This paper attempts to understand the prominence given to teenage gestation in policy treatments since the late-1990s by contextualising it within a broader analysis of the modern-day ‘culture of parenting’ . The emerging field of rearing civilization surveies has begun to develop an analysis of the cardinal characteristics of policy. pattern and informal civilization. Three cardinal constructs are discussed to cast an alternate visible radiation on the issue of adolescent gestation and parentage with the hope of farther developing the healthy argument that has emerged in recent old ages in response to policy precedences: the development of ‘parental tribalism’ whereby differing parental picks and behaviour become a site for individuality formation ; the thought of a shortage at the degree of rearing and intimate familial relationships ; the reconceptualising of the parent as an independent. important grownup to a more infantilised imagining. The teenage female parent. herself neither grownup nor kid. becomes symbolic of these developments.
1. 1 This paper attempts to understand the prominence given to teenage gestation in policy treatments since the late-1990s by contextualising it within a broader analysis of the modern-day ‘culture of parenting’ . The emerging field of rearing civilization surveies has begun to develop an analysis of the cardinal characteristics of policy. pattern and informal civilization environing the elevation of kids. Three constructs are discussed to cast an alternate visible radiation on the healthy argument that has emerged in recent old ages in response to the policy prioritisation of adolescent gestation. First the development of ‘parental tribalism’ whereby differing parental picks have become a site for individuality formation is explored in relation to teenage maternity. Next we move on to see the teenage female parent as the example of the thought of a shortage at the degree of rearing and intimate familial relationships. Finally we consider how the focal point on teenage female parents has played an of import function in switching the position of parent off from that of an independent. important grownup towards a more infantilised conceptualization. Background
2. 1 Since the late 20th century in British political relations and civilization the teenage female parent has acquired considerable prominence as a symbol of societal diminution. societal failure or societal retardation. The Conservative authorities in the 1990s raised the menace of societal diminution through the politicisation of the individual female parent. with an aggressive rhetoric against falling moral criterions. peculiarly amongst the ‘underclass’ . This rhetoric was altered by New Labour following their 1997 election triumph in line with a more optimistic national temper and resonant with traditional Labour concerns for societal justness. The Britain of ‘Cool Britannia’ was re-branded as a vernal. socially and sexually open-minded. multicultural topographic point instead than a backward-looking state. past its best. fighting to get by with societal alteration. Issues such as inequality. unemployment and poorness were re-framed within the construct of ‘social exclusion’ . which depicted those sing such societal jobs as below the belt ‘excluded’ from the possible chances of the new Britain. Persons and communities who were non populating the ‘Cool Britannia’ life style were cast. in sympathetic instead than condemnatory footings. as a societal and cultural ‘residuum’ . left behind by the post-industrial economic system. in demand of instruction and support to take advantage of the chances of the ‘creative’ economic system or liberalised life styles.
In this context. cut downing the figure of adolescent gestations was identified as a cardinal mark in conveying the ‘excluded’ into the ‘included’ . 2. 2 Teenage parentage was. and still is. indisputably associated with poorer countries and poorer households and has been argued to be both a symptom and a cause of societal exclusion. The ‘teenage gestation problem’ partly referred to unplanned constructs. attributed to individuals’ unequal cognition about sex and contraceptive method and a wider dysfunctional sexual civilization. but was peculiarly smartly embodied in the image of the multiply dysfunctional yet pathetic teenage female parent. excluded from instruction. trapped in dysfunctional gender dealingss and a civilization of low outlooks. inadequately prepared for life by her ain parents and destined to convey her lacks onto her peculiarly vulnerable kid. In the post-1997 discourse about adolescent gestation. the antecedently rightist thought of a rhythm of want perpetuated by morally lacking persons was re-articulated in footings of cultural or psycho-social lacks. in peculiar. local civilizations of want and dysfunctional parenting behavior.
