What do you think?
Rate this book
From Klein to Kristeva: Psychoanalytic Feminism and the Search for the "Good Enough" Mother
Recent feminist and psychoanalytic accounts of mothering have been profoundly shaped by the work of Melanie Klein, D.W. Winnicott, Nancy Chodorow, and Julia Kristeva. Although their work spans many decades, these writers share the goal of understanding object relations, that is, the child's relation to internalized "objects"—most often the mother, as the child's first caretaker. Doane and Hodges chart the development of "mother-centered" psychoanalysis and its influence on feminist thought in a number of fields and show how the effort to elevate the importance of the mother has become implicated in the current effort to restrict possibilities for women to "opportunities" associated with hearth and home.
The authors argue that discussions of the maternal role always exist within an ideological framework in which they are purveyed to particular groups at particular times. In our own historical moment, ideas of maternal propriety have been vigorously argued, as in custody battles, where experts debate whether or not individual women are "good enough" mothers. From Klein to Kristeva traces the ways in which object-relations accounts of mothering have worked to encourage the view that "good enough" mothers find "their whole self" at home. What does this view of mothering mean for working women? How does it help promote arguments that "fetal rights" are more important than a mother's own desires? By recovering the historical context of object-relations theory and closely attending to the language of important theorists, Doane and Hodges make visible the extraordinary influence of object relations on the discourses in many fields and demonstrate the power of psychological theory to shape both popular and academic discussions of maternal propriety.
The authors argue that discussions of the maternal role always exist within an ideological framework in which they are purveyed to particular groups at particular times. In our own historical moment, ideas of maternal propriety have been vigorously argued, as in custody battles, where experts debate whether or not individual women are "good enough" mothers. From Klein to Kristeva traces the ways in which object-relations accounts of mothering have worked to encourage the view that "good enough" mothers find "their whole self" at home. What does this view of mothering mean for working women? How does it help promote arguments that "fetal rights" are more important than a mother's own desires? By recovering the historical context of object-relations theory and closely attending to the language of important theorists, Doane and Hodges make visible the extraordinary influence of object relations on the discourses in many fields and demonstrate the power of psychological theory to shape both popular and academic discussions of maternal propriety.
112 pages, Paperback
First published March 15, 1993
4 people are currently reading
19 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
January 18, 2014
this is a review of the first chapter of the book"From Klein to Winnicott: A New Mis-en-scene for Mothering".
I admit I know very little about the academic debate that this book participates in. Most of my problems with it have to do with the structure of the argument.
Doane and Hodges seem to be making the claim that Winnicott's idea of the "Good Enough Mother" is an oppressive apparatus -- textually, politically, culturally (I believe the word oppresive is used but quotes blah). The authors present a large number of references that suggest this -- they point out dr. spock's citation of winnicott in his child care book, they take apart winnicott's language in one of his more famous articles -- 'the good enough mother', and they mention a number of other texts that seem peripherally concerned with winnicott, melanie klein, feminism, or mothering.
The argument that Winnicott's idea of the good enough mother reflects and constructs a mid 20th century betty friedan version of female empowerment is compelling to me. Like most people, Winnicott was probably influenced by his mileau in ways that he did not critically interrogate. It's plausible to me that he would believe that a woman ought to be a mother, a mother ought to be responsible, and babies are born happy, innocent, kind, because that's what most people of his time, educated or not, psychoanalysts or not, did believe. I'd also believe that this is a fairly easy argument to prove -- from winnicott's correspondences, from his engagement in academic debates, from subsequent academic debates about him. But I don't think this is a particularly interesting argument to make.
There are more interesting arguments, I think, that demand a sort of close reading that the authors never bother with. For example, they mention that in part their motivation to decry winnicott emerges from subsequent psychoanalytic feminist reliance on winnicott. They mention Chodorow and Kristeva. Yet aside from 2-3 sentence summaries, they don't really give any idea of what it would mean for chodorow's theory without winnicott. What does a more dialectical foundation for object relations mean? What does a sufficiently gender troubled notion of mothering mean? what of the historical circumstances of american academic feminist discourse that led chodorow to found her analysis on winnicott rather than klein?(why did kristeva pick klein over winnicott?)
...
//todo
I admit I know very little about the academic debate that this book participates in. Most of my problems with it have to do with the structure of the argument.
Doane and Hodges seem to be making the claim that Winnicott's idea of the "Good Enough Mother" is an oppressive apparatus -- textually, politically, culturally (I believe the word oppresive is used but quotes blah). The authors present a large number of references that suggest this -- they point out dr. spock's citation of winnicott in his child care book, they take apart winnicott's language in one of his more famous articles -- 'the good enough mother', and they mention a number of other texts that seem peripherally concerned with winnicott, melanie klein, feminism, or mothering.
The argument that Winnicott's idea of the good enough mother reflects and constructs a mid 20th century betty friedan version of female empowerment is compelling to me. Like most people, Winnicott was probably influenced by his mileau in ways that he did not critically interrogate. It's plausible to me that he would believe that a woman ought to be a mother, a mother ought to be responsible, and babies are born happy, innocent, kind, because that's what most people of his time, educated or not, psychoanalysts or not, did believe. I'd also believe that this is a fairly easy argument to prove -- from winnicott's correspondences, from his engagement in academic debates, from subsequent academic debates about him. But I don't think this is a particularly interesting argument to make.
There are more interesting arguments, I think, that demand a sort of close reading that the authors never bother with. For example, they mention that in part their motivation to decry winnicott emerges from subsequent psychoanalytic feminist reliance on winnicott. They mention Chodorow and Kristeva. Yet aside from 2-3 sentence summaries, they don't really give any idea of what it would mean for chodorow's theory without winnicott. What does a more dialectical foundation for object relations mean? What does a sufficiently gender troubled notion of mothering mean? what of the historical circumstances of american academic feminist discourse that led chodorow to found her analysis on winnicott rather than klein?(why did kristeva pick klein over winnicott?)
...
//todo
Displaying 1 of 1 review