Couples’ Transitions to Parenthood:

Gender, Intimacy and Equality Charlotte

Faircloth
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/couples-transitions-to-parenthood-gender-intimacy-an
d-equality-charlotte-faircloth/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Women Doing Intimacy: Gender, Family and Modernity in

Britain and Hong Kong 1st ed. Edition Stevi Jackson

https://ebookmass.com/product/women-doing-intimacy-gender-family-
and-modernity-in-britain-and-hong-kong-1st-ed-edition-stevi-
jackson/

Woman 99 1st Edition Macallister Greer

https://ebookmass.com/product/woman-99-1st-edition-macallister-
greer/

Gender Equality in Changing Times: Multidisciplinary

Reflections on Struggles and Progress 1st ed. Edition
Angela Smith

https://ebookmass.com/product/gender-equality-in-changing-times-
multidisciplinary-reflections-on-struggles-and-progress-1st-ed-
edition-angela-smith/

The Moral Foundations of Parenthood Joseph Millum

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-moral-foundations-of-
parenthood-joseph-millum/
Feminist Framing of Europeanisation: Gender Equality
Policies in Turkey and the EU 1st Edition Rahime
Süleymano■lu-Kürüm

https://ebookmass.com/product/feminist-framing-of-
europeanisation-gender-equality-policies-in-turkey-and-the-
eu-1st-edition-rahime-suleymanoglu-kurum/

Lobola (Bridewealth) in Contemporary Southern Africa:

Implications for Gender Equality 1st ed. 2021 Edition
Lovemore Togarasei (Editor)

https://ebookmass.com/product/lobola-bridewealth-in-contemporary-
southern-africa-implications-for-gender-equality-1st-
ed-2021-edition-lovemore-togarasei-editor/

Reinventing Couples: Tradition, Agency and Bricolage

1st Edition Julia Carter

https://ebookmass.com/product/reinventing-couples-tradition-
agency-and-bricolage-1st-edition-julia-carter/

Woman 99 Greer Macallister

https://ebookmass.com/product/woman-99-greer-macallister/

Monetary Transitions: Currencies, Colonialism and

African Societies 1st Edition

https://ebookmass.com/product/monetary-transitions-currencies-
colonialism-and-african-societies-1st-edition/
Couples’
Transitions to
Parenthood
Gender, Intimacy
and Equality

Charlotte Faircloth
Couples’ Transitions to Parenthood
 Charlotte Faircloth

Couples’ Transitions
to Parenthood
Gender, Intimacy and Equality
Charlotte Faircloth
University College London
London, UK

ISBN 978-3-030-77402-8    ISBN 978-3-030-77403-5 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77403-5

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2021
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither
the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been
made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
For Amol (with love, and remarkably little fury)
 Preface

This book presents findings from a research project with couples (in
London, UK) as they become parents. The argument is that new parents
are caught in an uncomfortable crossfire between two competing dis-
courses: those around ideal relationships and those around ideal parent-
ing. On the one hand, they should be committed to being ‘equal partners’.
On the other, they should be parenting their children ‘intensively’, in ways
which are markedly more demanding for mothers. Reconciling these ide-
als can be difficult, and, as the book explores, has the potential to create
resentment and disappointment.
Drawing largely on the narratives of couples who have faced relation-
ship difficulties, the book points to the social pressures at play in raising
the next generation at material, physiological and cultural levels. These are
explored through concrete practices, linked to physiology by varying
degrees: birth, feeding and sleeping, three of the most highly moralised
areas of contemporary parenting culture.

London, UK Charlotte Faircloth

vii
 Acknowledgements

First thanks, of course, to the couples who shared their accounts of becom-
ing parents with me. This project really would be nothing without them.
It would also have been nothing without the Leverhulme Trust, which
funded the research whilst I was an early career fellow at the Centre for
Parenting Culture Studies at the University of Kent. That project was
under the mentorship of Ellie Lee, someone who has remained a constant
source of support and guidance throughout my career.
I’m particularly grateful to those colleagues I have been lucky enough
to collaborate with in recent years, or who have been kind enough to give
me feedback on drafts of this book—Jennie Bristow, Zeynep Gürtin,
Rachel Rosen, Ann Oakley and especially Katherine Twamley. At Palgrave,
thank you to Amelia Derkatsch for prompting me to submit a proposal, to
Linda Braus for seeing it through to production and to the anonymous
reviewers for their feedback. A final thanks to Eliana Johnson-Leighton,
who worked with me as a student research volunteer during a summer at
UCL, providing much-needed support with the analysis of a rather copi-
ous number of narratives.
To my children, this book would no doubt have been published much
faster without your arrival, but thank you for putting some practice
into the theory, confirming that no amount of research can really prepare
anyone for parenthood. And, for confirming that no amount of work
can get done without childcare (especially in 2020–1), a heartfelt thank
you to Claire Carson.

ix
 Contents

1 Introduction  1

Part I Context  19

2 Theoretical Context 21

3 Political and Methodological Context 51

Part II Practice  75

4 Birth 77

5 Feeding 91

6 Sleeping107

7 Conclusion135

Author Index153

Subject Index155

xi
 About the Author

Charlotte Faircloth is Associate Professor of Social Science in the Social

Research Institute at University College London (UCL), UK. From soci-
ological and anthropological perspectives, her work has focused on par-
enting, gender and reproduction using qualitative and cross-cultural
methodologies. This research has explored infant feeding, couple relation-
ships, intergenerational relations and, recently, the impact of coronavirus
on family life. Her first monograph, Militant Lactivism? Attachment
Parenting and Intensive Motherhood in the UK and France, was published
in 2013. She also co-authored Parenting Culture Studies in 2014. She is
co-editor of the volumes Parenting in Global Perspective: Negotiating
Ideologies of Kinship, Self and Politics (2013), Feeding Children Inside and
Outside the Home: Critical Perspectives (2018) and, most recently,
Conceiving Contemporary Parenthood: Imagining, Achieving and
Accounting for Parenthood in New Family Forms (2021).

xiii
 List of Figures

Fig. 3.1 Study participants 57

Fig. 3.2 The mental load: A feminist comic 70

xv
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Changes to what has been termed ‘Parenting Culture’ have now become
a well-established field of social science scholarship (Faircloth, 2013; Hays,
1996; Hendrick, 2016; Lee et al., 2014; Nelson, 2010). This scholarship,
largely based on research in Euro-American settings, has called attention
to an ‘intensification’ of parenting in the last 40 years, suggesting that rais-
ing children has become, culturally at least, a more demanding and com-
plex task.
So far, the majority of research in this area has looked at the effect of
these changes on individuals, and particularly on women. Mothers (more
than fathers) are recognised as increasingly ‘torn’ by the competing expec-
tations to parent intensively on the one hand, whilst participating in the
labour market on the other (Hays, 1996; Miller, 2005). More recent work
has documented the experiences of men grappling with shifting ideals of a
more intensive ‘involved’ fatherhood (Dermott, 2008; Miller, 2011;
Shirani et al., 2012). No research to date, however, has explicitly looked
at the impact of these changes on couples.
Focusing for the first time on couple relationships in the context of an
intensified parenting culture, this book reports on a longitudinal study
with 20 couples becoming parents (in London, UK) over a five-year
period. This is a particularly interesting historical moment at which to
observe couples’ experiences of the transition to parenthood as, at the
policy level, there has been a growing commitment to gender equality,
especially insofar as childcare responsibilities relate to men and women’s

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1

Switzerland AG 2021
C. Faircloth, Couples’ Transitions to Parenthood,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77403-5_1
2 C. FAIRCLOTH

career prospects and ‘work-life-balance’ (see Miller, 2017). Parental leave

and ‘flexible working’ are two of the key policy responses, under the aus-
pices that sharing the responsibility for childcare traditionally assumed by
women will reduce gender differentials in terms of career progression and
pay (O’Brien & Wall, 2016). The couples were all professionally employed,
and the vast majority were heterosexual first-time parents, one of whom
were still at the stage of ‘trying’ for a baby. However, 5 of the 20 couples
had a deliberately different profile: some were second-time parents, one
couple had twins, another were in a co-parenting relationship as a gay
couple with a ‘single’ mother and the last were a lesbian mother family
(Fig. 3.1 in Chap. 3 explains this further).
The research shows that new parents are caught in an uncomfortable
confluence between two competing discourses: those around ideal rela-
tionships and those around ideal parenting. On the one hand, they must
be committed to egalitarian ideals about being ‘equal partners’. On the
other, they must be parenting ‘intensively’, in ways which are markedly
more demanding for mothers, and which makes paternal involvement in
particular more complicated.

Relationships End, But Children Are ‘Forever’

Drawing largely on the narratives of couples who have faced relationship
difficulties, this book points to the social pressures at play in raising the
next generation at material, physiological and cultural levels. As Collins
has noted, there is a contradiction at the heart of many couple relation-
ships, and therefore many contemporary families: a tension between the
aspiration for self-realisation through individualism (the freedom to ‘be
myself’) on the one hand and commitment through coupledom and par-
enthood (a desire to ‘make a life’ with someone) on the other
(Collins, 2003).
Before children, couples are arguably temporary; individuals are more
important than relationships, which exist—in theory at least—only as long
as they work (Beck & Beck-Gernsheim, 1995). But children are ‘forever’.
The extraordinary cognitive dissonance provoked by having a child, and
the sense of being tied into something permanent, understandably takes
some acclimatisation. Furthermore, as one mother in this study said, it was
birth and early motherhood that made her ‘see’ her gender for the first
time, in that her bodily difference to her husband suddenly seemed to
‘matter’ more than it had in the past. Indeed, whereas physiological
 1 INTRODUCTION 3

difference or roles associated with specific genders might potentially be

downplayed in the time before children arrive, during the perinatal period
each parent is likely undergoing a deep (re-)gendering. All of these factors
considered, it is not surprising that the transition to parenthood creates a
complex of feelings on both sides, bound to cause at least some disruption.
This is not a new subject for academic research. Indeed, the idea that
parenthood disrupts marriage and is incompatible with romantic relation-
ships goes back at least to LeMasters in 1957, and there was a large body
of work on the transition to parenthood beginning at around that time,
much in the US but also in the UK. Perhaps most famous in the UK was
the work of Ann Oakley in the ‘Becoming a Mother’ study which com-
menced in 1974. The resultant books, From Here to Maternity, published
in 1979, and Women Confined: Towards a Sociology of Childbirth (1980),
highlighted the ‘shock’ of childbirth in forcing couples, especially women,
to acknowledge the divergence between expectations and reality, and to
realise that equality between men and women did not exist. Women
Confined in particular examined the theme of shock and analysed it in rela-
tion to women and the diagnosis of postnatal depression, contextualising
it thus:

the crushing numbness that can follow a birth over which a mother feels she
has little control; the cumulative insult of multiple, poorly explained techni-
cal procedures; the extraordinary (but yet ordinary) isolation and exhaus-
tion of finding oneself suddenly in charge of another human life. (Oakley,
2018 [1979], p. vii)

This ‘extraordinary (but yet ordinary) isolation and exhaustion’ reso-

nates with other work in the area since (see, for example, Asher, 2011;
Maushart, 1999; Miller, 2007, 2017; and also Fox’s When Couples Become
Parents: The Creation of Gender in the Transition to Parenthood (Fox,
2009) to which this book pays homage by echoing the title). The original
‘Becoming a Mother’ study was repeated 37 years later with many of the
same women, which prompted similar interesting temporal comparisons
about changes in the management of childbirth as women reflected on
how different things were (or are) for their own daughters, as well as
around the sociology of memory (Oakley, 2016). Whilst much had
changed about motherhood (mothers in general being older, a higher
proportion of same-sex couples and a more routine use of technologies
such as ultrasound and caesarean section), it was notable how much had
4 C. FAIRCLOTH

stayed the same. Feelings of alienation due to the medicalisation of child-

birth and the ‘shock’ many women experienced seemed uncannily similar,
a feature that was ‘just as prominent in the second study as in the first’
(2018 [1979], p. ix).
Another important theme to emerge from these later studies was
around the shifting role of the partner. Whilst there was a great degree of
continuity in the views expressed about partner relationships in the stud-
ies, there was greater surprise in the later ones at how the addition of a
baby changed many partner relationships towards more traditional gender
roles (around the division of labour, paid employment, personal interests
and so on), something that was not always anticipated or welcomed by the
women in an era of supposed ‘gender equality’ (see also Miller, 2017). In
line with this, there was an increased emphasis on the lack of indepen-
dence, which many women described as frustrating (Brunton et al., 2011,
p. 24). As such, this study recognises these historical continuities around
the transition to parenthood, at the same time as calling attention to
changes in the conception of both parenting and personhood which might
make this shift more acute today.
Tensions around lack of independence might be said to be a reflection
of shifting conceptions and expectations of personhood, or indeed wom-
anhood itself. As numerous scholars have discussed, our biographies in
recent years have increasingly become ‘choice biographies’, as part of an
era in which an overarching discourse of individualism within wider soci-
ety, where individuals are increasingly expected to ‘fulfil’ but also regulate
themselves through carefully curated life trajectories, behaviours and
choices (Butler, 2020; Beck & Beck-Gernsheim, 1995; Faircloth & Rosen,
2020). This can create discord when it comes to couple and family rela-
tionships, in that there can be difficulty in reconciling tensions between
partnering and parenting which are based on investments and commit-
ments beyond individual choice. That is, whilst becoming a parent can be
read as an exercise in ‘self-expression’ (particularly in the current historical
moment), it is also about a moral responsibility beyond the self (Ruddick,
1995; see also Doucet, 2015). To this end the book takes a relational per-
spective in understanding subjectivities within a family context, to try and
take a holistic view of how, why, when and with what implications people
within families make decisions that they do.
Certainly, a tension between the desire to ‘be oneself’ and ‘make a life’
with someone is as difficult to resolve, if not more difficult, for contempo-
rary ‘equal partners’, than ever. All of the couples I spoke with in the
 1 INTRODUCTION 5

