Joiner Flourishing Pathway Blog Twelve - Motherhood

In this blog we explore JFP Principle 12 – Motherhood currently is in a vexed position, being subject to so many oppositional ideas and carrying no or little status or respect. Thus, mothering itself leaves women wondering what the right path is for themselves, their infants and their partnerships. I highlighted several aspects of feminism that fostered a negative appraisal of women and their traditional roles in JFP Blog 11 - Feminism. Now I’ll turn to how motherhood itself has been viewed and approached over the years that flavours how motherhood is currently portrayed.

It is useful to first look back at the writings of Julia Kristeva (1985) who said she believed avant-garde feminists rejected motherhood in the 1970’s and 80’s because they had unwittingly accepted an historically paternalistic Christian representation of the Virgin mother Mary, stating there were three problems. Firstly, the ‘immaculate conception’, confirmed Mary’s freedom from sin (p. 136), thus mothers have often been portrayed as failing at the first hurdle, evidence of a child being proof of her having had sexual intercourse (Kristeva 1985). Secondly, ‘the Virgin explicitly became the focus of courtly love, combining the qualities of the desired woman and the holy mother in a totality as perfect as it was inaccessible’ (1985, p. 141). Thirdly, representations were of ‘Mary as a poor, modest, and humble woman as well as a tender, devoted mother’ (1985, p. 141). Thus Kristeva (1985) suggests

A woman has only two choices: either to experience herself in sex hyperabstractly … so as to make herself worthy of divine grace and assimilation to the symbolic order, or else to experience herself as different, other, fallen (p. 142).

Either way, mothers were faced with an undesirable choice of their portrayal and were left with a legacy of unrepresentative notions of motherhood. Kristeva’s antidote to such impossibility of choice was to call for mother’s voices to be heard; voices offering a more realistic view of mothers and mothering. However, I argue that this has not taken place.

Subconsciously buying into the negative rhetoric about womanhood, Ruddick (1989) confesses in her book Maternal Thinking, that as a younger woman, having submerged herself in philosophy, she rejected the idea of taking a ‘woman as a model’ as she feared in a weak moment she might ‘turn “womanly”’ (p. 5). Ruddick was not alone in rejecting womanhood. Many women had cultivated a kind of ‘cultural cringe’ toward their gender as it was associated with traditional roles which they felt they needed to reject in order to be viewed as equal to men. When Ruddick (1989) did freely choose motherhood, she became increasingly aware of the contradictions surrounding mothering. The view that to have children and become a mother was to be a victim was common place, yet she was enjoying full-time motherhood. She began to dissect the ideas laying behind her own negative appraisal of motherhood, and during her exploration realised many of the so-called sacrifices associated with it were not intrinsic to the role, and was offended that motherhood was so negatively portrayed. She states:

In many societies, the ideology of motherhood is oppressive to women. It defines maternal work as a consuming identity requiring sacrifices of health, pleasure, and ambitions unnecessary for the well-being of children. These are not sacrifices intrinsic to maternal work and indeed they are often balanced, even in impoverished or oppressed groups, by the pleasures children bring in tolerably good times. To suggest that mothers, by virtue of their mothering, are principally victims is an egregiously inaccurate account of many women’s experience and is itself oppressive to mothers (p. 29).

Here, Ruddick seeks to challenge the negative societal portrayal of motherhood by highlighting many positive aspects. She was rightly annoyed at the notion that to take on motherhood was to be depicted as a victim. Women do choose motherhood every day, and to suggest they do so under duress, or because they are uneducated or uninformed, is an insult.

Ruddick defended her right to choose motherhood, yet also understood why women would reject the role, when it was viewed as valueless. Ruddick (1989) provides an account of a 1975 survey measuring the value of jobs. She said the survey ascribed the same value to nursery school teachers, nurses, child carers, and foster mothers as it ascribed to chicken offal shovelers and mud mixer helpers (p. 33). Motherhood didn't even make the list.

Ruddick (1989) defended and advocated for the importance of mothering which she termed  maternal work. She says 

Preserving the lives of children is the central constitutive, invariant air of maternal practice; the commitment to achieving that aim is the constitutive maternal act. The demand to preserve a child’s life is quickly supplemented by the second demand, to nurture its emotional and intellectual growth (p. 19).

Ruddick’s point here is extremely important. That is, nurturing includes supporting the emotional and intellectual growth of our offspring. Ruddick, unlike most feminists, addressed the fact that there was something of great value that is given to the child when their care is delivered by nurturing loved others. Most feminists have not acknowledged that pregnancy, birth, breastfeeding, and bonding with babies can transform women’s lives positively, robbing them of the bliss that is also associated with motherhood. Arguably this branch of feminism has completely accepted the economic rationalist ideology of capitalism which values economic growth and wage earning above all else.

One of the few people who focused on infants’ psychological wellbeing in the 1950’s to 70’s was attachment theorist, John Bowlby. However, he was heavily criticised by feminists who accused him of wanting women to remain subordinate to men. In short, attachment theory, discussed in JFP Blog 2, was marginalised, and its salient message about an infant’s need to grow and develop in the presence of a loving attachment figure, in order that they developed emotionally well, failed to be heard.

