PhD RESEARCH OUTLINE 

‘A literary skeleton, plus film illustrations – such, almost without exception, are all films’ – Dziga Vertov[1]

As a filmmaker I have chosen to combine my research with audio-visual recordings that will be made available online in small excerpts, with comment boxes allowing interactive dialogue with visitors to the site. My decision to do this is to provide a mode of participatory ethnography that could entail more agency of the women and men who form the subject of my research.  While I acknowledge participatory models of filmmaking, as with Jean Rouch and the screen-back that he developed – that is, integrating feedback from participants into the filmic text (Henley, 2009)   – I have decided to instead let my interviewees participate at the editing stage. Thus, they become collaborators, while I assume a role analogous to ‘author’, in which regard David McDougall writes that ‘It is…necessary for visual anthropology to take reflexivity to a further stage—to see it at a deeper and more integral level. The author is no longer to be sought outside the work, for the work must be understood as including the author. Subject and object define one another through the work, and the “author” is in fact in many ways an artefact of the work.’ (MacDougall, 1998: 88-89).

However, Karl G Heider writes in his book Ethnographic Film that the rigour of ethnographic data must take precedence over the artistic ambitions of the ethnographic filmmaker, should they have any – ‘ethnography must take precedence over cinematography.’ (Heider, 1975:4).  He goes on to suggest that ‘In ethnographic film, film is the tool and ethnography the goal…sometimes this matter is phrased as an inevitable contradiction between art and science, with filmmakers arguing the case for art, and anthropologists the case for science…Ethnographic film must be judged in relation to ethnography, which is…a scientific enterprise.’

Under Heider’s paradigm then, I position myself as artist-ethnographer. Hence, I diverge from Heider’s formulation by suggesting that ethnographic import can be found in a balance between concerns about ethnographic data and cinematography and film editing. This accords with a general trend in anthropology to abandon the conceit of a scientific enterprise as there is no neutral or objective platform through which to pursue anthropological research (Clifford and Marcus, 1986).  However, the historic tensions between ‘scientific enterprise’ and film considered as a serious medium for research in anthropology seemed to hinge on the suspicion that film might be ‘trickery’ (Trinh, 1993:34), or that it represents a lack in depth and rigour; although Michael Stewart, writing in 1994, suggests that film always contains more than its makers intended or realised as the viewer is given the opportunity to construct their own interpretation of events – rather than simply read that of the filmmaker. The value of documentary for Stewart is that it aims at a closer involvement ‘with the reality beyond the image’.  As both anthropologist and filmmaker, Stewart is interested in inducing in ones audience ‘a sense of the complex nature of social life’ (Stewart, 1994:472-3).

However, for Fadwa El Guindi, writing in 2004, collaborations between anthropologists and filmmakers produce little of value. Some anthropologists, according to El Guindi, are ‘disdainful’ of an activity that displaces the true goal of the educated mind. Such activities as filmmaking are ‘beneath’ those whose minds should be ‘occupied with ideas’- collaborative work produces little of value, and in rare instances where the work is successful, it is largely ‘accidental’ (El Guindi, 2004:63).  Yet in their review of Between Art and Anthropology: Contemporary Ethnographic Practice by Arnd Schneider and Christopher Wright, the authors invoke antipathy towards art forms as part of ethnographic practice as a potential aversion to ‘strategies of research and representation better suited to capturing the sensuous dimensions of experience that usually disappear in the passage from fieldwork to ethnographic text.’[2]

For Margaret Mead, quoted by El Guindi, the idea of film used in serious anthropological research was a potential distraction, if seen as a form of art: ‘if it is an artform, it has been altered’ (Guindi, ibid:36).  For Mead, the process of editing or ‘altering’ a sequence of film compromises the ‘exactness and neutrality’ of the data. In terms of my own work, even though I will be posting film clips on a website, I will be paying due attention to organising a series of compiled imagery: there will be cinematic and editorial processes and concerns. This will not simply be instances of ‘vox pop’ compilations, as my interviewees will be concerned that they will be involved in a project that considers due professional process.

In Direct Cinema or observational film, both of which employ long takes, the camera becomes a ‘fly on the wall’, an unobtrusive and all-seeing eye on the world (Beattie, 2004:22). Trinh T Minh Ha’s Reassemblage investigates the assignment of meaning in film as a whole, employing alienating and disruptive sequences where, for example, the audio soundtrack is discontinuous with the visual, leaving an audience unsure as to what is being signified[3]. The film also serves to highlight the dilemma for an audience dependent on authoritative ‘Voice of God’ narration to make sense of the social and cultural activities of the film’s subjects. Trinh’s assertion that ‘there is no such thing as documentary’ (Trinh,ibid:29) implies that even a factual or observational documentary is a constructed assemblage designed to be understood as a mirror representation of reality, which is far from the case.

Former Professor of Anthropology at the University of Papua New Guinea, Andrew Strathern, writes about working for Granada Television between 1973-4 on a series called Disappearing Worlds. At the time, the series was notionally regarded as an exemplar of serious anthropological film watched by millions of people as part of their routine schedule at a time when there were only three UK TV channels.  Despite this lack of competition for viewing figures, Strathern found himself making films with a ‘strong human interest’ and, in his words, ‘devices to secure attention’ [my italics] (Strathern, 1976:38). For Strathern, the aim of the series was to provide material that would combine ‘serious understanding’ with content that was commercially viable – something that one potentially might wish to avoid, depending on one’s motivations for making films in the first place. To not try, however, was to polarise the serious and the popular in way that was, ultimately, ‘snobbish’.

In January 2017 I organised an event for Trash Cannes Festival in Hastings. Michael Yorke, former senior lecturer in Anthropology at University College, London screened his 1991 film, Hijra- India’s Third Gender[4], originally commissioned by the BBC for their season of ‘popular’ anthropological films, Under the Sun. In his preamble to the screening, he said that he was enormously proud of the three awards his film had garnered, but that he was also deeply ashamed of it. The reason for this disavowal was that the BBC had insisted that the director abandon his plan to preface his story with a brief history of hijra in rural India, and to explore both their historical and contemporary functions and status in Indian society: he felt he owed this to his audience. Instead, he was coerced into starting the film with a discussion between two friends. Karish has been castrated. His friend Kiran, a truck driver, who is married with two children, longs to follow his example – to become a hijra[5]. When Karish is asked why he had wanted to become a hijra, he pauses, glances briefly at the camera and replies ‘for the homosex’.  Mike felt that the coerced inclusion of this segment cheapened his film, insulted the LGBTQI+ community, and betrayed his respondents. Karish’s glance at the camera speaks volumes: he appears to be participating in a process of deception that is at odds with what he believes, and that, on the face of it, makes little sense. He is unwittingly complicit in the construction of a cheap marketing ploy – a device to secure attention. 

For both Andrew Strathern and Michael Yorke, the requirements of a system of competing markets in which they were trying to marry serious anthropology with what once might have been termed – or come to be so – ‘infotainment’ or ‘edutainment’, would mean making compromises at the editorial stage. It might be claimed that this was not so much to ‘trick’ their audiences, but to satisfy commissioning bodies focused on financial returns. I would argue that the serious anthropologist is correct in being suspicious of such ploys, and those working in popular media at this level must presumably wrestle with their consciences, or turn down the work.

