adoption, fostering, surrogacy, and the use of donor gametes – issues that invariably entail issues of reproductive ethics and rights. Centering affirmative decision-making that is both free from coercion and predicated on adequate resources, feminists and reproductive justice advocates are increasingly called to respond to long-standing forms of injustice within foster care and the adoption industry (Briggs, Somebody’s Children; Choy; Cornell; Grimes; Solinger). This is an area of research and advocacy that increasingly demands our attention. Reforms inflected by reproductive justice might include, for example, better services (e.g., food stamps, childcare) for underresourced families so that the decision to surrender a child for adoption is not coerced by social, political, or economic circumstance. Additionally, a reproductive justice ethic would include reforms to adoption policy; for example, fighting for legal enforceability of open adoption arrangements that, at present, often leave birth parents with no legal recourse should adoptive parents decide to cut ties (Grimes). The industry of assisted reproduction demands similar critical attention – not only to ensure just access to services but also to consider the limits of reproductive economies to buy, sell, donate, or gift human tissue and labor (Bailey; Daniels and Heidt-Forsythe; Fixmer-Oraiz, “Speaking of Solidarity”; Jaiswal; Pfeffer). Finally, reproductive justice demands also a challenge to the cultural premiums placed on particular family forms, questioning the privilege assigned to biogenetics, as well as whiteness, wealth, and straight two-parent households. The final theme that characterizes the reproductive justice framework is the right to create a family in dignity, in safety, and free from violence. This final principle underscores the uneven distribution of environmental hazards and state violence. In the United States, women in general, and particularly low-income women and women of color, shoulder a disproportionate number of environmental burdens (e.g., residing closer to toxic waste or suffering lack of access to clean water) and are less likely to possess the time, resources, and political capital necessary to change such conditions. African American and Native children are overrepresented in the child welfare system; poor mothers of color are far more likely to lose their children to foster care – not for abuse or neglect but simply because they are poor. Black and brown families are far more likely to be violently severed by incarceration and police brutality, not just in the United States but in other nations as well. These forms of injustice remain central to the ethic of reproductive justice, building on the powerful legacies of feminists of color who have led transformative movements against these violences – from anti-lynching campaigns to environmental justice advocacy to Black Lives Matter.

Challenges related to motherhood and reproductive justice The challenges to reproductive justice are varied and profound. First, current social, political, and economic climates render the work of reproductive and maternal justice difficult at best. In many regions of the world, efforts to address the issues discussed earlier occur in the context of diminishing or impoverished access to health care in general and reproductive health care specifically. For example, the Guttmacher Institute estimates that in 2017 pregnancy and childbirth complications claimed the lives of 308,000 women in developing nations and, relatedly, 2.7 million infants (Guttmacher Institute, “Adding It Up”). Most of these deaths are entirely preventable through contraceptive, prenatal, and maternal health care. The World Health Organization approximates that 45% of abortions worldwide are unsafe; the vast majority of unsafe abortions occur in developing nations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America (Guttmacher Institute and World Health Organization). And while most wealthy and/or Western nations continue to improve steadily on matters related to reproductive health, troubling trends 514

The struggle for reproductive justice

in the United States indicate that a range of reproductive health care services are eroding due to political hostility and deepening health care access disparities (Guttmacher Institute, “The Number of States”; Martin and Montagne, “U.S. Has the Worst Rate”; Martin and Montagne, “Focus on Infants”). Pregnant women in the United States are increasingly likely to face state punishment, including incarceration and involuntary commitment, for failing to provide the optimal uterine environment for fetal development – from falling down a flight of stairs to struggling against addiction or refusing a caesarean (Fixmer-Oraiz, Homeland Maternity; Paltrow and Flavin). Moreover, in communities across the globe, climate change continues to diminish the capacity of reproductive justice advocates to ensure safe environments for families and communities – and particularly for impoverished communities, island nations, and countries of the Global South. Second, reproductive justice hinges on capacious and radical coalition building (Briggs, How All Politics; Ross and Solinger). Building effective political coalitions has long troubled mainstream pro-choice organizing, often due to dominant understandings of abortion as a political lightening rod and the reticence of potential coalition partners to adopt a “pro-choice” position. That said, the necessity of coalition is one of the pivotal possibilities posed by the reproductive justice framework. With the leadership of women of color, and articulated in relationship to a range of social justice struggles that include police brutality, LGBTQ rights, global justice, living wages, and environmental justice (to name a few), the movement for reproductive justice offers a fresh set of possibilities for organizing from intersectional, multi-issue perspectives and establishing strong ties to a range of concerns. As reproductive justice continues to gain traction, it must respond with greater attention and accountability to those issues currently marginalized even within the framework of reproductive justice; for example, the need for adoption industry reform and/or greater attention to the needs of trans and nonbinary communities (Briggs, How All Politics; Ross and Solinger). Another challenge to working across difference is closer to home, so to speak. Long-standing tensions between mainstream pro-choice and reproductive justice communities persist (de Onís; Simpson) and constrain advocacy efforts across race, class, sexuality, nation, and other forms of cultural differences. For example, dominant media coverage of reproductive justice recently credited organizations like Planned Parenthood for the shift in terminology and frameworks. As Monica Simpson, the executive director of SisterSong, wrote in an open letter to Planned Parenthood: “The recent exclusion of the long-term work of scores of reproductive justice organizations, activists, and researchers that have challenged the ‘pro-choice’ label for 20 years . . . is not only disheartening but, intentionally or not, continues the co-optation and erasure of the tremendously hard work done by Indigenous women and women of color for decades” (Simpson, par. 1). Delivering on the promise of reproductive justice will necessitate that movement leadership remain grounded in feminist of color organizing, analysis, and recognition. Lastly, and of particular concern for scholars of mothers/motherhood, there are some fundamental tensions that characterize the relationship between motherhood and reproductive justice itself. For one, maternal appeals have wielded remarkable political power in a variety of contexts, from environmental advocacy to racial justice and anti-war activism (see Hayden, this volume). Addressing these matters is, as reproductive justice advocates note, integral to making safety and dignity in parenting possible. And yet, there remains a dearth of critical attention to reproductive justice within much mainstream advocacy and organizing for mothers, families, children, and communities (Fixmer-Oraiz, Homeland Maternity). Issues of sex, sexuality, birth control, and abortion are often stigmatized; as such, even those sympathetic to reproductive health and justice find it politically expedient to advance a narrower agenda, excluding issues that may trigger emotional public response or outcry. As such, even organizations and advocates dedicated to 515

Natalie Fixmer-Oraiz

families and children often refuse to engage reproductive justice as integral to community, family, and individual health and well-being. Indeed, to square the concept of reproductive justice with motherhood demands a substantive rethinking of motherhood itself, if not a direct challenge to its traditional formation and cultural attachments. It calls for challenging mythic dichotomies between so-called good and bad mothers (Hundley and Hayden; Shome) and for a celebration of “revolutionary mothering” as possible, powerful, and necessary (Gumbs et al.). Moreover, to the extent that reproductive justice is predicated on a human rights framework, the personhood of those who bear and parent children is of profound and central significance. In addition to questioning parochial conflations of womanhood and motherhood, this intersectional framework also urges that we attend to the forms of reproductive injustice fueled by homophobia and transphobia. We might consider, for example, how to embrace gender-inclusive language in birthing contexts and work to address the dearth of culturally-competent health care for trans and nonbinary birthers. Reproductive justice is, in short, a powerful critical framework and organizing tool for the work ahead.

Directions for future research Directions for future research might address some of these challenges and should aim to explore areas currently undertheorized and/or of ongoing cultural salience and significance. These horizons would include, for example: adoption as a matter of reproductive justice; attention to the unique challenges facing trans, nonbinary, and/or queer parents; the rights and dignity of young parents/mothers; the politics of reproductive technologies; the global trafficking and commercialization of reproductive body parts and tissues; troubling trends in the policing and surveillance of pregnant and parenting individuals; and the increasing valuation of fetal life at the expense of those who carry and bear that life.

Further reading Arons, Jessica. “More than a Choice: A Progressive Vision for Reproductive Health and Rights.” Center for American Progress Women’s Health Leadership Network, 2006. Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice. A New Vision for Advancing Our Movement for Reproductive Health, Reproductive Rights and Reproductive Justice. Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice, 2005, http://forwardtogether.org/assets/docs/ACRJ-A-New-Vision.pdf. Roberts, Dorothy. Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty. Pantheon Books, 1997. Ross, Loretta, and Rickie Solinger. Reproductive Justice: An Introduction. U of California P, 2017. Silliman, Jael, et al. Undivided Rights: Women of Color Organize for Reproductive Justice. South End Press, 2004. Solinger, Rickie. Pregnancy and Power: A Short History of Reproductive Politics in America. New York UP, 2005.

