Semiotics of the Mother: An Analysis of Motherhood Within Feminist Theory

by Emma Collins // University of Southern California

What is motherhood? It encompasses many things. The definition of motherhood is dependent on family units, individuals, and societal contexts surrounding all of us. For better or worse, mothering is nestled deep within feminine identity. Mothers are an othered group from both patriarchal and feminist perspectives, leaving mothers in a space isolate from liberation. The concept of motherhood must be analyzed in the context of our patriarchal society and feminist theory because women are simultaneously expected to mother by societal standards and shunned for mothering by feminist scholars. Arguments for and against motherhood can be made from a plethora of contexts, however we, as a people, a society, and a body of feminist scholars, must not dismiss motherhood.

Motherhood is nuanced — its definition is kaleidoscoped by societal and scholarly impositions. Motherhood must not be rejected for treading in gender essentialist waters nor is its traditional, patriarchal representation to be accepted. We must consider the implications of motherhood within the theoretical space because motherhood effects each of us. Motherhood is complex, and must be honored in its complexity. I will use various feminist lenses to argue that motherhood is both a social construct used to oppress women and an engaging action that can be taken by women who find value in mothering.

Oppressive gender roles have provided the foundation for patriarchal motherhood and have oppressed women for centuries. Gender constructs manipulate biological, behavioral, and emotional difference, creating prescribed ideals and normalcies to then be applied to the sexes. A societally fabricated construct is that females’ ultimate purpose is to reproduce. Simone de Beauvoir wrote that motherhood has been entwined with concepts of life and death, thus mothers are “transformed into a symbol of ‘life’ and in the process [are] robbed of all individuality” (De Beauvoir, 1954). An unspoken ideal of enmeshment between mother and child permeates society. Our connections between mother and child are not exclusive to family units, rather all females experience societal enmeshment of women and children. Women are raised to believe that they possess an inherent maternal instinct, find pregnancy penalties on their paychecks, and are questioned about their decision to have children. They are reminded of their ever-looming biological clock, a ticking time bomb of assigned worth. Many men and women internalize the patriarchal value of motherhood, thus robbing women of complete liberation because they have been banked into a collective purpose.

The prescription of purpose attached to patriarchal motherhood directly opposes feminist thought, a dissonance that has discouraged feminist scholars from examining the nuance of motherhood. Most feminist scholars, fueled by gender essentialism and loyalty to traditional analysis, fail to consider non-patriarchal definitions of mothering. Leaving the depths of motherhood uncharted is a disservice to the majority of women. About 80% of women across the globe are mothers, yet motherhood only occupies 3% of Women’s and Gender Studies publications (O’Reilly, 2014). Feminist aversion to motherhood is partly due to the essentialization it envokes. Only biological females can biologically become mothers, thus motherhood becomes an immediate problem for feminists when considering gender essentialism. Feminist theory argues that nothing about sex or gender is truly inherent, yet at some physically grounded level, motherhood is inherent to the female body. Being a mother then becomes a cardinal sin of feminist thought; she who has committed gender essentialism is not fit for feminism.

The examination of motherhood and its potential to be valuable to women without patriarchal encroachment is passed up in favor of criticizing the maternal body and label of motherhood itself. Scholars shun the possibility that motherhood has value outside of hegemonic thought by theorizing that maternity is a deterministic factor in female oppression. Feminists justify their refusal to consider the redemptive qualities of motherhood by pointing to the old-as- time expectation held of women to maintain the home, clean and cook, and, most importantly, raise children. For example, prominent second-wave feminist Betty Friedan discourages women from mothering due to the historical implications and labels associated with motherhood. Friedan’s argument bundles the husband, home, and children into one, homogeneous identity, effectively blurring the complexity of these roles:

"If I am right, the problem that has no name stirring in the minds of so many American women today is not a matter of loss of femininity or too much education, or the demands of domesticity…It may well be the key to our future as a nation and a culture. We can no longer ignore that voice within women that says: I want something more than my husband and my children and my home." (Friedan, 1963)

Motherhood has been equated to the role of a housewife, a role that scholars exalt as the prime example of female oppression due to a long history of career and personal limitations for women. The connections drawn between labels are not necessarily wrong—there is an evidenced association between ‘housewife’ and ‘doting mother’— however it is irrational to enmesh two separate roles together and canonize that new, singular identity as oppressive. In doing so, we ignore the complexity of motherhood and choose to focus only on the oppression surrounding motherhood in relation to traditionally limiting factors like the expected duties of a 50s housewife.