However, I would argue that far from rendering the data trivial, or compromised, skilful use of filming techniques can work to enhance one’s understanding of the subjects being filmed, as correct or appropriate use of film’s grammatical structures can add layers of meaning unattainable through written text. With film, one can indeed show rather than tell. Through participatory filmmaking subjects can represent themselves; they can be involved in the editing process; via website comment boxes they can potentially engage directly with publics online. This strikes at the heart of what I want to achieve: to explore both the opportunities for a national and even global reach that current internet technologies and platforms enable, and the possibilities inherent in creative practices within ethnographic filmmaking – what Sarah Pink refers to as ‘the materiality and agency of the visual’ (Pink, 2003:180). This will allow my respondents to directly address issues which are central to their senses of self, to respond to challenges to their agency and integrity, and to proactively participate in a debate addressing these concerns.

As Trinh writes, documentary film has the power to reveal ‘powerful living stories, infinite authentic situations’, revealing real people in real situations in the real world – it ‘deals with them’ (Trinh, 1991:33, emphasis author’s own)[6]. By contrast, written text is a bourgeois construction which holds that ‘the means of communication is the word, its object factual’ (Trinh, ibid, 31). In Kirsten Hastrup’s formulation, however, written text is capable of allowing a far more nuanced and exhaustive account of events than real-time media such as film, through its qualities of richness and depth of analysis. Anyone who has seen their favourite novel turned into a film might agree. Yet MacDougall cites potential objection to written text in writing that ‘[p]art of the objection to [earlier] anthropological writing has stemmed from its assumption of authority and its techniques for making its conclusions appear natural and indisputable’ (MacDougall,2006:44).

Bill Nichols wrote that ‘[A]t the moment we believe we are stalking signs, we may suddenly discover that we ourselves are being stalked…the big game is ideology and what it does to us’ (Nichols 1981: 10). What the viewer makes of these coded representations depends largely on processes associated with interpreting signs and significations through referral to one’s experience rooted in the past. How does ideology play a part in all this? If Nichols is correct, it is the ideology of the dominant class[7] that drives or directs what the viewer understands of the sequence of images. As David MacDougall observes, ‘images are not in any sense knowledge – they simply make knowledge possible’ (MacDougall, ibid:4).

I would argue that film bears what I have termed the ontological thumbprint of real-time, real-world events; that the assignment of meaning in written text is shaped ideologically according to the same subjective editorial framework as film, and that mediation is an inevitable part of the process of the use of film as representation and should be welcomed as such. As Afsaneh Najmabadi writes of ‘the ethnographic venture’, ‘as historians…we select some texts and ignore others, producing relevance as we go’ (Najmabadi: 2014, 13).

METHOD AND ETHICS

‘Corporeal images are not just the images of other bodies, they are also the image of the body behind the camera and its relations with the world’ – David MacDougall[8]

So, where does my own research fit into all this? What should I be aware of in terms of representation, ownership and dissemination of knowledge? What ethical concerns should I bear in mind? What are the implications – if there are any of pressing note – of speaking on behalf of a group of women and men from my close personal network?

The short films I propose to make will follow the paradigm of an observational documentary film, as outlined by Bill Nichols, who describes the observational mode as that which emphases ‘a direct engagement with the everyday life of subjects as observed by an unobtrusive camera’ (Nichols 2010:31). I have chosen the observational mode as it seems to me to be, of all the available modes, the most direct approach to gathering data. I will not be making films with a ‘look’ that attempts to posit my work as a largely commercial enterprise, with all its associated methods and tropes. My approach will be, as suggested earlier in this outline, to create dialogues between myself, the ‘author’ and my interviewees, the ‘characters’ or storytellers.  Central influences on my filmic style are the Russian director of fiction Andrei Tarkovsky, who is renowned for his modus operandum of allowing time to unfold before the camera, of eschewing rapid cuts and other disorienting tropes or techniques; and British documentary filmmaker Marc Isaacs, whose film The Lift observed residents of a tower block in Hackney, focusing on his interactions with the residents as they entered and left the lift[9]. Leaving the camera running for long takes will give the films a chance to ‘breathe’ – to allow time to pass in a non-coerced manner, which I hope will engender natural, spontaneous responses to my questions. As Trinh remarks, the use of wide-angle lenses places the events in context, while the close-up is suspect because of its partiality: the one is objective, the other subjective (Trinh, ibid:34).  Yet I would argue that the close-up affords greater intimacy with the subject, and it is in those intimate moments when one might approach a kind of emotional authenticity – even if that authenticity is constructed.  

At this stage, I aim to separate my work into about seven discrete segments, with each ‘story’ lasting approximately six minutes – the exact number is to be determined during and after the fieldwork process and period. These will be uploaded to a website, with text outlining the nature and purpose of the project. Comment boxes will allow visitors to the site to upload their own reflections, questions or comments. Site administration will allow the monitoring of these responses before they appear on the site, allowing me to filter out any instances of ‘trolling’, prejudice or hate speech – sexism, racism, homophobia, misogyny or discrimination based on religious faith or belief. I am proposing that the films allow each interviewee to outline their experiences of living in society as a person who has chosen to be childfree, or has come to that choice through circumstance, conviction, intention or omission. Initial interviews will be informal, and in surroundings that are conducive to relaxed responses: once a pattern emerges with these initial interviews, my questioning will become more directly focused on issues raised. No-one will be asked questions about the intimate circumstances of their lives. I will leave them to tell me if they think it is relevant. My initial task is to gain their confidence, and provide a space where they can talk freely about their experiences of attitudes and responses from friends, family, partners, work-mates, health professionals, clergypersons or colleagues relating to their decisions not to have children.  As already outlined in my introduction, contextual visualisation will be intercut with the interviews and will show the respondents at home, at work, at leisure. It is naturally impractical to anticipate in advance where my leading questions will take us, as I will not simply be looking for responses adhering to a strict formula. I am referring to past experience with my previous documentary films to anticipate that further or related topics for discussion will emerge as a result of the interviews, and that these in turn will shape the overall direction of each film.

As indicated earlier, my interviewees are people of my close acquaintance, or in two cases people who have self-selected because they appreciate my interests and/or my intentions. We have established mutual trust: if this were not the case, I would not invite them to participate or collaborate. My device to secure any kind of attention will be the topic itself, underpinned by what Wilma de Jong describes as ‘a strong drive, a passion that signifies the filmmaker’ (de Jong 2012:176).  It is my intention not to speak for my interviewees, or to present an authorative stance through ‘Voice of God’ narration or exposition, but to let them speak for themselves, and thus to contest and re-narrate stereotypical notions of what it means to be childfree.

Where possible, I intend to spend an initial weekend with each interviewee, when they have most time free from their work obligations, to establish a working method, to put them at ease with the filming process, and film initial responses to my questions. I will then arrange further days when we both watch the footage I have captured. I will encourage my interviewees to give me their reactions to what has been filmed: does it capture succinctly and accurately what they meant to say? Is it a fair representation of their viewpoint or response to each question raised? If, in the time that has elapsed since our first interview session, they have had time to reflect, to expand on topics raised, or points germane to the discussions, I will suggest we film new interviews. If they want anything removed, or improved upon, this will be done in accordance with their wishes. I will also show them, as time goes on and I have more segments captured, interviews with other respondents. If they want to respond to points raised or views expressed, I will film them doing so. In this way, each respondent can enter a dialogue with members of their cohort.

