Stigma Management among the Voluntarily Childless

Individuals who choose not to be parents are viewed in terms of negative stereotypes and experience social pressures to alter or justify their status. Data were collected from in-depth interviews with twenty-four voluntarily childless women and men and a focus group that included seven of the interviewed individuals. Inductive analysis discovered the techniques that individuals used, in self-interaction and social interactions with various audiences, to manage stigmatized identity and preserve a good self. Strategies included passing, identity substitution, condemning the condemnors, asserting a right to self-fulŽllment, claiming biological deŽciency, and redeŽning the situation. Primarily defensive, reactive techniques accepted pronatalist norms, intermediate techniques challenged conventional ideologies, and proactive techniques redeŽned childlessness as a socially valuable lifestyle. Use of these strategies was part of the “identity work” that individuals engaged in to reject discreditable identities as voluntarily childless individuals. Individuals who possess a stigmatized identity are faced with the ongoing tasks of accepting it themselves and negotiating it in interactions with others who may view their character and behavior as incomprehensible, strange, or immoral. One less acknowledged basis on which individuals are stereotyped is family size, deŽned by the number of children that they are raising through birth, adoption, foster parenthood, or stepparenthood or by whether they are voluntarily or involuntarily childless (Callan 1985; Ganong, Coleman, and Mapes 1990; Mueller and Yoder 1997; Polit 1978). This article examines techniques used by voluntarily childless women and men to validate and manage their deviant identity in a pronatalist social context. The major analytic framework is Goffman’s (1963) discussion of information control among individuals with discreditable identities. Sykes and Matza’s (1957) “techniques of neutralization” for those violating dominant norms and Scott and Lyman’s ([1968] 1981) “accounts” that are used to excuse or justify behavior are also applied. Other scholars generally have analyzed volun* Direct all correspondence to: Kristin Park, Department of Political Science and Sociology, Westminster College, New Wilmington, PA 16172; e-mail: [email protected]. 22 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume 45, Number 1, 2002 tary childlessness as deviant behavior or as a stigmatized identity (see esp. Veevers 1972, 1975, 1980; Mueller and Yoder 1999). I extend this discussion by applying identity management techniques to actual self and social interactions, as well as by identifying additional strategies that emerged from the data. PRONATALISM AND SOCIAL EVALUATIONS OF THE VOLUNTARILY CHILDLESS As Veevers (1980) has observed, the deviance of the voluntarily childless lies not only in the fact that they do not have children, but primarily, and especially for women, in the fact that they do not want them.1 This is in contrast to the involuntarily childless, who embrace the parenting role in principle. Furthermore, deviance is perceived not only in terms of this action but also in terms of the total personalities of the childfree (Houseknecht 1987; Veevers 1980). Goffman (1963:5) made the same point, observing that once individuals have been stigmatized “we tend to impute [to them] a wide range of imperfections on the basis of the original one.” Negative evaluations of the intentionally childless derive from a social environment that continues to be strongly, albeit sometimes subtly, pronatalist. Heitlinger, writing in a context focusing on women’s experiences, deŽned pronatalism as an ideology that implies encouragement of all births as conducive to individual, family and social well-being (De Sandre 1978:145). Pronatalism can then be seen as operating on several levels: culturally, when childbearing and motherhood are perceived as “natural” and central to a woman’s identity; ideologically, when the motherhood mandate becomes a patriotic, ethnic or eugenic obligation; psychologically, when childbearing is identiŽed with the micro level of personal aspirations, emotions and rational (or irrational) decision-making (by women or couples)[;] . . . and on the level of population policy, when the state intervenes, directly or indirectly, in an attempt to regulate the dynamics of fertility and to inuence its causes and consequences. (1991:344–45) A pronatalist context offsets the advances of more reliable contraceptives and expanding female work opportunities that make childlessness possible and desirable for women and, to a lesser extent, for men. Procreation within marriage traditionally has been prescribed by all major religious groups (Veevers 1980), has been seen as a central developmental stage in adulthood (Duvall 1962; Gutmann 1975), has been seen as conferring full adult status and as demonstrating patriotic citizenship (Tyler May 1995), and has even been associated with sexual competence (Veevers 1972) and good health (Rainwater 1965). Furthermore, pronatalist pressures may have been stronger in the 1990s and at the turn of the twenty-Žrst century than they were thirty to forty years ago in the United States. Voluntary childlessness received some cultural support from the political movements of the 1960s and 1970s, including the early years of the second wave of feminism, environmentalism, zero population growth, and