IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v38y1994i8p1125-1140.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The technocratic body: American childbirth as cultural expression

Author

Listed:
  • Davis-Floyd, Robbie E.

Abstract

The dominant mythology of a culture is often displayed in the rituals with which it surrounds birth. In contemporary Western society, that mythology--the mythology of the technocracy--is enacted through obstetrical procedures, the rituals of hospital birth. This article explores the links between our culture's mythological technocratic model of birth and the body images, individual belief and value systems, and birth choices of forty middle-class women--32 professional women who accept the technocratic paradigm, and eight homebirthers who reject it. The conceptual separation of mother and child is fundamental to technocratic notions of parenthood, and constitutes a logical corollary of the Cartesian mind-body separation that has been fundamental to the development of both industrial society and post-industrial technocracy. The professionals' body images and lifestyles express these principles of separation, while the holistic ideology of the homebirthers stresses mind-body and parent-child integration. The conclusion considers the ideological hegemony of the technocratic paradigm as potential future-shaper.

Suggested Citation

  • Davis-Floyd, Robbie E., 1994. "The technocratic body: American childbirth as cultural expression," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 1125-1140, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:38:y:1994:i:8:p:1125-1140
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(94)90228-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shaw, Rebecca & Kitzinger, Celia, 2005. "Calls to a home birth helpline: Empowerment in childbirth," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(11), pages 2374-2383, December.
    2. Kierans, Ciara, 2011. "Anthropology, organ transplantation and the immune system: Resituating commodity and gift exchange," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(10), pages 1469-1476.
    3. Tully, Kristin P. & Ball, Helen L., 2013. "Misrecognition of need: Women's experiences of and explanations for undergoing cesarean delivery," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 103-111.
    4. Emily Burns, 2015. "More Than Four Walls: The Meaning of Home in Home Birth Experiences," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(2), pages 06-16.
    5. Neiterman, Elena & Fox, Bonnie, 2017. "Controlling the unruly maternal body: Losing and gaining control over the body during pregnancy and the postpartum period," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 142-148.
    6. Mansfield, Becky, 2008. "The social nature of natural childbirth," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(5), pages 1084-1094, March.
    7. Kroll, Camille & Murphy, Julia & Poston, Lindsay & You, Whitney & Premkumar, Ashish, 2022. "Cultivating the ideal obstetrical patient: How physicians-in-training describe pain associated with childbirth," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 312(C).
    8. Namey, Emily E. & Lyerly, Anne Drapkin, 2010. "The meaning of "control" for childbearing women in the US," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(4), pages 769-776, August.
    9. Palmquist, Aunchalee E.L. & Holdren, Sarah M. & Fair, Cynthia D., 2020. "“It was all taken away”: Lactation, embodiment, and resistance among mothers caring for their very-low-birth-weight infants in the neonatal intensive care unit," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 244(C).
    10. El-Nemer, Amina & Downe, Soo & Small, Neil, 2006. "'She would help me from the heart': An ethnography of Egyptian women in labour," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 81-92, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:38:y:1994:i:8:p:1125-1140. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.