Modern Taboos and Moral Regulations: Mother’s Milk in the Symbolic Order

Abstract

This article offers a sociological analysis of taboos surrounding breast milk and breastfeeding and how these are expressed within a breastfeeding friendly society such as Norway. Two taboos are identified: (1) Giving up breastfeeding ‘too early’ and (2) not giving up breastfeeding ‘in time’. These taboos are explored through the lenses of Mary Douglas and her conceptualization of purity and danger. Attention is particularly drawn to the ways in which the very same substance, a bodily fluid, and a practice changes symbolic character – from pure to impure – when the child reaches a certain age. Both the substance and the practice become ‘matter out of place’ depending on context. The analysis is based on data stemming from ethnographic interviews with mothers; newspaper and magazine articles and photos; internet accounts and blog comments.

Keywords

bottle feeding breastfeeding breast milk Mary Douglas matter out of place purity and danger taboos

Introduction

On a hot summer’s day in Bergen¹ a little girl is running around at an outdoor cafe while her parents are seated at a table. Suddenly, she stops and crawls up on to her mother’s lap. Her mother immediately pulls down one shoulder strap of her tank-top whereupon the little girl grabs the bare breast and begins suckling.²

A mother breastfeeding a child in public is common and widely accepted. In this case, however, the child is between two and three years old, and a child suckling his/her mother’s breast at this age, is rarely seen even though many children are being breastfed at this age. This, in turn, might indicate that such a practice is socially unacceptable, or taboo.³

Breastfeeding is a practice arising from women’s natural biological capacity intended to satisfy the new-born child’s needs. Yet, duration, in cases where breastfeeding is initiated, lasts from a few days or weeks to several years, depending on time, place and circumstance. A substantial body of work has been concerned with this variation and the experiences involved, from a sociological perspective. Attention has been brought to the current pro-breastfeeding public health discourse that has played a significant role in reversing the once-dominant trend of formula-feeding as the majority feeding practice. This change has been viewed as important both for the overall health of mothers and children and for the recognition and protection of breastfeeding as a basic reproductive right (e.g. Apple, 1987, 1997; Blum, 1999; Carter, 1995; Hausman, 2003; Maher, 1992, Van Esterik, 1989, 2002). Attention has also been drawn to problematic aspects of the pro-breastfeeding discourse, such as restrictions that have been placed on mothers’ choices, moral judgements of mothers and policing of motherhood (e.g. Andrews and Knaak, 2013; Apple, 1997; Knaak, 2005; Lee, 2007; Murphy, 1999, 2003; Stearns, 1999, 2009; Wall, 2001; Wolf, 2007). Key discussions concern the breast–bottle controversy and the notion of the ‘good mother’, and light has been shed on the ‘moral repair work’ mothers who formula-feed must engage in, because their behaviour is deemed culturally deviant.

Another aspect brought to the forefront is the tension that exists between the discursive presumption that the decision to breastfeed is a simple matter of choice and mothers’ ability to exercise such a ‘choice’ without taking into consideration the many other practices of which this is actually a part, the competing demands on their time and energy, the physical or embodied labour, the emotional intensity, pleasure and displeasure, and the ambivalence involved (e.g. Blum, 1999; Carter, 1995; Lee, 2018; Schmied and Lupton, 2001; Stearns, 1999, 2009). Also, the increasing pressure and the moral burden put on mothers through surveillance and disciplining of their bodies intersect and intertwine with broader discourses on motherhood, which, again, contribute to a collective understanding of what is ‘normal’, socially desirable and taken for granted as appropriate mothering behaviour (e.g. Andrews and Knaak, 2013; Murphy, 1999, 2003; Wolf, 2007).

Practices subjected to moral judgements are often characterized as taboo (Douglas, 1994). Works, pointed to above, discuss moral judgement relating mainly to formula milk used from the onset or early weaning. Experiences of moral judgement have, however, also been revealed in studies of mothers who lactate for an extended period (e.g. Dowling and Pontin, 2017; Faircloth, 2009, 2010; Newman and Williamson, 2018; Säilävaara, 2020). Taboos surrounding ‘too little’ and ‘too much’ breastfeeding have, in other words, been approached separately. Thus, the present article adds to this literature by bringing the two taboos into dialogue and by looking into a common underlying structure. A new layer to knowledge is added by exploring this subject in depth through the lenses of Douglas (1994) and by drawing on her conceptualization of purity and danger. This theoretical framework gives insight into ways in which taboos work and into their potential consequences.⁴ It will be used to explore aspects that appear both within and across the two practices; how taboos are expressed and talked about, when and how boundaries are crossed, and what kind of practices that seem to be sanctioned, and in what ways. The Norwegian context is especially suited for an analysis of this subject because certain barriers for initiating and maintaining breastfeeding, that are in play within other contexts, are eliminated (see later).

Conceptualization of Pollution and Taboo

Douglas (1994) published her work on the concepts of pollution and taboo, or purity and danger, in 1966. Her point of departure was the 19th century’s disputed views on primitive religions. It was, on the one hand, indicated that these religions were inspired by fear and certain beliefs on consequences from crossing a forbidden line or developing some impure condition, and, on the other hand, they were inextricably confused with defilement and hygiene. Interpretations on primitive religions and fear have been refuted by anthropologists, and for Douglas (1994: 2), views on hygiene or dirt were more appealing, as she says:

As we know it, dirt is essentially disorder. There is no such thing as absolute dirt: it exists in the eye of the beholder. If we shun dirt, it is not because of craven fear, still less dread of holy terror. Nor do our ideas about disease account for the range of our behaviour in cleaning or avoiding dirt. Dirt offends against order. Eliminating it is not a negative movement, but a positive effort to organize the environment.

