Entangled nights: The affective,material,and cultural politics of co-sleeping

Abstract

Co-sleeping, where caregiver-infant dyads share a sleeping surface, is a culturally embedded caregiving practice across many societies. Despite its benefits, co-sleeping challenges Western norms and raises SUDI concerns. Existing research often examines co-sleeping through narrow lenses, reducing nighttime care to binary oppositions of safe versus unsafe. Addressing this gap, this study explored co-sleeping practices of 16 mother-baby dyads in Aotearoa New Zealand using new materialism and assemblage theory. Data from interviews and digital diaries revealed that co-sleeping emerges not solely from individual choice but from complex interactions between material arrangements, embodied experiences, and institutional forces. Three paradoxes emerged: vigilant rest, the safety paradox, and the good mother paradox. Findings demonstrated that co-sleeping is a dynamic process of negotiation among bodies, materials, spaces, and social forces, with implications for strength-based, family-tailored, and culturally responsive infant sleep safety strategies that move beyond one-size-fits-all recommendations.

Introduction

Co-sleeping-where caregivers and infants share close proximity during sleep (McKenna et al., 2007) is one of the most intimate and enduring practices of early parenting. Deeply intertwined with breastfeeding, co-sleeping has supported bonding, nourishment, and safety across cultures (Barry and McKenna, 2022). While it remains a globally prevalent and culturally significant practice-engaged in by over 70% of families worldwide (Barry, 2019), including Māori and Pacific households in Aotearoa (Abel et al., 2001; Jones et al., 2017) co-sleeping occupies a contested space within contemporary Western societies. In these settings, it is often viewed through the lens of risk, with public health messaging actively discouraging the practice due to concerns about Sudden Unexpected Death in Infancy (SUDI; Ministry of Health, 2019) while simultaneously challenging dominant biomedical frameworks that prioritise infant independence and separate sleep spaces (Jenni and O'Connor, 2005).

Research on co-sleeping-variously defined to include bedsharing, sofa-sharing, or any proximity arrangement (McKenna et al., 2007) has produced conflicting findings partly due to this terminological confusion. When bedsharing is distinguished from higher-risk practices like sofa-sharing, the evidence reveals that while some studies suggest increased SUDI risk (Carpenter et al., 2013; Colvin et al., 2014), others emphasise context, showing risk is linked not to bedsharing itself, but to specific hazardous conditions and structural barriers preventing safe sleep implementation (Bartick and Smith, 2014; Blair et al., 2014). Notably, Tipene-Leach and Fidow (2022) found that many families experiencing SUDI possessed strong knowledge of safe sleep guidelines but were unable to implement them due to poverty, overcrowding, substance use, and exhaustion-structural factors that remain largely unaddressed in dominant safety discourses. Furthermore, concerns often relate to accidental suffocation rather than SIDS per se (Shipstone et al., 2020) a distinction that matters as SUDI encompasses both unexplained deaths and deaths with identifiable mechanisms.

This disconnect between institutional guidance and family realities (Moon et al., 2024) leaves many families navigating nighttime care in uncertain and unsupported ways. While public health messaging promotes a uniform separate-sleep model, many parents turn to co-sleeping-intentionally or reactively (Ramos, 2003; Stewart and Reigle, 2014) to manage infant care demands (Barry and McKenna, 2022) or to maintain cultural traditions and parenting philosophies (Abel et al., 2001; Dodd and Jackiewicz, 2015). This persistent tension motivated our inquiry. As mothers who had navigated bedsharing with our own infants, we experienced firsthand the mismatch between institutional recommendations and family realities. Despite encountering healthcare opposition and societal scrutiny, we found bedsharing to be a practice that facilitated sleep, enhanced family wellbeing, and proved sustainable within our domestic contexts. Our engagement with co-sleeping research revealed a disconnect between the nuanced realities of nighttime parenting and prevailing risk-focussed discourses.

Despite its prevalence, existing research tends to study co-sleeping through narrow lenses: measuring prevalence, assessing risk, or exploring sleep behaviour in isolation. These approaches often reduce co-sleeping to a binary choice (safe vs unsafe) obscuring the relational, affective, and material dynamics shaping how families actually practice nighttime care (Tomori and Boyer, 2019). This study takes a different approach. Drawing on assemblage theory (Buchanan, 2015) and feminist new materialism (Alaimo and Hekman, 2008), we examined how co-sleeping emerges through dynamic assemblages rather than individual choice. Focussing on co-sleeping in early infancy-when infant sleep is most intensely governed by health guidance and breastfeeding is most common-we explored how mother-infant dyads, materials, and discourses together constitute nighttime care arrangements through ongoing interactions. Specifically, we asked: How do human (e.g. mothers, infants) and non-human (e.g. objects, spaces, discourses) elements interact to produce distinct co-sleeping encounters? While co-sleeping encompasses various proximity arrangements (McKenna et al., 2007), this study focuses on bedsharing-the practice most contested in contemporary health guidance-as practiced by our participants. We retain the term “co-sleeping” throughout to reflect participants’ own language.

