Death without weeping: an anthropologist’s account
In her research carried out in the shantytown of “Bom Jesus” in Northeastern Brazil, anthropologist Nancy Scheper-Hughes (1993) discovered a startling situation: very high rates of infant mortality combined with an apparent indifference on the part of mothers toward the deaths of their infants. Further study revealed that the high expectancy of child death shaped thoughts and practices of motherhood. In this way, being a ‘good mother’ in Bom Jesus meant delaying attachment to some infants because of the belief that certain infants ‘wanted’ to die and so ought to be helped in their journey heavenward through neglect. When these so-called ‘angel babies’ died of starvation or dehydration brought on by neglect, mothers did not mourn their infants.
Scheper-Hughes attributed this, in part, to the political and economic context in which the women of Bom Jesus carried out their lives, with extreme poverty being an important factor. Additionally, socially and culturally, this kind of maternal care and reaction to infant death was accepted and encouraged and grounded in religious beliefs. Scheper-Hughes’ findings may be difficult to fathom for those of us raised in the US, a society in which the death of a child is believed to be perhaps the most devastating loss for an adult. Yet Scheper-Hughes’ study also provides a framework for a brief analysis of how our own culture grapples with certain issues around infant death.
Technology and fetal life in the US
In contrast to the delayed attachment to infants found by Scheper-Hughes among the impoverished mothers of Bom Jesus, which she termed a “slowness to anthropomorphize” (1993:412), it could be argued that in US society, maternal attachment to infants often begins much earlier, while the baby is still in the womb. Any woman who has gone through pregnancy in recent times can attest to being inundated with information about her fetus early in pregnancy; mothers often track their babies’ growth and development through popular books such as “What to Expect When You’re Expecting” as well as a multitude of pregnancy websites. Furthermore, standard prenatal care includes monthly visits to medical professionals early in pregnancy and technology is often used to enable the mother to view her baby in utero and listen to the heartbeat.
At the same time, advanced technologies for testing fetuses for abnormalities has become a widespread and routine part of prenatal care for American women. Parents whose tests reveal abnormalities or defects are faced with choices on whether to continue the pregnancy or abort the fetus. Despite the fact that selective abortion does occur in some of these cases, an air of secrecy and social stigma pervades the topic. A survey of prominent health websites (including CDC, NIH, and March of Dimes) is evidence of this; many sites discuss prenatal tests in depth but none mention selective abortion as an option for parents faced with a poor diagnosis. Yet selective abortion in cases of poor prenatal diagnosis is relatively commonplace, as evidenced by a review of Internet-based support groups for parents who have made or are dealing with such decisions (see, for instance A Heartbreaking Choice, Termination for Medical Reasons Group, and Poor Prenatal Diagnosis). Thus, like in Bom Jesus, it can be argued that motherhood in our own culture may also involve making decisions about child survival.
Selective abortion choices
However, important differences arise when we investigate the social, economic, and cultural conditions in which decisions about selective abortion are made. Unlike in the shantytown of Bom Jesus, in the US we have means to support the lives of infants born with many kinds of disability and thus the economic dimensions of selective abortion seem to play a reduced role in the decision-making process. Further, while in Bom Jesus delayed attachment and indifference to infant death was culturally accepted and mediated through a number of social practices, in our own society the silence around selective abortion would indicate that the practice is not widely accepted and is the subject of social stigma and taboo. Cultural ideas around the ‘rightness’ or ‘wrongness’ of selective abortion are thus hidden from public discussion. Further research is needed with parents and the broader society to elucidate the cultural elements that shape selective abortion practices. These might look at understandings around disability and deficiency, issues of ‘rights’ to life, and morality. Finally, while Scheper-Hughes concludes that mothers of Bom Jesus genuinely do not mourn their dead infants, it is clear through reviewing Internet support groups that many parents who choose to abort fetuses due to poor prenatal tests experience a great deal of pain and grief over the decision and loss of their child.
Uncovering the taboo
The rapid technological advances that enable US mothers to develop attachments early in pregnancy to their fetuses also often place them in positions in which they must make difficult decisions about the lives of unborn children. Although in some cultural contexts, maternal decisions around infant death and reactions to infant death have become acceptable and the subject of social thoughts and practices, it would appear that in the US the relatively common practice of selective abortion due to poor prenatal diagnosis is a taboo topic. This reality implies that studies need to be carried out to better understand the cultural, social and economic dimensions of selective abortion in the US.
Work referenced
Scheper-Hughes, Nancy. 1993. Death Without Weeping: The Violence of Everyday Life in Brazil. Berkeley: University of California Press.
I like the tie you made between Bom Jesus mothers and mothers who make decisions to abort their fetuses in the U.S. Since the economics are strikingly different, what theoretical perspectives might you employ to explain the differences and similarities between these two cultural approaches to death/life?