Problematising the Subjectivities of Single Parenthood

Worthless and undeserving? Problematising the subjectivities of single parenthood

Sandra May Coe

Bachelor of Justice (Honours I)

School of Justice, Faculty of Law

Queensland University of Technology

Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

2011

Keywords

Poststructuralism; discourse analysis; Michel Foucault; power; truth; knowledge; discourse; single parenthood; subjectivities; games of truth; media analysis; insider discourses; outsider discourses; normalisation; dividing practices; risk; neoliberal discourses; child wellbeing; parenthood; resilience.

Reference list

Abstract

A considerable body of knowledge has been constructed perpetuating the notion single parenthood is a significant problem for society, and while this is supported by specific research designs and sampling practices, it is also maintained by two key discourses. The first constitutes single parenthood as a deficit, while the second identifies it as a risk. In both cases, these discourses are operationalised by the philosophy of neo-liberalism, which envisions good citizenship as economic autonomy. Historically, it has been the convergence of the risk and deficit discourses that has constituted single parenthood as a social problem.

More recently, however, risk discourses have come to dominate thinking about single parenthood. As a result, this thesis terms risk discourses as dominant

discourses. As dominant discourses, risk sidelines or discounts other ways of Reference list thinking about single parenthood. While a few exceptions are notable, including some feminist, poststructural and family resilience scholars, most researchers appear unable to see past the positioning of these discourses and envision another way of being for parents who are single. This means that alternative subjectivities are obscured and have limited influence in this field of research.

Because this thesis aimed to problematise dominant subjectivities of single parenthood, a poststructural Foucauldian framework has been utilized in order to document the discursive constructions of single parenthood through literature, insider discourses, and outsider discourses. For the purposes of this thesis, outsider discourses are constituted as those outside the subjectivities of single parenthood, such as media and research discourses. An examination of the

Australian media has been undertaken over a one year period, the results of which

form the basis for the analysis of media discourses of single parenthood. Parents who are single were also targeted for self selection into this project to provide insider discourses about single parenthood. This analysis explored how respondents negotiated the discourses of single parenthood and how they themselves used or rejected the subjectivities constructed for them via these discourses to constitute their own subjectivities.

This thesis aimed to explore the role of discourses in the construction of individuals’ subjectivities. Specifically, it draws attention to the way in which knowledge and power work through discourses to emphasize what is allowable, both publicly and privately, in relation to single parenthood. Most importantly, this thesis offers alternative subjectivities for single parenthood to facilitate new ways of thinking about parents who are single.

Reference list

iii

Contents

Keywords i Abstract ii Statement of Original Authorship x Acknowledgement xi

Chapter 1: Introduction to a social problem 1.1 The misconceptions and assumptions of single 1 parenthood 1.2 The purpose of this study 3 1.2.1 Research aims and objectives 3 1.3 Single parenthood as a social problem 6 1.4 A poststructural/Foucauldian toolbox: setting the 8 parameters for theoretical conceptualisations 1.5 A poststructural research design 11 1.6 Conclusion 12

Chapter 2: Exploring the discourses of single parenthood: the literature review Reference list 2.1 Introduction: single parenthood as deficit 15 2.2 Risk discourses and employment: constructing single 18 parents as problematic workers 2.2.1 Single parents helplessly addicted to welfare: the 23 riskiness of dependency 2.2.2 Feminists rewriting single mothers’ dependency as 26 victimisation 2.2.2.1 Resisting dependency and enacting responsibility 29 2.3 Perpetuating the species: family discourses and the 31 riskiness of single parenthood 2.3.1 Destabilising and damaging: the threat of single 33 parenthood. 2.3.2 Ameliorating risks: discourses of good motherhood 36 2.3.3 Entering the ‘charmed circle’: single mothers by 37 choice as ‘Maverick’ mothers 2.3.4 Discursively constructing good fatherhood and the 40 essentialness of men 2.3.5 ‘At risk’ of single parenthood: career choices of 43 undesirable women 2.3.6 Air pollution, depression, and injury: single 46

motherhood as risk 2.3.7 Limiting exposure and protecting children: the 49 riskiness of single parenthood 2.3.8 Immature parents: public surveillance of risky 53 teenage single parenthood 2.3.9 Stigmatisation and vilification: single motherhood as 56 victimisation 2.4 Dividing practices and enacting difference to construct 58 a social problem 2.5 Challenging discourses of deficit and risk 60 2.5.1 ‘Fewer and poorer’: the burden of free-riding men and 61 divided women 2.5.2 Deconstructing a social problem: poststructural 63 interpretations of single parenthood 2.5.3 Searching for family resilience: personal growth and 65 successful single parenthood 2.6 Conclusion 67

Chapter 3: Using Foucault’s toolbox: theoretical conceptualisations 3.1 Introduction 71 3.2 The making of things: discursively constituting reality 72 3.3 The creative and constraining aspects of power 74

3.3.1 Foucault’s trifecta: the power/knowledge/truth 77 Reference list complex 3.3.2 Understanding and contesting truths 78 3.3.3 Understanding subjectivities 81 3.3.4 Resistance: rejecting subjectivities 83 3.4 The macro processes of governance: disciplinary 85 citizenship 3.4.1 Producing the good citizen: normalisation and 88 dividing practices 3.4.2 Internalising normalisation practices: technologies of 91 the self 3.4.3 Risk and the importance of children 92 3.5 Conclusion 95

Chapter 4: Doing knowledge differently: poststructural research design 4.1 Introduction 99 4.2 Fractured mirrors and refracted culture: interpreting 101 the poststructural research design 4.3 Recognising slipperiness: the qualitative approach to 104

research processes 4.3.1 Discursively shaping reality: the analysis of discourse 105 4.4 Worrying the old shibboleths: rewriting validity 107 4.5 Writing under erasure: ethical considerations 111 4.6 Reconfiguring reality: media influence on discursive 112 reality 4.7 Exploring insider and outsider discourses of single 114 parenthood 4.7.1 Stage one: highlighting outsider discourses 116 4.7.1.1 ‘Unrelated’ and ‘duplicated’ data 118 4.7.1.2 Second and third coding rounds 119 4.7.1.3 Research findings: coding and classification 121 4.7.2 Making space for insider discourses: the stage two 124 data 4.7.2.1 Constructing the data: the interview questions 125 4.7.2.2 Accommodating diversity: the recruitment process 126 4.7.2.3 Profile of respondents 128 4.7.2.4 Coding the stage two data 129 4.8 Conclusion 130

Chapter 5: Social burdens and poor citizens: truth games of a social problem Reference list 5.1 Introduction 132 5.2 Problematic workers: barriers and vulnerability as 133 economic threat 5.2.1 Breeding in rabbit proportions: welfare dependency 134 and the economic threat of single parenthood 5.2.1.1 Losing jobs and being exploited: respondents engage 140 with problematic worker subjectivities 5.2.1.2 Having to work differently so the wheels don’t fall off: 142 resisting problematic worker subjectivities 5.2.2 Feeling the pinch: the economic vulnerability of single 147 parenthood 5.2.2.1 Outsider assumptions and good financial managers: 148 resisting economic vulnerability 5.3 Constructing abnormality: media accounts engage 155 risk discourses 5.3.1 Blighted with mental problems: the psychological 156 riskiness of single parenthood 5.3.1.1 Trying not to fall off the cliff: the cataclysmic 158 devastation of single parenthood

5.3.2 Mentally destabilised children: the riskiness of single 162 parenthood for children’s wellbeing 5.3.2.1 Natural phobias and protection: respondents engage 166 with risk discourses 5.3.3 Born on the wrong side of the tracks: single 170 parenthood as criminal risk 5.3.3.1 A natural distrust: respondents engage with criminal 173 risk 5.3.4 Changing horses midstream and the uncertainty of 176 life: the contradictions of risk discourses 5.3.4.1 Losing the big fig tree: loss as a manifestation of 178 single parenthood 5.4 Generating substandard beings: single parent and 181 threat discourses 5.4.1 Sex and the single parent: shameless single mothers 187 and philandering men 5.4.1.1 Stealing husbands: insiders respond to threat 188 discourses 5.5 Surveillance via stigma, stereotypes and labelling: 191 living publicly examined lives 5.5.1 Soiled goods: single motherhood and stigma 191 discourses 5.5.1.1 Sucking breath and having to tell the bad story: 193 insider discourses on stereotypes, labels, and stigma Reference list 5.5.2 Public scrutiny and the problem of teenage single 205 mothers 5.5.2.1 Stuffing up your life or creating opportunities: insider 207 discourses on teenage single motherhood 5.6 Conclusion 212

Chapter 6: Re-thinking single parenthood via resilience and metamorphosis

6.1 Introduction 214 6.2 Media fashioning single parenthood into good 215 citizenship 6.2.1 The mouse that roared: single parents as voting 216 powerhouses 6.2.2 Growing up in shabby Vauclause: single parenthood 217 as tactical support for politicians 6.2.3 The single parent battler: media discourses 221 influenced by cultural beliefs 6.2.4 Reaching stellar heights: single parenthood as 224 success 6.2.5 Constructing good single parenthood through devotion 228

vii

6.2.5.1 The pull of the Supermum phenomenon: respondents 229 engage with good motherhood discourses 6.3 Rocking their boat: schools enacting deficit 232 parenthood 6.3.1 Resisting deficit discourses: insider discourses 240 constructing good single parenthood 6.4 When you’re going through hell just keep on walking: 246 the resilience of single parents 6.4.1 There's got to be an easier way to learn than having it 249 nearly kill you: the transformative functions of single parenthood 6.4.2 Just the little things: autonomy performed through 252 freedom and happiness 6.4.3 The global village thing: social support and random 257 acts of kindness 6.6 Conclusion 260

Chapter 7: Concluding comments 7.1 Introduction 262 7.2 A new conceptual framework 264 7.3 Highlighting the problems of a singular lens 265 7.4 Identifying gaps and taboos: possibilities for future 266 research 7.5 Policy issues 269 Reference list 7.6 Conclusion 272

Appendix 1: The stage one data Table A1:1 Lexicon of search terms for stage one data collection 273 process Table A1:2 Results for database search terms 274 Table A1:3 Nodes created for first round of coding in NVivo8 276 Table A1:4 Totals for search term and newspaper 276 Table A1:5 Totals for article type and newspaper 277 Table A1:6 Free nodes created for second round of coding in 278 NVivo8 Table A1:7 Nodes used for third round of data coding in NVivo8 279 Table A1:8 Featured individual’s relationship to single parenthood 279 Table A1:9 Totals for final coding in NVivo8 for analysis 280 Table A1:10 Nodes merged into word documents outlining broader 281 themes Table A1:11 Data spread for articles coded to welfare node 282 Figure A1:12 Snapshot of data table for stage one 283

viii

Appendix 2: The stage two data Interview schedule 284 Table A2:1 Nodes established for the first round of coding for the 286 stage two data Appendix 3: Bibliography for media data 287 Reference list 305

Tables and charts 4:1 The 20 largest categories established for coding the 123 stage one data 4:2 The known employment status of respondents 129

Reference list

Statement of Original Authorship

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made.

Signature ……………………………………….

Date …………………………………………….

Reference list

Acknowledgement

I would first like to acknowledge the contribution of my two supervisors Dr Angela

Dwyer and Professor Belinda Carpenter as both women have been pivotal in the development and constitution of this thesis. Dr Dwyer’s emphasis on developing strong writing skills has made a significant contribution to the quality of this thesis.

Professor Carpenter has asked the right questions at the right times in order to challenge the development of my ideas through the analysis and articulation of this project. The input of both women has been crucial in the culmination of the project into this final thesis. I thank them both for their time and assistance throughout this project.

I would also sincerely like to thank all of the participants who have generously Reference list shared their stories with me. As they have all attested in various ways, single parenthood is not an affliction, it is an adventure. Like all adventures, sometimes you must walk in the dark to get to the light because our experiences do not break us, they make us! Consequently I dedicate this thesis to the respondents who participated in this project and all other single parents in the hope that the knowledge constituted here may enable them to continue dreaming and striving for their own successes.

I would also like to acknowledge and thank the following organisations for their support toward the recruitment of the respondents in this project:

 Parents Without Partners (Queensland);

 Lone Fathers (Brisbane);

 Rainbow Families (www.rainbowfamilies.org.au);

 National Council of Single Mothers and their Children (www.ncsmc.org.au);

 Single Mums (www.singlemums.com.au);

 Single With Children (www.singlewithchildren.com.au);

 Ipswich Family Planning;

 Ipswich Health Plaza;

 West Moreton Women’s Health;

 Inala HIPPY Group (Home Interaction Program for Parents and Youngsters -

Queensland Health); and

 Health Information Line for Women’s Health Queensland.

Reference list

xii

Chapter 1 Introduction to a social problem

1.1 The misconceptions and assumptions of single parenthood

IMAGINE you fall on hard times and (it's hard, but try) imagine further

that there is no government welfare to fall back on. You have a couple

of kids to support, you have no idea who their father is, you have no

source of income, no savings and you cannot find a job. So what do you

do?

Quite probably, you would ask your friends or family to help you out until

you managed to get on your feet. You don't like to impose on them in Reference list this way, for it's embarrassing having to rely on aid from other people

when you should be looking after yourself. But sometimes things just go

wrong in life and, in your present circumstance, you really have no

choice but to rely on your nearest and dearest.

They ask you how much you need. You tell them you'd like $512.66

every week (this is how much a jobless single parent with two children

gets from the government in parenting payment, family tax benefit and

rent assistance). They think that sounds rather a lot, but they cough up,

for they care about you and you are in desperate straits.

After a while you are offered a part-time job. Your kids are at school

most days, so it's perfectly possible for you to accept the job and

combine it with your parenting responsibilities. But it's not very well paid.

Indeed, once you've paid your travel and other related costs, you work

out you'll be only $25 a week better off. You gather your friends and

family around you and explain the situation.

“I could earn enough to look after myself without having to rely on you

guys at all. But it's hardly worth my while; I'd be only $25 better off each

week. So I've decided to turn down the job and stay at home watching

daytime television while you lot continue going out to work to earn the

money to keep supporting me”.

It's unthinkable. You'd never say it. You'd never even consider it. Even

if you ended up no better off than before, we all know it would be

preposterous to demand that your kith and kin continue supporting you

once the opportunity arose to earn money for yourself.

If you did have the bare-faced cheek to suggest such a thing, even those

who love you most would soon tell you to get off your backside and stop

being so unbelievably selfish. Yet this is exactly what happens under

welfare rules as they relate to jobless single parents. The difference is, Reference list it's strangers rather than intimates who are expected to provide the

continuing financial support ... (Saunders, 2008:14 in The Australian).

This extract was taken from a recent newspaper article published in a major

Australian newspaper. It constructs a particular image of single parenthood with strong cultural currency that is hard to disrupt. People reading this article, without any knowledge of single parenthood, would form the belief that the term ‘single parent’ signifies females with multiple children of unknown parentage. They would also form the impression that single parents are women too lazy to work, preferring instead to stay home and watch television rather than earn a living through paid employment. Clearly, Saunders’ article constructs a clear image of single parents as mothers who are single that demonstrate a defective form of citizenship.

The purpose of this project is to explore, analyse and problematise the subjectivities of single parenthood. Part of this process involves the unpacking of dominant discourses currently influencing and informing single parenthood subjectivities. The above extract was chosen to introduce the subject of single parenthood as it provides a clear example of a number of the misconceptions and assumptions informing people’s understanding of these subjectivities. Using this newspaper article to illustrate how some subjectivities of single parenthood are discursively constructed allows the examination of the discourses that inform these perceptions.

1.2 The purpose of this study

The inspiration for this study arose from an interest in how people are discursively constructed, especially those constituted as social problems. The discursive construction of subjectivities for particular groups of people depict them as certain

‘types’ of people, discounting or rendering invisible other ways of being for those Reference list individuals. The other ways of being that are discounted or rendered invisible do not simply cease to exist, and can be rediscovered on the margins of the fields of possibility surrounding one’s subjectivity. It is this rediscovering or rendering visible of marginalised subjectivities that is of most interest for this research.

1.2.1 Research aims and objectives

This project explored the discourses of single parenthood. The primary aim of the study was to examine the discourses of single parenthood and the subjectivities they give rise to. Based on this primary aim, the main research questions for the project were:

A. How is single parenthood discursively constructed by outsider

discourses?1

B. How are the insider narratives of single parents informed by the outsider

discourses constituting the subjectivities of single parenthood?

C. How do single parents discursively constitute their own subjectivities?

These research questions were designed to render visible the differing perspectives between how subjectivities are understood for those inhabiting the subjectivities, compared with those outside them. Thus, the project explored single parenthood from the perspectives of single parents, researchers, and the media.

The research questions gave rise to a number of secondary aims. They were:

1. To explore current research accounts concerning the discursive

constructions of single parenthood and to identify the commissions and

omissions in the literature.

2. To develop a new conceptual model for understanding the effects these

discursive constructions have for single parents. Reference list 3. To apply this conceptual model to analyse empirical data regarding the

effects of these discursive constructions for single parents.

4. To discuss the implications of this discourse analysis in relation to the

literature by juxtaposing the discursive constructions of single

parenthood influencing literature with those of the media and single

parents themselves to demonstrate how some subjectivities dominant

cultural perspectives and set the parameters for what can and cannot be

said about single parenthood.

5. To render visible other ways of thinking about single parenthood to allow

constructive and enabling subjectivities for parents who are single.

1 For the purposes of this study, ‘outsider’ refers to those outside the subjectivities under examination and ‘insider’ refers to those understood to occupy said subjectivities. For an expanded explanation of these terms see section 4.6.

As this study prioritizes the examination of discourses in order to understand how single parenthood is constituted in society from three distinct perspectives, there are three major elements to this study. The first explores current research accounts of single parenthood in order to tease out both the dominant and more nuanced ideas about what constitutes single parenthood. These notions are made obvious by the way researchers structure their studies and the issues they try to align with single parenthood. The second major feature of this study involves an analysis of media discourses of single parenthood. It is argued, as newspaper media operates as a business in the private sector, its representations of particular social groups like single parents must conform to dominant cultural beliefs in order to be accepted and thus, saleable. For this reason, media accounts of single parents are understood as normalised versions of these subjectivities. The third and final element to this study embodies the perspectives of single parents themselves regarding their own subjectivities. Reference list Underpinning this study is the notion that dominant perspectives of social phenomenon act as symbols of truth that individuals in broader society adopt to inform their understandings about such phenomenon. For this reason, researchers’ accounts of single parenthood are defined as expert or authoritative discourses pointing to the truth about single parents. Hence, it was anticipated that the dominant subjectivities obvious in expert discourses would have flow-through effects noticeable within both media discourses and the discourses of single parents themselves. In order to render visible the cross-over between the discourses, the different perspectives were to be juxtaposed against one another. To facilitate this, the perspectives dominating and informing research accounts of single parents needed to be examined.