Conclusion The rich tradition of scholarship that centers mothers and mothering has much to offer reproductive justice as a critical framework, and vice versa. For one, motherhood studies offers critical insight into motherhood as a political and cultural institution, one that is historically contingent and subject to challenge and change. Additionally, an ethic of reproductive justice insists on the dignity and well-being of all who birth and parent children, just as it refuses the conflation of womanhood and motherhood. Finally, at the nexus of these two bodies of literature lies an eminent horizon – the invitation to generate radical theory and possibility from the margins, insisting emphatically on the liberation of marginalized parents and a transformative justice that includes us all. 516

The struggle for reproductive justice

Note 1 SisterSong was founded in 1997 as a coalition of sixteen autonomous women of color-led organizations “from four mini-communities (Native American, African American, Latina, and Asian American) who recognized that we have the right and responsibility to represent ourselves and our communities, and the equally compelling need to advance the perspectives and needs of women of color” (SisterSong). Originally founded as the SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Health Collective, reproductive justice is now integrated into the title of the coalition as the SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective (Ross).

Works cited Arons, Jessica. More than a Choice: A Progressive Vision for Reproductive Health and Rights. Center for American Progress Women’s Health Leadership Network, 2006, pp. 1–35. Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice. A New Vision for Advancing Our Movement for Reproductive Health, Reproductive Rights and Reproductive Justice. Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice, 2005, http://forwardtogether.org/assets/docs/ACRJ-A-New-Vision.pdf. Bailey, Alison. “Reconceiving Surrogacy: Toward a Reproductive Justice Account of Indian Surrogacy.” Hypatia, vol. 26, no. 4, 2011, pp. 715–41. Briggs, Laura. Somebody’s Children: The Politics of Transracial and Transnational Adoption. Duke UP, 2012. ———. How All Politics Became Reproductive Politics: From Welfare Reform to Foreclosure to Trump. U of California P, 2017. Chávez, Karma R., and Cindy L. Griffin, editors. Standing in the Intersection: Feminist Voices, Feminist Practices in Communication Studies. State U of New York P, 2012. Choy, Catherine Ceniza. Global Families: A History of Asian International Adoption in America. New York UP, 2013. Chrisler, Joan C., editor. Reproductive Justice: A Global Concern. Praeger, 2012. Condit, Celeste. Decoding Abortion Rhetoric: Communicating Social Change. U of Illinois P, 1990. Cornell, Drucilla. “Reimagining Adoption and Family Law.” Maternal Theory: Essential Readings, edited by Andrea O’Reilly, Demeter Press, 2007, pp. 556–73. Daniels, Cynthia R., and Erin Heidt-Forsythe. “Gendered Eugenics and the Problematic of Free Market Reproductive Technologies: Sperm and Egg Donation in the United States.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, vol. 37, no. 3, Mar. 2012, pp. 719–47. Davis, Angela Y. Women, Race, and Class. Vintage Books, 1983. Davis, Dána-Ain. “Obstetric Racism: The Racial Politics of Pregnancy, Labor, and Birthing.” Medical Anthropology: Cross-Cultural Studies in Health and Illness, 2018, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/ 10.1080/01459740.2018.1549389 de Onís, Kathleen M. “Lost in Translation: Challenging (White, Monolingual Feminism’s) with Justicia Reproductiva.” Women’s Studies in Communication, vol. 38, no. 1, 2015, pp. 1–19. Edin, Kathryn, and Maria Kefalas. Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood before Marriage. U of California P, 2005. Ellison, Katherine, and Nina Martin. “Nearly Dying in Childbirth: Why Preventable Complications Are Growing in U.S.” NPR.Org, 22 Dec. 2017, www.npr.org/2017/12/22/572298802/nearly-dying-inchildbirth-why-preventable-complications-are-growing-in-u-s. Fixmer-Oraiz, Natalie. “Speaking of Solidarity: Surrogacy and the Rhetorics of Reproductive (in)Justice.” Frontiers: A Journal of Women’s Studies, vol. 34, no. 3, 2013, pp. 126–64. ———. Homeland Maternity: U.S. Security Culture and the New Reproductive Regime. U of Illinois P, 2019. Ginsburg, Faye D. Contested Lives: The Abortion Debate in an American Community. U of California P, 1998. Gordon, Linda. The Moral Property of Women: A History of Birth Control Politics in America. U of Illinois P, 2007. Greil, Arthur L., et al. “Race-Ethnicity and Medical Services for Infertility: Stratified Reproduction in a Population-Based Sample of U.S. Women.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior, vol. 52, no. 4, Dec. 2011, pp. 493–509. Grimes, Andrea. “Why Adoption Needs to Play a Bigger Role in the Reproductive Justice Conversation.” Rewire, 4 Oct. 2013, https://rewire.news/article/2013/10/04/why-adoption-needs-to-play-a-biggerrole-in-the-reproductive-justice-conversation/. Gumbs, Alexis Pauline, et al., editors. Revolutionary Mothering: Love on the Front Lines. PM Press, 2016.

517

Natalie Fixmer-Oraiz Guttmacher Institute. “The Number of States Considered Hostile to Abortion Skyrocketed between 2000 and 2014.” Guttmacher Institute, 12 Nov. 2015, www.guttmacher.org/infographic/2015/number-statesconsidered-hostile-abortion-skyrocketed-between-2000-and-2014. ———. “Adding It Up: Investing in Contraception and Maternal and Newborn Health, 2017.” Guttmacher Institute, 21 June 2017, www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/adding-it-up-contraception-mnh-2017. Guttmacher Institute, and World Health Organization.“Worldwide, an Estimated 25 Million Unsafe Abortions Occur Each Year.” Guttmacher Institute, 25 Sept. 2017, www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2017/ worldwide-estimated-25-million-unsafe-abortions-occur-each-year. Hayden, Sara. “Revitalizing the Debate between and : The 2004 March for Women’s Lives.” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, vol. 6, no. 2, 2009, pp. 111–31. Hundley, Heather L., and Sara E. Hayden, editors. Mediated Moms: Contemporary Challenges to the Motherhood Myth. Peter Lang, 2016. Jaiswal, Sreeja. “Commercial Surrogacy in India: An Ethical Assessment of Existing Legal Scenario from the Perspective of Women’s Autonomy and Reproductive Rights.” Gender Technology and Development, vol. 16, no. 1, 2012, pp. 1–28. Kerber, Linda K. Women of the Republic: Intellect and Ideology in Revolutionary America. U of North Carolina P, 1980. Ko, Lisa. “Unwanted Sterilization and Eugenics Programs in the United States.” PBS.Org, 29 Jan. 2016, www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/unwanted-sterilization-and-eugenics-programs-in-the-unitedstates/. Liss-Schultz, Nina. “California Legislature Votes to Ban Sterilization of Inmates.” Rewire, 22 Aug. 2014, https://rewire.news/article/2014/08/22/california-legislature-votes-ban-sterilization-inmates/. Martin, Nina, and Renee Montagne. “Black Mothers Keep Dying After Giving Birth.” NPR.Org, 7 Dec. 2017, www.npr.org/2017/12/07/568948782/black-mothers-keep-dying-after-giving-birthshalon-irvings-story-explains-why. ———. “Focus on Infants During Childbirth Leaves U.S. Moms in Danger.” NPR.Org, 12 Mar. 2017, www.npr.org/2017/05/12/527806002/focus-on-infants-during-childbirth-leaves-u-s-moms-in-danger. ———. “U.S. Has the Worst Rate of Maternal Deaths in the Developed World.” NPR.Org, 12 Mar. 2017, www.npr.org/2017/05/12/528098789/u-s-has-the-worst-rate-of-maternal-deaths-in-the-developedworld. May, Elaine Tyler. Homeward Bound: American Families during the Cold War Era. 20th anniversary edition, Basic Books, 2008. Paltrow, Lynn, and Jeanne Flavin. “Arrests of and Forced Interventions on Pregnant Women in the United States (1973–2005): The Implications for Women’s Legal Status and Public Health.” Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, vol. 38, no. 2, 2013, pp. 299–343. Pfeffer, Naomi. “Eggs-Ploiting Women: A Critical Feminist Analysis of the Different Principles in Transplant and Fertility Tourism.” Reproductive BioMedicine Online, vol. 23, no. 5, Nov. 2011, pp. 634–41. CrossRef. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.08.005. Price, Kimala. “What Is Reproductive Justice? How Women of Color Activists Are Redefining the ProChoice Paradigm.” Meridians: Feminism, Race, Transnationalism, vol. 10, no. 2, 2010, pp. 42–65. Rich, Adrienne. Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution. Tenth Anniversary, W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1986. Roberts, Dorothy. Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty. Pantheon Books, 1997. Ross, Loretta. Understanding Reproductive Justice. SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Health Collective, 2006, pp. 1–12. Ross, Loretta, and Rickie Solinger. Reproductive Justice: An Introduction. U of California P, 2017. Safer, Jeanne. Beyond Motherhood: Choosing a Life without Children. Pocket Books, 1996. Shapiro, Ester R. “Because Words Are Not Enough: Latina Re-Visionings of Transnational Collaborations Using Health Promotion for Gender Justice and Social Change.” NWSA Journal, vol. 17, no. 1, Mar. 2005, pp. 141–72. Shome, Raka. Diana and Beyond: White Femininity, National Identity, and Contemporary Media Culture. 1st ed., U of Illinois P, 2014. Silliman, Jael, et al. Undivided Rights: Women of Color Organize for Reproductive Justice. South End Press, 2004. Simpson, Monica. “Reproductive Justice and ‘Choice’: An Open Letter to Planned Parenthood.” Rewire, 5 Aug. 2014, https://rewire.news/article/2014/08/05/reproductive-justice-choice-open-letter-plannedparenthood/.

