Afflerback 2013

Prévia do material em texto

<p>Journal of Consumer Culture</p><p>13(3) 387–405</p><p>! The Author(s) 2013</p><p>Reprints and permissions:</p><p>sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav</p><p>DOI: 10.1177/1469540513485271</p><p>joc.sagepub.com</p><p>Article</p><p>Infant-feeding</p><p>consumerism in the age</p><p>of intensive mothering</p><p>and risk society</p><p>Sara Afflerback</p><p>Organizational Research Services, USA</p><p>Shannon K. Carter</p><p>University of Central Florida, USA</p><p>Amanda Koontz Anthony</p><p>University of Central Florida, USA</p><p>Liz Grauerholz</p><p>University of Central Florida, USA</p><p>Abstract</p><p>The ideologies of intensive mothering and risk society place increasing burden on</p><p>mothers to make critical choices regarding infant feeding that are understood as</p><p>having irreversible consequences for their children’s long-term health and emotional</p><p>well-being. Although research has examined consequences of these ideologies on</p><p>mothers’ decisions to breastfeed or formula-feed their infants, little has focused on</p><p>consumer decisions regarding formulas, baby food and feeding-related items. This art-</p><p>icle examines symbolic meanings attached to infant food and feeding-related consumer</p><p>items among first-time mothers in the United States. Results indicate broad categories</p><p>of baby-oriented consumerism—qualities and characteristics mothers sought for their</p><p>babies through feeding-related consumer behaviors—and mother-oriented consumer-</p><p>ism—qualities and characteristics mothers sought for themselves through consumer</p><p>behaviors. Baby-oriented consumerism included health, comfort, taste and develop-</p><p>ment, and mother-oriented consumerism included knowledge/control, compliance,</p><p>convenience, frugality, relationships and self-image.</p><p>Corresponding author:</p><p>Shannon K. Carter, Organizational Research Services, Seattle, USA, 32816.</p><p>Email: skcarter@ucf.edu</p><p>Keywords</p><p>intensive mothering, risk society, United States, breastfeeding, infant feeding, consumer-</p><p>ism, consumption</p><p>Introduction</p><p>Food, feeding and eating are about much more than just nourishing the body.</p><p>Food production, selection and consumption are social, cultural and political</p><p>acts that facilitate relationships and shape individual and group identities</p><p>(Barthes, 1997; Enticott, 2003; Murdoch and Miele, 1999). Consumer decisions</p><p>related to food and feeding take place within a broader socio-historical and cultural</p><p>context that shapes available choices and symbolic meanings associated with each.</p><p>In contemporary US society, mothers are predominantly responsible for pur-</p><p>chasing and preparing food for their families (DeVault, 1991). This responsibility is</p><p>one component of ‘‘intensive mothering’’ (Hays, 1996), whereby mothers are solely</p><p>responsible for meeting all of their children’s needs. Decisions regarding infant</p><p>feeding are highly relevant within this context of intensive mothering. In addition,</p><p>many argue that we currently live in a ‘‘risk society’’ (Beck, 1992), characterized by</p><p>concerns for food safety, personal vulnerability, and thus, ‘‘new strategies of con-</p><p>sumption’’ (Enticott, 2003: 412). The ideology of intensive mothering requires the</p><p>‘‘good mother’’ to take measures to minimize potential risks posed to her children</p><p>by food and feeding-related consumer items.</p><p>Although much research has focused on mothers’ decisions to breast or formula-</p><p>feed within the context of intensive mothering and risk society (Avishai, 2007; Lee,</p><p>2007, 2008; Murphy, 1999; Stearns, 2009), little research has examined mothers’</p><p>consumer decisions related to infant feeding. The current study investigates first-</p><p>time mothers’ constructions of the products they buy to facilitate infant feeding.</p><p>This study asks, within the context of intensive mothering and risk society, how do</p><p>first-time mothers in the USA construct infant food and feeding-related consumer</p><p>items? That is, when they make consumer decisions about food and feeding prod-</p><p>ucts, what symbolic meanings do mothers attach to products they purchase?</p><p>Intensive mothering, risk society and infant feeding</p><p>Hays (1996) argues the contemporary era is characterized by ‘‘intensive mother-</p><p>ing,’’ an idealized image of motherhood advocated by childrearing ‘‘experts’’ and</p><p>internalized and enforced by mothers and the general public. In intensive mother-</p><p>ing, children’s needs are prioritized above mothers’, and mothers maintain deep</p><p>emotional commitments to meeting children’s needs at each developmental stage</p><p>(Hays, 1996; Lee, 2008). A popular explicit version of intensive mothering is the</p><p>attachment parenting philosophy (Sears and Sears, 1992), which requires physical</p><p>closeness—facilitated by breastfeeding, baby-wearing, and co-sleeping—said to</p><p>promote bonding and facilitate immediate mother responsiveness to the</p><p>388 Journal of Consumer Culture 13(3)</p><p>baby’s cues. The ideology of intensive mothering holds mothers independently</p><p>responsible for childrearing and accountable for each and every facet of their</p><p>children’s well-being, including protecting their children and families from poten-</p><p>tial harms caused by industrialization and modernization.</p><p>In the USA, this pressure can be poignantly seen in relation to breastfeeding,</p><p>where mothers are expected to breastfeed in order to minimize potential health risks</p><p>and achieve the social status of a ‘‘good mother.’’ Infant feeding is inextricably</p><p>linked to intensive mothering, as breast milk is proclaimed the healthiest substance</p><p>for all infants, creating a moral imperative for mothers to breastfeed (Jansson, 2009;</p><p>Murphy, 1999; Wall, 2001). Scholars suggest that expert recommendations and</p><p>social pressures to breastfeed are about more than just nutrition, reflecting the</p><p>broader ideology of intensive mothering and corresponding need for mothers to</p><p>reduce risks to their infants’ health (Knaak, 2010; Lee, 2008). Mothers feel pressure</p><p>to breastfeed because of health benefits and the cultural association between breast-</p><p>feeding and good mothering (Avishai, 2007; Knaak, 2010; Marshall et al., 2007;</p><p>Murphy, 1999, 2000; Ryan et al., 2010; Stearns, 2009). Not breastfeeding—even</p><p>supplementing or early weaning—is often accompanied by guilt and sense of failure</p><p>(Avishai, 2007; Knaak, 2010; Lee, 2007, 2008; Murphy, 2000; Ryan et al., 2010).</p><p>In Western cultures, infant feeding and intensive mothering take place within the</p><p>context of ‘‘risk’’ or what Beck (1992) calls ‘‘a risk society.’’ In a risk society, the</p><p>negative effects of industrialization and modernization are perceived as increasingly</p><p>causing potential damage to humans, particularly in the realms of health and the</p><p>natural environment, but extending into politics, the family, and social relations.</p><p>A society increasingly characterized by risk produces members increasingly preoc-</p><p>cupied with safety. Dominant food culture in contemporary Western societies</p><p>embodies pesticide use, genetically modified and processed foods, declining nutri-</p><p>tional variety, diet-related diseases, and food scandals (including ‘‘formula scares’’),</p><p>among other perceived threats to personal and environmental well-being (Almas</p><p>and Lien, 1999). Burden is placed on consumers to respond to cultural knowledge of</p><p>‘‘risks,’’ evaluate which knowledge to trust or disregard, and ultimately make</p><p>informed food safety and consumption choices (Almas and Lien, 1999).