Methods

We drew on a postqualitative, feminist new materialist approach to explore the human and non-human relations shaping co-sleeping practices in Aotearoa. Postqualitative inquiry resists fixed methods, embracing research as emergent and entangled through relationships, materials, and affect (St. Pierre, 2021). Knowledge is not discovered but co-constituted through intra-actions-the mutual shaping of researcher, participants, methods, and phenomena (Barad, 2007). A feminist new materialist orientation foregrounds the dynamic systems through which human and non-human entities co-produce outcomes, challenging human-centric understandings of social processes (Coole and Frost, 2010) and aligning with assemblage theory’s emphasis on emergence within shifting configurations of bodies, materials, spaces, and affects (Buchanan, 2015). Within this framework, semi-structured interviews and digital diaries became sites where knowledge materialised through entangled bodies, affects, spaces, and technologies (Neely, 2025), revealing the material-affective dimensions of everyday co-sleeping practices.

Participants

Sixteen mothers actively co-sleeping with their children participated in the study. Recruitment occurred via a post in Wellington Parents (NZ), a public Facebook group for general parenting discussions. The post linked to an online screening survey; eligible respondents then received information sheets and arranged interviews. The rapid response over 20 survey completions within 2 hours exceeded expectations, and all 16 eligible respondents were included, a sample size suitable for in-depth postqualitative inquiry (Fox and Alldred, 2020). Inclusion criteria comprised mothers co-sleeping with infants up to 12 months of age, residing in Aotearoa, and able to communicate in English. One participant with a 16-month-old was included because her experiences offered insight into the continuity of co-sleeping beyond the first year. Co-sleeping was defined broadly as caregiver and infant sleeping in close proximity, including arrangements such as bedsharing, bassinets beside the bed, or wahakura (woven flax bassinet). In practice, all participants bedshared, with infants sharing the same bed for part or all of the night.

Participants reflected diverse cultural backgrounds: New Zealand European/Pākehā (n = 7), Southeast Asian (n = 3), British (n = 2), New Zealand European/Māori (n = 1), Indian (n = 1), American (n = 1), and Northern European (n = 1). Mothers ranged in age from 22 to 44 years (M = 34.9, SD = 5.0); infants from 6 weeks to 16 months (M = 7.9, SD = 4.0). Seven were first-time mothers and nine had older children, most of whom continued to bedshare. Fifteen mothers were breastfeeding, one used formula. All except one solo mother lived with partners. Bedsharing configurations varied, including floor mattresses, extended king-sized beds, and cot-bed combinations, reflecting families’ adaptations to spatial and relational needs. All participants were assigned pseudonyms to protect confidentiality.

Data collection

Ethics approval was granted by the Victoria University of Wellington Human Ethics Committee (ID: 0000031608). Participants received detailed information sheets outlining the study’s purpose, procedures, and rights. Written electronic consent was obtained prior to participation. All identifying information was removed, and pseudonyms were assigned to protect confidentiality. Data were gathered through two complementary methods designed to capture both immediate and reflective insights into co-sleeping practices. These methods enabled a creative, non-prescriptive engagement that foregrounded relational and material dimensions of co-sleeping. Semi-structured interviews were conducted via Zoom, lasting 30–60 minutes, allowing mothers to participate from home while managing childcare responsibilities. Interviews began with broad, open-ended questions about each mother’s co-sleeping journey and family context before progressing to more focussed discussions of daily routines, material environments, and embodied experiences. Participants reflected on how relationships, spaces, and objects shaped their practices, alongside emotions, challenges, and societal perceptions of co-sleeping (see supplementary material for interview guide). All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed by the first author.

Following interviews, participants documented co-sleeping encounters over two weeks using WhatsApp. This approach, previously employed in health and motherhood research, facilitates real-time, multimodal documentation of embodied, everyday experiences (Neely, 2025). The unstructured format allowed mothers to record reflections through text, photographs, or voice messages in the ways that best suited their daily routines, capturing insights that might not arise in single-point interviews. Midway through the diary period, two prompts invited reflection on evolving sleep arrangements, family relations, and the links between co-sleeping and wellbeing (see Supplemental Material for diary guide). Participation exceeded expectations, with over half providing extensive daily entries and photographs, generating rich longitudinal data on the relational dimensions of nighttime care.

Data analysis

Analysis combined diffractive reading practices (Barad, 2007) with Feely’s (2020) assemblage analysis method, following three overlapping phases. First, immersion in the data involved identifying diverse human and non-human elements shaping co-sleeping practices. Excel spreadsheets and Miro boards were used to organise quotes and images, and map relationships between elements. Particular attention was given to “glowing” moments (MacLure, 2013) that demanded deeper exploration. Second, flows between elements were mapped, examining how they affected each other, which revealed three paradoxical entanglements and helped identify three main types of flows (material-spatial, embodied-affective, and semiotic) that continuously shaped co-sleeping practices. Finally, the analysis examined the regulatory and transformative dynamics shaping co-sleeping assemblages, tracing how shifting human and non-human forces stabilised or disrupted everyday practices. This highlighted moments when these assemblages solidified into routine practices or reconfigured into new configurations.