The thought that teenage female parents produce girls who will themselves go adolescent female parents provided a peculiarly graphic example of the intergenerational transmittal of want. Addressing teenage maternity in order to ‘save’ misss and their kids from disadvantage and to forestall menaces to the future wellbeing of society. was given well-funded policy signifier by the Teenage Pregnancy Strategy. launched in 1999 from the Social Exclusion Unit ( SEU. 1999 ) . 2. 3 The teenage gestation scheme was a popular enterprise. welcomed by both Left and Right in political relations and the media. by sexual wellness professionals and gender equity advocators. The scheme besides inspired. and underpinned the support of. a considerable sum of new research from the academic community some of which was critical of the strategy’s purposes and effects. In peculiar. the balance in the scheme between the twin purposes of forestalling adolescent gestation and back uping teenage parents has been criticised for potentially stigmatising teenage female parents while offering excessively small existent support ( Arai. 2009 ; Duncan et Al 2010 ) .
Critics have besides disputed whether teenage gestation is a job at all. disputing the strategy’s evidence-based claims that adolescent parentage in and of itself causes or exacerbates disadvantage. is a public wellness job. or produces poorer results in kids. and counter-posing the positive experiences of immature parentage found among many teenage parents with the really pessimistic history provided by policy ( Duncan et al. 20010 ; Arai. 2009 ; Seamark and Lings. 2004 ; Lawlor and Shaw 2002 ) . Both of these reviews have been utile in opening up an of import argument about the efficaciousness of State intercessions which target the behavior of persons or communities identified as debatable instead than turn toing bigger political or structural inquiries. They have besides given cogency to the person. household and community significances attached to holding kids. which have tended to be excluded from the policy building of the progeny of teenage parents as overpoweringly bearing negative economic and societal costs instead than any positive human potency.
2. 4 Recent cases where critical research has been picked up by the media have indicated two possible restrictions with the review as it presently stands. One. in reasoning against the problematisation of teenage parents. ‘the problem’ can sometimes be re-located in other populations. for illustration. older female parents or middle-class female parents. Two. in disputing the thought that adolescent maternity is a societal job or a job for persons. there is a hazard of relativizing the kernel of the parent-child relationship: that it is a relationship of love and counsel between an independent grownup and a dependent kid. It is argued here that to understand why these responses are peculiarly debatable at the present minute. we need to look at teenage gestation through the wider lens of an apprehension of ‘parenting culture’ ( Lee et al. 2010 ) .
Rearing civilization surveies has developed some classs of analysis that are utile in understanding why adolescent gestation has gained such political and cultural prominence in the recent period and the peculiar features of its problematisation today. Three constructs in peculiar will be worked through: foremost the development of ‘parental tribalism’ . a cultural development whereby private. parental behavior becomes a important site for the formation of individuality ; second the prevalence of the thought that a widespread shortage in intimate dealingss underpins modern-day societal jobs and 3rd. the redefinition of parentage in a more infantilised signifier. with the migration of parental authorization to experts and the State. Teenage maternity and parenting individuality
3. 1 The thought of ‘parental tribalism’ ( Hoffman 2010 ) . descriptive of a inclination among persons to organize their individualities through the manner they parent. or possibly more exactly. through distinguishing themselves from the manner some parents parent and placing with others. can assist us to do sense of the prominence given to teenage maternity in the recent period. This can besides assist to explicate the sometimes surprisingly contradictory significances attached to teenage maternity. despite a policy attack that could be characterised as exhibiting a ‘zero-tolerance’ towards it ( Macvarish. 2010 ) . Harmonizing to Hoffman. the focal point on individualities reflects grownup demands for security and belonging and. although the kid appears to be symbolically cardinal. in fact ‘the cultural political relations of parents’ self-definition have eclipsed a concern with the demands of children’ ( Hoffman. 2010 ) . This means that there is a infirmity and sometimes ill will in existent or imagined brushs between parents. where the rearing behavior of one can either reinforce or endanger the individuality of another.