Further, Douglas (1994: 2) describes how, in chasing dirt and tidying within a certain context: ‘we are not governed by anxiety to escape disease, but are positively reordering our environment, making it conform to an idea’. Douglas contends that reaction to dirt is continuous with other reactions to ambiguity or anomaly, and that ideas about contagion can be traced to reaction to anomaly. The initial recognition of anomaly leads to anxiety and from there to suppression or avoidance. Reflection on dirt involves reflection on the relation of order to disorder, and our idea of dirt is compounded of two things, care for hygiene and respect for conventions. In Purity and Danger Douglas intends to show that rituals of purity and impurity create unity in experience. Symbolic patterns are worked out and publicly displayed. Within these patterns disparate elements are related and disparate experience is given meaning. Pollution ideas, Douglas continues, work in the life of society at two levels: (1) people trying to influence one another’s behaviour through social pressure, and the ideal order of society is guarded by dangers which threaten transgressors; (2) the kind of contacts or actions that are thought dangerous carry a symbolic load. Some pollutions Douglas believes, are used as analogies for expressing a general view of the social order. Only by exaggerating the difference between opposite poles, is a semblance of order created.

Douglas attempted to clarify the differences between the sacred, the clean and the unclean in different societies and times. The concepts of purity, or cleanliness, and danger or its equivalents – impurity, pollution, contagion – and the distinction drawn between them are, according to Douglas, of relevance not only for understanding various primitive religious belief systems. They are also useful for understanding distinctions that are in play in late-modern societies. A key element of Douglas’ analysis is what she terms ‘matter out of place’. This notion indicates a symbolic view on ‘dirt’ in a society. Dirt or pollution relates to any matter considered out of place within a specific context. For example, while food on a plate is viewed as food, and pure, the very same substance placed on the floor changes character and becomes dirt in symbolic terms because the matter in question appears out of place (e.g. Andrews, 1996).

Study Context

Over the last decades, Norway’s breastfeeding rates have been high compared to most other western countries (Andrews and Knaak, 2013). Nearly all Norwegian children (98%) are fed breast milk initially, 80% are breastfed at six months while 35% are given mother’s milk when they reach their first birthday. Breastfeeding rates drops to around 10% at 18 months and to 4% at 24 months (Lande and Helleve, 2014). There are no statistical figures for breastfeeding of children older than two years.

Norwegian public policies promote and support breastfeeding in different ways: all mothers are entitled to ‘free of charge’ access of professional assistance; the country offers comprehensive maternity leave⁵ and breastfeeding in public places is widely accepted. Further, Norway adheres to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes which places a restriction on the marketing of formula products, and several hospitals are officially recognized as ‘breastfeeding friendly’ according to UNICEF’s Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative guidelines.

In 2003, the Norwegian national health authorities followed the WHO declaration and stated that the child should be given mother’s milk exclusively for the first six months instead of four months. This recommendation led to strong criticism voiced by both mothers and professionals (Andrews and Knaak, 2013), and in 2018 duration of exclusive mother’s milk was again set to four months as the official guideline. Recommendations suggesting that mother’s milk be given as a supplement for the child’s first year of life, and preferably way into the second year, were upheld. The Norwegian national breastfeeding support group, which in general adheres to official guidelines, underscores that there is no reason not to continue with breastfeeding beyond the second-year benchmark,⁶ yet without being explicitly supportive of women who breastfeed for extended periods as the La Leche League seems to be in the USA (e.g. Blum, 1999; Weiner, 1994) and in the UK (e.g. Faircloth, 2009, 2010).

Methods and Data

Data for the present article have been collected over a decade from sources such as qualitative interviews with mothers; newspaper and magazine articles and photos; internet accounts and blog comments.⁷

Qualitative interviews were conducted with 32 mothers living in and around Bergen. They were recruited through a snowball procedure (Andrews and Knaak, 2013; Andrews and Vassenden, 2007) beginning with five mothers from different backgrounds and of different ages.⁸ The sample contains considerable socio-demographic variation in terms of the mothers’ ages, parity, educational attainment, income levels, employment and marital status.⁹ All interviews were conducted in-person by the author, tape recorded and transcribed. Each interview lasted from one hour and 45 minutes to four hours, and they were mainly undertaken in the interviewees’ home.¹⁰ Interviews with 27 mothers concerned general aspects of motherhood, infant feeding included (Andrews and Knaak, 2013), while interviews with five mothers focused specifically on taboos around breastfeeding.

Inspired by Spradley’s (1979) ethnographic interview design, mothers were asked to give detailed accounts of their infant feeding practices (breast and/or bottle) and experiences, with a focus on typical ethnographic aspects such as ‘what’, ‘how’, ‘when’ and ‘with whom’. Mothers were also asked to elaborate on experiences in different settings and on potential changes over time. The interview design allowed informants to reveal as much or as little as they wished to about their practices, feelings and experiences. Although the mothers seemed to talk freely, there could still be important elements that the researcher was not made privy to, for various reasons. They could have hesitated because they felt uncomfortable disclosing certain practices, experiences or feelings more generally, or because of their perception of the interview situation and the power dynamics in the interviewer–interviewee interaction (Andrews and Knaak, 2013).