1.3 Single parenthood as a social problem

Central to this thesis is the examination of authoritative discourses in order to tease out the subjectivities dominating researchers’ understandings of single parenthood.

Predominantly, these accounts constitute single parenthood as a social problem.

The seriousness accorded to this problem is gauged by the voluminous literature constructing knowledge about it. This knowledge comes from many diverse fields, such as psychology, health, social work, economics, demography, policy, and labour studies. Although the disciplines are diverse, the underlying beliefs informing these studies are the same: that single parenthood is a problem that can be, and should be, fixed. The research designs and sampling techniques often used in these studies reaffirm the notion that single parenthood is a problem. Arguably, researchers appear reluctant to comprehend single parenthood as a positive family structure. Consequently, the knowledge constituted about single parenthood perpetuates the notion it is a problem, thus sustaining the deficit perspective. Reference list The broad range of issues associated with single parenthood via research is a indication that researchers perceive single parenthood to be a significant social problem. For example, studies into single parenthood establish connections with the following social problems: air pollution (Downey and Hawkins, 2008); unemployment (Daly and Smith, 1998); welfare dependency (Eardley, 2001); lower levels of education (Zhan and Pandey, 2004); abortion rates (Argys, Averett and

Rees, 2000); poverty (Buvinić and Gupta, 1997); declining rates of marriage (Graefe and Lichter, 2002); poor parenting practices (Thomson, Mosley, Hanson and

McLanahan, 2001); depression (Brown and Moran, 2000); mortality rates (Weitoft,

Haglund and Rosén, 2000); and criminality (Legleye, Obradovic, Janssen, Spilka, Le

Nézet, and Beck, 2010). Although there is diversity within this research, and the single parent subjectivities can be contradictory, these studies all share a particular way of constituting single parenthood: as a social problem in need of fixing.

Research designs and sampling techniques also indicate the extent to which the deficit perspective dominates research accounts of single parenthood. Sampling techniques also set the parameters for how a study defines single parenthood.

Again, these methods are predominantly negative with the following groups over- represented in the studies: homeless single fathers (McArthur, Zubrizycki,

Rochester and Thomson, 2006); single mothers on welfare (Fuller, Kershaw and

Pulkingham, 2008); homeless single mothers (Brooks and Buckner, 1996), and teenage single mothers (Hanna, 2001). Very little empirical research allows single parents to define their own subjectivities. Instead, deficit subjectivities are thrust on respondents in a one size fits all approach. These limited ways of thinking about single parenthood preserve the deficit subjectivity as if it is the only legitimate form of single parenthood.

The one size fits all approach favoured by researchers essentialises single parents.

The categorization of single parents into specific deficit subjectivities can potentially Reference list result in negative material effects for all single parents. This association between knowledge production and negative effects is highlighted by Ambert who argues,

“there should emerge a greater awareness of the consequences for parents and their children of researchers’ activities in terms of knowledge production and dissemination” (1994:539). The exploration of potentially negative effects of single parenthood discourses (as well as any positive effects), demands a teasing out of both the constant and diverse aspects of various subjectivities. Through this process, material effects of discourses are rendered visible to highlight the consequences of the overuse of the deficit lens by researchers.

The literature review is presented in terms of the themes most obvious in this research field. This structure enables the identification of areas around which knowledge is constructed and highlights how the games of truth in research

practices perpetuate single parenthood problem. As this project is about exploring the effects of research for those embodied in single parent subjectivities, the identification of dominant discourses is an essential first step in this endeavour. The rendering visible of the silences, invisibilities, and taboos in this body of research makes apparent the areas ignored or overlooked by researchers working in these fields. For example, some such aspects of single parenthood that are obscured in this large body of research are: middle and upper socio-economic single parents; single parents from the lesbian gay bisexual and transgender community; single fathers (especially teenage single fathers); the nexus between single parenthood and military service; similarly, the link between disabilities and single parenthood; and lastly, the entry to single parenthood via the death of relatives and friends.

These silences, invisibilities, and taboos reveal the narrow parameters currently defining the field of research about single parenthood. It accentuates what is referred to as the ‘black boxing’ of science (Kendall and Wickham, 1999:73). By indicating the gaps in the research, as well as the material effects of the research, Reference list this project advocates for mindfulness in research processes to circumvent the pathologisation of individuals through generalisations and essentialisations about subjectivities like single parenthood.

1.4 A poststructural/Foucauldian toolbox: setting the parameters for theoretical conceptualisations

As the purpose of this research is to document the discourses of single parenthood in order to provide new ways of thinking about these subjectivities, it is necessary to employ an enabling theoretical lens. This project uses a poststructural/Foucauldian framework as it provides the necessary tools for this problematising and enabling project. Scholars influenced by Foucauldian thought argue the naming of things is important to how they will be comprehended (Danaher, Schirato and Webb,

2000:127). Although it is acknowledged that discourse is not the total sum of experience, it is the predominant form used in western societies for expressing ideas about reality, experience, and the self in western culture. More importantly, discursive narratives are perceived as holding the most authority or expressing more of a ‘truth’ than other forms of expression, such as movement (dance) or illustration

(pictures). Therefore discursive narratives can have greater material effects on people’s realities than other forms of expression, especially when informed by authoritative discourses.

The poststructural/Foucauldian theoretical framework is necessary as it allows for the examination of both negative and positive effects of subjectivities and unveils marginalised discourses. This endeavour is important because “[s]ocial, legal, and behavioural writers are today’s counterpart of the missionaries of past centuries”

(Ambert, 1994:538). The dominant perspectives informing single parenthood are often based on taken-for-granted assumptions about single parents. They result in Reference list powerful discourses understood as authoritative discourses, setting the parameters for how single parenthood can be thought about and talked about. By opening up the discursive fields of single parenthood to questions of subjectivity, the discursive construction of such subjectivities becomes evident enabling the destabilisation and rewriting of problematic and constraining subjectivities. As St. Pierre argues, “if subjectivity is constructed within relations that are situated within local discourse and cultural practice – both of which can be resisted to some extent … We can no longer justify positions that are hurtful” (2002:401). By destabilising dominant deficit discourses, and rendering visible new and constructive ways of thinking about single parenthood, single parents will no longer be locked into the deficit subjectivities currently favoured by researchers. Destabilisation of dominant discourses also provides an avenue for single parents themselves to underwrite the authority of their own subjectivities.

Foucault’s (1994 and 2010) concepts of discourse, truth, knowledge, and power underpin this project. These concepts are employed to prise open the ‘taken-for- granted’ ways of understanding single parenthood which make “it difficult to imagine how it could be otherwise” (Walkerdine, 1984:163). St. Pierre cautions these understandings become ‘dangerous’ making our world ‘shaky’ when we become

‘suspicious’ of these everyday ways of understanding the world and “begin to see that nothing is innocent and that everything is dangerous” (2002:400).

Dangerousness means the challenging, contesting, and destabilisation of people’s beliefs about things in order to show how they can be thought about differently (St.

Pierre, 2002). The destabilisation of beliefs in this way makes the world dangerous as it takes away the certainty of things and renders visible their constructed nature implying they can be thought about otherwise (St. Pierre, 2002). This Foucauldian way of viewing the world facilitates the problematisation of the subjectivities of single parenthood via discourses to generate new ways of understanding these subjectivities. Reference list

This thesis uses the concepts of discourse, truth, knowledge, and power to study the discursive construction of single parenthood. Discourses are understood as setting the parameters for what can and cannot be said, and for which behaviours and actions are allowable and not allowable, in relation to specific subjectivities in western culture. Exploring discourses in this way focuses attention on which acts are:

comprehensible and in which ways, on why something is spoken into

existence as taken for granted, on how and when something is taboo or

a subject on which there is silence, on what is told as a rupture, though it

is acceptable, or at least potentially can be made legitimate in special

circumstances or legitimate by particular subjects through their particular

positioning (Søndergaard, 2002:191).

Foucault’s (2010) notion of truth games is important for this project as it signifies who has the power to speak with authority about single parenthood. The exploration of discourses also renders visible dividing practices and normalisation processes, both of which are techniques for governing the conduct of individuals (Foucault,

1991). Exploring single parenthood discourses provides evidence for the ways in which parents who are single are governed. As discourses are unstable and can be rewritten differently, they also hold the most potential for rethinking the deficit subjectivities of single parenthood.

1.5 A poststructural research design

Poststructuralism takes language as the basis for understanding reality (Edley,

2001). Qualitative methods and a preference for discourse analysis dominate poststructural methodologies. As a poststructural/Foucauldian inspired project exploring the discursive constitution of single parenthood, poststructural Reference list methodologies also inform this project. Three types of discourses are used. The first are constituted via research literature and deemed authoritative discourses.

The second are provided by a media analysis of six eastern Australian newspaper publications. Media outlets are understood to be significant inscribers of social reality (Talbot, 2007), therefore these publications are considered representative of media discourses constituting single parenthood. Both these discursive forms are understood as outsider discourses as they are outside the subjectivities they inscribe.2 Media discourses provide insight into the level of power (understood as influence) of authoritative discourses as they inform outsiders’ understandings of single parenthood.

2 See section 4.6 for expansion and explanation of these terms.

The third set of discourses examined for this project are produced by single parents themselves. Single parent respondents were canvassed to obtain their perspectives of single parenthood. Within this project, these discourses represent insider discourses as single parents are understood to occupy the subjectivities of single parenthood. The three groups of discourses are important for this project as they provide insight into the discursive games of truth played out through authoritative knowledge. As researchers predominantly fail to examine single parenthood from multiple perspectives (resulting in the implicit essentialisation of single parents), this project’s exploration through multiple discourses provides valuable insight into this social phenomenon currently lacking from this large and diverse field of research.

1.6 Conclusion

By comparing and contrasting the three different discursive perspectives, a number of important issues became apparent. The first is that single parenthood is primarily Reference list understood as single motherhood. Researchers overwhelmingly sampled single mothers in their studies of single parenthood with single fathers discounted or rendered invisible. Researchers also primarily focused on low socio-economic respondents marginalising other aspects of single parenthood not fitting within these tight parameters. As the majority of the respondents participating in this project fall outside the sampling parameters of many of the studies outlined in the literature, their perspectives provide new insight into single parenthood otherwise missing from the authoritative discourses. Moreover, the sampling techniques of this project open up the fields of possibility for how single parenthood can be constructed in future studies.

The documenting of dominant discourses informing research literature allowed discursive themes to be tracked as they traversed the different contexts of media

and respondent discourses. The anticipation was that authoritative discourses would be clearly visible in both the media and insider discourses. Interestingly however, this influence was not as significant as expected. The analysis of media discourses provided evidence of culturally specific discursive ideas, as well as authoritative discourses. The conclusion being that authoritative discourses are not the only, or even the predominant, influence on cultural discourses as construed by media discourses.

Media discourses also provided evidence of conflicting or paradoxical single parent subjectivities. It was found that media discourses presenting generalised representations of single parenthood constituted deficit subjectivities, perpetuating the notion single parenthood is a social problem. In contrast however, media representations of specific single parents situated them as successful, both as individuals and as parents. In addition, specific children of single parents were also depicted as successful in media discourses. These alternative subjectivities Reference list destabilise authoritative deficit subjectivities and make possible the envisioning of single parenthood as a form of good parenthood. It also exposes the sampling flaws of much of the research into single parenthood which overwhelmingly focuses on low socio-economic groups.

Insider discourses are also important for rethinking single parenthood. Respondents indicated they had awareness of the negative subjectivities arising from researcher discourses. They were able to discuss and provide examples of interactions with others where they perceived deficit subjectivities were used to inform understandings of single parenthood. Respondents used this awareness to employ tactics of resistance to reposition their selves more favourably. According to Lessa, resistance is performed by “discursive practices that manage to break away from the hegemony of dominant discourses” (2005:286). Respondents in this study resisted

the deficit positioning by outsiders by rejecting negative subjectivities and repositioned themselves into positive and constructive subjectivities. For example, many of them were able to rethink the hardships of single parenthood and argue it was personally transformative, embodying a process of metamorphosis. In this respect, the deficit subjectivity of hardship and adversity was rethought into an enabling and constructive subjectivity of personal growth and transformation.

The juxtaposition of dominant discourses within outsider and insider perspectives facilitated the observation of truth games as they were played out within single parenthood discourses. Truth games were most obvious where authoritative discourses clearly traversed both the media and respondent discourses. The interweaving of authoritative discourses into other discourses demonstrates the extent to which researchers’ influence contributes to the social construction of single parenthood in a broader context, especially that of the deficit perspective of being a social problem. Reference list

This project documents and charts single parenthood discourses influencing authoritative discourses, media discourses, and respondent discourses. The purpose was to render visible truth claims underpinning these discourses. It is not an attempt to make claims about the truth of the discourses, or to discredit intellectual knowledge, but merely to point out other ways of understanding subjectivities. It therefore advocates awareness and encourages thoughtfulness in the knowledge construction process.

Chapter 2 Exploring discourses of single parenthood: the literature review

2.1 Introduction: single parenthood as deficit

In order to discursively explore single parenthood, discourses that dominate and inform thinking about these subjectivities need to be rendered visible. As scholarly knowledges, it is recognised and acknowledged intellectual discourses informing this extensive field of research are diverse, complex, fragmented, and often contradictory with dominant discourses cutting across paradigms and disciplines.

For these reasons, detailed analysis of every area of study and every frame of Reference list reference would be unachievable within the time frame set for this project. To overcome this problem, a broad and generalised treatment of dominant discourses is presented in order to categorise the main themes underpinning this substantial body of knowledge.3

Using a poststructural framework to analyse the literature, this chapter presents discursive themes like risk, dependency, and family to document the subjectivities of single parenthood. Poststructural approaches understand “every representation” as

“a representation from some point of view, within some frame of vision” rather than

3 Due to the immensity of this body of literature it has not been possible to review all single parenthood discourses, and the review has been limited to the discursive themes evident in both the literature as well as the media and/or respondent discourses explored in this study. As a result, there are a number of discourses that are not discussed in this study that have significant authority in this body of research, such as fathers’ rights discourses, children’s rights discourses, and legal discourses.

objective truthful reflections (Brown, 1994:230). These acknowledgements facilitate explorations that seek to “gain insight into the ways in which the true has been fashioned, and could be refashioned anew” (Brown, 1994:230). This review of the literature therefore explores the research and intellectual accounts of single parenthood in order to understand how they have come into being, and what dominant ideas keep them in place. It is congruent with a Foucauldian lens facilitating the excavation of beliefs and assumptions underpinning scholarly knowledges of single parenthood.

Although risk discourses heavily influence the literature, a poststructural approach facilitates the teasing out of layered discourses and subthemes evident in the literature to draw attention to the more subtle ways in which single parenthood is discursively constituted. Discourses exist through “a complex set of practices which try to keep them in circulation and other practices which try to fence them off from others and keep those other statements out of circulation” (Mills, 2003:54). It is Reference list therefore necessary to render visible dominant discourses (perpetuated by the design and sampling practices), as well as those less prominent in the literature. It is also necessary to review both theoretical and empirical literature as both contribute to discursive practices. This review primarily focuses on western literature however it is not limited to this context as discourses (especially dominant discourses) can be replicated in other cultures with evidence of western discourses visible in non-western countries.4

The first main theme evident in the literature revolves around employment issues.

The singleness of single parenthood is understood as generating multiple barriers inhibiting single parents’ capacity for good worker performance (Doiron, 2004).

Single parenthood is also powerfully aligned with welfare, which is understood to

4 See for example: Segal-Engelchin and Wozner 2005 (Israel); King, 2003 (Hong Kong); Kanata and Banks, 1997 (Japan).

mean dependency and vulnerability (Marlow, 2006). These discourses define vulnerability in economic terms situating single parenthood not only as a current social problem, but also a future problem as single parents enter retirement (Loxton,

2005). Single parenthood is constituted as problematic citizenship because single parents are perceived as incapable of self-sufficiency, both now and in the future.

Single parents are therefore not only constituted as ‘undesirable workers’, but also as ‘burdens’ on state resources (Howe and Pidwell, 2004). For these reasons, their citizenship is problematic or deficit citizenship not conforming to neoliberal ideals of good citizenship.

Family discourses powerfully influence the lives of men and women in western societies. These discourses predominantly envision good parenthood as heterosexual, coupled parenthood with single parenthood signifying problematic or deficit parenthood due to the singleness of the parent (Mannis, 1999). Single parenthood is also constituted as destabilising to marriage and a threat to society Reference list via divorce and non-marriage (Cherlin, 2008). The discourses of intensive motherhood and responsible fatherhood are explored to render visible the ways these discourses influence ideals of good parenthood (May, 2008; Wilson and Prior,

2003). Studies influenced by these discourses seek to find explanations to account for the rise of single parenthood. Rationalisations provided involve the marriage market, absent fathers, and few career choices for low socio-economic women

(Simon, 2002; Rowlingson and McKay, 2005). With single parenthood understood to be a threat to family and social stability, the influence of risk discourses are evident. Risk within family discourses are primarily constituted as the riskiness of single motherhood for both adults and children alike (Zabkiewicz, 2010; Park, 2007).

Teenage single motherhood discourses draw on additional discourses of developmental psychology to constitute these mothers as especially risky (Burnett,

2002). Feminist scholars endeavour to disrupt these dominant constructions and

normalise single mothers by arguing they are victimised subjectivities (Wilson and

Huntington, 2005).

The Foucauldian perspective allows for the exploration of discourses via truth and power. Discourses contain power as they made individuals in particular ways claiming (Mills, 2003). Dividing practices bring to light research accounts dividing single parents into groups, with the implication some are more risky than others.

Researchers using this technique isolate various ‘types’ of single parenthood on the basis of difference with differences enacted via gender, ethnicity, and socio- economic characteristics (Grall, 2007; Daly, 1998; Bianchi, 1995). This chapter concludes by highlighting marginalised discourses contesting deficit perspectives and offering alternative ways of thinking about single parenthood.

2.2 Risk discourses and employment: constructing

single parents as problematic workers Reference list

The literature about single parenthood is predominantly influenced by risk discourses suggesting these discourses are dominant discourses. Risk discourses pervade research in various ways, not all of which are explicit. In addition, neoliberal discourses situate economic self-sufficiency as representative of good citizenship, with this version of citizenship “not only something that can be chosen, but also something that should be chosen” (Roy, 2008:4673). Single parenthood is implicitly constituted as a form of ‘problematic citizenship’ through risk, vulnerability, and dependency discourses.

