Defending Motherhood: Morality, Responsibility, and Double Binds in Feeding Children

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12465
• Date: 01 April 2018
• Author: Sarah Bowen,Sinikka Elliott
• Published date: 01 April 2018

S E The University of British Columbia

S B North Carolina State University∗

Defending Motherhood: Morality, Responsibility,

and Double Binds in Feeding Children

The ideology of intensive mothering sets a high

bar and is framed against the specter of the

“bad” mother. Poor mothers and mothers of

color are especially at risk of being labeled bad

mothers. Drawing on 138 in-depth interviews

and ethnographic observations, this study ana-

lyzes the discursive and interpersonal strategies

poor mothers use to make sense of and defend

their feeding and children’s body sizes. Food

beliefs and practices reect and reinforcesocial

inequalities and thus represent an exemplary

case in which to examine intensive mothering,

its ties to growing inequality, and how indi-

viduals are called to account for it. Findings

demonstrate intersecting inequalities, mean-

ings, and contradictions in mothers’ accounts

of meeting intensive mothering expectations

around feeding, health, and weight. In light

of moral framings around feeding and weight,

mothers’ experiences of surveillance, and the

double binds they encounter in feeding chil-

dren, mothers practice what the authors term

defensive mothering.

In the 2 decades since Hays (1996) coined

the term intensive mothering, a large body of

Department of Sociology, The Universityof British

Columbia, 6303 NW Marine Drive, Vancouver, BC, V6T

1Z1, Canada (sinikka.elliott@ubc.ca).

∗Department of Sociology & Anthropology, North Carolina

State University,Campus Box 8107, Raleigh, NC, 27695.

Key Words: childhood obesity, food security, government

assistance and programming, low-income families, mother-

hood, race.

literature has documented the amplication of

parenting expectations over time (Arendell,

2000; Blum, 2016; Lareau, 2011). Accord-

ing to Hays (1996, p. 8) intensive mothering

is “child-centered, expert-guided, emotion-

ally absorbing, labor-intensive, and nancially

expensive.” Scholars havehighlighted an expan-

sive terrain on which mothers must prove their

commitment to their children by investing

in “quality time” (Hochschild, 1997; Milkie,

Nomaguchi, & Denny, 2015) as well as toys,

books, technology, activities, and prestigious

schools (Cooper, 2014; Currid-Halkett, 2017;

Kornrich & Furstenberg, 2013; Pugh, 2009).

Intensive mothering expectations are framed

against images of vulnerable, innocent children

who are “at risk” of numerous hazards (Hays,

1996). This helps justify investments of time

and money in children as well as interventions

on behalf of at-risk children (C. Katz, 2008).

Also, just as intensive mothering involves a

belief in children’s vulnerability (Zelizer, 1985),

it rests on the specter of the bad mother—the

withholding mother, the uninformed mother,

the neglectful mother, or the welfare mother

(Apple, 2006; Hays, 1996, 2003; Litt, 2000;

McCormack, 2005). Poor mothers’ economic

circumstances, participation in public assistance

programs, and, for mothers of color, gendered

racialization put them at particular risk of being

labeled as bad mothers, with potentially punitive

consequences (e.g., welfare sanctions, loss of

child custody) for deviating from expectations

(J. Collins & Mayer, 2010; Elliott, Powell,

& Brenton, 2015; Hays, 2003; Reich, 2005;

Roberts, 2002; Soss, Fording, & Schram, 2011).

Journal of Marriage and Family 80 (April 2018): 499–520 499

DOI:10.1111/jomf.12465

500 Journal of Marriage and Family

These mothers may feel called to actively

guard against the perception that they are

bad mothers.

Drawing on in-depth interviews and ethno-

graphic observations with a diverse group of

low-income mothers in North Carolina, this

study analyzes the discursive and interpersonal

strategies mothers use to make sense of and

defend their feeding and mothering practices.