the movement for reproductive choice, as well as the New Left’s renunciation of 1950s domestic ideology (Tyler May 1995). The spirit of the times was reected in Stigma Management among the Voluntarily Childless 23 the 1971 publication of Ellen Peck’s The Baby Trap, which exhorted women to forgo mothering in favor of marital and sexual satisfaction. In 1972 Peck and other childless advocates founded the National Organization for Non-Parents (NON), which raised consciousness about rampant pronatalism, environmental destruction, and the beneŽts of a childfree lifestyle. For the Žrst time women began to speak openly about their fears or convictions that mothering could not be combined well with career ambitions (Tyler May 1995). The organization attracted about two thousand members in its heyday in the mid-1970s, although it never became a truly viable political movement (Lisle [1996] 1999). The lesser inuence or changed focuses of these movements today combine with political and social emphases on “family values” to remove the voluntarily childless option from cultural discourse. Lisle ([1996] 1999) argued that rising pronatalism in the 1980s was needed to nudge ambivalent or delaying aging baby boomers into parenthood. When combined with projections of population decline’s negative effects on the economy and the nation, such appeals were ultimately successful. In addition, motherhood is now more available to women traditionally excluded from the status for biological or social reasons, especially infertile women and lesbians and other women outside of traditional family structures. This increasing availability of motherhood intensiŽes pronatalism until very few are exempt from its inuence (Lisle [1996] 1999). Snitow (1992) and Orenstein (2000) have described how medical information is a new weapon used against younger women, who are told that to delay for “too long” or to be childless is to risk becoming infertile or contracting endometriosis or reproductive cancers. DaCosta (1995) argued that for single women in their twenties, the romantic ideal of marriage has been replaced by the ideal of traditional motherhood, which is seen as producing self-nurturance and providing the all-encompassing love they do not expect to Žnd with a man. Drawing on a snowball sample of two hundred interviews with young women throughout the United States, Orenstein (2000) concluded that for most the childless choice is unfathomable, full of fears of social isolation and of the need to constantly justify that choice. Of course, generalized pronatalism exists alongside selective antinatalism in the contemporary United States. That is, dominant cultural norms and government policies discourage childbearing among young and unmarried women, with substantial state resources allocated to preventing teenage pregnancy. Antinatalism also discourages low-income individuals, lesbians and gay men, and physically and mentally disabled individuals from becoming parents. The persistence of pronatalist beliefs is evident in the negative evaluations of the voluntarily childless that are documented in many studies (Callan 1985; Ganong, Coleman, and Mapes 1990; Houseknecht 1987; Mueller and Yoder 1997; Polit 1978; Veevers 1980). Such stereotypes constitute in part the “stigma theory” or ideology that “normals,” in this case individuals who are or plan to be parents, construct of stigmatized individuals, in this case the intentionally childless (Goffman 1963:5). In a study of family size stereotypes, Polit (1978) discovered that the voluntarily childless and parents of one child were rated most negatively by residents of two representative American communities, with the former rated slightly more nega24 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume 45, Number 1, 2002 tively than the latter. Compared to parents, the voluntarily childless were seen as less socially desirable, less well adjusted, less nurturant, and more autonomous, and respondents expressed a desire for more social distance from them. Women were viewed slightly more negatively than men. Using Australian respondents and a methodology that allowed subjects to provide relevant psychological dimensions, Callan (1985) discovered that overall, the fewer children one had, the fewer attributions of positive personality traits one received. The voluntarily childless were seen as more likely to be materialistic, selŽsh, individualistic, and career oriented than the involuntarily childless and than parents. There were no signiŽcant differences in the evaluations received by women and men. In a review of twenty-six documents on family structure stereotypes, Ganong, Coleman, and Mapes (1990) concluded that overall, parents were not perceived more positively than nonparents, except when compared to the voluntarily childless. The authors maintained that increasing variation in family structure has not translated into greater tolerance for members of different family forms, as the traditional nuclear family is still perceived most positively. They suggested further that stereotypes related to competence may be less pronounced than personalitybased stereotypes. In contrast to the above Žndings, Shields and Cooper (1983) discovered that childless undergraduates exhibited no stereotyping of a hypothetical “intentionally childfree” woman, who was evaluated only slightly less positively than a happy pregnant woman and much more positively than an unhappy pregnant woman. Respondents of both sexes believed