518

The struggle for reproductive justice Smith, Andrea. Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide. South End Press, 2005. Solinger, Rickie. Pregnancy and Power: A Short History of Reproductive Politics in America. New York UP, 2005. Stern, Alexandra. Eugenic Nation: Faults and Frontiers of Better Breeding in Modern America. 2nd ed., U of California P, 2016. Young Women United. Dismantling Teen Pregnancy Prevention. 2016, pp. 1–13, www.youngwomenunited. org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ywu-dismantlingtpp-may2016-digital.pdf.

519

CONTRIBUTORS

Margunn Bjørnholt is a research professor at the Norwegian Centre for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies. She is a sociologist and genders studies scholar, and also holds a degree in economics. Her research has focused on work–family adaptations, and changes over time and generations in men’s work – family practices and gender relations, social change, and migration. Her current research focuses on questions of gender, violence and power, including intimate partner violence and sexual and gender-based violence against women migrants and refugees. Her research has also spanned a number of other topics, including ethical banking, public sector management and organizational change, the welfare state, theories of care and social justice, human rights, and policy studies. Among her publications are Counting on Marilyn Waring: New Advances in Feminist Economics, co-edited with Ailsa McKay, published by Demeter Press, 2014. Simone Bohn is Associate Professor of Political Science at York University. Her research focuses on political parties in South America, gender and politics in Brazil, and the study of political tolerance and attitudes towards corruption in Latin America. She is the editor of Mothers in Public and Political Life (2017) and is currently working on SSHRC-funded research project entitled “Evaluating Strategic Political Partnerships: The Case of the Women’s Movement and the State in Contemporary Brazil.” Her articles have been published in scholarly journals, such as Politics and Government, Latin American Research Review, International Journal of Political Science, Journal of Latin American Politics, and Comparative Governance and Politics. Dr. Alicia D. Bonaparte is currently Associate Professor of Sociology at Pitzer College and trained as a medical sociologist with a specialization in reproductive health, health disparities, and female crime and deviance. Her research interests include the gendered social hierarchy within American medicine as well as the intersection of race and gender in health care practices and racial disparities. She is also co-editor of the anthology Birthing Justice: Black Women, Pregnancy, and Childbirth. Jennifer L. Borda is Associate Professor of Communication at the University of New Hampshire. She is author of Women Labor Activists in the Movies: Nine Depictions of Workplace Organizers, 1954–2005 (2010) and co-editor of the anthology The Motherhood Business: Consumption, Communication, and Privilege (2015). Her essays have been published in various anthologies and 520

Contributors

academic journals, including Text & Performance Quarterly, Feminist Media Studies, Women’s Studies in Communication, and Communication Quarterly. Her current research focuses on how discourse and ideologies about women, work, motherhood, and identity have been constructed and challenged through the mass media and online deliberation. Catherine Borshuk, PhD, is Professor of Social Psychology and member of the Women’s & Gender Studies Governing Board at Indiana University South Bend. She has researched and published on a number of social issues including immigrant acculturation, religious discrimination, social activism, community responses to domestic violence, and, most recently, on attitudes about sexual harassment. An award-winning instructor, she teaches classes on the psychology of women, including intimate partner violence and sexual assault, and has published articles on feminist pedagogy and transforming research methods curricula. A native of Windsor, Ontario, Canada, she completed her graduate studies at Carleton University in Ottawa before taking her current position in Indiana. Jennifer Brant, first and foremost a mother of two boys, belongs to the Kanien’kehá:ka (Mohawk Nation) with family ties to Six Nations of the Grand River Territory and Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory. Jennifer is an Assistant Professor at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. Jennifer’s dissertation entitled “Journeying toward a Praxis of Indigenous Maternal Pedagogy: Lessons from our Sweetgrass Baskets” provides insight into the value of a unique pedagogical approach as it relates to cultural identity development, ethical space, and academic success. Jennifer’s dissertation also presents her commitment to honour Indigenous worldviews, maternal histories, and storied lives through a reciprocal research engagement that rests within an ethical commitment to contribute to Indigenous community wellbeing and serves as a contribution to the advancement of Indigenous ways of knowing and being in academia. For Jennifer, working on “Forever Loved: Exposing the Hidden Crises of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls in Canada” was a call for an immediate and effective response to racialized and sexualized violence. Jennifer positions Indigenous literatures as powerful narratives that humanize Indigenous peoples through multiple calls for justice, and accountability and extends this revolutionary body of work to inspire resistance, rebirth and renewal. Rebecca Jaremko Bromwich is an Ontario lawyer and legal academic. She practices as a Crown Attorney and serves as the Director of the Graduate Diploma in Conflict Resolution Program at Carleton’s University’s Department of Law and Legal Studies. She has published several books and articles, including those developed from her PhD thesis, that engage questions of how women, girls, and especially girls are regulated formally under the law. She is also mother to four children. Catherine Bryan has a PhD in Social Anthropology from Dalhousie University and is currently an assistant professor at the Dalhousie School of Social Work where she teaches critical social theory, social policy, and research methods. She has conducted research in Canada and the Philippines, focusing primarily on the interconnected issues of gender, migration and mobility, and transnational family life, with the long-arm of capitalist political economy as a central theme. Her dissertation work explored the establishment of a small Filipino working class in rural Manitoba. More recently, she has turned her attention to the arrival of temporary foreign workers in fish processing in Atlantic Canada, and the encounter between those workers and longer-standing local labour in a context characterized by transition, volatility, and persistent precarity. 521

Contributors

Patrice M. Buzzanell (PhD, Purdue) is Chair and Professor of the Department of Communication at the University of South Florida and Endowed Visiting Professor for Shanghai Jiaotong University’s School of Media and Design. Fellow and past president of the International Communication Association (ICA), she served as president of the Council of Communication Associations and the Organization for the Study of Communication, Language and Gender (OSCLG). She is a National Communication Association Distinguished Scholar and OSCLG Wise Woman. Her research and funding focus on gendered career, work-life policy, resilience, and engineering design. She has published: 4 edited books; over 210 journal articles, chapters, and encyclopedia entries; and numerous engineering education proceedings. She received ICA’s B. Aubrey Fisher Mentorship Award and the Provost’s Outstanding Mentor Award at Purdue, where she was a University Distinguished Professor and Endowed Chair and Director of the Susan Bulkeley Butler Center for Leadership Excellence. Myrel Chernick is an artist and writer living in New York City. Beginning in the late 1970s, she created text-based multimedia installations and videotapes that have been shown nationally and internationally, at venues such as Artists Space, PS I, and the Whitney Museum at Equitable Center, the List Gallery at MIT, Videopool galleries in Winnipeg, Canada, and the International Cultural Center in Antwerp, Belgium. She developed and curated the exhibit Maternal Metaphors, presented at the Rochester Contemporary Art Center in 2004. An expanded version, co-curated with Jennie Klein, was shown at Ohio University in 2006. Their comprehensive anthology The M Word: Real Mothers in Contemporary Art was published in 2011 by Demeter Press. Chernick has been the recipient of National Endowment and New York State Artist Fellowships and has lectured widely on her work. She is currently developing a site-specific multimedia installation as well as writing and illustrating a hybrid novel. Karen T. Craddock is an applied psychologist and trainer-coach concentrating on the sociocultural context and relational frameworks that center on issues of equity and wellness, leadership and partnership, and capacity building across sectors. Explorations of psycho-social functioning, culture, and creativity include race/gender intersectionality, models of optimal resistance and resilience, social-emotional learning, emotional intelligence, and the neuroscience of inclusion. Craddock is a visiting scholar at the Wellesley College Centers for Women and currently collaborates on research and practice to advance mental health and well-being in multiple settings. She is co-leading innovative initiatives to reimagine wellness models and complementary learning platforms that engage providers, parents, and community. Among her writing and editing include Black Motherhoods: Contours, Contexts and Considerations and Transforming Community: Stories of Connection through the Lens of Relational-Cultural Theory. She is a tribal member/chair of the Wampanoag Women’s Center of Aquinnah, and steering member/chair of the equity and inclusion committee for the Social-Emotional Learning Alliance for Massachusetts. (EdM, Harvard University; PhD, Tufts University). Catalina M. de Onís is an Assistant Professor in Willamette University’s Department of Civic Communication and Media in Salem, Oregon. Her teaching and research focus on rhetorical studies, environmental and health communication, energy colonialism, reproductive justice, coalitional politics, and instructional communication. Her essays appear in the Journal of Applied Communication Research, Communication Monographs, Communication Theory, Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, Women’s Studies in Communication, and Women & Language, as well as in several edited collections. In collaboration with an interdisciplinary group of undergraduates, she organizes La Chispa, an environmental justice coalition on Willamette 522