What is noticeable in modern-day mothers’ descriptions of their parenting experiences is that many experience stigmatised or presume a defensive stance about their parenting picks. even those seemingly doing officially sanctioned picks. For illustration. some suckling female parents express the position that society still sees suckling as unnatural. despite the fact that they are really much swimming with the tide of official advice ( Faircloth. 2010 ) . while formula-feeding female parents express guilt and a demand to ‘rescue’ their ‘failed’ individuality as female parents ( Lee and Bristow. 2009 ) . There are many descriptions. peculiarly from the US. of both ‘stay-at-home’ and ‘out-at-work’ female parents speaking about experiencing ‘got at’ by other female parents. and experiencing the demand to warrant their picks. an experience captured by American writer Leslie Morgan Steiner as the ‘Mommy wars’ ( 2006 ) . 3. 2 Unsurprisingly. given their official lift as likely parental catastrophes. teenage female parents besides describe experiencing publically scrutinised and pulling hostile reactions. but in their histories excessively. the outlook of opinion is frequently worse than the world. There are doubtless really strong negative intensions attached to immature maternity. exacerbated by extra biass against working category female parents ( Gillies. 2006 and 2008 ) and uncontrolled female gender.
However. these can be confused and contradictory. and run otherwise at different degrees of experience. Ambivalence about abortion. changing across different communities ( Lee et al. 2004 ) combines with a proof of an ideal of intensive maternity to do it possible for the teenage female parent to organize an individuality through withstanding the negative stereotype of sexual fecklessness to go sympathetically viewed as person who sacrifices her freedom for the interest of her kid. For illustration. a miss who has a babe can be more validated than one who is known to hold had one. or particularly more than one. abortion. In many respects. today’s teenage female parents are sing a well lesser grade of stigmatization than a immature. single female parent of the 1960s or 1970s. They are able to maintain their babes. continue at school. anticipate welfare support and can be validated for ‘struggling through’ as individual Dendranthema grandifloruoms. The teenage female parent can be respected by her household for doing a brave pick and viewed with a mix of understanding and esteem in some cultural or media portraitures.
Even though there is undoubtedly political and societal disapproval of adolescent gestation as a job. it has besides been cast as a ‘tragedy’ instead than as a ‘sin’ ( Arai. 2009 ) . as ‘risky’ instead than morally ‘wrong’ and the teenage female parent is non held morally responsible for her behavior. instead she is cast as a conglobation of disfunctions ( Macvarish. 2009 ) . 3. 3 When the academic review of adolescent gestation policy has been picked up by journalists and cultural observers. there is frequently a inclination to ‘rescue’ the repute of teenage female parents at the disbursal of other female parents. For illustration. a recent article in the Observer newspaper argued that teenage female parents have an enviably unworried attack to child-rearing. unlike older. middle-class female parents who tend to supercharge their kids into carry throughing their ain aspirations ( Observer. 14 February. 2010 ) . Mothers who ‘leave it excessively late’ to acquire pregnant and hence require sterility intervention or particular medical attention for their babes on the National Health Service are sometimes compared unfavorably with younger female parents who have babes during the old ages of ‘optimal’ generative wellness.
Other observers have tended to present the hapless. fighting teenage female parent as possessing a pureness lacking in wealthier. working or in-between category female parents who are financially able to specify their passage to parentage partly through consumerism. Adolescent female parents themselves. whose positions have been elicited in the extended qualitative research ( Arai. 2009. Duncan et Al 2010. Cater and Coleman. 2006. Seamark and Lings 2004 ) conducted with them since they have become policy marks. sometimes counter-pose themselves to edgy older female parents. who lack the energy to play with their kids or middle-class female parents who would instead return to their callings than stay at place with their babes ( Billings and Macvarish. 2007 ) . The effort by sympathetic observers to ‘rescue’ the teenage mother’s repute meets here with the teenage mother’s need to retrace for herself a socially-affirmed individuality following her ‘failure’ to abstain from sex or to mind ‘safe sex’ advice. The value placed on ‘intensive motherhood’ ( Hays. 1996 ) creates an chance for immature female parents to defy calls for them to travel out to work or re-enter full-time instruction after the birth of their kid and potentially rationalises the deficiency of existent chances available to them to gain a life or prosecute educational aspirations.
