What makes a good mother? This question, once answered simply by staying alive, has become more complicated over time. For example, the recent Heritage Foundation Report, Saving America by Saving the Family: A Foundation for the Next 250 Years, seems to suggest that a good mother is defined, at least in part, by her marital status. Some might locate good mothering in the willingness and ability to deeply research childcare-related choices and provide labor-intensive care, while others caution against this sort of “intensive parenting.” And how should a mother feel? Is it healthy to feel conflicted about motherhood? Is it normal?
In a cultural context that prizes the selfless mother above all, Professor Elizabeth Kukura’s engaging and insightful article, Normalizing Maternal Ambivalence, argues that scrutinizing and punishing maternal ambivalence is the result of restrictive gender stereotypes about the self-sacrificing and overwhelmingly joyful mother. Maternal ambivalence, which is “both common and normal,” can be defined as having mixed feelings about mothering and the role of motherhood. Psychologists consider such complex, uncertain feelings about motherhood typical; the multiplicity of modern motherhood memoirs and their market success offer evidence that ambivalent feelings about motherhood are both common and relatable to many. Despite the ubiquity of maternal ambivalence, Professor Kukura shows us that it can be a basis to punish mothers in the criminal legal system and separate families in the family regulation system.
Professor Kukura begins by defining maternal ambivalence. Using motherhood memoirs, social science, sociology, and psychotherapy, Kukura is careful to distinguish maternal ambivalence from postpartum depression and the stress of parenthood. Postpartum depression—a mood disorder that can develop after a mother gives birth—is marked by purely negative experiences and feelings. The stress of parenthood is the mundane experience of parenting: the daily grind of parenting, the stress of a toddler’s tantrums, the harried period between school pickup and dinner. In contrast, maternal ambivalence is marked simply by mixed feelings about the role of mother. Still, the relationship between the two experiences and maternal ambivalence is nonetheless complex. The sadness associated with postpartum depression can be mistaken for ambivalence, and the stress of parenting may indeed make some mothers more ambivalent about taking on the role.
Professor Kukura is most concerned with normalizing maternal ambivalence because of the ways in which it has become a basis for judging and even prosecuting mothers. She describes the way women who experience miscarriages and still births—especially poor and non-white women—can face punishment based on reproductive outcomes. Mothers who share feelings of being overwhelmed or who previously considered an abortion can be prosecuted or investigated for having still births, revealing how state authorities and medical professionals have coextensive and overlapping power to police mothers who are perceived as deviant. Professor Kukura demonstrates that vague statutes designed to criminalize the act of hiding a fetus or stillborn baby (called concealment of birth) and abuse of a corpse can be used to prosecute and punish maternal ambivalence. We also learn the way expressions of ambivalence—such as considering abortions in prior pregnancies, sharing uncertainty about an upcoming childbirth, or verbalizing the stress and anxiety experienced during pregnancy—can be understood as indicators that a mother might harm her children in the family court context. In these cases, state investigators and judges sometimes remove children from mothers who have expressed anxiety or uncertainty about their role as mothers.
Professor Kukura then offers another gift to her reader: an account of the true ubiquity of maternal ambivalence. Here, she recounts the range of experiences ambivalent mothers-to-be might have: inconsistent use of contraceptives, delay of decisions related to childbearing, voluntary childlessness, and others. If a pregnancy is carried to term, the experience of ambivalence may be complicated further by what sociologist Sharon Hays calls “the ideology of intensive mothering.” (P. 591, n. 175.) This is based on white, middle- or upper-class norms that call upon mothers to put their children above themselves and prioritize the child as the center of their lives. While apparently exalting motherhood, these norms also set a standard that is nearly impossible to reach. Such strong pressure to reach intensely high standards can itself create ambivalence.
Kukura next turns to the psychology and sociology of maternal ambivalence. Her treatment of maternal ambivalence is nuanced, and she takes care to show that the ideals related to good motherhood and what it might mean to be a selfless mother differ by race, class, and other cultural contexts. For example, while the white middle class norm may regard selflessness as forgoing work outside of the home, “[a]gainst the backdrop of economic struggle, a good mother is someone who is able to provide for their children and keep them safe.” (P. 603.) The reality that different cultures have different values about motherhood makes clear both that stereotypes—derived mostly from white, middle- or upper-class norms—motivate the legal understanding of what it means to be a “good mother” and why it is so problematic for the law to punish or investigate expressions of perceived ambivalence at all.
Professor Kukura ends by making a strong case that the punishment of maternal ambivalence is a discriminatory form of sex stereotyping. She argues that punishing women who express ambivalence about motherhood rest on a culturally produced, internalized, concept of the ideal mother. When women deviate from this stereotypical ideal—a notion informed by white middle-class values associated with stay-at-home mothers—they are being punished based on their failure to meet a sex-based stereotype.
From there, she puts forward several legal interventions to help normalize maternal ambivalence. Though she acknowledges the underperformance of past federal policies designed to support mothers, she suggests universal access to prenatal, childbirth, and postpartum doula support, lactation support, and “Finnish-style newborn starter kits,” regardless of insurance status or ability to pay. She also suggests universal access to counseling for all pregnant and postpartum women to not only offer concrete support but also to normalize the idea that many women might experience identity conflicts around motherhood. Even more concretely, she suggests repealing vague concealment statutes to foreclose the prosecution and punishment of maternal ambivalence; training mandatory reporters and medical providers on both the consequences and true contours of their reporting obligations; and the adoption of evidence rules that would exclude evidence of maternal ambivalence in criminal and family court.
By offering this well-researched critique of the role of maternal ambivalence in prosecuting mothers or separating them from their families, Professor Kukura does exactly what she calls upon the law to do: normalize maternal ambivalence. All mothers—prosecuted or not—are better off for this work.