Contributors

University’s campus. Her essay is dedicated to the inspiring and fierce women who she has had the honor of knowing, working with, and learning from in Puerto Rico, especially Ruth “Tata” Santiago. Gracias y siempre en la lucha. Patty Douglas is an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Education at Brandon University, Manitoba, Canada. She researches and teaches in critical approaches to mothering and care, disability studies, critical autism studies and inclusive education using arts-informed, interpretive, post-structuralist and post-humanist approaches. Douglas’s work with teachers, families and autistic persons seeks to imagine and enact more liberatory health and education systems beyond deficit approaches to embodied difference. Douglas is a former special education teacher in Toronto, Canada, and lives with her two sons, one of whom attracted the label of autism. More information can be found at: www.enactingautisminclusion.ca @DougladPatricia. Gordana Eljdupovic, PhD, C. Psych., is a clinical and forensic psychologist who works regularly with clients facing multiple and complex traumas stemming from intersectional oppressions involving gender, racial, and economic factors. Having done clinical work with incarcerated women in a Canadian prison for a number of years, Dr. Eljdupovic gained experience working with survivors of intergenerational transmission of trauma. She has extensive research and clinical experience examining issues of motherhood for both incarcerated and non-incarcerated women. She is a co-editor of a book entitled Incarcerated Mothers: Oppression and Resistance published in 2013. She is a member of the Ontario Psychological Association and is registered with the Ontario College of Psychologists. She was born in Belgrade, Serbia, and lives and works in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Dr. Linda Rose Ennis is a psychoanalytic therapist in private practice, a family mediator, an author, and lecturer. She has written and spoken extensively on her research in her area of expertise, “On Combining Motherhood with Employment,” which was the first qualitative piece done in this area. She has, more recently, written contributions in the Encyclopedia of Motherhood, discussing the “empty nest,” the “mommy track,” and has contributed a chapter entitled “Contract-Faculty Mothers: On the Track to Nowhere” in O’Brien Hallstein and O’Reilly’s book entitled Academic Motherhood in a Post-Second Wave Context (2012). Recently, she has published her edited collection, Intensive Mothering: The Cultural Contradictions of Modern Motherhood (2014) and then, her new work entitled, After the Happily Ever After: Empowering Women & Mothers in Relationships (2017). Gloria Filax (PhD, University of Alberta) retired in 2018. Dr. Filax taught for 17 years in the area of Equality and Social Justice (gender, sexuality, critical disability studies, youth studies, educational studies, critical race studies) in the Master of Arts Programme, Faculty of Arts, Athabasca University and was a visiting professor for teaching gender, sexuality, and violence courses in the Master’s in Gender and Peace Building, University for Peace (UN Sanctioned), Costa Rica. Publications include Queer Youth in the Province of the Severely Normal as well as two edited books Disabled Mothers, co-edited with Dena Taylor and How Canadians Communicate III: Contexts of Canadian Popular Culture. Gloria spends her retirement time with her partner, granddaughter, as well as doing grassroots social justice work, meditating, and yoga. Melinda Vandenbeld Giles is a lecturer in Anthropology and English at Lakehead University. Her research focuses on neoliberalism, public policy, and homelessness (particularly for mothers) in Ontario. Melinda’s publications include her Demeter Press edited volume Mothering 523

Contributors

in the Age of Neoliberalism and her Inanna feminist fiction novel Clara Awake. Melinda’s work also appears in many Demeter Press edited collections, JMI ( Journal of the Motherhood Initiative for Research and Community Involvement) and Development ( Journal of the Society for International Development). Fiona Joy Green is a feminist mother and Professor of Women’s and Gender Studies (WGS) who believes in the power of revolutionary feminist motherwork in raising children. She’s interested in the agency of children and mothers, in gender socialization and gender identity, and in the ability of feminist motherlines to contribute to feminist theorizing and praxis. Her research interests include feminist parenting, feminist/maternal pedagogies, female genital cutting, media representations of mothers, and mommy blogging. Her current areas of research include exploring parenting practices that support the gender fluidity of children and examining privacy matters related to social media. Dr. Green has held the positions of Associate Dean, Faculty of Arts, and Chair of the Department of WGS, and is the founder and former Director of the Institute for Women’s and Gender Studies at the University of Winnipeg, where she is a research affiliate. Florence Pasche Guignard holds a PhD from the Université de Lausanne (Switzerland). She teaches religious studies at Ryerson University (Toronto, Canada). Her research explores topics at the intersection of religion and spirituality with gender, ritual, embodiment, and material culture, in past and contemporary contexts. She brings her interdisciplinary scholarship in conversation with anthropology, ritual studies, media studies, as well as with gender and women’s studies and, more specifically, motherhood studies. She is the coeditor of the volume Maternità e Politeismi – Motherhood(s) and Polytheisms, and of two books on mothers and food. Her most recent postdoctoral project was titled “Natural Parenting in the Digital Age: At the Confluence of Mothering, Religion, Environmentalism and Technology.” Website: fpg.bio. Lynn O’Brien Hallstein (PhD, Ohio State University) is an Associate Professor of Rhetoric in the College of General Studies and an Affiliated Faculty of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Program at Boston University. She is the author of Bikini-Ready Moms: Celebrity Profiles, Motherhood, and the Body, which won the Organization for the Study of Communication, Language, and Gender’s 2016 Outstanding Book Award and White Feminists and Contemporary Maternity: Purging Matrophobia. She co-edited Academic Motherhood in a Post-Second Wave Context: Challenges, Strategies, and Possibilities with Andrea O’Reilly and Contemporary Maternity in an Era of Choice: Explorations into Discourses of Reproduction with Sara Hayden, which won the Organization for the Study of Communication, Language, and Gender’s 2011 Outstanding Book Award for an Edited Volume, and she has been published in variety of feminist and communication journals. Sara Hayden (PhD, University of Minnesota) is Professor of Communication Studies at the University of Montana. Her research focuses on the rhetoric of women’s health, sexuality, maternity, and chosen childlessness. Her publications can be found in journals including Women’s Studies in Communication, the Quarterly Journal of Speech, Western Journal of Communication, and Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies. She has served as editor of Women’s Studies in Communication and she is co-editor, of two books: Contemplating Maternity in an Era of Choice: Explorations into Discourses of Reproduction (2010, Lexington, with D. Lynn O’Brien Hallstein), and Mediated Moms: Contemporary Challenges to the Motherhood Myth (2016, Peter Lang, with Heather Hundley). 524

Contributors

Heather Hewett is a writer and an Associate Professor of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at the State University of New York at New Paltz, where she teaches classes in gender studies, literature, and creative nonfiction. Her scholarship has been published in Atlantis: Critical Studies in Gender, Culture and Social Justice; English in Africa; MELUS; WSQ; Chick Lit: The New Woman’s Fiction (Routledge); and elsewhere. Her essays, reviews, and articles have appeared in literary journals and mainstream venues such as Boston Review, Minerva Rising, The New York Times, Motherlode blog, The Washington Post, Women’s Review of Books, and several essay collections, including The Good Mother Myth (Seal Press). Rebecca Hughes, PhD, is a lecturer at the University of Toronto. Her current research interests include the intersection of critical literacy and media literacy. Throughout the past five years, she has examined creative and innovative uses of technology in the social sciences and humanities. In addition to her interest in critical media literacy and social justice education, she is committed to promoting women’s health and well-being, and the subsequent well-being of their children. Her research has been published in a number of journals, including Qualitative Inquiry (Sage), Qualitative Health Research (Sage), and Health Care Analysis (Springer). Jennifer L. Johnson is Associate Professor of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at Thorneloe University federated with Laurentian University in Sudbury, Canada. Her research and teaching include feminist geographical approaches to the study of social reproduction and global economies including food economies; gender, race and racism; and feminist pedagogies. She is co-editor of Feminist Issues: Gender, Race, and Class, 6th ed. (Pearson Education, 2016), Feminist Praxis Revisited: Critical Reflections on University-Community Engagement (WLUP, 2019), and Maternal Geographies: Mothering In and Out of Place (Demeter Press, 2019). She is an editorial board member of Atlantis: Critical Studies in Gender, Culture & Social Justice. Estée Klar is a PhD candidate in Critical Disability Studies at York University where she specializes in neurodiversity and relation. She has developed a motional-relational artistic practice with her non-speaking son, Adam Wolfond, who types to communicate, and other participants. Their movement-processual practice collaborates to rethink orientations toward autism, artistic production, diversity, and access. She is also the Founder/Director of The Autism Acceptance Project (2005–2016), an early activist collaboration involved with a nascent neurodiversity movement, and Founder/Co-Director of The A Collective, an artistic teaching-learning community which invents with neurodiversity. Klar also studied fine art, is a practicing artist, and has worked as a curator of art in Canada and Europe including the works of autistic artists. Estée and Adam also co-publish and create exhibitions together in what they call artistic intraethnography. Her new website will soon be available at www.esteerelation.com. Jennie Klein is a professor of art history at the School of Art + Design at Ohio University. She writes about feminist art, art and the maternal, performance art, and contemporary art. She is currently working on two books, the first addressing the work of Elizabeth Stephens and Annie Sprinkle and the second on the work of Marilyn Arsem. Emilie Lewis has a Master’s degree in Gender/Cultural Studies from Simmons University and a Bachelor’s degree in English from Goucher College. A member of Phi Beta Kappa, she has worked for the Massachusetts Commission on the Status of Women, various political campaigns, and presented work at the New England Pop Culture Association conference. She is a writer, editor, and feminist who lives in Boston. 525