that the childless woman had a happy marriage, saw her own life as exciting and rewarding, and would be a good parent were she to have children. It is difŽcult to interpret these anomalous results. Perhaps the students’ strongly negative images of the unhappy pregnant woman deected criticism that otherwise might have been targeted at the childfree woman. Mueller and Yoder (1997) surveyed college undergraduates’ stereotypes of the personal characteristics of women who conformed to or deviated from current family size norms (deŽned as two-children families). Respondents evaluated “voluntarily childfree” women less favorably than normative (two-child) mothers on six of eleven personal characteristics, and they described childfree women’s lives as less rewarding than those of all the mothers presented. Childfree women also were judged to be less happy in the near future and in their elderly years than were mothers. In contrast to previous Žndings, single-child mothers were evaluated positively, as were mothers of eight children, although the latter were no longer gloriŽed. As Ganong, Coleman, and Mapes (1990) have suggested, the childfree may be more negatively evaluated on personality dimensions than on measures of competency, as childless women in particular may be seen as more instrumental than expressive in orientation. Etaugh and Kasley (1981) examined this issue using undergraduate evaluations of a job application and an article written by a hypothetical applicant. They discovered that applicants without children (who were not, however, identiŽed as voluntarily childless) were generally rated higher than applicants with children, with female respondents rating childless female Stigma Management among the Voluntarily Childless 25 applicants as more dedicated than female parents. Male applicants without children were seen as more effective in changing opinions than were fathers, and articles by married childless applicants received higher ratings than articles by married parents. This Žnding relates to Goffman’s (1963:49–50) concept of the perceived focus of a stigmatized attribute, that is, “conceptions, whether objectively grounded or not, as to the sphere of life activity for which an individual’s particular stigma primarily disqualiŽes him.” For example, a “normal” might not hesitate to visit a childless physician but might be skeptical about a childless individual’s capacity for friendship, due to the status’s perceived effects on personal warmth and generosity. There is little empirical support for the existence of common stereotypical traits among the childfree, particularly among childfree women, who have been more often studied (Landa 1990; Mueller and Yoder 1999). Exceptions exist on the characteristics of autonomy and career orientation. Childfree women have been found more autonomous than women in other parent status categories (Burnside 1977; Houseknecht 1977). Findings on autonomy for males are limited but mixed. Magarick and Brown (1981) found voluntarily childless men more independent than fathers in their decision making, but Silka and Kiesler (1977) found no difference. Career commitment, measured either directly or inferred from high levels of education and occupational status, consistently has been found to be related to voluntary childlessness for women (Bachu 1999; Jacobson and Heaton 1991; Nason and Poloma 1976). Intentionally childless men appear to have more varied levels of career commitment than their female counterparts or than fathers (Jacobson and Heaton 1991; Veevers 1980). Deviant reference groups are needed to uphold social norms (Durkheim [1895] 1982), in this case the norm of parenthood and convictions of its “naturalness,” “rightness,” and “selessness.” Merton (1968) observed that nonconformity is sanctioned even by “orthodox” members of the social system who have no social relations with the nonconformist and little to lose by his or her violation of role expectations. According to Merton, this sanctioning arises from the threat that such deviance is seen to represent to cherished moral values. Indeed, Polit (1978) argued that negative labeling of voluntary childlessness and of other nonnormative family structures (e.g., one-child families) may serve as a mechanism to enforce parenting and the creation of families of particular sizes. Veevers (1972) suggested that parents Žnd the voluntarily childless threatening as their lifestyle challenges parents’ sense of distributive justice, their convictions that the rewards of their choice offset the sacriŽces and that marriage and children are the best routes to personal happiness. Stigmatization of the intentionally childless also may stem from the association of their lifestyle with growing individualism, family breakdown, and the predominance of impersonal, rationalized roles and relationships in society. McMahon (1995) argued that motherhood is juxtaposed to this backdrop and symbolized as caring, tenderness, and self-sacriŽce. Since children are also constructed as sacred objects, with their concerns deŽned as dominant social problems, mothers are idealized as “guardians of the innocent” (p. 190) and motherhood emerges as a signiŽcant moral enterprise, although one that is seen as increasingly threatened. 