The idea that some literacies “count” or are valued more than others
is key to the concept of literacy as socially-situated practices rather than
a universal skill. Similarly, mothering can be seen as a situated practice,
rooted in the habitus of mothering that shapes “what counts” as
good mothering and the forms of mothering that are possible and appropriate
in diverse social and cultural contexts. In this way, mothering practices, like
literacy practices, are connected to issues of “identity, power and access
to particular institutions, communities and cultures”
(Farrell, Luke,
Shore & Waring, p. 1)
The goal in connecting literacy and mothering as socially-situated practices
is not to support a view that mothering is naturally linked to literacy, or
literacy to mothering, but to recognize that discourses of literacy advice implicitly
make this link. The work of the good mother is implicit in the production of
an ideal literate child. Bringing together a view of literacy and mothering
as inter-connected socially situated practices allows for an analysis that retains
the focus on institutional discourses of literacy advice to mothers, while avoiding
essentializing all women as universally affected by, oppressed, or “cowed”
by these discourses. As Hill Collins (1994) argued, representing mothers either
as “good,”
“bad,”
“oppressed,”
or more or
less oppressed than other mothers, will not serve the important research interests
of women:
Theorizing about motherhood will not be helped by supplanting one group’s theory for another; for example by claiming that women of colour’s experiences are more valid than those of white, middle class women. Varying placement in systems of privilege, whether race, class, sexuality, or age, generates divergent experiences with motherhood; therefore, examination of motherhood and mother-as-subject from multiple perspectives should uncover rich textures of difference. (p. 62)
In recognizing the “rich textures of difference” among mothering
and literacy experiences, a socially-situated perspective makes space in the
analysis of literacy advice discourses for the pleasure many women derive from
reading to their children and supporting their literacy, while attending to
the power effects of literacy advice discourses in reproducing gender and educational
inequalities. This recognition of difference also allows, from a Foucauldian
perspective, for a view of literacy advice as not only an oppressive form of
power, but a productive one as well. Mothers may benefit from literacy advice,
albeit in different ways, at different times, depending upon their diverse social
locations. Indeed, as Mills (1997) pointed out, “problem pages”
in advice magazines suggest that women take part in, and negotiate, mothering
discourses, and part of negotiating a mothering discourse is finding a place
for ourselves within the “reading community”
(Mills, 1997, p. 92)
of a particular magazine, book, website, or parent discussion group. I now turn
to the analytic tools employed in this study to attend to the implications of
a socially-situated perspective of mothering and literacy.