The analysis employed diffraction (Barad, 2007) to think with data through multiple theoretical lenses, acknowledging knowledge emerges from researcher-participant-method-phenomenon entanglements. As mothers with co-sleeping experience, we brought embodied understandings attuning us to co-sleeping’s affective and practical dimensions, recognising that our own experiences intra-acted with participants’ narratives. Reflexive memos and team discussions surfaced assumptions and negotiated meanings, maintaining attentiveness to how our positionalities shaped interpretation.

Results

The analysis revealed multiple human and non-human elements shaping co-sleeping practices in Aotearoa, including material-spatial arrangements, embodied interactions, and institutional and sociocultural forces. Material configurations encompassed sleeping surfaces (floor beds, extended king-sized mattresses, cots attached to beds), safety adaptations (barriers, strategic bedding placement), and environmental controls (temperature, lighting, sound). Families developed evolving systems that adapted as infants grew, and caregivers gained safety knowledge. Bodies emerged as powerful agents within these assemblages: infants influenced sleep arrangements through movement and preference for close contact, while mothers’ bodies adjusted through protective positioning-most notably the “C-curl,” which created spaces of safety and nurture. Breastfeeding further shaped co-sleeping by mediating comfort, nourishment, and by fostering unique sensory connections during nighttime care. Sociocultural forces—including healthcare guidance, cultural norms, and family expectations—also affected co-sleeping, generating complex pressures families navigated in arranging their sleep practices. Across these intersecting elements, three paradoxical entanglements emerged as central findings: vigilant rest, where heightened awareness paradoxically enabled mothers’ perception of more restful sleep; the safety paradox, where mothers devised safety strategies amid healthcare opposition; and the good mother paradox, revealing tensions between embodied maternal expertise and external expectations.

Vigilant rest paradox: The entanglement of sleep and attunement

Vigilant rest emerged as a dynamic state in which mothers achieved what they experienced as better sleep through co-sleeping while simultaneously maintaining heightened awareness of their infants. This seemingly contradictory phenomenon appeared consistently across all data, revealing rest-attunement interplay. Importantly, better sleep referred to mothers’ subjective perception of being more rested despite frequent wakings, rather than any objective measure of sleep quality or quantity. Mothers consistently reported that infants appeared to sleep longer with fewer wakings during co-sleeping compared to separate sleeping arrangements, which contributed to mothers’ own sense of being better rested. Kyla, mother of three (youngest 10 months) captured this seemingly contradictory state when she noted:

It's strange because it’s better sleep but lighter sleep, and I think that’s because I’m so aware of him [. . .] I can feel his breathing rate, and his temperature. I can also hear the noises he makes, breathing, snuffles, cries, coughs, stomach noises, gas.

Anna, mother of two (youngest 11 months) similarly described this paradoxical dynamic as providing better quality rest than attempts to maintain separate sleep spaces:

I am just aware of what’s going on for my daughter, like any changes, if her breathing changes, or if she is unsettled [. . .] even though there’s multiple wakes, I still feel rested.

Material arrangements played an essential role in facilitating vigilant rest through specific modifications that enabled mother-baby proximity. Strategic bed arrangements-foam bumpers, positioned pillows, beds against walls-created contained spaces where both vigilance and rest became possible. As illustrated in Figure 1, Anna’s arrangement exemplifies how multiple material components work together as active agents in the co-sleeping assemblage. Walls become safety barriers that enable maternal relaxation, foam bumpers prevent falls while maintaining a contained space for awareness without anxiety, and pillows serve dual purposes of support and gap prevention. Through these arrangements, mothers like Anna were able to maintain physical proximity that, in turn, allowed them to remain attuned to subtle cues without fully awakening: “There’s just like another layer of awareness because my body knows that I’m breastfeeding. I know where she is at all times, and she knows where I am as well.”

Figure 1.

Bed with foam bumpers.

Beyond creating contained spaces, these spatial-material arrangements facilitated what we conceptualise as intense sensory flows-continuous exchanges of tactile, auditory, and olfactory information between mother and infant bodies. Mothers described feeling breathing rhythms, detecting temperature changes, and sensing movements even while sleeping. Kyla explained: “When we lie together I can usually feel the whole length of his body against mine.” Within this reconfigured sleep space, mothers described experiencing an almost automatic awareness, where breathing changes, temperature shifts, or movements registered in their consciousness without full waking. This sensory saturation transformed sleep itself: rather than rest requiring disconnection, the co-sleeping assemblage enabled rest through connexion. The proximity created by material and spatial arrangements thus did more than facilitate monitoring; it fundamentally reconfigured the nature of maternal sleep.

Within this sensory landscape, mothers’ bodies themselves became active technologies of vigilant rest. The C-curl position exemplifies this embodied transformation more than just a protective posture, this configuration channelled sensory information through specific points of contact. The curve of the mother’s arm sensed breathing, her torso registered temperature, her legs created boundaries. What began as deliberate positioning evolved into embodied habit, transforming the mother’s sleeping body into both shelter and sensor. Anna explained:

I sleep in a curled, C-shape position so my arm is always like above her. And because I breastfeed, her head is always sort of at breast height [. . .] It’s wild to me that your body knows to stay in that position.