The scholarly community has also isolated mothers by freezing the maternal body’s ability to reproduce in patriarchal contexts. Female anatomy and the potential to reproduce have been tainted by gender essentialism, creating a space in which motherhood and feminism must be mutually exclusive. Shulamith Firestone is one of many who villainized motherhood by arguing that women will never be liberated as long as their bodies are able to produce life (Firestone, 1970). Firestone traces female oppression back to the female body, however blaming the bodies of the oppressed is unfair and imposing in its own right. It is patriarchal oppression that has assigned the female body, and thus females as a collective, the purpose of reproduction, not the maternal body unto itself. “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman,” wrote Simone de Beauvoir (1954). The body simply comes into existence and is brought into meaning by the social constructions surrounding it. It is unjust to place the full weight of liberation on uncontrollable biological difference instead of targeting the stagnant and underdeveloped semiotics assigned to motherhood.

External semiotics, or the meaning assigned unto mothers rather than from mothers unto themselves, create a climate in which motherly devotion is practically mandated. Erasure of pre-mothered identity is assumed in our patriarchal, capitalistic society. Enmeshment of mother and child often creates barriers to pursuits outside of child care. Meaghan O’Connor, a new mother herself, explains motherhood’s role in the systematic oppression of women:

"Someone has to be watching this child at all times, and [my husband and I] are responsible for him and we have to pay a lot of money to be away from him. This comes down to math—how much daycare in Brooklyn costs and how much I can earn while [my baby is] away from me. That system was built for one parent, aka the woman, to stay home. This is what capitalism is built around." (Schuh, 2018)

A centuries-old foundation of gender roles has ensured that feminists and non-feminists alike equate a woman’s child birth to a woman’s loss of self. Women are pushed to abandon their personhood in favor of motherhood, which becomes particularly problematic when considering the multitudes of women who have internalized patriarchal ideals of motherhood. The particular manner in which women are expected to mother shifts temporally, but the internal conflict faced remains the same: self-sacrifice or self- preservation. Self-sacrifice is now a measure of parental success. Women are encouraged to set aside their own desires and needs for a life of familial servitude.

Idolization of self-sacrifice is currently reflected by a recent shift in cultural values that urges mothers to practice naturalism. Mothers are encouraged to swap out bottle formulas and disposable diapers—inventions created to make child care easier— for their more natural counterparts. Patriarchal pressure to sacrifice one’s own time, convenience, and money permeates this movement. Elisabeth Badinter, a French philosopher, believes this movement “glorifies an old concept of the maternal instinct and applauds masochism and sacrifice, constituting a supreme threat to women’s emancipation and sexual equality” (Badinter, 2012). The naturalist movement is regressive; it implies women have a parental instinct superior to men’s and then uses this claim to justify traditional gender constructs. Pressure to ‘naturally’ raise the healthiest, happiest child prioritizes motherly attachment, thus sidelining fathers and tethering mother to child. Furthermore, the movement’s marketing targets insecure mothers, women that are worried they are letting their child down by pulling themselves up. Regressive parenting techniques such as exclusively breastfeeding infants (now recommended until a minimum of two years old by the World Health Organization) and the skin-to-skin contact of baby-wearing literally ties mothers to their children.

Theorists have effectively canonized the patriarchal definition of motherhood by adhering to the idea that it is the only space motherhood, as a topic and identity, can exist. Scholars must apply updated, decompartmentalized lenses to matricentric theory not to condone the patriarchal definition of motherhood but rather to combat it. Mothers are sidelined within their own gender’s discourse because the topic of motherhood is systematically avoided or villainized. When mothers are excluded from the theoretical space they so largely represent, individual female agency over mothering is released and all power is handed over to the oppressive, male-centered definitions of motherhood. The handful of scholars that write for mothers rather than about mothers may parallel essentialization, but they are also expanding the meaning of motherhood past a hegemonic prescription onto women. Theorization that attempts to liberate mothers without condemning their motherhood has the potential to loosen the patriarchal grip on both the semiotics surrounding motherhood and the act of mothering itself.

Motherhood is more than an oppressive tool of the patriarchy and deserves a nuanced definition, or rather a collection definitions working in tandem. Adrianne Rich understands the simultaneous presence of oppression and liberation in the maternal by drawing a contrast between mother-hood and mother-ing. She suggests that motherhood is an institution of male-defined oppression while the act of mothering is rooted in “women’s own experiences…[as] a source of power” (O’Reilly, 2014 & Rich, 1976). These parsed out definitions allow scholars to examine motherhood beyond inevitable oppression — women are able to engage in mothering autonomously and transform and individuals through potential relationships with their child. Here, mothering does not imply enmeshment of mother and child, instead mothering allows women to remain separate from their offspring and create a relationship indicative of personal growth.