Questions which I anticipate may become germane to the overall project might examine central themes: What connects my respondents? What differentiates them?  Is there among them a common viewpoint or set of assumptions about the world, or their experiences, that would help explain their individual choices? Are they united in opposition to any set of expectations that may have been imposed upon them, or implicitly or explicitly demanded of them – that they become, for instance, ‘procreative serfs’? To what extent are they, to use Henrietta Moore’s phrase, ‘the authors of their own experience’ (Moore 1994:35)? Had they identified their childlessness as a societal issue? Do they feel they have anything in common with other childfree persons, in a general sense, not just with others from their cohort? Are their choices formulated in accordance with – or opposition to – a set of beliefs or practices with which they identify?

Throughout the research I will be self-reflexive and question my positionality. My reasons for pursuing a research degree are, no doubt predictably, the results of a combination of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Although there are several anthropological journal entries, and books on the popular market dealing with practical and ethical concerns relating to the rejection of motherhood, the issue of societal attitudes to the childfree is an under-represented area of research in visual anthropology: a thorough search of internet databases, in both academia and mainstream or popular culture, has revealed only a single film made on this topic, a French-Canadian production called Maman? Non Merci! [10] The Vimeo trailer for this documentary film translates the title as No Kids For Me, Thanks! The film’s style mirrors that of hybrid ‘popular anthropology’ and populist documentary, described by Philip Vannini as a kind of ‘non-academic ethnographic documentary [that] has become a commonly practiced and widely recognized feature of popular film culture’ (Vannini 2015:392 ). Vannini goes on to reflect that in respect of such works ‘one could venture to say that “amateur” or “self-fashioned” ethnographers have outshone their “professional” academic counterparts, at least in the domain of popular reach’ (ibid, 393).

Further motivations for pursuing my research topic include the desire for continuing to learn as I approach my retirement years. My friend, long-term mentor and Harvard Fellow George Balamoan has encouraged me in this over the last 20 years. In 1988, after I had copy-edited his book Blue Nile Boy, a semi-autobiographical account of his childhood under British administration in post-war Sudan, George encouraged me to pursue a career in academia[11].  There is also an even more personal dimension: my long-term partner Amanda Thompson has known since the age of seven that she did not want children. Despite this, aged 35, she began to be challenged by certain of her female friends, who advanced a series of entreaties such as ‘you still have time’, ‘you’ll regret not having one’, ‘you know you want one really’, and so on. These progressed ultimately to ‘God gave you a woman’s body, you should use it.’ This came from people who professed no religious faith in any other context, and seemed to see the Church as a booking agency for colourful ritual pageantry – a ceremonial referral service for births, deaths and marriages. Amanda greatly resented these incursions on her privacy, challenges to her integrity and refusals of her right to live her life according to her choices or convictions. Yet her friends remained intransigent: she would never be ‘one of them’; she had let the side down.

I myself have two children, a daughter aged 40 and a son aged 23 from an earlier relationship. Following the collapse of my relationship with my daughter’s mother, I was estranged from Amy for 15 years. We now enjoy a healthy and honest relationship, acknowledging the trials of the past, but focusing on our lives as they move forward. For my friends who have elected not to have children, or who are without them for reasons of circumstance or opportunity, these are simply facts of our respective lives. There is mutual respect for our choices. As noted earlier in this outline, many of my friends work in areas where to be childfree is not unusual, owing in part to the strictures placed on their lives by their career choices or lifestyles. I suspect, however, that attitudes among their friends and family may differ: as Park remarks, ‘[i]ndividuals who possess a stigmatized identity are faced with the ongoing tasks of accepting it themselves and negotiating it in interactions with others who may view their character and behaviour as incomprehensible, strange, or immoral (Park, 2002:21)’.

In the matter of such stigmatisation, Erving Goffman remarks that once criticism has been applied, there is a tendency to ‘impute a wide range of imperfections based on the original one’ (Goffman, 1963:5). It is my curiosity to understand the experiences of childfree persons in contesting attitudes such as these that will form an essential component of my research.

TIMETABLE

I plan to begin filming in September 2021, and to have principal photography, editing and sound mix complete by January 2022. I will then organise what I have captured into discrete segments, one short film per interviewee or interviewees, and where appropriate I will invite my interviewees to expand upon points they will have made, and to respond, where applicable, to responses from others from their cohort. Any adjustments, corrections or changes will be complete by April 2022. I will then build a website that features each segment with brief background or biographical data, and, as indicated earlier, text outlining the origination and purpose of the site. Examples of the kind of website I will build include http://www.laygatestories.com  and https://www.opendemocracy.net/article/i_am_an_american_portraits_of_post_9_11_us_citizens    I will then embark on completing my 40-50,000 word dissertation, which will be formed from my ongoing field notes and journal entries, to be completed by May 2024.

BIBLIOGRAPHY, REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING

BOOKS and JOURNALS:

Afshani, Sayed Alireza, ‘The attitudes of infertile couples towards assisted reproductive techniques in Yazd, Iran: A cross sectional study in 2014’, International Journal of Reproductive BioMedicine, December 2016, 14 (12) 761-768 

Akundy, Anand, Anthropology of Aging. Contexts, Culture and Implications, Serials Publications, Delhi, 2004

Arya, Shafali Talisa & Dibb, Bridget (2016) ‘The experience of infertility treatment: the male perspective’, Human Fertility, 19:4, 242-248

Atwood, Margaret, Good Bones, Bloomsbury Publishing Ltd., London, 1992

Austin, Thomas and de Jong, Wilma (editors), Rethinking Documentary. New Perspectives, New Practices, Open University Press, 2008

Banks, Marcus and Morphy, Howard, Rethinking Visual Anthropology, Yale University Press UK, 1999

Barbre, Joy Webster, ‘Meno-Boomers and Moral Guardians: An Exploration of the Cultural Construction of Menopuase’, in Weitz, Rose (editor), The Politics of Women’s Bodies, Oxford University Press, New York, 2003

Barnard, Ian, Queer Race. Cultural Interventions in the Racial Politics of Queer Theory, Peter Lang, New York, 2004

Basten, S., Voluntary childlessness and being Childfree. The Future of Human Reproduction: Working Paper #5, St. John’s College, Oxford & Vienna, Institute of Demography 2009

Baumgardner, Jennifer and Richards, Amy, Manifesta: Young Women, Feminism and the Future, Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 2000

Beard, Mary, Women and Power: A Manifesto, Profile Books, 2017

Bell, Amelia Rector, ‘Separate people: speaking of Creek men and women’, American Anthropologist, 92:332-45

Benatar, David, ‘Better Never to Have Been’. Oxford University Press, 2006

Boyce, Paul and Hajra, Anindya,  ‘Do you feel somewhere in light that your body has no existence? Photographic research with transgendered people and men who have sex with men in West Bengal, India’, Visual Communication, February 2011, Vol. 10 (1), pp3-24

Burke, Lynda, Feminism and the Biological Body, Edinburgh University Press, 1999

Butler, Judith, Gender Trouble, Routledge, New York, 1990

Butler, Judith, Undoing Gender, Routledge, Oxfordhsire, 2004

Cain, Madelyn, The Childless Revolution. What It Means to be Childless Today, Da Capo Press, Washington, 2002

Campbell, Elaine, The Childless Marriage. An Exploratory Study of Couples Who Do Not Want Children, Tavistock Publications, London, 1985

Clifford, James and Marcus, George E., Writing Culture. The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, University of California Press Ltd, London, 1986