</p><p>In contemporary ‘‘risk society,’’ mothers are increasingly responsible for follow-</p><p>ing ‘‘expert’’ guidance to minimize risks their children face (Knaak, 2010; Lee, 2008;</p><p>Murphy, 1999). What a mother feeds her child—particularly the decision between</p><p>formula and breast milk—is considered a significant part of her responsibility to</p><p>minimize risk. Formula-feeding is constructed as ‘‘risky,’’ not only to the infant’s</p><p>health but also to the mother–child relationship (Murphy, 2004; Wall, 2001). In</p><p>popular discourse, formula-feeding is associated with decreased mother–infant</p><p>bonding, which is not only detrimental for the child but for society as a whole,</p><p>since poor bonding is associated with criminality and violence (Lee, 2008).</p><p>Research shows attempts to minimize risk guide individuals’ consumer choices</p><p>related to food more generally.</p><p>Many now seek natural, organic foods to avert</p><p>food safety risks of the industrial world. However, there is a lack of consensus</p><p>regarding what constitutes ‘‘safe’’ food (Enticott, 2003) and individuals attribute</p><p>Afflerback et al. 389</p><p>multiple definitions to the term ‘‘organic’’ (Lyons et al., 2001). Enticott notes that</p><p>‘‘what counts as a ‘safe’ food is now a highly contested arena and open for (re-)</p><p>construction to all. In facing up to the failure of scientists to provide definitive</p><p>answers, consumers have developed their own ways of responding to these risks</p><p>through new strategies of consumption’’ (Enticott, 2003: 412). One method of</p><p>reducing ‘‘risk’’ and rejecting mass production of food is through prepar-</p><p>ation and consumption of ‘‘homemade’’ (Moisio et al., 2004). Preparation of</p><p>homemade meals not only ensures authenticity, but is used to construct and nego-</p><p>tiate the family identity, as the American family is epitomized by the</p><p>homemade meal.</p><p>Previous research illuminates an intricate connection between intensive mother-</p><p>ing, risk society and infant-feeding practices yet little research examines the con-</p><p>structions of consumer objects that facilitate infant feeding within this context. For</p><p>instance, the decision to breast or formula-feed positions mothers within different</p><p>consumer markets. Infant formula is a multi-billion dollar industry, accounting for</p><p>$3.5 billion in sales in the USA alone in 2007 (Oliviera et al., 2011). Formula-</p><p>feeding entails an array of other consumer products, such as bottles, bottle war-</p><p>mers and coolers, and bottle dryers and sterilizers. Breastfeeding mothers make up</p><p>a separate consumer market for whom a variety of other products and ser-</p><p>vices—including informational resources, gadgets (e.g. breastfeeding pillows and</p><p>pumps), and services (e.g. lactation consultants and support groups) that are</p><p>intended to facilitate the breastfeeding process—are marketed (Avishai, 2007).</p><p>Avishai argues this market targets breastfeeding mothers’ insecurities, with many</p><p>of their purchases intended to assist in meeting the standards of ‘‘good mothering.’’</p><p>However, little research has investigated the symbolic meanings mothers ascribe to</p><p>these breast and bottle feeding-related consumer products.</p><p>Research also shows that the association between feeding, risk society and inten-</p><p>sive mothering extends beyond the decision to feed by breast or bottle. Mothers are</p><p>accountable for the size and perceived health of their babies and are observed</p><p>taking into account the taste preferences of family members when purchasing</p><p>food. Whether these factors are considered when selecting between brands of</p><p>infant formula, baby foods or other feeding-related items has not been thoroughly</p><p>addressed in the literature. Provided consumption for children creates a more</p><p>complicated consumer dynamic in which the child is economically and physically</p><p>dependent on the actions of the mother (Cook, 2008), it is important to understand</p><p>new mothers’ justifications for employing various consumption strategies that coin-</p><p>cide or deviate from the dominant food culture. Taken as a whole, this literature</p><p>raises the question of how new mothers, situated in the cultural contexts of inten-</p><p>sive motherhood and risk society, socially construct infant food and feeding-related</p><p>consumer items.</p><p>In this study we employ a social constructionist theoretical framework, which</p><p>focuses on meanings participants attribute to social objects and phenomena, and</p><p>the methods through which these meanings are ascribed (Berger and Luckmann,</p><p>1966; Gubrium and Holstein, 1997). Through in-depth interviews with first-time</p><p>390 Journal of Consumer Culture 13(3)</p><p>US mothers, the current study illuminates what it is that mothers believe they are</p><p>consuming, beyond the utilitarian need to feed their baby.</p><p>Research method</p><p>Data were collected for a broader study on consumerism by new, first-time mothers</p><p>that explored mothers’ constructions of ‘‘need’’ for the baby’s first year and con-</p><p>sumption rituals associated with pregnancy. Data consist of 14 in-depth interviews</p><p>with a sample of predominantly white, middle-class women in the USA who were</p><p>three months to one year postpartum with their first child (see Table 1).</p><p>Participants were recruited through personal and professional contacts and</p><p>through face-to-face and virtual mothering groups in the southeastern United</p><p>States. Members of virtual mothering groups (whether they met the study criteria</p><p>or not) often re-posted our study information onto other parenting groups on</p><p>social media sites or messaging boards, which generated more potential partici-</p><p>pants. At the end of each interview, participants were asked for referrals of</p><p>additional participants, resulting in a ‘‘snowball’’ sample (Babbie, 1989). This</p><p>non-probability sample is a limitation to the study. While this was the most appro-</p><p>priate and effective sampling technique for studying a loosely structured group with</p><p>specific criteria, we ended up with a convenient sample of mothers from a similar</p><p>geographical region, a predominantly white, middle-class demographic, and quite</p><p>possibly similar social circles. Although findings cannot be generalized to all new</p><p>Table 1. Demographics of women in sample (n¼ 14).</p><p>Race/ethnicity Marital status</p><p>Attachment</p><p>parenting (Y/N)</p><p>April White Married N</p><p>Nora White, Hispanic Married N</p><p>Emma White Married Y</p><p>Summer White Married N</p><p>Jamie White Married Y</p><p>Adriana Hispanic Single Y</p><p>Charlotte White Married Y</p><p>Leah White Married N</p><p>Aubrey White Married N</p><p>Mia White Married Y</p><p>Vera White Married N</p><p>Kristen White Married N</p><p>Robin White Married N</p><p>Brigitte White Married N</p><p>Afflerback et al. 391</p><p>mothers, the qualitative data reveal multiple meanings mothers associate with</p><p>feeding-related consumer items.