Contributors

Marva L. Lewis earned a PhD in Sociocultural Psychology. An Associate Professor at Tulane University in New Orleans, Louisiana, she conducts research on the quality of parent-child attachment during the task of combing hair. She is Founder and Director of the Center for Natural Connections promotes the hair combing task as an opportunity to strengthen parenting styles. This research is translated into culturally valid, community-based interventions, Talk, Touch & Listen While Combing Hair ©, that promote emotional connection of parents to their child, culture, and community. Parent-peers provide strengths-based feedback to videotaped hair-combing interaction to address issues of acceptance or rejection of children based on lightskin and hair type. A national consultant and member of the Advisory Board of the Quality Improvement Center for Research-Based Infant-Toddler Court Teams, she has published and presented her research at national and international meetings, and provides training on issues of bias and organizational diversity. Dr. Caroline McDonald-Harker is a Sociologist and Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Mount Royal University. She obtained a BA Honours in Sociology from Queen’s University, an MA in Sociology from McGill University, and a PhD in Sociology from the University of Alberta. Her areas of expertise include the sociology of family, motherhood/mothering, children and youth, trauma and resilience, gender, disasters, domestic violence, and qualitative research. Caroline is the mother of three young children. Michelle Hughes Miller is an Associate Professor in Women’s and Gender Studies at the University of South Florida. As a sociologist specializing in gender and justice, she researches discursive constructions of motherhood in law, policy and film; systemic responses to violence against women; and diversity within STEM. In 2017 she published two co-edited books: Bad Mothers: Regulations, Representations and Resistance (Demeter Press) and Addressing Violence Against Women on College Campuses (Temple University Press). Her motherhood research has frequently focused on identifying, understanding, and theorizing the Bad Mother as a cultural discourse and ideological tool in the governance of mothers. She is currently the USF Principal Investigator on a collaborative NSF grant to study the experiences of LGBTQPIA+ undergraduate students in STEM. Dr. Meaghan Brady Nelson is an Assistant Professor of Art and Art Education Coordinator at Belmont University in Nashville Tennessee. Meaghan has a BFA in painting from Washington State University (2001), a teaching certificate from Western Washington University (2003) and both her Masters (2008) and Doctorate (2012) in Art Education were completed at The Ohio State University. Her research centers around the ways collaborative art-making experiences and critical visual literacy may inspire social consciousness. She combines this methodology along with her multilayered identity of becoming a “Mothering-ArtAdemic” (Nelson & Combe, 2017). As the executive collaborative creator of the Kids Arts Festival of Tennessee Meaghan is dedicated to community arts-based service in the Nashville area. Her work has been published both nationally and internationally, and, as a painter, she keeps an active studio practice. Her paintings are representations of moving within the organic fluidity of life’s patterns. By this she means that the paintings are comprised of conceptually working through the multitude of stresses, anxieties, and reshifting them into meditation, color, and forms of art therapy. Her works are layered, complex, and a bit chaotic as is mothering, education, and exploring the process of becoming a socially conscious artist.

526

Contributors

Grace Adeniyi Ogunyankin is the Queen’s National Scholar in Black Geographies at Queen’s University in Kingston, Canada. She is a feminist scholar who is interested in place-making and subjectivity through the study of African urbanisms and popular culture. In her study of African urbanisms, she is primarily intrigued by how local engagements with the Africa Rising rhetoric and global aspects of the political economy work together to (re)produce spatial and social inequalities and provoke resistance in African cities. Her research focus on popular culture explores the issues of subjectivity and belonging and the use of Afrofuturism and Afropolitan Imagineering in geographic projects that address the colonial politics of difference. Her other research interests include new cities in sub-Saharan Africa, critical race theory, postcolonial and transnational feminisms, postcolonial urbanisms, African postcolonial literature, sexuality and urban space in Africa, and gender, development, and NGOs. Gabrielle Oliveira is Assistant Professor of education at the Lynch School of Education and Human Development and Boston College. She oversees the Immigrant Education Experience Lab at Boston College. Gabrielle was born and raised in São Paulo, Brazil, and is an anthropologist of education. Her work with immigrant populations in and out of the United States has spanned ten years. She received her master as well as doctorate degrees from Columbia University and Teachers College. Sinead O’Malley is a convict criminologist who qualified as a social worker in 2012. She graduated with a PhD in 2018 on “Motherhood, Mothering and the Irish Prison System,” the first participatory research project to be realised within the Irish Prison System. With the objective informing practice, Sinead began direct work as a social worker with the national agency in 2018. Sinead continues to engage in research, lecturing, and publishing and delivers accredited training on children of prisoners and on how to work positively with mothers engaged with the criminal and social justice systems. Sinead’s interests are in feminist and creative methodologies, motherhood scholarship, and the rights of children of prisoners. More important than her own publications, she has supported female prisoners to publish about their own experiences of research and mothering. Sinead is a survivor, a mother, and a wife. Natalie Fixmer-Oraiz is an assistant professor of communication studies and gender, women’s and sexuality studies at the University of Iowa. Her first book project, Homeland Maternity: US Security Culture and the New Reproductive Regime (University of Illinois Press, 2019), traces discursive alignments between motherhood and nation in homeland security culture. She has published articles on rhetoric and reproductive politics, the commercial surrogacy industry, and third-wave feminism, as well as book chapters on the public debates surrounding birth control and communication activism pedagogy. Her research appears in journals and edited volumes, including  Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, Women’s Studies in Communication, and Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies. She serves on the editorial board of Quarterly Journal of Speech and Women’s Studies in Communication and is the co-author of the textbook Gendered Lives: Communication, Gender, and Culture with Julia T. Wood. Andrea O’Reilly, PhD, is Professor in the School of Gender, Sexuality and Women’s Studies at York University. O’Reilly is founder and director of the Motherhood Initiative for Research and Community Involvement, founder and editor-in-chief of the Journal of the Motherhood Initiative, and founder and publisher of Demeter Press. She is co-editor/editor of nineteen books including Feminist Perspectives on Young Mothers and Young Mothering (2019) and is author of three

527

Contributors

monographs including Matricentric Feminism: Theory, Activism, and Practice (2016). She is editor of the first Encyclopedia on Motherhood, 3 volumes, 705 entries (2010). She is a recipient of the CAUT Sarah Shorten Award for outstanding achievements in the promotion of the advancement of women in Canadian universities and colleges, is twice the recipient of York University’s “Professor of the Year Award” for teaching excellence, and in 2014 was the first inductee into the Museum of Motherhood Hall of Fame. Shelley M. Park is Professor of Philosophy and Cultural Studies at the University of Central Florida in Orlando, Florida. She is the author of Mothering Queerly, Queering Motherhood: Resisting Monomaternalism in Adoptive, Lesbian, Blended and Polygamous Families (2013) and numerous articles and chapters on queer and adoptive mothering, co-editor of a special issue of Hypatia on “Women of Color, Third World Women, Feminisms and Geopolitics” (Summer 2017), and Associate Editor of Queer Studies in Media and Popular Culture. She is currently working on a monograph concerning technologically mediated forms of care. Elizabeth Podnieks is a Professor in the Department of English, Ryerson University, Toronto, where she serves as the Graduate Program Director of the Literatures of Modernity MA. She teaches and researches in the fields of motherhood, modernism, life writing, and popular culture. Her publications include the monograph Daily Modernism: The Literary Diaries of Virginia Woolf, Antonia White, Elizabeth Smart, and Anaïs Nin; and the edition Rough Draft: The Modernist Diaries of Emily Holmes Coleman. Her work on parenting includes articles, chapters, and encyclopedia entries on celebrity mothers in magazines and blogs, academic motherhood, and modernist mothers, among others. She is the editor of the scholarly collections Textual Mothers/Maternal Texts: Motherhood in Contemporary Women’s Literatures (with Andrea O’Reilly), Mediating Moms: Mothers in Popular Culture, and Pops in Pop Culture: Fatherhood, Masculinity, and the New Man. Her current project is a book about representations of motherhood in modernist literatures. Brooke Richardson (PhD, Policy Studies, Ryerson University) is currently completing a Social Science and Humanity Research Council funded Post-Doctoral Fellowship in the Department of Sociology at Brock University. This project theoretically and empirically critiques the increasing privatization of the childcare sector and its impact on those experiencing and providing care at the local level. Brooke has published and presented nationally and internationally on topics including: the Canadian childcare advocacy movement, the devaluation of care in neoliberal political climates, the representation of childcare in mainstream media and critical perspectives in post-secondary teacher education. Brooke’s commitment to bettering women and children’s experiences of care is evident in her current role as President of the Association of Early Childhood Educators of Ontario. Kaitlyn Root is a doctoral student in the Sociology Department at the University of Akron. She earned her BA in Sociology at Western Washington University in 2012 and her MA in Sociology at the University of Akron in 2017. Her research interests include social inequalities, including race, class, and gender, welfare-to-work programs and social stratification. Her thesis explored Ohio welfare-to-work program managers’ perceptions of Appalachian clients. Her dissertation will look at Ohio welfare-to-work program managers’ perceptions of what they term “situational” versus “generational” welfare clients. Martha Joy Rose is a musician, community organizer, and founder of the Museum of Motherhood (M.O.M.). Her work has been published across blogs and academic journals. She has 528

