Article Text
Abstract
The article analyses medical communication in popular media relating to the risks in reproduction in the state-socialist Czechoslovakia between 1948 and 1989 and shows how it used emotions as an instrument to control women’s reproductive behaviour. In particular, we use an approach inspired by Donati’s (1992) political discourse analysis and by Snow and Bedford’s (1988) framing analysis to explore communication on the risk of infertility in the abortion debate, the risk of fetal abnormalities in the prenatal screening debate, and the risk of emotional deprivation and morbidity in infants in the debate on mothering practices. The analysis contributes to the knowledge on how the construction of risk in reproduction, including childcare, serves to create a moral order of motherhood by defining what constitutes ‘irresponsible’ reproductive behaviours and their associated risks, and in doing so may lead to the further marginalisation of already marginalised people. We explain how expert discourse on reproduction and care aimed at the general public worked by constructing risks, a fear of these risks, and women’s responsibility for avoiding them in order to regulate women’s behaviour through self-discipline, which worked alongside other disciplinary techniques. These techniques were applied unequally and mainly to marginalised groups of women, such as women of Roma ethnicity and single mothers.
- Child health
- health care education
- Genetics
- pregnancy
- family planning
Data availability statement
Data sharing is not applicable as no data sets were generated and/or analysed for this study.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
Data sharing is not applicable as no data sets were generated and/or analysed for this study.
Footnotes
Twitter @radka_dudova
Correction notice This article has been corrected since it was first published. All authors' ORCID iDs have now been added.
Contributors Both authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the paper, the acquisition of data and the analysis. The corresponding author, RD was responsible for developing the theoretical framing of the paper and acts as guarantor of the content.
Funding This study was funded by NPO 'Systemic Risk Institute', funded by European Union - Next Generation EU (Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, NPO: EXCELES) (LX22NPO5101).
Competing interests None declared.
Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.