Neoliberal discourses constitute the state as duty bound to protect citizens from threats, both outside and inside society. These discourses provide justifications for intervention into the lives of citizens considered problematic for the rest of society

(Rose, 2005). Deficit perspectives facilitate the constitution of single parenthood as

a social problem with generalisations that it is a ‘dysfunctional’ family producing children that grow into ‘dysfunctional’ adults. Risk is understood as these dysfunctional families producing dysfunctional children who then become damaged adults and by default, a problem and burden to society. As the literature almost exclusively samples single mothers, the riskiness of single parenthood is primarily constituted as the riskiness of single motherhood.

Single parenthood is constituted as a multifaceted risk with the first aspect of these risks produced through employment. This theme incorporates the literature examining unemployment, welfare, and poverty. Underpinning these research accounts is the idea that single parenthood impedes employment and self- sufficiency. Dominant beliefs implicit within this theme is that the cost of state provision of welfare consumed by single parents is a major burden on the public purse, financially crippling states (Howe and Pidwell, 2004). As state aspirations for citizenship position work as the ideal vehicle for achieving self-sufficiency, good Reference list citizenship is performed through employment. Single parenthood is predominantly constituted as non-performing citizenship via the literature positioning single parents as ‘non-workers’, ‘unemployed’, and ‘welfare users’ (Monroe and Tiller, 2001;

Mokhtar and Platt, 2009). Dependency and vulnerability indicate these forms of citizenship are burdens for society, and consequently, a social problem in need of fixing (Barrett, 2002; Marlow, 2006). This section examines how these ideas about single parenthood are conveyed in the research literature.

There is considerable interest by researchers in studying single parenthood and workforce participation in order to quantify the extent of this problem. This literature predominantly stems from studies in economics, labour (Holzer, 1999; Livermore and Powers, 2006; Doiron, 2004; Lerman and Ratcliffe, 2001; González, 2008), and sociology (Barnes, 2008; Lleras, 2008; Cohen, 2002; Burden, 1986; Monroe and

Tiller, 2001; Sabia, 2008; Myles, Hou, Picot, and Myers, 2009). A comparative lens is often used with the employment of single mothers compared to those of partnered or married mothers (Gray, Qu and Renda, 2006; Walter, 2005; Gray, Qu, de Vaus and Millward, 2003; Craig, 2005; Hughes and Gray, 2005; Walter, 2005). Gray, Qu, de Vaus and Millward (2003) used this method to explore why single mothers have reportedly lower rates of work force participation than partnered mothers. They used statistical models based on 1996 Australian Census data to calculate the probability of employment for lone and partnered mothers (Gray et al, 2003:599).

They concluded that “the determinants of the probability of employment are generally similar” between the two groups of women, however the barriers to employment have a “larger negative effect” on single mothers than on partnered mothers (Gray et al, 2003:613). These ‘negative effects’ contribute to the lower employment rates for single mothers, producing a difference between the employment rates of the two groups (Gray et al, 2003). Research in this field is underpinned by deficit perspectives envisioning the singleness of single parenthood Reference list inhibiting employment for single mothers.

The construction of single parenthood as generating barriers impeding employment attracts sustained research interest. Researchers explore the perceived barriers constraining single parents’ ability to undertake fulltime paid employment with two lines of thought discernable in the literature. The first constructs barriers as

‘external’ to single parenthood (Cohen, 2002; Lerman and Ratcliffe, 2001; Holzer,

1999; Doiron, 2004; Livermore and Power, 2006), whilst the second constitutes them as ‘internal’ (Brooks and Buckner, 1996; Monroe and Tiller, 2001; Morehead,

2002; Burden, 1986). External barriers are constituted as structural. Hughes and

Gray (2005) compared the use of ‘family-friendly’ work arrangements between single mothers and partnered mothers. They claim their findings “suggest that lone mothers have a greater demand for family-friendly work arrangements than couple

mothers, and they also have a higher level of unmet need” (2005:23). Holzer (1999) investigated whether employers would actually employ welfare recipients as they are perceived to be a less desirable work force. Lerman and Ratcliffe (2001) analysed the job market to ascertain if it could absorb the numbers of single parents channelled back into the workforce through welfare reforms, without displacing other workers. These barriers are understood to be structural barriers (such as employers attitudes, the state of the job market, and the provision of child care facilities), all of which are ‘external’ to single parenthood impeding single parents’ ability to find and maintain employment. As structural barriers, they are beyond the scope of the individual to rectify.

The barriers impeding ‘good worker performance’ constructed as ‘internal’ are perceived as either inherent to the ‘type’ of individuals that become parents who are single, or an integral part of these subjectivities. Internal barriers are understood to be: low education, low job relevant skills (Brooks and Buckner, 1996; Zhan and Reference list Pandey, 2004; Butterworth, 2003); personal commitment to work (work ethic)

(Monroe and Tiller, 2001); mental health issues (Jayakody and Stauffer, 2000;

Baker, North and the ALSPAC Team, 1999); and care responsibilities (Morehead,

2002; Burden, 1986). Monroe and Tiller (2001) studied unemployed single mothers in order to ascertain if their attitudes to work impeded their ability to find employment. Jayakody and Stauffer (2000) questioned whether mental health issues restrained the employment prospects of single mothers. They claimed mental health issues were a factor contributing to the low employment rates of single mothers, and argued “greater attention” was required to this ‘barrier’ if greater self-sufficiency is to be enabled for this group (Jayakody and Stauffer, 2000:617).

By constructing barriers to ‘good employment’ as inherent to these subjectivities, single parenthood itself is constituted as inhibiting employment for single parents.

Paid work therefore does not remove single parenthood from subjectivities of

problematic worker; the nature of the ‘problem’ merely shifts. This understanding of internal barriers envisions parents that are single are risky prospects for potential employers.

The perceived lack of employment for single parents is understood as a deficiency inherent within this group impeding their capacity for paid work. Therefore the solution is proposed as the need for treatment through programs. Research in this area explores the multiple programs designed to treat (fix) the inadequacies of single parents (Zhan and Pandey, 2004; Livermore and Powers, 2006; Baker, 2000;

Dockery and Stromback, 2004). It predominantly centres around internal barriers such as improving job related skills (Brady, 2007; Baker and Tippin, 2002), or assisting with the transition from welfare to work (Marlow, 2006; Howell and Pidwell,

2004; Bansak, Mattson, and Rice, 2010). Brooks and Buckner used work histories from 436 “sheltered homeless and low-income” single mothers in the US to “develop a predictive model of factors that facilitate employment possibilities” (1996:526). Reference list They argued their findings “suggest the need for programs of education, early intervention, and job training” to assist women into employment (Brooks and

Buckner, 1996:526). Dockery and Stromback (2004) reviewed the impact of targeted interventions on the employment successes of single mothers on welfare in

Australia. They claimed their findings suggested that interventions alone were not sufficient to overcome the barriers single parents faced in finding paid employment

(Dockery and Stromback, 2004). Constructing single parenthood through constraint in terms of good worker performance allows single parents to be constituted as having ‘special needs’, which are then translated into programs and interventions to ameliorate their deficiencies. This body of knowledge constructs the truth of single parenthood as problematic to good employment justifying interventions in the guise of risk minimalisation and encouraging good workforce participation and subsequently good citizenship.

2.2.1 Single parents helplessly addicted to welfare: the riskiness of dependency

Single parenthood is constituted as inimical to good worker performance necessary for economic self-sufficiency. Dependency discourses underpin these fields of thought. ‘Dependency culture’ is interpreted as ‘deforming’ individuals self- responsibility requiring assistance in order to become ‘active citizens’ and “assume their rightful place as the self-actualising and demanding subjects of ‘advanced’ liberal democracy” (Rose, 1996:60). These constructions of single parenthood establish a strong nexus with welfare, and by default, poverty (Mendes, 2004;

Fraser and Gordon, 1994; Eardley, 2001; Daly and Smith, 1998; Parker, 2004;

O’Connor, 2001; Reekie, 1997; Harris, 1996; Engles, 2006; Barrett, 2002; Lewis,

1998b; Argys, Averett and Rees, 2000; Mokhtar and Platt, 2009; Kenway,

MacInnes, Fothergill, and Horgan, 2010; Cebulla, Flore, and Greenberg, 2008;

Chunn and Gavigan, 2004; Marsh and Vegeris, 2004; Luna, 2009; Thomas, Stone, and Cotton, 1999; and Marlow, 2006). Reference list

With a considerable amount of literature investigating single parenthood and welfare, single parents are typically constituted as welfare dependent reinforcing their problematic citizenship status as “good citizens don’t require state assistance”

(Brodie, 1997:239). Welfare dependency is understood to mean “dependent on social welfare programs rather than on spouses, parents or other family members”

(Sidel, 2000:75). The incorporation of single parenthood into welfare dependency discourses indicates single parents are unable to perform good citizenship through self-sufficiency. Welfare dependency signifies risk by burdening society and draining public resources.

The concept of dependency relies heavily on neo-liberal discourses for its cultural relevance. Through these discourses, dependency signifies a poor work ethic as welfare recipients are understood to be incapable “of self-reliance, not because of a

lack of employment opportunities, but because they have lost the desire to work as a consequence of the nature of income support” (Parker, 2004:29). Welfare dependency is likened to addiction “not dissimilar to that of helpless dependence on drugs and alcohol or gambling” (Mendes, 2004:32). The ‘welfare dependent’ is understood to be someone who is “virtually irredeemable, lazy, dependent, living off the hard-earned money of others” (Sidel, 2000:73). These neo-liberal interpretations of welfare dependency establish invoke the understanding that the provision of welfare generates “dependency and anti-social behaviour” and does

“little to encourage self-help and desirable behaviour” (Mendes, 2000:35). The main beliefs influencing these discourses are that welfare provision: discourages recipients from taking personal responsibility and obtaining and maintaining employment to support themselves and their families (Parker, 2004; Sidel, 2000); has an ‘addictive’ nature thereby eliminating any possible good work ethic (Brodie,

1997); generates bad citizens (i.e. those not practising self-sufficiency) (Parker,

2004; Brodie, 1997), and is generational (Seccombe, James and Walters, 1998; Reference list Travers, 1998). Neoliberal discourses emphasize dependency discourses in order to speak the truth of single parenthood highlighting how discourses are informed by, and simultaneously inform each other.

Researchers operating under an economic or sociological framework explore the dependency of single parenthood in multiple ways. For many of these researchers the dependency of single parenthood is unquestioned as Harris explored “women, work, and repeat dependency” (1996:407), Marlow studied the “challenges facing benefit-dependent lone mothers” (2006:397), and Daly and Smith examined “welfare dependency and work opportunities” for Indigenous single parent families (1998).

Duration of time spent receiving welfare is understood to be representative of dependency, especially in contrast to time spent in employment (Harris, 1996;

Barrett, 2002). Ethnicity was also thought to highlight dependency as researchers

used this lens to explore welfare (Mokhtar and Platt, 2009; Daly and Smith, 1998).

Pregnancy and abortion rates provided another avenue for exploring dependency, with the idea that higher rates of abortion indicate lower rates of dependency, whilst higher rates of pregnancy indicate higher rates of dependency (Argys, Averett, and

Rees, 2000). These research accounts construct powerful connections between single parenthood and welfare and constitute single parents as ‘dependent’, ‘a social problem’, and ‘risk’ for society.

A further feature of dependency discourses is economic vulnerability. Dominant constructions of single parenthood strongly align it with welfare compelling an association with poverty, as if the two have a symbiotic relationship. Single parent families are primarily constituted as families living in poverty indicating their economic vulnerability (Allen, Nunly, and Seals, 2001; Rowlingson and McKay,

2005; Butterworth, 2003; Loxton, 2005; Peterson, 1996; Bianchi, 1995; Zhan and

Pandey, 2004; South and Crowder, 1998; Lino, 1995; McKenzie and Cook, 2007; Reference list Walter, 2002; Vatanian and McNamara, 2004; Albelda, Himmelweit, and Humphries,

2005; Buvinić and Gupta, 1997, Zhan, 2006; Bansak, Mattson, and Rice, 2010).

Loxton asserts “[a]s a group, sole parent families have a higher risk of poverty than other family groups” (2005:40). Researchers explore single parenthood (especially single motherhood) in an effort to determine the level of vulnerability through “the potential long term impact of sole motherhood on economic wellbeing” (Loxton,

2005:40). Loxton investigated the “long term implications” of poverty for Australian single mothers and argued her findings indicate the long term outlook appears bleak as they “might be facing a difficult time in retirement” (2005:43). She speculates on the future impact this will have on society:

calculations of future aged pension expenditure will need to take into

account those groups of people who are unlikely to have achieved home

ownership by the time of retirement, and those people who have not

been able to acquire adequate superannuation, savings or alternative

investments. The current findings have suggested that sole mothers

might comprise one such group (Loxton, 2005:43-44).

This knowledge constitutes single mothers as suffering financial strain inhibiting their capacity to save, suggesting they are a group likely to be reliant on public funding in retirement. Through this research, the riskiness of single motherhood is projected forward to a future social burden via economic vulnerability. Consequently, single parenthood is envisioned as a poor form of citizenship demonstrating a lack of self- sufficiency both now and into the future.

2.2.2 Feminists rewriting single mothers’ dependency as victimisation

The games of truth intrinsic to discourses are most obvious when researchers attempt to destabilise dominant discourses and offer alternative versions.

Researchers using feminist or critical paradigms contest truth claims single

parenthood signifies dependency (Reekie, 1997; Lewis, 1998b; O’Connor, 2001; Reference list

Mendes, 2004; Travers, 1998; Engels, 2006; Fraser and Gordon, 1994; Eardley,

2001; Parker, 2004; Sidel, 2000). They question the coupling of welfare and dependency, instead claiming single motherhood is a victimised subjectivity discursively demonised via dependency discourses. Researchers argue, western states use dependency discourses to justify policies reforming welfare provision as a tactic to encourage people into full employment and align themselves more fully with neoliberal ideals of good citizenship (Sidel, 1996).

A Foucauldian understanding of power allows us to see the state does not ‘possess’ power, instead power is used by “constructing a range of relations which tend to position people in ways which make the political system work” (Mills, 2003:37). The state’s desire to distance itself from the cost of welfare provision by facilitating the constitution of welfare users as ‘problematic’ highlights power in action as state

discourses situate welfare with dependency to serve a purpose, such as the rolling- back of welfare provision (Sidel, 1996). According to this argument, single parents are constituted as welfare dependent to facilitate state reduction of welfare provisions and push single parents into employment.

Researchers explore welfare policies, to identify the various ways these policies victimise welfare recipients (Baird and Cutcher, 2005; Patterson and Briar, 2005;

Jennings, 2004; Seccombe, Walters and James, 1999; van Acker, 2005; Uttley,

2000; Stoltz, 1997; Gardiner, 1999). Sidel (1996) agued demonisation occurs through the stigmatisation of single motherhood as a governmental strategy to shift welfare discourses in a particular direction, such as reducing welfare expenditure.

She claimed “the demonizing of poor, single mothers has been an integral part of the recent onslaught on the welfare safety net” in the US (1996:490). Van Acker

(2005) critically analysed the Australian Federal Government’s 2004 and 2005 budgets using a feminist framework to situate its construction of ‘good’ motherhood. Reference list She argued the government differentiated motherhood for single mothers and coupled mothers by constituting ‘good’ motherhood for single mothers purely in terms of paid employment by directing funding to “married mothers staying at home, but not those on welfare” (Van Acker, 2005:100). This body of research situates single parenthood as victimised through both the demonization of these subjectivities, and also the ‘harsh’ welfare reforms enacted by western governments over recent decades.

Researchers also seek to disrupt dependency discourses by exploring how the

‘dependency’ label has been applied through policy, political and popular discourses in order to reveal the victimisation of single parenthood. Researchers attempt discursive disruption by tracking the origins of the concept of dependency as it is now understood (O’Connor, 2001; Mendes, 2004; Travers, 1998; Fraser and

Gordon, 1994). Engels (2006) claimed the change in discourse introducing the dependency label marked an historical distinction introducing notions of ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ into the welfare debate, thus reframing the route the debate could take. It not only constructed welfare issues around the dichotomy of deserving and undeserving, but also set the parameters for what can and cannot be said in this debate, silencing dissenting voices in the process.

Critical/feminist researchers investigate the notion of deservedness in terms of welfare provision. This is done by examining expert discourses (Brush, 1997;

Kullberg, 2005), welfare reforms (Sidel, 1996 and 2000; Withorn, 1996; Mayson,

1999), and how single parents themselves claim a ‘deserving’ status (Cooke, 2004;

Fuller, Kershaw and Pulkingham, 2008; Seccombe, James, Walters, 1998;

Scarbrough, 2001). Brush (1997) used case files in the US to investigate how social workers constructed the worthiness of single mothers as ‘deserving’ welfare support.

Kullberg (2005) used a vignette and survey to question social workers on the Reference list deservedness of single mothers and single fathers to social welfare support in

Sweden. Cooke (2004) interviewed widows to explore their explanations of worthiness.

The ‘deservedness’ of single parents is demonstrated in multiple ways in this research. Cooke (2004) claimed her respondents engaged their ‘widow’ status to demonstrate their deservedness of welfare support. Fuller, Kershaw and

Pulkingham (2008) asserted single mothers in Canada used voluntarism to show their deservedness for social support. Scarbrough (2001) stated the mothers in her study used the concept of responsibility to situate their deservedness. Although the deservingness of the recipients in these studies is expressed differently, what remains unquestioned is the need for welfare recipients to demonstrate their deservedness to receive welfare otherwise this dichotomy automatically subsumes

them into subjectivities of undeserving welfare recipients (Sidel, 2000). According to this field of research, dependency not only influences the discourses around welfare but also situates recipients to the subjectivity of undeserving welfare recipient leaving them vulnerable to demonisation and victimisation.

2.2.2.1 Resisting dependency and enacting responsibility

Major discourses are disrupted by presenting alternative versions of social phenomenon. However, simply presenting alternative versions does not guarantee new discourses will be afforded the same cultural relevance as dominant discourses. Minor discourses of responsibility are evident in the literature attempting to disrupt the dominance of dependency discourses. Feminists working in sociology, psychology, and social work destabilise negative single mother subjectivities through an alternative version of responsibility (Baker, 2009; Shanok and Miller, 2007; Lessa, 2005; Schultz, 2001; Scarbrough, 2001; Rains, Davies and

McKinnon, 1998). This understanding of responsibility is different to the neo-liberal Reference list interpretation and is used to contest the notion of welfare use as dependency and teenage motherhood and immature parenthood.