Contributors

performed with her band Housewives On Prozac on Good Morning America, CNN, and the Oakland Art & Soul Festival, to name a few. Rose is the NOW-NYC recipient of the Susan B. Anthony Award. Her Mamapalooza Festival has been recognized as “Best in Girl-Power Events” in New York, and her music has appeared on the Billboard Top 100 Dance Charts. She founded M.O.M. in 2003, formed the Motherhood Foundation 501c3 nonprofit in 2005, saw them flourish in NYC from 2011 to 2014, and then pop up at several academic institutions. She currently teaches Sociology of Family at Manhattan College and remains devoted to the exploration of mother-labor as performance art. Her most recent publication is an edited collection, the Music of Motherhood (Demeter Press), co-edited with Lynda Ross, and Jennifer Hartmann. Reena Shadaan is a PhD candidate in the Faculty of Environmental Studies (FES) at York University and is a recipient of a Joseph-Armand Bombardier Canada Graduate Scholarship to honour Nelson Mandela (2017). Based in Toronto, Ontario, Shadaan’s work examines the gendered dimensions of the interconnected fields of environmental justice, environmental racism, occupational health, and environmental health. This includes the issue of environmental sexism, reproductive justice, as well as the gendered dimensions of activist movements. Part of Shadaan’s work is focused on the role of mothering, care, and reproductive labour in the context of the environmental justice movement, as well as other radical movements. Dorsía Smith Silva is a Full Professor of English at the University of Puerto Rico, Río Piedras. She is the co-editor of the Caribbean without Borders: Caribbean Literature, Language and Culture (2008), Critical Perspectives on Caribbean Literature and Culture (2010), Feminist and Critical Perspectives on Caribbean Mothering (2013), Mothers, Mothering, and Globalization (2017), Mothers and Daughters (2017), and Travellin’ Mama: Mothers, Mothering and Travel (2019); and editor of  Latina/Chicana Mothering (2011). Her poetry has also appeared in several journals, including Aji Magazine, Portland Review, Likely Red Press, and Gravel. She is currently working on a book project about mothering, friendship, and community. Dena Taylor, M.S.W. (Rutgers University), is the co-author, with Becky Taylor, of Tell Me the Number before Infinity: The story of a girl with a quirky mind, an eccentric family, and oh yes, a disability, Many Names Press, 2016; the author of Red Flower: Rethinking Menstruation, Crossing Press, 1988; reprinted by Blackburn Press, 2002; the editor of Feminist Parenting: Struggles, Triumphs, & Comic Interludes, Crossing Press, 1994, and the co-editor of Disabled Mothers: Stories and Scholarship by and about Mothers with Disabilities, Demeter Press, 2014 (with Gloria Filax), The Time of Our Lives: Women Write on Sex after 40, Crossing Press, 1993 (with Amber Coverdale Sumrall), Sexual Harassment: Women Speak Out, Crossing Press, 1992 (with Amber Coverdale Sumrall), and Women of the 14th Moon: Writings on Menopause, Crossing Press, 1991 (with Amber Coverdale Sumrall). Brianna Turgeon is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Jacksonville State University. Her research focuses on an intersection of inequality, ideology, discourse, and mothering, which she primarily studies through welfare-to-work. In some of her recent projects, she has examined how welfare managers’ moral identity construction, feeling rule expectations for clients, and expectations for clients’ mothering practices. In her future work, Brianna plans to examine public discourse and rural mothering experiences surrounding poverty in Eastern Alabama. Nicole L. Willey is Professor of English at Kent State University Tuscarawas, where she teaches African American and other literatures, along with a variety of writing courses. She has served 529

Contributors

as Coordinator of Service-Learning, Faculty Chair, and now Mentoring Program Coordinator for KSU Tuscarawas. Her research interests include mothering, masculinities, memoir, pedagogy, nineteenth-century American literature, slave narratives, and faculty mentoring. She authored Creating a New Ideal of Masculinity for American Men: The Achievement of Sentimental Women Writers in the Mid-Nineteenth Century, and co-edited the collections Motherhood Memoirs: Mothers Creating/Writing Lives and Feminist Fathering/Fathering Feminists: New Definitions and Directions. She lives in New Philadelphia, Ohio, with her husband and two sons.

530

INDEX

Note: Page numbers in bold indicate a table on the corresponding page. abused mothers 9, 256, 259 – 63 academic feminism 54 – 60 activism 13, 486 – 93; mothers as activists 446 – 7; and urbanization 418 – 19 addiction 241 – 3 AFDC 103 – 4 Africa 414 – 23 African American mothering 10, 21, 309; see also Black mothering agriculture 382, 415, 423n1 art see culture and art; feminist art autism 205 – 12 babies in prison 243 – 4 backlash discourses 28, 133 Belkin, Lisa see “Opt Out Revolution, The” best interests 278 – 9 binary thinking 323 – 4 biopsychosocial outcomes 93 birth: homebirth movement 229; spirit of 118 – 19; see also midwifery Black: definition 90; see also Black mothering; see also under midwifery Black mothering 1, 5, 89 – 92, 94 – 5, 98 – 9; critical issues and topics 92 – 7; mothers and sons 317 – 20 breastfeeding 395 care 402 – 11; care chains 407 – 8 celebrity moms 133 – 4; celebrity mom profiles 138 – 41; and intensified intensive mothering 137 – 8; and the maternal body 136 – 7; reality TV celebrity motherhood 143 – 4; “real” mothers’ responses to 141 – 3; the rise of 134 – 6 childcare 353 – 60

childless women see voluntarily childless women child protection 430 – 2 children: benefit of 31 – 3; best interest of 456 – 7; queer 67 cisgender 4, 6; and celebrity motherhood 133, 136, 145; and feminist mothering 40, 42, 47, 48n3; and memoirs 198; and reproductive justice 512 cismen 38, 48n1 cisnormative 45, 48n6 class: and midwife-attended births 229 – 30 Collins, Patricia Hill: and activism 487, 490 – 1, 497; and criminalization 456; and families and domestic space 294 – 5, 298, 301, 318; and marginalized mothers 97, 108, 198; and maternal theory 42 – 4, 47 colonialism 416 – 17 colorblind ideology 105 co-mothering 31 – 3, 65 connection 321 – 2 controlling images 104 – 5 co-parenting 278 – 9 corrections 432 – 3 criminalization 451 – 9 criminal law 432 – 3 criminology, matricentric feminist 236 – 8, 249 – 50; and a gendered political agenda 239 – 40; and future research 247 – 9; and matricentric feminism 238 – 9; and mother-child bonds and contact 243 – 7; and trauma, mental health, and addiction 241 – 3 culture and art 6 – 7 custodial mothering 24 – 5, 28 daughter-centricity 53, 178 – 80, 304 deficit 90 – 1

531

Index feminist art 147, 151 – 3; contemporary maternal art exhibitions 150; future research 153; historical overview of maternal artists and exhibitions 147 – 8; institutions, organizations, and resources 150 – 1 feminist ideals 160 feminist mothering 36, 47; and empowered mothering 41 – 3; as an empowered and political act 39; and future research 46 – 7; historical perspectives 36 – 8; and the institution of motherhood 38 – 9; and intersectionality 43 – 4; and maternal thinking and queering motherhood 45 – 6; and matroreform 39 – 41; and transfeminism 46 feminist parenting 314 – 17 feminist political economy 332 – 5 feminization of migration 407 feminization of poverty 380 – 2 feminization of sons 311 – 13