3. 4 The manner in which teenage maternity is problematised contains lessons for other female parents or manque female parents. The teenage female parent is described as being less likely to take equal attention of herself or the fetus during gestation. more likely to smoke and imbibe. less likely to eat a healthy diet. and less likely to entree prenatal services. When these insufficiencies are highlighted. they necessarily reinforce the ‘right’ behavior of mature. responsible female parents. The pregnant adolescent who ‘redeems’ herself today does non make so through get marrieding the male parent of her kid. but through taking on board wellness guidelines and showing her committedness to the wellness of her hereafter kid. Teenage female parents often talk of how they have given up hazardous behavior such as imbibing. smoke or drug-taking since going pregnant ( Billings and Macvarish. 2007 ) . The teenage female parent who rears her kid within the recommendations of modern-day rearing expertness can even be cast as heroic ; fighting against the odds to make the right thing. Teenage maternity and the parenting shortage
4. 1 A 2nd characteristic of the modern-day civilization of rearing we will see is the thought that a major determiner of societal jobs is a parenting shortage. The history of the ‘policing of families’ ( Donzelot. 1979 ) . in peculiar female parents. who were non regarded as up to the occupation of child-rearing. is well-documented and reveals that those deemed deficient were treated as pervert and denied the privateness and liberty afforded to the bulk. Equally good as trying to re-introduce order to helter-skelter households. the policing of female parents allegedly missing in the intelligence. morality or maternal inherent aptitude to care for their kids served as a lesson in what appropriate household life was supposed to look like. The norm was hence reinforced of parents as beginnings of order and authorization within the place. responsible for the physical and emotional attention. moral development and socialization of their progeny until they reached physical and emotional adulthood.
4. 2 It has been argued that in the late 20th century we have seen a move off from modernity’s trust on the household as a socially-supported establishment entrusted in the bulk of instances to raise kids. comparatively untasted by State intercession in the familiarity of the parent-child relationship ( Parton 2006 ; Furedi 2008 ) . A new theoretical account of the household has developed which individualises the household to its constituent parts of parent and kid and is less swearing of the parent as a go-between between kid and State. Rather. it is argued. the State identifies straight with the imagined public assistance of the kid ( Reece. 2006 ) and sidelines the parent. This de-centring of the parent was clearly articulated in 2007 by Secretary of State for Health. Alan Johnson. in his debut to the ‘Every Parent Matters’ study. Government needs to see carefully its function in enabling all parents to play a full and positive portion in their children’s acquisition and development. We want to make conditions where more parents can prosecute as spouses in their children’s acquisition and development. from birth. through the school old ages and as immature people make the passage to maturity. ( Johnson. 2007 )
4. 3 Here we can see that parents in general. non merely ‘problem’ parents. are cast as secondary participants in the elevation of their kids. to be brought into their children’s lives by the anterior ‘partner’ . the State. The justification for this demotion of parents prevarications in the evident trouble of raising kids in the 21st century. Although. harmonizing to Johnson. ‘being a parent is – and should be – an intensely personal experience and parents can be effectual in really different ways’ . they are inadequately qualified for the undertaking of raising kids in the face of ‘a turning understanding. evidenced from research. about the features of effectual parenting. ’ ( Johnson. 2007 ) . The curate besides claimed that parents recognize this skill lack. taking to a demand from every bit many as ‘75 per cent of parents’ for expert-led advice and support.
This position can besides be found in the words of the current Conservative Education Minister. Michael Gove. who. while Shadow Children. Schools and Families Secretary. said on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme ; We all know that it is in the first few old ages of a child’s life that the greatest strain is placed on the family’s household income. One of the things we want to make is state the State can be at that place in practical. human-centered ways to assist people cope with hard times. One of the things we are peculiarly acute to make is to spread out the system of wellness visitants. Health visitants are about one of the friendliest faces of the State. What they do is they guarantee that earlier and after childbearing there is a trained professional at that place in order to assist female parent in what can be a clip of great strain and tenseness. header with the reaching of a new kid. ( Gove. 30 September. 2008 & lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //news. bbc. co. uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7643535. short-term memory & gt ; ) 4. 4 The birth of a kid. historically given significance as a joyful cause for jubilation. is here described merely as a ‘time of great strain and tension’ .
