‘What Science Says is Best’: Parenting Practices, Scientific Authority and Maternal Identity

Abstract

Based on research in London with mothers from a breastfeeding support organisation this paper explores the narratives of women who breastfeed ‘to full term’ (typically for a period of several years) as part of a philosophy of ‘attachment parenting’, an approach to parenting which validates long term proximity between child and care-taker. In line with wider cultural trends, one of the most prominent ‘accountability strategies’ used by this group of mothers to explain their long-term breastfeeding is recourse to scientific evidence, both about the nutritional benefits of breastfeeding and about the broader cognitive and developmental benefits of attachment parenting more broadly. Women's accounts internalize and reflect popular literature around attachment parenting, which is explored here in-depth as a means of contextualizing shifting patterns of ‘scientisation’. What follows is a reflection on how ‘scientific evidence’ is given credence in narratives of mothering, and what the implications of this are for individuals in their experience of parenting, and for society more broadly. As a form of ‘Authoritative Knowledge’ ( JORDAN 1997 ) women utilise ‘science’ when they talk about their decisions to breastfeed long-term, since it has the effect of placing these non-conventional practices beyond debate (they are simply what is ‘healthiest’). The article therefore makes a contribution to wider sociological debates around the ways in which society and behaviour are regulated, and the ways in which ‘science’ is interpreted, internalized and mobilized by individuals in the course of their ‘identity work’.

“If she wants to eat…and eat and eat…fine! It's gonna feed the baby”: Pregnant women and partners' perceptions and experiences of pregnancy with a BMI >40 kg/m 2

“…These themes are inter-related due to the 'spoiled identity' (Goffman 1963) that the large body represents in western culture. As such, although the women in this study voluntarily attended for high-risk care, thereby acknowledging the 'problem' of their increased weight in pregnancy, both members of several couples individually performed 'identity work' (Faircloth 2010) to simultaneously acknowledge -and resist-the negative associated characteristics of increased weight. In so doing, they negotiated a complex 'inbetween' path (Zinn 2008 p439) through pregnancy, navigating the shadow of stigma, biomedical representations of risk, dietary and lifestyle advice, and referring to reassuring messages, lay beliefs and norms regarding pregnancy, food and weight, which they experienced within their everyday lives.…”

“…Regardless of how they accounted for their weight, all participants resisted stigmatising explanations for their size, and both members of several couples concurred in this, contributing together to the 'identity work' (Faircloth 2010) that each woman undertook to preserve her moral integrity and resist the blame for her size. One couple, Mary and Adrian, described their food choices, stressing how Mary ate healthy food, and was not greedy: Resisting risk together: 'there are women who are much more at risk' Almost all of the pregnant participants described themselves as 'healthy', despite their weight.…”

Liquid gold or Russian roulette? Risk and human milk sharing in the US news media

“…This blameless recipient was herself an innocent victim who through no fault of her own was physically incapable of producing her own 'liquid gold'. This 'moral mother' used medical experts to weigh potential risks of each form of infant feeding, and managed risk through expert guidance and informed choice (Apple, 1995(Apple, , 2006Faircloth, 2010Faircloth, , 2013Foss, 2010;Knaak, 2010). Such mothers were officially approved by a representative of the broader (medico-scientific) social order who certified the worthiness of the recipient, as breast milk from a bank could only accessed with a physician prescription.…”

“…Within the ideology of intensive mothering, the 'scientific mother' is expected to rely on scientific research to support parenting decisions; parenting choices are considered 'morally righteous' if they can be supported by scientific research, which mothers are expected to use appropriately (Apple, 1995(Apple, , 2006Faircloth, 2010Faircloth, , 2013Foss, 2010;Hammer & Inglin, 2014;Knaak, 2010). Researchers have found that that mothers do approach decisions about feeding their babies rationally; assessing risks in their decisions to breastfeed (Knaak, 2010;Lee 2007Lee , 2008 or to share milk (Gribble, 2014) or when selecting one formula over another (Afflerback, Carter, Anthony, & Grauerholz, 2013).…”

“Giving Guilt the Flick”?

“…Here, Tara illustrates a dichotomy inherent in the ways that participants talked about emotional self-controlnamely, that submission to a child's needs was constructed as a positive, selfless, and moral choice (also see Faircloth, 2010aFaircloth, , 2010b whereas ''indulging'' a mother's own needs was constructed as the reverse. In this way, the value of ''not feeling guilty'' is often couched in the child's needs; a mother must overcome guilt in order to provide proper care to her infant and thus, to be a moral ''good'' mother.…”