Despite the 40 or so years since feminist such as Kristeva and Ruddick wrote to elevate the role of motherhood, it has not grown in esteem. As Crittenden (2001) states ‘On the ground, where mothers live, the lack of respect and tangible recognition is still part of every mother’s experience’ (p. 2). The voices calling for respect and status for motherhood have been drowned by the pervasive societal call for women to return to work.

This may be due in part to the fact that the women who are canvased for their views on ‘women’s’ issues are generally those in high profile, well-paid positions. Women who have taken time out from their paid work to undertake maternal work are rarely if ever canvased.

In 2013 during an Australian current affairs and news program, high profile businesswomen Yolanda Vega, Executive Director of the Australian Women Chamber of Commerce and Industry, argued for an increase to childcare availability because, she said ‘if women can’t earn, they can’t spend. If they can’t spend, the economy suffers and our children and communities pay the highest price’ (Vega 25/07/2013). The following year Kate Carnell, the then Chief Executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and former liberal politician regularly interviewed on issues pertaining to women, argued for increased access to childcare because, she said, ‘we need to get women back to work and into the productive economy’ (TheDrum 13/5/14).

Vega and Carnell implied that women who chose to stay home to parent their infants were not being productive, and the only way to be productive was to be directly involved in a wage-earning role. It also implied that women need to be cajoled into thinking about returning to work, as though they don’t understand what is in the best interests of themselves and their family. Both Carnell and Vega’s comments displayed an attitude which commodifies infants, showing they have little understanding of infant’s needs. Nor do they understand how many women make a determined choice to be with their tiny infant for a significant period of time in the firm belief that this is the best thing for their baby and to fulfil a drive to immerse themselves in deep nurturing which is only available to them for a short period of their lives. Thus, the voices that are heard continue to be from those who promote a separation and self-sufficiency view.

As Albrecht (2004) argues, the ‘equality of women requires a political economy in which being an actual or potential mother, being in need of care, and being responsible for the care of others, are the human norm’ (Albrecht 2004, p. 148). Yet this remains unacknowledged.

There is one last salient point. Ironically, while women asserted their rights in response to their marginalisation by a patriarchal society, rightfully demanding to have a career post-children, by returning to work during their child’s infancy, they have joined men in marginalising their own infants by underestimating what they need; deep, loving embedded time together. While there are indicators we have an increased awareness of the psychological needs of children, largely ignorant as to how to provide these needs, the bigger societal push has seen women utilise childcare and return to work when their infants are at increasingly younger ages. In a world that has become more financially difficult for families this appears to be the right fiscal solution, yet further intrenches separation from our infants at a time they need us the most. I will address pertinent issue.

In truth, the importance of motherhood or maternal work has continued to hold little recognition, embedding one of the significant structural impediments to undertaking maternal work. I examine this, financial questions, as well as other difficulties facing women wanting to choose to spend time with their infants in the following two blogs JFP Blog 13 – Impediments to Motherhood – Career, Money, Education and JFP Blog 14 – Impediments to Motherhood – Psychological.

Bibliography

Archard, D 2003, Children, Family and the State, Ashgate Aldershot, England.

Chase, SE & Rogers, MF 2001, Mothers and children: Feminist analyses and personal narratives, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick.

Crittenden, A 2001, The price of motherhood: Why the most important job in the world is still the least valued, Henry Holt & Co, New York.

Friedan, B 1983, The Feminine Mystique. 20th anniversary ed., Norton

New York.

Holmes, J 1993, John Bowlby and attachment theory, Routledge, London.

Kristeva, J 1985, 'Stabat mater', Poetics Today, vol. 6, no. 1/2, pp. 133-152.

LaChance Adams, S 2014, Mad mothers, bad mothers, and what a" good" mother would do: The ethics of ambivalence, Columbia University Press, New York.

LaChance Adams, S & Lundquist, CR 2013, 'Introduction: The Philosophical Significance of Pregnancy, Childbirth, and Mothering', in S LaChance Adams & CR Lundquist (eds), Coming to Life: Philosophies of Pregnancy, Childbirth and Mothering, Fordham University Press, New York, pp. 1-28.

Maushart, S 2000, 'The Mask of Motherhood: How becoming a mother changes everything and why we pretend it doesn't'.

Rich, A 1976, Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution, Norton, New York.

Ruddick, S 1989, Maternal Thinking : towards a politics of peace Women's Press, London.

Sanger, C 1999, 'Leaving Children for Work', in JE Hanigsberg & S Ruddick (eds), Mother Troubles: Rethinking Contemporary Maternal Dilemmas, Beacon Press, Massachusetts, pp. 97-116.

TheDrum 13/5/14, ABC The Drum - Kate Carnell - quote, ABC TV, ABC Television program, The Drum.

Vega, Y 25/07/2013, Effective Child Care Policy is Not Child's Play, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 10/11/2016, <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-25/vega---childcare-policy/4837978>.