“Breastsleeping” a term coined by McKenna and Gettler (2016) to describe the integrated practice of breastfeeding and co-sleeping-emerged as the fullest materialisation of the vigilant rest entanglement. As illustrated in Figure 2, “breastsleeping” represents a convergence of bodies, spaces, and feeding practices in dynamic interplay. In this co-sleeping arrangement, the breast functioned simultaneously as nurturing organ and sophisticated monitoring system, facilitating rest while maintaining capacity for immediate responsiveness. For Kyla this integration manifested in tangible benefits: “The benefits would definitely be more sleep. And less guilt, you know, guilt about like putting them in the cot.” Through breastsleeping, the paradox of vigilant rest reached its most developed form, a state where nurturing, monitoring, and resting became inseparable aspects of a single practice. This paradox reveals a reconfiguration of sleep itself: for co-sleeping mothers, rest emerges not through disconnection but through embodied connection, challenging conventional understandings of what constitutes quality sleep.

Figure 2.

Materialisation of vigilant rest through breastsleeping.

Safety paradox: The entanglement of protection and risk

The analysis revealed another complex dynamic in co-sleeping practices. The safety paradox captured how mothers redefined protection in ways that contradicted healthcare guidance in Aotearoa, which frames co-sleeping as inherently dangerous. Through sophisticated material adaptations and embodied knowledge, mothers created sleep environments where proximity, rather than separation, became essential for safety. This paradox, where what healthcare deemed dangerous became the foundation of safety in mothers’ embodied experience, emerged through a complex temporal journey.

While explored, motivations were not the primary analytic focus. The majority of mothers did not plan to co-sleep from the outset. Instead, co-sleeping typically began reactively as the only strategy enabling both mother and baby to achieve rest. The main motivation was practical rather than ideological: mothers were simply seeking better sleep. Lena, mother of two (youngest 11 months) recalled: “I accidentally started co-sleeping with [my son] at six weeks old when I fell asleep with him on the sofa, which led me to seek more information on safe co-sleeping.” This unplanned initiation created what emerged as a critical “vulnerability period” a phase where mothers lacked adequate safety knowledge yet were already engaging in the practice. Most mothers did not initially know how to co-sleep safely. They began co-sleeping reactively in response to exhaustion, learning safety practices through trial and error, embodied experience, and connexion to alternative knowledge networks. Some multiparous mothers with prior co-sleeping knowledge could implement safety measures from the beginning, though they too refined these practices through embodied experience. Sophie, mother of two (youngest 6 weeks) acknowledged retrospectively: “Looking back, I realise there were things I didn’t know at first. It took time to learn how to make it [co-sleeping] truly safe.” During this vulnerability period, mothers experienced heightened anxiety about safety, particularly given widespread messaging about co-sleeping risks. Those who began reactively often reflected that their initial practices had been unsafe, expressing frustration that instead of receiving practical advice on safer co-sleeping, they encountered only blanket discouragement. For many, these fears persisted even after developing safety practices, as Holly (first child, 8 months) articulated:

I have a lot of anxiety about him sleeping on his tummy because adult mattresses aren’t designed to be breathable like infant mattresses. My biggest fear is waking up to a cold, dead baby. And then I’d be blamed for it.

This fear of blame revealed how healthcare messaging created lasting emotional strain. During the early period, mothers described anxious vigilance driven by these warnings-compulsively checking breathing, repositioning pillows, searching online for reassurance. This mentally exhausting hypervigilance, ironically imposed by messages meant to ensure safety, contrasted sharply with the embodied confidence that would later develop through practice.

As mothers sought guidance about safe co-sleeping, many encountered resistance from healthcare providers. Lena admitted: “I never told Plunket the truth. I’m really open about that I co-sleep with everybody else - just not Plunket.” Many participants described maintaining “performative sleep spaces” (Figure 3) unused cots kept for healthcare visits while actual sleep occurred elsewhere. Vivi (first child, 16 months) explained this dual reality: “If healthcare professionals don’t ask me, I don't tell them. I still say that he sleeps in his cot, but I don’t mention that sometimes he sleeps with me.” This concealment prevented open discussion of safety practices, potentially exacerbating risks during the critical transition period. Lena articulated: “I felt kind of betrayed from the medical professionals, because I wish they had told me how to do it safely instead of just telling me not to do it, because I co-slept anyway.”

Figure 3.

Performative sleep spaces.