Connell, R.W., Gender, Polity, Cambridge, 2002

Correa, Sonia, ‘Sexuality, Gender and Empowerment’, Development, 53(2), 183–186, 2010

Coward, Rosalind, Female Desire, Paladin Books, London, 1984

De Beauvoir, Simone, The Second Sex, Vintage Classics, 1977

Daum, Meghan, Selfish, Shallow and Self-Absorbed. Sixteen Writers on the Decision Not to Have Kids, Picador, New York, 2015

de Jong, Wilma, Knudsen, Eric and Austin, Thomas, Creative Documentary. Theory and Practice, Pearson Education Ltd, 2012

DeMarneffe, Daphne, Maternal Desire: On Children, Love, and the Inner Life, Back Bay Books/Little, Brown, and Company, 2005

Deeb, Lara, An Enchanted Modern: Gender and Public Piety in Shi’i Lebanon, Princeton University Press, 2006

Dreifus, Erika, No Kidding: Women Writers on Bypassing Parenthood, Seal Press, 2013

Dreifus, Erika, Unmothers: Writing About Life Without Children, The Missouri Review, Volume 37, Number 33, 2014, pp 186-196, accessed 27.08.16

Edelman, Lee, No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive, Duke University Press, London and Durham, 2004

Edin, K., & Kefalas, M., ‘Promises I can keep: Why poor women put motherhood before marriage’, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2005

El Guini, Fadwa, Visual Anthropology. Essential Method and Theory, Alta Mira Press, 22004

Eliot, George, Middlemarch, Penguin Classics, London, 1994

Eliot, T.S., The Wasteland, Faber and Faber, 2002

Erikson, Erik, Childhood and Society, W W Norton, 1963

Foucault, Michel, The History of Sexuality, Volume One, Pantheon, New York, 1978

Foucault, Michel, ’Power and Norms’ in M.Morris and P.Patton (ed), Power, Truth and Strategy, Feral 1979 (Sydney),p 62

Funke, Jana, review: Lee Edelman, No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive, Third Space, A Journal of Feminist Theory and Culture, Vol 10, 2011

Gannon, Linda, Women and Aging. Transcending the Myths, Routledge, London, 1999

Gillespie, Rosemary.  Choosing Childlessness: Resisting Pronatalism and the Emergence of a Childless Femininity.  University of Southampton, Southampton, 1999

Gillespie, Rosemary, ‘Contextualizing voluntary childlessness within a postmodern model of reproduction: implications for  health and social needs’.  Critical Social Policy, Vol 21(2),pp 139-159, 2001

Gillespie, Rosemary,’ When No Means No: Disbelief, Disregard and Deviance as Discourses of Voluntary Childlessness’, Women’s Studies International Forum, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 223–234, 2000

Gilman, Charlotte Perkins, The Man-Made World: Or, Our Androcentric Culture, Cornell University Library, 2009

Goffman, Erving, Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identit, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1963.

Halberstram, Judith, Female Masculinity, Duke University Press, 1998

Heider, Karl G, Ethnographic Film, University of Texas Press, 2006

Heitlinger, Alena, ‘Pronatalism and Women’s Equality Policies’, European Journal of Population Vol. 7, pp343–75, 1991

Hook, Derek (2006). Lacan, the meaning of the phallus and the ‘sexed’ subject, London: LSE Research Online, accessed 24.09.16

Irigary, Luce, This Sex Which Is Not One, Cornell University, 1985

James, P.D., The Children of Men, Faber and Faber, 2010

Keizer, R. (2011), ‘Childlessness and Norms of Familial Responsibility in the Netherlands’, Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 1, 424, pp421-438

Kildea, Gary and Wilson, Margaret, ‘Interpreting Ethnographic Film: An Exchange About ‘Celso and Cora’’, Anthropology Today, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 15-17, 1986

Korasick, Candice A., Women Without Children. Identity, Choice, Responsibility, University of Missouri-Columbia, 2010

Korasick, Candice A., Women Without Children. Identity, Choice, Responsibility, University of Missouri-Columbia, 2010

Koropeckyj-Cox, Tanya and Call, Vaughn R. A. ‘ Characteristics of Older Childless Persons and Parents. Cross-National Comparisons’, Journal of Family Issues, Volume 28 Number 10, October 2007, pp 1362-1414

Koropeckyj-Cox, Tanya, Romano, Victor and Morafound, Amanda, ‘Through the Lenses of Gender, Race, and Class: Students’ Perceptions of Childless/Childfree Individuals and Couples’, Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2007, p415

Kostenberger, Andreas, ‘The Bible’s Teaching on Marriage and Family’, www.frc.org, accessed online 08.07.17

Leonard, Kristy M, ‘Her Body, No Baby: Compulsory Procreativity, the Stigma of Childlessness, and U.S. Exceptionalism in the Era of Technoscience’, Proquest Dissertations Publishing, 2012

Leone, Catherine, ‘Fairness, Freedom and Responsibility: The Dilemma of Fertility Choice in America’, Washington State University ,1989

Letherby, G, ‘Childless and bereft?: Stereotypes and realities in relation to voluntary and involuntary childlessness and womanhood’, Sociological Inquiry,72, 7-20, 2002

Letherby, Gayle, ‘Mother or Not, Mother or What?:  Problems of Definition and Identity’, Women’s Studies International Forum, 17:  525-532, 1994

Letherby, Gayle, ‘Other than Mother and Mothers and Others:  The Experience of Motherhood and Non-Motherhood in Relation to ‘Infertility’ and ‘Involuntary Childlessness’’, Women’s Studies International Forum, 22:  359-372, 1999.

Livingston, Gretchen and Cohn, D’Vera, ‘Childlessness Up Among All Women; Down Among Women with Advanced Degrees’, Pew Research Center, 2010

Loether, Herman J, Problems of Aging. Sociological and Social Psychological Perspectives, Dickenson Publishing, California, 1975

MacDougall, David, Film, Ethnography and the Senses. The Corporeal Image, Princeton University Press, 2006, p3

MacDougall, David, Transcultural Cinema. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998

Mahmood, Saba, Politics of Piety. The Islamic Revival and the Feminist Subject, Princeton University Press, 2005

May, Elaine Tyler, Barren in the Promised Land: Childless Americans and the Pursuit of Happiness, Basic Books (New York), 1995

Miller, Seumas, Foucault on Discourse and Power, Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory no 76, The Meaning of 1989, October 1990, pp 115-125

Monach, James H., Childless: No Choice. The Experience of Involuntary Childlessness,  Routledge, London, 1993.

Moore, Henrietta, A Passion for Difference, Polity Press, 1994

Morgan, S. P., & King, R. B. ‘Why have children in the 21st century? Biological predisposition, social coercion, and rational choice’, European Journal of Population, vol.17, pp3-20, 2001

Najmabadi, Afsaneh, Professing Selves, Duke University Press, 2013

Nichols, Bill, Ideology and the Image. Social Representation in the Cinema and Other Media, Indiana University Press, 1981

Nichols, Bill, Introduction to Documentary. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2001

Ortner, Sherry, ‘Is Female to Male as Nature Is to Culture?’, in M.Z. Rosaldo and L. Lamphere (eds), Woman, Culture and Society, Stanford CA, Stanford University Press, pp 68-87.