</p><p>Data consist of in-depth, semi-structured interviews conducted and</p><p>audio-recorded by the first author in participants’ households. Questions asked</p><p>participants about products they acquired in preparation for their child, general</p><p>perceptions of themselves as consumers, and materials they read to prepare for</p><p>parenthood. Participants were asked whether they breast or formula fed their</p><p>babies, items they use to facilitate feeding, and what kind of baby food they</p><p>used or planned to use in the future. This open-ended interview was immediately</p><p>followed with a more loosely structured data-collection process that centered on</p><p>participants’ consumer objects. Participants were given a digital camera and</p><p>asked to photograph items they felt were ‘‘essential’’ and ‘‘unessential’’ in their</p><p>experiences as mothers. Participants photographed items (first essentials, then</p><p>unessentials) while the researcher probed for details about how they selected</p><p>and acquired the item. For our purposes, photographs were used as a data-</p><p>collection technique to provide a better understanding of what items were essen-</p><p>tial or nonessential but these photographs were not analyzed separately or</p><p>included as data here. Each interview lasted 1–2 hours and was also audio-</p><p>recorded. Audio-recordings were transcribed verbatim, using pseudonyms for</p><p>each participant.</p><p>Given that consumerism by new, first-time mothers is complex and has hardly</p><p>been investigated sociologically, we approached the data inductively. We used</p><p>grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser and Strauss, 1967) so that the ‘‘data</p><p>form the foundation of our theory and our analysis of these data generates the</p><p>concepts we construct’’ (Charmaz, 2006: 2). In this case, we built our theoretical</p><p>analysis around participants’ child-preparation and childrearing experiences.</p><p>Preliminary analysis consisted of reading the transcripts to get a general sense of</p><p>the data. Initial coding was conducted by the first author. At this stage, broad</p><p>themes surrounding consumption by first-time mothers were identified, one of</p><p>which was ‘‘infant feeding.’’ From here, any excerpt that mentioned infant feeding,</p><p>breastfeeding, formula, baby food, and/or any feeding-related item or practice was</p><p>copied and pasted into a single</p><p>document for further analysis. These excerpts were</p><p>analyzed in more detail by the second author, whereby a list of general themes that</p><p>emerged from the narratives was compiled. Excerpts were then copied and pasted</p><p>into the general themes where they could be compared for more nuanced simila-</p><p>rities and differences. Focused coding (Charmaz, 2006) was then conducted, in</p><p>which similarly categorized narrative excerpts were examined more closely for fur-</p><p>ther similarities and differences. Quotations were selected to use as examples that</p><p>best represent the themes.</p><p>Results</p><p>Within the broad theme of infant feeding, two major categories emerged: baby-</p><p>oriented consumerism and mother-oriented consumerism. Baby-oriented consumerism</p><p>392 Journal of Consumer Culture 13(3)</p><p>consists of qualities and characteristics mothers sought for their babies in their</p><p>consumer behaviors related to infant feeding. Mother-oriented consumerism con-</p><p>sists of qualities and characteristics mothers sought for themselves in their con-</p><p>sumer behaviors related to infant feeding. These two processes reveal the symbolic</p><p>meanings participants attach to feeding-related consumer items within an interview</p><p>context.</p><p>Baby-oriented consumerism</p><p>Throughout the narratives, mothers described their reasons for purchasing particu-</p><p>lar types of baby formula, baby food and feeding-related items in relation to some</p><p>goal they were trying to achieve for their babies. Subcategories of baby-oriented</p><p>consumerism are health, comfort, taste and development.</p><p>Consuming health. The most common baby-oriented goal that guided mothers’</p><p>choices of baby food and food-related items was health. That is, participants con-</p><p>sumed types or brands of food and formula based on the belief that these items</p><p>directly impact their babies’ health. All study participants indicated that they do or</p><p>plan to feed their babies organic foods, and health was most often the driving force</p><p>behind this selection.</p><p>When asked why she fed her baby organic food, Emma responded, ‘‘So there’s</p><p>no pesticides. And we’re not giving him cow’s milk or white grains, again just for</p><p>health.’’ April explained:</p><p>I choose it, just because the formula’s the same price. So, why not choose organic if</p><p>you can? It’s a healthier way. . . .These are the first foods that he’s getting so I’d rather</p><p>it be extremely healthy than who knows what’s in it? Because they can’t put organic on</p><p>it unless it really is organic. So, that’s why I choose to do that because his health is the</p><p>most important . . .He’s only been sick once . . . so, he’s almost a year old and only</p><p>being sick once? It’s kind of because he’s home a lot with me, but I think it’s also</p><p>because he eats healthy. I think it has something to do with it.</p><p>Like other study participants, April describes her rationale for purchasing organic</p><p>foods and formula for her baby in regards to promoting health and attributes her</p><p>baby’s good health to these consumer choices. Although infant formula is generally</p><p>regarded as ‘‘risky’’ in the dominant discourse (Murphy, 2004; Wall, 2001)—a</p><p>perception fueled by periodic media reports of contaminated formula—none of</p><p>the women in our sample discussed ‘‘formula scares.’’ The absence of such dis-</p><p>course may stem from the time period when data were collected (there were no</p><p>product recalls of formula at the time) but more likely, study participants may have</p><p>felt safe from such concerns because they purchased organic formula, which they</p><p>constructed as ‘‘healthy.’’</p><p>Participants also described health needs specific to their own babies that guided</p><p>them toward particular foods, especially formulas. Three participants described</p><p>Afflerback et al. 393</p><p>food selections resulting from their babies’ negative reactions to dairy and soy.</p><p>When asked if there was a specific type of formula she used, Adriana explained:</p><p>He ended up becoming intolerant to milk and soy, so I had to buy the amino acid</p><p>formula . . . It’s [product name] which is $45 a can because it’s special. It doesn’t have</p><p>any milk products or any soy products whatsoever . . . I tried switching to another</p><p>formula that’s soy based . . . but he ended up having such a bad reaction to the soy,</p><p>he threw up all day. And diarrhea and he got so sick, and I ended up going back to the</p><p>amino acid and just sticking with that.</p><p>Attempting to promote health was a reoccurring explanation for selecting particu-</p><p>lar foods and formulas. Health promotion was sometimes framed in the context of</p><p>risk society (a response to pesticides and other ‘‘risky’’ foods), and other times</p><p>framed in accordance with the standards of intensive motherhood (meeting babies’</p><p>individualized health needs).