The parent ( in this instance the female parent ) requires State support non merely to larn how to physically care for an baby but to ‘cope’ with going a parent. 4. 5 The re-conceptualisation of household life as fraught with trouble and potentially harmful instead than natural or normal. opens up the pattern of raising kids to claims that evidence-based risk-managing accomplishments and techniques can. and should. be applied to the undertaking ( Macvarish 2010 ; Smeyers 2008 ; Furedi. 2008 ; Clarke. 2006 ) . It is non merely that hazard is assumed to be harmful or that duty for risk-management is individualised to the parent. but that the figure of sensed hazards has massively expanded and the capacity of the parent to pull off those hazards sanely is doubted ( Lowe and Lee. 2009 ; Macvarish. 2010 ; Kukla. 2005 ) . The countless ways in which parental behavior is held responsible for child results suggests that few parents could be expected to avoid presenting at least some degree of hazard to their kid.
The menace posed by parents is partially physical with respect to the child’s wellness. for illustration by neglecting to suckle the babe or over-feeding the older kid. but besides emotional or psychological through neglecting to bond. exerting inadequate or inordinate subject. neglecting to develop a pedagogical relationship with the kid or forcing the older kid excessively difficult to accomplish academically. 4. 6 In a context where raising kids is so potentially hazardous. the passage to maternity and to a lesser extent. paternity. have progressively become defined by subjecting to ‘rules’ of behavior that define the fetus and kid as ‘at-risk’ and the parent as overpoweringly responsible for the fetus and child’s healthy physical and emotional development. The projection of injury besides extends into the hereafter grownup life of the kid with long-run wellness results progressively attributed to infant diet and future emotional and societal success attributed to parental behavior. The most debatable parents are those who do non recognize this. and are hence defined as ‘hard to reach’ . intending that they are loath to prosecute with wellness. instruction. or other kid public assistance professionals.
They stand in contrast to the bulk of parents described by Alan Johnson and Michael Gove supra. as demanding more State services. as fighting to negociate the force per unit areas of modern-day household life and as being more stray than old coevalss of parents. What these two types of household have in common is a presumed exposure in the face of societal alteration. the difference between them is that the former is seen to worsen the exposure of the latter by bring forthing socially endangering offspring who drag down educational accomplishment in schools. are violent or who are a drain on resources. Although the single parent is cast as the ultimate determiner of their child’s hereafter. and rearing in general is described as the most of import go-between between single action and societal stableness or advancement. the high hazards of unequal rearing mean that the undertaking of child-rearing must be undertaken in a supportive ( mono-directional ) partnership with the State. Parton ( 2006 ) describes how our dying relationship to an unsure hereafter. embodied in the exposure of childhood. allows an ‘intensification in the authorities of childhood’ .
4. 7 For New Labour. the inclination to universalize the job of rearing emerged in portion from the effort to distance itself from associations with the old Conservative government’s aggressive rhetorical onslaughts on peculiar groups. most evidently. individual female parents. To avoid estranging Labour protagonists and discouraging the ‘hard-to-reach’ from prosecuting with State services. New Labour shied off from stigmatizing teenage parents in the ‘old-fashioned’ moral discourse of matrimony and sex. alternatively problematising teenage gestation through the linguistic communication of wellness. psycho-social hazards and socio-economic results ( Macvarish. 2010 ) . Those implementing the schemes saw as their ‘enemy’ non adolescent female parents but those who were still wedded to antique sexual morality. represented most strongly by the Daily Mail ( Hoggart. 2006 ) . Policy-makers included in their scheme updates. ratings of media attitudes. proposing that portion of the adolescent gestation strategy’s function was to travel off from moralism regarded as out-of-date and estranging ( Teenage Pregnancy Strategy Unit. 2005 ) .
Although the teenage female parent was targeted to an extent that she had ne’er been targeted earlier. this was conducted in a manner that appeared to neutralize its stigmatising effects and within a context in which increasing Numberss of parents have became the objects of policy attending and cultural concern. The teenage female parent became the incarnation of acute parental lack against which other parents could mensurate themselves and through whom fresh ways of patroling the household could be forged. 4. 8 There are two ineffective parents in the modern-day ‘story’ of adolescent gestation: the teenage female parent and her ain parents. who have been unable to protect her from sex. gestation and premature maternity. The ‘parenting deficit’ is non merely projected into the hereafter. but into the past. as a causal factor in the gestation. High profile instances of highly immature pregnant teens serve to beef up this portraiture of adolescent gestation as a freak show of toxic parenting.