Beliefs and practices around food and weight

reect and reinforce social inequalities (Beagan

et al., 2015; Brenton, 2017; Cairns & Johnston,

2015; Fielding-Singh, 2017) and thus represent

an exemplary case in which to examine the

standards associated with intensive mothering,

how they are tied to growing inequality, and

what happens when people are called to account

for them.

C F

Intensive Mothering, Consumption, Risk,

and Regulation

Initially informed by the 18th-century writings

of Rousseau, who conceptualized children as

sacred and innocent as opposed to naturally

sinful, the ideology of intensive mothering

arose over a long period and involved elevating

motherhood to a moral status (Hays, 1996)

and viewing children as pure and priceless

(Zelizer, 1985). The principal tenets of the

ideology—for example, that motherhood is

exclusive, child centered, emotionally involv-

ing, and self-sacricing—have held for at least

the past 2 decades. Even mothers who reject

key elements of intensive mothering often

feel held accountable to them (Christopher,

2012; for an exception, see Dow, 2016). The

ideology of intensive mothering ratcheted up

the requirements of caring for children to

include meeting children’s emotional, cogni-

tive, and psychological requirements as well

as physically caring for them. Parents today

invest more money in and spend more active

time with their children than did parents in

previous decades (Currid-Halkett, 2017; Korn-

rich & Furstenberg, 2013; Sayer, Bianchi, &

Robinson, 2004). In addition, experts play a

stronger role in child rearing (Apple, 2006;

Hays, 1996; Litt, 2000), with mothers expected

to adapt and lter recommendations based on

their knowledge of their children (Apple, 2006;

Reich, 2014).

All of these aspects of intensive mothering

privilege some women while restricting, sham-

ing, or marginalizing others. When being a good

mother is linked to the purchase of expensive

or elite-coded products, it limits who can lay

claim to this status. Moreover, in a context of

inadequate regulations regarding how goods

are produced and marketed, consumption itself

becomes a risky endeavor in which mothers

are expected to use their buying decisions to

shield children from harm (MacKendrick, 2014;

Reich, 2014). Mothers who do not buy the

“right” products (e.g., organic food, educational

toys) are viewed as putting their children at risk

(Cairns, Johnston, & MacKendrick, 2013; Pugh,

2009). Expectations that mothering should be

expert guided can also reproduce social inequal-

ity because poor mothers are not given the same

leeway as wealthy mothers to adapt recommen-

dations to their situation. For example, Reich

(2014) found that wealthy mothers who deviated

from the recommended vaccine schedule were

able to draw on a discourse of individual choice

and risk management, whereas welfare recipi-

ents were sanctioned if their children were not

fully vaccinated. Thus, parental choices exist

within regulatory and social contexts that enable

choice for some but restrict choice for others.

There is a long history of elites scrutiniz-

ing the mothering practices of immigrants, poor

women, and women of color (P. H. Collins,

2000; Donzelot, 1979; Gordon, 1994). However,

neoliberal shifts have altered the landscape in

which mothers make and defend their parenting

decisions. Since the 1980s, the state has disman-

tled many of the social safety nets built up dur-

ing the course of the 20th century (J. Collins &

Mayer, 2010). When social support is available,

it is now often contingent on paid work (Hays,

2003; Soss et al., 2011). Even as intensive moth-

ering standards prevail, families are left to care

for children with little support from the state (J.

Collins & Mayer, 2010). The “roll-back” efforts

of neoliberal governance have been accompa-

nied by what Peck and Tickell (2002) called

“roll-out neoliberalism,” or the process of “ac-

tive state-building and regulatory reform” (p.

384), such as new layers of regulation and

surveillance associated with receiving govern-

mental assistance (Hays, 2003; Reich, 2005;

Soss et al., 2011). These new forms of mon-

itoring subject “at-risk” mothers to additional

surveillance, which can increase their chances of

being labeled and sanctioned as bad mothers.