Newspaper and magazine articles stem from the major Norwegian newspapers Dagbladet (2009, 2012), Bergens Tidende (2012) and Aftenposten (2014); a major women’s weekly magazine, KK (2015) and an online research magazine, Kilden.forskning.no (2017). Except for Dagbladet (2012), the author of the present article was interviewed as a researcher for all these articles. Additional accounts were drawn from Nettavisen.no (2009), a radio show by the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK, 2019), and various internet accounts including comments relating to the cover photo of the Time Magazine of 21 May 2012, of a three-year-old standing on a chair and suckling his mother’s breast.

In the analysis of the interview data containing broader aspects on motherhood (see earlier), attention was given to stories on breastfeeding and to stories that indicated taboo such as practices mothers seek to hide or not talk about, accounts on bottle feeding in the early months or weeks, processes of weaning and on long-term breastfeeding. Informants’ descriptions of their own views on other mothers’ practices were also extracted. As the first step of the thematic analysis (Silverman, 2001), aspects indicating taboo and how these are expressed, talked about and negotiated were grouped into the main categories: (1) bottle feeding an infant in the early months or weaning too early compared to official guidelines on duration of exclusive breastfeeding; and (2) breastfeeding lasting for a period beyond what mothers experience as acceptable in the wider society. In the second step, sub-categories were identified and coded according to specific views, practices, experiences, and feelings. These sub-categories are used as sub-headings in the following section on ‘The Two Taboos’. In the subsequent section ‘From Purity to Danger’, key aspects of practices indicating taboo, are elaborated on and discussed within Douglas’ conceptualization of matter out of place.

Almost all the media accounts concerned long-term breastfeeding and surrounding taboos, and they are analysed as documents or text (Silverman, 2001). These accounts are produced by journalists based on their interviews and cannot be subjected to examination for accuracy or clarified in any other way by the author of the present article, for instance regarding the ways in which questions were asked. Analysis of these accounts reveals, however, that aspects of taboo surrounding long-term breastfeeding and the ways in which these are expressed and negotiated, echo findings from analysis of the research interviews that was done prior to the analysis of the media accounts. In the research interviews mothers expressed their views on long-term breastfeeding, but only five had themselves breastfed a child older than two years. Examples from the media accounts therefore add nuances to experiences from a practice that is deemed inappropriate, and as such make it possible to provide a broader picture of the aspects in question and to strengthen this part of the argument.

The Two Taboos

Taboo One: Giving Up Breastfeeding ‘Too Early’

‘No Excuse for Weaning Early’

With one exception, all mothers interviewed by the author, had breastfed or pumped breast milk from the onset. These mothers could not recall making any conscious choice on feeding method, and no one, lay or professional, ever asked them how they intended to feed their child. In Norway breastfeeding is presumed to be the only option for infant feeding, unless the mother for ‘certain extraneous reasons cannot breastfeed’, as some of the mothers put it. To the interviewer’s question about their decision to breastfeed, virtually all responded in ways similarly to Karin,¹¹ who, somewhat ironically stated: ‘Sure, I intended to breastfeed. That’s the way infants are fed in this country, isn’t it?’ And she added: ‘Virtually everyone I know breastfeeds their child even if they struggle tremendously in the early weeks. The pressure is so strong that it is easier to breastfeed than not to breastfeed’ (Karin).

As Karin indicates in the quote above, mothers do not easily give up breastfeeding. They have experienced an external pressure to breastfeed and that bottle feeding in the early weeks is unacceptable. This aspect emerged particularly in interviews with mothers who had struggled with breastfeeding, or had experienced physical pain, lack of sleep, exhaustion and expectations to fulfil exclusive and on-demand breastfeeding. Solveig was one of the many mothers who talked about this. She almost gave up because of difficulties which she described by expressions such as unbearable or torture:

It [breastfeeding] was so painful that the mere thought of the next meal was unbearable . . . every meal was a torture, 45 minutes on each breast. For several weeks I couldn’t keep tears from running. . . . After a week-and-a-half, or maybe two weeks, I asked my husband to buy breast milk substitute. I thought I couldn’t take it any longer. I had read everything about all kinds of cures, creams, techniques, breastfeeding pillows, and asked just about everyone, neighbours, different public health nurses, and …. After four weeks one particular ointment seemed to work to ease the pain and cure the nipples . . . I still worried because the child didn’t seem satisfied after being fed . . . I never used the substitute, but it felt good, though, to know that it was within reach. (Solveig)

Because of the extensive breastfeeding friendly arrangements and policies, mothers experience that there are not many, if any, legitimate reasons not to follow recommendations on optimal duration of lactation. Mothers who experienced difficulties with breastfeeding spoke about how their health care professionals rarely (if ever) suggested supplementation or weaning be undertaken to ease suffering. Others talked about how pressure to continue with breastfeeding (exclusively, and for a certain length of time) not only existed within the public health community but also in their interactions with friends and others. In the interviews some mothers said that they believe a certain amount of pressure around breastfeeding was needed, that its importance should be stressed to help mothers keep motivated in the face of difficulties ‘to ensure all children a perfect start in life’. The interviews also contained stories of mothers judging other mothers for weaning early or for not breastfeeding at all. One example was Vibeke who expressed this kind of judgement when she talked about a friend of hers who did not breastfeed her second child and gave up early on her first:

One of my friends decided not to breastfeed her second child because of the difficulties she experienced with nursing her first . . . I, personally, tried to encourage or even persuade her to breastfeed but that didn’t help, and I’m sure she also has heard elsewhere that her decision not to breastfeed was not a wise decision …. Today, there is no reason not to breastfeed – you’ll get all the support you need. (Vibeke)

Interview descriptions indicating a taboo surrounding bottle feeding of an infant in the early months, which included nearly all, find support in Nettavisen.no (2009). In this article a midwife from the Norwegian national competence centre for breastfeeding suggested that such a taboo prevails in the Norwegian society, and the journalist added: ‘It’s like swearing in the church.’

Feelings of Failure

Sigrid, a mother of two, did not wean early because she suffered but because her milk production dwindled. During the early weeks following birth, Sigrid was breastfeeding exclusively, and she described how breastfeeding was her ‘bright light’ – the one thing she was feeling good about. Unfortunately, her six-week-old son gained weight slowly, and it was recommended that his diet be supplemented with formula. Sigrid, thus, changed to a practice of combined breastfeeding and formula supplementation until her child was approximately six months old, at which point she stopped breastfeeding altogether. Although Sigrid said her child thrived on this combined diet, she felt ‘like such a failure’, as a mother, for not being able to exclusively breastfeed for the prescribed number of months. Sigrid further described how she avoided public outings with her child because she could not bear bottle feeding him in public – that doing so would have made her ‘feel even more of a failure’. Sigrid wanted so badly a feeling of success (as a mother) that she planned to have her second child as soon as possible after her first was born. When it came to breastfeeding of her second child, she again experienced difficulties. At the time of the interview, the distress Sigrid felt by ‘failing’ at both her attempts to exclusively breastfeed had not faded. She told her story through tears, and described how, years later, she still experienced intense grief because she felt she had ‘failed’ with breastfeeding.

Hiding Altered Practices

Mothers who for various reasons decided to wean early or choose to combine breastfeeding with formula supplementation, often related that they would hide this decision both from their health care professionals and from people in general, and even from family and friends in some cases. Also, mothers who had bottle fed their infant (whether the bottle contained formula or breast milk) talked about how they often had to field comments about their practice, and/or received what they had interpreted as disapproving gazes when feeding in public. Rita, for example, started using formula as a feeding supplement because of difficulties with breastfeeding. She worried about the public health nurse’s reaction, and on the day of the home visit Rita ensured that nothing could reveal her mixed feeding regime. During the visit, however, she changed her mind and decided to be honest. To her surprise and relief, the public health nurse supported her practice. Still, Rita felt uneasy out in public, when feeding her child from a bottle. She had experienced gazes that she interpreted as criticism and which she, as Sigrid, made efforts to avoid. However, in many social settings such as group consultations with the public health nurse, feeding practices are difficult to hide. Mothers who described feelings of guilt for giving up breastfeeding, or for not giving the child the most ‘perfect food’, stressed especially how important it was for them to avoid additional pain imposed by professionals’ or lay people’s judgement. Only one mother related that she had weaned her child early for egoistic reasons to secure herself more sleep. She believed that this would have a positive impact on both herself and the child, and she figured the child would be well nourished on formula.

Signal of Control

As pointed to above, many mothers tended not to volunteer information about their modified practices to health care professionals or others. They were reluctant both regarding to whom and how they disclose such information because they worried about receiving criticism for their altered practices vis-a-vis established breastfeeding targets. However, interview descriptions by mothers such as Sigrid and others, indicated that breastfeeding was important not only to feel success but also to signal success as a mother. Some mothers related that the intensity with which other mothers strive to adhere to the prescription of six months’ exclusive breastfeeding had increased dramatically. In the interviews this commitment among many mothers to follow official recommendations was described as a kind of ‘strive towards perfection’ and as a need many modern women feel to relay an impression of themselves as smart, fit and highly capable. It was added, often by more well-educated informants, that when these high achieving women become mothers, they continue to be high achieving and success oriented, and wanting to mother ‘perfectly’. Guidelines established by the medical community emerged as a shared cultural benchmark that mothers used to compare and evaluate their own and other mothers’ feeding practices. Mothers seemed to notice other mothers’ practices, ranked themselves (and others) against other mothers and often strove to be ‘best in class’. By comparing themselves to accomplishments by other mothers, some mothers who did not manage to lactate for the prescribed period, seemed to be feeling even more of a failure.

Taboo Two: Giving Up Breastfeeding ‘Too Late’

The Invisible Line

The women interviewed by the author described considerable variation in their breastfeeding practices and experiences. Duration, for example, had lasted from a very short period up to four years or beyond, and stories on reasons for weaning varied from one case to another. Most of the women who were breastfeeding an infant at the time of the interview, had planned ‘to make it to the finish line’, as some said. The finish line referred to the 12-month benchmark advocated by the Norwegian national health authorities. Of concern for their child’s physical health, these mothers said they were hoping to make it to this point without giving up or without the experience of their child rejecting their breast.