This combination of strong discouragement and absence of safety information drove mothers to seek alternative sources. Sally, mother of two (youngest 4 months) expressed: “Social media has really helped me, knowing that it's okay.” Holly noted: “I saw a [Facebook] post from a mum I know. She said that bedsharing is a lot more accepted where she's from (Germany).” These alternative networks provided safety information that healthcare providers seemed unwilling to offer, creating spaces where mothers could openly discuss practices without fear of judgement. While the vast majority of healthcare providers strongly discouraged co-sleeping, rare exceptions showed what supportive care could look like. Stephanie (first child, 4.5 months) recalled: “I made some throwaway comment about how I couldn't go to sleep with her in the bed, and the lactation consultant was like, why not? I will send you some safe co-sleeping tips.” Though uncommon, such encounters often added to mothers’ confusion given the broader discouraging stance, reinforcing their need to develop safety expertise outside official channels.

Over time, mothers developed sophisticated material arrangements and embodied awareness that transformed initial anxiety into confident safety practices. Dahlia, mother of three (youngest 12 months) explained her evolved approach:

Our bed is on the floor [. . .] I wear something without any dangerous stuff that can dangle her [. . .] I’m very near and I can wake up easily, and I don’t have to get up or let her cry for a while to wake me up.

For Dahlia, safety emerged through careful material arrangements combined with embodied awareness enabling immediate response. She explained: “When parents sleep with the baby, there will be a level of awareness, and it changes the way you sleep.” This bodily transformation-from being “a kicker before having children” to “barely moving” during sleep illustrated how safety knowledge became embedded in unconscious bodily responses.

These embodied safety practices extended to minute modifications. Sophie explained: “I have really long hair, so that’s always tied back or sometimes plaited because it has a strangulation risk.” Material arrangements were meticulous and continuously evolved as babies developed and mothers’ competence grew. Bridget (first child, 6 months) described her approach: “I pull the blankets down so they just cover my legs. I sometimes have a light sheet over my shoulders, which I keep mostly behind me so it could fall off backwards but not towards her.” Her journey exemplified the transformation from anxiety to confidence: “I had initially been very against bed sharing because of the Western views. . . telling us how dangerous bedsharing/co-sleeping is.” Yet through practice, she developed strong conviction: “I think the more I know about safe sleep, the more confident I feel.” Lena shared an image (Figure 4) showing her adapted environment:

When I started bedsharing [with my second child], we only had a bed in the room but as she became more mobile and started crawling, we attached a cot to the side of the bed with a side of the cot removed.

Figure 4.

Cot next to bed for safety and multi-purpose use.

This deliberate modification represented a creative solution maintaining protective proximity while adapting to her child’s developmental changes.

Through repeated material-bodily encounters, mothers developed what Lena called “an additional sense,” where safety awareness became integrated into mothers’ sleeping bodies rather than requiring conscious vigilance. This evolution from conscious monitoring to embodied knowing challenged traditional understandings of maternal adaptation, suggesting it emerges through repeated engagements with material and affective elements of care rather than being either instinctive or learned through formal instruction. The safety paradox thus revealed that risk emerged not from proximity itself but through the interplay of embodied attunement, knowledge development, institutional opposition, and practical realities. Practices healthcare guidelines labelled dangerous became the foundation of protection, while institutional opposition, meant to ensure safety, often increased risk by preventing access to vital safety information.

Good mother paradox: The entanglement of empowerment and vulnerability

The analysis also revealed how co-sleeping simultaneously empowered and constrained maternal health and identity through conflicting embodied and social experiences. Mothers developed deep confidence in their embodied awareness through co-sleeping while facing judgement for these practices, creating a complex entanglement where they felt simultaneously like “good” mothers through responsive care and “bad” mothers according to institutional standards. Co-sleeping redefined what it meant to be a “good” mother by challenging Western discourses equating good mothering with promoting infant independence. This redefinition emerged through embodied nighttime responsiveness, as Kyla explained:

It [co-sleeping] makes me attentive and responsive to his physical needs, emotional needs, feeding, warmth but also illness. This makes me feel like a good mum.

This responsive approach had multiple connected benefits mothers identified as integral to their parenting. Improved rest achieved through co-sleeping translated into better mental health and enhanced family functioning. Holly stated: “Right now, it's been the only thing that’s really kept me functional.” Cathy (first child, 6 months) emphasised family wellbeing:

This definitely affects my health because I am always greeted in the morning by my daughter, resulting in a positive start to the day, greatly boosting my mental health [. . .] both my husband and I are better parents when we have had adequate sleep.

The physical closeness inherent in co-sleeping cultivated deep emotional connections. Bridget described: “I think my relationship with my girl is stronger because we co-sleep [. . .] I really believe being able to respond to her so quickly is hugely important.” She shared an image (Figure 5) depicting her baby sleeping while holding her hand-a moment of “peace, love, and security” serving as both emotional reassurance and practical caregiving tool. This affective dimension emerged as a crucial aspect of the redefined “good” mother model.

Figure 5.

Co-sleeping bonds.

However, despite these benefits, mothers simultaneously faced vulnerability and tension. Holly encapsulated this tension: “When co-sleeping I often experience an overwhelming love and affection and desire to protect him. But sometimes I also experience overwhelming frustration and anxiety if the night isn’t going well.” This ambivalence illustrated how positive emotional encounters coexisted with conflicting internal experiences, requiring mothers to continuously navigate emotional highs and lows. Kyla shared an image (Figure 6) of a coffee cup and children’s toys on a shared mat, symbolising the blend of maternal tiredness and joy in early morning co-sleeping routines.

