ABSTRACT
The mothering discourse has a characteristic moral logic. It is well described in Arnup’s study of what we are calling the mothering discourse in early twentieth-century Canada. Here she describes the characteristic way in which the mothering discourse attributes blame to mothers:
Children’s behavior problems were attributed to errors on the mother’s part. While the specific nature of her failings changed over the course of . . . decades, her responsibility remained constant. . . . In the 1932 edition of The Normal Child, Alan Brown reminded readers that “the mental environment of the child is created by the mother. This is her responsibility and her opportunity.” These words were echoed in countless publications throughout the period. A 1936 article in Chatelaine [a Canadian women’s magazine] warned mothers that “your child mirrors you and your home; if your child is a problem child, it is probably because you are a problem mother.” (Arnup, 1994, pp. 150-1)
The mothering discourse makes no concessions to variations in the practical and material contexts of mothering work or to the realities of a mother’s ability to control the school situation in which her child works during the day. Exposure to guilt, invidious comparisons, and anxiety all are constant hazards for mothers participating in the discourse. The child who does not read on time, who does not behave in ways which fit the classroom order established by the teacher in conjunction with the particular groups of students, who does not work well with her peers, or who is going through a difficult time for whatever reason, invites-via the discourse-her mother to scrutinize her own mothering practices for what is wrong.