It was noteworthy that politicians such as Labour Children’s Secretary Ed Balls and Conservative party leader and future Prime Minister David Cameron chose to notice on the extremely unusual and unrepresentative instance of ‘Alfie Patten. 13 twelvemonth old dad’ ( The Sun. 14 February. 2009 ) . The fact that the huge bulk of teenage female parents are aged 17 -19 is occluded by these more sensational narratives ( TPSU. 2005 ; Duncan et Al 2010 ) . In instances such as these. the parents of teenage parents are portrayed as willfully complicit and overly broad. for illustration by leting immature teens to hold sex in the household place. The positions and experiences of the parents of pregnant adolescents are under-researched and hence merely reflected through informations collected with their girls. What grounds there is suggests that parents are frequently deeply disappointed by their daughter’s gestation. but are. particularly today. likely to be supportive of their daughter’s picks. whether that is to end or continue with the gestation ( Macvarish and Billings. 2009 ; Lee et al 2010 ) .
However. in policy treatments. parents are more frequently cast as conservativists ‘in denial’ of teenage gender and hence unwilling to admit their daughters’ demands for sexual information or as bewildered by the cultural and environmental force per unit areas prematurely sexualizing immature people and hence unable to pass on with their girls about sex and contraceptive method. Although the latter are viewed more sympathetically. they are however held responsible for Britain’s comparatively high adolescent gestation rate and treated as a societal job in demand of rectification through an expanded instruction programme for parents. fiting them with the ‘skills and confidence’ they require to speak their kids through sexual development. Miriam Rosen. Ofsted’s manager of instruction. was quoted in the Times stating. No affair how hard it may be. parents and instructors have to discourse sensitive issues with their kids and students to assist them do the right picks as they grow up.
But we do believe they need more counsel. Certainly instructors who have been specially trained are more confident. One practical suggestion is for parents to get down speaking to their kids about what they have done at school and travel from at that place. ( The Times. 12 April 2007 ) . Once once more. parents are placed in a secondary place in relation to child-rearing. this clip to the ‘specially trained’ and ‘confident’ instructors. 4. 9 The teenage female parent has progressively been used as a warning to kids and immature people about the dangers of sex. The wretchedness of teenage maternity has been emphasised in policy in such a manner as to discourage immature people from holding sex without contraceptive method. The pathetic teenage female parent. who loses her vernal organic structure and her vernal ‘lifestyle’ . suffers insomniac darks. the relentless demands of a babe and lives in indigence. plays an of import function in sex instruction programmes which use either ‘robot’ babes or peer-education by teenage female parents to discourage immature people from holding sex or at least unprotected sex.
Using this diagrammatically negative version of teenage maternity and. in fact. parentage in general. as these experiences are non sole to immature parents. suggests that parentage is a ‘nightmare’ at any age. In the absence of spiritual morality or a committedness to sex within matrimony. the principle for curtailing the gender of adolescents is highly weak. The thought of parentage as improbably hard is hence used as a hindrance to sex or unprotected sex. alongside a risk-based morality of disease-prevention ( Alldred and David. 2007 ) and a strong accent on the possible emotional hazards of intimate relationships ( BBC Online. 15 February. 2010 ) . The thought of a shortage non merely in rearing. but in intimate relationships more loosely. is strongly expressed. frequently in quite extreme and in writing ways. in modern-day efforts to command adolescent gender and is most vividly embodied in the ‘outcome’ of the pathetic teenage Dendranthema grandifloruom. Decision: Teenage maternity and the infantilisation of parentage
5. 1 The thought of the teenage female parent has gained symbolic power because parents. and peculiarly female parents. are progressively specifying their public individualities with mention to their private picks in how they raise their kids. Although these individualities tend to be delicate because they are rooted in the individualized domain of personal life. they derive strength from the corporate significances attached to them through the discourses of good and bad maternity. The teenage female parent. as the example of hapless parentage is person against whom a positive maternal individuality can be formed. It has been argued here. that instead than merely being marginalised or stigmatised. the teenage female parent is besides in fact. identified with as the original of a new version of parentage. Identifying with the imagined troubles of the teenage female parent produces a inclination to confirm the thought that rearing is impossibly hard for everybody. that it is to be expected that parents will sometimes move like kids. and that raising kids is a undertaking that most ordinary grownups require external support and expertness to execute adequately. Parenthood is no longer defined by an grownup exerting duty for and authorization over the moral development of their kid. instead. it has become defined as necessitating a strong designation with the kid and a willingness to prioritize the child’s immediate feelings over the wider concerns of grownup life ( James. 2010 ) .