Overall, Christine, Why Have Children? The Ethical Debate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2012

Park, Kristin, ‘Stigma management among the voluntary childless’, Sociological Perspectives, Volume 45, Number 1, pages 21–45, 2002

Pilcher, Jane and Whelelan, Imelda, 50 Key Concepts in Gender Studies, Sage Publications, London, 2004

Pink, Sarah, ‘Analysing Visual Experience’, in Research Methods for Cultural Studies, Michael Pickering (editor), Edinburgh University Press, 2008

Pink, Sarah, Doing Sensory Ethnography, Sage Publications, London, 2009

Pink, Sarah, Interdisciplinary agendas in visual research: re-situating visual anthropology, Visual Studies, Vol 18, No 2, 2003, pp

Pink, Sarah, The Future of Visual Anthropology. Engaging the Senses, Routledge, London, 2005

Pollitt, Katha, ‘Fetal Rights. A new assault on Feminism’, Weitz, Rose (editor), The Politics of Women’s Bodies, Oxford University Press, New York, 2003

Pullen, Alison, Thanem, Torkild, Tyler, Melissa and Wallenberg, Louise, in ‘Gender, Work and Orgainisation’, Vol 23, Issue 1, 2015

Rabiger, Michael, Directing the Documentary, Focal Press, 2009

Renov, Michael, Theorising Documentary, Rouledge, London, 1993

Restivo, Angelo, Review: No Future. Queer Theory and the Death Drive, Georgia State University, 2004

Sadl, Zedenka and Ferko, Tajda, ‘Intersectionality and Feminist Activism: Student Feminist Societies in the United Kingdom’, www.fdv.uni-lj.si, 2017, accessed online 17.10. 18

Stewart, Michael, Review: Linking Film and Anthropology: The State of the Art by Peter Ian Crawford and David Turton, Current Anthropology Vol 35, No 4, pp 472-474, The Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, accessed 22.02.17

Stoneley, Peter, ‘Children, futurity, and value: Adventures of Huckleberry Finn’, Textual Practice, 30:1, pp169-184, 2016

Strathern, Andrew, ‘Making ‘Ongka’s Big Moka’’, Cambridge Anthropology – special issue, Ethnographic Film, 1984

Stulhofer, Aleksander  and Sandfort, Theo, Sexuality and Gender in Postcommunist Eastern Europe and Russia, Haworth Press, New York, 2005

Thomas, Candice L. , Laguda,Emem,  Olufemi-Ayoola, Folasade, Netzley, Stephen, Yu, Jia and Spitzmueller, Christiane, ‘Linking Job Work Hours to Women’s Physical Health: The Role of Perceived Unfairness and Household Work Hours’, Sex Roles, October 2018, Vol 79, Issue 7-8, pp 476-488

Trinh T Min-ha, ‘The Totalising Quest of Meaning’ in Renov, Michael, Theorizing Documentary, Routledge, London, 1993

Utterson, Andrew (editor), Technology and Culture. The Film Reader, Routledge, Oxford, 2005

Valentine, David, Imagining Transgender. An Ethnography of a Category, Duke University Press, 2007

Vannini, Philip, ‘Ethnographic Film and Video on Hybrid Television: Learning from the Content, Style, and Distribution of Popular Ethnographic Documentaries’, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, Vol. 44, pp392-3, 2015

Vaughan, Dai, For Documentary: Twelve Essays. Berkeley and London: University of California Press, 1991

Veevers, Jean, Childless by Choice, Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd, 1980

Walker, Anita M. and Dickerman, Edmund H., ‘A Woman under the Influence: A Case of Alleged Possession in Sixteenth-Century France’, The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 22, No. 3 (Autumn, 1991), pp. 534-554, accessed 23.08.16

Weitz, Rose, The Politics of Women’s Bodies, Oxford University Press, New York, 2003

FILM

Becoming Penny, Keith Rodway, the Other Film Company/Trash Cannes Films, 2017

Brother’s Keeper, Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinovsky (directors), Creative Thinking International Ltd, 1992

Children of Men, Alfonso Cuaron, Universal, 2007

Divorce Iranian Style, Kim Longinotto, Twentieth Century Vixen, 1998

Gimme Shelter, Albert and David Maysles, 20^th Century Fox, 1971

District 9, Neill Bloomkamp, Tristar Pictures, 2009

Hijra – India’s Third Gender, Michael Yorke, 1991

Maman? Non Merci!, Magenta Maribeau, 2015

Mirror Mirror directed by Zemirah Moffat, 2006 (London, England: Royal Anthropological Institute, 2007)

Reassemblage, Trinh T Minh-ha, Institute for Film and Video Art, 1982

Titicut Follies, Frederick Wiseman, Zipporah Films, 1967

Walk the Line, James Mangold, 20^th Century Fox, 2005

[1]Utterson, Andrew (editor), Technology  and Culture. The Film Reader, Routledge, Oxford, 2005, p100

[2] Schneider, Arnd and Wright, Christopher, ‘Between Art and Anthropology: Contemporary Ethnographic Practice’, Journal of Museum Ethnography no. 25 pp. 195-204, Museum Ethnographers Group, 2012

[3] Reassemblage, Trinh T Minh-ha, Institute for Film and Video Art, 198

[4],Michael Yorke, Hijra – India’s Third Gender , BBC Films, 1991

[5] For a discussion on transgendered people and men who have sex with men in West Bengal, India, I refer to Paul Boyce and Anindya Hajra’s work on this subject (Boyce and Anindya, 2011)

[6] Trinh T Min-ha, ‘The Totalising Quest of Meaning’ in Renov, Michael, Theorizing Documentary, Routledge, London, 1993

[7] I refer here to Marxist understandings of ideology as consisting of certain social ideas which periodically dominate in class-divided societies.

[8] MacDougall, David, Film, Ethnography and the Senses. The Corporeal Image, Princeton University Press, 2006, p3

[9] Marc Isaacs, The Lift, Dual Purpose Productions, 2001

[10]Magenta Baribeau, Maman? Non Merci!,  Groupe Intervention Vidéo, 2015

[11] Balamoan, George, Blue Nile Boy, Karia Press, London, 1989

Keith Rodway

PhD Research Outline
Keith Rodway

1. INTRODUCTION
   

During the many intense upheavals that occurred in British politics in 2016, accusations were levelled at two prominent female politicians: British newspaper the Independent reported the assertion made by a parliamentary colleague that Liz Kendall, a prospective candidate for British Labour Party leadership ‘would not make a good leader because she does not have children.’ [1] The same argument was advanced, in different form, in respect of Theresa May, British Prime Minister between 2016 – 2019, who was accused by fellow parliamentarian Andrea Leadsom of being unfit for office as leader of the Conservative Party, and by extension, future Prime Minister, because she did not have children. The Guardian commented that ‘Being a mother, Leadsom claimed, means “you have a very real stake in the future of our country”’.[2] As it turned out, Theresa May, responsible in her capacity as Prime Minister for ensuring Britain’s exit from the European Economic Union, had a very real stake in her country’s future. As Britain embarked on a lengthy process of national soul-searching with regard to the EU referendum result, May called a snap election in June 2017 to strengthen her hand in the negotiations.  However, an unexpectedly disastrous result for her Conservative government saw May become the subject of frustration on the British centre-right, and increasing ridicule from the left-wing of the British press. In the wake of the fire that destroyed the Grenfell residential tower in Kensington, London’s wealthiest borough, on June 14^th, one week after the election, May refused at first to meet surviving residents. She was subsequently criticised for being remote, emotionally disengaged and lacking empathy. Would May’s attitude necessarily have been different if she had been a mother? Unhappily for Andrea Leadsom, she had not done her research: May is unable to conceive a child.