</p><p>[Product name]. A theme related to health was selection of baby foods and formulas</p><p>participants believed created the greatest comfort in the baby. Similar to the pre-</p><p>vious theme where mothers were concerned about individualized health issues such</p><p>as allergies or diarrhea, they were also concerned about certain formulas and bot-</p><p>tles causing or exacerbating gas, colic and stomach sensitivities. Brands were</p><p>sought based on beliefs that they produced different effects.</p><p>When asked if there was a particular brand of formula she used, Jamie</p><p>responded:</p><p>We tried all of the brands. Because her stomach is very sensitive we’ve done every</p><p>single brand. [product name], [product name], and we landed on [product name].</p><p>[product name], is just something that seems to be working for her. Keeps her very</p><p>fed, very happy.</p><p>Participants also selected feeding-related items, particularly bottles, based on per-</p><p>ceptions of the products’ ability to increase comfort. Adriana explained, ‘‘I bought</p><p>him the gas-preventing bottles for whenever I would put the breast milk in there,</p><p>which would help because he was a really gassy baby. When he was born he had a</p><p>lot of colic problems.’’</p><p>These excerpts represent participants’ constructions of baby food and feeding-</p><p>related consumer objects as producing comfort in their babies’ bodies. Thus, when</p><p>buying certain brands of formula or bottles, they are not just buying food and</p><p>feeding devices, but are purchasing their babies’ comfort.</p><p>Consuming taste. Participants also explained infant-feeding selections in rela-</p><p>tion to taste. They generally wanted their babies to eat food that tastes</p><p>good and interpreted babies’ signs to indicate a preference for certain foods</p><p>over others.</p><p>394 Journal of Consumer Culture 13(3)</p><p>A few participants reported using perceptions of their babies’ taste preferences</p><p>to influence decisions about breastfeeding. For example, Summer described her</p><p>baby’s satisfaction as a reason for transitioning to formula-feeding:</p><p>He would fall asleep when he was breastfeeding or he would still seem like he was</p><p>hungry after he fed like thirty minutes. Which normally after thirty minutes they’ll be</p><p>pretty full as a newborn. But he still wanted more so then I gave him an ounce of</p><p>formula after and I tried probably for the first month . . .But with the formula, he was</p><p>happy with it. So I gave up easily.</p><p>Summer described her baby’s happiness with formula as a reason for switching</p><p>from supplementing breastfeeding to exclusively formula-feeding. This description</p><p>is similar to other research in which women report their babies’ preference for</p><p>formula over breast milk as a primary reason for discontinuing breastfeeding</p><p>(Ertem et al., 2001). Such interpretations create the need for mothers to purchase</p><p>formula and formula-feeding items such as bottles and related items to materialize</p><p>their infant-feeding choices.</p><p>Adriana described her baby’s preference for breast milk limiting her ability to</p><p>formula-feed:</p><p>He is supplemented occasionally. If we are out and there’s just no way to breastfeed</p><p>him I will give him a little formula, but he’s not very big on the formula. He’ll drink it</p><p>if he’s extremely hungry. But even then he’ll only take a couple ounces</p><p>maybe . . .When he was first born we had problems with his latching, so my nipples</p><p>got so so so sore that I could barely breastfeed.</p><p>They wanted to give him a little</p><p>formula, but even then he wouldn’t really take it. He would scream his little head</p><p>off because he was hungry but he wouldn’t eat it.</p><p>Adriana’s interpretation of her baby’s preference for breast milk over formula is</p><p>described as impacting her ability to supplement. This finding suggests that</p><p>mothers’ perceptions of their babies’ preferences impact not only their decisions</p><p>to formula-feed, but may also impact decisions to continue breastfeeding.</p><p>Mothers also described interpretations of their babies’ taste preferences impact-</p><p>ing which solid foods they introduced. Nora decided to make her own baby food</p><p>partly as a result of her baby’s response to jarred food:</p><p>[Did you start with jarred food?] I did, and then I saw his reaction to it and he didn’t</p><p>like it. And then I read somewhere, I read this article about how nicely it’s packaged</p><p>and advertised for full-time moms and it really doesn’t take a huge amount of time to</p><p>make your own.</p><p>Through homemade baby food, mothers can incorporate tastes they are familiar</p><p>with and believe the baby will take pleasure in based on observations of their</p><p>babies’ responses. This theme highlights the agency mothers afford their babies</p><p>Afflerback et al. 395</p><p>when selecting foods. Similar to the children in Cook’s (2009) study of mothers’</p><p>feeding practices, babies in the current study are not simply constructed as passive</p><p>recipients of food, but are perceived as playing an active role in expressing taste</p><p>preferences.</p><p>Consuming development. Participants described the transition to sippy cups and solid</p><p>foods as a significant developmental stage. Eating solids and drinking out of a cup</p><p>were constructed not only as shifts in what nourished their babies’ bodies, but also</p><p>significant learning experiences.</p><p>Summer: Now that he’s older we have these sippy cups which he seems to like better</p><p>than any other ones. It’s good for him to learn the sippy cup now . . . So he gets used to</p><p>a cup, but still is not completely off bottles.</p><p>Vera: We started doing baby-led weaning . . . so every week we just feed him a new</p><p>food and cut it up so he can hold it. He’s working on his pincer grasp. So we have to</p><p>be able to cut things up into small cubes and he’ll be able to put it in his mouth.</p><p>For these and other participants, consumption of sippy cups and solid foods are not</p><p>simply for nutritional or nourishment purposes, but to both assist and demarcate</p><p>their babies’ physical development. The consumer product is construed here as</p><p>both an educational device—one that assists the child’s essential development—</p><p>and a symbol of the stage of development the child has reached.</p><p>Mother-oriented consumerism</p><p>In addition to consuming products to achieve goals for their babies,</p><p>mothers described their consumer decisions and patterns as mechanisms to achieve</p><p>particular goals for themselves. Subcategories of mother-oriented consumerism are</p><p>knowledge/control, compliance, convenience, frugality, relationships and self-</p><p>image.</p><p>Consuming knowledge and control. Several participants said they selected solid foods</p><p>based on their abilities to know and control the ingredients. Specifically, partici-</p><p>pants reported feeding organic or homemade foods to maintain knowledge and</p><p>control over what was entering their babies’ bodies.</p><p>Robin explained, ‘‘[Is there any reason you wanted to make your own baby</p><p>food?] Just to control what’s in it. It’s fresher. It’s cheaper. And then I actually</p><p>know what’s in it.’’ Similarly, when asked why she chose organic food, Nora</p><p>responded:</p><p>Just what is out there about pesticides on fruits and veggies, even if it is overblown as</p><p>some individuals may claim, I don’t care. I’m going to err on the side of caution. I’m</p><p>just going to feed him organic food. Even if it’s not organic, just something that’s not</p><p>396 Journal of Consumer Culture 13(3)</p><p>in the jar. Because jar food, it’s processed, and I don’t know what goes into making it.</p><p>At least organic, or not, I know the fruit and veggies he’s eating, because I make it.</p><p>Like other participants, Nora’s consumer decisions regarding baby food are guided</p><p>by her desire to know and control the items that enter her baby’s body. The goal of</p><p>reducing risk is clear in her narrative, as she claims to ‘‘err on the side of caution’’</p><p>given mixed social messages regarding pesticides and food. This obsessive concern</p><p>with food safety, apparent throughout the narratives, is understandable in a social</p><p>context increasingly characterized by risk, and a culture of intensive motherhood</p><p>that attributes health outcomes to mothering practices.</p><p>Consuming compliance. Participants reported selecting certain consumer products in</p><p>order to comply with instructions provided by infant-feeding ‘‘experts.’’</p><p>Participants reported soliciting and following advice on feeding products from</p><p>healthcare providers, experienced friends and family members, and parenting/feed-</p><p>ing books and magazines (among all these sources, friends were relied upon the</p><p>most for advice).</p><p>Participants who fed their babies formula reported determining which brand of</p><p>formula to provide based on advice from obstetricians and pediatricians. Whereas</p><p>some reported receiving direct recommendations, other participants interpreted the</p><p>distribution of particular brands of infant formula by healthcare providers as an</p><p>endorsement. When asked if there is a specific type of formula she uses, Robin</p><p>explained, ‘‘We did [product name] because that’s what the hospital gave us sam-</p><p>ples of. The doctor’s offices that are affiliated with [Hospital] gave [product name]</p><p>samples.’’ Similarly, Brigitte explained, ‘‘When we went to interview the pediatri-</p><p>cian he gave us samples of [product name]. That’s what we started her on.’’</p><p>Participants who breastfed reported receiving advice from healthcare providers</p><p>on which breastfeeding supplies they should purchase, particularly breast pumps.</p><p>Leah explained, ‘‘The breastfeeding class talked about pumps and different brands</p><p>of pumps they suggested. [Do you remember which ones?] [Product name] was the</p><p>one they suggested. [Did you end up getting that one?] I did. I ended up with two</p><p>of them.’’</p><p>Participants also reported complying with advice from parenting magazines and</p><p>books. When explaining why she chose [product name], baby food, Leah said, ‘‘It’s</p><p>organic . . . I think in the American Baby magazine it was actually highly recom-</p><p>mended as a food.’’ Aubrey explained:</p><p>I have a book that a friend gave me, Super Baby Food, and it talks about – Because I</p><p>do need some guidance of knowing when certain foods can be introduced. I know I</p><p>shouldn’t introduce honey before a year, but it’s all going to be natural products.</p><p>Fruits, vegetables, root vegetables, and whole grains.</p><p>Consistent with the ideology of intensive mothering, mothers look to</p><p>‘‘authorities’’ (healthcare providers, experienced mothers, literature, etc.) for</p><p>Afflerback et al. 397</p><p>cultural knowledge on how to mother appropriately and comply through their</p><p>consumer behavior.</p><p>Consuming convenience. More than half of participants mentioned convenience</p><p>impacting feeding-related consumer decisions, particularly the selection of pre-</p><p>pared baby foods. Vera explained, ‘‘I did not get into the whole idea of making</p><p>my own purees. I’m not a big fan of being in the kitchen. I’m okay with paying for</p><p>convenience.’’ Similarly, Emma stated, ‘‘We do buy some baby food, like those</p><p>packages are easiest.. . .Anything in a pouch like this. We only buy organic. Mostly</p><p>I make stuff, but this is for the convenience moments.’’</p><p>Others defined making their own baby food as convenient. Robin explained,</p><p>‘‘It’s just as easy as you steam a vegetable and throw it in the blender and put it in</p><p>the ice cube tray. Then you have twelve of whatever, so I have a freezer full</p><p>of . . . bags with various things.’’ Kristen perceived items designed specifically for</p><p>making baby food as facilitating convenience. She explained, ‘‘I had actually not</p><p>registered for [name of popular baby food-making machine] on purpose</p><p>because I</p><p>didn’t think it was necessary and we didn’t have a lot of cabinet space, but . . . [it]</p><p>comes with food storage containers that have dates and stuff on it, so I figured</p><p>anything that can make it easier.’’</p><p>Some participants described formula and formula-related items as convenient.</p><p>When asked which items are necessary, Summer responded:</p><p>These little formula things. These are handy for on the go . . .Basically you just scoop</p><p>in the formula and it’s premeasured . . . It’s pretty easy, it’s already measured out; you</p><p>don’t need to fuss with it.</p><p>Another participant described formula-feeding as more convenient than breast-</p><p>feeding, which she perceived as overwhelming. When asked if her son was breastfed</p><p>Leah explained, ‘‘He’s formula fed . . .He wouldn’t latch. So I pumped for three</p><p>weeks. But it wasn’t pumping. It got really overwhelming. So we stopped after</p><p>three weeks then we switched to formula.’’</p><p>These narratives demonstrate that participants construct certain infant foods</p><p>and feeding-related items as convenient. Consumer choices in this context are</p><p>selected with the intention of making their lives easier and more manageable.</p><p>Consuming frugality. Saving money was discussed in more than half of the interviews</p><p>in relation to infant feeding. Participants described several money-saving tech-</p><p>niques, including comparing prices at different stores, watching for sales and</p><p>using coupons. April explained:</p><p>I’ll only shop at [baby store] when [jars of baby food] are on sale. They’ll give you a</p><p>box of twelve for ten dollars. So it’s just under a dollar for all of them. But then they’ll</p><p>do like buy two get five dollars back. Or right now, they have it buy one get one 50%</p><p>off, so you can get 24 for $15.</p><p>398 Journal of Consumer Culture 13(3)</p><p>Summer similarly explained:</p><p>Since I’ve become a mom I’ve started using coupons, which I never did before . . . I</p><p>think the main reason I started was to save money on diapers and formula—they’re</p><p>not cheap. A tub of [product name] formula if you go to [store], which I think is the</p><p>cheapest, is around $21. And that lasts us for maybe a week. Plus you’re feeding him</p><p>baby food on top of that. So, it’s kind of pricey.</p><p>Price also impacted which brand of formula some participants selected. Kristen</p><p>based her decision on her ability to acquire samples:</p><p>They give you a choice in the hospital of [product name] or [product name].</p><p>I think we just had more [of the former] samples at home . . . I only bought, I</p><p>think, two cartons . . . because everyone I know—friends and relatives—signed up</p><p>for [formula maker’s online community], and they send you samples in the mail.