course of the research would describe themselves as committed to gender

‘equality’ (or rather, none would say that they were against it). But what
was interesting was that, in spite of this, all of them were ‘gender tradi-
tional’ in that mothers tended to take longer periods of leave than fathers,
and scale back working commitments further down the line—and this is in
spite of the fact that the period in which these couples became parents for
the first time was during the advent of first ‘Additional’ Paternity Leave
and then ‘Shared’ Parental leave (see discussion in Chap. 2). Paying close
attention to how they talked about and understood equality in their rela-
tionships, I outline a typology in development with Twamley (see Twamley,
2020; Faircloth, 2020) to suggest a loose grouping into those couples
who talked about equality in terms of ‘fairness’ (a general principle as to
how to treat a partner) and ‘balance’ (in an overall sense, including cases
where each member of the couple ‘takes turns’ to take the lead on respec-
tive roles of working and caring). These are in contrast to those who talked
about it as ‘breaking gendered roles’ (e.g., men doing care work) or
‘50/50’ (with each member of the couple doing the same tasks to the
same degree.) Those in the latter group were most likely to talk overtly
about their commitment to equality, and relatedly, about their desire to
split their parental leave, for example, so that each member of the couple
took some sole responsibility for childcare (even if this did not actually
materialise in practice).
One of the most illuminating aspects about the design of this study was
being able to trace how expectations around parenthood and the division
of care matched up with reality (or rather, did not). What emerged is that
those couples who were most strongly committed to equality in general
(and ‘50/50’ in particular) were also those who were most disappointed
in terms of how things worked out in practice. Due to their resources—as
households with comfortable incomes, professional, flexible jobs and with
high levels of social capital—these are the couples who should be most able
to balance these competing demands of discourses around ‘good parent-
ing’ and ‘equal partnership’, and yet they, particularly the women, seemed
to be the ones who are most exasperated by the situations they find them-
selves in. To put it another way, why was it that so many of the well-­
educated, professionally employed, middle-class mothers I spoke to in the
course of this research were so frustrated?
One idea explored in the book is that underlying ideas about equality
(and particularly one concerned with ‘50/50’) is a highly individualised
understanding of subjectivity, as opposed to a more ‘relational’ one. The
6 C. FAIRCLOTH

suggestion is that this leads to a more ‘tit-for-tat’ rubric in relationships in

terms of how fairness is understood, calibrated and processed. This is espe-
cially hard to reconcile in the period of early parenthood when gender
difference is suddenly so ‘obvious’ and the edicts of a culture of intensive
motherhood reign with such ferocity.

Overview
Throughout the book, extended vignettes from three first-time, hetero-
sexual couples illustrate the larger themes around gender, intimacy and
equality which are explored in the research as a whole. The vignettes sit
outside the usual chapter-based structure and can be read separately from
the normal narrative flow. Including these extended narratives in an
unbroken fashion is one of the huge privileges of publishing research find-
ings in a monograph rather than in shorter articles, building over the
course of the book as a whole to provide an in-depth, rich and detailed
picture of the workings of couple relationships over a prolonged and criti-
cal period. The couples featured are those who struggled the most to
reconcile the competing narratives around relationships and parenting,
and who suffered the greatest relationship breakdown. They are not
intended to be representative of the sample, nor, as a qualitative study, is
the sample intended to be representative of the wider population. Indeed,
the accounts in this book are those of a highly privileged, largely white,
middle-to-upper-income group of participants, and the workings of inti-
macy and inequality in less privileged households cannot be extrapolated
to here. However, given all of the resources at the disposal of the couples
featured, these extended narratives arguably both magnify and clarify ten-
sions faced by couples making the transition to parenthood today: the
‘ideal’ of the reflexive, pure relationship is revealed to be very hard work,
particularly after the arrival of children, as it makes absorbing the practical
difficulties—and joys—of life extremely difficult.
By way of background, the first chapter reviews the literature on cur-
rent parenting culture and relationships, pointing to some of the contra-
dictions between them. The second chapter gives an overview of the
political context into which new babies are born in the UK, including the
kind of parental leave or childcare their parents can expect (if any). This
chapter also provides a discussion of the methodological design of the
study, following 20 sets of parents intensively during pregnancy and the
first year of their child’s life, and then intermittently for the next five years.
 1 INTRODUCTION 7

The three central substantive chapters—which draw on the accounts by

all couples in the sample—take as a starting point the practices (and the
issues which flow from them) of birth, feeding and sleep, three heated top-
ics in contemporary parenting culture. These are ‘practices’ of parenting
which to varying degrees are unavoidable, and on a sliding scale of physi-
ology. Birth might be said to be nearly 100% physiological (particularly as
all mothers in this sample were birth mothers, and no babies were adopted
or conceived via surrogacy, for example). By contrast, feeding is only
potentially constrained by physiology, if women are breastfeeding or
expressing milk, or if doing either of these in combination with the use of
formula milk. Sleeping practices, by contrast, are not necessarily tied to
physiology at all—although often seem to be. As such, these three prac-
tices provide an interesting spectrum which are highly physiologically con-
strained at one end, and more socially constrained at the other (although
of course these overlap, as will become evident). Secondly, these are topics
that are discussed at length by professionals and experts, and which are
central to contemporary social policy, connecting to debates around gen-
der, workload distribution and intimacy. Finally, birth, feeding and sleep
can also be seen as the first major parenting issues, again which are dealt
with as varying matters of urgency. They are practices which help establish
a pattern of behaviour between parents—namely who, how, when and
why one or other parent will respond. As work on the ‘structuring prin-
ciple’ suggests, it is also the case that these early patterns can be extremely
difficult to break (Searing et al., 1973).
By way of conclusion, the book returns to ideas about equality, subjec-
tivity and relationality, pointing to some of the problems that arise when
people (individuals, couples or parents) have to live and create meaning in
their lives when normative assumptions are contradictory.

Vignette 1: Anthony and Claudia

I first met Anthony and Claudia at their house in South London, when
Claudia was eight months pregnant with their first child. At that time, she
worked as an academic at a central London university, whilst Anthony
worked in the city as an IT manager. They were a high-earning and well-­
educated couple (Anthony earned more than Claudia, but their household
income was around £150,000), who were highly reflexive. In our meet-
ings (four in-person, joint interviews over the course of the next 12
months, followed up by email exchanges two-and-a-half, and five years
8 C. FAIRCLOTH

later) they demonstrated time and again how central the issues of this
study—gender, intimacy and equality—were to their everyday negotia-
tions and conversations.
Anthony and Claudia met at university, and were together for a long
time before getting married and deciding to have children; they felt that
they had to ‘get over themselves’ as 30-somethings before they felt ‘able
to accommodate somebody else in the relationship’. From the outset, it
was clear that independence was something that they valued—they
socialised separately a lot and as Claudia explained at our first meeting, the
ideal of independence (which she held dear) was something that troubled
her with regards to their imminent arrival:

I’m part of this generation…I suppose, who hate the idea of children. It’s
sort of a disgusting thing that they’ll come and, you know, infringe on your
life…me and my friends are all very sort of independent, and independence
has been so valued through our childhoods…and so, and it’s seen as a really,
really bad thing to have anybody who’s dependent on you. So, in relation-
ships…and all my girlfriends and I would always establish this thing, ‘you
must never have someone who’s dependent on you’, that’s the sort of the
revolting thing to happen and you should get rid of them immediately. And
as an extension of that it feels like you’re not really allowed to have children
either because they’re also dependent on you and that’s like…not a very nice
thing to happen.

This concern about maintaining independence segues into Claudia’s

views on gender equality in the context of their relationship, which she
saw as under threat from the heavier physical burden carried by mothers in
terms of gestating, birthing and caring for children—albeit one which was
‘socially shaped’ in terms of the role expectations that came with it:

I mean we’ve definitely had a lot of discussions about how it works gender
equality-wise and what gender equality actually means, because I’m carrying
the baby and I’m allowed time off…And so, right from the start, you’ve got
this gender imbalance which I really struggled with. You know…Anthony’s
sort of point here [is] ‘well, of course you’re not equal because you are bio-
logically different’. So then, what is equality in this instance? I’m still not
convinced about how much of that is socially shaped, and how much of that
is absolutely has to be that way biologically…at the beginning I was saying,
well, ‘if we bottle feed the baby there isn’t any reason that he should be
more dependent on me than on you because we’re both feeding him and
 1 INTRODUCTION 9

what’s the difference?’, you know, we could say there is absolutely no differ-
ence, we could do exactly 50/50, or you could do more than me
[to Anthony].

This concern with equality was baked into their plans to become par-
ents—Claudia agreed to try to conceive a child if her husband signed up
to the idea of ‘splitting things 50/50’ once she had returned to work after
a six-month maternity leave, with each of them working a four-day week
and providing childcare on the fifth day. (Whilst this couple did know
about the possibility of splitting parental leave, at this point it would have
meant Anthony only being eligible for three months of statutory pay, with
no top-up from his employer, and this was deemed unaffordable).
Although Anthony was hesitant about the chances of his boss agreeing to
him moving his role from five to four days a week, Claudia said that this
arrangement was important, not only for equality reasons but also because:

I’m a kind of controlling person so I could end up just saying, ‘that’s not
how you do it’, if I’m there all the time, and I could end up like in that situ-
ation where I’m resenting Anthony and so on…I am one of those high
achieving people who probably would get…I have the potential to get very
like ‘into’ it. So I have to—we have to—put in place things that will stop me
from doing that and that will allow Anthony to have direct control over this
situation as well.

During that first interview, just before the birth of their first child, this
was a couple that was highly committed to ideals of equality, with the
intention that care for the baby, including feeding, be split ‘as evenly as
possible’, particularly after the initial period of maternity leave. In fact,
even during this period, although Claudia thought there was too much
‘propaganda’ about breastfeeding, she intended to express breastmilk in
parallel with breastfeeding, so that her husband could ‘do his share’. Once
they were both back at work, they would split everything at night (unless
the other person is having a day ‘off’ with the baby the next day in which
case that person would take the lead). As such this maps onto the ‘50/50’
iteration of equality mentioned in the introduction. At the same time,
Claudia also expressed an affiliation to the idea of ‘breaking gendered
roles’ as a marker of equality—although interestingly, this was something
which was more obviously a point of contention between them. Anthony
said, for example:
10 C. FAIRCLOTH

And we were talking about things like, what colour would you paint the
room? What would you dress them in? And, you know, you [Claudia] said,
‘I don’t, if we have a girl I don’t want everything to be pink and ponies and
stuff, it has to be, you know, allow them, not, give…and then I said ‘I want
them to have enough structure so they have something to work with. So,
dress the boy in trousers, give him a train set but don’t suppose that he’s
automatically going to want to play with a train set, he may want to play
with an action man, or some sort of doll or, you know, be a, provide a kind
of an expected structure but not necessarily hold him to it.

Asked about plans for her maternity leave, Claudia said: ‘I guess we’re
just going to see…But [at least after these conversations] I think that I’m
now in the position where I do genuinely believe that he really does want
to be involved, because before I really was…I was like, yes, maybe you’re
just saying it and really you just want to recreate the scenario of your own
childhood where your mum did everything.’ They were hoping for a
waterbirth in their local hospital, and to avoid ‘too many interventions’,
particularly an epidural.
So what happened?
I went back to the house when their son—James—was 12 weeks old
exactly. It was around 7 pm at night, and Claudia held the baby through-
out the interview, moving him to a sling at one point to help him sleep; his
jabs that day had apparently made him a bit more cranky than usual. We
started with the birth, which did not go as anticipated—but was in fact the
only one in Claudia’s NCT (National Childbirth Trust antenatal child-
birth education) group of six mothers that did not end in Caesarean sec-
tion or forceps delivery.
Claudia had a long labour, over 53 hours, which included an induction
with pessaries and then a drip, an episiotomy and an epidural (something
she felt ‘guilty’ about and which had added complications due to spinal
fluid leaking so badly she had to stay prone for four hours). Shortly after
the birth, she haemorrhaged so badly that she was rushed into emergency
theatre—it turned out that some of the placenta was still inside her uterus.
A few weeks later, she developed an infection of the uterus in addition to
a Strep B infection. She described these early days as a ‘continuous physi-
cal onslaught’.
In the midst of the ‘onslaught’, feeding the baby was far from simple.
She tried breastfeeding after birth, but her nipples bled so badly she had
to express milk using the hospital pumps—her milk came in early (on day
 1 INTRODUCTION 11

