Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-26T15:57:37.446Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Idealized and Industrialized Labor: Anatomy of a Feminist Controversy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2020

Jane Clare Jones
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Prompted by the ever‐increasing cesarean rate, this paper considers the interpretive disjunct between two significant strands of feminist analysis that have arisen in the last four decades as a consequence of the phenomenon of medicalized birth. In contrast to the dominant paradigm of bioethical “Principalism,” both modes of analysis, understood as “the critique of industrialized labor” and “the critique of idealized labor,” are attentive to the way in which social discourses inform bioethical deliberation and practice, but significantly diverge in the nature of their accounts. The “industrialization critique” understands the culture of medical intervention to be impelled by an “obstetric desire” to appropriate women's reproductive potency, whereas the “idealization critique” relates new mothers’ “low childbirth satisfaction” to a pernicious normative ideal propagated by the natural childbirth movement. This paper will explore the anatomy of both critiques and interrogate their fidelity to the phenomenological insight of the body as chiasm between material and ideal. I will argue that while the insights of the idealization critique are well grounded, we must exercise caution about the critique's tendency to reductively understand the embodied experience of labor as entirely discursively produced, a gesture that risks re‐performing the dematerialization of women often effected through obstetric intervention itself.

Type
Articles
Information
Hypatia , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , Winter 2012 , pp. 99 - 117
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alcoff, Linda. 1994. Cultural feminism versus post‐structuralism: The identity crisis in feminist theory. In Culture/power/history: A reader in contemporary social theory, ed. Dirks, Nicholas B., Eley, Geoff and Ortner, Sherry B.Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Althabe, Fernando, Sosa, Claudio, Belizán, José M., Gibbons, Luz, Jacquerioz, Frederique, and Bergel, Eduardo. 2006. Cesarean section rates and maternal and neonate mortality in low‐, medium‐, and high‐income countries: An ecological study. Birth 33 (4): 270–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beauvoir, Simone de. 1953/1988. The second sex. London: Pan Books.Google Scholar
Beckett, Katherine. 2005. Choosing cesarean: Feminism and the politics of childbirth in the United States. Feminist Theory 6 (3): 251–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belkin, Lisa. 2010. The idealized birth. The New York Times, July 15. http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com /2010/07/15/the‐idealized‐birth (accessed August 20, 2010).Google Scholar
Chaliha, Charlotte. 2009. Postpartum pelvic floor trauma. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 21 (6): 474–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Curtin, Sally C., and Park, Melissa M. 1999. Trends in the attendant, place, and timings of births, and in the use of obstetric interventions: United States, 1989–1997. National Vital Statistics Reports 47 (27). Hyattsville, Md.: National Center for Health Statistics.Google Scholar
Davis‐Floyd, Robbie. 1994. Culture and birth: The technocratic imperative. International Journal of Childbirth Education 9 (2): 6–7.Google Scholar
De Vries, Raymond, Kane Low, Lisa, and Bogdan‐Lovis, Elizabeth. 2009. Choosing surgical birth: Desire and the nature of bioethical advice. In Naturalized bioethics: Toward responsible knowing and practice, ed. Lindemann, Hilde, Verkerk, Marian and Urban Walker, Margaret. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Enkin, Murray, Keirse, Marc, Neilson, James, Crowther, Caroline, Duley, Leila, Hodnett, Ellen, and Hofmeyr, Justus. 2000. A guide to effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, J., Astbury, J., and Smith, A. 1997. Adverse psychological impact of operative obstetric interventions: A prospective longitudinal study. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 31: 728–738.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garel, M., Lelong, N., and Kaminski, M. 1987. Psychological consequences of ceasarean childbirth in primiparas. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynaecology 6 (3): 197–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gawande, Atul. 2006. The score: How childbirth went industrial. The New Yorker, October 9. http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/10/09/061009fa_fact (accessed December 15, 2009).Google Scholar