Although recommendations by the Norwegian national health authorities indicate that breastfeeding of a child way into the second year is appropriate or even healthy, interview descriptions indicate that social norms for acceptable duration of lactation do not necessarily coincide with official advice. None of the women interviewed by the author questioned the appropriateness of giving breast milk to a child at the age of 12 months. Up until a year-and-a-half breastfeeding seemed to be undisputed. A rather clear line seemed, however, to be drawn around that age (except for in a few cases pointed to below). When women in the research interviews were specifically asked to express their opinion on for how long a child should or could be breastfed, not all referred to an exact age, but the following formulations were repeatedly uttered as an answer:

A child that is both walking and talking is too old to be breastfed.

When they [children] are capable of asking for it – then it is definitely time to stop.

The article in Dagbladet (2009) also indicates a benchmark set for appropriate duration of breastfeeding at around a year-and-a half. One of the mothers that were interviewed, described an experience where the manager at her son’s kindergarten had asked her not to breastfeed her son in front of other kids when she came to pick him up in the afternoon. Her son was around 18 months at the time, and the manager had, according to the record, told her that he was too old for suckling his mother’s breast. In Dagbladet (2012) some of those interviewed even pointed to a benchmark for acceptable duration of breastfeeding at 12 months.

Crossing the Invisible Line

Hilde had her only child in her early 40s and breastfed the child for more than three years. Through her narrative on experiences with long-term breastfeeding it became clear that she had unconsciously drifted into the practice. Hilde told the author that she never reflected on whether it was appropriate to breastfeed a child at the age of three or older. Breastfeeding was never a topic of debate in conversations within her social circle or at her workplace, and none of her friends had young children at the time when she had hers. Hilde began the weaning process after she had to deal with critical comments from some of her friends who, as she described it, were shocked when they finally discovered the fact that she was breastfeeding her three-year-old son.

Another mother, Marit, was breastfeeding both an infant and a four-year-old at the time of the interview. By contrast to Hilde, Marit made a conscious decision to breastfeed her oldest child both during her second pregnancy and after her second child was born. In the interview Marit talked about the importance of child-led weaning, of bonding between mother and child, and of various mental and physical health benefits of long-term breastfeeding for both mother and child. She also spoke of how her decision to continue with breastfeeding her four-year-old was part of a wider ideology referring to the Danish family therapist Jesper Juul, and to philosophies echoing the natural childbirth movement: a cluster of practices which include reaction towards medical intervention and technology in childbirth; child regulated feeding and weaning, co-sleeping and body contact day and night (baby wearing).

Marit further described how she had to field critical comments for her decision to breastfeed her four-year-old. She added, however, that such comments did not bother her, mostly because she believed that those who criticized her practice were not aware of the benefits of long-term breastfeeding.

Opinions resembling Marit’s, were voiced by women interviewed for Dagbladet (2009). They told about negative reactions from people outside the closest family towards the practice both of breastfeeding an older child and of breastfeeding an infant and a toddler at the same time. A woman interviewed for the weekly magazine KK (2015) had, according to the journalist, spoken about how important she believes it is to breastfeed an older child in public, and that this is necessary to contribute to a change of public opinion and to ensure that it becomes acceptable and perceived as normal. She had added that she did not want anyone to tell her child that suckling her mother’s breast was inappropriate, or to tell her child that she is doing something wrong. This woman’s accounts differed somewhat from other women who disclosed their long-term breastfeeding practice in the media, by strongly advocating the practice, and in the article the following formulation was presented as a quotation from her: ‘They [people in general] better get used to it – just as they have got used to same-sex couples holding hands in public.’

A Practice Surrounded by Silence

Accounts both in the research interviews and in media articles, indicate that Norwegian women tend not to volunteer information about long-term breastfeeding. Few talk about this publicly or practise it in public places. In Dagbladet’s (2009) open call for mothers who were breastfeeding a child past the age of two, or who have had the experience of breastfeeding an older child, only a handful out of the 50 or so women who responded, accepted their name and photo to be published. One of the women who is referred to in the article, was at the time breastfeeding an infant and a two-and-a-half-year-old. She had told the journalist that she never breastfed the oldest child in public or in front of people other than close family, even if the child would cry out loud for access to the breast. She had added that this was because she knows that many find breastfeeding of older children weird. A similar argument may have played a role in a celebrity father’s answer when he was asked to disclose for how long his youngest child had been breastfed (this subject was brought up in a specific context). He answered: ‘For a long time.’ When the reporter asked him if he could be more specific on the child’s age, he said: ‘No, that’s between us and Our Lord’ (NRK, 2019).

Aside from Marit and Hilde, mothers interviewed by the author and who had breastfed a child for more than 12 months, related that they stopped breastfeeding in public when the child had passed a certain age even if the child was within the age range included in directives validated by public health authorities. Most often they began to hide the practice when the child turned a-year-and-a-half. Bente is one of these mothers. At the time of the interview, she was breastfeeding her second child, an 18-month-old son. She related that her son had access to the breast only in the early morning hours before she went to work and in the evening before his bedtime. Bente had no plan for how long she would continue with breastfeeding, as indicated in her statement: ‘He is so young, and he enjoys it [being breastfed] so much . . . It breaks my heart – I cannot take this away from him.’ Bente had not told anyone that she had not yet weaned her youngest son. She said she preferred to keep it within the family. To the interviewer’s question on reasons for why she would keep this secret, Bente answered that she feared that people would believe she was breastfeeding her son to satisfy her own feelings of pleasure. She, as several other women interviewed by the author, talked about the one-and-a-half-year benchmark which she had noticed worked as a limit for acceptable duration of breastfeeding.