two) but pumps were in short supply, her breasts became engorged, and
she was sent home, with a view to being able to express better there (albeit
with a question mark over her own need for a blood transfusion at this
point). Her husband was very active in helping getting the baby latched
on to feed in the early days, especially as Claudia was too weak to even sit
up for long periods. However, she ‘persevered’ with breastfeeding through
‘tremendous pain’ (‘my whole body would…I screamed. Sometimes I
couldn’t hold the head’), often expressing and bottle-feeding which was
marginally less painful.
Even once breastfeeding was established, the baby was regularly dis-
tressed when feeding. On seeking support for these issues, the couple
received a huge amount of conflicting advice as to the cause: Thrush and
lip tie were diagnosed and treated to little effect; Claudia restricted her
diet to control for intolerances such as dairy; Reynard’s disease was sug-
gested, in conjunction with vasospasm, but the anti-hypertensive she was
prescribed resulted in horrendous headaches. At nearly nine weeks in, she
said it felt like things were ‘getting so extreme’ that they decided to give
the baby some formula. However, being advised to try and wean their son
off the bottles of expressed milk so that he more readily took the breast, at
this point, the baby refused to take a bottle (of formula or expressed milk).
His weight started to plateau.
In conjunction with a GP (‘the only person, really, who’s given any sup-
port to me, as an individual, not as a breastfeeding mother’) who told
Claudia to try different types of bottle and different varieties of formula,
they eventually managed to find some sort of compromise, and it turned
out that the baby had a cow’s milk allergy coupled with possible reflux. At
our 12-week interview, feeding continued to be a trial, with the baby fuss-
ing, back-arching and regularly upset. At this point, he fed at least eight
times in 24 hours (every feed was logged in a spread sheet), though
Claudia worried that she had created a ‘horrible environment’ for him,
and ‘guilty’ about making this ‘awful awful decision’ to use formula. She
was cross that this was something she was confronted with every time she
looked at a packet of baby milk, where the law required a public health
message about the benefits of breastfeeding be listed. She was also angered
by well-meaning friends who asked if she had ‘tried a local breastfeeding
café?’ or any implication that she had been ‘a wuss’ for ‘giving up’.
As planned, Anthony continued to go to the office at similar hours to
before, with Fridays at home where possible to ‘help’, but Claudia’s days
had ‘no routine’ at all. She read numerous books and realised that the
12 C. FAIRCLOTH

baby ‘should be sleeping in his cot’ for naps, but so far was only able to
sleep in the sling that she wore, which felt like ‘a cheat’. Nights were very
broken, and being so tired, she felt ‘no capacity to make any decisions at
all’. She hated not being able to follow up with work requests about some
of her publications more efficiently, and had several people waiting on her
emails. Claudia’s mother was able to come to London one day a week to
help, but she felt she needed ‘way more help than she realised’. Her in-­
laws offered, but this was not deemed a viable option.
One Friday when Anthony was at home, Claudia went to get her hair
cut, only to receive a phone call from Anthony shortly into the appoint-
ment, saying that the baby would not take a bottle, and ending with
Anthony driving down to the hairdresser so that she could (breast)feed.
This left her feeling ‘very much the key player’ in spite of their intentions
to be ‘equal partners’, saying to her husband: ‘if you can’t look after him,
you will bring him to me…I am in charge’. She commented (again, it is
worth reiterating that this was an in-person, joint interview):

it does feel so unfair that I’m at home and Anthony’s not, particularly now
when there’s no reason that it could be either of us who’s at home [now that
the baby is on formula milk]. And I know that’s a really horrible thing to say
’cause it makes it sound like I don’t like being with James. But it’s a
really…it’s really intense. It’s really, really hard work. But it’s really, really
mundane and boring. It’s really hard because it’s unrelenting and you are
completely out of control of it, which doesn’t suit me.

Although the baby went on to sleep in a separate room (with a monitor

on, always by Claudia’s side of the bed), there was little time for intimacy;
Claudia remained ‘obsessed’ by making sure the baby was asleep and
‘obsessed’ by ‘how many mills [millilitres] of food’ he had. ‘Any intimate
time…[would] distract me from my task at hand’, she said. Anthony felt
grateful for the ‘redundant intimacy’ that comes in long-term relation-
ships: ‘You know it’s there but…you don’t really have to work to maintain
it’ (to which Claudia replied, ‘We’re taking it for granted’).
When I next saw this couple, James was six and-a-half months old.
Claudia had returned to work, and the couple employed a nanny three
days a week (rather than use a nursery as anticipated)—Claudia was using
Annual Leave to look after the baby on Fridays, whilst her mother looked
after him on Mondays. Anthony, however, was at home full time, having
been made redundant shortly before Claudia went back to work. After
requesting to move to a four-day week, his boss felt that he ‘didn’t have
 1 INTRODUCTION 13

the commitment he wanted from me’, and he was told his position was
impossible to accommodate in shorter hours. He received a generous
financial package, and was taking some time off over the Christmas break
before looking for a new job in earnest in the New Year. As Claudia said,
they decided that they had to keep the nanny, who had just started before
this news, because Anthony needed the time to apply for new roles, and in
case he was offered something starting immediately. However, she had
been ‘feeling very jealous of this scenario because I didn’t get to do any of
this stuff [like play tennis, as Anthony now does regularly]’.
With her return to work on the horizon, and their nanny wanting to
know what sort of routine James was on, the couple had decided that the
‘sleep situation’ was something they needed to tackle. James at this point
was having four naps a day, for which he would need to be rocked to sleep,
often for up to 30 minutes at a time, and often waking as soon as he was
put down. During the night at around five months old, he would wake up
numerous times, and ‘we would spend an hour, sometimes two hours,
each time he woke up in the night, holding him until he went to sleep. Put
him down, he’d wake up, hold him again. Put him down. He’d wake up.
Hold him again’. They undertook some ‘sleep training’—a regimen with
a basic rule that the baby needed to be able to settle himself to sleep from
being awake. They read several books before finding an approach which
suited them, and although it was ‘awful’, because the baby cried to begin
with, this resulted in much better sleep all round. Coupled with this,
James had recently been weaned onto solids and seemed more settled
digestively, although he still vomited regularly.
At our final formal interview, when James was just over a year old,
things had changed again. Anthony had had six months out of paid work,
seven including parental leave. He had a new job, for five days a week,
whilst Claudia normally worked a four-day week as originally planned,
with a grandmother taking care of James on a Monday, and a nanny share
for the three remaining days. She said:

[It’s] just an unrealistic hope that Anthony could find a job that was going
to fulfil him, which is still really important, and enable him to be able to do
a four day week. It was a nice idea. I felt let down by it because I wanted
Anthony to stick to it because that was our pact before we had a baby, that
we’d do that, and I felt like he was letting me down but having now seen
how difficult the job market has been, how difficult it is to get any job, the
fact that Anthony’s got a job which is really good for him and is the ideal
job, then it doesn’t matter.
14 C. FAIRCLOTH

James was sleeping better than he did before, and his problems with
feeding had continued to settle. Claudia tended to attend to him in the
night as she was ‘better’ at soothing James than Anthony, and because she
had been at work, she felt ‘happier’ to do it because she missed him.
Claudia felt happy that Anthony has at least had some days (before starting
his new job) where he had been in sole charge of the baby. This, however,
was something Anthony struggled with, for fear that people would look at
him and think, as he put it, ‘why is that man pushing that pram and why
the hell isn’t he at work?’
Whilst they felt that time for ‘intimacy’ was lacking, with Claudia feel-
ing ‘alienated’ from her body, the couple continued to be very communi-
cative and reflexive about their relationship, especially around the question
of equality. Claudia clearly had to do some cognitive work to reconcile her
ideals around equality with the way things had worked out. Here, we see
her shift her ideals around equality from ‘50/50’ to one more aligned
with ‘balance’, thereby maintaining the idea that this is an ‘equal’
partnership:

Anthony was saying isn’t it really important that I’m bringing money into
the house and I was like, ‘No, that’s not what matters to me’…That’s not
what makes you an active participant in terms of equality. What I had been
saying before is equality is if you also feed James and do all of these things
and then you know what it’s like, then you can do the same thing…[now,
I’m saying] what Anthony brings is a very different thing but it’s still equally
important.

I received no response from this couple when I checked in when James

reached the age of two-and-a-half years; in time it emerged that they had
a second son at around this time. At the five-year check-in, however,
Claudia responded by email and told me that the couple had separated
several times. She linked this to some of the feeding practices they fol-
lowed with their second son:

I breastfed Alex [their second son] until he was 18 months old and this was
blamed by everyone for why he didn’t sleep so well (he continued to not
sleep well when I stopped, though), and I was told I had ‘made my bed’ so
I deserved to be woken continuously by him and deserved to have to not
only feed him but settle him, which would take 1–3 hours each time, after
which he would only sleep for 1–2 hours. It was utterly exhausting and took
everything out of me, and yet I was expected to be performing motherly
 1 INTRODUCTION 15

duties to my other child, and on top wifely duties to my husband who com-
plained of the lack of intimacy and I think justified him deciding to switch
off entirely from our relationship and fantasise about being out of it and
with other people. The whole thing has been utterly heart breaking and
devastating.

She also reflected on how much she ‘gave’ to the baby during this
period, saying that she wished she had been a bit more laissez-faire with
her approach to parenting:

that’s one of my regrets, when [my first son] was small, he could’ve sat in his
bouncy chair and I could’ve done my hair but I didn’t want to split my
attention from him because I thought that would damage him for life. So
it’s just mental and you completely neglect yourself…[and] then you just
judge everybody else because they’ve managed to put some makeup on!

Claudia linked some of their discord to the fact that, by this point, she
was earning more than her husband:

intimacy is now a luxury, equality is far more acutely negotiated, and gender
has become much more obvious in terms of expectations…Anthony became
very distressed because of my attention going to the children, and became
resentful of me which created a very difficult atmosphere which affected not
only our relationship but our family unit. Unwittingly, I think the children
became competition for my attention in our relationship. It remains unclear
how women can live up to all the expectations, not just with work, but with
partners who also need their support e.g. in periods of unemployment. I do
feel this fell a lot on my plate as a woman—and was expected not only in our
nuclear family but also by our own families, who continued to promote the
idea that any father doing more than they did in the 80s was a bonus. Not
starting from equality but from stark inequality. Like, ‘women working is a
luxury and even a cause of the problem, being selfish’. While of course this
was necessary financially but this somehow is hidden and unspoken because
it is uncomfortable to talk about a woman being the breadwinner, even
between us in our house. There was a lot of dancing around issues and
treading on eggshells with each of these issues you list: gender, intimacy and
equality. I think you anticipated exactly the key issues that can be faced,
which are made very acutely problematic when we are in the employment
situations of this time.
16 C. FAIRCLOTH

At a more recent check-in, while writing this book, I found that the
couple were living separately, with Claudia looking after the children for a
majority of the time.
Re-reading our interviews, it is striking how dominant Claudia’s voice
is in the accounts—it is rare that her husband proffers an opinion on any-
thing without taking the lead from his wife, or being contradicted by her
when he does. Indeed, in the quotes, only a small number come directly
from Anthony, and even then they are usually follow-ups to something
Claudia has said. (As I explore further in the section on methodology, this
may of course say something about the research environment and the
gender of the researcher as much as the couple themselves.)
It is also noticeable here that the spoken commitment to ‘equality’ is
not reflected by the contribution of both partners to their accounts of
parenting. What this book tries to do is explore how ‘ideals’ of equality
mesh with contemporary couples’ experience of becoming parents for the
first time; how they weather the conflicts between ‘independence’ and
‘nurturing’ (as Claudia puts it), by looking closely at issues around birth,
feeding and sleep; and how, therefore, the issues of gender, intimacy and
equality play out in the lives of new parents.

References
Asher, R. (2011). Shattered: Modern motherhood and the illusion of equality.
Harvill Secker.
Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (1995). The normal chaos of love. Polity.
Brunton, G., Wiggins, M., & Oakley, A. (2011). Becoming a mother: A research
synthesis of women’s views on the experience of first-time motherhood. EPPI-Centre.
Butler, J. (2020). The force of non-violence: An ethico-political bind. Verso Books.
Collins, M. (2003). Modern love: An intimate history of men and women in twenti-
eth- century Britain. Atlantic Books.
Dermott, E. (2008). Intimate fatherhood: A sociological analysis. Routledge.
Doucet, A. (2015, February). Parental responsibilities: Dilemmas of measurement
and gender equality. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77, 224–242.
Faircloth, C. (2013). Militant lactivism? Infant feeding and maternal account-
ability in the UK and France. Berghahn Books.
Faircloth, C. (2020). When equal couples become unequal partners: Couple rela-
tionships and intensive parenting culture. Families, relationships and societies,
Online First.
Faircloth, C., & Rosen, R. (Eds.). (2020). Childhood, parenting culture, and
adult child relations in transnational perspectives. In Families, relationships and
societies (Volume 9, Issue 1).
 1 INTRODUCTION 17