By these standards. it could be argued that the adolescent. who has yet to develop public committednesss or aspirations to deflect her. is better suited to motherhood than the older middle-class female parent who aspires to keep a life beyond maternity. provided she accepts her built-in parental defects and accepts instruction from wellness and child-rearing professionals. 5. 2 The strong cultural resonance with an image of the maternal or parental as defined non merely by selflessness but by trouble. as the site where significance for the person is most strongly derived and where the most of import ‘work’ of society is done. means that although teenage parentage has been re-stigmatised in some ways. the cultural narration within which this has been performed is besides strongly affirmatory. regardless of age or matrimonial position. of the thought that all parents struggle to get by with the ‘most hard occupation in the world’ and demand adept counsel to rectify their insufficiencies.
5. 3 The field of rearing civilization surveies is developing some utile conceptual tools with which to research peculiar sites where displacements in the definitions and patterns of rearing are happening. The curious prominence of the teenage female parent in late 20th century and early 21st century British political life suggests that she provides a venue for a figure of crossing anxiousnesss and important societal developments. Although the discourse of teenage gestation appears to turn up the job ‘over there’ . confined to a peculiar category or community. the fact that the thought of the teenage female parent has acquired such a cardinal place despite a diminution in her existent prevalence. indicates that she is besides identified with as expressive of some of import developments in the modern-day experience and significance of parentage.
ALLDRED. P. And David. M. ( 2007 ) Get Real About Sexual activity: The political relations and
pattern of sex instruction. Buckinghamshire: Open University Press. ARAI. L. ( 2009 ) Teenage Pregnancy: The devising and unmaking of a job. Bristol: The Policy Press. BALLS. Ed. quoted in The Sun ‘Playtime for baby-faced 13-year old pa Alfie Patten’ . 14 February. 2009. BBC ONLINE ‘Teenage domestic force tackled by advert campaign’ . 15 February 2010 & lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //news. bbc. co. uk/1/hi/uk/8515601. short-term memory & gt ; BILLINGS. J. and Macvarish. J. ( 2007 ) Teenage parents’ experiences of parentage and positions of household support services in Kent ( service users’ study ) . Kent. United kingdom: Centre for Health Services Studies. University of Kent. CAMERON. D. ‘I looked in his eyes. it was so sad…’ The Sun. 14 February. 2009. COLEMAN. L. and Cater. S. ( 2006 ) “Planned” adolescent gestation: positions of parents from deprived backgrounds in England. Bristol: The Policy Press. CLARKE. K. ( 2006 ) Childhood. parenting and early intercession: A critical scrutiny of the Sure Start national programme. Critical Social Policy. Vol. 26 ( 4 ) : 699-721. [ doi:10. 1177/0261018306068470 ] DONZELOT. J. ( 1979 ) The Policing of Families New York: Pantheon Books. DUNCAN. S. . Edwards. R. and Alexander. C. ( 2010 ) Teenage Parenthood: What is the job? London: The Tufnell Press. FAIRCLOTH. C. R. ( 2010 ) ‘If they want to put on the line the wellness and wellbeing of their kid. that’s up to them. ’ Long-run breastfeeding. hazard and maternal individuality. Health. Hazard and Society. Vol. 12. No. 4. August 2010. 357-367. [ doi:10. 1080/13698571003789674 ] FUREDI. F. ( 2008. 