Demeter (Goddess) 31 – 2, 177 Demeter Press 19, 44, 47, 48n4, 84, 438 disabled mothers 4 – 5, 77 – 86, 192; learning from 81 – 2; and normalizing discourse 79 – 81 divine motherhood 158 division of labour see sexual division of labour doctors 232 domesticity 284 – 6 domestic life 288 – 9 domestic space 284 – 7; and spaces of mothering 287 – 8; see also families and domestic space domestic violence 256 – 7, 259 – 61 Douglas, Patty 7 – 8, 211, 523 Douglas, Susan J.: and Meredith Michaels 6, 29, 133 – 7, 143, 170, 466 – 8; Mommy Myth,The 134, 170; new momism 6, 133, 134 – 6, 137, 138, 140, 141, 144, 276 – 7 economic mothering 417 – 18 economics: and poverty 453 – 4 economics and globalization 11 – 12 economy, the 389 – 98 education 142 – 3 emancipation of women 380 – 2 empowered mothering 2, 4, 19, 36, 115 – 16, 469; and abused women 258 – 9; for the benefit of children 31 – 3; and feminist mothering 41 – 3; and future research 33 – 4; and intensive mothering 23 – 8; for maternal empowerment 30 – 1; and maternal thinking and practice 21 – 3; and the mother-daughter dyad 295, 303 – 4; and patriarchal motherhood 20 – 1, 28 – 30 environmental justice (EJ) 496 – 505 equity 422

gatekeepers 246 – 7 gendered political agenda 239 – 40 gender equality 160 gender essentialism 4, 22, 46, 56, 196, 489; and matricentric feminism 57 – 9; and neoliberalism 377, 380; and the new monism 276 – 7; risks of avoiding the term 278 gender-fluid parenting 33 – 4, 281 gender norms 353 – 60 gender roles 357 – 9 gender stereotypes 396 globalization 373 – 82, 385; interdisciplinary approaches to theorizing 383 – 4; see also economics and globalization governance and mothers 12 – 13, 429 – 430, 462 – 3; direct and indirect regulation 432 – 4; direct regulation 430 – 2; formal governance 463 – 5; future research 438 – 9, 469 – 70; ideological surveillance 466 – 8; indirect formal governance 434 – 5; internalization and self-governance 468 – 9; mothers as regulators 435 – 8 governance and politics 12 – 13; see also governance and mothers

families and domestic space 9 – 10 family law 430 – 2 family policies 397 fathers 4, 9, 274 – 82; and abused women 255; and celebrity motherhood 137; and criminalization 452, 455 – 6; and the economy 389 – 91, 394 – 7; and gender norms and childcare 357 – 9; and governance 431 – 8, 471; and Indigenous mothering 111 – 12; and literature 178, 184, 186; and maternal theory 25, 31, 38; and matricentric feminism 51; and memoirs 194 – 5; and the mother-daughter dyad 302; and mothers in prison 240 – 1, 246 – 9; and mothers and sons 310 – 11, 315 – 16, 320 – 5; and music 166 – 8; and neoliberalism 374; and “The Opt Out Revolution”348; and politics 444, 482, 484n1; and poor and working-class mothers 364 – 5; and queering motherhood 63, 66, 70; and transnational motherhood 408; and urbanization 416 – 18; and voluntarily childless women 123 feminism, religious 160

Harris, Claire 183 – 4 Hays, Sharon 137, 170, 196, 346, 375, 466; and maternal theory 24, 26, 38; and transnational motherhood 408 – 9; see also intensive mothering health 7 – 9; health challenges for mothers living in emergency homeless shelters 221 – 2; influence of religion on 160; social determinants of 216 – 17 “helicopter parenting” 26 heteronormative 4, 6, 7, 45, 48n6, 285, 295, 301, 323 – 4, 333, 336, 350, 397, 470 historical trauma 90 home 270 – 3

532

Index marginalized mothers 4 – 6 marriage equality 70 – 1 masculinity 313 – 14 mask of motherhood 33, 177 maternal activism 13, 30 – 4, 41 – 2, 97, 151, 486 – 93; and neoliberalism 375; and reproductive justice 503 maternal advocacy 30 – 4 maternal agency 2 – 3, 30 – 1, 151 – 2 maternal ambivalence 309 – 10 maternal authenticity 30 maternal authority 30 maternal autonomy 30, 41 – 2 maternal bodies 74, 161, 166, 179, 183 – 4; and celebrity motherhood 133, 136 – 42, 144 – 5; and the economy 393; and governance 462, 469 maternal cosmological narratives 158 maternal empowerment 30 – 1 maternal evacuation 117 – 18 maternal feminism 52, 480 maternal imagery 159 maternal inauthenticity 21 – 3 maternal practice 2, 14, 21 – 3, 51, 157; and abused women 258; and activism 479, 488, 492; and feminist mothering 41, 47; and governance 463; and the mother-daughter dyad 301; and mothers in prison 247; and mothers and sons 316 – 17; and politics 447 maternal responsibilities 417 – 18 maternal studies 375 – 6; see also motherhood studies maternal theory 3 – 4, 19, 34; empowered mothering 28 – 33; and future research 33 – 4; intensive mothering 23 – 8; maternal studies 375 – 6; maternal thinking and practice 21 – 3; mothering versus motherhood 20 – 1; theorizing “mothering” 374 – 5 maternal thinking 3, 151, 476, 480; and maternal theory 19, 21 – 3, 36, 43; Ruddick, Sara 1, 21 – 3, 33, 45, 51, 149, 151, 301, 316, 323, 408, 469, 479, 488, 492; and queering 45 – 6 maternalism 57 – 8, 162n2 maternity 6, 8, 13, 20, 51 – 8; and celebrity motherhood 134, 138 – 41; and the economy 390; and feminist art 147 – 53; and gender norms and childcare 359; and governance 430 – 4, 438, 464 – 5; and home-making 290; and literature 176 – 84; and midwifery 226, 233; and mothers living in an emergency homeless shelter 217; and neoliberalism 382; and politics 478 – 84; and queering motherhood 66, 69; religions and 156 – 8, 161 – 3, 162n1; and reproductive justice 496 – 506; and voluntarily childless women 124 – 7 maternity care 8, 226, 230 – 2 maternity leave 27, 277 – 9, 382, 390, 465 matriarch 104 – 5

homebirth movement 229 homeless shelters, mothers living in 215 – 24; and further research 222; interviews 217 – 21; and the social determinants of health 216 – 17; unique and differential health challenges for 221 – 2 homeplace 33, 492 home-making 284 – 91 homonormativity 70 – 1 ideological surveillance 466 – 8 ideologies of motherhood 408 – 9 ideology of the true woman/good mother 455 – 6 incarcerated mothers 451 – 9; see also Mothers in Prison Indigenous mothering 5, 111 – 20 inequality 26, 89 – 93, 105 – 9, 144, 249; and economics and globalization 381 – 2, 385, 389, 394 – 7, 422; and families and domestic space 279, 322; and governance and politics 431, 435, 452 – 3; and work 336, 351 institution of motherhood 38 – 9 intensive mothering 3, 6, 9, 12 – 13, 106, 274 – 7; and culture and art 133, 135 – 6, 140 – 3, 180; and economics and globalization 375 – 6, 390, 409; and governance and politics 429, 438, 462, 466 – 70; and health 207 – 8, 239, 242, 255 – 6, 259, 262; intensified 137 – 8; and maternal theory 19, 23 – 8, 32 – 3, 38; and new momism 6, 133, 134 – 6, 137, 138, 140, 141, 144; risks of avoiding 278; and work 346, 364; see also Hays intersectionality 4, 10, 13, 36, 43 – 6, 54 – 6; within Black motherhood/parents concept 92; and culture and art 165, 172, 177, 198; and families and domestic space 295 – 6, 303 – 4, 305n1, 322; and governance 438, 464 – 7, 470, 472n2; intersectional diversity 92; intersectionality theory 472n2; mother-daughter relationships and 298 – 300; and reproductive justice 497, 502 – 4, 510 – 11, 515 – 16; and work 325, 350 intimate partner violence 454 – 5 joy 99 justice 432 – 3 land 416 – 17 law see mothers and law liberal feminism 54 – 6, 332 – 3, 338, 346 – 8, 491, 497 liberalism 376 – 7 life histories 522 life writing 189n2 longitudinal studies 522 male organizing assumptions 393 Mamapalooza 167 – 173, 173n1 – 2, 173n5 – 6

533

Index matricentric feminism 3 – 4, 51 – 60, 248, 280; and activism 489; governance 469; and politics 447 matrifocality 7, 33 – 4, 53 – 4, 57, 195; and contemporary literature 182 – 6; and literature 176 – 80, 187 – 8; matrifocal narrative 53 – 4, 195; and Victorian literature 180 – 2 matrifocal narrative see under matrifocality matroreform 39 – 41 memoirs 191 – 9 mental health 241 – 3 Michaels, Meredith see under Douglas, Sharon J. midwifery 5, 8, 111, 115 – 19, 159 – 60, 226 – 33; and black maternal outcomes 231 – 2; black midwifery in the United States 226 – 7; critical issues in midwife-attended births 229 – 30; drivers for cost-prohibitive maternity care 231; and future research 232; midwifery’s decline in the early twentieth century 227 – 9; southern midwives 227 migrant mothers 404 – 6 migration 406 – 7; feminization of 407 Miller, Sue 184 momism 276 – 7 Mommy Myth,The 134, 170 mommy track 278 money 393 mother blame 6 – 7, 105, 278, 323, 347, 435; and autism 205 – 7; and the fear of feminizing our sons 311 – 13; and maternal ambivalence 309 – 10; and religions 159, 162 mother-child relationships 261 mother-daughter dyad 294 – 303, 305; and future research 303 – 4 mother goddesses 158 motherhood 45–6 Motherhood 173n4 motherhood, ideologies of 408 – 9 motherhood penalty 393 – 4 motherhood vs. mothering 1 – 3, 19, 162n1, 305n4; and activism 486; and disabled mothers 78; emergence of focus on 258 – 9; and empowered mothering 28 – 9, 32 – 3; and feminist mothering 36 – 8, 41; and future research 33 – 4; and governance 429, 435 – 7, 466 – 8; and intensive mothering 23, 25, 28; and literature 182; and maternal thinking and practice 21; and matricentric feminism 53 – 4, 57; and memoirs 193, 196 – 7; and the mother-daughter dyad 295 – 6, 298, 303, 305; and mothers and sons 310 – 11; and patriarchal motherhood 20 – 1; and reproductive justice 512; and voluntary childless women 124 motherhood studies 1 – 3, 6 – 7, 19, 36, 46, 53, 58 – 9, 73, 157, 161, 180, 188, 198, 284, 290, 298, 301, 374, 491, 516; see also maternal studies mothering: see African American mothering; black mothering; co-mothering; custodial mothering;