Fox, B. (2009). When couples become parents: The creation of gender in the transi-
tion to parenthood. University of Toronto Press.
Hays, S. (1996). The cultural contradictions of motherhood. Yale University Press.
Hendrick, H. (2016). Narcissistic parenting in an insecure world. A history of par-
enting culture 1920 to present. Policy Press.
Lee, E., Bristow, J., Faircloth, C., & Macvarish, J. (2014). Parenting culture stud-
ies. Palgrave Macmillan.
LeMasters, E. (1957, November). Parenthood as crisis. Marriage and Family
Living, 19(4), 352–355.
Maushart, S. (1999). The mask of motherhood. The New Press.
Miller, T. (2005). Making sense of motherhood: A narrative approach. Cambridge
University Press.
Miller, T. (2007). ‘Is this what motherhood is all about?’: Weaving experiences
and discourse through transition to first-time motherhood. Gender & Society,
21(3), 337–358.
Miller, T. (2011). Making sense of fatherhood. Cambridge University Press.
Miller, T. (2017). Making sense of parenthood: Caring, gender and family lives.
Cambridge University Press.
Nelson, M. (2010). Parenting out of control: Anxious parents in uncertain times.
New York University Press.
O’Brien, M., & Wall, K. (2016). Fathers on leave alone: Setting the scene. In
M. O’Brien & K. Wall (Eds.), Fathers on leave home alone: Work-life balance and
gender equality in comparative perspective. Springer.
Oakley, A. (1979). Becoming a mother (later republished as From Here to
Maternity). Martin Robertson.
Oakley, A. (1980). Women confined: Towards a sociology of childbirth. Martin
Robertson.
Oakley, A. (2016). A small sociology of maternal memory. The Sociological Review,
64, 533–549.
Oakley, A. (2018). From here to maternity: Becoming a mother. Re-issue.
Policy Press.
Ruddick, S. (1995). Maternal thinking: Toward a politics of peace. Beacon Press.
Searing, D., Schwartz, J., & Lind, A. (1973). The structuring principle: Political
socialization and belief systems. The American Political Science Review,
67(2), 415–432.
Shirani, F., Henwood, K., & Coltart, C. (2012). Meeting the challenges of inten-
sive parenting culture: Gender, risk management and the moral parent.
Sociology, 46(1), 25–40.
Twamley, K. (2020). ‘She has mellowed me into the idea of SPL’: Unpacking
relational resources in UK couples’ discussions of Shared Parental Leave uptake.
Families relationships and societies, Online First.
 PART I

Context

Introduction to Part I
The following section outlines two fields of academic scholarship—inti-
mate relationships and parenting—to make the argument that contempo-
rary couples are caught in an uncomfortable confluence between
competing narratives of family life.
The field of Parenting Culture Studies is informed by the insight that
‘parenting’ (as opposed to child-rearing) has become a hugely expanded
task in recent years, replete with a multimillion-pound industry of advice
and support. Underlining the emergence and popularisation of develop-
mental psychology, this chapter shows how parenting has become a more
‘intensive’ activity for parents, particularly mothers, than it was a generation
ago, with infant experience understood as having life-long consequences.
It has been observed that in recent years the word ‘parent’ has shifted
from a noun denoting a relationship with a child (something you are),
to a verb (something you do) (Lee et al., 2014). Goffman’s concept
(1959) of ‘identity work’—the narrative processes of self-making that
mothers and fathers engage in as they account for their parenting prac-
tices—helps us understand the significance of this linguistic shift for the
experience of parents. ‘Parenting’ is now cast as an occupation: the ‘most
important job in the world’, and something in which adults (particularly
mothers) are expected to be emotionally absorbed and become personally
fulfilled. It is also a growing site of interest to policymakers in the UK,
understood as the cause of, and solution to, a wide range of social ills (Lee
et al., 2014). The ‘ideal’ parenting promoted by these policymakers is
20 Context

financially, physically and emotionally ‘intensive’. Parents (again, namely,

mothers) are encouraged to spend a large amount of time, energy and
money in raising their children (Hays, 1996).
The ‘permanence’ of parenting is contrasted with literature around
ideal (couple) relationships which instead endorse notions of equality, inti-
macy and fluidity, in line with the ‘reflexive modernisation’ thesis (Beck &
Beck-Gernsheim, 1995). An overview of these two bodies of literature, as
well as the policy context around parental leave and childcare (particularly
the low take-up for ‘shared’ parental leave, the current policy iteration)
sets the scene for the chapters which follow, outlining how the contradic-
tion between these two ‘ideals’ is experienced by contemporary couples in
the UK in terms of their experience of birth, infant feeding and sleeping.

References
Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (1995). The normal chaos of love. Polity.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday.
Hays, S. (1996). The cultural contradictions of motherhood. Yale
University Press.
Lee, E. Bristow, J., Faircloth, C., & Macvarish, J. (2014). Parenting
culture studies. Palgrave Macmillan.
 CHAPTER 2

Theoretical Context

Couple Relationships and Ideals of Equality

Work by Giddens (1992), Bauman (2003), Beck (1992), Beck and Beck-­
Gernsheim (1995) and others (Illouz, 2007) has explored shifting rela-
tionship patterns in the contemporary age. Broadly speaking, this body of
work argues that, in an age of ‘reflexive modernisation’, there has been a
shift away from traditional, patriarchal couple relationships, based on an
inherent inequality between men and women, towards a more equitable,
mutually fulfilling model, accompanied by the rise of a more ‘plastic’ sexu-
ality in particular (Giddens, 1992). Sex, now ‘liberated’ from reproduc-
tion by contraception has, he suggests, become more democratised for
men and women, and means that women in particular are able to express
themselves erotically in ways completely unlike the past. In terms of rela-
tionships, Giddens argues that in the late twentieth century, in the place of
traditional patterns of marriage for example, individuals became more
aware of the need for a fulfilling relationship, based on ‘confluent love’,
one that is active and contingent. As part of a wider culture of ‘individuali-
sation’, independence within relationships is highly valued. The ‘pure rela-
tionship’, which is not bound by traditional notions of duty and obligation,
has come to depend, instead, on communication, intimacy and a sense of
equality.
Taking a more critical stance, Illouz has argued that ‘equality’ is itself
an internally contradictory concept, in that it has been modelled on

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 21

Switzerland AG 2021
C. Faircloth, Couples’ Transitions to Parenthood,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77403-5_2
22 C. FAIRCLOTH

rational, economic systems of bargaining and exchange, indicative of a

‘cold’ intimacy and a turn towards an ‘emotional capitalism’ more widely
(Illouz, 2007). This leads to what she calls ‘romantic suffering’, in that
wider social structures (including marriage) are in contradiction with the
‘quest for love’, and that this is internalised as disappointment and per-
sonal failing. In an era where choice in partner is (apparently) more free
and open, Illouz’s work has pointed to the gendered nature of this ‘roman-
tic suffering’, in that women are disadvantaged by being more family ori-
ented, and ‘need’ to find a partner within a specific physiological timeframe,
unlike men who have more flexibility (2012). Further, the separation of
romantic relationships from wider social and moral structures, manifest in
increasing freedom in our choice of partner for example, means that even
‘love’ itself has become individualised, rationalised, an ‘object of endless
investigation, self-knowledge and self-scrutiny’ (2012, p. 163) and a
lonely site for self-validation, again to which women are, culturally, more
vulnerable. However, while the research here presents evidence for Illouz’s
assertion that ‘love hurts’ (2012), it also points to the limits of an analyti-
cal focus on individual or self-reflexive ‘choices’, to bring relational ten-
sions around partnering and parenting to the fore.
Indeed, since the publication of these ‘individualisation’ theories of
modern intimacy scholars working in the field of personal life have argued
for a more nuanced perspective, grounded in the realities of everyday
experience, which is often less equitable than either theory or legislation
might suggest (Smart, 2007). As Gillies (2003, p. 2) states, concepts of
‘individualisation’ and ‘democratisation’ that underpin theories of inti-
macy are much debated, ‘with many disputing the claim that personal
relationships have become more contingent, negotiated and self-directed’.
In short, whilst discourses around ideal relationships may have changed,
practices have not kept pace (Jamieson, 1999)—precisely the gap this
book seeks to explore.
Although Jamieson is critical of Giddens’s argument regarding the
emergence of the pure relationship, she agrees that disclosing intimacy
and equality is an ideal within contemporary relationships, through which
individuals narrate and idealise their own aspirations (see also Twamley on
the ideal of love in relationships, 2012). Jamieson observes, therefore, that
in heterosexual relationships, much ‘creative energy is deployed in disguis-
ing inequality, not undermining it’ (1999, p. 485, emphasis added). This
chimes with work by numerous scholars (see, for example, Van Hooff,
2011), who argue that in (heterosexual) relationships it is typical to find
 2 THEORETICAL CONTEXT 23

both male and female participants claiming that women have ‘higher stan-
dards and are more competent performers of household chores, and that
the division of labour is practical, based on the hours worked by both
partners’ (Van Hooff, 2011, p. 19). Importantly, however, what I am
interested in here is not the actual amount of time spent by each couple
member per se on particular domestic or parenting related tasks, so much
as participants’ perceptions of the amount of work they do compared with
their partners, and ‘how this is reconciled with discourses of equality’ (Van
Hooff, 2011, p. 21). This is important: in their study drawing on Swedish
data regarding housework and rates of divorce, Ruppanner et al. (2018)
make a related point that it is not the unequal division of labour between
couples in itself which causes conflict, but rather the lack of recognition
with regard to that inequality that leads to lower relationship satisfaction.
So how do these messages about ‘good relationships’ being based on
equality intersect with messages about ‘good parenting? Collins (2003)
has pointed out, for example, that in post-industrialised settings, whilst
(some) couples might live relatively equal lives before having children,
parenthood accentuates the gendered division of labour and still has the
potential to divide egalitarian couples along more traditional lines. Where
independence and equality might be hallmarks of ideal contemporary rela-
tionships, parenthood is marked by ideals of obligation and permanence
(Beck & Beck-Gernsheim, 1995). As they argue, the understood irrevers-
ibility of a kinship tie with a child sits uncomfortably with a more ‘plastic’
approach to relationships. In line with this thesis, Roman observes in her
study of couples becoming parents in Sweden that her study participants
perceived children and parenting to be risk-filled projects in relation to
self-realisation, but also the couple relationship (2014, p. 454). To this
extent, many couples are in the paradoxical situation of seeing marriage,
cohabitation and parenthood (and lack of opportunity for an ‘indepen-
dent life’) as a threat to that very family life, in that they might lead to
relationship breakdown.
At the same time, in a culture which shuns permanence and commit-
ment for the sake of self-fulfillment, there is something existentially appeal-
ing, relaxing, even, about a relationship that is beyond the remit of
personal preference, and therefore the parent–child relationship is one suf-
fused with deep meaning (Beck & Beck-Gernsheim, 1995; Ribbens
McCarthy & Edwards, 2002). I turn now to consider social science work
in this area to help ‘think through’ the implications for couples when they
become parents, and the shift towards creating something ‘permanent’.
24 C. FAIRCLOTH

Contemporary Parenting Culture

Across the world, and across history, parenting has long been subject to
moralising and guidance (Hardyment, 2007; Faircloth, 2013). However,
as becomes rapidly apparent to those who start to research the way that
any routine aspect of bringing up children is discussed, a distinctive lan-
guage is now used to describe these activities. If one looks, for example, at
the question of how to discipline children, this is rarely conceptualised as
a community task or responsibility of adult society as a whole where cul-
tural, moral or religious norms are foundational. Instead, it is an individ-
ual- or family-based ‘parenting strategy’, focused primarily on changing
parental behaviour (so as to discourage spanking or shouting at children,
for example) (Daly, 2010; Reece, 2013). There are ‘parenting manuals’,
‘parenting guides’, ‘parenting classes’ and ‘parenting education’ that all
purport to be able to improve matters in this area of the everyday life of
parents (Beck & Beck-Gernsheim, 1995).
A central source of scholarship for what has been termed Parenting
Cultures Studies (see Lee et al., 2014; Macvarish and Martin, 2021) is to
understand the development, usage and meaning of this terminology—
noting that the use of the term ‘parenting’ as opposed to ‘child-rearing’
indicates a privatisation and individualisation of the responsibility for chil-
dren away from the wider community and into the realm of the private
family. From this point of view, a trajectory towards placing particular
significance on the role and contribution of the parent, using their ‘skills’
to ensure a child’s ‘successful life’, has a long history. It is at least as old as
industrialisation, and, as Sharon Hays (1996) details, it may be considered
that the basis for contemporary parenting culture lies in the working
through of the separation of ‘the family’ from the wider economy and
society. This ‘separate spheres’ thesis, whilst having important implications
for gender relations, also meant that the family and, by extension, child-
care became understood as a ‘sacralised’ endeavour, away from the world
of work, which was governed by more commercial interests. However,
despite its long history, it is also recognised that ‘parenting’ has acquired
specific connotations more recently.
By looking at the language of ‘parenting’, a picture emerges of a grow-
ing momentum from the 1970s onwards towards the targeting of parental
behaviour as deficient and also ‘parenting’ as something of a relentless task
or ‘job’, to be conducted under the watchful gaze of experts. The other
central idea is that people other than parents have special insights that can
 2 THEORETICAL CONTEXT 25

and should be brought to bear. Indeed, one of the dominant observations

is that ‘parenting’ is now viewed, particularly by policymakers, as an activ-
ity that cannot be effectively carried out without being explicitly taught
and learned (Lee et al., 2014). The central proposition to emerge is that
parenting is not a neutral term to describe what parents do as they raise
their children. Rather, the transformation of parenting into a verb has
taken place through a sociocultural process centring on the belief that
‘parenting’ is a highly important and problematic sphere of social life. In
turn, ‘parenting culture’ can be summarised to mean the more or less for-
malised rules and codes of conduct that have emerged over recent years
which reflect this deterministic view of parents and define expectations
about how a parent should raise their child.
One of the earliest—and still most influential—observers of the changes
in parenting culture was the US sociologist Sharon Hays, in her 1996
book, The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood. She noticed that many
mothers she worked with were going to extreme lengths in the course of
raising their children:

Why do so many professional class employed women find it necessary to

take the kids to swimming and judo and dancing and tumbling classes, not
to mention orthodontists and psychiatrists and attention-deficit specialists?
Why is the human bonding that accompanies breast-feeding considered so
important that elaborate contraptions are now manufactured to allow chil-
dren to suckle on mothers who cannot produce milk? Why are there copious
courses for babies, training sessions in infant massage, sibling-preparedness
workshops, and designer fashions for two-year olds? Why must a ‘good’
mother be careful to ‘negotiate’ with her child, refraining from the demands
for obedience to an absolute set of rules?’ (Hays, 1996, p. 6)

Hays recognises that human children need an extended period of physi-

cal care to make the transition from infancy to adulthood, of course. But
as she says, ‘modern American mothers do much more than simply feed,
change and shelter the child until age six. It is that “more” with which I
am concerned’ (Hays, 1996, p. 5). What she noticed about this ‘more’ is
that it involves devoting large amounts of time, energy and material
resources to the child. There is a belief that a child’s needs must be put
first and that mothering should be child-centred. This ‘more’ is also almost
always done by the mother—these messages about parenting are more
strongly internalised by women, so that even where fathers are very
26 C. FAIRCLOTH

‘involved’, ultimately the buck stops with the mother. This has huge impli-
cations for women’s relationship with employment and notions of gender
equality, as I discuss throughout this book. And finally, observes Hays, the
‘more’ requires a mother to pay attention to what experts say about child
development. It is not enough to just muddle through or do what seems
easiest.
Hays terms this an ideology of ‘intensive motherhood’, one which
urges mothers to ‘spend a tremendous amount of time, energy and money
in raising their children’ (Hays, 1996, p. x). Under this ideology, ‘the
methods of appropriate child rearing are construed as child-centred,
expert-guided, emotionally absorbing, labor intensive, and financially
expensive’. But as she says, ‘the ideas are certainly not followed in practice
in every mother, but they are, implicitly or explicitly, understood as the
proper approach to the raising of a child by the majority of mothers’ (Hays,
1996, p. 9). So rather than being a uniform set of practices, then, intensive
motherhood is best thought of as ‘the normative standard…by which
mothering practices and arrangements are evaluated’ (Arendell, 2000,
p. 1195).
Hays is particularly puzzled by the emergence of this ideology at a time
when women (in the US at least) make up over 50% of the workforce
(Economist, 2009). What one might expect—that as women work longer
hours, motherhood becomes less time consuming—does not appear to be
the case. In fact, according to time–use studies, in the case of two-parent
families, today’s children are in fact spending substantially more time with
their parents than in 1981 (Gauthier et al., 2004; Sullivan, 2013; see also
Sayer, 2004). This is despite increases in female participation in work,
despite increases in attendance at childcare and preschool by children and
despite an increase in time spent with children by fathers. Perhaps it is not
surprising then that the mothers Hays worked with talked about being
tired, overstretched and ‘torn’, when the worlds of work and home have
both become so demanding. Rizzo et al. (2013) point to some of the
negative mental health consequences of this rise of intensive motherhood:
not only are parents spending more time with their children—the quality
of that time has become far more intense, leading to feelings of pressure
and anxiety.
 2 THEORETICAL CONTEXT 27

Motherhood and Moralisation

Numerous scholars have picked up on Hays’s concept of ‘intensive moth-
erhood’ to describe the contemporary experience of parenting in Euro-­
American settings. And whilst Hays recognises that not all mothers will be
working mothers, the cultural contradiction between the worlds of work
and home is one, she argued, that affects all mothers. She notes the irony
that we live in a society where child-rearing is generally devalued, and the
emphasis is on the world of work, whilst at the same time motherhood is
held up as an almost-sacred endeavour. This means that people have to
undertake what she calls ‘ideological work’ to make their own positions
liveable. (In fact, says Hays, people are forced to make their decisions
around childcare in circumstances that are often beyond their control,
although this does not feed so well into the ‘Mommy Wars’ ostensibly
between working and stay-at-home mothers, now so familiar in media
accounts (Douglas & Michaels, 2004).)
What is clear is that as well as whether women work or not, the day-to-­
day practices of motherhood have become the subject of public, even
political debate (Freely 2000). What parents feed their children, how they
discipline them, where they put them to bed, how they play with them: all
of these have become politically (and morally) charged questions. Indeed,
as soon as a pregnancy is confirmed, a whole chain of events is set forth:
prenatal diagnostic tests, birthing options, feeding solutions, sleeping
practices, whether to use a dummy or not. All of these are highly contro-
versial issues, and yet all require, to a greater or lesser extent, decisions to
be taken, and fast. There are an overwhelming number of alternatives,
necessities and personal desires at play, often not entirely harmoniously.
As Lee et al. note: ‘What were once considered banal, relatively unim-
portant, private routines of everyday life for children and families…have
become the subject of intensive debates about the effects of parental activ-
ities for the next generation and society as a whole’ (Lee et al., 2010,
p. 294). As noted, one of the reasons the intensive motherhood injunction
wields such power, Hays suggests, is because it links to the separate spheres
thesis: ‘intensive’ mothering is perceived as ‘the last best defense against
what many people see as the impoverishment of social ties, communal
obligations, and unremunerated commitments’ (1996, p. xiii).
Wolf (2011), writing about motherhood in the US, links this public
interest to a broader argument around risk-consciousness and an emer-
gence of a ‘neoliberal’ culture. Where dangers are redefined as risk and
28 C. FAIRCLOTH

thus ‘viewed as the product of human action and decision-making rather

than of fate’ (Lupton and Tulloch, 2002, p. 318, in Nelson, 2008, p. 517),
individuals hold themselves ever more responsible for ensuring the safety
of themselves and of those who are dependent on them. Wolf therefore
talks about the concept of ‘total’ motherhood to characterise the experi-
ence of contemporary mothers. She notes that mothers are expected to
become their own experts on all aspects of child-rearing—making sure
that mealtimes, stories and playing are not only safe, but optimal for infant
development, and thereby becoming: ‘lay paediatricians, psychologists,
consumer products safety inspectors, toxicologists, and educators. Mothers
must not only protect their children from immediate threats but are also
expected to predict and prevent any circumstance that might interfere
with putatively normal development’ (Wolf, 2011, p. xv).
Echoing Hays, Wolf draws attention to the way in which this focus on
risk frames good motherhood as totally child-centred, with no cost con-
sidered too high for mothers to bear. Since children are considered vulner-
able and unable to protect themselves, mothers are charged with reducing
(or avoiding altogether) any risks to their children’s health and well-being.
This frames the mother–child relationship in an antagonistic way:

Total motherhood is a moral code in which mothers are exhorted to opti-

mise every aspect of children’s lives, beginning in the womb. Its practice is
frequently cast as a trade-off between what mothers might like and what
babies and children must have…When mothers have ‘wants’—such as a
sense of bodily, emotional, and psychological autonomy—but children have
‘needs’—such as an environment in which anything less than optimal is
framed as perilous—good mothering is defined as behaviour that reduces
even infinitesimal or poorly understood risks to offspring, regardless of the
potential cost to the mother. The distinction disappears between what chil-
dren need and what might enhance their physical, intellectual, and emo-
tional development. Mothers are held responsible for matters well outside
their control, and they are told in various ways that they must eliminate even
minute, ultimately ineradicable, potential threats to their children’s well-­
being. (Wolf, 2011, p. xv)

Lee et al. (2014), in particular, draw attention to the ‘army of profes-

sionals’ who now colonise this area of social life, because parenting is
increasingly understood to be too important a task to be left up to parents.
Instead, the view of policymakers, at least in the US and the UK, is that
parents should be ‘enabled’ to parent well, via practices based on ‘research
 2 THEORETICAL CONTEXT 29

about the characteristics of effective parenting’ (Johnson, 2007). Edwards

and Gillies (2013) back up these assertions in their research on the differ-
ences between parenting in 1960s and 2010s Britain. What would have
been considered standard parenting practice in the 1960s (leaving chil-
dren unsupervised to play, letting them go out at night alone or asking
older children to supervise younger ones, for example) would be consid-
ered neglectful today. The expectation more latterly is that parents should
be constantly present to monitor their children, and prevent them from
‘risks’, both known and unknown.
Each of these scholars points to the way that, within this new style of
‘parenting’, a specific skill set is denoted: a certain level of expertise about
children and their care, based on the latest research on child development,
an affiliation to a certain way of raising a child and a particular educational
strategy. There are, of course, many ways of caring for children ‘inten-
sively’, as is discussed below; but whichever way one does it, it is clear that
there is a broader cultural logic around intensive parenting, which holds
that parents are wholly responsible for their children’s outcomes.
This has interesting implications for the subjectivity of parents. As
Macvarish and Martin note, what is interesting about verbal nouns such as
‘parenting’ is that they have no subject. ‘While calling someone “the par-
ent” defines a person in particular ways, “parenting” is detached from the
parents, floating more freely from the particular adult subject…In this
respect, “parenting” could be done by people who need not be parents
and, parents may not necessarily be “parenting” at all times or at any time
all. Thus, it has been argued, “parenting” signifies a de-centring or demot-
ing of the parent as an autonomous subject while focusing attention on
monitoring their relationship with their child as the implementation of a
series of tasks requiring the acquisition and application of skills and tech-
niques’ (Macvarish & Martin, 2021, see also Ramaekers & Suissa, 2011).
Clearly, being well-educated is a requirement for participation in these
choices between parenting models, as is a certain access to economic
resources which enable parents to consume the material goods that in turn
come to define the various methods of infant care. But this is also about
adopting a certain sort of identity, then:

Most of all [parenting] means being both discursively positioned by and

actively contributing to the networks of idea, value, practice and social rela-
tions that have come to define a particular form of the politics of ­parent-­child
relations within the domain of the contemporary family. (Faircloth et al.,
2013, p. 2)
30 C. FAIRCLOTH

Different Performances of the Cultural Script

The ideology of intensive parenting described above does not, of course,
affect all parents equally, and certainly not all parents today in the US (or
the UK) are ‘intensive parents’. However, it remains an important ‘cul-
tural script’ or ‘ideal’ to which parents respond in negotiating their own
practices. (see Lee et al., 2014, for a fuller discussion).

Gender
As Hays observed, perhaps the most obvious difference in response to the
ideology of intensive parenting is in terms of gender. While some recent
research has shown how men increasingly see ‘good fathering’ as about
being ‘involved’ with and emotionally present for their children (Dermott,
2008), mirroring the ‘intensive’ mothering model to some extent, other
research has shown that they also continue to hold on to more traditional
ideas about fathering. Shirani et al. (2012), for example, show that men
(in the UK) are more likely to question expert advice about parenting,
reject the need for hypervigilance and limit material consumption as a
means of contesting the competitive aspect of contemporary parenting
culture.
Similarly, Shaw’s (2008) work on family leisure draws on work with
parents in North America, to explore gender differences in response to
this cultural change. In an era of ‘intensive’ parenting, there has been a
shift in family leisure patterns towards maximising children’s health and
well-being, rather than on adult-oriented activities, she observes. Parents
are expected to act as pseudo-teachers, optimising their children’s intelli-
gence through a range of extracurricular activities. Shaw notes that it is
women who act on these discourses, both self-consciously and in more
invisible ways. Much of the work of enabling a child-centred approach to
family time (the scheduling and planning) falls to women, says Shaw,
echoing Dermott’s (2008) observations on the gendered split between
‘caring about’ and ‘caring for’ children, or what Lupton (2012, p. 13)
refers to as the ‘invisible mental labour’ of mothering—something I return
to in later chapters.
 2 THEORETICAL CONTEXT 31

As Macvarish and Martin note, however, there is another way of look-

ing at this process—not just one of en-gendering but rather de-gendering,
with important implications for women’s subjectivity:

By de-naturing the caring instincts of parents, ‘parenting’ also undoes the

specific authority attached to the status and biological reality of being either
a ‘father’ or a ‘mother’. ‘Parenting’, Smith argues, particularly ‘marginalises
motherhood’ (2010, p. 362), perhaps because modern mothers have his-
torically been attributed authority in partially naturalised terms: as natural
carers, hormonally and neurologically suited to nurturing infants, or at the
very least, physically equipped to breastfeed their babies. Although this, of
course, has trapped women in sex-based, highly-moralised gender roles,
much has also been written about how mothers gained authority relative to
men by the creation of a modern version of ‘good mothering’, which incor-
porated external expertise from the sciences of hygiene, medicine, psychol-
ogy and psychoanalysis (Apple 1995, 2006)…Similarly, policy and
practitioners often talk of ‘engaging fathers’ in ‘parenting’ in order to
‘involve’ them in family life (Doucet 2018). This is sometimes argued for in
terms of redressing the gender imbalance within the home, but it also con-
tains an implicit assumption that natural paternal affinity with the child is
lacking. It must, therefore, be cultivated by father-focused parenting sup-
port. (Macvarish & Martin, 2021)

As such, although much of the literature around the intensification of

parenting points to the gendered toll of this on women, much of it could
also be read as a de-authorisation of the parent as someone with a particu-
lar moral responsibility to the child at all.

