Contested parenting and its affective economies: A commentary

IF 1.3 4区 社会学 Q3 ANTHROPOLOGY
Ethos Pub Date : 2025-04-21 DOI:10.1111/etho.70009
Claudia Fonseca
{"title":"Contested parenting and its affective economies: A commentary","authors":"Claudia Fonseca","doi":"10.1111/etho.70009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In stringing together the fine-grained ethnographic studies that comprise this special issue of <i>Ethos</i>, “Contested Parenting. Experts, Audiences, Selves,” our commentary is designed to go beyond the micro-setting of daily routines to the emotional entanglements of family relationships within wider economic and political networks. Calling on the notion of affective economies, we examine how, in the present-day “parenting culture,” racial and class inequalities mediate not only expert intervention and policy objectives, but the moral and emotional foundations of parental selves. Comparing widely diverse settings—from New York mothers of the cosmopolitan elite to working-class dads in the Caribbean, from African-based ex-pats engaged in the international aid industry to Vietnamese immigrants in Berlin, it becomes clear that, as we descend the socioeconomic ladder, parental anxieties are retooled and compounded by the accusatory gaze of surrounding audiences. Failing to see today's parenting culture as a contextually-circumscribed ideal, government policies tend to isolate its component parts in universal principles of good practice, propagating a myopic moralism that exacerbates feelings of frustration, humiliation, and burn-out among families and professionals caught in the cross fire of historically-shaped structures of inequality and discrimination.</p>","PeriodicalId":51532,"journal":{"name":"Ethos","volume":"53 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/etho.70009","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethos","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/etho.70009","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In stringing together the fine-grained ethnographic studies that comprise this special issue of Ethos, “Contested Parenting. Experts, Audiences, Selves,” our commentary is designed to go beyond the micro-setting of daily routines to the emotional entanglements of family relationships within wider economic and political networks. Calling on the notion of affective economies, we examine how, in the present-day “parenting culture,” racial and class inequalities mediate not only expert intervention and policy objectives, but the moral and emotional foundations of parental selves. Comparing widely diverse settings—from New York mothers of the cosmopolitan elite to working-class dads in the Caribbean, from African-based ex-pats engaged in the international aid industry to Vietnamese immigrants in Berlin, it becomes clear that, as we descend the socioeconomic ladder, parental anxieties are retooled and compounded by the accusatory gaze of surrounding audiences. Failing to see today's parenting culture as a contextually-circumscribed ideal, government policies tend to isolate its component parts in universal principles of good practice, propagating a myopic moralism that exacerbates feelings of frustration, humiliation, and burn-out among families and professionals caught in the cross fire of historically-shaped structures of inequality and discrimination.

有争议的育儿及其情感经济:评论
在将细粒度的人种学研究串在一起,这些研究构成了本期《精神》的特刊,“有争议的养育方式”。“专家,观众,自我”,我们的评论旨在超越日常生活的微观环境,进入更广泛的经济和政治网络中家庭关系的情感纠缠。借助情感经济的概念,我们研究了在当今的“育儿文化”中,种族和阶级不平等不仅调解了专家干预和政策目标,还调解了父母自我的道德和情感基础。比较广泛不同的背景——从纽约的国际精英母亲到加勒比海的工人阶级父亲,从非洲从事国际援助行业的外籍人士到柏林的越南移民——很明显,随着我们在社会经济阶梯上的下降,父母的焦虑被周围观众指责的目光重新调整和加剧了。政府的政策没有把今天的养育文化看作是一种受环境限制的理想,倾向于把它的组成部分孤立在良好实践的普遍原则中,传播一种短视的道德主义,加剧了家庭和专业人士在历史上形成的不平等和歧视结构的交叉炮火中的挫败感、羞辱感和倦怠感。
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
Ethos
Ethos Multiple-
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
16.70%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: Ethos is an interdisciplinary and international quarterly journal devoted to scholarly articles dealing with the interrelationships between the individual and the sociocultural milieu, between the psychological disciplines and the social disciplines. The journal publishes work from a wide spectrum of research perspectives. Recent issues, for example, include papers on religion and ritual, medical practice, child development, family relationships, interactional dynamics, history and subjectivity, feminist approaches, emotion, cognitive modeling and cultural belief systems. Methodologies range from analyses of language and discourse, to ethnographic and historical interpretations, to experimental treatments and cross-cultural comparisons.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信