Figure 6.

Coffee cup and toys: Exhaustion and joy.

This emotional complexity intensified with awareness of external judgements around safety. Holly expressed:

I sort of feel like I was forced into it in a way. I felt like a failure because I’ve always tried to follow the guidelines and recommendations of experts and such. But they don't tell you what to do when nothing works. Are you supposed to go absolutely insane from the lack of sleep?

This sense of being caught between impossible choices characterised many mothers’ experiences. The embodied knowing that enabled safety and protective rest reinforced mothers’ sense of being effective and intuitive, yet these same practices exposed them to risk of blame and disapproval. Mothers worried about judgement from healthcare providers, family members, and peers. Several participants described elaborate strategies of concealment, never mentioning co-sleeping at medical appointments, carefully curating which friends received honest accounts of nighttime practices, managing family visits to hide sleeping arrangements. This emotional labour of managing disclosure added significant stress to an already demanding period of early motherhood. However, not all mothers experienced these pressures equally. Some, particularly those who co-slept intentionally from the outset, developed resilience buffering against external scrutiny, while others remained more vulnerable to societal pressures. Bridget’s experience illustrated this: despite initial resistance shaped by Western cultural expectations, through practice she developed strong conviction. Others drew strength from Indigenous cultural knowledge or family support, with Yana, mother of two (youngest 5 months) noting exposure to Te Ao Māori perspectives that “always made a lot of sense,” and Bridget appreciating her partner’s support for co-sleeping as “the natural way to sleep.”

The good mother paradox revealed how mothers navigate contradictions not by resolving them but by holding them in dynamic tension-maintaining embodied practices while managing internal and external pressures. This sophisticated navigation of multiple, often contradictory caregiving imperatives shapes both maternal wellbeing and identity, revealing how “good” mothering emerges not from adherence to singular standards but through complex assemblages of embodied expertise, material arrangements, and social forces.

Discussion

This study explored what shapes co-sleeping practices in mother-baby dyads in Aotearoa through a feminist new materialist and assemblage theory lens. Rather than viewing co-sleeping as a simple choice between shared or separate sleep, the findings reveal it as a complex and dynamic assemblage of interacting forces. Three paradoxical entanglements illuminate how mothers navigate the demands of nighttime caregiving: vigilant rest, where heightened awareness facilitates the perception of better sleep; the safety paradox, where mothers develop nuanced safety strategies in the face of healthcare opposition; and the good mother paradox, which captures tensions between embodied maternal expertise and external social expectations. These findings contribute to broader understandings of early parenting by illuminating the complex, dynamic nature of co-sleeping emergence. While recent literature has begun to recognise multiple factors influencing co-sleeping extending beyond isolated decision making-from practical logistics to emotional needs and parenting philosophy (Barry and McKenna, 2022; D'Souza et al., 2024), the accounts still largely frame co-sleeping as the outcome of parental considerations. This study reveals something different: co-sleeping emerging through ongoing interactions where infant needs, bed configurations, and cultural discourses actively shape practices alongside parental intentions. Building on prior applications of assemblage theory to mother-infant relationality (Tomori and Boyer, 2019), maternal affect (Boyer and Spinney, 2016), and embodied materiality (Dombroski, 2018), we show how nighttime caregiving continuously unfolds through material-discursive entanglements (Barad, 2008) rather than predetermined decisions, with infants as active participants and material elements exerting agency by enabling or constraining spatial and bodily configurations.

This assemblage perspective fundamentally disrupts binary distinctions between “safe” and “unsafe” sleep practices, a conceptualisation that fails both theoretically and practically. Despite official discouragement, bedsharing remains prevalent in Western contexts (Cole et al., 2020; Gilmour et al., 2019). By labelling it as categorically unsafe without providing safety guidance, the binary model contributes to the “responsibilisation” of mothers (Treloar and Funk, 2008) and leaves families to navigate complex decisions alone, creating genuine risks during what our study identifies as a critical “vulnerability period.” While D'Souza et al. (2024) identified “reactive adapters” who eventually find satisfaction with co-sleeping, our findings expose dangers in this unsupported transition. Mothers reported genuinely unsafe practices falling asleep on sofas, using inappropriate bedding aligning with risks Colvin et al. (2014) identified, occurring when discrepancies between planned and actual sleep locations peak (Tully et al., 2015). The concealment our mothers described prevents access to safety information precisely when needed most, creating a dangerous paradox: healthcare opposition intended to prevent SUDI may increase risk by driving practices underground.

