“Breast is Best”—Really?

Q3 Arts and Humanities
Matatu Pub Date : 2023-11-29 DOI:10.1163/18757421-05401004
Donna Andrews, Lauren Paremoer
{"title":"“Breast is Best”—Really?","authors":"Donna Andrews, Lauren Paremoer","doi":"10.1163/18757421-05401004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper explores how the normalization of ‘breast is best’ has conceptualized women’s agency in relation to their role as (breast)feeders and how this has contributed to a very particular framing of women as working in private for the ‘public’ good. It does so by critically evaluating three case studies in which breastfeeding was framed as the best source of food for newborns: the 1970s campaigns against baby formula manufacturers, efforts during the early 2000s to assure HIV-positive mothers that they should breastfeed, and more contemporary framings by the agroecology movement of breastfeeding as the “first act of food sovereignty.” In each of these case studies we reflect on how the costs that this particular food/feeding practice imposes on women are obscured, ignored, or normalized. We suggest that breastfeeding, and exclusive breastfeeding in particular, often functions as a hegemonic practice, because breastfeeding is configured as ultimately being the personal responsibility of individual women (biological mothers). In what sense is this practice hegemonic? The case studies show that breastfeeding tends to be understood as something that is a universal good, but in practice constrains the agency of breastfeeding women and normalizes the status of women (and mothers in particular) as a dominated social group.","PeriodicalId":35183,"journal":{"name":"Matatu","volume":"87 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Matatu","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18757421-05401004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper explores how the normalization of ‘breast is best’ has conceptualized women’s agency in relation to their role as (breast)feeders and how this has contributed to a very particular framing of women as working in private for the ‘public’ good. It does so by critically evaluating three case studies in which breastfeeding was framed as the best source of food for newborns: the 1970s campaigns against baby formula manufacturers, efforts during the early 2000s to assure HIV-positive mothers that they should breastfeed, and more contemporary framings by the agroecology movement of breastfeeding as the “first act of food sovereignty.” In each of these case studies we reflect on how the costs that this particular food/feeding practice imposes on women are obscured, ignored, or normalized. We suggest that breastfeeding, and exclusive breastfeeding in particular, often functions as a hegemonic practice, because breastfeeding is configured as ultimately being the personal responsibility of individual women (biological mothers). In what sense is this practice hegemonic? The case studies show that breastfeeding tends to be understood as something that is a universal good, but in practice constrains the agency of breastfeeding women and normalizes the status of women (and mothers in particular) as a dominated social group.
"乳房是最好的"--真的吗?
本文探讨了 "母乳是最好的 "的正常化是如何将妇女作为(母乳)喂养者的角色概念化的,以及这又是如何促成了一种非常特殊的妇女为 "公共 "利益而私下工作的框架。本报告通过批判性地评估三个将母乳喂养作为新生儿最佳食物来源的案例研究:20 世纪 70 年代反对婴儿配方奶粉生产商的运动、21 世纪初向艾滋病毒呈阳性的母亲保证母乳喂养的努力,以及农业生态学运动将母乳喂养作为 "粮食主权的第一项行动 "的当代框架。在每一个案例研究中,我们都会反思这种特殊的食物/喂养方式给妇女带来的代价是如何被掩盖、忽视或正常化的。我们认为,母乳喂养,尤其是纯母乳喂养,往往是一种霸权行为,因为母乳喂养最终被认为是女性(生母)的个人责任。这种做法在什么意义上是霸权的?案例研究表明,母乳喂养往往被理解为一种普遍的好事,但实际上却限制了母乳喂养妇女的能动性,并使妇女(尤其是母亲)作为一个受支配的社会群体的地位正常化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Matatu
Matatu Arts and Humanities-Literature and Literary Theory
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信