Search results

Why have the minutiae of how parents raise their children become routine sources of public debate and policy making? This book provides in-depth answers to these features drawing on a wide range of sources from sociology, history, anthropology and psychology, covering developments in both Europe and North America.

Reinventing the abortion problem -- The "syndrome society" -- The "de-moralization" of antiabortion argument -- Debating post-abortion syndrome -- Pregnancy and mental health in the United States and Britain -- Motherhood as an ordeal -- Reexamining the issues

Between February 2012 and March 2015, the claim that sex selection abortion was taking place in Britain and that action needed to be taken to stop it dominated debate in Britain about abortion. Situating an analysis in sociological and social psychological approaches to the construction of social problems, particularly those considering "feminised" re-framings of anti-abortion arguments, this paper presents an account of this debate. Based on analysis of media coverage, Parliamentary debate and official documents, we focus on claims about grounds (evidence) made to sustain the case that sex selection abortion is a British social problem and highlight how abortion was problematised in new ways. Perhaps most notable, we argue, was the level of largely unchallenged vilification of abortion doctors and providers, on the grounds that they are both law violators and participants in acts of discrimination and violence against women, especially those of Asian heritage. We draw attention to the role of claims made by feminists in the media and in Parliament about "gendercide" as part of this process and argue that those supportive of access to abortion need to critically assess both this aspect of the events and also consider arguments about the problems of "medical power" in the light of what took place.

Between February 2012 and March 2015, the claim that sex selection abortion was taking place in Britain and that action needed to be taken to stop it dominated debate in Britain about abortion. Situating an analysis in sociological and social psychological approaches to the construction of social problems, particularly those considering "feminised" re-framings of anti-abortion arguments, this paper presents an account of this debate. Based on analysis of media coverage, Parliamentary debate and official documents, we focus on claims about grounds (evidence) made to sustain the case that sex selection abortion is a British social problem and highlight how abortion was problematised in new ways. Perhaps most notable, we argue, was the level of largely unchallenged vilification of abortion doctors and providers, on the grounds that they are both law violators and participants in acts of discrimination and violence against women, especially those of Asian heritage. We draw attention to the role of claims made by feminists in the media and in Parliament about "gendercide" as part of this process and argue that those supportive of access to abortion need to critically assess both this aspect of the events and also consider arguments about the problems of "medical power" in the light of what took place.

AbstractThis article reviews research published this century that engages critically with the mantra 'Breast is Best' and the associated expansion of official breast‐feeding promotion programmes. In recent years there has been a marked increase in the number of such studies published. They mostly explore experience in English speaking, industrialised countries (the US, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and Great Britain) which are in some social and cultural respects dissimilar, yet where very similar developments and problems are detected in regards to breast‐feeding promotion. We highlight how this exploration of breast‐feeding promotion internationally has developed understanding of wider sociological themes. This scholarship, we suggest, has provided a powerful illustration of the relation between risk society (more particularly a heightened consciousness of risk) and the evolution of a code of conduct that regulates behaviour, that has been termed 'health moralizm'. The article covers three themes: 'Science, risk society, authority and choice'; 'Public health policy and infant feeding'; and 'Moralization and women's identity work'. We conclude that the research discussed shows how the sociological imagination continues to shed light on the relation between private troubles and public issues. We also suggest one conclusion that can be drawn from this research is that official discourse and everyday maternal experience appear increasingly distant from each other.

Between February 2012 and March 2015, the claim that sex selection abortion was taking place in Britain and that action needed to be taken to stop it dominated debate in Britain about abortion. Situating an analysis in sociological and social psychological approaches to the construction of social problems, particularly those considering "feminised" re-framings of anti-abortion arguments, this paper presents an account of this debate. Based on analysis of media coverage, Parliamentary debate and official documents, we focus on claims about grounds (evidence) made to sustain the case that sex selection abortion is a British social problem and highlight how abortion was problematised in new ways. Perhaps most notable, we argue, was the level of largely unchallenged vilification of abortion doctors and providers, on the grounds that they are both law violators and participants in acts of discrimination and violence against women, especially those of Asian heritage. We draw attention to the role of claims made by feminists in the media and in Parliament about "gendercide" as part of this process and argue that those supportive of access to abortion need to critically assess both this aspect of the events and also consider arguments about the problems of "medical power" in the light of what took place.

Le terme « parent hélicoptère » est aujourd'hui très présent dans les discours public et professionnel sur l'éducation des enfants, ainsi que dans la culture de façon plus générale, particulièrement en Amérique du Nord et au Royaume-Uni. Un petit nombre de travaux sociologiques ont mis en évidence le caractère paradoxal de ce phénomène, qui réside dans une inquiétude souvent exagérée envers l'investissement « excessif » de ces parents dits « hélicoptères » auprès de leurs enfants, au sein même d'une culture de la parentalité intensive. Cet article développe ces travaux de deux manières. Nous resituons d'abord l'utilisation désormais omniprésente du terme « parent hélicoptère » et les qualificatifs qui y sont associés en examinant ses antécédents discursifs dans la terminologie du XXe siècle — comme l'overparenting (surparentalité), le smothering (parent poule ou parent qui couve) ou le coddling (dorlotement) — et en soulignant leur coexistence avec les récits de « mauvaises mères », considérées comme distantes et non impliquées. Ensuite, en analysant l'utilisation du terme helicopter parent faite dans les médias britanniques depuis la fin du XXe siècle, nous analysons comment se construisent les préoccupations actuelles concernant le surinvestissement des parents dans l'éducation de leurs enfants. Nous avons observé que les thèmes les plus récurrents de la couverture médiatique concernaient l'amour parental qui a mal tourné (gone wrong), la pression parentale (parental pushiness), ainsi que la classe sociale du parent hélicoptère. Notre analyse suggère que l'expression « parent hélicoptère » peut être mieux comprise comme un aspect du langage vernaculaire du XXIe siècle qui exprime une certaine aversion envers les résultats perçus d'une parentalité intensive, mais qui laisse intactes les prémisses concernant la responsabilité parentale en matière de pathologies individuelles et sociales. Nous concluons que, pour les sociologues, une caractéristique importante du parent hélicoptère est qu'il est généralement perçu comme un parent « à problèmes » issu de la classe moyenne, et nous suggérons que cette construction de l'origine sociale des défaillances parentales est une question importante à prendre en considération à l'avenir dans les études sur la culture de la parentalité.

In December 2017, the House of Commons Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee put out a call for submissions to an Inquiry that would consider the evidence-base for early intervention policies, with a particular focus on 'Adverse Childhood Experiences' or ACEs. This article analyses those submissions and the transcripts of the Inquiry's oral sessions in the belief that they constitute a useful window through which to explore the types of claims being made in ACEs discourse. Our aim is to assess whether the ACEs phenomenon represents a continuity with what has been termed the 'first three years movement' (Thornton, 2011a, 2011b) – social policy and philanthropic activism which focuses on the earliest years of life in the name of preventing social problems 'down the line'. In particular, we consider constructions of parents as determinate of these social problems through their influence on their children and the ways in which these are gendered in new ways.