Feminist interpretations of responsibility enabled assertions that welfare provision assists single mothers (including teenage single mothers) to improve their future prospects by taking responsibility for their own lives. ‘Taking responsibility’ is comprehended as using welfare to: improve job skills through study programs

(Jennings, 2004; Scarbrough, 2001); escape unstable relationships and maintain independence (Rains, Davies and McKinnon, 1998); and contribute to society via voluntarism rather than paid employment (Fuller, Kershaw and Pulkingham, 2008).

These discourses provide avenues for normalising teenage motherhood as researchers argue it brings meaning and purpose into the lives of young women

(Schultz, 2001). Feminist scholars seek to normalise single motherhood by reframing it in terms of responsibility’.

Rains, Davies and McKinnon (1998) used this approach to suggest a more constructive subjectivity for teenage single motherhood by engaging the notion of responsibility. Their study used interviews with teenage single mothers at a weekly community drop-in program in Canada (Rains, Davies and McKinnon, 1998). The interviews were “designed to elicit the young mother’s story” about the issues surrounding their pregnancies (Rains, Davies and McKinnon, 1998:310). The researchers employed the notion of insider and outsider discourses to represent the different perspectives of teenage single motherhood. They asserted:

Outsiders recommend measures to hold fathers financially accountable

for their children, to make teen mothers live with a parent, and to make

teen mothers work rather than rely on assistance from welfare. From

the perspective of teen mothers, however, taking responsibility for the Reference list baby often means avoiding rather than seeking financial dependence on

unreliable fathers of the baby, claiming rather than delegating their role

as mothers, and staying on welfare rather than working at an unreliable

job (Rains Davies and McKinnon, 1998:308).

The embodiment of different perspectives as outsider and insider discourses allowed Rains, Davies and McKinnon (1998) to project a level of authority over otherwise disallowed or discounted discourses.

In a similar manner, Lessa explored the discourses employed by a social service agency designed to assist teenage mothers in Canada (2005). She argued the discourses used by this service “proposed new ways of thinking and speaking about these young women” situating them within a framework of “entitled” citizens (Lessa,

2005:292). Through these discursive examinations, teenage single mothers were

reinscribed as ‘responsible’ and ‘entitled’ citizen’s facilitating a claim to ethical subjectivities. As an exploration of discourses, the project outlined in this thesis is comparable with the studies outlined here. It too looks at competing discourses in order to render visible discourses from the margins and destabilise dominant deficit discourses.

2.3. Perpetuating the species: family discourses and the riskiness of single parenthood

In western cultures, parenting is generally considered the domain of couples

(especially heterosexual couples). As a result, the singleness of parents who are not partnered is viewed as a deficit to the quality of their parenting. Budgeon argues the privileging of ‘couple culture’ in western societies is underpinned by strong beliefs about marriage and family (2008:302). Also intrinsic to the literature about single parenthood is the idea that older married heterosexual parenthood is ideal Reference list parenthood and the standard against which all other forms of parenthood are judged. These implicit understandings of parenthood disallow the privileging of these models to be questioned. Good parenthood is therefore removed from questions of parenting quality with older heterosexual married parents assumed to be ‘good parents’. As a consequence, single parenthood is understood to be ‘deficit parenthood’, and subsequently, a risk.

Family discourses are dominant discourses with significant influence on the lives of parents. They are also major contributors to the construction of single parenthood as a social problem. Within these discourses the ‘ideal’ family is the nuclear family, consisting of a heterosexual couple and their biological offspring as one unit (also termed the ‘traditional’ family) (van Acker, 2005). The traditional family is a social construction of western society (Stacey, 1993), a social institution, and a vital

component for social cohesion and national stability (Smart, 2000:305). It is the norm “against which other families are compared” with those not conforming “viewed as deficit models” (Mannis, 1999:122).

Children are a vital component of family discourses. Parenting is considered the principal activity of the family and “ranks among the most important functions in society” as children are produced and raised by parents in the family unit (Horowitz,

1995:47). The family not only “perpetuate[s] the species” (Horowitz, 1995:47), it is

“the nursery of good citizenship for children” (Lewis, 1998a:260). The social importance of children is via the economic benefit they provide society (Ambert,

1994:535). Children also provide a ‘platform’ for ‘expertise’ (Rose, 1999:133) as they “not only become tomorrow’s workforce and tax base, but they also constitute work opportunities for a variety of child-welfare personnel and professionals”

(Ambert, 1994:535). As the site considered most influential in the development of children (as future citizens), western governments have an interest in family Reference list functioning.

Single parenthood is constituted as a deficit family structure as the traditional family is normalised and the benchmark for measuring other family forms. Family discourses operate as disciplinary strategies, producing “ways of behaving” and

“ways of thinking” (Mills, 2003:44) for adults as parents to constitute themselves as good parents and claim a moral self. Foucault’s (1976) notion of biopower is most noticeable within family discourses. The “basic idea of biopower is to produce self- regulating subjects” (Danaher, Schirato and Webb, 2000:75). Family discourses set the parameters for the ‘self-regulation’ of parents. The ‘minds and bodies’ of adults as parents are “formed and formulated in particular ways” which they then take upon themselves to ensure that they “function in these ways, and remain good, healthy subjects” (Danaher, Schirato and Webb, 2000:75). The subject roles discursively

enacted through institutions such as the family “are constantly being judged in terms of their relative normality or abnormality” (Danaher, Schirato and Webb, 2000:62).

Family discourses operate as dividing practices “to qualify or disqualify people as fit and proper members of the social order” (Danaher, Schirato and Webb, 2000:61).

As single parenthood does not conform to the ideals of the traditional family, it is divided from the norm, and perceived as a deficit family form signifying it as a threat and social problem in need of fixing.

2.3.1 Destabilising and damaging: the threat of single parenthood

Demographic and economic researchers constitute single parenthood as a destabilising influence on the traditional family and a threat to social stability. Mills argues “discourses should be seen as something which constrains our perceptions”

(2003:55). This would appear to be the case with family discourses as many researchers contributing to this area of knowledge appear reluctant or unable to think beyond dominant understandings of marriage and parenthood. Studies in this Reference list field are underpinned by the ‘truth’ claim that marriage is always stable and always beneficial. Alternative ways of thinking about single parenthood beyond deficit perspectives are closed off or discounted.

As marriage creates a legal obligation for adults to support each other, and their offspring, it is discursively constituted as the best position for citizens to be in.

Concern arises over the meaning of marriage in western culture as census data indicates divorce rates are increasing, whilst marriage rates are decreasing (Gilding,

2001; Cherlin, 2004, 2005, and 2008; Joshi, Quane, and Cherlin, 2009). Single parenthood is often indirectly blamed for the increasing rate of divorce and the decreasing rate of marriage (Gilding, 2001). Divorce is not only constituted as a destabilising factor on marriage, it was also viewed as ‘damaging’ to children’s wellbeing (May, 2008:476). In turn, single parenthood is understood as a risk for

children’s wellbeing because of the ‘damaging effects’ of divorce, whilst also threatening the stability of marriage (de Vaus and Gray, 2004:10). Research accounts investigating the changes in children’s living arrangements coalesce into the two themes of damage to children, and destabilisation of the institution of marriage (Heuveline, Timberlake and Furstenberg, 2003; Brandon, 2004;

Teachman, Tedrow and Crowder, 2000; Kiernan, 2003; Graefe and Lichter, 1999; de Vaus and Gray, 2004).

Preference for marriage and couplehood underpins the promotion of form of habitation as the most advantageous for individuals in society. It is asserted marriage is beneficial for all parties united by the union (adults and children alike) with heterosexual marriage the preferred option (Nock, 1998; Simon, 2002).

Marriage discourses maintain beliefs that “[m]arried men live longer, drink less, take fewer risks, are more satisfied with life, and have higher incomes, educational attainments, and labor force attachments than unmarried men” (Nock, 1998, 250). Reference list Further claims are that marriage is beneficial for both men and women enhancing their “mental health”, with a lack of marriage viewed as ‘emotionally harmful’ (Simon,

2002:1088-1090). Discourses that normalise marriage situate those outside this norm (such as parents who are single) as emotionally, psychologically, and economically vulnerable (Simon, 2002). Within marriage and family discourses, vulnerability is used to indicate risk.

Vulnerability intersects with threat generating vocal demands from conservative sections of society (especially in the US), for legislation to curb the growth of single parent families. Governments responded to these demands by implementing various policies aimed at discouraging single parenthood. In the US for example, one of the aims of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation

Act (PRWORA) was “to increase the costs of non-marriage by decreasing the

resources an unmarried mother can claim from the state” (Edin, 2000:112).

Underpinning this type of policy is the belief welfare discourages “the poor from marrying” (Edin, 2000:112). Other US policy has been implemented to stifle or discourage alternative forms of habitation, with a particular emphasis on non-marital cohabitation and single parenthood. Single mothers are particularly affected by policies promoting marriage and discouraging divorce, cohabitation, and single parenthood (Edin, 2000; Huston and Melz, 2004; Amato, 2004), and pathologised for not being part of a married union (Edin, 2000).

Researchers investigate diversity in living arrangements in western societies and establish a nexus between socio-demographic and economic characteristics in order to identify children ‘at risk’ from vulnerable family arrangements (Australian

Research Alliance for Children and Youth, 2010; Hayes, Weston, Qu and Gray,

2010; Wilkins, Warren, Hahn and Houng, 2011; Hunter, 2007). With divorce considered a destabilising event, interest in researching the multifaceted aspects of Reference list divorce is apparent. Researchers study: divorce rates over time (Kiernan, 2003;

Kiernan and Mueller, 1998); the economic effects experienced by families following divorce (Holden and Smock, 1991; Page and Steven, 2004; Peterson, 1996;

Weitzman, 1996); re-partnering rates following divorce (Lampard and Peggs, 1999); custody arrangements post divorce (Cancian and Meyer, 1998); marriage rates for single mothers (Graefe and Lichter, 2007); changes in family arrangements

(Teachman, Tedrow and Crowder, 2000; Kiernan, 2003; Brandon, 2004; Graefe and

Lichter, 1999; de Vaus and Gray, 2004); and the impact of divorce on children

(Cherlin, Chase-Lansdale and McRae, 1998; Furstenberg and Kiernan, 2001). The knowledge generated from these studies constitutes single parent families as vulnerable families, providing justification for interventions to ameliorate the risks these vulnerabilities represent. As discourses do not operate in isolation, family

discourses inform discourses of motherhood and fatherhood, with good motherhood constituted as the site for ameliorating the risks single parenthood generates.

2.3.2 Ameliorating risks: discourses of good motherhood

Discourses of motherhood powerfully influence the lives of women in western cultures (May, 2008; Hays, 1996). At the heart of these discourses is the belief that mothers are responsible for how “their children turn out” (Hays, 1996:120). The quality of the mothering is assumed to be responsible for the establishment of either good or bad children as future citizens. Consequently, there is considerable interest in articulating how good motherhood is performed. Most prominent within the discourses of motherhood are the discourses of ‘intensive mothering’.

Discourses of intensive mothering situate mothers as the primary caregivers of children. In these discourses, the needs of the children override all else as “children and child rearing should be treated as sacred” (Hays, 1996:122). Intensive mothering is constituted as “child centered, expert-guided, emotionally absorbing, Reference list labor-intensive, and financially expensive” with individual mothers “ultimately held responsible for” ensuring “such methods are used” (Hays, 1996:122). Good motherhood is linked to the “moral presentation of self” (May, 2008:471). Good motherhood highlights normalisation practices as it is constructed in a way that implies an opposing, dichotomous category of bad motherhood. The notion of a

‘moral presentation of self’ is linked to the Foucauldian understanding of self- governance, as good motherhood is not enforced through coercion and oppression, rather it is managed “through the wishes, hopes, and fears of the responsible, autonomous family” (Rose, 1999:204). Hence, intensive motherhood not only articulates how good motherhood is performed, it also renders visible bad motherhood.

Motherhood not conforming to the norm of good motherhood is deemed bad motherhood. Mothers not demonstrating good motherhood (i.e., married, with abundant resources) are thought to be the source of various social problems blighting society:

conservative and liberal thinkers have gotten away with advancing the

preposterous theory that if the nation’s errant mothers would simply

buckle down and do the job of motherhood the way it was meant to be

done – meaning a married, child-centered, resource intensive, selfless

sort of way – the country could substantially rid itself of a host of pesky

social problems, such as poverty, crime, substance abuse, obesity and

moral decay (Tucker, 2006:34).

The enactment of good motherhood enables interventions into the lives of those deemed to be practising bad motherhood in the guise of child well-being and risk minimisalisation. As single motherhood does not conform to the ideals of good motherhood, it slips into the dichotomised subjectivity of bad motherhood and is Reference list constituted as a risky form of parenthood. However, not all single motherhood is perceived to be bad motherhood, as some women are understood to be ‘entitled’ to choose single motherhood.

2.3.3 Entering the ‘charmed circle’5: single mothers by choice as ‘Maverick’ mothers6

The ability to choose single motherhood is legitimised for some women. Unlike other single mothers, single mothers by choice are constructed as a ‘privileged’ and

‘empowered’ subjectivity justifying and legitimising their ‘entitlement’ to choose an otherwise disapproved form of parenthood. Merewether uses the term ‘Maverick mothers’ to emphasise the ‘choice’ these women make to mother ‘solo’ (2010). The phrase ‘single mothers by choice’ (SMBC) is used in this research to represent

5 Bock, 2000:83. 6 Merewether, 2010.

women who are generally older and have made the conscious decision to conceive children on their own (Bock, 2000). In these discourses, SMBC is positioned by researchers as a legitimate form of motherhood through the concepts of choice, autonomy, responsibility, maturity, and financial capability (Bock, 2000; Mannis,

1999; Siegel, 1995a; Jones, 2003; Jones, 2008; Foster, Jones and Hoffman, 1998;

Pakizegi, 1990; Segal-Engelchin and Wozner, 2005; Merewether, 2010).

SMBC are described as “educated, well-employed, financially stable, and socially well-supported women” (Mannis, 1999:126) who are “typically heterosexual, middle- to upper-class” (Segal-Engelchin and Wozner, 2005). They “possess four essential attributes: age, responsibility, emotional maturity, and fiscal capability” (Bock,

2000:62), signifying they have the “reproductive choice, freedom and the autonomy of adult women capable of managing their own lives” (Jones, 2003:448). SMBC are constructed in terms of libertarian discourses using ‘choice’ and ‘autonomy’ to justify their legitimate place in society (Jones, 2003). This knowledge, predominantly Reference list constructed through the feminist paradigm, engages socio-economic characteristics and libertarian discourses to signify legitimate single motherhood. The emphasis on socio-economic and educational characteristics for legitimisation purposes are crucial elements dividing women into either ‘legitimate’ or ‘illegitimate’ single motherhood.

Entitlement is a necessary component of legitimacy and justification for SMBC, and is comprehended through conformity with heterosexual family norms. Conformity was emphasized in this research to justify the entitlement of these women to parent alone (Bock, 2000; Segal-Englechin and Wozner, 2005; Jones, 2003). Researchers argue SMBC stressed that “deviating from the social order is not the goal”, and that they “cling to hegemonic fantasies of normative family structure” (Bock, 2000:70).

SMBC “are the mirror images of their married counterparts, in that they uphold

‘family values’” (Jones, 2003:422). Normalisation provides a ‘moral’ foundation for legitimising their entitled status:

each mother had done her own introspective work to determine which

route had the most integrity for herself as well as for her child and felt

that she had made a morally responsible decision (Bock, 2000:73).

Morality is stressed frequently by researchers and is linked to “psychological health” and “emotional maturity” (Bock, 2000:72). Presenting a moral self is important for demonstrating good motherhood (May, 2008:471). Staking a claim for emotional and psychological health facilitates SMBC to situate their single motherhood status as ‘morally’ appropriate and therefore entitled.

Entitled SMBC is normalised through middle-class, heterosexual family values with researchers stressing it is a position of ‘last resort’. SMBC are discussed in terms of their unsuccessful attempts to find a husband and enter motherhood through traditional routes. “[S]ingle women should continue to hold onto their childhood Reference list fantasies, to wait for Mr. Right ... and to move toward single motherhood only as a last resort” (Bock, 2000:70). ‘Holding out’ and ‘holding onto’ the fantasy of the traditional family through heterosexual marriage is deemed a crucial element in the legitimisation process. “[W]aiting until midlife therefore marks a woman as having paid her dues to some extent, both on the work front ... and on the social front

(having held out for Mr. Right as long as possible)” (Bock, 2000:71). Chronological age therefore plays an important role in the legitimacy of this parenting form as it signifies the maturity necessary to claim this right to motherhood.

SMBC generates dividing practices that are classed, with single motherhood constituted as an illegitimate choice for low socio-economic women and an entitled choice for middle and upper-class women. As a result, only low socio-economic single motherhood is perceived as a threat to society through the economic

vulnerability of these subjectivities. In contrast, SMBC is discursively legitimised and positioned as entitled, enabling these women to stake a claim for good motherhood.

Single parenthood is not merely a subjectivity for single women who are parents.

Single men also undertake parenthood. Therefore, just as the discourses of motherhood powerfully influence the lives of women who parent today, the discourses of fatherhood are also starting to impact men, especially men as parents who are single.

2.3.4 Discursively constructing good fatherhood and the essentialness of men

Fatherhood discourses are emerging as a developing field of scholarship with increasing interest in defining ‘good fatherhood’ (Fletcher, 2003). Researchers interpret the absence of fathers from children’s residence as problematic and attributed to reduced financial support of families (Wilson and Prior, 2003). The Reference list withdrawal of male support from families is believed to result in vulnerability for these families (Willis, 2000; Berger, Carlson, Bzostek and Osborne, 2008). Dividing practices are prominent in the search for causes of single motherhood with men divided into absent and resident fathers (Willis, 2000; Berger et al, 2008). ‘Absent fathers’ is the term used to represent men who procreate with single mothers.

