Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An unlikely match? Foucault and the lone mother

  • Published:
Law and Critique Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Liz Lochead on the subject of mother fromDreaming Frankenstein and Collected Poems (London: Polygon, 1984).

  2. M. Foucault, “Two Lectures” inPower/Knowledge, ed. and trld. C. Gordon (New York: Pantheon, 1977), 93.

    Google Scholar 

  3. J. Wallbank, “The Campaign for Change of the Child Support Act 1991: Reconstituting the ‘Absent’ Father”,Social and Legal Studies 6/2 (1997), 191–216; and R. Collier,Masculinity, Law and the Family (London: Routledge, 1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Supra n.2.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ibid., at 96.

    Google Scholar 

  6. The extent to which this has occurred has since been challenged by Carol Smart,Feminism and the Power of Law (London: Routledge, 1989), 8.

    Google Scholar 

  7. M. Foucault,Discipline and Punish, trld. A. Sheridan (Peregrine Harmondsworth, 1977), 183.

  8. M. Foucault, “The eye of power”,supra n.2, at 155.

    Google Scholar 

  9. C. Ramazonglu, ed.,Up Against Foucault: Explorations of Some Tensions Between Foucault and Feminism (London: Routledge, 1993), 22. For an analysis of how eating disorders arise out of normative feminine practices see S. Bordo, “Reading the slender body”, inBody/Politics: Women and the Discourses of Science, ed. M. Jacobus, E. Fox Keller and S. Shuttleworth (London: Routledge, 1990), 83–112.

    Google Scholar 

  10. See for example Collier,supra n.3;“ J DonzelotPolicing Families (London: Hutchinson, 1980); N. Rose,Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self (London: Routledge, 1989); V. Walkerdine and H. Lucey,Democracy in the Kitchen: Regulating Mothers and Socialising Daughters (London: Virago, 1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Supra n.2, at 194.

    Google Scholar 

  12. J. Ransom, “Feminism, difference and discourse: The limits of discursive analysis for feminism”, in Ramazanoglu,supra n.9,( at 135.

    Google Scholar 

  13. In “Truth and Power”, Foucault argues that discourse makes possible a whole range of interventions which have traditionally been seen as repressive. He argues against this that discourse has produced the human subject, and the case he cites here is the sexualised infant,supra n.2, at 120.

    Google Scholar 

  14. E. Probyn,Sexing the Self: Gendered Positions in Cultural Studies (London: Routledge, 1993), 16.

    Google Scholar 

  15. I.M. Young,Throwing Like a Girl and Other Essays in Feminist Philosophy and Social Theory (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1990), 12.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ibid.. at 14.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ibid.. at 30.

    Google Scholar 

  18. C. Weedon,Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory (Oxford: Blackwell, 1987), 32–33. See also Luce Irigaray, who urges women to reclaim their subjectivity by rejecting both the idea and the use of the gender-neutral voice which she claims is a passive voice that distances the subject from the object and conceals the identity of the speaker from the reader. For her, only when women speak in an active, gendered voice do they avoid the false security and inauthenticity of the passive voice in “Is the Subject of Science Sexed?” trld. C.M. Bove,Hypatia 2/3 (1987), 66.

    Google Scholar 

  19. “Foucault on Power: A Theory for Women?”, inFeminism/Postmodernism, ed. L.J. Nicholson (London: Routledge, 1990), 157–175.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ibid.“. at 168.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Supra n.2, at 98.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Supra n.19,“ at 169.

    Google Scholar 

  24. M. Foucault,History of Sexuality, Vol. 1, trld. R. Hurley (London: Penguin, 1981), 48.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Supra n.19,“ at 169.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ibid.“

    Google Scholar 

  27. Supra n.24, at 123–24.

    Google Scholar 

  28. See also M.E. Bailey, “Foucauldian feminism: Contesting bodies, sexuality and identity”, in Ramazanoglu,supra n.9,( at 113–4.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Supra n.19,“ Introduction at 5–6.

    Google Scholar 

  30. M. Daly,Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism (Boston: Beacon Press, 1978), 68.

    Google Scholar 

  31. N. Fraser and L.J. Nicholson, “Social Criticism without Philosophy: An Encounter between Feminism and Postmodernism”, in Nicholson,supra n.19,( at 28.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ibid., at 31.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Supra n.12, at 132.