The above series of vignettes strike at a central concern of my research interests. Why were these two women considered – in both cases by other women – to be unfit for public office on the basis that they did not have children?  Why should any woman, or man, be subjected to veiled criticisms concerning their life choices on this basis?  Such challenges to their integrity, their agency, their conscience, or choices of lifestyle seem misjudged. The notion that a person may fail to contribute in a meaningful way to the future of society by choosing not to have children – or not having them due to other factors in their life –and that this choice invalidates them, renders them incomplete or inauthentic, unfit for a responsible role in society, appears similarly misguided. This theme will be central to my research.

My dissertation will be part of a 50:50 written and audio-visual submission in the form of a 40,000 word written thesis and an accompanying film that gives my respondents a chance to represent their respective positions in a public debate that seeks primarily to disparage them. In this way my film will also become part of a public intervention accessible to my research participants as well as a broader audience.  The research addresses the topic of people living in south east England who choose not to have children. This is explored through participant-observation employing semi-structured interviews, together with a website supporting filmed extracts that enable the subjects of the research to present their arguments for themselves, and contest instances of negative stereotyping. 

My respondents are people I have met or worked with during my working life as an arts practitioner, or during my academic career, and whom I have known for between five and thirty years. Of the core group five are women and two are men. Their ages vary from 27 to 66. All but one is self employed, working in retail, education or the arts. Three are of lower middle or working class origin, four from a middle class background. The majority of my respondents are British, or have grown up in Britain and therefore self-identify as British. One is of mixed heritage, born to Jamaican and Ghanaian parents, and raised by a white adoptive family in the working class Medway town of Gravesend. Their professions are, variously:

• music teacher
• retired primary school teacher
• network retailer and entrepreneur
• university lecturer
• local authority housing officer for disadvantaged young people
• currently unemployed visual artist
• organic food retailer

My film will observe my interviewees’ responses to questions concerning reactions from their own personal networks to their status as people without children: responses from friends, family members, colleagues or physical or mental health professionals. Each of my research group has reached their respective age with no expressed desire to have children, or have passed beyond the chance to do so. In some cases physical or mental health have mitigated against motherhood. Some, at this point in their lives, are not in a stable relationship. This may be a core concern in respect of their status as women or men without children. Interviewees will be encouraged to reflect on the paths their lives have taken, or are expected to take, and to what extent their choices not to have children have framed or influenced their chosen life-ways. Each filmed interview will be intercut with footage showing them at work, at home or at leisure to give context to their lives, allowing the viewer a more nuanced understanding of who these people are, and how they live their lives. I would argue that through the use of film to gather data the viewer will get a clear sense, unavailable through written text, of my respondents’ emotional responses to my questions. They will be able to ‘read’ these responses through facial expression, body language, tone of voice and any pauses in the interviewees’ responses. This will allow the viewer a chance to empathise – or not – with each respondent through a clear and present impression of their emotional states at the time of filming. All have agreed to take part in my research on the understanding that they will be allowed screen-backs of their interviews, to allow them to either ask that something be removed, or expanded upon as filming progresses. Thus, they become collaborators in the process.

To date, there is inadequate audio-visual research that focuses on the topic of those who choose not to have children. There is even little in terms of research that tries to go beyond the objectifying implications of subjects being represented as people who choose not to have children, rather than they having the opportunity to represent themselves.  Even though I acknowledge that the latter can then unleash another set of objectifying gazes it is one step toward getting towards a more participatory form of representing research where my subjects can decide on and approve the content of the audio-visual media, a subject that I return to below.

The format of the first part of this outline will be a literature review on key themes pertinent to the research. The second part will focus on my reasons for wanting to develop a website supporting a series of short filmed interviews extracted from my main film as a core element of my research, with each segment standing alone as an account of the respective interviewee’s responses to my questions, and the dialogues between us that ensue. I will also examine tensions between film and written text within academic practice, and consider where my research might fit within ethnographic filmmaking.

The key questions that I address are:

(i) What roles in society, what other spaces might be available to the person who has chosen not to have children, for whom motherhood, or fatherhood, is not an option, or for whom the opportunity has passed due to circumstance or earlier disinclination?

(ii) How do they navigate these spaces, and how do they deal with the responses to their decisions from those in their social circles?

(iii) How do they present themselves in public fora, in this case filmed footage made available on the internet? What potentials and limitations are there in terms of the subjects of research to present their views themselves, outside of the realm of writing about them? 

PART ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW 

In this section, I address societal anxieties about reproductivity in Euro-American/British contexts and the perception and role of women in this discourse[3]. As the majority of my respondents are women, I concentrate largely on issues affecting adult females. My historical sources will focus primarily on Euro-American literature: my respondents are oriented more to a Euro-American heritage than others. I will examine theories on futurity – described by Jana Funke as ‘a shared investment in the future’ via heteronormative modes of sexual reproduction (Funke, 2011:1) – and especially the protection, in Lee Edelman’s terms, of the future of the Child (Edelman, 2004).  I will look at recent hostility in public fora in Britain and the United States towards the childfree;  questioning to what extent the creation of a category ‘childfree’ simply creates a discursive field in which women can be castigated for failing to fulfil conventional expectations, and which negatively positions the child in the discourse.  I will suggest that for some women the decision not to bear children might be framed as an instance of gender(ed) dissidence.

Judith Butler (1990), Judith Halberstram (1998) and David Valentine (1997) contend that ‘woman’ is too general a term to capture the nuances of women’s lived experiences. Hence, the problematic nature of a putative definition of ‘woman’ as an adult female person.  In using the term ‘woman’, I acknowledge that it is the site of multifarious and intersectional aspects, and I do not seek to essentialise through its use.

THE CHILDLESS, AND THE CHILDFREE

The term ‘childfree’, first listed in the Oxford English Dictionary in 1979, is widely used to describe both women and men without children and social environments in which children are absent.  Candice Korasick draws a comparison between women who are involuntarily without children being conventionally labelled ‘childless, infertile, sterile or barren’, while women who have made a deliberate choice to reject motherhood are ‘voluntarily childless, childless-by-choice, or childfree’ (Korasick, 2010: 3). Madelyn Cain reports that many of her friends ‘drifted into childlessness’, and suggests that as a society ‘we have not learned to separate femininity from fertility’ and that the emergence of childlessness or child freedom means that ‘women are seizing the opportunity to be fully realized, self-determined individuals – regardless of what society thinks of them ‘(Cain, 2001:16, my emphasis).  Cain does however go on to recognise that these life-ways are not equivalent. For women who are childless due to medical conditions, diminished capacity due to social or economic factors, or mental illness; or lesbians for whom the process of becoming pregnant can pose practical or ethical issues, it is not necessarily a question of having made a choice or having ‘drifted’ into childlessness.