</p><p>Full size samples. So we had cans and cans and cans of it up until a couple</p><p>weeks ago.</p><p>Although price was a factor participants considered when selecting formula</p><p>brands, it was not discussed as a factor when deciding whether to breast or for-</p><p>mula-feed.</p><p>Consuming relationships. Participants also conveyed that breastfeeding, but not for-</p><p>mula-feeding, was relevant for fostering relationships. Most participants who dis-</p><p>cussed feeding as fostering relationships described parenting groups that were</p><p>available only to breastfeeding mothers. When asked about the parenting group</p><p>she attended, Robin responded:</p><p>It started as a breastfeeding group. It would meet for lunch on Tuesdays at the hos-</p><p>pital breastfeeding center. Where moms could just give each other advice, have lunch,</p><p>and then we started to talk to each other on Facebook, because once a week could be</p><p>a really long time in terms of breastfeeding, so we started a Facebook page. Then a</p><p>spinoff of that was moms who would get together for playgroups . . . So now it’s</p><p>become kind of a parenting group.</p><p>Summer described breastfeeding as facilitating the mother–baby relationship.</p><p>When asked if she subscribes to a parenting philosophy, she replied, ‘‘I don’t</p><p>know if it would really be considered a parenting philosophy, but I really believe</p><p>in breastfeeding and I just feel like it’s a good connection with the baby.’’</p><p>Interestingly, when Summer was asked if she was involved in any parenting</p><p>groups or events, she immediately responded about a breastfeeding group:</p><p>‘‘I was thinking about joining a breastfeeding [group].’’ Initially she didn’t join</p><p>because her friends didn’t breastfeed and as Summer admitted, ‘‘I’m one of those</p><p>people that doesn’t really go places alone.’’ Later, when she stopped breastfeeding,</p><p>Afflerback et al. 399</p><p>she felt that she no longer had the option to join, that such groups were open only</p><p>to women who breastfed their children.</p><p>Feeding choices are constructed as impacting mothers’ relationships with their</p><p>babies and with other mothers by providing access to breastfeeding-based mother-</p><p>ing groups. In this sense, relationships and social networking are available based on</p><p>consumer decisions not to purchase formula and instead breastfeed. This finding</p><p>also reveals what could be perceived as a system of rewards and punishments for</p><p>compliance with the demands of intensive mothering, which strongly advocates</p><p>breastfeeding: mothers who comply are rewarded with access to social networks</p><p>that are closed to mothers who do not comply.</p><p>Consuming identity. Participants also described feeding-related consumer behaviors</p><p>contributing to their self-image. In particular, consumption of certain items con-</p><p>tributed to a particular vision of themselves as parents. When asked if she pur-</p><p>chased or registered for items that supported the attachment parenting philosophy,</p><p>Jamie replied:</p><p>Other than the different slings that I have, from breastfeeding, co-sleeping, and when</p><p>she’s weaned all natural foods and organic baby homemade foods and stuff like that</p><p>are going to be key and essential. Definitely you know, positive parenting. Really all</p><p>natural parenting, that kind of thing. I’m constantly reading up on that now.</p><p>Jamie’s identification with attachment parenting impacts her consumptive behav-</p><p>iors by influencing her to buy certain baby carriers, breastfeeding pillows, and</p><p>organic foods. Adriana also identified with attachment parenting but explained</p><p>how her identification with this parenting philosophy led her to avoid purchasing</p><p>many items. When asked if being around friends with children influenced the items</p><p>she bought, Adriana explained:</p><p>Actually no because my style of parenting is really different from my friends. I’m more</p><p>towards what they call ‘‘crunchy parenting’’ and my friends are more mainstream, you</p><p>know? So I go through the attachment parenting thing so I didn’t need a lot of the stuff</p><p>that they were already using with their babies . . .Especially with foods and things like</p><p>that because I just wanted him to be a strictly breastfed baby for as long as I could go.</p><p>More generally, participants made the decision to breastfeed, or at least try breast-</p><p>feeding, to ‘‘mother’’ in line with the cultural expectations of intensive mother-</p><p>hood. That is to say, they may not have identified with a particular parenting</p><p>philosophy or style, but broader notions of what it means to be a ‘‘good’’</p><p>mother influenced their infant-feeding decisions. Nora, for example, implied that</p><p>her self-image as a mother was contingent on her infant-feeding decisions:</p><p>There’s a lot of pressure on women to breastfeed. And if you don’t breastfeed you’re a</p><p>terrible person. So, that’s one thing that I noticed. Especially from the push back with</p><p>400 Journal of Consumer Culture 13(3)</p><p>some of my own family members, just the kind of tone, when I stopped</p><p>breastfeeding . . . I did for the first three months. And I would literally break down</p><p>and get very upset when I couldn’t, because I felt like I was a terrible person, you</p><p>know, that I couldn’t do it? And not that I couldn’t do it, I could, I just couldn’t</p><p>produce enough to keep up with him. So, that’s unfortunate for first-time moms.</p><p>This narrative demonstrates how new mothers, situated in the cultural contexts of</p><p>intensive motherhood and risk society, negotiate their self-image as mothers</p><p>through</p><p>infant-feeding choices and concurrently, consumption.</p><p>Discussion and conclusions</p><p>Infant-feeding decisions and concurrent consumption choices are situated in a</p><p>cultural context of risk society (Beck, 1992) and intensive mothering (Hays,</p><p>1996). Examination of new mothers’ constructions of infant food and feeding-</p><p>related consumer items reveals multiple ways in which mothers respond to these</p><p>perceived risks and the culturally prescribed, idealistic expectations of what it</p><p>means to be a ‘‘good mother.’’ Findings reveal that mothers are consuming</p><p>much more than the utilitarian need to feed their babies.</p><p>Baby-oriented consumerism generally aimed to reduce risks and promote health,</p><p>comfort and development. Mothers sought to reduce risks of poor health through</p><p>feeding choices, particularly minimizing babies’ exposure to pesticides and pro-</p><p>cessed foods through the consumption of organic foods and baby formulas. By</p><p>selecting foods perceived as ‘‘healthy,’’ mothers believed they were creating good</p><p>health through their consumer choices, and interpreted short-term health outcomes</p><p>in direct relation to these consumer choices. Although the dominant discourse</p><p>conveys infant formula as ‘‘risky’’ (Lee, 2008; Murphy, 2004; Wall, 2001), mothers</p><p>in the study constructed organic formula as ‘‘healthy,’’ and consequently minimiz-</p><p>ing health risks. Mothers also sought to reduce risks of discomfort to their babies</p><p>by purchasing certain foods and formulas, and avoiding others.</p><p>The ideology of intensive mothering is also apparent throughout mothers’ con-</p><p>structions of baby-oriented consumerism. In their measures to promote health and</p><p>comfort, mothers identified and responded to their babies’ individualized needs.