The vulnerability period further illustrates how safety emerges within co-sleeping assemblages as both constrained and creative: the absence of professional support can generate genuinely hazardous improvisations as well as sophisticated safety strategies as mothers draw on embodied awareness and alternative knowledge networks. This reflects Foucault’s (as cited in Fullagar and Taylor, 2021) notion of power as productive not merely repressive-yet here, what is produced ranges from hazardous improvisation to innovative protection. The constraints operate as generative forces, fostering situated knowledge (Haraway, 1988) and adaptive caregiving practices that resist universalised safety claims. This evidence supports strength-based, harm-reduction approaches (Bartick and Tomori, 2019; Walsh et al., 2025) recognising that blanket opposition fails to prevent co-sleeping and instead increases its dangers by denying families safety information. An assemblage-informed approach would locate co-sleeping along a continuum of safety configurations, enabling context-specific guidance that recognises how, without support, families may develop unsafe arrangements as readily as safe ones.

Beyond safety considerations, the assemblage lens reveals further paradoxical dynamics that complicate conventional understandings of maternal sleep and restoration in co-sleeping contexts. The vigilant rest paradox offers particular insight into longstanding debates about co-sleeping and maternal sleep quality. While studies debate whether co-sleeping improves or disrupts sleep (Ko et al., 2014; Srimoragot et al., 2023; Volkovich et al., 2015), our study reveals this contradiction stems from measuring the wrong phenomenon-mothers experienced sleep and rest as fundamentally distinct from conventional sleep metrics. This distinction proves crucial. Our participants achieved restoration through vigilant rest-a state enabling simultaneous monitoring and rest that challenges Western constructions equating quality sleep with complete unconsciousness (Jenni and O'Connor, 2005). Cultural expectations significantly shape sleep perceptions (Barry and McKenna, 2022), which may partly explain our participants’ reports of better sleep despite frequent wakings. This discursive-material entanglement extends the biological synchrony model (McKenna et al., 2007), revealing how restoration emerges through material-spatial-affective assemblages rather than purely biological mechanisms. The restorative processes mothers described-embodied proximity, breath synchronisation, sustained connexion-align with evidence that breastfeeding mothers who bedshare report more sleep and better health despite frequent wakings (Kendall-Tackett et al., 2018). Rather than viewing wakings as problematic, our assemblage perspective reveals how they facilitate alternative maternal restoration. As Blair et al. (2020) note, counting wakings provides misleading measures when these serve protective functions. Our concept of vigilant rest transcends sleep/wake dichotomies, challenging researchers to develop metrics capturing these alternative forms of maternal consciousness-recognising restoration as an embodied, relational achievement rather than merely the absence of waking.

The assemblage perspective also illuminates how breastfeeding and co-sleeping function as an integrated system that develops maternal protective capacities. Our findings demonstrated breastsleeping-what McKenna and Gettler (2016) describe as a highly integrated behavioural complex where neither practice exists independently. With nearly all mothers breastfeeding, their accounts revealed how these integrated practices fostered protective awareness and intuitive responsiveness through repeated bodily interactions. Touch plays a central role in this process, echoing Tahhan’s (2013) notion of “touching at depth,” where physical contact maintains maternal responsiveness while building embodied knowledge. Through sustained material-bodily engagement, mothers progressed from conscious monitoring to embodied responsiveness, reflecting Latour’s (2004) concept of “learning to be affected,” and supporting Dombroski (2018) framing of maternal intuition as an emergent capacity. While physiological processes were not measured, mothers’ descriptions align with research linking breastfeeding to increased maternal sensitivity (McKenna and Mosko, 2001). Understanding maternal intuition as distributed, situated, dynamic, and embodied-rather than innate or individually acquired (Miller, 2007) has important practical implications. Our findings challenge safety approaches based on separation and instruction, suggesting instead that protective awareness develops through embodied knowing within co-sleeping assemblages. For breastfeeding support, this means recognising the interdependence of feeding method and sleep location (Ball et al., 2016), particularly significant given evidence that bedsharing supports breastfeeding (Barry and McKenna, 2022). This embodied reality of nighttime parenting highlights the need for care approaches that validate maternal expertise while attending to the complex socio-material conditions shaping caregiving practices.

Finally, this study highlights how maternal identity and wellbeing are shaped through co-sleeping assemblages. Building on Hollway’s (2016) trans-subjective model of maternal identity and prior exploration of more-than-human influences on maternal health (Neely, 2023), our findings show that maternal identity emerges through ongoing material-relational dynamics involving bodies, environments, and sociocultural forces. This perspective challenges discourses that construct the “good” mother as one who fosters infant independence through separate sleep (Jenni and O'Connor, 2005), revealing how such ideals marginalise relational caregiving practices in which infants actively shape sleep arrangements (Tomori and Boyer, 2019). Co-sleeping supports maternal wellbeing by facilitating breastfeeding and emotional bonding (Ball et al., 2016) while also fostering embodied confidence and reducing nighttime parenting stress. Yet these same socio-material configurations can generate tension as mothers navigate competing cultural expectations and institutional scrutiny. While co-sleeping may empower some by reinforcing embodied expertise, it can also expose mothers to judgement and anxiety, reflecting what has been described as the generative yet unstable nature of mother-baby-assemblages, where confidence and doubt, safety and anxiety, coexist (Neely, 2023). This instability manifested differently across mothers: those who co-sleep intentionally from the outset developed resilience to external scrutiny, whereas reactive co-sleepers (the majority initially) reported lower satisfaction, aligning with previous research (Dollberg et al., 2010; Tully et al., 2015). Such differential resilience emerges as mothers cultivate embodied expertise and access validating discourses. Multiparous mothers in our study exemplified this process, transitioning to intentional co-sleeping with subsequent children, whereas first-time mothers without such resources remained more vulnerable to societal pressures. Individual differences may also have shaped how mothers navigate these competing pressures, though exploring such factors was beyond the scope of this study. These findings echo Stewart and Reigle’s (2014) account of intentional co-sleepers’ confidence and advance Walsh et al.’s (2025) strength-based, instinct-nurturing call by foregrounding the socio-material conditions shaping nighttime parenting.