Kristin Park points out that during the 1970s voluntary childlessness among both women and men received some support from radical political movements promoting zero population growth, environmentalism and repudiations of the ‘1950s domestic ideology’ (Park, 2002:22). She compares this to pronatalist movements of the 1980s which were concerned with the notionally deleterious effects of childlessness among adult baby boomers on the American national economy. As a result, the use of medical information was used to suggest to young women that ‘to delay too long or to become childless’ was to ‘risk endemetriosis or reproductive cancers’ (Park,ibid:23). In terms of my own research, I am interested to what extent the intersection of choice/not choice (to ‘drift’ into childlessness) has impacted on my respondents’ circumstances. Have any among my subjects for whom childbearing is now no longer practicable come to regret their choices to remain childfree, or their former ambivalence towards the prospect of motherhood? Are they concerned with the putative negative medical implications of such outcomes? What pressures have they come under from their social environment to conform to conventional expectations of them in this key regard? How do they fare at family gatherings, where children may inevitably be the focus of attention?

Anand Akundy ascribes to mothers the role of ‘labour unit’, who, in their later years, become economically redundant , only contributing economically as grandmothers looking after children at times when their parents are otherwise occupied (Akundy, 2004:106).  Christine Overall appeals to deontology (the study of duty and obligation) and consequentialism (that the morality of an action is to be assessed according to its consequences) to inquire whether or not the obligation to have children can be considered necessary regardless of its consequences to the mother, her culture or society at large[4]. She questions whether one should consider the consequences of bringing another human being into the world where famine, poverty, war or domestic violence mitigate against such a decision. In doing so, she frames the decision to have – or not have – children as a moral act and defines the conditions where such decisions can be seen to be immoral or unethical. In the case of the assertion that one has a duty to the unborn child to allow that being to come into the world, she denies this on the basis that until the moment of conception the conditions for that child to exist are absent: there is therefore no previously existing entity to answer for (Overall, 2012:72).

Peter Stoneley, writing about Mark Twain’s novel Huckleberry Finn, canonised for its ‘exploration of the meaning of childhood’, argues for children as ‘agents of change’, not simply as passive units of cultural and social reproduction (Stoneley, 2016:169). For Stoneley, Twain’s character Jim posits children as actors with the potential for moral progress and racial justice. Yet he is concerned that children may be subject to exploitation by political processes as figures emblematic of the tyranny of heteronormative conformity. Here, ideals of childhood come into play that may be understood ‘to legitimate institutional structures’ by infusing them with affect, especially where ‘the only future that is valid is that of the heteronormative family and its child’ (ibid: 170). Stoneley suggests that Twain’s authorial moral scheme is focused on children and child-rearing as ‘guarantors of meaning, moral identity, and futurity’ (ibid:171).

In terms of my own research, I will examine to what extent the concepts and concerns discussed above impact on my interviewees. How do they respond to the notion that their status as childfree persons negatively affects the continuance of society? How do they navigate negative assessments of their societal status through such terms as ‘barren’ or ‘sterile’? Do they have a sense of obligation to refrain from childbearing on the grounds that it is selfish or irresponsible to bring a child into a world riven with political strife and division, famine and poverty, or the threat of environmental catastrophe? Where they have made a positive decision to remain childfree, or have drifted into that state, have they any regret or remorse? Do they feel excluded from societal acceptance from their peers or familiar circles on the basis of their failure to conform to conventional expectations, to a notional heteronormative conformity?

THE NULLIPARA

Can the desire to resist using the reproductive system altogether result in some sense of dysphoria, a state of unease or dissatisfaction? If so, how is this countered or contested? Despite normative strictures and articulations of the woman’s role in reproduction, they have been countered or contested. Nevertheless, many women are subjected to a barrage of opinions if they choose to diverge. One of my respondents felt the effects this very keenly, and her sense of outrage at the questioning of her choices became one of the motivating factors for my research.

The nullipara seeks, implicitly, to step out of the mainstream discourse regarding children, into a space where she can feel valid and viable, to escape the disabling and devaluing disapproval – whether explicit or not – from her familiar social sphere.  Yet, in looking to sidestep comments or criticisms, to gain a space beyond the mainstream discursive field, one inevitably finds oneself in a closed loop. Any attempt to deviate from such a discourse is to approach the subject in the same discursive language, and in the same linguistic terms, creating what might be described as a discursive subspace rather than an escape route. As Mary Beard writes on the power dynamics between women and men, ‘You can’t easily fit women into a structure that is already coded as male; you have to change the structure’ (Beard, 2017:86/87).

Renske Keizer characterises adults who have made the decision not to have children, or have become by force of circumstance childfree – a woman without children defined medically as nullipara- as selfish and individualistic (Keizer, 2011:24). Katha Pollit found that childless women were widely regarded less favourably than mothers (Pollitt,1998:293). Other writers identify attitudes towards childfree women as promulgated by other women: neurotic, selfish, bitter, un-sisterly, unnatural, evil, lacking validity as ‘real’ women, ‘child-hating workaholics’, and lacking femininity (Cain, 1999; Campbell, 1985; Gillespie, 1999; Letherby, 1994, 1997; May, 1995; Monach, 1993). For Kristy Leonard, the childfree woman is stigmatised as ‘non-normative, queer and selfish’ (Leonard, 2012:2). Often, non-mothers reported that they felt factors driving this opprobrium reflected envy of their status, and the opportunities it afforded them (Gillespie, 2003:124; Letherby, 1997:26) [5].  Leonard suggests that women subjected to the strictures and conventions of mainstream expectations, and methods deployed to police their responses to those expectations, have been ‘historically associated with the body rather than the mind’: women have become ‘procreative serfs’, subject to the pressures of ‘compulsory procreation’ (Leonard,2012:5). Erika Dreifus, writing in No Kidding: Women Writers on Bypassing Motherhood, quotes Kathryn Rossetter in claiming that many women who are not mothers become objects of certain assumptions: ‘that I am a feminist and career woman who never wanted kids… that I am selfish and self-absorbed and I will never really understand life and the depth of unconditional love’ (Rossetter in Dreifus, 2014:188). This has been a central theme in earlier conversations with two of my respondents whom I have known for many years, both of whom have loving relationships with younger nieces and nephews.

Kristin Park suggests that intelligence may be a factor for the nullipara in the decision to reject motherhood: better-educated women may be more active in management roles, and less inclined towards religious belief, traditional gender roles and conventional societal expectations about having children (Park, 2005:15). Paul de Sandre references pronatalism when commenting that it ‘implies encouragement of all births as conducive to individual, family and social well-being’ (de Sandre 1978:145). Alena Heitlinger expands on this by writing that pronatalism can then be seen as operating on several levels: culturally, when childbearing and motherhood are perceived as ‘natural’ and central to a woman’s identity; ideologically, when motherhood becomes a patriotic, ethnic or eugenic obligation; and psychologically, when childbearing is identified with personal aspirations, emotions and rational (or irrational) decision-making (by women or couples) (Heitlinger, 1191:343-75). Tanya Koropeckyj-Cox and Vaughn R. A. Call cite research on voluntarily childless adults (primarily women) describing them as ‘a distinctive group, with consistently higher levels of education, greater occupational status, greater attachment to the labour force, higher incomes, and later ages at marriage compared to parents’( Cox and Vaughan,2007). S.P. Morgan and R.P.King found that parenthood is highly valued for its personal and social rewards, including emotional bonds, nurturing, investing in the next generation, personal growth, and the symbolic attainment of adult status (Morgan and King, 2001:3-20). K.Edin and M.Kefalas suggest that child-bearing can signal authenticity for a woman, and the reinforcement of their gendered identity (Edin and Kefalas, 2005: 24).  In her book The Woman in the Body, Emily Martin likens a post-menopausal woman to a disused factory, with (re)production shut down (Martin, 1987:79). Those of my interviewees who have passed through menopause will be asked to reflect on this somewhat inelegant metaphor. To what extent might childbearing be seen to be analogous to industrialised commodity production, with all the echoes of alienation and frustrated self-determination that such a notion implies?