</p><p>Such identification required close monitoring of babies’ cues, particularly as</p><p>mothers tried different brands of formula and observed their babies’ responses.</p><p>Mothers similarly reported attending to their babies’ taste preferences, which</p><p>also required close observation and responsiveness—key components of intensive</p><p>mothering (Avishai, 2007; Hays, 1996; Lee, 2008). Consumerism is intricately</p><p>related to this aspect of intensive mothering, as the ‘‘good mother’’ identifies her</p><p>baby’s unique needs and taste preferences and responds to them with consumer</p><p>products, such as special formulas or particular foods.</p><p>Intensive mothering also requires mothers’ responsiveness to their babies’ chan-</p><p>ging developmental needs (Hays, 1996; Lee, 2008). Mothers are expected to provide</p><p>an environment that facilitates development through a series of sequenced stages</p><p>Afflerback et al. 401</p><p>guided by expert advice (Hays, 1996; Knaak, 2010; Murphy, 1999). The current</p><p>data indicate that the developmental stages are perceived as both facilitated and</p><p>reflected by consumer items. That is, a child can only be in a ‘‘sippy cup stage’’ in a</p><p>society in which sippy cups are available items to purchase. In such a society, the</p><p>sippy cup is constructed as facilitating the child’s transition from bottle to cup</p><p>while also symbolizing the developmental transition from infant to toddler. The</p><p>‘‘good mother’’ identifies her baby’s developmental needs and responds by provid-</p><p>ing ‘‘developmentally appropriate’’ consumer items.</p><p>Mother-oriented consumerism was also consistent with the ideology of intensive</p><p>mothering in a risk society. In the theme of consuming control and knowledge,</p><p>mothers described a desire to know and control the ingredients entering their</p><p>babies’ bodies so they could minimize exposure to potentially ‘‘harmful’’ sub-</p><p>stances such as pesticides or foods lacking in nutrients. This is consistent with</p><p>the goal of reducing risk, and reflects compliance with demands of intensive</p><p>mothering in which the mother is independently responsible for the baby’s intake</p><p>and health outcomes (Lee, 2007, 2008; Murphy, 1999, 2000). The theme of con-</p><p>suming compliance is based on the ideology that ‘‘experts’’ know best how to</p><p>minimize risk, and is complicit with demands of intensive mothering which requires</p><p>solicitation of and adherence to expert advice (Hays, 1996; Knaak, 2010; Murphy,</p><p>1999). The fact that doctors and hospital staff (those clearly recognized as autho-</p><p>rities) offer free samples of infant formula, which is widely understood as less</p><p>healthy than breast milk, allows women to construct formula as safe and healthy</p><p>and to view formula-feeding as consistent with being a good mother.</p><p>Although the themes of consuming convenience and frugality may seem to</p><p>contradict the ideology of intensive mothering in a risk society, as desires to save</p><p>time and money seemingly place mothers’ needs above their babies’, we suggest</p><p>they are consistent. Mothers in the study sought pre-made organic foods for con-</p><p>venience or constructed making their own food as convenient. These behaviors</p><p>reflect the use of consumer items to facilitate adherence to intensive mothering</p><p>by minimizing risks of subjecting their babies to potential pesticides in non-organic</p><p>foods. In the theme of consuming frugality, mothers described methods they used</p><p>to balance their own need to reduce spending or work within a particular budget</p><p>with their babies’ need to consume organic foods. Rather than compromise the</p><p>type of food consumed by their babies, mothers reported using coupons, watching</p><p>for sales, and so on in order to purchase the items they wanted at prices they could</p><p>afford. These behaviors are consistent with the ideology of intensive mothering in a</p><p>risk society because mothers are still able to reduce perceived risks associated with</p><p>food, but in order to stay within their budget they must engage in the extra labor of</p><p>coupon clipping, price comparing and watching for sales. These price-shopping</p><p>activities were only taken-up by participants since becoming mothers; thus, they</p><p>are an important component of intensive mothering.</p><p>The final two themes, consuming relationships and self-image, highlight the</p><p>connection between feeding choices and related consumer behaviors, and social</p><p>and self-identities identified in previous research (Knaak, 2010; Lee, 2007, 2008;</p><p>402 Journal of Consumer Culture 13(3)</p><p>Murphy, 1999; Ryan et al., 2010). The fact that feeding practices and related con-</p><p>sumerism—specifically breastfeeding and the corresponding rejection of infant for-</p><p>mula—provided or restricted access to certain social networks illustrates the</p><p>inextricable link between breastfeeding and intensive mothering (Avishai, 2007;</p><p>Knaak, 2010; Marshall et al., 2007; Murphy, 1999, 2000; Ryan et al., 2010;</p><p>Stearns, 2009). Mothers who complied with demands of intensive mothering by</p><p>breastfeeding were granted access to groups of mothers who were similarly com-</p><p>plicit, whereas mothers who did not comply were denied access. This finding builds</p><p>upon previous scholarship in which mothers who formula-feed report feeling</p><p>judged and ostracized by mothers who breastfeed (Lee, 2007), and highlights the</p><p>role of peers in ‘‘policing’’ mothers’ feeding practices. In the theme of self-image,</p><p>the same practices were used to facilitate mothers’ images of themselves as good</p><p>mothers, particularly as mothers who adhere to the attachment parenting philoso-</p><p>phy. These themes highlight the significance of feeding-related consumerism for</p><p>defining who mothers are to themselves and their broader communities.</p><p>Even in the application of new motherhood, purchasing, preparing, and con-</p><p>suming food are as much symbolic acts as they are utilitarian. The current project</p><p>illustrates the multiple meanings new mothers attribute to infant-feeding items and</p><p>illuminates what mothers sought for their babies and selves when making decisions</p><p>among infant-feeding styles and concurrently, food and feeding-related commod-</p><p>ities. The multiple meanings and definitions are consistent with the ideologies of</p><p>intensive motherhood and risk society. Mothers, expected to meet their babies’</p><p>needs, are accountable for being informed consumers and taking precautions in</p><p>response to the multiple risks presumably posed by the dominant food culture.</p><p>This study</p><p>provides important insight into infant-feeding consumerism but is</p><p>limited by the small, homogenous sample used. In particular, our study focused on</p><p>consumption by predominantly white, middle-class, first-time mothers living in the</p><p>southeastern part of the United States. What it means to be a good mother and</p><p>manage risks certainly differs across race, ethnicity, social class, and culture. A</p><p>fruitful area for future research would be to examine how women’s consumption</p><p>patterns are shaped by such factors, especially in terms of how women who are not</p><p>necessarily able or willing to engage in ‘‘intensive mothering’’ resist, comply or</p><p>negotiate expectations borne by dominant cultural discourses surrounding mother-</p><p>ing. Similarly, how women manage risk and construct identities will vary with</p><p>subsequent children, especially if the first child survives infancy without major</p><p>illnesses or problems. Such explorations could provide critical insight into how</p><p>symbolic meanings surrounding consumption are shaped by both individual and</p><p>cultural factors, and whether and how the experiences of the women interviewed in</p><p>our study reflect broader cultural processes.