I think the science is important because it’s helps bridge the gap between expectations and reality; realistic expectations are one pillar of a positive postpartum. But also, the mother is seperate to the mothering and separate again from motherhood. And as a doctor I recently interview said: “feminism is in its infancy in early motherhood.” x
The science matters for sure! The problem is that too often we writers use science to justify arguments that the data doesn't actually support, which I think is (at least partially) that case here. Eg, does a rewiring of the brain to be more sensitive to the needs of others necessarily equate a fundamental loss of selfhood? I don't think so, at least! And as a journalist I've been pressured by editors in articles on non-motherhoood to use science that is strong on its own merits to bolster arguments that have no connection to the questions the science was actually asking - so it's not just a motherhood thing.
I've been researching postpartum for the past two years and I think what the science supports is that maternal brain circuitry primes the mother for learning. That's the part we keep skipping over: new motherhood is a profound period of learning and of course that involves uncertainty, doubt and overwhelm because we're beginners. That can definitely make us feel like we don't know who we are anymore. I don't think every mother experiences the loss of selfhood but I think we all experience the not-knowing and that can be unsettling. Dr Aurelie Athan's research and data definitely shows this (she works out of Columbia State Uni and is definitely worth speaking to) and all the psychologists, psychiatrists and NDC GPs I spoke to reiterate that this is something they observe in their work (and it's usually more profound for older, professional mothers which also informs higher rates of psychosis and PDA in that cohort) x
This is a powerful point - that the not knowing what we're doing is a big part of the dislocation that many mothers feel. And I think you're right that the not-knowing is a near universal experience - and one shared by many fathers, too. Although a lot of fathers also end up opting out of the discomfort of that not-knowing, which translates into learned helplessness and entrenched gender roles.
I think that the transition to parenthood would have been less dramatic in the past when it happened while we were younger and had already many years under our belt as carers (be it for our siblings, nieces and nephews and other extended family members). But our modern lives require this less and less now.
Thanks for sharing these thoughts, Rachel. This is a great consideration of a book that's intended to be empowering but which may come with unintentional limitations.
Three things stood out as I was reading your reaction:
1. "Myth, especially when cloaked in data, is powerful." I think this is the great societal (and media literacy) challenge that we face globally right now, and maybe it always is: when someone cites relevant data while proposing radical ideas, it can make even the most abhorrent concept sound rational and even desirable. (Not that Matrescence is proposing regressive ideas, but it may be weaving a tunnel vision concept of motherhood alongside convenient data that presents this view as the only "right" one.)
2. "The sense of upheaval Jones describes is a product of how we do motherhood - how we structure it, support it, narrate it." I think you hit the nail on the head with "how we do" motherhood, or how we do anything. We can't really grok what could improve a situation unless we understand everything that contributes to it. It sounds like Matrescence goes a long way toward illuminating the biological and cognitive changes of motherhood, but it may also be making the misstep of presenting that information as THE story rather than a component of it.
3. I think we have a natural tendency to see our own experience or understanding of something as THE way to process it because we're fundamentally incapable of knowing how others might process the same thing. At a neural programming level, I think empathy is one of the most effective ways to incorporate someone else's perspective into ours, especially when we're inherently biased to favor our own perceptions as the only valid ones. (In fact, even making this statement ironically proves it, because maybe I'm the only one who sees things this way. 🙃)
I think the science is important because it’s helps bridge the gap between expectations and reality; realistic expectations are one pillar of a positive postpartum. But also, the mother is seperate to the mothering and separate again from motherhood. And as a doctor I recently interview said: “feminism is in its infancy in early motherhood.” x
The science matters for sure! The problem is that too often we writers use science to justify arguments that the data doesn't actually support, which I think is (at least partially) that case here. Eg, does a rewiring of the brain to be more sensitive to the needs of others necessarily equate a fundamental loss of selfhood? I don't think so, at least! And as a journalist I've been pressured by editors in articles on non-motherhoood to use science that is strong on its own merits to bolster arguments that have no connection to the questions the science was actually asking - so it's not just a motherhood thing.
I've been researching postpartum for the past two years and I think what the science supports is that maternal brain circuitry primes the mother for learning. That's the part we keep skipping over: new motherhood is a profound period of learning and of course that involves uncertainty, doubt and overwhelm because we're beginners. That can definitely make us feel like we don't know who we are anymore. I don't think every mother experiences the loss of selfhood but I think we all experience the not-knowing and that can be unsettling. Dr Aurelie Athan's research and data definitely shows this (she works out of Columbia State Uni and is definitely worth speaking to) and all the psychologists, psychiatrists and NDC GPs I spoke to reiterate that this is something they observe in their work (and it's usually more profound for older, professional mothers which also informs higher rates of psychosis and PDA in that cohort) x
This is a powerful point - that the not knowing what we're doing is a big part of the dislocation that many mothers feel. And I think you're right that the not-knowing is a near universal experience - and one shared by many fathers, too. Although a lot of fathers also end up opting out of the discomfort of that not-knowing, which translates into learned helplessness and entrenched gender roles.
They opt out because the social narrative is: mum knows best! Lovely chatting with you x
And because being the discomfort of that deep not-knowing is truly unpleasant! I can see why someone would avoid it if they had a choice not to do it.
Great piece Rachel!
I think that the transition to parenthood would have been less dramatic in the past when it happened while we were younger and had already many years under our belt as carers (be it for our siblings, nieces and nephews and other extended family members). But our modern lives require this less and less now.
This is probably true!
Thanks for sharing these thoughts, Rachel. This is a great consideration of a book that's intended to be empowering but which may come with unintentional limitations.
Three things stood out as I was reading your reaction:
1. "Myth, especially when cloaked in data, is powerful." I think this is the great societal (and media literacy) challenge that we face globally right now, and maybe it always is: when someone cites relevant data while proposing radical ideas, it can make even the most abhorrent concept sound rational and even desirable. (Not that Matrescence is proposing regressive ideas, but it may be weaving a tunnel vision concept of motherhood alongside convenient data that presents this view as the only "right" one.)
2. "The sense of upheaval Jones describes is a product of how we do motherhood - how we structure it, support it, narrate it." I think you hit the nail on the head with "how we do" motherhood, or how we do anything. We can't really grok what could improve a situation unless we understand everything that contributes to it. It sounds like Matrescence goes a long way toward illuminating the biological and cognitive changes of motherhood, but it may also be making the misstep of presenting that information as THE story rather than a component of it.
3. I think we have a natural tendency to see our own experience or understanding of something as THE way to process it because we're fundamentally incapable of knowing how others might process the same thing. At a neural programming level, I think empathy is one of the most effective ways to incorporate someone else's perspective into ours, especially when we're inherently biased to favor our own perceptions as the only valid ones. (In fact, even making this statement ironically proves it, because maybe I'm the only one who sees things this way. 🙃)