Writing in 2016 in the International Journal of Applied Research, K. Annapurany describes the division of feminism into three distinct waves: in the 19^th and early 20^th centuries, the first wave began in Britain and the United States as a struggle by suffrage groups and activists for political and economic equality. The second wave, in the 1960s and 1970s, was characterised by a critique of patriarchy in constructing the cultural identity of women. The third wave is posited as a reaction to its predecessor in popular culture that sought to examine, expose and contest routine discrimination against, and negative criticism and abuse of, primarily young women. Zdenka Sadl and Tajda Ferko outline intersectionality in third-wave feminism, defining it as a ‘perspective [that] has encouraged a more inclusive approach to viewing women’s position in society, one that analyses their social location, experience and identity as being determined not just by sexism, but also by racism, classism, ageism, heteronormativity, ableism and other major systems of oppression’ (Sadl and Ferko,2017:925).

Among first-wave feminists, ‘girlie’ roles were rejected for supporting a hegemonic patriarchal perspective on the legitimisation of the woman’s role in conventional society. Writers such as Daphne DeMarneffe (2005:7) endorse such a view, while third-wave commentators such as Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards document the reclaiming of ‘girlie’ culture in the 1990s, with motherhood seen as a central tenet of such revisionist ideals (Baumgardner and Richards, 2000:26).

Sonia Correa seems on the one hand to suggest that the notion that hegemonic male power always and everywhere disadvantages women obstructs a more ‘nuanced, complex and intricate understanding of power’, while on the other reinforcing the claim that for women in societies such as her native Brazil, it is for development agencies to intercede in enhancing their agency .Thus, it would seem that structural inequalities might be reinforced by and through those acts of ‘empowerment’, no matter how well intentioned.  She goes on to write that ‘as Foucault would say, increases in power may not mean greater freedom but rather intensification of increasing control’ (Correa, 2010: 184).

Yet it is a later claim that seems to strike at the heart of an intriguing conundrum: In claiming that it is not necessarily the case that women are excluded from realms of power, Correa writes that ‘One quite evident domain of women’s power within gender systems is the realm of procreation… Sexuality is and has been a domain where women exercise their power over other women and also men. Sexuality is a place of both agency and control, of both vulnerability and restrictions and major breakthroughs in what concerns personal freedom’ (Correa, ibid: 185, italics my emphasis).

She concludes by pointing out that the complexities of gendered power relations cannot be captured by appealing to the ‘patriarchal hierarchy of bad men and good women’ (Correa, ibid: 186). There are tensions between Lesbians and gay men, in and among Lesbian communities, violence perpetrated on men in closed communities such as prisons, and ‘inequalities among women themselves, along the lines of race, class, cast, ethnicity or simply educational opportunities’ (Correa, ibid:188). This reflects an intriguing conundrum: the tensions in the case of many of my respondents’ social interactions, revealed through earlier conversations, in regard to their status as non-mothers seem not at first glance to be the direct results of patriarchal domination.  The opening vignettes in this document showed clearly that accusations against Liz Kendall and Theresa May of being unfit for public office on the grounds of childfreedom came from other women. This will be a theme I shall explore through my research.

NO FUTURE

‘We’re fighting for the children. Whose side are you on?’ Bill Clinton, on behalf of himself, Hilary and Chelsea Clinton, from a public service announcement on American television, 1996.

For Lee Edelman, language keeps the childfree subject enclosed within a universalising fantasy that politics constructs of a future legitimised by the presence of the Child, and the woman’s necessary identification with the compulsory impulse to reproduce.  Without this identification she becomes a figure bereft of legitimacy or authentic purpose.  Edelman, in his influential, often coruscating and somewhat tendentious polemic No Future, rejects the ‘fantasy’ of futurity. Here, the expectation is that heteronormativity will compel each woman to ‘play her part’, to conceive a child within the life-protecting bounds of compulsory heterosexuality. She thus sustains and legitimises the politically sanctioned social order: trust the social order as it will benefit the child (Edelman, 2004:22). For Edelman, the Freudian death drive positions the gay (principally male) subject as ‘the negativity opposed to every form of social viability.’ 

Rather than rejecting this ascription, Edelman suggests, better to embrace it. Some may recoil from this apparent call to contest the process of what Angelo Restivo calls ‘the comforting dream of assimilation’ for many queer subjects (Restivo, 2004, 2). Andreas Kostenberger, writing for the Family Research Council, describes the ideal of marriage as a state in which ‘one man is united to one woman in matrimony, and the two form one new natural family’ (Kostenberger, 2017).  I would argue that this is a somewhat simplistic, narrow and restrictive definition, and one that fails to posit the notion of family as a supportive structure, which does not insist on childbearing as a prerequisite for such nurturing; or as one in which a restrictive structure can entail a great deal of unintended harm. These are themes which I shall examine through my own research.

The emergence of the term ‘queer’ in both popular and academic discourse to signify non-heterosexual persons is attributed by Alison Pullen, Torkild Thanem, Melissa Tyler and Louise Wallenberg to Italian author and academic Theresa de Lauretis, who allegedly first coined the term in 1990 (Pullen, Thanem, Tyler and Wallenberg, 2015). Kristy Leonard echoes Edelman to expand this categorisation in positing the childfree woman as a queer subject, existing beyond the bounds of conventional social structures: ‘queered childless women counter-identify with the subjectivity of ‘mother’…in order to subvert the patriarchy that privileges the child as emblematic of futurity’ (Leonard, 2010:12). In this way, the childfree woman becomes ‘[a]queer subject’, falling outside societal convention through her refusal to procreate, countering the view that it is a woman’s duty to bear children, despite the cost to herself – whether physical, emotional or economic – as the baby is ‘more valuable’ than the woman (Leonard, 2010:15). My research project will examine the extent to which my respondents feel that such outsider status is germane to their own sense of self.

CONCLUSION TO PART ONE

In the first part of this document, I have outlined historical and contemporaneous male attitudes towards women, and instances of societal intransigence faced by women who decide not have children, or for whom circumstances mitigate against motherhood. I have examined theories surrounding issues of futurity, of the notion that an adult woman’s primary concern should be the necessity of guaranteeing the future of society by bearing offspring. Much of this is expressed in terms informed by or consistent with the language of patriarchal hegemony that is also articulated through popular media as the opening anecdotes on Leadsom and May indicate. This is the social and cultural environment in which many of my respondents must make sense of their lives.

In the following section I will outline why I have chosen societal attitudes to the childfree as the topic for my research, and examine how this might find its place within ethnographic filmmaking.

[1] The Independent, Saturday 11^th July, 2016, accessed online via www.independent..co.uk, 26.09.16

[2] The Guardian, accessed online, 26.09.16

[3] I refer here to notions of discourse formulated by Michel Foucault, which focus on societal relations of power as expressed through language and practice (Michel Foucault ’Power and Norms’ in M.Morris and P.Patton (ed), Power, Truth and Strategy, Feral 1979 (Sydney) p62)

[4] I refer here to notions of the cultural as the circulation and interpretation of representations, and the societal pertaining to roles and positions in structures of power (Erikson, 1963)

[5] It is challenging to find a term to describe the status of a woman without children that does not entail a negative designation