In the study of the unborn, it’s getting harder and harder to distinguish between nonsense and fact. And while there is plenty of pure nonsense out there, scientists are coming to believe that some of these apparently outlandish theories may turn out to have a basis in fact. … Some researchers in the field believe that it is actually possible to stimulate the fetus prior to birth to produce, in a sense, a “super-baby.” At least one has claimed to turn out babies who can speak at six months and read at a year and half by exposing the fetus to increasingly complex rhythmic imitations of a mothers’ heartbeat. Certainly, anyone who understands child development should be very wary of trying to create a super baby, either before birth or after. It’s much more important for a baby to be taught that he or she is loved and wanted than to be taught how to speak and read. (Eisenberg, Murkoff & Hathaway, 1991, p. 187)

The authors conceded that reading to a baby in the womb couldn’t do any harm in moderation and it may contribute to an early start on “parent-baby” bonding:

[S]o enjoy making baby contact now, but don’t worry about teaching facts or imparting information — there’ll be plenty of time for that later. As you’ll soon discover, children grow up all too soon anyway. There’s no need to rush the process, particularly before birth. (Eisenberg, Murkoff & Hathaway, 1991, p. 188)

In this way, the authors were able to acknowledge the desire of their target audience to give their children a “head start,” but mildly admonish them for it, all the while preparing them to take up appropriate domestic literacy practices when the child is born. The womb as a site of this early socialization also sets up this pedagogic work as natural to mothers. As in Trelease’s (1989) advice, this parental desire for “smart babies” was constructed as something internal to parents, rather than shaped by societal values.