Protecting the Child

Bente, as noted above, feared accusations of primarily pleasing her own needs and preferences if she disclosed the fact that she was still breastfeeding her son at the age of a-year-and-a-half. Such a fear was not pure imagination, however. Accusation of selfishness was a main argument among the women interviewed by the author, who did not support long-term breastfeeding or were opposed to the practice. Although some mothers during the interview seemed to be reluctant with respect to judging other mothers for any kind of practice, long-term breastfeeding included, others were outspoken and declared that they were strongly provoked by mothers who prolong the weaning process. Women in the latter category could not think of any legitimate reason for breastfeeding a child that has passed infancy and no longer needs breast milk for nutrition or as a source of supply for other healthy substances. As seen from their point of view, there are several other ways for mothers to respond to a three-year-old or a two-year-old child’s cry for comfort, reassurance, help or affection than using their breast. The articles in Aftenposten (2014), Bergens Tidende (2012), Dagbladet (2009, 2012) and KK (2015), as well as various internet accounts, also contain examples of mothers being accused of being selfish for continuing with breastfeeding when the child has passed infancy, with the aim of losing weight, keeping their body slim, keeping their breasts big or feeling pleasure.

In the research interviews, mothers commented on the potential sexual stimulation breastfeeding might arouse in women. They talked about the breastfeeding of a child at an age when they believe a child no longer needs mother’s milk for nutrition as a potentially incestuous act, and the practice was described by using words such as distasteful, disgusting or perverted. Ragnhild was one of the mothers who expressed ‘furiousness’ when she talked about mothers who practise long-term breastfeeding. As an example, she mentioned a friend of hers who was breastfeeding a four-year-old, a practice which Ragnhild commented on in the following way: ‘You should absolutely speak with her, because what she does [breastfeeding a four-year-old] that’s disgusting, it’s perverted, it’s downright incestuous’ (Ragnhild).

Several of the mothers interviewed by the author, said they believe long-term breastfeeding would harm the child. During the interview, none of these mothers talked about long-term breastfeeding as ‘risky’ because the milk might contain toxic substances from environmental pollution, or the potential strategy on the part of mothers to keep the child closer attached to themselves than to his/her father. These mothers seemed to be mostly concerned with the child’s social and emotional development, and they suggested that mothers who prolong the weaning process put optimal development of their child at risk. In opposition to women who argue in favour of prolonged breastfeeding and the need to promote it publicly, the women who contested the practice suggest that it is necessary to keep up what they experience as a prevailing taboo around this kind of practice to protect the children.

From Purity to Danger

As pointed to above, accounts given within various contexts over the past decade suggest that neither bottle feeding of an infant in the early months nor breastfeeding of an older child are widely accepted in Norway. In both cases, mothers have been accused of giving priority to their own needs rather than putting their child’s health and well-being first. Because mothers in Norway have free access to professional support and have no work obligations to consider in the early months of their child’s life, few reasons are found legitimate for weaning early. At the other end of the spectrum, mothers who practise long-term breastfeeding are accused of satisfying their own needs; for instance, for staying slim, keeping their breasts big, feeling pleasure or maintaining a close mother–child relation at the expense of a close father–child relation. In fear of moral sanctions such as judgemental gazes or direct critical comments, mothers tend to hide the fact that they have weaned early or prolonged the breastfeeding period by keeping such practices primarily within the private domain or lie about their practice. This, in turn, indicates that these practices are taboo within a Norwegian context.

The two taboos differ, however, in nature and in origin, and are justified differently. The importance of breastfeeding in the early months is backed up by both a medical discourse and a natural paradigm. Health authorities strongly promote breastfeeding in the early months, and mothers are expected to sacrifice, if necessary, to give their infant the most perfect food, with an implicit message: good mothers do not jeopardize their child’s health and well-being (Murphy, 1999: 187–188). When the child reaches a certain age, the medical discourse no longer works to legitimate the practice even though international health authorities advocate it and advise mothers to continue with breastfeeding way into the second year of the child’s life or longer. Although Norwegian health care professionals seem not to actively promote long-term breastfeeding, they do not warn against it in the same strong ways that they warn against early weaning. Thus, rather than contradicting the medical discourse, giving the breast to an older child seems to violate cultural or social norms. It is for instance assumed that a toddler in a western society does not need mother’s milk for its nutritional value or for any other substances in the milk, and therefore, mothers do not need to use their breast for bonding or to comfort a child past a certain age. Long-term breastfeeding has no documented effects on the child’s health and well-being, positive or negative. It is, however, believed to be risky to the child’s social and emotional development (e.g. Faircloth, 2010). The act of a toddler suckling his/her mother’s breast is also found inappropriate, or taboo, because of connotations drawn to sexuality and potential feelings of pleasure on the part of the mother.