534

economic mothering; empowered mothering; feminist mothering; indigenous mothering; intensive mothering; outlaw mothering; othermothering; queer mothering; spiritual and cultural religious mothering mother outlaw 29, 32 mothers and daughters see mother-daughter dyad mothers and law 379 – 82, 389, 454, 462 – 6, 470 – 1, 500; and direct and indirect formal regulation 430 – 5; and formal governance of and by mothers 429 – 30, 439 – 40; and future research 438 – 9; mothers as regulators 435 – 8 mothers and music 165 – 73 mothers and politics 442 – 3, 447 – 8; and elected political institutions 445 – 6; future research 447, 482 – 3; identity politics 64, 439; mothers as activists 446 – 7; and the nation 443; politics of motherhood 477 – 84; and settler colonialism 113 – 16, 199, 453; and the state 444 – 5 mothers and sons 308 – 9, 325; and the African American context 317 – 20; beginnings of research on 309 – 10; and current research 321 – 2; and feminist parenting and peacebuilding 314 – 17; foremothers to research on 310 – 11; and future research 323 – 4; and masculinity and violence 313 – 14; mother blame and the fear of feminizing our sons 311 – 13; and queering the mothering of sons 320 – 21 mothers and work 331 – 5, 340; and future research 339; and gender norms and childcare 353 – 60; and neoliberal motherhood 335 – 8; and “The Opt Out Revolution” 343 – 51; and poor and working-class mothers 362 – 8 mothers in prison 8, 236 – 8; and a gendered political agenda 239 – 40; and matricentric feminism 238 – 9; and mother-child bonds and contact 243 – 7; and new directions for research 247 – 9; and trauma, mental health, and addiction 241 – 3 mothers’ labour 390 – 1 mothers’ pensions 103 – 4 motherwork 21 – 2, 30 – 1, 34, 37 – 9, 42 – 3, 46; and activism 492; and the economy 389 – 91, 395 – 7; and home-making 287 – 8; lack of valuation of 392; and matricentric feminism 51; and mothers in prison 248; and mothers and sons 318; and music 165 – 6; as productive 392; valuing motherwork without reinforcing gender stereotypes 396 music see mothers and music Neill, Fiona 186 neoliberalism 3, 9 – 11, 14, 269 – 70, 279; and challenges 380 – 2; and culture and art 133, 138 – 40, 149, 196; and the economy 391, 394, 397; and future research 383 – 4; and genderneutral discourses 377 – 80; and globalization 373 – 4, 385; and governance 465, 468, 470; and

Index queering motherhood 45 – 6 queer mothering 46, 63 – 70, 73 – 4, 302; and future research 73; marriage equality and critiques of homonormativity 70 – 1; queering the mothering of sons 320 – 1; third-world women reproducing for first-world queers 71 – 3

health 207 – 8, 211 – 12, 222; and “home” 270 – 3; and marginalized mothers 106 – 8, 118; and maternal studies 375 – 6; and maternal theory 27 – 8; neoliberal motherhood and work 335 – 8; “neoliberal” theorizing 376 – 7; and theorizing “mothering” 374 – 5; and urbanization 414 – 23; and work 331, 339 – 40, 343, 346 – 7, 357 – 8, 366 neuroatypicality 194 normalizing discourse 79 – 81 normative motherhood 23 – 4, 27, 33, 42, 238

race: and midwife-attended births 229 – 30 racial discrimination 451 – 3, 459 radical feminism 37 radical motherhood 33 regulation 430 – 8 relational boys 321 – 2 religions and mothers 156; central themes 157 – 60; controversies and challenges in relation to 161 – 2; and future research 162; historical overview 157; key issues and debates 160 – 1 religious feminism 160 reproductive justice (RJ) 13, 465, 471, 486 – 8, 492 – 3, 506; central definitions and themes 512 – 14; challenges related to 501 – 2, 514 – 16; contextualizing 496 – 8; critical issues for 498 – 501; and future research 502 – 5, 516; historical perspectives on 510 – 12 resources 106 – 7, 397 Rich, Adrienne see motherhood vs. mothering Rita Rocks 173n4 rituals 160 Ruddick, Sara see maternal inauthenticity; maternal thinking

Ontario 40% residency rule 279 – 81 “Opt Out Revolution, The” 343 – 51 O’Reilly, Andrea see matricentric feminism othermothering 6, 31 – 4, 42 – 4, 195, 487 – 91; creative Black mothering 97; religious 159 outlaw mothering see mother outlaw paid labour 390 – 1 paid work: gender division of 394; and mothering 395 – 6; and resources for mothers 397 panopticon 82, 462, 467 – 9, 471, 472n1 parenting 274 – 5; choices and expectations of 281; equitable parenting arrangements 279 – 81; feminist 314 – 17 “parenting out of control” 26 patriarchal motherhood 2 – 3, 13, 85, 116; and abused women 258 – 9; and activism 486 – 91; and culture and art 169, 176, 182, 196, 199; and empowered mothering 28 – 33; and future research 33 – 4; and governance 466; and home-making 299; and maternal theory 19 – 20, 39 – 43, 57; and the motherdaughter dyad 305; and theoretical concepts 20 – 8 peacebuilding 314 – 17 policing 5, 12, 117, 452 – 60, 468, 516 political agenda, gendered 239 – 40 political economy, feminist 332 – 5 politics see mothers and politics poor mothers 12, 106 – 7, 192, 237, 259, 362 – 8; and activism 490 – 2, 514; and challenges 366; characteristics of 363 – 4; and criminalization 453; and future research 367; and governance 463; and risk 364 – 5; and supports 365 – 6; and urbanization 421 poverty 420 – 1; and economics 453 – 4; feminization of 380 – 2 Pratt, Minnie Bruce 184 – 5 prison see mothers and prison protection, nurturance, and training 45 protective adaptive and nurturing for resilience 92 protective parenting practices 90 psychosocial needs and impacts 89 – 90, 92 – 5, 94 – 5 public policy 429 – 35, 438 – 40; and mothers as regulators 435 – 8

sacrificial motherhood 23 – 4, 28, 38 self-governance 468 – 9 settler colonialism 113 – 16, 199, 453 sexual division of labour 332 – 5 single mothers 391 skill acquisition 419 – 20 “slum” 416, 419, 423n2 social class 142 – 3 social engineering 397 social reproduction 10 – 11, 272, 331 – 2, 340, 374 – 6, 381, 384; context and background of 332 – 5; and future research 339; and gender norms and childcare 357; and maternal theory 26 – 7; neoliberal motherhood and work 335 – 8 spiritual and cultural religious mothering 159 spiritual leaders 159 – 60 Strong Black Woman 96 structural racism 5, 89 – 96, 98 – 9; dimensions of 94 – 5 TANF 103 – 4 third wave feminism 37, 59 third-world women 71 – 3 transfeminism 46 transgender 48n1 transnationalism 406 – 7

queer 48n5; see also two-spirit queer feminism 55

535

Index transnational motherhood 402 – 11 trauma 241 – 3 two-spirit 48n2, 117 unpaid household work 392 – 3 urban displacement 419 – 20 urban exclusions 416 – 17 urbanization 414 – 23 violence 313 – 14, 394; intimate partner violence 454 – 5 voluntarily childless women 122 – 9; central issues and debate related to 125 – 6; future research 128; historical perspectives 123 – 5 wages 393 weathering hypothesis 89, 93 – 4

welfare mothers 103, 108 – 9; and controlling images 104 – 5; and emphasizing work over mothering 106; future research 108; historical overview 103 – 4; resistance from mothers on welfare 107 – 8; and resources 106 – 7 welfare queen 104 – 5 well-being: influence of religion on 160 women’s activism 418 – 19 work 10 – 11; emphasizing work over mothering 106; see also mothers and work; motherwork; working mothers working-class mothers 362 – 8 working mothers 25, 106, 137, 274, 279, 366; and activism 483; and the economy 390 – 1; and neoliberalism 376; and “The Opt Out Revolution” 343 – 51; and transnational motherhood 409

536