Goodman, P., Mackey, M. C., and Tavakoli, A. S. 2004. Factors related to childbirth satisfaction. Journal of Advanced Nursing 46 (2): 212–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gray, J. A. 2005. Implications of perceived control for recovery from childbirth for unplanned cesarean, planned cesarean and vaginal deliveries. Journal of Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology and Health 19 (3): 251–67.Google Scholar
Haire, Doris. 1972. The cultural warping of childbirth. International Childbirth Education Association News. Minnesota: ICEA Publications. Reprinted in The cultural crisis of modern medicine, ed. Ehrenreich, John. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Hamilton, Brady E., Miniño, Arialdi M., Martin, Joyce A., Kochanek, Kenneth D., Strobino, Donna M., and Guyer, Bernard. 2007a. Annual summary of vital statistics: 2005. Pediatrics 119 (2): 345–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton Brady E., Joyce A. Martin, and Ventura, Stephanie J. 2007b. Births: Preliminary data for 2006. National Vital Statistics Reports 56 (7). Hyattsville, Md.: National Center for Health Statistics.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1991. Marine lover of Friedrich Nietzsche. Trans. Gill, Gillian C.New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1993. Sorcerer love. In An ethics of sexual difference. Trans. Burke, Carolyn and Gill, Gillian C.London: Athlone.Google Scholar
Kittay, Eva. 1983. Womb envy: An explanatory concept. In Mothering: Essays in feminist theory, ed. Treblicot, Joyce. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman & Allanheld.Google Scholar
Kitzinger, Sheila. 2003. Sheila Kitzinger's letter from Europe: The politics of birth. Birth 30 (3): 203–05.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kukla, Rebecca. 2008. Measuring mothering. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 1 (1): 67–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leder, Drew. 1992/1998. A tale of two bodies: The Cartesian corpse and the lived body. In Body and flesh: A philosophical reader, ed. Welton, Donn. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lobel, Marci, and Stein DeLuca, Robyn. 2007. Psychosocial sequelae of cesarean delivery: Review and analysis of their causes and implications. Social science & medicine 64 (11): 2272–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, Joyce A., Hamilton, Brady E., Sutton, Paul D., Ventura, Stephanie J., Menacker, Fay, and Kirmeyer, Sharon. 2006. Births: Final data for 2004. National Vital Statistics Report 55 (1). Hyattsville, Md.: National Center for Health Statistics.Google ScholarPubMed
McClure, E. M., Goldenberg, R. L., and Bann, C. M. 2007. Maternal mortality, stillbirth and measure of obstetric care in developing and developed countries. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 96 (2): 139–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Merleau‐Ponty, Maurice. 2004. The intertwining—The chiasm. From The visible and the invisible. In Maurice Merleau‐Ponty: Basic writings, ed. Baldwin, Thomas. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Michie, Helena, and Cahn, Naomi R. 1996. Unnatural births: Cesarean sections in the discourse of the “natural childbirth” movement. In Gender and health: An international perspective, ed. Sargent, Carolyn F. and Brettell, Caroline B.Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice‐Hall.Google Scholar
NCT Evidence Based Briefing. 2003. Caesarean section—Part 2. http://www.nct.org.uk/ about‐us/what‐we‐do/research/roepregnancy‐birth (accessed December 16, 2009).Google Scholar
NCT Document Summary. 2006. Delivering quality and value. Focus on: Caesarean section. NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement. http://www.nct.org.uk/about-us/what-we-do/policy/documentsummaries (accessed December 16, 2009).Google Scholar
Plante, Lauren A. 2009. Mommy, what did you do in the industrial revolution: Meditations on the rising cesarean rate. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 2 (1): 140–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Margaret Urban. 2009. Introduction to Naturalized bioethics: Toward responsible knowing and practice, ed. Lindemann, Hilde, Verkerk, Marian and Urban Walker, Margaret. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
World Health Organization. 1985. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 2 (8452): 436–37.Google Scholar
Young, Diony. 2003. The push against vaginal birth. Birth 30 (3): 149–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Young, Iris Marion. 1984/1995. Pregnant embodiment: Subjectivity and alienation. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 9 (1): 45–62. Reprinted in Feminism and philosophy, ed. Nancy Tuana and Rosemarie Tong. Boulder and San Francisco: Westview Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar