LAS SIETE CLASES DE MEDITACIÓN

Although current political and social discourses increasingly emphasise parental responsibility for children’s healthy and productive outcomes, this is not a new phenomenon, especially with regard to ‘troublesome’ children. Rose (1999) charts the emergence of the ‘dangerous’ child in the 19th

century and the subsequent emergence of social regulation as a result of the ‘threat’ these children posed to the future of the welfare state. As Rose (1999) says, the family (and mothers in particular) was to ‘play a crucial role in regulating the behaviour of its members’ (1999:129). The self-regulation and self-governance of family life, is accomplished, Rose argues, through the role of expertise. Rose (1999) charts the influence in the 19th Century of philanthropy and medicine and how ‘medico-hygienic expertise

began to elaborate a set of doctrines concerning the conditions for rearing healthy children’ and how this expertise weaved its way into institutional sites such as schools, the courts and the clinics; ultimately, finding its way to the heart of the family. In producing a set of doctrines relating to the conditions for rearing healthy children, then, of course, notions of normality/abnormality emerge, as well as notions of the ‘morally good’ and ‘morally deficient’ family. As Rose suggests, normality is ‘not an observation but a valuation’ (1999:133); a moral judgement - an ideal to be attained through expert guidance and regulation. Increasingly since the 20th century, the expert knowledge that dominates our understanding of what constitute normal/abnormal children comes from the, so-called, ‘psy’ disciplines, specifically, psychology and, to a lesser extent, psychoanalysis (Singh, 2002a; Rose, 1999; Cohen, 1983). It is this scientific (psychological) knowledge which permeates the domestic sphere and which informs common sense understandings of what is normal and abnormal behaviour, and by association, what is moral and morally deficient behaviour.

Contemporary regulation of family life comes in the form of the ever increasing professionalisation of childrearing practices. Contemporary (UK) government discourse of ‘good’ parenting depicts it not as an ‘intimate relationship, but as an occupation requiring particular knowledge and skills’ (Gillies, 2005:77). Advice and guidance are typically disseminated through parenting books, manuals, television programmes and parenting classes. As Gillies (2005) points out, interventions are framed within a discourse of parenting support but, in fact, are infused with moral judgement as the emphasis of these interventions is on regulating and controlling the behaviour of marginalised families. Gillies emphasises the class dimension to these dominant notions of ‘good’ (middle class) and ‘deficit’ (working class) parenting. However, due to the socially ‘troublesome’ actions of children with ADHD, these class-biased, moral evaluations of what constitutes effective or ‘good’ parenting also resonate with families with children with an ADHD diagnosis (see Barnes and Power, 2012).

As a recent article in the Guardian suggests, the proliferation of so much parenting advice is indicative of a moral panic over parenting ‘that feeds into the narrative of "broken Britain", in which "faulty" parenting is the cause of everything from obesity to educational failure and even divorce.’ (Karpf, 2013). This positioning of parents as responsible for their ‘faulty’ children is evidenced by a search through

contemporary developmental psychology journals which showcase psychological investigations of neurodiverse children (such as children with ADHD and Autism) and their families. Typical research includes a comparative study of parental involvement in children’s learning where the parenting practices of parents of children with ADHD are compared with those of parents who do not have an ADHD diagnosis (Rogers, Weiner, Martin and Tannock, 2009). Another study examines the ‘qualities’ (such as warmth and responsiveness) of parents of boys with hyperactivity (Keown, 2011). These studies signal how the psy disciplines

(Rose, 1999) are both fed by and feed into the prevailing discourse; that there is, at best, an association between parenting practices and the outcomes for

neurodiverse children, and at worst, a cause/effect relationship (see Keown, 2011; Rogers et al., 2009).

The moral threat of difference

As Rose describes, children’s successful cognitive, physical and/or social

development has historically been interpreted within a moral framework. Existing literature highlights how developmental difference, or ‘deviance’, is constructed as a moral threat. Children who are deemed to be out of control are constructed as dangerous and as a ‘threat to the moral order of society’ (Ryan, 2006:294). This in turn implicates parents, specifically, mothers. Mothers perceive themselves to be judged not to be good mothers because they do not have good children (Austin and Carpenter, 2008). This has particular resonance with regard to mothers of children with an ADHD diagnosis as the behaviour of these children is ‘disorderly, disorganised and disruptive’ (Austin and Carpenter, 2008:378). However, maternal blame is not only directed at mothers of children with an ADHD diagnosis.

McKeever and Miller (2004) contend that ‘mothers are often implicated in, and considered responsible for, their [children’s] disabilities or illnesses’ (2004:1182).