At both ends of the spectrum mothers who break these taboos by either breastfeeding for ‘too long’ or not ‘long enough’, cross boundaries that tend to be morally sanctioned in different ways – subtle through disapproving gazes, or open through direct critical comments, as pointed to above. Both practices could, however, potentially be coupled with another taboo: weaning ‘too early’ or not ‘in time’ according to various perceptions, might also signal ‘lack of control’. In today’s western societies as well as within a prevailing health promotion discourse, the notion of being in control is highly regarded (Andrews, 2003). It is assumed that mothers who do not breastfeed for the officially prescribed number of months, or do not persevere through pain, lack of sleep and exhaustion, do not manage a difficult task and as such lack control, as do mothers who are not ‘capable of weaning’. Lack of control tends to be kept secret. The opposite – signal of control or ‘successful motherhood’ – is indicated by managing to follow guidelines on breastfeeding established by the medical community, which, in turn, indicates that this labour-intensive and often painful activity is mastered.

The ways in which a bottle replacing the mother’s breast in the early months and a toddler suckling his/her mother’s breast seem to be viewed within this context, fit into Douglas’ (1994) classification termed matter out of place. This classification does not only concern the different acts but also the involved substances. In both professional and lay discourses mother’s milk appears as holy, pure and clean when it is given to an infant. When the very same substance is given to an older child it becomes symbolically impure or polluted and appears as dirt, or more specifically; when the sacred milk is not needed for nutritional purposes, it is first and foremost the act, or the way in which the milk is given to the child, that becomes impure. In other words, the child’s age determines whether the act (by breast or bottle) and the substance (breast milk or formula) are placed into one or the other category and moves from pure or clean to impure or unclean.

In Douglas’ conceptualization, impure, pollution or dirt are any matter considered out of place. Mother’s milk fed directly from the breast is pure – the gold standard – unless the child has passed a certain age. Likewise, a bottle with formula milk given to a child could be categorized as pure, unless the child is an infant or under a certain age. Consequently, both the bottle and the breast become matter out of place depending on context. Purity, the pure milk provided to an infant the pure way, from the mother’s breast, is based on the assumptions that both the substance and the practice affect the child’s health and well-being in a positive way. Impure, on the other hand, is connected to danger or dangerous practices. Mother’s milk supplement is dangerous as a substance given to the child in the early weeks because it might harm the child’s health and well-being. In the case of breast milk given to a toddler it is not the substance – breast milk – that has the dangerous effect or is risky. Danger within this context, concerns the act of breastfeeding, and the relationship this involves between the mother and child which is viewed as unhealthy or risky to the child’s psychological health or emotional and social development.

Here, both the substance and the act fall into a category of social disorder and are as such heavily loaded symbolically. A bodily fluid, mother’s milk, is not viewed as opposed to another bodily fluid. The substance has not changed, although its biological content differs somewhat over time. Nevertheless, moving from one context to another, along the child’s age line, the very same substance (breast milk), and the same act (breastfeeding), changes from pure to impure.

Accounts given in the present study indicate that many women believe it is important to keep both taboos: one taboo ensures the child ‘proper food’ and protects the child from harming his/her health and well-being. The other taboo protects the child from being used by his/her mother for the mother’s own benefits and protects the child’s psychological or emotional development from being jeopardized.

Some pollutions, Douglas (1994) believes, are used as analogies for expressing a general view of the social order, an order between the sacred, the clean and the unclean in different societies and times. The concepts of purity, or cleanliness, and danger or its equivalents; impurity, pollution, contagion, and the distinction drawn between them, are a symbolic view on dirt in a society. People trying to influence one another’s behaviour through social pressure and the ideal order of society is guarded by dangers which threaten transgressors. As suggested by aspects pointed to above, the kind of contacts or actions that are thought dangerous, carry a symbolic load in Douglas’ terms.

Concluding Comments

Taboos have an impact on practices as well as on beliefs and attitudes (Douglas, 1994), and are therefore important to unpack. Traditionally, taboos have worked to protect against danger or risks. Within the context of breastfeeding potential danger is not defined in exact terms. ‘Too little’ and ‘too much’ are both believed to violate the child’s health and well-being. The various substances and the different practices are believed to be dangerous in different ways depending on the child’s age, and therefore both breastfeeding and breast milk have a distinct place in the symbolic order, in the sense of having symbolic meaning and moral weight.

Taboos prevail across contexts, and Douglas’ conceptualization of matter out of place works to give insight into processes for example of exclusion within various fields, or into social relations viewed as marginal in a context (Solheim, 1997).¹² Mothers are subjected to a wide range of expectations and subjected to moral judgements for the ways in which they ‘mother’, and some of their practices are deemed marginal (for an overview, see Andrews and Knaak, 2013). Being aware of various taboos that are in play, and how they work and are negotiated, contributes to a better understanding of this field. The present attempt to use Douglas’ classical work for capturing important aspects on motherhood, might inspire studies within other sociological research areas.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to all study participants who shared their experiences and views, and to the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on the manuscript.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Therese Andrews is Research Professor at Nordland Research Institute and holds a doctoral degree in Sociology from the University of Bergen. She has published widely on public health and welfare related topics, aspects on motherhood included. Her research also covers socio-cultural approaches to body image and food habits.

References

Aftenposten (2014) Å amme andres barn er større tabu enn dette, 8 April.

