15315-wolbert

Chapter 6 94 ‘anything goes’ in parenting. Also, he leaves space for parents to be dependent on others, and to be uncertain, which, as I have argued elsewhere, seems to be absent from current parenting and educational discourses. 20 Winnicott also makes clear that there might be authorities concerning parenting (i.e. scientific knowledge or experts) but that this need not imply that parents necessarily ought to ‘do’ something with their advice. This brings me to the second aspect I want to discuss, namely how a particular use of language by authorities (either theorists, psychologists, educationalists) brings about a particular vocabulary with regard to flourishing as an aim of education. And, as discussed in chapter 5, claims about parents, such as for example the claim that parents should aim for a flourishing life for their children, might be internalised by parents. These claims can subsequently be perceived as things they (have to) expect of themselves. It is for an important part up to how these claims are described, that is, in which way it is made clear (by which authority and in what sense it is taken for granted) what ‘task’ is assigned to parents. Ramaekers and Suissa, for example quote Stadlen, who argues that: One difficulty is that as soon as a psychiatrist or researcher has invented a word, he then goes on to show how important it is for mothers and babies to do whatever his word describes. (..) It is they who define what the ‘task’ is. This kind of writing turns mothering into a minefield, with “experts” to guide mothers through the danger areas, instead of mothers guiding the researchers and – most important – using their own language. Surely no mother ever invented pseudo-scientific terms like ‘bonding’ or ‘attachment parenting’, or ‘entrainment’. Mothers talk about love. 21 I found a comparable remark in Winnicott’s book where he comments on breast feeding and states his preference for ‘natural’ feeding (not feeding on a time schedule, but whenever the baby indicates that it’s hungry, which was a hot debate at the time of writing (1964)). He is clear in his preference for natural feeding and its advantages for the establishment of the mother-child relationship, but he insists that ‘even the idea of natural feeding would be harmful if it were to become a thing to be consciously aimed at, because it was said to be good by the authorities’. 22 In terms of (aiming for) flourishing, I have heard mothers and fathers say things like that their reason for bringing their child to day care, is that it ‘will give them a head start in their social development’ (which is crucial for their future flourishing, to finish the thought), or that they let 20 See Wolbert 2018. 21 Stadlen 2004, p. 22, cited in Ramaekers and Suissa 2012, p. 67. 22 Winnicott 1964, p. 49.