</p><p>References</p><p>Almas R and Lien M (1999) Food quality and risk. Sosiologisk tidsskrift 7(4): 259–263.</p><p>Avishai O (2007) Managing the lactating body: The breast-feeding project and privileged</p><p>motherhood. Qualitative Sociology 30(2): 135–152.</p><p>Afflerback et al. 403</p><p>Babbie E (1989) The Practice of Social Research, 5th edn. Belmont, California: Wadsworth.</p><p>Barthes R (1997 [1961]) Toward a psychosociology of contemporary food consumption.</p><p>In: Counihan C and Esterik PV (eds) Food and Culture: A Reader, 2nd edn. NY:</p><p>Routledge, pp. 28–35.</p><p>Beck U (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.</p><p>Berger P and Luckmann T (1966) The Social Construction of Reality. Garden City, NY:</p><p>Doubleday.</p><p>Charmaz K (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.</p><p>Cook DT (2008) The missing child in consumption theory. Journal of Consumer Culture 8(2):</p><p>219–243.</p><p>Cook DT (2009) Semantic provisioning of children’s food: Commerce, care and maternal</p><p>practice. Childhood 16(3): 317–334.</p><p>DeVault ML (1991) Feeding the Family: The Social Organization of Caring as Gendered</p><p>Work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.</p><p>Enticott G (2003) Risking the rural: Nature, morality and the consumption of unpasteurized</p><p>milk. Journal of Rural Studies 19(4): 411–424.</p><p>Ertem IO, Votto N and Leventhal JM (2001) The timing and predictors of early termination</p><p>of breastfeeding. Pediatrics 107(3): 543–548.</p><p>Glaser BG and Strauss AL (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for</p><p>Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.</p><p>Gubrium JF and Holstein JA (1997) The New Language of Qualitative Method. New York:</p><p>Oxford University Press.</p><p>Hays S (1996) The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood. New Haven: Yale University</p><p>Press.</p><p>Jansson M (2009) Feeding children and protecting women: The emergence of breastfeeding</p><p>as an international concern. Women’s Studies International Forum 32(3): 240–248.</p><p>Knaak SJ (2010) Contextualizing risk, constructing choice: Breastfeeding and good mother-</p><p>ing in risk society. Health, Risk & Society 12(4): 345–355.</p><p>Lee EJ (2007) Health, morality, and infant feeding: British mothers’ experiences of formula</p><p>milk use in the early weeks. Sociology of Health and Illness 29(7): 1075–1090.</p><p>Lee EJ (2008) Living with risk in the age of ‘intensive motherhood’: Maternal identity and</p><p>infant feeding. Health, Risk & Society 10(5): 467–477.</p><p>Lyons K, Lockie S and Lawrence G (2001) Consuming ‘green’: The symbolic construction of</p><p>organic foods. Rural Sociology 11(3): 197–210.</p><p>Marshall JL, Godfrey M and Renfrew MJ (2007) Being a ‘good mother’: Managing breast-</p><p>feeding and merging identities. Social Science & Medicine 65(10): 2147– 2159.</p><p>Moisio R, Arnould EJ and Price LL (2004) Between mothers and markets: Constructing</p><p>family identity through homemade food. Journal of Consumer Culture 4(3): 361–384.</p><p>Murdoch J and Miele M (1999) ‘Back to nature’: Changing ‘worlds of production’ in the</p><p>food sector. Sociologia Ruralis 39(4): 465–483.</p><p>Murphy E (1999) ‘Breast is best’: Infant feeding decisions and maternal deviance. Sociology</p><p>of Health & Illness 21(2): 187–208.</p><p>Murphy E (2000) Risk, responsibility, and rhetoric in infant feeding. Journal of</p><p>Contemporary Ethnography 29(3): 291–325.</p><p>Murphy E (2004) Risk, maternal ideologies, and infant feeding. In: Germov J and Williams</p><p>L (eds) A Sociology of Food and Nutrition. New York: Oxford University Press,</p><p>pp. 200–219.</p><p>404 Journal of Consumer Culture 13(3)</p><p>Oliviera V, Frazao E and Smallwood D (2011) The Infant Formula Market: Consequences of</p><p>a Change in the WIC Contract Brand ERR-124. U.S. Department of Agriculture,</p><p>Economic Research Service.</p><p>Ryan K, Bissell P and Alexander J (2010) Moral work in women’s narratives of breastfeed-</p><p>ing. Social Science & Medicine 70(6): 951–958.</p><p>Sears W and Sears M (1992) The Baby Book: Everything You Need to Know About Your</p><p>Baby From Birth to Age Two. New York: Little, Brown and Company.</p><p>Stearns C (2009) The work of breastfeeding. Women Studies Quarterly 37(3 & 4): 63–80.</p><p>Wall G (2001) Moral constructions of motherhood in breastfeeding discourse. Gender &</p><p>Society 15(4): 592–610.</p><p>Weinstein ND (1980) Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality</p><p>and Social Psychology 39(5): 806–820.</p><p>Author Biographies</p><p>Sara Afflerback initiated this project while earning her MA in Applied Sociology</p><p>from the University of Central Florida. She is currently a Research Assistant at</p><p>Organizational Research Services, an outcome-based planning and evaluation firm</p><p>that offers support to philanthropic, nonprofit, and public policy clients.</p><p>Shannon K. Carter is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of</p><p>Central Florida. Her primary research interests are gender and reproduction,</p><p>with emphasis on narratives of the body. Her work is published in journals such</p><p>as Sociology of Health & Illness, Gender Issues, Sociological Forum and Journal of</p><p>Family Issues. Her current research focuses on public discourses of breastfeeding</p><p>and the impact of race on mothers’ infant feeding experiences.</p><p>Amanda Koontz Anthony is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of</p><p>Central Florida. Her primary areas of interest include social inequalities, culture</p><p>and consumption, identities, and social psychology. A few of her current projects</p><p>include narratives and consumption in identity negotiation, inequalities in market</p><p>representations of ‘‘authenticity,’’ and classification in the arts.</p><p>Liz Grauerholz is Professor of Sociology at the University of Central Florida. Her</p><p>areas of interest include gender, consumption, media, childhood, the scholarship of</p><p>teaching and learning, and animals and society. Her articles have appeared in</p><p>Gender & Society, American Sociological Review, Teaching Sociology, and Gender</p><p>Issues. She co-authored two volumes (Socialization and Stratification & Inequality)</p><p>of the Student Handbook on Sociology (2012) series. Her current research focuses</p><p>upon how institutional factors shape teaching experiences, students’ consumption</p><p>practices, how consumption rituals shape new mothers’ experiences, and interracial</p><p>images in children’s books.</p><p>Afflerback et al. 405</p><p>Copyright of Journal of Consumer Culture is the property of Sage Publications, Ltd. and its</p><p>content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the</p><p>copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email</p><p>articles for individual use.</p>