Class
The ‘script’ of intensive parenting (or, mothering) is clearly a very middle-­
class vision of what ideal family life should look like. This is a limitation,
but not one that invalidates the attention paid to these middle-class dis-
courses. Engagement with this framework of intensive mothering is valu-
able because it presents a culturally dominant belief: that is, the middle
class presents the most powerful, visible and self-consciously articulated
model readily apparent in public discourse and policy. As Strathern puts it
in After Nature, her examination of English kinship, ‘I focus on middle-­
class usage [of kinship terms], largely to do with the way the middle class
enunciate and communicate what they regard as general social values’
32 C. FAIRCLOTH

(Strathern, 1992, p. 25). As such, attention to these culturally dominant

beliefs can be highly instructive.
This is not to say that parenting is not ‘classed’. Nelson’s work in par-
ticular draws attention to the classed differences in the internalisation of
the ‘intensive’ parenting ideology (2010; see also Gillies, 2009; Lareau,
2003). For the professional middle-class parents with whom she worked,
who demonstrated the ‘intensive’ parenting style, she sees a desire to
extend and protect childhood. For the working-class parents, the impetus
to do this was constrained by material, financial necessity that children
earn their own living as quickly as possible. Thus: ‘within what I have
called the professional middle class, parents do, indeed, adopt a style of
parenting that has as its key features constant oversight, belief in children’s
boundless potential, intimacy with children, claims of trust and delayed
launching’ (Nelson, 2010, pp. 174–175). As is discussed further below,
they were, of course, also the parents who had the material resources to
invest in additional classes and equipment, as well as the time to invest in
one-to-one interactions demanded by a more ‘intensive’ parenting style.
By contrast, in ‘the working class and middle class…parenting styles draw
on concerns about concrete dangers, an awareness of youthful indiscre-
tions, and a desire to see children mature sooner, rather than later’, simi-
larly constrained by their own material conditions (Nelson, 2010, p. 175).
However, although class differences in orientation have been observed—
as have individual differences throughout social classes—the problem here
is the way that intensive parenting is the one that is culturally validated,
meaning that the vast majority of parents, regardless of class, will be left
feeling that they ‘fall short’. As such, ‘ideal’ parenting practices can be
mobilised in a class-based way. Jensen’s work on the politics of parent-­
blame is relevant in this regard, showing how what she called ‘crisis talk’
around parenting has been used to police and discipline families who are
considered to be morally deficient and socially irresponsible. More worry-
ingly, she also shows how this has been used to justify increasingly punitive
state policies towards families (2018).

Cultural Variation
In a recent collection with colleagues (Faircloth et al., 2013), we collated
a series of chapters to explore the cultural purchase (or otherwise) of
‘intensive’ parenting in a cross-cultural perspective. What emerged there is
that while the discourses and practices of parenting may be seen as
 2 THEORETICAL CONTEXT 33

culturally and historically specific, they are currently acquiring a global

significance as they diffuse and interact with local and indigenous concep-
tualisations of raising children. As a number of anthropologists have
pointed out (e.g., Stephens, 1995), in a period characterised by the spread
of neoliberal economic regimes around the world, parenting ideologies
have a particular salience and significance in that parenting has become
intimately tied to projects of governance. In a range of settings around the
world, recent work on parenting has therefore foregrounded negotiations
around the shifts towards a new ‘parenting’ culture—whether that is resis-
tance, rejection, accommodation, modification or a complex combination
of several forms of agency (see, for example Bueskens, 2018; Faircloth &
Rosen, 2020; Kokanović et al., 2018; O’Reilly, 2009).
Having this global perspective is essential, not only because parenting is
at present a globalising set of ideas and practices that cannot be separated
from considerations of global power inequities. An international perspec-
tive also allows us to challenge ideas about the moral valence of particular
notions of parenting, as well as revealing the many ways in which kinship,
identity and cultural ideals concerning motherhood/fatherhood are chal-
lenging and resisting certain formations of intensive parenting. Finally,
they help us contextualise categorical assumptions not only around gen-
der, but also more fundamentally around our understandings of adult-
hood and childhood (Faircloth et al., 2013; Faircloth & Rosen, 2020).

Children at Risk
Certainly, developments in parenting can be understood as implying the
emergence of a historically distinct way of thinking about children and
childhood. Debates around social and historical constructions of child-
hood form a whole subfield of sociology, and cannot be adequately sum-
marised here. Rather, I aim to highlight the central points of this way of
thinking about childhood that are relevant to the discussion pursued in
this book.
This begins with the observation that a growing distance has been
placed between children and the adult world; children, by and large, have
less to do than they used to with ordinary adults in communities. Yet this
distance by no means leads to children being left to ‘do their own thing’.
Children are not free or more autonomous beings by merit of their
increased estrangement from adults. On the contrary, they are, as indi-
cated, both more overseen in their activities by their parents and the
34 C. FAIRCLOTH

subject of more intervention and social control in other ways too. As the
sociologists of childhood James, Jenks and Prout have commented:

Children are arguably now more hemmed in by surveillance and social regu-
lation than ever before…parents increasingly identify the world outside the
home as one from which their children must be shielded and in relation to
which they must devise strategies of risk reduction…On the other hand,
both public and private spaces are increasingly monitored by closed circuit
television to contain the threat that unsupervised groups of children and
young people are thought to potentially pose. Even the boundaries of the
family are held to be at risk of penetration by insidious technologies like
video and the Internet which could pose serious moral threats to our chil-
dren’s childhoods. (James et al., 1998, p. 7)

Certainly, childhood has always been as much about the imagination

and actions of adults as it is about physical children, and across space and
time, societies have had different ideas about children, which in turn
shapes how parents are expected to behave towards them (see Hardyment,
2007 for full overview). Centring on the definition of children as ‘at risk’,
it is this way of thinking about children, what they need, and the problems
of how adults relate to them, that makes a more ‘intensive’ or ‘total’
motherhood possible.
Historically, it was during the post–Second World War period in par-
ticular that psychological and cognitive child development theorists came
into an ascendency, with Freud, Erikson and Piaget studying the associa-
tion of childhood experience with adult development. Despite the differ-
ences between these theories, what united these studies was the assumption
of the absolute necessity of a mother’s loving nurture. ‘Attachment the-
ory’, discussed further below, claimed that the constant presence of a lov-
ing and responsive attachment figure—typically the mother—was the
foundation for lifelong mental health. On the basis of his research with
children in institutional settings, the psychiatrist John Bowlby wrote:

What is believed to be essential for mental health is that the infant and
young child should experience a warm, intimate and continuous relation-
ship with his mother (or permanent mother-substitute) in which both find
satisfaction and enjoyment. (Bowlby, 1995 [1952], p. 11)

It was along these lines that Dr Benjamin Spock, Penelope Leach and
Thomas Berry Brazelton, to name three of the most popular experts to
 2 THEORETICAL CONTEXT 35

emerge in the second half of the twentieth century, produced the first edi-
tions of their books designed to help parents ‘parent’. The underlying
paradigm, subsequently developed by parenting experts, was that experi-
ence in early infancy has life-long implications and that this period of life
is one entailing enormous risk (Hays, 1996). Indeed, the developmental
paradigm is one of the key reasons parents are seen as a determining force
in how their children turn out. The flipside to the ‘vulnerable child’ is the
risky parent: or, as Furedi puts it, ‘Omnipotent parenting is the other side
of the coin of child vulnerability’ (Furedi, 2002, p. 58). These two impor-
tant ‘myths’ result in a highly skewed understanding of adult–child rela-
tionships, and opens the door to increased intervention:

The interlocking myths of infant determinism, that is, the assumption that
infant experience determines the course of future development, and parental
determinism, the notion that parental intervention determines the future
fate of a youngster, have come to have a major influence on relations between
children and their parents. By grossly underestimating the resilience of chil-
dren, they intensify parental anxiety and encourage excessive interference in
children’s lives; by grossly exaggerating the degree of parental intervention
required to ensure normal development, they make the task of parenting
impossibly burdensome. (Furedi, 2002, p. 45)

As Lee et al. (2010) note, it is hard to overestimate how far the concept
of the ‘at risk’ child has expanded when applied to the area of parenting:
parents are, in effect, seen as risk managers, tasked with optimising their
children’s outcomes in conjunction with expert advice (Lee et al., 2010).
Of course, for many centuries there have been ‘child experts’ or self-­
proclaimed ‘authorities’ who set out their views on the mistakes they think
parents make. Today, however, what this means is that ‘now almost every
parenting act, even the most routine, is analysed in minute detail, corre-
lated with a negative or positive outcome, and endowed with far-reaching
implications for child development’ (Furedi, 2002, p. 65; also see Wall,
2010, who looks at this in light of the new ‘brain science’ around early
childhood, or Macvarish, 2016 on the rise of ‘neuroparenting’). With
experts stressing the importance of the early (even preconception) envi-
ronment for infant development (see, for example, Gerhardt’s (2004)
book Why Love Matters), providing children with the right kind of envi-
ronment turns normal activities of parenting into a series of tasks to be
achieved. Touching, talking and feeding are no longer ends in themselves,
36 C. FAIRCLOTH

but tools mothers are required to perfect to ensure optimal development.

Lee et al. (2010) give the example that playing with a child is no longer
simply an enjoyable activity for adult and child; it is an instrumental way of
ensuring positive ‘long-term outcomes’.
Rose has even argued that ‘love’ can be used to promote a certain type
of self-understanding in children, and is duly emphasised for mothers:
increasing confidence, helpfulness, dependability at the same time as avert-
ing fear, cruelty or any other deviation from the desired norm (Rose,
1999, p. 160). The conversion of ‘love’ from a spontaneous sentiment
manifested in warm affection into a parental function or skill is one of the
key reasons mothers are now routinely told to ‘enjoy their baby’, with
almost magical powers ascribed to ‘unconditional love’ (and disastrous
consequences to its absence) (Furedi, 2002, p. 79).

The Many Methods of Raising Children Intensively

Methods of childcare can be divided into those styles that are ‘structured’,
and those that are (putatively, at least) ‘unstructured’. The former might
be characterised by scheduled feeding, formula feeding and separate sleep-
ing, made famous (in the UK at least) by authors such as Gina Ford and
her controversial but bestselling Contented Little Baby Book (1999).
Unstructured models, by contrast, aim to dissolve notions of rational effi-
ciency in favour of more relaxed styles of care, often characterised by prac-
tices like long-term, on-cue breastfeeding, a family bed and ‘positive’
discipline (Bueskens, 2001, p. 75).
Liberal models of childcare have been made most famous by the work
of William and Martha Sears, who coined the term ‘Attachment Parenting’
in The Baby Book (1993 [1982]). They drew on the bonding work done by
Bowlby, Klaus and Kennel, agreeing that the optimum way of caring for a
child was to keep mother and baby in prolonged physical contact. The
argument is that babies have evolutionary expectations that must be met
if they are to mature into happy, healthy children and adults. Doing any-
thing other than this is to deny the child’s innate needs (paraphrased from
Bobel, 2002, p. 61). Arguing that modern culture has impeded ‘common
sense parenting’, the Searses claim that it is ‘what we would all do if left to
our own healthy resources’ (2001, p. 2). The ‘ABCs’ of attachment par-
enting are given by the Searses in the form of a table (2001, p. 4). The ‘B’
tools, such as breastfeeding and babywearing enable parents to tune in to
their baby’s ‘cues’, which in turn enables them to parent appropriately.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
showed by the indicator. He told me that he was then filling a large
order for traction engines for Australia, and this valve and valve-gear
were the very thing for them. I went back to Manchester happy in the
satisfaction of having accomplished one thing in the engine line at
any rate.
A few weeks after, being in London, I went to Rochester to see
how the new valve-gear was progressing. The first thing I saw was
my valve and valve-gear hanging up in the storeroom. Mr. Aveling
explained to me that he had been advised by engineers, whose
advice by his contract with his financial partner he was obliged to
follow, that the narrow faces on my valve would wear away faster
than the wider faces, and the valve would come to leak, and if he put
it on his engine it would ruin his business. He did not believe it; it
seemed to him absurd, but he was powerless.
This was the nearest approach I ever made myself towards the
introduction of this valve. In 1875 I seemed to have a promising
opening. I received a note from Mr. M. N. Forney, then editor of the
Railway Gazette, calling my attention to this valve and its description
in his “Catechism of the Locomotive,” just published, and stating that
this was the only patented invention in the book.
He added that he had had conferences with Mr. Buchanan,
foreman of the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad repair
shops in New York City, about trying this valve on their locomotives,
and Mr. Buchanan would like to see me.
On my calling, Mr. Buchanan asked me what arrangement I was
willing to make. I replied that they might put the valve on six
locomotives free of royalty. If these valves worked well I would give
them a license on liberal terms. He said he had an express
locomotive then in the shop for which he was making new cylinders;
these were already bored and the valve seats planed, but not yet
trimmed, and in this state there was room to put in these valves,
which he would do; they would be ready in about a fortnight, when
he would send me word, and would be glad to have me go up to
Albany and back on the locomotive and indicate the engines. I have
been waiting for that “word” ever since.
A few days after I met in the street an acquaintance, who asked
me if Mr. Buchanan had agreed to put the Allen valve on an engine. I
replied that he had. Why, said he, Buchanan will no more dare put
that valve on unless Commodore Vanderbilt orders him to, than he
would to cut his head off. He will never persuade the old man to give
that order, and you will never hear of it again; and I never did.
The recollection of another experience with Mr. Aveling has often
amused me. He had an order from the Chatham Dock Yard for a
stationary engine of perhaps 100 horse-power. It was to be
inspected in operation before its acceptance by the government. He
wrote me to come down and bring my indicator and assist him in
exhibiting it running under a friction brake in his shop.
At the hour appointed the inspector appeared, accompanied by
half-a-dozen young officers. He spoke to no one, observed the
engine in operation, took the diagrams from my hand, asked no
question, but proceeded to discourse to his followers on the engine. I
could hardly believe my senses as I listened to the absurdities that
he gravely got off; not a sentence was intelligible. I can see Mr.
Aveling now quietly winking at me, as we stood with respectful
gravity till he had finished, when he turned and marched off without
noticing anybody. This was my only personal encounter with the
English official mind.
 CHAPTER XVI