Courtesy stigma

Resonating with Goffman’s concept of courtesy stigma (1990), contemporary research indicates that parents, but mothers in particular, of troublesome, deviant children share in their children’s stigma and marginalisation (Harden, 2005; McKeever and Miller, 2004; Gray, 2002a, 2002b). It is significant that much contemporary research of parenting and troublesome (in its broadest sense, including ‘atypical’) children indicates that parents consistently report experiencing judgement and scrutiny with regard to their parenting practices from professionals,

family and friends (Berman and Wilson, 2009; Ryan, 2006; Harden, 2005; Todd and Jones, 2003). In particular, these feelings of ‘felt stigma’ (Goffman, 1990) are experienced in public spaces and situations (Ryan, 2006; Gray, 2000b), where ‘the parents’ competence is most likely to be judged and where the presence of a disabled (sic) child threatens the ability of parents to affect a presentation of family normality’ (Gray, 2000b:740). Parental accounts of the effects of such scrutiny describe feelings of isolation and being unable to participate fully in social activities (Berman and Wilson, 2009; Gray, 2000b). Gray (2000b) and Harden (2005) both describe how parents selectively disclose information about their child’s

disability/mental health condition to those friends who would ‘understand’, as a way of normalising public life. The ‘stigma’ of their child’s condition is perceived as being a reflection of their parenting; and it is significant that parents within this body of literature are shown to do much work to construct their own moral accountability as parents of ‘atypical’ children.

Moral accountability: coping, advocacy and compliance

Moral accountability is accomplished in different ways. Baruch’s study of parents of children with physical disabilities (1981) revealed how parents oriented to understandings of parental responsibility, and, how they care to present

themselves as morally adequate parents (see Silverman, 1985). In other studies, parents ‘offer’ their ‘non-deviant’ children as evidence of their parenting skills to raise ‘normal’ children, as well as evidence of their own moral worth (McKeever and Miller, 2004). Crucially, parents construct their moral accountability by

accepting and engaging with their child’s condition (Harden, 2005; Gray, 2000b). Acceptance, and advocacy is, as Harden suggests, a self-presentation of good parenting (Harden, 2005). Parents are often pivotal in urging medical recognition and diagnosis of their children’s condition, and this, Harden suggests is parents fulfilling ‘the most basic moral imperative of parental caregiving’ (2005:358).

Parental acceptance of their child’s medical condition is bound up with culturally available notions of parental responsibility and stoicism. Certainly, within this body of literature there are many accounts of parents coping with, and managing, their child’s condition. Parents have a moral responsibility to cope; not coping would be an indicator of moral failure. Parents (mothers) present themselves as morally responsible through repertoires of ‘trying one’s best’ for their child; typically, parents accomplish this by demonstrating expertise and knowledge about their child’s condition, and through the assumption of advocacy roles. Existing literature is full of descriptions of mothers’ competence. Competence is constructed through accounts of how mothers successfully mediate the social worlds on behalf of their children, guiding them to optimal psychological, physical and social development (Ryan, 2006; McKeever and Miller, 2004). Engaged, and ‘good’ parenting is demonstrated through accounts of knowledge, expertise and advocacy, in

particular, where mothers take up a proactive role to demand access to health and educational resources on behalf of their children (Litt, 2004; McKeever and Miller, 2004; Todd and Jones, 2003). However, the take-up of an advocate role by parents is also a risky one. Proactive parenting can lead to confrontation with the professionals, and the literature indicates that parents (mothers) are sometimes described as being provocative and conflictual (McKeever and Miller, 2004). Clearly this has implications for accounts of good mothering. On the one hand, good mothers are those who agitate and demand for their children. On the other hand, mothers who assume a proactive role which is resistant to health care professionals are constructed as difficult and even pathological (Berman and Wilson, 2009).

The literature reveals that one way mothers negotiate this positioning is by

assuming a compliance, or acquiescence, within certain medical and professional contexts (Berman and Wilson, 2009; Austin and Carpenter, 2008; McKeever, and

Miller, 2004; Malacrida, 2001). However, this compliant subject position that mothers, at times, make relevant may be understood as a form of resistance, in which mothers are working to validate their own positions within the hierarchical professional/lay relationship. As Berman and Wilson state (2009:450) a compliant subject position may be ‘purposely adopted by some parents as a strategy to gain assistance for their child’. Their study was situated within a New England

children’s hospital and focused on intake workers’ initial assessments of mothers of children ‘with exceptionalities’ (2009:445). Their findings revealed that a

‘compliant’ parent was constructed as a ‘good’ parent, and, therefore, more deserving of support and resources.