Motherhood is able to be valued by feminist thinkers when utilizing the perspective that mothering is an act that individual women engage in. Motherhood need not be considered a permanent, stagnant state because women can utilize mothering as an act that adds value to their life rather than defining their life. For example, Julia Kristeva focuses on female-defined motherhood and the unique transformative power that mothering wields. The maternal body provides women the opportunity to expand their own minds and transform themselves through the experience of mothering (Kristeva,1974). The maternal body is active, owned and operated by the woman. Patriarchal values will still surround the maternal body, however women acting upon their maternal ability have agency over the experience of mothering. In this context, motherhood is not symbolic of a complete breakdown or erasure of the individual, instead the maternal body is an optional tool women may use to initiate personal growth. Mothers are women that are living through child-rearing like they are any other experience.

Outside of the theoretical space, the empowered maternal body applies to women who identify themselves as individuals before they identify themselves as mothers. Motherhood becomes comparable to a career path or personal project in that it can be

engaged with, committed to, and grown through. The maternal body is a source of agency when it is female-defined. Under patriarchal imposition, a mother’s life is defined by the sacrifices she makes for her child—she no longer belongs to herself. Women are made to feel selfish and guilty for spending time away from their children, a double standard not typically faced by men. However, individualism and motherhood are not mutually exclusive when celebrating the maternal body’s potential for transformative experience.

Discourse surrounding motherhood must be free to flow from thought to thought and from thinker to thinker. Analysis and subsequent criticism of that analysis is what will aid women’s resistance. Abandoning motherhood in a theoretical wasteland does nothing to equalize genders, it merely isolates a group within one of those genders. Feminism may appear to be at odds with motherhood, yet this contradictions is exactly what must be considered in order to further women’s rights in theory and practice. Conflation of mothering with hegemonic motherhood leaves mothers to be viewed solely as a victims of patriarchal oppression. This idea is valid—motherhood has been and continues to be male-imposed—however feminist thinkers currently reduce the experiences of mothers, thus turning away their own. Mothers are everywhere and feminists cannot ignore this fact. Instead, emphasis must be placed on the analysis of motherhood because it is so central to understanding female oppression.

The majority of women are also mothers— they require a seat at the table of feminist discourse. Andrea O’Reilly addressed this divide within the field of feminist thought and coined the term matricentric feminism, which she defines as a version of feminism developed from and for the specific needs and concerns of mothers (O’Reilly,2014). She writes, “we can simultaneously argue that gender is constructed and that motherhood matters; that maternity is integral to mother women’s sense of self and her experience of the world” (O’Reilly, 2014). Scholars that advocate for maternity are not immediately failing feminism at large by adhering to strands of gender essentialism. Rather, they align with the conception of motherhood as an optional and valid addition to women’s sense of self. We must not shy away from any one perspective or definition of motherhood. Every experience, every mother, every babysitter, bottle, and maternal bond can be plugged into the ever-changing concept of mother.

So again, what is motherhood? Motherhood is an oppressor when male-defined. The prescription of motherhood can rob a woman of her individuality and replace her with a new version of herself that operates in tandem with her child. It can leave mothers paralyzed by self-sacrifice or resentful of their mothering experience. Motherhood is a divisive state of being, embodying the biological distillation of gender. Yet, motherhood is also a word applied to mothers, women with a dynamic genealogy of their own. Motherhood is a unique community. Motherhood has the potential to expand itself, to break open predefined constructs of what a woman can be. Here we find the root of matricentric feminism: a discourse that opens its arms to motherhood as an oppressor and a liberator for women.

---

References

De Beauvoir, Simone. (1954). The Second Sex ([1st American ed.].). New York: Knopf.

O’Reilly, Andrea. (2014). Ain’t I a Feminist?: Matricentric Feminism, Feminist Mamas, and Why Mothers Need a Feminist Movement/Theory of Their Own. Museum of Motherhood. Talk presented at 2014 induction into the Motherhood Hall of Fame, New York, NY.

Heyman, Gail D., & Giles, Jessica W. (2006). Gender and Psychological Essentialism. Enfance,58(3), 293–310.

Friedan, Betty. (1963). The Feminine Mystique. New York: Norton.

Firestone, Shulamith. (1970). The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution. New

York: Morrow.

Rich, Adrienne. (1976). Of Woman Born: Motherhood As Experience and Institution. New

York: Norton.

Kristeva, Julia. (1984). Revolution in Poetic Language. New York: Columbia University Press.

Badinter, Elisabeth. (2012). The Conflict: How Modern Motherhood Undermines the Status of Women. New York: Metropolitan Books.

World Health Organization. (n.d.). Breastfeeding. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/exclusive_breastfeeding/en/

Schuh, Becca. (2019). Meaghan O'Connell Thinks Motherhood Is What Keeps Women

Oppressed. Electric Literature.

Söderbäck, Fanny. (2010). Motherhood: A Site of Repression or Liberation? Kristeva and Butler on the Maternal Body. Studies in the Maternal, 2(1), 1–15. DOI: http://doi.org/10.16995/sim.95