Motherhood as Contested Ideological Terrain: Essentialist and Queer Discourses of Motherhood at Play in Female–female Co-mothers' Talk

Abstract

Framed by relational dialectics theory (Baxter), this investigation considered the meaning(s) of motherhood in female-female co-motherhood. Analysis identified two competing discourses: (1) discourse of essential motherhood (DEM) and (2) discourse of queer motherhood (DQM). Speakers' invocation of the DEM reinscribes the mainstream US cultural discourse that children can have only one authentic (i.e., biological) mother, whereas invocation of the DQM denaturalizes the DEM's presumptions of authentic motherhood as biological, interrupts monomaternalism, destabilizes the patriarch, and troubles the equation of biological with moral motherhood. Whereas interpenetrations of the DEM and DQM were typically sites of adversarial discursive struggle, in a few instances, the DEM and DQM rose above their antagonistic relationship, combining to create new meanings of motherhood.

A Tale of Two Mommies: (Re)Storying Family of Origin Narratives

“…The term normal connotes typical or usual behaviors, the expected modes of being in the world (Padavic & Butterfield, 2011). In the context of the family, normal refers to taken-for-granted assumptions about family formation (Suter, Seurer, Webb, Grewe, & Koenig Kellas, 2015). In mainstream U.S. culture, the normal way a family is formed is presumed to be the result of a man and woman marrying and producing biological offspring.…”

“To Meet Her, that Changed Everything”: Adult Adoptees’ Discursive Construction of the Meaning of “Parent” following Birth Parent Contact

“…These contexts include spousal relationships (Baxter, Braithwaite, Golish, & Olson, 2002;Moore, Kienzle, & Grady, 2015;Sahlstein, Maguire, & Timmerman, 2009;Toller, 2005;Toller, 2008;Toller & Braithwaite, 2009), parent-child relationships (Harrigan & Miller-Ott, 2013;Scharp & Thomas, 2016), siblings (Halliwell, 2016;Halliwell & Franken, 2016), stepfamilies (Baxter et al, 2009;Braithwaite & Baxter, 2006;Braithwaite & Schrodt, 2013;Braithwaite, Toller, Daas, Durham, & Jones, 2008), and communication with in-laws (Prentice, 2009). Researchers also have applied RDT to issues that face families such as inheritance planning (Pitts, Fowler, Kaplan, Nussbaum, & Becker, 2009), transgender identification (Norwood, 2012), lesbian co-mothering (Suter, Seurer, Webb, Grewe, & Koenig Kellas, 2015), mental illness (Sporer & Toller, 2017), end-of-life decisions (Ohs, Trees, & Gibson, 2015), and forgiveness (Carr & Wang, 2012). Through these two iterations, RDT's focus remains centered on exploring how family members create their shared reality through ongoing interaction, with particular emphasis placed on the "tensions" (contradictions) that represent the different goals and desires of each member (Baxter, 2011;Baxter & Montgomery, 1996).…”

Relational Dialectics Theory: A New Approach for Military and Veteran‐Connected Family Research

“…Following Baxter's () lead, the second wave of RDT family research has used the theory to explore normative (civilian) family forms and concerns such as sibling relationships (Halliwell & Franken, ), college‐aged mother–daughter relationships (Harrigan & Miller‐Ott, ), older parents' relationships with their adult children (Wenzel & Poynter, ), remarriage (Wilder, ), and forgiveness within family relationships (Carr & Wang, ). A growing number of RDT‐informed scholars are focusing on nonnormative civilian family relationships and concerns such as adoptive families (Baxter, Norwood, Asbury, & Scharp, ; Norwood & Baxter, ) and queer motherhood (Suter, Seurer, Webb, Grewe, & Koenig Kellas, ), as well as the negotiation of transgender family member identities (Norwood, , ) and familial estrangement (Scharp & Thomas, ). These latter studies have centered their analyses on RDT's “critical underpinnings” (Suter & Norwood, , p. 294) by exposing problematic cultural assumptions and master narratives, as well as “critiquing marginalization, by a wariness toward totalization and normalization, and by hope to open space for voices that are muted or dismissed” (Suter & Norwood, , p. 294).…”

“…One type of discourse that makes its way into relational talk is distal discourse, which focuses on “meanings that circulate in the larger culture that serve to define and discipline families” (Suter & Norwood, , p. 297). Previous RDT research has recognized how in the United States there are historically dominant discourses surrounding expectations for certain family structures and identities (e.g., “real” family are related biologically—Suter et al, ; families should reside together, and mothers should take care of the home and children—Bergen, , ). In military culture, discourses of family as traditional (husband as service member, wife as biological mother; Sahlstein Parcell, ) and resilient (members are strong in the face of adversity; Maguire, ) arguably dominate, as do ideas about what makes a “good military wife” (Sahlstein Parcell & Maguire, ).…”