Men are studied to predict the likely numbers of single parents for birth cohorts, as well as highlighting the groups at greater risk of absent fatherhood (Clarke, Cooksey and Verropoulou, 1998; Greene and Biddlecom, 2000; Huang, 2005; Perloff and

Buckner, 1996; Page and Stevens, 2004; Walter, 2000; Hawthorne, 2003; Kiernan,

2005; Rangarajan and Gleason, 1998). Fatherhood is asserted to be “a transient state” whereby “parental obligations are dictated by residence” (Manning and

Smock, 2000:112). Men allegedly ‘swap families’ and shift their economic support

to biological children of ‘new’ unions (Manning and Smock, 2000:112). The concern with absent fatherhood is that children are disadvantaged as parental resources are spread across families or directed to new families (Manning and Smock, 2000;

Carlson and Furstenberg Jr, 2006). Residence therefore comes to signify different forms of fatherhood, with good fatherhood understood to represent fathers residing with their biological children.

Family researchers study fathers to establish the principles of good fatherhood.

Responsible fathering has emerged as paramount to ideals of good fatherhood.

The justification for promoting responsible fatherhood is the well-being of children, interpreted as taking financial responsibility for biological children (Doherty,

Kouneski and Erickson, 1998; Wilson and Prior, 2003). Responsibility is performed via residence with good fathers residing with their children. Linking good fatherhood to child well-being (via financial support and presence) allows marriage to be constituted as the mechanism binding fathers to children. Without the ‘glue’ of Reference list marriage, researchers argue parents are more likely to procreate with more than one partner (‘multipartnered fertility’) (Carlson and Furstenberg, 2006). Without marriage, fathers are also less likely to remain living with their children (Clarke,

Cooksey and Verropoulou, 1998; Marsiglio, Amato, Day and Lamb, 2000).

Researchers promote marriage and claim parenthood occurring in marriage has the least likely probability of resulting in absent fatherhood (Clarke, Cooksey and

Verropoulou, 1998:226). These research accounts situate marriage as the best situation for both men and children protecting children from the adverse effects of absent fatherhood. By insisting on constructing fathers in terms of presence and residence, researchers implicitly reinforce the idea that they are so essential their absence is harmful to children’s wellbeing.

With good fatherhood defined via residence and financial support of biological children, researchers examine the children of single mothers to find evidence of damage as a result of father absence (Hawkins and Eggebeen, 1991; Cooksey and

Fondell, 1996; Halme, Åstedt-Kurki and Tarkka, 2009; Hertz, 2002; Perloff and

Buckner, 1996). MacCallum and Golombok studied children from single mother and lesbian families to measure the “quality of parenting by the mother[s], and the social and emotional development of the child[ren]” (2004:1407). Their study sought evidence of abnormality, caused through the adversity of the children’s upbringing because of the absence of a father (MacCallum and Golombok, 2004).

Emphasizing the importance of fathers for children’s wellbeing results in claims that abusive men need to be involved in the parenting of their children to ‘promote’ the children’s wellbeing (Peled, 2000). This essentialness of fathers also appears to have been internalised by SMBC who reportedly created ‘ghostlike’ fathers to affirm their “child’s sense of self” (Hertz, 2002:3) and reduce the risk of damage to the child’s wellbeing. These research accounts envision the absence of a residing Reference list biological father in the household of single mothers’ families as evidence of the deficit of these families damaging children.

Responsible fatherhood gives rise to a new subjectivity for mothers. They are constructed as pivotal in fostering good relationships between fathers and children, connections that are considered crucial to enabling good fatherhood. (Doherty,

Kouneski and Erickson, 1998:286). The discursive association between discourses is demonstrated in this research with good motherhood broadened through good fatherhood. Good motherhood includes “the responsibility over the quality of fatherhood” with the ‘good’ mother ensuring “her children receive ‘good’ fathering”

(May, 2008:473). Good motherhood is consequently extended encompassing a requirement mothers keep fathers in the family home (and committed to supporting their families), as well as facilitating the father’s bonds with his children. These

discourses pathologise fathers only in terms of absence, with any presence in their child’s life considered beneficial to the child’s wellbeing. Mothers are pathologised for the absence of the father, her inability to keep the father present and resident in the family unit, and for the quality of the father’s relationship with his children.

Single motherhood is therefore constituted as a risky endeavour with fathers situated as essential to good parenthood and child well-being.

2.3.5 ‘At risk’ of single parenthood: career choices of undesirable women

The construction of single motherhood as a deficit family structure, a risky way to parent, and a threat to society motivates researchers to seek answers that explain the rise of this social phenomenon. Some groups of women are perceived to be more ‘at risk’ of becoming single mothers than others. Foucault’s concept of dividing practices renders visible the construction of normality “through the application of ‘expert’ knowledge” (Armstrong, 2006:272). Dividing practices

underpin the processes of seeking explanations for single parenthood. Researchers Reference list in sociology, economics, and behavioural studies search for answers to account for the rise in single motherhood. The adults contributing to single parenthood (both single mothers and absent fathers) are studied for these answers (Catanzarite and

Ortiz, 2002; Graefe and Lichter, 2002; Wilson, 2002; Nock, 1998; Neal, 2004; Fox and Bruce, 1999; Huang, Mincy and Garfinkel, 2005; Greene and Biddlecom, 2000;

Rangarajan and Gleason, 1998; Kiernan, 2005; Hawthorne, 2003; Walter, 2000;

Page and Stevens, 2004; Clarke, Cooksey, and Verropoulou, 1998). This process divides single mothers from other women constituting them as ‘undesirable’ marriage partners.

Single motherhood is constituted as a subjectivity for the poorly educated and unskilled members of society. By examining the characteristics of low socio- economic single mothers, these subjectivities are imagined to be career choices for

women who lack the necessary education and job skills to obtain adequate employment (Butterworth, 2003; Rowlingson and McKay, 2005; Zhan and Pandey,

2004). Butterworth claims “many lone parents on welfare have poor levels of education, do not have job-relevant skills, and lack workforce experience” (2003:24).

Rowlingson and McKay (2005) explored the relationship between socio-economic disadvantage and ‘destinations’ such as ‘family life’. They claim “women from working class backgrounds are more likely to become lone mothers (especially never-married lone mothers) than women from middle class backgrounds”

(Rowlingson and McKay, 2005:30). They suggested this difference can be explained as follows:

middle class girls, and their parents, see early parenthood as detrimental

to their future prospects – both in the labour market and the marriage

market ... By contrast, women with low educational achievements face

the prospect of life in a low-paid low-status service sector job. The

prospect of becoming a mother and looking after a child seems more Reference list appealing compared with this fate. But the prospect of marrying or living

with a young unemployed or low-paid man might not seem so appealing

(Rowlingson and McKay, 2005:36).

These discourses constitute single motherhood as a career choice for women from low socio-economic backgrounds wanting to escape the monotony of a ‘life in service’. Assertions “postsecondary education” substantially improves the economic wellbeing of single mothers with the need to switch focus from work to education as a means of improving the long term outlook for these families (Zhan and Pandey,

2004) maintaining the notion ‘uneducated’ women make a career of single motherhood.

These discourses assert education (rather than work), as the route away from single motherhood and poverty enabling people at higher risk of single parenthood to make

better ‘career’ choices. This is a significant departure for the discourses underpinned by dependency. These assertions demonstrate the disparity between dominant discourses as they do not fit neatly together, and are at times in opposition. Dividing practices are apparent in these research accounts as single mothers are divided through socio-economic characteristics with SMBC constituted as an entitled and legitimate form of single motherhood and all other forms of single motherhood delegitimized as ‘career choices’ for poor and uneducated women.

Researchers working in the field of economics use the concept of the marriage market to explain single motherhood. According to this theory, single motherhood can be partially explained as a result of a decrease in eligible men. It is alleged, as the proportion of men decreases the proportion of women ‘at risk’ of becoming single mother’s increases (Wilson, 2002; Neal, 2004). Using this theory, Wilson

(2002) argued that the characteristics of lower socio-economic men (such as unemployment, low paying work, or casual work) are unattractive to low socio- Reference list economic women who instead want men who can provide financial security for them and their families. The undesirability of these men results in a surplus of available women to a noticeably smaller portion of desirable men who are then able to pick and choose the more desirable women (understood as childless women) or have multiple partners (Wilson, 2002). By using this theory to explain single parenthood, single mothers are positioned by researchers as ‘undesirable’ products of the marriage market. They are deemed undesirable because they already have children reducing their chances of a successful match in the marriage market

(Wilson, 2002). Through this process, single mothers are divided from childless single women on the basis that one is more socially desirable than the other.

Marriage market theory is underpinned by the belief nonmarital childbearing significantly decreases a woman’s chances of marriage. Researchers supporting

this theory maintain that women with children are less appealing to men (as potential marriage partners) than childless women (Birrell, Rapson and Hourigan,

2002; Catanzarite and Ortiz, 2002; Graefe and Lichter, 2002; Lampard and Peggs,

1999; Neal, 2004; Nock, 1998; Wilson, 2002). Graefe and Lichter use data from a national survey in the US to “estimate the hazards of the transition to marriage” for both childless women and single mothers (2002:286). They calculated life-table estimates to predict the probability of marriage for women in these two groups, asserting that “nonmarital childbearing has had a growing negative effect on marriage” (Graefe and Lichter, 2002:286). These research accounts make single motherhood into a default position for undesirable women with diminished possibilities for forming permanent romantic relationships. Single motherhood therefore not only represents a risk for society, but also the women themselves who may one day find themselves as ‘single mothers’.

2.3.6 Air pollution, depression, and injury: single motherhood as

risk Reference list

Not only is single parenthood constituted as a risk for society, it is also comprehended as an insider risk. Researchers project single mothers and their children into a position of risk with single mothers overwhelmingly sampled in these studies (Condon, 2005). Research in this field is generally positivist in nature, claiming to show the ‘truth’ of these subjectivities by using quantitative methods

(Downey and Hawkins, 2008). To a large extent, the literature comes from epidemiological studies in the areas of health, psychology, psychiatry, and sociology. This section outlines the risks for single mothers themselves, with the following section outlining the risks to children.

The first feature of the riskiness of single motherhood for women is the research investigating physical risks. Single mothers were sampled and studied in relation to: their general health (Curtis, 2001; Sarfati and Scott, 2001; Gucciardi, Celasun and

Stewart, 2004; Zabkiewicz, 2010; Williams, Sassler, and Nicholson, 2008; Copeland and Harbaugh, 2010; Loxton, Mooney, and Young, 2006; Bull and Mittlemark,

2009); mortality rates (Weitoft, Haglund and Rosén, 2000; Weitoft, Haglund, Hjern and Rosén, 2002); air pollution (Downey and Hawkins, 2008); the effects of employment on health (Baker, North and The ALSPAC Study Team, 1999); sleep

(Condon, 2005); physical injury (Weitoft, Haglund, Hjern and Rosén, 2002); and self- harm (Radford, Brice, Harris, Van Der Byl, Monten, McNeece-Neeson and Hassan,

1999). The breadth of these studies demonstrates how encompassing the physical riskiness of single motherhood is understood to be.

Weitoft et al (2002) construct risk as injury and mortality. They investigated mortality and injury rates for both lone-mothers and partnered mothers in Sweden (2002).

The data for this study was obtained from multiple sources7 correlated to allow researchers to examine the “mortality, severe morbidity and injury” rates for mothers over a four year period (Weitoft et al, 2002:577). Weitoft et al asserted lone mothers Reference list “suffered from significantly elevated risks” compared to coupled mothers (2002:577).

A different construction of physical risk is provided by Downey and Hawkins (2008) who link geographical locations high in toxicity to single motherhood. Downey and

Hawkins used “tract-level demographic data and toxicity-weighted air pollutant concentration estimates” and calculate the degree of risk prevalent to single mother families in the US (2008:523). These studies demonstrate how physical risks are constructed to situate single motherhood as hazardous to health. These risks are also situated both internally and externally suggesting the impossibility of envisioning single motherhood as risk free.

7 Swedish nationals have a “unique personal identification number” allowing researchers to track each individual through a range of data sources such as the Swedish Population and Housing censuses, the Swedish Hospital Discharge Register, and Sweden’s Total Enumeration Income Survey of 1990 (Weitoft et al, 2002:574).

Another form of risk for single mothers is fashioned as emotional risks stemming from social exclusion and isolation (Segal-Engelchin and Wozner, 2005; Kanata and

Banks, 1997). Azar, Naughton, and Joseph (2009) “evaluate social connectedness and physical activity” in Victoria, Australia. The impetus for their study was the belief that engaging single parents8 in leisure and physical activity improves their levels of social connectedness enhancing their physical and mental health (Azar,

Naughton and Joseph, 2009:350). Webber and Boromeo (2005) explored this issue by examining family and support networks. They used qualitative semi-structured interviews with ten single parent families in Australia to study their support networks with extended family members and close friends. They found that most of the single parents in their study felt socially isolated and experienced stigmatisation (Webber and Boromeo, 2005:271). These studies are underpinned by the belief that single motherhood is harmful to emotional wellbeing with researchers seeking evidence of the detrimental effects of these subjectivities in their research. Reference list The riskiness of single motherhood is further extended to psychological risk.

Researchers working in the fields of medicine, psychology, and psychiatry study single motherhood to expose the inherently riskiness of this position (Brown and

Moran, 2000; Targosz, Bebbington, Lewis, Brugha, Jenkins, Farrell and Meltzer,

2003; Hope, Power and Rodgers, 1999; Sarfati and Scott, 2001; Baker, North and the ALSPAC Study Team 1999; Fundudis, 1997; Cairney, Boyle, Offord and Racine,

2003; Demo and Acock, 1996; Samuels-Dennis, 2007). This body of knowledge establishes a strong nexus between single motherhood and depression. Targosz et al (2003) analysed depressive disorders amongst single mothers in the UK. Turner

(2006) calculated the levels of depression for single mothers in rural Northern New

England. Jayakody and Stauffer (2000) questioned whether mental health issues constrain the employment prospects of single mothers. Researchers operating in

8 Single mothers comprised 88 percent of this study’s sample.

this field of study often employ a comparative component to their research comparing the depression levels or psychological distress of single mothers with married mothers (Cairney and Wade, 2002). By constructing their research designs in this way, the emotional and psychological benefits of marriage are implicitly emphasized and the pathologisation of single motherhood maintained.

The construction of psychological risk infers a risk to society as psychological health is implicitly understood as essential to wellbeing and good social functioning, especially for employment. The almost exclusive sampling of women in these studies situates the riskiness of single parenthood firmly within the realms of single motherhood. The riskiness of single motherhood is effortlessly projected onto children.

2.3.7 Limiting exposure and protecting children: the riskiness of single parenthood

Risk discourses encompassing single motherhood as risk situates children as Reference list vulnerable. Sustaining these subjectivities of vulnerability are the discourses that imagine fathers to be essential for children’s wellbeing. Consequently, children are absorbed into, and have become prominent features of risk discourses. As children are understood to have little control over their family situations because they “do not themselves choose the circumstances of their childhood and adolescence” (Weitoft,

Hjern, Haglund and Rosén, 2003:289), they are made vulnerable and in need of protection.

Risk discourses are strongly influenced by discourses of developmental psychology delineating the processes of human development, especially those of children.

These discourses operate in a regulatory manner setting the parameters for ‘good’ or ‘proper’ development of children, adolescents, and adults (Burman, 1994:60).

Discourses of developmental psychology structure the fields of possibility around

what can and cannot be said in relation to the development of children. They produce systems of normalisation framing our understanding of the world. These discourses inform “everyday popular understanding of parental roles, family relations and indeed personal identities of mothers, fathers, children and all who are involved in teaching or caring for them in contemporary Western culture” (Burman,

1994:57). They determine what is deemed to be essential in producing or maximising good outcomes for children as future citizens (Burman, 1994). For these reasons, developmental psychology discourses are instrumental in activating risk discourses using normalisation practices which set the benchmark for assessing the correctness of children’s performances and outcomes.

Researchers examine the children of single mothers to expose the damage these families cause. They speak of children being ‘exposed’ to single parenthood in much the same way one would speak of being ‘exposed’ to a virus: both seen as a potential risk for one’s wellbeing (Anderson, 2002; Fergusson, Boden and Horwood, Reference list 2007; Graefe and Lichter, 1999). Vulnerability and exposure represent single parenthood while protection is signified by coupled parenthood. Researchers influenced by these discourses investigate outcomes for children raised in single parent families comparing them with those of children in two parent families (Park,

2007). Knowledge in this area is established through a broad range of research fields such as sociology, social work, psychology, and health.

Researchers concerned with the risks to children’s wellbeing generated by single parenthood generally investigate the diversity and changes occurring in families

(Downey and Powell, 1993; Tsushima and Gecas, 2001; Thomson, Mosley, Hanson and McLanahan, 2001; Hobcraft and Kiernan, 1999; Rawsthorne, 2006). De Vaus and Gray (2004) tracked the diversity of children’s living arrangements in Australia over a 55 year period paying close attention to changes occurring during childhood.

These changes were tracked to seek evidence of the detrimental effects through different family forms as well as provide a predictive model for future risks.

Underpinning these research accounts is the belief that exposure to single motherhood is detrimental to children’s long-term wellbeing. The riskiness of single parenthood for children falls within the four categories of physical risk, psychological and emotional risk, educational risk, and the risk of delinquency and criminality.

Researchers influenced by risk discourses endeavour to find evidence of psychological and emotional damage to children from single parent families. They also try to find a connection between this family form and physical injuries for children. The following claims are made in these studies: single parents transfer their emotional stress to their children (Larson and Gillman, 1999; Kotchick, Dorsey and Heller, 2005); the psychological effects of divorce impacts negatively on children’s psychological and emotional well-being over their entire life course

(Cherlin, Chase-Lansdale and McRae, 1998; Simons, Lin, Gordon, Conger and Reference list Lorenz, 1999; King, 2002); and children in single parent families have a high rate of mental disorders (Farbstein, Mansbach-Kleinfeld, Levinson, Goodman, Levav,

Vograft, Kanaaneh, Ponizovski, Brent, and Apter, 2010). Researchers operating within this research frame claim to measure: childhood injuries (Richardson,

Higgins, Bromfield, Tooley and Stokes, 2005); mortality rates (Weitoft, Hjern,

Haglund and Rosén, 2003); breastfeeding practices (Chatterji and Brooks-Gunn,

2004); harsh discipline practices (Thomson, Mosley, Hanson and McLanahan, 2001;

Jackson, Gyamfi, Brooks-Gunn and Blake, 1998); parenting practices (Beckert,

Strom, Strom, Darre, and Weed, 2008; Kincaid, Jones, Cuellar, and Gonzalez,

2011; Sterrett, Jones, and Kincaid, 2009; Breivik, Olweus, and Endresen, 2009; Tan and Baggerley, 2009; Berridge and Romich, 2011); and hyperactivity in children

(Kerr and Michalski, 2007). These studies explore different aspects of children’s

health and well-being, and are premised on the understanding that single parenthood is detrimental to children’s physical and psychological health.