Return to America. Disappointment. My Shop. The Colt Armory Engine designed by Mr. Richards.
Appearance of Mr. Goodfellow. My Surface Plate Work. Formation of a Company.

n June, 1868, having completed my preparations, I bade what has

proven to be a long good-by to England, and buoyant with
anticipations turned my face homeward. During the voyage my mind
dwelt constantly on the bright career for which it clearly appeared that
my experience in England was the fit preparation, and on my projected
work, every detail of which I revolved over and over in imagination.
The first thing after I got home I made an important discovery, one of that kind
which generally men have to make for themselves. My discovery was this: Put not
your trust in riches, especially when they belong to another man. Mr. Hope had made
the blunder of relying on a single capitalist. I had expected to find at least half-a-
dozen subscribers to a capital of not less than $100,000. His single financial
associate and reliance was a gentleman of wealth, retired from active business, and
whom I introduce to the reader as Mr. Smith. Under his direction Mr. Hope had
written to me the invitation and promise to which I have already referred. The wealth
and the ideas of Mr. Smith seemed to be in inverse proportion to each other. The
greatness of the former was represented by the smallness of the latter. He entered
with earnestness and energy into our work—according to his own plans. He paid no
regard to my suggestions, and instead of heeding my request to postpone definite
action until my return he hurried his scheme to completion so that I would find
everything settled beyond the possibility of my interference.
In Harlem, then a somewhat remote and quite dead suburb of New York, on Fourth
Avenue between 130th and 131st streets, within a block or two of the termination of
the avenue on the Harlem River, he found a little abandoned foundry, about 40 feet
square, with a lean-to in the rear, used for cleaning castings. It had been dismantled
and idle for several years, never, of course, had a floor, and the windows were
broken. This he hailed as the very place he wanted, and at once leased it for five
years at a small rent, with the ground belonging to it, extending from 130th to 131st
Street, 200 feet front by 100 feet deep, and vacant, except this building and a little
office, 10×15 feet, on the upper corner.
He then turned his attention to providing the “ample capital.” My governor shop on
West Thirteenth Street had during my long absence been run quite successfully by
my faithful foreman, Nelson Aldrich. Mr. Smith planned to remove this shop to
Harlem, and to furnish Mr. Allen money enough to enable him to enter into an equal
partnership with me, adding the engine business to my governor manufacture.
Everything in my shop was appraised at the round sum of $10,000, and this
magnificent amount, as he regarded it, he advanced to Mr. Allen as a loan. Mr. Allen
had put his savings of several years into a little home in Tremont, a village on the line
of the railroad, some three or four miles above the Harlem River. This place had cost
him $2500. Mr. Smith told Mr. Allen that he must secure him the repayment of this
loan, so far as he could do so, by the mortgage of his house and lot. This demand
caused Mr. Allen great distress and half killed his wife. Mr. Smith was inexorable—no
mortgage, no money. Mr. Allen thought of a scheme for outwitting him, and the
mortgage was executed and the money paid over. He applied this first to making the
premises habitable, laying a floor and putting a floor above, which would give a story
under the roof, and the beams of which would carry the shafting for driving the tools.
He repaired the broken windows and put windows in the front gable to light the new
upper story, put on a new roof, installed a portable engine and boiler, and equipped a
little smith shop in the lean-to. My tools, etc., were then moved into their new
quarters. These tools were all small. In order to make engines some larger ones
would be needed. Mr. Allen procured from the firm of Hewes & Phillips, Newark, N.
J., a very good planer, large enough to pass work 4 feet wide and high, and a 20-
inch lathe. When this installation was completed, Mr. Allen had expended $7500.
Then he stopped making purchases and said nothing. The work of my governor
manufacture was resumed, and nothing more attempted. This was the state of affairs
that stared me in the face on my return. The shop had been running about a
fortnight. Mr. Smith told me he had supplied all the money he expected to. Mr. Allen
said he had not obliged himself to put all the money loaned him into the business,
and the amount for which he had mortgaged his house was in a safe place, where it
could be got when wanted to pay off that mortgage.
I was stupefied. As I began to realize my utter helplessness, I broke down entirely.
What rational motive could any man have had in getting me home and leaving me
powerless to do anything? Had I imagined the character of his plans I should have
remained in England, signed anything that Mr. Whitworth wanted me to, and trusted
Providence and Mr. Hoyle for the result. The absurdity of the case presented itself to
me sometimes in its humiliating and sometimes in its ludicrous aspect, according to
my mood. After a while I saw that I must reconcile myself to the situation, and see
what could be done under the circumstances. We could only do a little business in
making small non-condensing engines. Not more than from 15 to 20 men could work
in the shop. As for facilities for handling machinery, there were none. We yet needed
several expensive tools. We had to make patterns; we must have money to run the
place until returns came in. I laid the matter before Mr. Smith. First of all, that
mortgage must be discharged; I would not stir till that was done. He had overreached
himself. I rejoiced that Mr. Allen had got the better of him. It would be idle to set
about the business without at least $10,000 additional capital; this I finally got, and,
with the advance to Mr. Allen, made free from interest, by assigning the entire
indicator patents to Mr. Smith and Mr. Hope. As it turned out, we bought that money
at an enormous price; but we did not know this at the time. We must have money
and this was the only way to get it. We congratulated ourselves that by any sacrifice
we had secured the sum of $20,000 and without the burden of interest.
Now I took heart and set at work in earnest, feeling sure that I could soon bring the
engine into a position that would command the means required to do it justice. I
ordered from Smith & Coventry a stationary drilling machine, a 6-inch slotting
machine, a bolt-threading machine, and a set of cylindrical gauges, and had them all
in place by the time we were ready to use them. This bolt-threading machine was a
wonder, and has not been surpassed since. The rod was fed through a hollow
spindle, seized in the jaws of a self-centering chuck, and the projecting end finished.
The threading dies were backed by eccentric wedges in a solid ring, which was
turned out of the way during the sliding operation. These were closed or opened by a
lever which carried a stud moving in a circular slot. This stud was brought up to a
stop, which could be set to cut threads of any depth. The threads were finished in a
single motion. For standing bolts, we threaded one end, so that it screwed hard into
its seat, and by moving the stop a trifle the threads on the other end were cut deeper,
so that the nuts turned on it more easily. The rapidity, uniformity and precision with
which this was done could not be surpassed.
Smith & Coventry had lately commenced the manufacture of cylindrical gauges, of
which up to that time Mr. Whitworth had had the monopoly. Flat gauges did not then
exist. The above tools were almost incredibly superior to those then made in this
country. I was anxious for one of their radial drills, but had no place to set it. I
adopted the Franklin Institute screw-thread, and obtained a set of hobs from William
Sellers & Co. I equipped our little office to accommodate one draftsman besides
myself, and soon had a good man at work, engaged mostly in preparing drawings
from the tracings I had brought from England. The story over the shop, in the middle
half of which a man could stand upright, was made a pattern shop, and two
patternmakers were soon at work there. They found the shop very hot. The roof was
covered with paper and tar. I could not bear my hand on the under side of the roof
boards. I whitewashed the roof, making the whitewash rainproof, and this heat
entirely disappeared.
I have borne in mind this interesting result, the complete prevention of heat
absorption by changing the color of the surface to one absolutely white; and am now
proposing a similar change in brick boiler settings and chimneys, using white
enameled tiles, which also prevent percolation of the external air.
I will improve the time while we are waiting for this preparatory work to be finished
by telling of two Allen engines already running and made in the United States. The
first one had been made by my old friend Mr. Richards, the inventor of the indicator.
He was at that time the engineer of the Colt Armory in Hartford. They built a new
shop four stories in height and 500 feet long. Mr. Richards designed and arranged
the power in this shop and its transmission. He adopted the Allen engine, with which
he alone in this country was familiar. I have written to Professor Richards for a
description of these engines and received the following reply:
“227 Edwards St., New Haven, Ct.
“October 9, 1903.
“Dear Mr. Porter:
“In a sort of way you rather stole a march on me, by writing me before I had written to you, for it had
been my intention for a number of weeks to write, thanking you for the frequent mention of my name
in your ‘Reminiscences’ and for the kindly way in which you have spoken of me. Your papers have
interested me greatly and bring back recollections of times which were for me very happy, when I first
made your acquaintance and afterwards enjoyed the intimacy which grew up.
 “My neglect to write came from my almost unsurmountable repugnance to letter writing, which, if
anything, grows yearly.
“I am as nervous as usual, but in excellent strength, and by putting sulphur in my boots (and
wearing the boots) am apparently pretty much cured of rheumatism. My students and I get along
together very well; there are, however, so many of them now that I feel quite overwhelmed at times.
About fifty men come to my classes, and in my department there are in all about one hundred and
forty.
“Now for the Colt’s Armory engines. There are two pairs in line with each other, vertical engines,
Porter-Allen type, in the second story and in the middle of the building, which is 500 feet long. The line
shaft, stretching 250 feet each way from the engines, forms an extension of the engine crank-shaft.
Between the engines are pulleys driving the first-story line shaft beneath them and the third-story line
above. All 500 feet long. Cylinder bore, 12¹⁄₂ inches; stroke, 24 inches; speed, 130 revolutions per
minute.
“The dimensions and general form of the running gear were made from drawings sent to me by you.
The valve-gear differs only in divorcing the exhaust valves from the steam valves by placing them on
the opposite side of the cylinder and driving them from a separate eccentric on that side, and not from
the link.
“The framing for each engine of a pair is like a Porter bed standing on end with two posts forming
what would be the lower part of the bed if it were lying down. There are therefore eight posts in the
two pairs of engines, which form the second-story columns of the framing of the building, and the
whole framing of the engines makes an integral part of the building construction, being rigidly
connected with the beams of the fireproof flooring of all three floors. The building is four stories high.
“The engines were started in 1867. They have been in continuous service ever since. Ten or twelve
years ago I had an opportunity to measure the thickness of the crowns of the crank-pin boxes. They
did not differ perceptibly from the thickness marked on the drawing from which they were made.
Knowing the accuracy with which the work was made to correspond with the drawings (gun-shop
work), I am confident that the wear of the box after twenty-six years of service had not amounted to
five one-thousandths of an inch. All the parts give evidence of an almost indefinite durability.
“All the work except that on the governors was done in the shops of the Colt company. The beds
were cast in the foundry of one of the distinguished old engine-builders of Hartford, who felt it his duty
to call on General Franklin, the general manager of the company, to warn him that if Richards were
permitted to put a number of 75 horse-power engines running at 100 revolutions per minute, in the
second story of a great building like the armory, disaster was certain. The building would be shaken so
terribly. The fact is that any one standing on the third floor directly over the cranks would not know,
from the movement of the floor or from sound, that the engines were running. The usual steam
pressure carried when I was in the armory was from 50 to 60 pounds. The boilers then were large, of
the drop-flue type.
 Scale 32
April 13 1878. 130 R.P.M.

Card from Allen Engine in Colt’s Armory.

“Enclosed is a card taken in 1878 with the ‘pantographic’ indicator, for which a silver medal was
awarded me at Paris in that year. The particular indicator with which this card was taken is in the
Museum of the Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers.
“Very sincerely yours,
“C. B. Richards.”

This bold and successful piece of engineering would have made easy the
introduction of these engines in New England.
 Professor Charles B. Richards

The second engine had been built by a prominent iron works in New York, from Mr.
Allen’s drawings, for a paint mill in South Brooklyn. Both names I have forgotten. Mr.
Allen took me to see this engine soon after I came home. It had then been running
for a year or more, and had given high satisfaction. Its local influence was found
quite valuable to us. This engine is memorable for the following reason: Ten years
afterwards, while building engines in Newark, I received from Mr. Mathieson,
manager of the National Tube Works in McKeesport, Pa., a letter containing an
invitation to make him a tender for two large Allen engines, the largest I had yet
attempted, and which resulted in my building these engines for him. After they were
successfully running, Mr. Mathieson told me how he came to write me. He said he
was the superintendent of the iron works in New York in which Mr. Allen had this
engine built, and was very much impressed by its advantages, especially after he
saw it in operation; and in planning this mill these engines seemed to be just what he
wanted.
Sectional and Front Elevations of One of the Two Pairs of Porter-Allen Engines in the Colt Armory,
Hartford, Conn.
Porter-Allen Engines in the Colt Armory, Hartford, Conn. Front View
Porter-Allen Engines in the Colt Armory, Hartford, Conn. Rear View
 STARTING VALVE

Sectional and Side Elevations of One of the Two Pairs of Porter-Allen Engines in the Colt Armory,
Hartford, Conn.

In preparing for the engine manufacture one of my first aims was the production of
true surface plates for finishing my guide-bars, cross-heads, valves, and seats, and
cylinder and steam-chest joints, all of which I made steam-tight scraped joints
requiring no packing. This was a new departure in steam-engine work in this country.
I fancied myself an expert in the art, but found out that there was one degree at least
that I had not taken. I designed several sizes of surface plates, intended primarily to
fit the guide-bars of the engines, and also straight edges 6 feet in length by 2¹⁄₂
inches wide. These are represented in the accompanying cuts.

A STRAIGHT EDGE
B SECTION ON THE LINE A-B
RIGHT-ANGLE PLATE
SURFACE PLATE
SIDE VIEW END VIEW

Surface Plates Designed by Mr. Porter.

