In recent years, the regularizing functions of time and our perception of time as a linear, progressive axis have been reconsidered in the field of queer theory. For example, Lee Edelman’s 2004 study “No Future” (Duke University Press), demonstrates how the image of “the child” has become a symbol embodying “heterosexual time,” a future that glorifies productivity and reproduction (as differentiated from “queer” time, which stands still). According to Edelman, this symbol has been put to use by both anti-abortion movements and efforts to enact anti-homosexual legislation, whose supporters put forward the argument that they are defending the future of children and the family in order to justify themselves. Donath adds an important element to this sphere of research in her book by positing the constant looking back that regret can evoke on this axis, which goes in only one direction. [...]
In light of all this, women who regret having become mothers, who refuse to repress that regret and “move forward,” are seemingly rebelling against the laws of physics, or, more precisely, against social and political conventions. They are turning their back on the deep conviction of the commenter “Mark” and of many others, which equates children with a better future, and insists that whether you wanted children or not, if you wait long enough you will see that in the end “it will be alright” and you, too, will fall in love with motherhood. [...]
While creating a protected space for the contradictions in the interviewees’ experiences and the contradictions inherent in the stance of regret itself, Donath is also sharply critical of the contradictions she identifies in the system of messages conveyed by society and its institutions. She is very good at describing the catch in the neoliberal approach, which on the one hand promises freedom of choice to be who and what we want, “liberated” from the burden of biological determinism, but on the other hand demands that this choice lead us to opt for children, as “wise consumers.” In other words, women are permitted to be included in the rhetoric of free choice, but the result always seems to be the same: Whether women are perceived as being obligated by nature or liberated from it, they are obligated to be mothers. [...]
The prevailing belief, expressed by some of the interviewees as well, is that the difficulty – certainly the regret – must be concealed, for the sake of appearing “normative” and protecting the children. As Donath shows, such a sophisticated method of silence is created primarily to safeguard the policy that urges childbirth; that is, to protect the institutions that are dependent on this policy: religion, army, market forces. Do we women want to play the role of guardians of these institutions? Do we have a choice? And, as Donath asks: While we are protecting them, who is protecting the mothers? That last question actually has an answer: I think Donath wants to protect them.
No comments:
Post a Comment