Education is another area of study where researchers seek evidence of the riskiness of single parenthood. Researchers examine children’s academic performance and make connections to family status to determine the detrimental effects single parenthood has on children’s development (Biblarz and Raftery, 1999; Downey,

Ainsworth-Darnell, and Dufur, 1998; Park, 2007; Shaff, Wolfinger, Kowaleski-Jones and Smith, 2008; Spencer, 2005; Wagmiller, Gershoff, Veliz, and Clements, 2010;

Lee and Kushner, 2008). Shaff et al (2008) used data from the National

Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 (NLSY) in the US to find deficiencies in the results for maths and reading for children from single parent families. Using a

“growth curve” model the researchers claimed “children remaining in single-parent families resulting from divorce or nonmarital births have lower achievement scores than children from married families” (Shaff et al, 2008:681). They concluded Reference list “parental remarriage may have more benefits for children than previous studies have suggested” (Shaff et al, 2008:681). The use of comparative methods not only establishes the idea that single parenthood is detrimental to children’s academic achievements, they also sustain the idea marriage is the ideal situation for promoting children’s wellbeing.

Risk thinking opens avenues for researchers to seek evidence for potential future delinquency and criminality in children from single parent families. Children living in single parent families are often constituted as potential delinquents and future criminals, providing justification for interventions into their lives to circumvent future problems. Research has tried to establish a link between the children of single parent families and drug use (Legleye, Obradovic, Janssen, Spilka, Nézet, and

Beck, 2010; the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, USA, 2008; Hemovich

and Crano, 2009), or delinquency (Cho, Martin and Conger, 2010; Simons et al,

1999). Wittekind and Vazsonyi (2003) examined the connections between ‘deviant behaviour’ among Swiss adolescents and a childhood in single parent households.

Whitbeck, Simons and Kao (1994) studied the effects of parents’ sexual behaviours on the sexual attitudes of adolescents. Sauvola, Miettunen, Järvelin and Räsänen

(2001) investigated the ‘effects’ of a childhood in a single parent family on drink driving for adults in Northern Finland. Anderson (2002) explored the connection between single parenthood and child delinquency. Researchers, via the structuring of these studies, specify the pathology of single parenthood and maintain the riskiness this family unit represents for child wellbeing and future outcomes, including the risk of future criminality for society.

These discourses establish a strong nexus between single parenthood and poor outcomes for children. They are premised on the understanding that single parenthood represents a risk to children. Risk is comprehended as general Reference list exposure to single motherhood resulting in poor physical, emotional, psychological, and criminal outcomes for children. The knowledge produced through these research accounts contribute powerfully to truth games pathologising single motherhood. The sampling techniques comparing single mothers with coupled mothers perpetuate the idea single motherhood is both risky and a threat for society, with the most risky form of single motherhood represented by teenage single motherhood.

2.3.8 Immature parents: public surveillance of risky teenage single parenthood

Chronological age makes teenage single parents immature parents. These subjectivities are maintained by developmental psychology discourses (Burman,

1994). Although teenagers may exhibit adult traits and behaviours, their chronological age binds them to the development category of incompletion or

immaturity (Tyler, 1993) with adolescence understood to be the precursor to adulthood (Burman, 1994). The dominance of these discourses supersede all other ways of thinking and talking about teenagers (Lesko, 2001). As a mechanism of truth, these discourses place stringent parameters around how teenagers can be thought about and talked about, with teenage single parenthood made as immature parenthood.

The norm of good parenthood as older heterosexual married parenthood also relegates teenage parents to a position of deficit parenthood. Combined with development psychology, these discourses constitute teenage single parenthood as a highly risky endeavour for mothers, children, and society. “A problem that impacts many segments of our society today can be directly traced to unwed adolescent girls giving birth” (Burnett, 2002:57). Teenage parenthood discourses position these parents as lacking in education, good parental skills, and reliant on welfare (Hanna,

2001). Research in this field is premised on the assumption “older parents are Reference list usually better parents” (Sawhill, 2002a:28).

Teenage parenthood as deficient or defective parenting implies an inherently pathological and risky family structure. The concern is that “adolescents who become parents are ruining their own and their children’s future prospects”

(Mollborn, 2007). Teenage single motherhood is constituted as a significant social problem leading to dysfunction and poor future outcomes (Hoffman, 1998; Burnett,

2002; Singh, Darroch and Frost, 2001; Hymowitz, 1998; Boonstra, 2002; Sawhill,

2002a and 2002b; Kalil and Danziger, 2000; SmithBattle, 2007). Hanna claims:

Research clearly demonstrates that teenage mothers and their children

are at high risk of adverse family outcomes ... teenage parents have a

low tolerance to infant crying, lack of patience with infants, lack of

understanding of normal growth and development, preference for

physical punishment, lack of nonverbal physical interaction patterns and

a less than adequate home learning environment ... their cognitive

immaturity may result in a self-centredness that prevents the teenagers

from placing their infants’ needs ahead of their own (2001:457).

Teenage single mothers are constituted as self-centred, lacking in understanding, and cognitively immature, all of which are high risk criterion in terms of social dysfunction. Research in this field constitutes teenage single mothers as risks and a threat to the proper functioning of society reaffirming the need for surveillance and control in the guise of public protection and risk minimisation.

Public discourses overwhelmingly maintain the pathologisation of teenage single motherhood, particularly media discourses. Public discourses contain strong moral overtones with teenage single mothers described as ‘childish’, ‘morally deprived’, and ‘an illegitimate status’ (Hymowitz, 1998). They are condemned for their unmarried state (Hymowitz, 1998), and vilified publicly by media and politicians Reference list (Rains, Davies and McKinnon, 1998). Wilson and Huntington argue teenage motherhood discourses essentialise and homogenise this social group by not distinguishing “older from younger, married from unmarried, and self-supporting from welfare-dependent” (2005:60).

By drawing on deficit discourses, the construction of teenage single motherhood as risky in public discourses provokes public surveillance and researchers explore these subjectivities to highlight the public scrutiny of teenage single mothers’ lives

(Rains, Davies and McKinnon, 1998; Seccombe, James and Walters, 1998; Wilson and Huntington, 2005). Hanna (2001) employed qualitative methods to investigate teenage motherhood in Australia. One of the four major themes she identified was the notion of having to live “publicly examined lives” (Hanna, 2001:456). She claimed “welfare dependency … resulted in increased surveillance, and their

worthiness to receive entitlements became a constant source of public commentary”

(Hanna, 2001:460). This public examination is justified via discourses of dependency and risk pathologising teenage single motherhood. Roy argues media constructions of women operate as “a form of disciplinary power through the creation of norms against which individuals are judged” (2008:470) suggesting media discourses perpetuate the need for public surveillance of socially problematic groups like teenage single mothers.

2.3.9 Stigmatisation and vilification: single motherhood as victimisation

Feminist researchers argue the construction of single motherhood as a risk and threat for society generates the need for surveillance of these risky groups.

Stigmatisation appears to be universally understood as an inherent element of single motherhood (Siegel, 1995b; Power, 2005; Kelly, 1996; Goodban, 1985;

Weathers, 1999; Cooke, 2004; Sidel, 2000; Seccombe, James and Walters, 1998;

Noble, Eby, Lockwood and Allen, 2004; Young, 1994; Rhodes and Johnson, 2000). Reference list

It is argued “divorce and separation still carries a stigma that is deeply wounding”

(Webber and Boromeo, 2005:281) forcing “single mothers into separate spaces”

(Howe and Pidwell, 2004:170). Researchers influenced by these notions point out the ways in which these groups are stigmatised and publicly vilified to render visible the victimisation of single mothers.

Stigmatisation is demonstrated by Rhodes and Johnson’s (2000) survey of graduate social work students. They employed attitude measures to assess the predominant views of the students along with the level of stigmatisation prevalent in society.

According to Rhodes and Johnson, although students were able to talk about issues of oppression and adversity and discuss vulnerable groups, they were unable to connect these issues to single parenthood (2000:443). These findings indicated to

Rhodes and Johnson (2000) that the popular vilification and stigmatisation of single

motherhood through public discourses inhibited the students’ ability to translate their understandings of marginalisation and vulnerability to single parenthood in order to challenge their preconceptions about these subjectivities. A different framework was employed by Power who interviewed single mothers on welfare in Canada

(2005). Power (2005) claimed her respondents were aware of the welfare label assigned to them as women receiving state assistance and felt “humiliated, outraged, and bewildered” during interactions with welfare staff (2005:647). As a result, employment was constituted as a way of escaping the stigma “of being a

‘welfare bum’” (Power, 2005:654). These research accounts imagine single motherhood as victimised via stigmatisation and vilification.

Another way victimisation is explored is the examination of media discourses.

Researchers study media constructions of single parenthood to highlight how it is constructed as a social problem. These studies are underpinned by the idea that the media do not merely present news or stories of interest, but instead “influence Reference list our beliefs” (Bullock, Wyche and Williams, 2001:229). Critical and feminist researchers examine media discourses to expose the victimisation of single motherhood (Douglas and Michaels, 2000; Bullock, Wyche and Williams, 2001;

Duncan, Edwards, and Song, 1999; Fox, 1999; Puls, 1996; Young, 1994). Atkinson,

Oerton and Burns reviewed popular constructions of single mothers by politicians and the media in order to demonstrate “how policy agendas, political rhetoric and news interweave to construct a definition of lone parents” enabling “a freezing or cutting of welfare spending on lone parent families” (1998:1). Usdansky (2008) studied magazines and social science journals from the United States that positioned single parenthood as socially problematic. As these research accounts demonstrate, explorations of discourses provide insight into the social construction of subjectivities, especially those underpinned by deficit discourses. The studies

discussed here envision single parenthood as victimised subjectivities via media discourses constituting it as a social problem.

2.4 Dividing practices and enacting difference to construct a social problem

As this literature review has demonstrated, single parenthood is predominantly constituted by researchers as a position of deficit and as a risk and threat to society.

Researchers contribute to the social construction of single parenthood as a social problem through methodologies, of which dividing practices are the most obvious tactic employed. Dividing practices are “crucial to a social organisation dedicated to the administration of life” (McHoul and Grace, 1993:68) because they differentiate the normal from the abnormal. Although this research does not find statistically significant differences,9 the comparative nature of the research divides single parents from each other and from coupled and married parents on the premise there Reference list is a difference.

Researchers employ a comparative lens to find difference and divide single parents from coupled or married parents. They divide single parents from each other via ethnicity (Bianchi, 1995; Daly, 1998), and gender (Pike, 2000; Kullberg, 2005; Heath and Orthner, 1999; Branigan and Keebaugh, 2005; Hook and Chalasani, 2008;

Dufur, Howell, Downey, Ainsworth and Lapray, 2010; Guzzo and Hayford, 2009;

Meyer and Garasky, 1993; Brown, 2000; Greif, 1995). These comparisons are made to render visible the differences between groups with the implication some are better than others.

By employing dividing practices, Walter investigated whether single mothers “hold different belief systems about the appropriateness of combining motherhood duties

9 See for example National Survey on Drug Use and Health (2008), and Pike (2000).

and labour market activity” compared to married mothers (2003:1). She used data from the Negotiating the Lifecourse Survey (NLC) 1996/97 in Australia to test her hypothesis (Walter, 2003). She claimed her findings indicated that it was the socio- economic status, rather than the partnered status, of the mothers that was most closely aligned to their beliefs about motherhood and labour market activity (Walter,

2003:6). Grall (2007) also used dividing practices to study US census data to establish differences in child support receipt between single mothers and single fathers. As he also provided other demographic information, these differences became a feature of these gendered categories. For example, he claimed a third of single mothers in his study were never married, whilst a significant portion of the single fathers were divorced or separated (Grall, 2007:3). These differences situated single mothers into subjectivities of ‘undesirable marriage partners’10 whereas single fathers were constituted simply as men whose marriages had failed.

By using dividing practices to emphasize differences between single mothers and single fathers in terms of socio-economic conditions, single fatherhood was Reference list constructed as a more positive subjectivity than single motherhood (Meyer and

Garasky, 1993; Brown, 2000; Greif, 1995) removing men from subjectivities of social problems.

Parenting practices are also constituted by researchers as signalling difference as it is assumed these practices are gendered. Researchers specifically studied single fathers to ascertain how they engaged with the mothering role (Dufur et al, 2010;

Hook and Chalasani, 2008; Moskovitz, 2010). Underpinning these studies is the belief that men and women parent differently. Hook and Chalasani (2008) constituted time allocated to child-care as the performance of ‘mothering’. They used “nationally representative data from the American Time Use Survey 2003-

2006” to explore how single fathers undertook ‘mothering’ work (Hook and

10 See section 2.3.5.

Chalasani, 2008:978). The premise underpinning this study is that child care work is gendered and therefore will be experienced differently by single fathers because they are men. They state “[p]rimary caregiver has a gendered connotation. Men in this position are not in the same position as women are, precisely because they are men” (Hook and Chalasani, 2008:989). The researchers situate their study in a comparative framework looking for difference between single fathers, single mothers, married mothers, and married fathers (Hook and Chalasani, 2008). They claimed their findings suggested differences in ‘mothering’ was most noticeable between single fathers and married fathers because single fathers spend more time than married fathers in care work, as they have to “simultaneously act like mothers and men” (Hook and Chalasani, 2008:978). The assumptions informing this body of knowledge is that the care work of children is gendered constituting a challenge for men, especially those without a ‘mother’ to fall back on such as single fathers.

Although single fathers are constituted as challenged by the gendered nature of care work, the lack of questioning about parenting quality removes single fathers Reference list from subjectivities of social problems.

Interestingly, these studies explored how fathers ‘mother’ ignoring how mothers

‘father’. The implication is that women cannot ‘father’ therefore motherhood is a role that can be replicated whereas fatherhood cannot. Analysis of these studies brings to light nuanced complexities in the construction of subjectivities via differences like gender. It also renders visible the dominant ideas underpinning research accounts that are sustained across disciplines and research fields, such as the notion that fathers are essential to children’s wellbeing.

2.5 Challenging discourses of deficit and risk

The literature presented in this review constitutes single parenthood (especially single motherhood), as a social problem because it is predominantly understood by researchers as a position of deficit and risk. There is a considerably smaller body of work endeavouring to destabilise and disrupt these dominant discourses by attempting to normalise single parenthood. These marginalised discourses are constituted through the work of critical, feminist, and poststructuralist scholars, with this final section presenting these discounted discourses.

Critical scholars within the fields of economics and population studies claim the transformations in families taking place in western societies indicate that single mothers are disproportionately bearing the burden of social reproduction (Willis,

1999). They construct men (and to a lesser extent, middle class women) as ‘free- riding’ on the ability of women to parent alone. The exploration of discourses are another avenue used by feminist and poststructuralist researchers in order to disrupt constructions of single parenthood as social problems (Lessa, 2002). The final body Reference list of work examined in this review comes from family scholars seeking evidence of resilience (Robinson, 2009b). These studies are primarily situated within traditional family discourses. Resilience discourses enter the realm of single parenthood via the few studies including single parents in their samples. This considerably smaller body of knowledge provides the most potential for destabilising and redirecting single parenthood discourses in positive and enabling ways.

2.5.1 ‘Fewer and poorer’:’11 the burden of free-riding men and divided women

A small volume of critical work situates single motherhood as burdened with the cost of raising children for the social good in western societies. Critical scholars working within the field of economics and population studies dispute dominant understandings of single parenthood as a social problem burdening society.

11 Birrell (2000).

Researchers argue single mothers are disproportionately burdened with social reproduction by men and middle class women wanting to free themselves of this social responsibility (Birrell, 2000; Heuveline, Timberlake and Furstenberg, 2003;

Willis, 1999).

Willis (1999) explored this issue through the development of a model situated in economic theories. He argues men are using single motherhood as a way of shifting the economic cost of raising children onto women (Willis, 1999).12 He claims

“men may free-ride on the willingness and ability of women to rear their children at low or zero economic cost to themselves” (Willis, 1999:60). Heuveline, Timberlake and Furstenberg (2003) investigated this issue by documenting the changes in family arrangements for children across 17 nations. They argue “the only universal

Western trend is that childrearing is being shifted from married parents to single mothers more than to cohabitating parents, stepfamilies, or single fathers”

(Heuveline, Timberlake and Furstenberg, 2003:49). Birrell (2000) used national Reference list demographic data charting fertility rates in Australia, and also argued single mothers are bearing the burden of social reproduction. He asserts “lone parents are shouldering a disproportionate share of the task of raising the next generation”

(2000:33). With further assertions that women will be divided economically, with mothers becoming “fewer and poorer” (Birrell, 2000:33), these studies have broader implications for family researchers as they suggest men and middle class women perceive the economic sacrifices necessary for raising well-adjusted children as

‘undesirable’, leading to questions about future fertility in western societies.

Together these studies constitute single motherhood as shouldering the burden for social reproduction by ‘free-riding men’ unwilling or unable to provide economically

12 His paper is theoretical and utilises the marriage market theory to measure the equilibrium between potential partners, “Becker’s theory of marriage, and Weiss and Willis’s theory of children as a collective good” to provide an understanding for the “growth of out-of-wedlock childbearing” (Willis, 1999:36).

for their children, as well as middle-class women wanting to free themselves from the responsibility of social reproduction.

These researchers demonstrate the instability of knowledge constructed from social research as perspectives have a significant bearing on findings. Unlike their counterparts who viewed these results as representing the growing problem of single motherhood,13 these researchers trouble the parameters of social problem discourses in order to provide insights into this social phenomenon outside the realm of possibility allowed via deficit discourses. They envision their findings as indications of the shifts taking place in society regarding the economic costs of raising children.

2.5.2 Deconstructing a social problem: poststructural interpretations of single parenthood

Poststructuralist scholars start from the position that power is inherent to discourse establishing subjectivities for single parenthood through knowledge construction. Reference list Researchers using this approach attempt to destabilise dominant subjectivities situating single parenthood as a social problem by exploring discourses (Usdansky,

2008; King, 2003; Puls, 1996; Reekie, 1996; Lewis, 1998a; Larner, 2000; Engels,

2006; Fraser and Gordon, 1994; Wallbank, 1998 and 2001; Pillow, 2004; Power,

2005; Kelly, 1996; Sheppard-LeMoine, 2000; Lessa, 2002 and 2004; Schultz, 2001;

Scarbrough, 2001; Leighninger, 2001; Hobbs, 2008; Pollack and Caragata, 2010).

