Advertisement

Purifying: Embodied Cleanliness and Natural Products

  • Lydia Martens
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Childhood and Youth book series (SCY)

Abstract

This chapter examines purifying as a third major component in the teleoaffective structure of child caring. Purification is a set of ritualised practices performed on babies and products, and in material-embodied and symbolic ways, creating a range of material and symbolic orders that keep the pure child pure. The chapter is organised in two parts. I start by following the recently growing interest in re-usable nappies in an analysis that gives some insight into the hybrid reality of early parenting where practical, embodied, environmental and symbolic concerns are brought together. I mostly draw on my interviews with prospective and new parents to discuss plans and values towards childcare and products, focusing on baby excrement, which, as argued by Murcott (1993), points to the concomitant realisation of infants as pure and polluting. In the second part of the chapter, the focus shifts to an example of the purifying work performed in sales practices to render products natural and normal, thus enhancing their suitability as components in child caring practices. I here return to infant feeding tools and present an analysis of recently converging sales narratives in which the tools are ‘naturalised’ through design changes that are argued to make these closer to the embodied qualities of infants and the process of breastfeeding.

Bibliography

  1. Apple, R.D. 1987. Mothers and medicine: A social history of infant feeding, 1890–1950. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  2. Beck, U. 1992. Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Beck, U., A. Giddens, and S. Lash. 1994. Reflexive modernization: Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Boyer, K. 2010. Of care and commodities: Breast milk and the new politics of mobile biosubstances. Progress in Human Geography 34 (1): 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyer, K., and M. Boswell-Penc. 2010. Breast pumps: A feminist technology, or (yet) “more work for mother”? In Feminist technology, ed. L. Layne, S. Vostral, and K. Boyer. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  6. Brownlie, J., and V. Leith. 2011. Social bundles: Thinking through the infant body. Childhood 18 (2): 196–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burningham, K., and S. Venn. 2017. Understanding and practising sustainable consumption in early motherhood. Journal of Consumer Ethics 1 (2): 82–91.Google Scholar
  8. Burningham, K., S. Venn, I. Christie, T. Jackson, and B. Gatersleben. 2014. New motherhood: A moment of change in everyday shopping practices? Young Consumers 15 (3): 211–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Castree, N., and B. Braun. 1998. The construction of nature and the nature of construction. In Remaking reality: Nature at the millenium, ed. B. Braun and N. Castree, 3–42. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Cook. 2009. The ingratiating child: Conundrums and questions in the commercial depiction of childhood. Unpublished paper for “The Ethics of Representing Childhood: Popular Culture, Performance, and Pedagogy,” 1–19, March 5–7, Arizona State University.Google Scholar
  11. Coutant, A., V.I. de La Ville, M. Gram, and N. Boireau. 2011. Motherhood, advertising, and anxiety: A cross-cultural perspective on Danonino commercials. Advertising & Society Review 12 (2): 1–19.Google Scholar
  12. Dombroski, K. F. 2012. Babies’ bottoms for a better world: Hygiene, modernities and social change in Northwest China and Australasia. Doctor of Philosophy, University of Western Sydney.Google Scholar
  13. Douglas, M. 1993. Purity and danger: An analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Douglas, M. 2003. Purity and danger: An analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Halkier, B. 2013. Contesting food–contesting motherhood. In Motherhoods, markets and consumption: The making of mothers in contemporary Western cultures, ed. S. O’Donohoe, M. Hogg, P. Maclaran, L. Martens, and L. Stevens, 89–103. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Halkier, B., and I. Jensen. 2011. Methodological challenges in using practice theory in consumption research. Examples from a study on handling nutritional contestations of food consumption. Journal of Consumer Culture 11 (1): 101–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harris, D. 2000. Cute, quaint, hungry and romantic: The aesthetics of consumerism. Cambridge, MA: DaCapo Press.Google Scholar
  18. Iovino, S. 2012. Material ecocriticism: Matter, text, and posthuman ethics. In Literature, ecology, ethics: Recent trends in ecocriticism, ed. Timo Müller and Michael Sauter, 51–68. Heidelberg: Winter Verlag.Google Scholar
  19. James, A. 1993. Eating green(s). In Environmentalism: The view from anthropology, ed. K. Milton, 205–218. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Keenan, J., and H. Stapleton. 2013. ‘It won’t do her any harm’ they said, ‘or they wouldn’t put it on the market’. In Motherhoods, markets and consumption: The making of mothers in contemporary Western cultures, ed. S. O’Donohoe, M. Hogg, P. Maclaran, L. Martens, and L. Stevens, 71–87. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Latour, B. 1993. The pasteurization of France. Harvard, MA and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Latour, B. 1999. Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Harvard, MA and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Law, J. 2004. After method. Mess in social science research. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Lee, E. 2011. Breast-feeding advocacy, risk society and health moralism: A decade’s scholarship. Sociology Compass 5 (12): 1058–1069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lupton, D. 2013. Precious, pure, uncivilised, vulnerable: Infant embodiment in Australian popular media. Children and Society 28 (50): 341–351.Google Scholar
  26. Martens, L. 2012. Practice ‘in talk’ and talk ‘as practice’: Dish washing and the reach of language. Sociological Research Online 17 (3): 22. http://www.socresonline.org.uk/17/3/22.html.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Martens, L., and S. Scott. 2006. Under the kitchen surface: Domestic products and conflicting constructions of home. Home Cultures 3 (1): 39–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mepham, T.B. 1993. “ Humanizing” milk: The formulation of artificial feeds for infants (1850–1910). Medical History 37 (3): 225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Murcott, A. 1993. Purity and pollution: Body management and the social place of infancy. In Body matters: Essays on the sociology of the body, ed. D. Morgan and S. Scott, 122–134. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  30. Murphy, E. 1999. ‘Breast is best’: Infant feeding decisions and maternal deviance. Sociology of Health & Illness 21 (2): 187–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Murphy, E. 2007. Images of childhood in mothers’ accounts of contemporary childrearing. Childhood 14 (1): 105–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nimmo, R. 2010. Milk, modernity and the making of the human: purifying the social. CRESC: Culture, economy and the social. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Rosen, R. 2015. ‘The scream’: Meanings and excesses in early childhood settings. Childhood 22 (1): 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stevens, E.E., T.E. Patrick, and R. Pickler. 2009. A history of infant feeding. The Journal of Perinatal Education 18 (2): 32–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Taylor, A. 2011. Reconceptualising the ‘nature’ of childhood. Childhood 18 (4): 420–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Taylor, A. 2013. Reconfiguring the natures of childhood. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Verbeek, P.P. 2006. Materializing morality design ethics and technological mediation. Science, Technology & Human Values 31 (3): 361–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Verbeek, P.P. 2011. Moralizing technology: Understanding and designing the morality of things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  39. Waight, E. 2013. Eco babies: Reducing a parent’s ecological footprint with second-hand consumer goods. International Journal of Green Economics 7 7 (2): 197–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Waight, E. 2014. Second-hand consumption among middle-class mothers in the UK: Thrift, distinction, and risk. Families, Relationships and Societies 3 (1): 159–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weaver, L.T. 2003. Improving infant milk formulas: Near the end of the trail for the holy grail? Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition 36 (3): 307–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Keele UniversityNewcastleUK

Personalised recommendations