    Google Scholar 

  34. S. Phelan, “Foucault and Feminism”,American Journal of Political Science 34/2 (1990), 421–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. I found this to be the case with mothers interviewed for my doctoral thesis. J. Wallbank,Reconstructing Mothers and Fathers in Contemporary Debates on Child Support and the Lone-Parent Family (Unpublished thesis: Lancaster University, 1996).

  36. Supra n.24, at 100–101.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Weedon,supra n.18, at 125.

    Google Scholar 

  38. S. Boyd, “Is there an Ideology of Motherhood in (Post)modern Child Custody Law?” (unpublished, 1995).

  39. See further Collier,supra no.10,“ at 70–71.

    Google Scholar 

  40. N. Rose, “Transcending the Public/Private”,Journal of Law and Society 14/1 (1987), 67.

    Google Scholar 

  41. B. Campbell,Goliath: Britain’s Dangerous Places (London: Methuen, 1993), 306.

    Google Scholar 

  42. See also N. Dennis and G. Erdos,Families Without Fatherhood (London: Institute of Economic Affairs, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Wallbank,supra n.3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. The Times, August 20th 1993. It was reported inThe Guardian on the same day that a non-custodial sentence would have “risked sending the wrong signals to parents tempted to leave very young children for long periods of time” (August 20th 1993).

  45. The Times (August 29th 1993).

  46. Daily Mail (August 20th 1993).

  47. The Daily Telegraph (August 3rd and 4th 1993);The Times (August 20th 1993).

  48. The Daily Telegraph (August 3rd 1993).

  49. Daily Mail (August 4th 1993).

  50. The Times (August 20th 1993).

  51. The Daily Telegraph (August 4th 1993).

  52. The Guardian (August 28th 1993).

  53. The Guardian (August 5th 1993).

  54. Daily Mail (August 20th 1993).

  55. The Independent (August 3rd 1993).

  56. The mother’s ability to fulfil this function has come under strident attack recently. See the Institute of Economic Affairs’ publication,supra n.42, which was utilised by Peter Lilley in his 1993 Conservative Party Conference Speech.

    Google Scholar 

  57. R. Lister, “Women, Economic Dependency and Citizenship”,Journal of Social Policy 19/4 (1990), 445–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Children Come First, The Government’s proposals on the maintenance of children, vols. 1 & 2, (London: HMSO, October 1990).

  59. Cited inAgainst Redistributing Poverty (London: Wages for Housework Campaign and Payday Men’s Network, 1993, 2nd ed.).

  60. S. Lawler,Mothering the Self: A Study of the Mother-Daughter Relationship (unpublished thesis, Lancaster University, 1995). Lawler uses a childcare manual of the 1960’s to point out how the mother is reduced to the child’s “facilitating environment” (at 264 citing D.W Winnicott, “The Development of the capacity for Concern”, inThe Maturational Processes and the Facilitating Environment, ed. D.W. Winnicott (New York: International Universities, 1965), 1–23.

  61. Lawler,ibid.

  62. Ibid., at 270.

  63. M. Woodhead, “Psychological and the Cultural Construction of Children’s Needs”, inConstructing and Reconstructing Childhood, ed. A. James and A. Prout, (London: Falmer Press, 1990), 39–57.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Harrington v.Hynes [1982] 8Family Law Reports (Australia) 295–76; R. Graycar, “Equal RightsVersus Father’s Rights”, inChild Custody and the Politics of Gender, ed. C. Smart and S. Sevenhuijsen (1989), cited in K. O’Donovan,Family Law Matters (London: Routledge, 1939), 76.

  65. For a discussion of the “sensitive” mother see Walkerdine and Lucey,supra n.10, at 57–63. Also Rose,supra n.10, at 200–209.

  66. N. Rose, “Governing the enterprising self”, inThe Values of the Enterprise Culture, ed. P. Heelas & P. Morris (London: Routledge, 1992), 156–57.

    Google Scholar 

  67. N. Fraser,Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1989), 145.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Supra n.69, at 145.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Ibid., at 164.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Wallbank,supra n.3.“

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, Lancaster University, UK

    Julie Wallbank

Authors
  1. Julie Wallbank
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

I express the deepest gratitude to Celia Lury, formerly of the Department of Sociology, Lancaster University, for her valuable insights. I am also indebted to the anonymous referees ofLaw and Critique for their incisive comments. This article is in memory of Ronald James Wallbank (1960–97) and Phoebe Wallbank (1922–97).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wallbank, J. An unlikely match? Foucault and the lone mother. Law Critique 9, 59–88 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02699908

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02699908

Keywords

Search

Navigation