Lewis (1998a) examined discourses of policy-makers in the UK to document how single parenthood was made as a social problem during various milieus. King

(2003) explored social worker discourses in Hong Kong to investigate how social workers constituted single parenthood as a social problem. Parker (2004) investigated how dependency discourses enabled the Australian Federal

Government to implement stringent policy reforms to welfare provision. He claimed

13 See section 2.3.1.

“the focus on dependency as a result of personal failure and a deficient welfare system” took “the emphasis away from other possible policy responses” (Parker,

2004:34). Pollack and Caragata investigated ‘workfare discourses’ from the three perspectives of single mothers, “state-contracted nongovernmental organizations

(NGOs)” and “welfare workers” (2010:264). They explored how the positions of single mothers were inscribed from these three perspectives. These studies all investigated the discursive objectification of subjects highlighting the construction of single parenthood as social problem.

The poststructural examination of discourses in these studies not only rendered visible how single parenthood was discursively constituted, they also highlighted problems with research designs. King reviewed social work research in Hong Kong and argued researchers and social workers in the studies he reviewed

“inadvertently” participated in the “social construction process” by constituting single parenthood as a social problem in spite of the fact they aimed to ‘empower’ single Reference list parents (2003:47). He claimed the way in which researchers designed their studies contributed to their negative findings by recruiting low socio-economic participants and pathologising the low socio-economic conditions of their lives (King, 2003).

King claimed the “most deprived groups were over-represented in the sample[s] from which conclusion[s] have been drawn” (2003:48). According to King, the researchers’ sampling and recruitment methods positioned single parenthood as a social problem whilst simultaneously appealing for more support for these families, thereby creating “a paradoxical and difficult situation” as the families “have to be victimized at the same time as they get helped” (2003:50). Through King’s examination of these discourses, the underlying assumptions informing the research he reviewed were rendered visible.

Examining the unstated aspects of research is an important component of the poststructuralist approach (Mills, 2003). As poststructural researchers are cognizant that “strategies of data collection themselves have a communicative dialogic character” (Flick, von Kardorff, and Steinke, 2004:7), investigating the discursive constitution of single parenthood as a social problem highlights the methodological design problems contributing to these perspectives. As “all knowledges are productive in the specific sense that they have definite effects on the objects one seeks to know” (Henrique et al, 1984:92), the exploration of discourses highlight the dominance of some perspectives over others in the games of truth about single parenthood. The project discussed in this thesis also uses a poststructuralist approach to examine the discourses of single parenthood. Like Pollack and

Caragata (2010) it employs different discursive perspectives to juxtapose the competing truth claims about single parenthood.14 The studies discussed here demonstrate the appropriateness of this approach for this project as it allows for the destabilisation of dominant ways of thinking rendering visible the truth claims Reference list underlying the constitution of knowledge about single parenthood.

2.5.3 Searching for family resilience: personal growth and successful single parenthood

Although dominant discourses set the parameters for what can and cannot be said about single parenthood, they do not close off entirely alternative ways of thinking about these subjectivities. Consequently, pockets of obscure or marginalised discourses arise. One such area is that of family resilience. These studies are primarily situated within discourses of the traditional family as they predominantly study coupled families, especially those living with adversity such as disabilities. For these reasons, the bulk of this literature is found through either family studies or disabilities studies. Interestingly, this research field focuses almost exclusively on

14 Chapter four sets out the research design of this project.

two-parent families, despite evidence indicating children with disabilities predominantly reside in single mother families (Levine, 2009; Corman and Kaestner,

1992; Cohen and Petrescu-Prahova, 2006). As these discourses are outside the parameters of dominant discourses constituting claims about single parenthood, they are marginalised in the single parenthood literature.

Resilience researchers examine families to search for or identify factors pertaining to family adaption models (Kleist, 1999; Robinson, 2009b; Richards and Schmiege,

1993; Levine, 2009; Silberberg, 2001; Taylor, Larsen-Rife, Conger, Widaman, and

Cutrona, 2010; Gantt and Greif, 2009). Levine (2009) explored single mothers with disabled children to document their levels of resilience. Silberberg (2001) incorporated single parents in her sample examining family resilience. Kleist (1999) and Robinson (2009) both reviewed selected literature on single parenthood to argue some single parent families appear to operate successfully despite the adversities they face. Reference list

An example of the empirical research engaging a more positive interpretation of single parenthood is provided by Richards and Schmiege (1993). Their project examined single parent families in the US, documenting the problems and strengths as perceived by the parents themselves (Richards and Schmiege, 1993). They claim the ‘strengths’ identified were ‘parenting skills’, ‘personal growth’,

‘communication’, ‘family management’, and ‘financial support’ (Richards and

Schmiege, 1993:281). Through this study, a constructive ways of thinking about single parenthood are made possible:

It may be more useful ... to view experiences such as divorce as

stressful transitions for children and adults, while at the same time

acknowledging that over time, and with appropriate supports, such

transitions may serve as a stimuli for personal growth and may well

result in improved life circumstances for the adults and children involved

(Richards and Schmiege, 1993:283).

Contrary to dominant constructions of single parenthood, Richards and Schmiege

(1993) provided alternative subjectivities for single parents. They claimed single parents can be successful as the transition to this family form may serve as a catalyst for positive personal growth and development (Richards and Schmiege,

1993). An important aspect of this research was its design as it allowed respondents to self-select into the project, as well as self-define their problems and strengths. Therefore this study employed insider discourses in order to better understand single parenthood. 15 The date of this research indicates these subjectivities have been rendered invisible by the dominance of deficit perspectives as there has been little empirical research since 1993 directly sampling single parents that constitutes them as successful parents.

As a considerably smaller body of knowledge, research in this area offers the most Reference list potential for destabilising the dominance of social problem discourses by repositioning single parenthood into subjectivities of success via resilience and personal growth. The design of the research in this field is important as discourses set the lens through which we see (Mills, 2003). With deficit perspectives powerfully informing researchers’ understandings of single parenthood, it is unsurprising authoritative knowledge (discourses) predominantly constitute single parents into deficit subjectivities. Although it is not explicitly acknowledged as such, family resilience studies use insider discourses to construct knowledge about single parenthood that destabilises outsider discourses dominating other research approaches. The adoption of this research design is important for the project discussed in this thesis as it enables single parent respondents to present their perspectives as insider discourses of single parenthood.

15 Although this was not explicitly acknowledged.

2.6 Conclusion

Risk thinking dominates research accounts about single parenthood. Claims to the

‘truth’ of single parenthood are primarily constructed through research from deficit perspectives with detrimental consequences constituted for parents, children, and society. In these games of truth, the constructed knowledge presented in this review is both informed by and maintains deficit perspectives. Power operates through this knowledge as it constructs single parenthood in distinct ways.

Dominant discourses structure the parameters of knowledge about single parenthood discounting or blocking off alternative ways of thinking and talking about single parenthood. Rose (n.d.) reminds us that “[t]ruth is not only the outcome of construction, but of contestation” and the battle for truth is most obvious through those few attempts to disrupt and rewrite dominant deficit discourses as identified in the preceding section.

This review has shown that researchers are integral to producing and re-producing Reference list knowledge about single parenthood. It has shown how single parenthood is predominantly constituted in terms of risk and a social problem. Dominant discourses have been identified in the literature with discussions highlighting their influences on constructed knowledge. Research designs are both informed by and feed back into deficit perspectives by primarily sampling low socio-economic single mothers. SmithBattle (2007) argues the poor outcomes of teenage motherhood are primarily constructed via researchers sampling low socio-economic mothers ignoring the outcomes of more advantaged teenage mothers. As a consequence of these sampling techniques, the field of knowledge established about single parenthood has become distorted.

The section outlining dividing practices with an emphasis on difference highlights the power relationships operating to divide various ‘types’ of parenthood. The critique of

difference should not be seen as a suggestion that people are the same as one another. Rather, difference needs to be understood as a technique of dividing practices (McHoul and Grace, 1993). By highlighting particular differences, abnormality is made apparent and divided from the normal, constituting it as both a deficit, and a social problem in need of fixing. The discussion on dividing practices also demonstrated how single fathers are conceived to be less of a risk than single mothers. The constitution of single fathers as challenged by gendered care work is not interpreted as risk therefore they escape social problem subjectivities. The absence of research on the fathering work of mothers suggests mothers are incapable of this form of parenting, with this notion supporting discourses about the importance of fathers in the lives of their children.

This review has also demonstrated a strong and sustained interest within social sciences toward the study of single parenthood. The juxtaposition of dominant discourses against minor or obscure discourses highlights the discursive power Reference list contained in games of truth evident in the literature. Deficit discourses set the parameters for how single parenthood can be constituted, whilst also rendering invisible alternative versions. Feminist researchers dispute dominant models of single parenthood and attempt to normalise the parenting of mothers who are single.

Poststructural scholars explore discourses to destabilise deficit perspectives and disrupt the status quo:

We do not really see through our eyes or hear through our ears, but

through our beliefs ... we must learn to be vulnerable enough to allow

our world to turn upside down in order to allow the realities of others to

edge themselves into our consciousness (Delpit, 1988:297).

This project seeks to ‘turn upside down’ deficit perspectives by exploring the subjectivities of single parenthood from the two discourses of media discourses and single parent respondent discourses. As the study outlined in this thesis

endeavours to move away from the limitations evidenced in the sampling practices of the studies reviewed here, chapter three outlines the theoretical approach underpinning this analysis with chapter four outlining the methodological design for the project. By using the research design techniques employed by family resilience researchers, greater diversity is accommodated with insider discourses. A poststructural/Foucauldian framework enables the exploration of both constraining and constructive subjectivities, and renders visible the games of truth played out via authoritative discourses, media discourses and respondent discourses.

Reference list

Chapter 3 Using Foucault’s toolbox: theoretical conceptualisations

3.1 Introduction

This thesis presents an analysis of the problematisation of dominant discourses of single parenthood. This is achieved by exploring how single parenthood is socially constructed via discourses. This chapter presents the theoretical concepts used in this analysis. As a study of discourses, this project moved away from the limited frameworks predominantly informing the research literature. This shift occurred by employing a poststructural/Foucauldian framework to enable a thorough exploration of single parenthood subjectivities, including their nuanced variations. The compatibility between poststructuralism and Foucauldian thought is that both take Reference list the position that reality is discursively constituted and accepted.

The poststructural/Foucauldian framework fits the research aims of this project as it guides the researcher to seek out and examine the various ways people are constituted within discourses (Scheurich and McKenzie, 2005:854). The

Foucauldian lens shifts the focus of analysis away from why certain individuals and groups are constituted as they are, to ‘how’ they are constituted, irrespective of whether subjectivities are negative or positive (Kendall and Wickham, 1999:50). It also highlights normalisation processes contained within those discourses.

Therefore this framework allows researchers to examine not only the constraining, but also the productive and creative power of discourses as they make people. It also renders visible paradoxes, contradictions, silences, taboos, and discounted

subjectivities. Hence, this theoretical framework facilitates the exploration of discursive subjectivities dominating, as well as those currently missing from, research literature.

It is recognised that there is no one way to use Foucauldian theory (Søndergaard,

2002:187; Kaufmann, 2005). Within the thesis, Foucault’s concepts are used in a piecemeal fashion and drawn together as a framework for destabilising discursive constructions of single parenthood (Mills, 2003:7). The concepts central to this thesis are discourse, power, knowledge, and truth. Although these concepts form the basis for understanding the analysis presented here, other Foucauldian concepts are also used to aid this analysis, such as resistance, governance, normalisation, and technologies of the self. This chapter presents Foucault’s concepts as they are utilised in this study under the three sections of discourse, power and governance. For the purposes of this thesis, the first two sections on discourse and power are conceptualised as micro processes operating at the Reference list individual level in society, whereas the third section on governance is understood is primarily a macro process. At the macro level, governance acts as a disciplinary mechanism setting the parameters for the fields of possibility for how others can conduct themselves.

3.2 The making of things: discursively constituting reality

Central to this thesis is the concept of discourse. Discourses are defined as

“group[s] of statements and practices that define and constrain how a particular phenomenon gets identified and articulated at a particular historical moment”

(Nadesan, 2002:402). According to Foucault, discourses are “practices that systematically form the objects of which they speak” (2010:49). For this reason, discourses cannot be merely understood as the utilisation of language. Instead,

they need to be thought of as the embodiment of language, knowledge, and action

(Foucault, 2003) setting the parameters for how we comprehend cultural subjectivities like single parenthood. For this reason, a poststructural/Foucauldian analysis of discourses offer new ways of thinking and talking about single parenthood, facilitating the exploration of how realities are discursively produced

(Scheurich and McKenzie, 2005). It provides the basis for analysing the constitution of single parenthood via the three discursive perspectives of research, media, and the discourses of parents who are single.

Discourses set the parameters for how language can be used. They limit the field of possibilities for the type of language that is allowable, and also the choices available to authors of narratives (Foucault, 2010; Mills, 1997). When an account of an event or subjectivity is ‘assembled’, the account is composed through choices made by the author of the account, with ‘choice’ inferring a possible range of differing versions

(Gill, 2002:175). However, choice is limited by discourses setting the parameters for Reference list allowable and disallowable subjectivities. Therefore it is not possible to create an account in any manner one chooses; the account must conform to the limitations set by dominant discourses otherwise it runs the risk of being discounted as false or misleading. For this reason, some discourses have more influence than others and are constituted as dominant discourses as they create and recreate our social reality

(Richardson, 2007:26). By documenting dominant discourses of single parenthood, the parameters around the fields of possibility for thinking about and talking about single parenthood are rendered visible.

Knowledge is a crucial component of discourses as knowledge informs discursive fields (Foucault, 2010). The nexus between knowledge and discourse is important because all that we know, we know through some form of discourse. This is because discourses generate knowledge and knowledge produces discourses

(Foucault, 2010). In other words, the language we use is a representation of our experience, but it also informs our comprehension of that experience. The

‘discovered’ object does not appear in the world new, with a label attached so we

‘know’ what it is. Instead it is established through discourses via the “process of definition” (Kendall and Wickham, 1999:69). By defining the object through language, we give it meaning to make it knowable (Foucault, 2003 and 2010). By using a Foucauldian lens, we are able to see how discourses operate as powerful tools for defining and understanding cultural subjectivities like single parenthood. By defining and making things, discourses embody power.

3.3 The creative and constraining aspects of power

Foucault’s version of power informs the analysis in this thesis. It is crucial to understanding discourses as it both constrains and produces subjects discursively

(Foucault, 1991:194). Traditionally, power has been envisioned as a repressive and restrictive force inhibiting individual freedoms “through outright repression … Reference list censorship and concealment” (Silverman, 1985:87). The repressive version of power is problematic as it does not adequately explain how power is enacted through ‘free’ people (McHoul and Grace, 1993:63). Foucault rejected the repressive version of power, instead conceiving power differently by claiming it is not just constraining but also productive (1991:194). For this reason, his version of power is conceptually different to modernist and structuralist perspectives. It fits with the poststructuralist approach as he does not provide a theory of power but a way of undertaking an analysis of power embedded in social relations (Dreyfus and

Rabinow, 1983:184).

The constraining aspect of Foucault’s power is the limitation on the allowable frames of reference for knowing things within discourses. The constraining action of

discourses narrow or limit a person’s vision as they disallow a whole “range of phenomena” from one’s view with the phenomenon falling outside the allowable discursive parameters overlooked, discounted, or delegitimized (Mills, 1997:51). To demonstrate, theoretically people have an infinite number of words and phrases they can employ, but instead they stick to narrow and limited repertoires accepted in specific social situations (Mills, 1997; Burr, 2003). As discourses set the fields of possibility for what can and cannot be said, people fail to recognise the considerably broader or unlimited language range available to them (Mills, 1997:70). This constraining aspect of discourse demands an analysis of the ‘hidden transcripts’

(Mills, 2003:41) embedded in discourses in order to explore these discursive margins. Understanding the constraining action of discourses facilitates an exploration of discounted or delegitimized versions of single parenthood.

Power is also constructive because it produces reality, objects, and truth (McHoul and Grace, 1993). It “brings about forms of behaviour and events” (Mills, 2003:36) Reference list via the fields of possibility available to individuals. Our language not only represents our experiences, but also our understanding of that experience (Kendall and

Wickham, 1999:67). For this reason, discourses do not merely describe objects, they produce them, and ‘objects’ include people (Wright, 2000:153). The process of definition constitutes objects (including people), by making them knowable (Burr,

2003:105). Understanding the constructed nature of social phenomenon does not deny the “existence of a material world”; rather, it highlights the cultural interpretations of “things and events” (Burr, 2003:67). This Foucauldian perspective renders visible how discourses work upon parents who are single to make them in particular ways as single parents.

Another way that Foucault’s power differs from the repressive version is that it is

“exercised rather than possessed” (1991:26). Power is performative as it is enacted

through people not merely over them; making it something that is entrenched in social relations “travers[ing] all practices” (Rose, 1998:152). Foucault argued, power is “neither given, nor exchanged, but exercised … it exists only in action”

(1980a:98). Discourses not only limit the use of language, they also have material effects and influences by limiting the fields of possibility open to them:

Descriptions or constructions of the world … sustain some patterns of

social action and exclude others. Our constructions of the world are …

bound up with power relations because they have implications for what it

is permissible for different people to do, and for how they may treat

others (Burr, 2003:5).

Power is understood “as a set of forces” establishing “positions and ways of behaving that influence people in their everyday lives” (Danaher, Schirato and

Webb, 2000:48). As a result, the power inherent to discourses “produce, maintain or play out power relations” (Henrique, Holloway, Urwin, Venn and Walkerdine,

1984:115) creating material effects for individuals via the subjectivities they occupy Reference list or are constituted as occupying. Therefore, not only is power productive and constraining, it also perpetuates power relations dominating cultural practices. The use of Foucault’s concept of power facilitates the examination of power relations perpetuated by discourses.

Foucault’s comprehension of power is broadened considerably from repressive versions and facilitates an analysis of social relations as it perceives people as both subjects and users of power. Foucault likened power to a chain circulating the social body (1980a:98), as to be part of a society is also to be embodied within the power relations that interweave that society (2003:140). Consequently, his concept of power has been interpreted as rhizomic:

To function rhizomatically is to act via relay, circuit, multiple openings …

There is no trunk, no emergence from a single root, but rather an

‘arbitrary branching off and temporary frontiers’ which can only be

mapped, not blueprinted … Rhizomes produce paradoxical objects …

[and] are about the move from hierarchies to networks … As a

metaphor, rhizomes work against the constraints of authority, regularity,

and commonsense, and open thought up to creative constructions

(Lather, 1993:680).