2nd edition ) Paranoid Parenting. London: Allen Lane. London: Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd. GILLIES. V. ( 2006 ) Marginalised female parents: Researching propertyless experiences of rearing. Basingstoke: Taylor and Francis. GILLIES. V. ( 2008 ) Child-rearing. category and the new political relations of rearing. Sociology Compass. Vol. 2. No. 3. 1079-1095. May 2008. [ doi:10. 1111/j. 1751-9020. 2008. 00114. ten ] GOVE. Michael. 30 September 2008. BBC Today programme & lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //news. bbc. co. uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7643535. short-term memory & gt ; HAYS. S. . ( 1996 ) The cultural contradictions of maternity. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
HOFFMAN. D. ( 2010 ) paper to Changing Parenting Culture conference 15 February. 2010 ( unpublished ) HOGGART. L. ( 2006 ) ‘Risk: immature adult females and sexual decision-making’ . Forum: Qualitative Research. Vol. 7. no. 1. & lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //www. qualitative-research. net/index. php/fqs/article/view/57/118 & gt ;
[ accessed 27 June 2010 ] JAMES. O. ( 2010 ) How Not to F*** Them Up. London: Vermillion. JOHNSON. A. ( 2007 ) Cover missive to the launch of the study Every Child Matters published by the Department for Education and Schools. KUKLA. R. ( 2005 ) Mass Hysteria: Medicine. civilization and mothers’ organic structures. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers. LAWLOR. D. A. and Shaw. M. ( 2002 ) Excessively much excessively immature? Adolescent gestation is non a public wellness job. International Journal of Epidemiology. vol. 31. no. 3. pp552-3. [ doi:10. 1093/ije/31. 3. 552 ] LEE. E. and Bristow. J. . 2009. Rules for feeding babes. In: S. D. Sclater et Al. . explosive detection systems. Regulating liberty: Sexual activity. reproduction and household. Oxford: Hart. 73–91. LEE. E. . Clements. S. . Ingham. R. . and Stone. N. ( 2004 ) . A Matter of Choice? Explaining National Variations in Abortion and Motherhood. York: Joseph Rowntree Fourndation. LEE. E. J. . Macvarish. J. and Bristow. J. ( 2010 ) Column: Hazard. wellness and parenting civilization. Health. Hazard and Society. Vol. 12. No. 4. August 2010. 294-230. [ doi:10. 1080/13698571003789732 ] MACVARISH. J. ( 2010 ) The Effect of ‘Risk-Thinking’ on the Contemporary Construction of Teenage Motherhood. Health. Hazard and Society. Vol. 12. No. 4. August 2010. 313-322. [ doi:10. 1080/13698571003789724 ] MACVARISH J. and Billings J. ( 2010 ) . Challenging the irrational. amoral and anti-social building of the ‘teenage mother’ . In Duncan. S. . Edwards. R. and Alexander. C. ( Eds. ) Teenage rearing – what’s the job? London: Tufnell Press. MORGAN STEINER. L. ( 2006 ) Mommy Wars: Stay-at-home and Career Moms Face Off on Their Choices. Their Lifes. Their Families. New York: Random House. OBSERVER. Sunday 14 February 2010. Olivia Fane. ‘The in-between categories can larn a batch from teenage parents. ’ PARTON. N. ( 2006 ) Safeguarding Childhood: Early Intervention and surveillance in a late modern society. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. REECE. H. ( 2006 ) ‘From Parental Responsibility to Parenting Responsibly’ . In M. Freeman ( erectile dysfunction ) . Law and Sociology: Current Legal Issues 2005. Oxford. Oxford University Press. REECE. H. ( 2009 ) The debasement of parental duty. In: Gilmore. Stephen ; Herring. Jonathan and Probert. Rebecca ( eds. ) Responsible Parents and Parental Responsibility. Oxford. United kingdom: Hart Publishing. pp. 85-102. SEAMARK. C. and Lings. P. ( 2004 ) ‘Positive experiences of teenage maternity: a qualitative study’ . British Journal of General Practice 54:813-8. S. E. U ( 1999 ) . Adolescent Pregnancy: Report by the Social Exclusion