Andrews

(1996) Ungdommens matvaner sett i et sosiokulturelt perspektiv (Youth culture and food habits). In: HEMIL-Rapport nr. 2. Bergen: University of Bergen.

Andrews

(2003) Nytt ideologisk grunnlag i forebyggende helsearbeid – en diskusjon av syn på makt og endring. Tidsskrift for velferdsforskning 6(1): 30–42.

Andrews

Knaak

(2013) Medicalized mothering. Experiences with breastfeeding in Canada and Norway. The Sociological Review 61(1): 88–110.

Andrews

Vassenden

(2007) Snøballen som ikke ruller. Utvalgsproblemer i kvalitativ forskning. Sosiologisk Tidsskrift 15(2): 151–163.

Apple

(1987) Mothers and Medicine: A Social History of Infant Feeding, 1890-1950. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Apple

(1997) Constructing mothers: Scientific motherhood in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In: Apple

Golden

(eds) Mothers and Motherhood: Readings in American History. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.

Bergens Tidende (2012) Er det greit å amme til barnet er 5 år? 26 May.

Blum

(1999) At the Breast: Ideologies of Motherhood and Breastfeeding in the Contemporary United States. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

10.

Carter

(1995) Feminism, Breasts and Breastfeeding. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

11.

Dagbladet (2009) For store til å bli ammet? 14 August.

12.

Dagbladet (2012) Derfor mener vi at store barn ikke bør ammes, 19 August.

13.

Douglas

(1994) Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London and New York, NY: Routledge.

14.

Dowling

Pontin

(2017) Using liminality to understand mother’s experiences of long-term breastfeeding: ‘Betwixt and between’, and ‘matter out of place’. Health 21(1): 57–75.

15.

Faircloth

(2009) Culture means nothing to me: Thoughts on nature/culture in narratives of ‘full-term’ breastfeeding. Cambridge Anthropology 28(2): 63–85.

16.

Faircloth

(2010) If they want to risk the health and well-being of their child, that’s up to them: Long-term breastfeeding, risk and maternal identity. Heath, Risk and Society 12(4): 357–367.

17.

Hausman

(2003) Mother’s Milk: Breastfeeding Controversies in American Culture. New York, NY and London: Routledge.

18.

Kilden.forskning.no (2017) Public breastfeeding: When the sexy boob becomes baby food, 28 June.

19.

KK (2015) Tabuer i dagens samfunn, 25 September, 39.

20.

Knaak

(2005) Breast-feeding, Bottle-feeding and Dr. Spock: The shifting context of choice. The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 42(2): 197–216.

21.

Lande

Helleve

(2014) Amming og spedbarns kosthold. In: Landsomfattende undersøkelse 2013. Rapport 11/2014. Oslo: Norwegian Directorate of Health.

22.

Lee

(2007) Health, morality, and infant feeding: British mothers’ experiences of formula milk use in the early weeks. Sociology of Health & Illness 29(7): 1–16.

23.

Lee

(2018) Breastfeeding bodies: Intimacies at work. Gender, Work & Organization 25(1): 1–14.

24.

Maher

(1992) The Anthropology of Breast-Feeding: Natural Law or Social construct. Oxford/Providence: Berg.

25.

Mahon-Daly

Andrews

(2002) Liminality and breastfeeding: Women negotiating space and two bodies. Health & Place 8: 61–76.

26.

Murphy

(1999) Breast is best: Infant feeding decisions and maternal deviance. Sociology of Health & Illness 21(2): 187–208.

27.

Murphy

(2003) Expertise and forms of knowledge in the government of families. The Sociological Review 51(4): 433–462.

28.

Nettavisen.no (2009) Dette er tabu, 23 March.

29.

Newman

Williamson

(2018) Why aren’t you stopping now?! Exploring accounts of white women breastfeeding beyond six months in the East of England. Appetite 129: 228–235.

30.

NRK (2019) Kulturmøtet, 1 September.

31.

Säilävaara

(2020) Long-term breastfeeding: The embodied experiences of Finnish mothers. NORA – Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research 28(1): 43–55.

32.

Schmied

Lupton

(2001) Blurring the boundaries: Breastfeeding and maternal subjectivity. Sociology of Health & Illness 23(2): 243–250.

33.

Silverman

(2001) Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction, 2nd edn. London: Sage Publications.

34.

Solheim

(1997) Forord. In: Douglas M Rent og urent: En analyse av forestillinger om urenhet og tabu. Oslo: Pax.

35.

Spradley

(1979) The Ethnographic Interview. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

36.

Stearns

(1999) Breastfeeding and the good maternal body. Gender & Society 13(3): 308–325.

37.

Stearns

(2009) The work of breastfeeding. Women’s Studies Quarterly 37(3–4): 63–80.

38.

Van Esterik

(1989) Beyond the Breast-Bottle Controversy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

39.

Van Esterik

(2002) Contemporary trends in infant feeding research. Annual Review of Anthropology 31: 257–278.

40.

Wall

(2001) Moral constructions of motherhood in breastfeeding discourse. Gender & Society 15(4): 592–610.

41.

Weiner

(1994) Reconstructing motherhood: The La Leche League in Postwar America. The Journal of American History 80(4): 1357–1381.

42.

Wolf

(2007) Is breast really best? Risk and total motherhood in the national breastfeeding awareness campaign. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 32(4): 595–636.