26 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume 45, Number 1, 2002 Houseknecht (1982) invoked Becker’s (1960) concept of “normative reactions to normlessness” to argue that in the late 1970s renewed concern over the health of the traditional family diminished both the practice and the acceptance of intentional childlessness. This argument seems equally relevant in the early twentyŽrst century. While the rhetoric of committed fatherhood dominates today, research continues to discover the greater importance of the parent identity and role for women than for men, even when men perceive themselves as very invested in their children (Hochschild 1989; McMahon 1995). Although Žndings are not entirely consistent, child-free women appear to be more stigmatized for their childlessness than do their male counterparts (Goetting 1986; Houseknecht 1987). This Žnding makes sense as motherhood is seen as the very essence of femininity and healthy, mature womanhood, whereas masculinity continues to be deŽned fundamentally by occupational achievement. In addition, women generally may be more likely than men to be labeled as norm violators (Schur 1983). How do the voluntarily childless themselves perceive how they are viewed by others? While most studies have indicated that the childfree perceive negative social evaluations and report pressures to alter their status (Ainsworth 1995; Mueller and Yoder 1999; Somers 1993), awareness does not always translate into concern about these judgments (Callan 1983b; Houseknecht 1977; Veevers 1980). Houseknecht (1977) discovered that although both women intending to remain childless and those desiring children were aware of negative sanctions for childlesslessness, the Žrst group was signiŽcantly less affected by them, because of their greater autonomy. In addition, a variety of coping strategies, including support networks, are used to discredit the discreditors and construct an alternative worldview that preserves a good self. INCIDENCE AND TRENDS IN VOLUNTARY CHILDLESSNESS Computing rates of voluntary childlessness is difŽcult, complicated by the need to distinguish voluntary and involuntary statuses, expected versus actual childlessness, and the existence of different marital statuses. The childless population includes those who are physically unable to have children, those who are temporarily childless, and those who are childless by choice. It also is important to distinguish the expected childlessness rates of wives and women of all marital statuses, as rates are signiŽcantly higher for nonmarried women, who include widowed, divorced, separated, and never-married women. Finally, some studies compute statistics on women across the childbearing years, whereas others limit their investigation to women of later childbearing age. Abma et al. (1997) concluded that 8.9 percent of all women between 15 and 44 in 1995 were and expected to remain childless. Of this total group, 6.6 percent were voluntarily childless, as they were either fecund or contraceptively sterile. This represents an increase from the 4.9 percent in 1982 and 6.2 percent in 1988 of all women who were voluntarily childless. Focusing only on women in their later childbearing years, Bachu (1999) documented that childlessness among all women ages 40 to 44 in 1998 nearly doubled between 1980 and 1998, increasing Stigma Management among the Voluntarily Childless 27 from 10 to 19 percent during this period. Clearly, many more women experience actual childlessness as they approach the end of their childbearing years than expect to remain childless when questioned earlier in life. Examining only ever-married women ages 40 to 44, Bachu (1999) concluded that their actual childlessness rates doubled from 7 percent in 1980 to 14 percent in 1998. This percentage includes both chosen and involuntary childlessness. Yet childlessness declined among never-married women, from 79 percent in 1980 to 67 percent in 1998. Today childlessness also appears to be decreasing somewhat among later-born baby boomers (Bachu 1999). Finally, examining only currently married women, DeFrain and Olson (1999:315) concluded that 9.3 percent of wives between the ages of 18 and 34 do not expect to have children (see also U.S. Bureau of the Census 1994:83). As the data suggest, the contribution of voluntarily childless women to the childless population as a whole has been increasing. Examining data from the mid-1970s, Mosher and Bachrach (1982) concluded that only 2.2 percent of fecund, ever-married women ages 15 to 44 were and expected to remain voluntarily childless. Whereas in the 1970s voluntarily childless women constituted 12.4 percent of the total childless population, in 1990 they increased to 25 percent (Abma and Peterson 1995). The increase in the percentage of voluntary childlessness reects a decline in involuntary childlessness due to less sterility from sexually transmitted diseases, improved treatments for infertility, and overall better health (Heaton and Jacobson 1999; Steffes 1997–2001). In summary, although rates of voluntary childlessness have seen a slight increase, this choice is still relatively rare. This rarity contrasts with higher projections made in the 1970s and 1980s based on improved contraceptive availability and women’s increasing educational attainment and labor force participation. It demonstrates that the childless by choice seldom encounter each other by chance and that individuals of all parent statuses may only rarely interact with someone whom they know to have or who admits to having made this decision. These conclusions are important in interpreting the discussion below of social interactions between the childless by choice and other individuals.