Limitations

While this study offers new insights into co-sleeping as an embodied, relational practice, several limitations warrant acknowledgement. The sample, recruited via a single Facebook parenting group, overrepresents digitally connected, educated mothers, while potentially excluding families experiencing greater socioeconomic or cultural diversity; populations for whom co-sleeping may carry different meanings. Only one Māori participant took part, a significant limitation given co-sleeping’s prevalence and importance in Māori and Pacific communities. This limited engagement with Indigenous perspectives on sleep practices means our findings do not share adequate insights into Indigenous knowledge systems surrounding co-sleeping in Aotearoa. Methodologically, reliance on maternal self-reports without standardised sleep measures (e.g. actigraphy) means sleep quality claims remain subjective. While mothers reported perceptions of their infants’ sleep, we did not systematically collect infant sleep data, limiting examination of the dyadic nature of sleep within co-sleeping assemblages. Future research employing infant sleep measures could provide valuable insights. The 2-week diary period captures rich temporal data but may miss developmental transitions or seasonal variations. Excluding partners, siblings, and extended family from data collection prevented full exploration of how multiple actors shape nighttime assemblages. As mothers with co-sleeping experience, we brought embodied understanding that enriched interpretation but inevitably shaped our analysis despite reflexive practices and team dialogue. Future research could address these limitations through Indigenous-led investigations, mixed-method designs incorporating physiological measures, longitudinal approaches tracking families over time, and inclusion of multiple family members’ perspectives.

Conclusion

This study reconceptualises co-sleeping as a dynamic assemblage, revealing how nighttime parenting emerges through continuous interactions among bodies, materials, spaces, and sociocultural forces rather than through isolated decision-making. The three paradoxical entanglements—vigilant rest, the safety paradox, and the good mother paradox—demonstrate that mother-infant dyads develop situated caregiving practices through complex negotiations that challenge binary framings of infant sleep. Three key findings highlight opportunities for translation into practice. First, the vulnerability period when families begin co-sleeping reactively without safety knowledge represents a critical window for early, strength-based, and context-specific guidance, acknowledging that families will co-sleep regardless of official discouragement. Second, recognising that maternal protective capacities develop through embodied engagement within co-sleeping assemblages challenges safety models based on separation. Third, mothers’ accounts reveal that restoration in co-sleeping contexts may extend beyond conventional sleep metrics, as many described subjective restoration through embodied attunement despite maintaining heightened awareness. These insights call for systemic rather than individual responses. Assemblage-informed approaches can support families’ specific configurations—housing conditions, breastfeeding relationships, and cultural values—moving beyond standardised risk checklists towards understanding how safety and wellbeing emerge dynamically. This aligns with Aotearoa’s Well Child Tamariki Ora framework, which emphasises family-centred and culturally responsive care, and could inform perinatal mental health services that validate maternal embodied expertise. Policy responses have the potential to address the material conditions shaping nighttime practices: adequate housing, extended parental leave to reduce exhaustion-driven reactive co-sleeping, and culturally responsive postpartum support. Rather than targeting maternal and/or infant behaviour alone, interventions should consider how environmental modifications, community support, and institutional practices could enable safer co-sleeping assemblages for families who choose or find themselves practicing bedsharing. For SUDI prevention, this includes complementing current risk messaging with practical resources that help families navigate diverse and sometimes unexpected co-sleeping situations. By embracing complexity rather than imposing standardised solutions, practitioners and policymakers can cultivate care approaches that honour infant safety and maternal wellbeing as inseparable within the relational dynamics of nighttime parenting. Future research could extend this work by exploring how assemblage-informed frameworks might shape intervention design and cross-cultural understandings of safe, restorative co-sleeping.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-hpq-10.1177_13591053261419693 – Supplemental material for Entangled nights: The affective, material, and cultural politics of co-sleeping

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-hpq-10.1177_13591053261419693 for Entangled nights: The affective, material, and cultural politics of co-sleeping by Kamila Hoffmann-Dumienski and Eva Neely in Journal of Health Psychology

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-hpq-10.1177_13591053261419693 – Supplemental material for Entangled nights: The affective, material, and cultural politics of co-sleeping

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-hpq-10.1177_13591053261419693 for Entangled nights: The affective, material, and cultural politics of co-sleeping by Kamila Hoffmann-Dumienski and Eva Neely in Journal of Health Psychology