After my previous enthusiastic thoughts on Rachel Cusk’s classic ‘A life’s work’ (2001) I was alarmed when I heard that she had received many negative responses to her book. I had considered it This is what I found: her own reaction to the responses to her honesty. I was both thrilled to read more about the book’s and the writer’s context and amazed (how naive!) at the mother-bashing. Cusk’s liberating honesty clearly does not have a place in the frameworks that dominate our culture. What a shame. And what a pressure on mothers.
In preparing my lecture for next week’s conference ‘Concerning Maternity’ I will draw upon Sarah LaChance Adams’ book Mad Mothers, Bad Mothers, & What a ‘Good’ Mother Would Do. The book’s main point, that mothering (as well as parenting) is always full of conflicting values and ambivalent being, remains important and deserving of more attention. The way in which society, but also researchers and ethicists, often seem to have a clearcut idea on how mothers should behave, dividing them quickly into ‘bad’, mad’, or ‘good’, ignores how deeply conflicted mothers (and parents in general) might be on what a ‘good’ mother (parent) might do. LaChance Adams’ approach of bringing mothers’ voices that express their own experiences in a dialogue with care ethics and (phenomenological) philosophers, is fruitful in understanding the depth of the internal and external conflicts of mothers (and parents).
The point of departure is a wonderful presentation of the mothers’ own expressions of their experiences, for which LaChance Adams draws upon a vast amount of empirical research. This is an excellent overview of the key problem of ambivalence. It is not often the case that researchers in the field of maternity draw upon care ethics and phenomenology. LaChance Adams presents a broad range of care ethicists next to the works of Emmanuel Levinas, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, and Simone de Beauvoir. These sources are helpful for a multilayered analysis of maternal ambivalence. LaChance Adams is loyal to phenomenology by aiming for a deep understanding of this phenomenon, instead of seeing it as a problem that needs to be solved.
A less strong point is how Lachance Adams quite closely connects her own search for understanding maternal ambivalence to the philosophers’ views, by paying (too) little attention to their own key problem. Thereby she risks the incorrect suggestion that their philosophical undertaking was about maternal ambivalence as well. Nevertheless the book is an important and good read on a most relevant and undertheorized topic.
Red Clocks is a disturbing but all too probable dystopia: a fictional frightening American society for women in which only a few subsequent presidents have successfully passed laws that restrict reproductive freedom to a minimum and reverse women’s rights to an abortion. A pink wall has been built on the American-Canadian border to prevent women from having an abortion there. Illegal abortion is considered murder. Soon single parent adoption will be prohibited too thanks to the ‘Every child deserves two’-law. Women in this society struggle with every aspect of motherhood: having given it up, trying to become one, trying to get rid of it, trying to survive it. Women’s lives are found to be interwoven along the lines of these struggles and ancient knowledge becomes the target of a modern witch hunt. Sacrifices in this world are all over the place, but – not surprisingly – mainly brought by and expected and demanded from women. Intriguing! See a review in the Guardian here.
Today I started to study this classical work by Barbara Duden: a fascinating analysis of our culture’s preoccupation with the visible, i.e. everything that can be witnessed, measured, controlled and interpreted. With regard to pregnancy the consequences are unreflected but severe: the disembodiment of women. Historically women’s experience of pregnancy was fundamentally different. A must read!