I found still working in my governor shop a man named Meyers. He was the best
fitter I ever had; had fitted every governor made in my shop, the little engine or the
parts of it that I took to England, and long before had fitted my stone-cutting machine
in Mr. Banks’ shop. This man I taught all I knew about the art of producing true
planes by the system of scraping, and he produced surface plates and straight edges
that seemed to me quite perfect.
The following incident illustrates the general intelligence on this subject at that time
among skilled workmen in this country. As I was inspecting Mr. Meyers’ first work in
scraping, my foreman came along, and after observing it quite a while remarked, “It
is my opinion you will never make a proper job of that, till you put it on the planer and
take a light cut over it.”
One day, not long after we started, George Goodfellow walked into my shop. He
had come from the Whitworth works, had been foreman there of the upstairs room in
which most of the fine scraping on their tools was done. I had a slight acquaintance
with him, but could not remember having been in his room but once, and then only
for a minute or two. He had become disgusted with Mr. Widdowson and the way
things were going on under his management, and had resigned his position and
emigrated to the United States; found out where I was hiding, I never learned how,
and applied to me for a job, which I was glad to give him. I cannot imagine any
greater contrast than between Mr. Goodfellow and every other man I met in the
Whitworth shops.
I had then on hand two orders for standard surface plates and straight edges, one
from the Colt Armory and one from Pratt & Whitney. Mr. Meyers had just finished
work on these when Mr. Goodfellow appeared. He had not been at work in the shop
but a day or two when he asked me if I had got the cross-wind out of those straight
edges.
I made him the ignorant answer that they were so narrow the matter of cross-wind
had not occurred to me as important, as our planer did very true work. He said
nothing, but pulled a hair out of his head and laid it across a straight edge at its
middle point. He then inverted another straight edge on it and swung this on the hair
as a pivot. It swung in one direction freely, but in the other direction the corners
caught and it was revealed that the surfaces were spirals. I gave him the job of
taking out this twist. He was occupied about two days in making the three
interchangeable straight edges quite true. When finished I tried them with great
satisfaction, the test showing also their absolute freedom from flexure. The first
swing on the hair pivot was in each direction as if the upper straight edge were
hanging in the air. As this was repeated back and forth, I felt the surfaces gradually
approaching each other, the same increasing resistance being felt in each direction
of the swing, and finally they were in complete contact. What became of the hair I
could not find out. This refinement of truth, so easily attained and demonstrated
when we know how, was of course a necessity. I made the engines at that time with
the steam-chest separate from the cylinder; so two long steam joints had to be made
between cylinder, chest, and cover.
I fitted up these standards, both surface plates and straight edges, with their edges
scraped also to true planes and all their angles absolute right angles. For this and
other purposes I made two angle plates, each face 8 inches square, with diagonal
ribs. These were scraped so that when the two were set on a surface plate, either
surface of one would come in complete contact with either surface of the other, and
also when one or the other was set on its edges. This angle plate also is shown.
For our screw-thread work I made a pair of steel 60-degree standards, the truth of
which was demonstrated as follows: The outside gauge being set up on a surface
plate, the inside triangular block set on the surface plate passed through the former
in exact contact, whichever angle was up and whichever side was presented. From
the cylindrical gauges of Smith & Coventry I made flat inside and outside gauges of
steel with faces hardened, reserving the former for reference only. I had wondered
why this was not done in England. Presume they have learned the importance of it
long ago.
We could not advertise—the fact is I was ashamed to; but we had as many orders
as we could take with our very limited means of production. Indeed, we had frequent
applications which called for engines too large for us to consider them. We had some
applications from parties who were short of power, and on measuring their engines
with the indicator always found that we could supply their requirements by putting in
smaller engines. In one case I remember we put in an engine of just one half the
size, and requiring but one quarter the weight of fly-wheel, of the one taken out, and
gave them all the additional power they wanted, and more uniform motion. This
would seem an extravagant statement were not its reasonableness proved by the
experience of makers of high-speed engines generally. Sometimes the indicator
showed ludicrous losses of pressure between boiler and engine.
On account of his familiarity with the requirements of more exact construction, I
made Mr. Goodfellow my foreman after he had been with me a short time, and he
proved to be the very man for the position. He made all my engines in Harlem and
afterwards in Newark, and I was largely indebted to him for my success.
Before the close of our first year Mr. Smith proposed that our business be
transferred to a company, to which he would pay in a little additional money, in
consideration of which, and of his previous advances to the business, he demanded
a controlling interest in the stock. I did not like the idea, but Mr. Hope and Mr. Allen
favored it, and I consented. So the company was incorporated. Mr. Smith was made
its president, and one of his sons was made secretary and treasurer. He transferred
to this son and also to another one qualifying shares of his stock, and both were
added to the board of directors, that making six of us. The admirable way in which
this machinery worked will appear by and by.
Mr. Smith proceeded at once to get out a catalogue and build on the vacant lot a
new business office, of quite respectable size and two stories high, finishing the
second story for Mr. Goodfellow with his family to live in. When this building was
ready Mr. Smith installed himself in the office and busied himself in meddling and
dictating about the business, impressing me with the great advantage of having a
thorough business man at the head of it. If I ventured any word on this subject, I
always received the sneering reply, “What do you know about business?” The
following incident in this connection may amuse the reader as much as it did me. I
may mention in the first place that when, as already stated, he with Mr. Hope
acquired the entire indicator patents, of which he assumed the individual
management and so I always supposed had secured the larger part, the first thing he
did was to repudiate my agreement with Mr. Richards to pay to him 10 per cent. of
the receipts from the patents, this being a verbal agreement (as all the transaction
was), and so Mr. Richards never received another penny.
One morning Mr. Smith came into my office and said, “Do you know that the
license to Elliott Brothers to manufacture the indicators has expired?” I had licensed
them only for seven years, not knowing whether or not they would prove satisfactory
licensees. “Well,” said I, “suppose it has?” “Would you let them go on without a
license?” he demanded; “that shows how much you know about business.” “If it were
my affair,” I replied, “I should not stir it up. I see every reason for letting it alone. It is
the business of the licensee, if he feels unsafe, to apply for the extension of his
license.” With a contemptuous sneer Mr. Smith left me and immediately wrote Elliott
Brothers, reminding them that their license had expired and requesting an answer by
return mail to say if they wanted to renew it.
 He received the answer that I knew he would, for what good business man ever
lets such an opening go by him? They said they were just on the point of writing him
that they did not wish to renew unless on very different terms. By the contract they
made with me they paid a royalty of £2 on each indicator sold at retail, and £1 10
shillings on each one sold at wholesale. The selling price was £8 10 shillings. They
made a large profit on extra springs, of which they sold a great number at 10 shillings
each, and which cost them about 2 shillings. They wrote at length on the difficulty of
holding the market against the competition of cheap indicators selling at £4 (which
was just the competition against which the indicator was at first introduced but which
had long before ceased to be serious) and closed by saying that if Mr. Smith would
agree to accept one half the former royalty, they would themselves make a
corresponding reduction in their profits and would be able to put the indicators at a
price that would probably make the business satisfactory. Otherwise they would find
themselves compelled to discontinue the manufacture altogether, which they should
do unless they received an affirmative reply at once. Of course they got the
affirmative reply. Mr. Smith had no alternative. They never reduced the selling price
one penny. They had no competition during the life time of the patent, and their sales
were enormous. The amount of royalties lost during the remaining seven years of the
patent was certainly not less than $35,000.
The following is a story with a moral. The moral is, working to gauges is an
excellent plan, providing the gauges are mixed with brains. No manufacturing system
is perfect that is not fool-proof. If a mistake is possible it is generally made.
A company of English capitalists were spending a good deal of money on the west
coast of South America in building railroads into and over the Andes. One of these
roads was intended to reach a famous silver mine, from which the Spaniards, two or
three hundred years before, had taken large quantities of the precious metal, but
which had long ago been drowned out and abandoned. The railroad was to take up
pumping machinery by which the mine could be cleared of water and to bring down
the ore in car-load lots. For some purpose or other they wanted a stationary engine
in those high altitudes, and their agent in this country ordered one from me. I was
having my fly-wheels and belt drums cast by Mr. Ferguson, whose foundry was on
13th Street, west of Ninth Avenue, some seven miles distant from my shop in
Harlem. He had a wheel-lathe in which I could have them turned and bored, and they
were bored to gauges and shipped direct to their destinations. This time I had two
wheels to be finished, so I sent the gauges with a tag attached to each describing the
wheel it was for, but neglected to go and make a personal inspection of the work.
Some months after I received a bitter letter from South America, complaining that
they found the wheel had been bored half an inch smaller than the shaft, and that
they had to chip off a quarter of an inch all around the hole where the barometer
stood at 17 inches, and physical exertion was something to be avoided. The case
was somewhat relieved by the fact that I always cored out a larger chamber in the
middle of the hub for the purpose of getting rid of a mass of metal which would cause
the hub to cool too slowly, finishing only a length of two inches at each end of the
hub, which was 10 or 12 inches long. As the engine had been paid for on shipment
and ran well when put together, there was no great harm done, but I was sorry for
the poor fellows who had to do the work. Except the one already mentioned in my
first governor pulley, ten or twelve years before, this was the only misfit I can recall in
my whole experience.
Mr. Ferguson told me the best piece-work story I ever heard. He said he had a
contract for making a large number of the bases for the columns of the elevated
railroad; these castings were quite large and complicated. He gave the job to his best
molder, but the man could turn out only one a day. He thought it was slow work and
spoke to him about it, but he protested that was all he could make. Mr. Ferguson
found he could never complete his contract at that rate, and as he was paying the
man three dollars a day, he told him he would pay him three dollars for each perfect
casting and asked him to do his best and see how many he could turn out. The man
employed a boy to help him, and by systematizing his work he turned out six perfect
castings every day and drew his eighteen dollars with supreme indifference. This is a
big story to swallow, but the incident was then recent. I had the story from Mr.
Ferguson himself, and he was a sterling, reliable man, so that there could be no
doubt as to its absolute truth.
 CHAPTER XVII

Mr. Allen’s Invention of his Boiler. Exhibition at the Fair of the American Institute in
1870.

t that time the “Field boiler tubes” were attracting

considerable attention in London. These were
designed to prevent the water from being lifted from
the closed bottom of vertical tubes over the fire, which
would cause them to be burned out. The Field tubes
were smaller internal tubes, provided at the upper end
with three wings which centered them in the middle of the external
tubes, in which they reached nearly to the bottom. They were made
slightly bell-mouthed at the top. The circulation was down the
internal tube and upwards, through the annular space. The bell
mouth prevented these currents from interfering with each other.
One morning Mr. Allen said to me that he had an idea that by
inclining the tubes at a small angle from the vertical a better
circulation would be got than in the Field tubes. He thought the
steam as fast as formed would all go to the upper side of the inclined
tubes, and would rush up along that surface without driving the water
before it, and so the water would always be at the bottom of the
tube, no matter how hard the boiler was fired. I was struck with the
idea and determined to test it. I got the largest test-tube I could find,
1¹⁄₄ inches in diameter and 15 inches long, and set it in an adjustable
support, and applied the flame of four Bunsen burners, bunched
together, at the bottom. In a vertical position the water was instantly
thrown clean out of the tube. At about the angle of 20 degrees Mr.
Allen’s idea was completely realized. The bubbles of steam united in
a continuous stream on the upper side and rushed up with no water
before them. With the most rapid generation of steam the water
remained solid at the bottom of the tube. The sight was a very
interesting one. I reasoned that if this satisfactory result was got
under a short column of water, and only the pressure of the
atmosphere and in a small tube, it could certainly be relied upon
under a column of water several times longer, under a pressure of
several atmospheres and in a much larger tube. The greater the
pressure the smaller the bubbles of steam would be. Those formed
under one atmosphere were about as large as kidney beans.
Mr. Smith was anxious to have us exhibit the engine at the Fair of
the American Institute in New York in the fall of 1870. This Institute
was then at the height of its usefulness, and its annual fairs were
crowded with exhibits and attracted wide attention. Mr. Allen and I
consulted about it, and on account of the liability of getting more hot
water than steam from the queer boilers that might be exhibited, we
agreed that, as the engine would have to be tested for economy, it
would not be safe to exhibit unless we could make a boiler according
to Mr. Allen’s plan to supply the steam. With this boiler we could
certainly get dry steam, and felt confident of getting it superheated.
Our recommendation to that effect was adopted, and we prepared
to exhibit two engines, one of them 16 inches diameter of cylinder by
30 inches stroke to make 150 revolutions per minute, and the other 6
inches in diameter by 12 inches stroke to make 300 revolutions per
minute, and a boiler. We also made to drive our own shop, to take
the place of the portable engine and boiler, an engine of the smaller
size above named, except that the cylinder was, by thickening its
walls, made 5 inches in diameter only. This was because this size
would be ample for the power we required, and I would be able to
show the effect of inertia of the heavy reciprocating parts in
producing smooth and silent running, much better than with a 6-inch
cylinder, which would have about 50 per cent. larger area with no
greater weight in the reciprocating parts, except only in the piston.
This exhibition, as we shall see, became of great importance. We
made also an Allen boiler for ourselves, of four sections; really, as it
proved, three or four times as large as we needed, but we could not
well make it smaller.
This exhibition at the American Institute was in every respect a
great success, not a drawback of any kind about it. The little engine
was used by Merrill & Sons to drive their exhibit of forging