As power is inherent to social relations within western cultures, it facilitates the discursive analysis of both the constraining and productive aspects of social relationships. This revised and expanded concept of power recognizes single parents as more than merely passive objects oppressed and controlled through power but also as users of power discursively constituting their own subjectivities.

Foucault’s understanding of power underpins this thesis as it moves away from repressive interpretations of power, instead comprehending power as both constraining and constructive (2003:307). By altering the understanding of power to Reference list incorporate its productive nature, this perspective highlights the multi-faceted nature of socially constructed ways of being currently dominating single parenthood discourses. It also enables an exploration of the contested, discounted, and obscures subjectivities of single parenthood.

3.3.1 Foucault’s trifecta: the power/knowledge/truth complex

Power, knowledge, and truth (Foucault, 1988a) are pivotal for understanding the discursive production of knowledge about, and analysing the subjectivities of, single parenthood. They have a symbiotic relationship as knowledge produces truth, and truth is enmeshed in power. Therefore “[t]he person who has the capacity to formulate truths also has a power, the power of being able to speak truth and to express it in the way he wants” (Foucault, 2003:39). Knowledge is constructed by researchers exploring single parenthood and making claims as to the truth of this

position. Power is performed via the constructive processes of both knowledge and truth, as well as in the authority accorded to certain versions over others. For example, the knowledge constituted via research is perceived as more authoritative than other accounts. As such, these versions have more impact on social understandings of single parenthood. Their effects are more powerful than those of the positions not accorded the same authority. This thesis conceptualises the relationship between the three as vital in discursively constituting single parenthood.

Discourse cannot be divorced from knowledge, truth and power as power is exercised via discourse by producing knowledge and truth. Foucault claimed “[w]e are subjected to the production of truth through power and we cannot exercise power except through the production of truth” (1980a:93). Power is fundamental to knowledge because power is performed through knowledge systems which generate truths about subjectivities and give rise to mechanisms that produce specific behaviours for people (St. Pierre, 2002:399). Importantly for this thesis, Reference list Foucault (2010) was specifically interested in the knowledges connected to social relations, including “economics, medicine and the human sciences” for these are

“the knowledges most quick to pronounce truths about human nature, human potential, human endeavour, and the future of the human condition in general”

(McHoul and Grace, 1993:58). Moreover, these are the disciplines also closely connected to truth claims about single parenthood. Understanding the symbiotic relationship between power, knowledge, and discourse and the establishment of truth allows the exploration of how truth claims are made about single parenthood and who gets to make them.

3.3.2 Understanding and contesting truths

The concept of truth is important for this thesis as not any version of something is accepted as a legitimate and truthful account. Only specific types of truths such as

those constituted via intellectual or scientific knowledge are accepted as authoritative, and therefore legitimate, truths (Kendall and Wickham, 1999). Truth also contains power as the acceptance of a version of something is then understood to be the ‘truth’ of such objects, thus situating them within particular subjectivities.

Hence, the nexus between power and knowledge generates “regimes of truth”

(Philp, 1983:37) influencing how we understand phenomenon. Thus, truth becomes a subjective notion as “there is not one privileged meaning but many meanings and many voices” (Brown, 1994:233).

Truth claims are fundamental to discourses if the discourses are to be accepted as authoritative. Foucault’s interest in the constructed nature of truths prompted him to examine how the organisation of specific knowledges (such as medicine), were

“connected with a whole series of social and economic processes” as well as

“institutions and practices of power” (2003:38). Through this process, he was able to render visible their constructed nature as authoritative. His concern was to Reference list problematise “the question of truth” by instigating an awareness of how truths are really functions of discourse “rather than being absolute or essential” or natural

‘truths’ in their own right (Danaher, Schirato, and Webb, 2000:41-42). He termed this problematisation of truth ‘games of truth’, which are understood as “a set of rules by which truth is produced” (Foucault, 2003:38). Truth games act as mechanisms of power as not any account is accepted as a truthful or authoritative account.

The power inherent in discourses not only sets the parameters for what can and cannot be said, it also places limitations on who has the power to formulate truths

(Cheek, 2004:1142). As power and truth are tied up with authority and legitimacy, discourses do not simply set out the truth of an object (Danaher, Schirato and

Webb, 2000:78). Rather, they make “possible both what can be said and what can

be done” (Walkerdine, 1984:154-155) by placing limitations on the kinds of stories we can tell about ourselves and our experiences (Burr, 2003:145). Through this process, the truth claims of alternative discourses are discounted or marginalised.

The stamp of authority accorded to some truths results in their becoming “so taken for granted that it is difficult to see precisely what is questionable about them”

(Walkerdine, 1984:155). It is forgotten or overlooked that they are merely a set of truths from the perspective of a dominant discourse. Hence it is necessary to explore discourses from multiple perspectives in order to render visible the truth claims underpinning such discourses, keeping them in place as they facilitate the truth about things like single parenthood.

Although some discourses dominate a culture at a particular time, there are always other less obvious discourses in circulation complimenting, competing, rejecting, and destabilising dominant discourses (Hill, 2009:314). For this reason, it is necessary to not only examine discourses, but also to contextualise them. By Reference list attempting to “understand the context in which they arise” (Harding, Palmer, and

Phillips, 2000:1232) and are given meaning, we can look for discursive margins, ruptures, and taboos in order to tease out the competing truth claims underpinning them, such as those of single parents themselves.

Truth is conceptualised in this research as subjective, unstable, and contestable

(Foucault, 2003:356). It highlights power through truth games played out via knowledge and discourse, as those constituted as authoritative make truth claims about things like single parenthood (McHoul and Grace, 1993). The instability of truth is revealed as single parents contest the subjectivities crafted for them via outsider discourses, instead asserting their own truth claims about their position.16

16 This method was used by Ning to explore the discourses employed by heroin users in the context of ‘recovery’ juxtaposed against those of the staff of a methadone clinic in

This Foucauldian understanding of truth rejects the notion there is only one indisputable truth about things discernible from objective observation, conceiving instead of multiple versions dependent upon one’s perspective. Thus, truth is rendered visible as a subjective notion.

3.3.3 Understanding subjectivities

Discourses construct reality by constituting individuals as subjects. This project takes as its starting point the rejection of the idea that parents who are single comprise a homogenous group in society, and that examination of this group results in findings that speak to the truth of this phenomenon. Instead, this study understands single parenthood to be the product of discourses that establish multiple subjectivities for parents who are single to either accept or reject. Within this context, truth games are played out through the claiming, maintaining, contesting, and destabilising of subjectivities.

The term ‘the subject’ is used to define or explain identity and the self (Danaher, Reference list

Schirato, and Webb, 2000:xiv). It is used to suggest how we are produced through

“discourses, ideologies and institutional practices” (Danaher, Schirato, and Webb,

2000:xiv). Foucault argued that although people are bodily representations, we are also ‘fictitiously’ ‘fabricated’ by specific technologies of power, such as discourses and truth games (1991:194). His understanding of identity and the self destabilises the idea that we consciously create our own self identities, implying instead that we are discursively constituted into specific subjectivities (Foucault, 1991 and 2010).

Knowledge is pivotal in understanding subjectivities because we are both the subject and the users of knowledge, caught in games of truth in order to understand ourselves (Foucault, 2003:146). Knowledge “makes us its subjects” by constituting

Canada (2005). Ning (2005) used Foucault’s concept of ‘games of truth’ to analyse the disparate perspectives of the two groups.

truths about us (Danaher, Schirato and Webb, 2000:50). In turn, we “make sense of ourselves by referring back to various bodies of knowledge” (Danaher, Schirato and

Webb, 2000:50; Foucault, 2003:127). Subjectivities are conceptualised in this research as discursive manifestations of the fields of possibility surrounding one’s position, as perceived both by the self and others. Thus, a person’s position can, and often does, generate multiple subjectivities.

Discourses are central to subjectivities as language discursively produces things, including people (Foucault, 2003:351-369). People are situated, and situate themselves, discursively in terms of subjectivities through classification and/or categorisation (Medved and Kirby, 2005:447). We see ourselves as particular types of individuals and assign terms to describe ourselves and others. For example, the term ‘single parent’ is used in western societies to indicate a particular ‘type’ of person. Hence, we become subjects when we take up or are situated into a position within a discursive field (Søndergaard, 2002; Kendall and Wickham, 1999). This Reference list positioning in turn objectifies us as a ‘subject’ within that field (Copeland, 1996).

Parents who are single demonstrate how individuals are objectified via subjectivities like single parenthood. Researchers study parents who are single as single parents to construct knowledge about single parenthood that in turn creates subjectivities for parents who are single. By exploring single parenthood discourses the objectification of parents who are single is rendered visible.

Power is central to subjectivities as we are discursively constituted by the productive processes of discourse (Kendall and Wickham, 1999:52). This is because

“[d]iscourses address us as particular kinds of people (as on old person, as a carer, as a worker, as a criminal and so on)” (Burr, 2003:111). Each subjectivity has different sets of rules or parameters for what is allowable and disallowable, for what we can and cannot say, be, or do:

To the extent that material conditions and social practices are

inextricably bound up in discourse, then our ability to, say, earn a living,

go out at night, tell people what to do or refuse to do what others say

depends upon the positions in discourses that we can take up or resist

(Burr, 2003:118).

According to Burr (2003), we are discursively situated in a position with tangible parameters for what is allowable and disallowable in relation to our personhood.

These parameters have material effects as we are “locked into the system of rights, speaking rights and obligations that are carried with that position” (Burr, 2003:111).

As people are not simply one of a dichotomy of “passive or active, dependent or independent, believers or sceptics” instead being “a complex mixture of all these things” (Williams and Calnan, 1996:1619), we can either accept subjectivities or struggle against them (Foucault, 2003:129). Thus our subjectivities are “offered, claimed or accepted” from “moment to moment” (Burr, 2003:114) with tension between the parameters set around subjectivities “and the subjects’ interpretation Reference list and use of them” (Søndergaard, 2002:199). This research explores both material effects of, and the ways in which parents who are single negotiate, single parent subjectivities.

3.3.4 Resistance: rejecting subjectivities

Resistance is another concept situated in micro processes and is enacted through subjectivities. Foucault’s conceptualisation of power provides the avenue for resistance as freedom is integral to his version of power (2003). He argued, “in power relations there is necessarily the possibility of resistance because if there were no possibility of resistance … there would be no power relations at all”

(Foucault, 2003:34). Foucault understood resistance to be performed by individuals challenging, rejecting, destabilising, and contesting truth claims about themselves made by others (Hofmeyr, 2008:112). Resistance is therefore performed at the

micro level by parents who are single challenging, rejecting, and rewriting their own

‘truths’ about their subjectivities.

Problematisation is a process for rendering visible acts of resistance. Resistance “is not about replacing those who hold power with a previously oppressed group, nor is it about establishing new systems of universal values and truths” (Tamboukou and

Ball, 2003:9). Instead resistance is enabled through “thought, criticism and problematisation” (Danaher, Schirato and Webb, 2000:44) by reinscribing one’s self

(Hil and Bessant, 1999:48). This concept of resistance facilitates the rethinking of power and the interrogation and negotiation of “the conditions of our lives problematising the stories we are told and those we tell” (Tamboukou and Ball,

2003:9) about ourselves and our subjectivities. Thus, resistance is “about attempting to become ‘other’” than we are written, by “disowning the ways in which we are spoken” about by others (Tamboukou and Ball, 2003:9). It is only through investigating and understanding the “current ways of understanding ourselves” that Reference list we can problematise our subjectivities and “question their legitimacy” in order to resist them (Burr, 2003:78). The documentation of single parents’ understanding of their subjectivities renders visible their discursive acts of resistance.

Foucault’s rejection of a repressive power provides the avenues for resistance. He considered his work as pivotal in “opening spaces for debate” about how people are constituted, especially those inhabiting subjectivities (McHoul and Grace, 1993:86).

This notion of resistance is vital to this project as it highlights the importance of providing space for those discursively constituted into subjectivities to claim their own truths about themselves, such as single parents. This research uses this concept of resistance as a mechanism for understanding and legitimising the alternative truth claims made by single parents about their own subjectivities. It also

facilitates a rethinking and a rewriting of dominant discourses of authoritative knowledge.

The concepts outlined above are broadly understood as processes operating at the micro level constituting individuals as subjects of knowledge. Although these concepts are important for understanding this research, they are not the only ones.

At the macro level, there are also Foucauldian concepts operating that impact on how single parenthood is constituted. The following section explains these concepts to provide a foundation for understanding why there is so much interest in studying single parenthood.

3.4 The macro processes of governance: disciplinary citizenship

The concept of biopower provides insight into why there is concern with governing individuals (McHoul and Grace, 1993). This interest in the workings of the populace Reference list translates into research knowledge as social scientists examine groups in society establishing knowledge, truth, and subjectivities for and about them. As a result of the knowledge generated via research, the concepts of governance, normalisation, dividing practices, and disciplinary techniques come into play as people are worked on, or written about, with the objective of producing the ideal individual as the good social citizen (Rose, 1996). This section outlines these concepts and explains how they affect the discursive construction of single parenthood. It concludes with a discussion on risk and the importance of children, as both are influences on single parenthood discourses.

Foucault’s (1976 and 1991) concept of biopower provides the mechanism for understanding the modern form of governance in western societies. It is the term

Foucault used to describe the relationship between individuals and institutions of

power and “provides a way for understanding how and why government institutions are interested in managing human bodies” (Danaher, Schirato and Webb,

2000:125). The aim of biopower is the “health, wealth, and productivity” of the social body (Hewitt, 1983:69). Power is enabled through individuals as social subjects

(Rose, 1998:151) to maximise productivity and stabilise society. The concept of biopower allows us to see the macro processes of normalisation that lead to the micro processes like technologies of the self. This is because public discourses

(such as intellectual knowledge and media discourses) constitute not only subjectivities, but also the norms for idealised behaviours, which are then either internalised by individuals (resulting in technologies of the self) or enacted by institutions to encourage conformity with this ideal.

As biopower is concerned with the management and administration of life (McHoul and Grace, 1993:52), both liberalism and knowledge are important for this endeavour. Liberalism is the governance of people under the guise that individuals Reference list are free, autonomous beings making their own choices about how they live their lives. Foucault argued this belief in the freedom of individuals is essential to their management as people need to be encouraged to make the right choices about their lives in order to maximise their outcomes as social resources (Rabinow and

Rose, 2003). However, not just any choice is conveyed as the correct or desirable choice with specific behaviours actively discouraged. In order to encourage the right sort of choices, knowledge about people and behaviours is crucial. As knowledge and power are intricately linked, systems of knowledge also contain power (McHoul and Grace, 1993:67), especially the power to direct human action. This is because knowledge about individuals gives rise to the mechanisms used for their management (Danaher, Schirato and Webb, 2000:90).

The macro processes of biopower, such as the management and administration of social life, spiral down into micro processes resulting in normalisation practices and technologies of the self at the individual level (Foucault, 1988b, 2003:145-169). To demonstrate this process, the ideals of good citizenship are constituted at the macro level as those most desirable for encouraging a productive and stable society, such as economic self-sufficiency. Research into how economic self-sufficiency is performed, for example via employment, results in macro processes that define good citizenship in this way, and also in micro processes that encourage individuals to be good citizens by undertaking paid employment and financial self-sufficient. As economic self-sufficiency is constituted at the macro level representing good citizenship, those not demonstrating this form of citizenship, such as the unemployed, are worked upon by macro institutions (through the provision of welfare for example) at the micro level in order to bring about this form of good citizenship. Reference list This nexus between macro processes and micro practices is pivotal for understanding the sustained interest in single parenthood. At the macro level, many of the discourses of single parenthood constitute it as a deficient form of citizenship

(for example, dependency discourses). The knowledge resulting from these discourses is used to establish interventions at the micro level to direct individual’s conduct in line with approved or desired outcomes, like employment. As knowledge is crucial to the management of individuals, and because many discourses constitute single parenthood as a deficient form of citizenship (which is a concern for macro processes), research interest is sustained to make known the problematic nature of this social position. In other words, single parents cannot be constituted as a social problem at the micro level unless they are also constituted as a social problem at the macro level, as it is at the macro level that concern is generated for administering and maintaining social life.

3.4.1 Producing the good citizen: normalisation and dividing practices

Normalisation processes operate at both the macro and micro level. At the micro level, these processes generate technologies of the self whereby individuals internalise and regulate their behaviours in line with the norms of desirable conduct.

At the macro level, techniques of normalisation distinguish individuals from each other categorising them into groups or ‘types’ (Copeland, 1996). These macro processes of normalisation rely on the generalisation or essentialisation of individuals into groups or categories of people (like single parenthood). The categories are then used for evaluating the collective citizenship of the group. As a disciplinary apparatus, normalisation practices constitute “the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’ subjects in relation to one another” (Foucault, 2006:130). Hence, subjectivities are not stand-alone categories. They are relational and are connected to other subjectivities and discourses through which they obtain meaning (Törrönen, 2001;

Medved and Kirby, 2005). For example, the ‘abnormal’ can only be defined in terms of what it lacks in relation to the ‘normal’ (Copeland, 1996). As the “chief function of Reference list disciplinary power is to train” (Foucault, 2006:124), the macro apparatus of normalisation encourages the micro process of technologies of the self.

Normalisation at the macro level relies on systems of knowledge in order to constitute a ‘normal’. The normal is consolidated by “a statistical, a social, a moral and a medical judgement” regarding that which is ‘average’, ‘socially desirable’,

‘good or virtuous’, and ‘healthy’ (Rose, 2001:21). This statistical or modelling of the

‘normal’ is used as the benchmark against which others are measured (Copeland,

1996). Knowledge is vital to this process as “the sciences help to construct the norms that become the ideal behavioural goals valued in the practices of the social”

(Henrique et al, 1984:107). The macro ideal of the normal is implemented at the micro level by professionals such as social workers, doctors, and teachers. The

“privileged bodies of knowledge” that constitute the normal establish power in these professionals as “agents of intervention” in order to seek out those not conforming to these norms (Hewitt, 1983:72). The conceptualisation of normalisation at the macro level is useful for understanding how expertise provides the benchmarks for judging the normal and abnormal, and becomes a technique of normalisation at the micro level. Ideas about good parenthood at the macro level are enacted by the judges of normality at the micro level with material effects for individuals, such as single parents.

The macro mechanisms of normalisation aim to produce particular types of subjects at the micro level, with the goal being the ‘good’ citizen (Gray, 2009). Good citizenship is discursively constituted as “active and individualistic rather than passive and dependent” (Rose, 1998:165) with the good or ‘worthy’ citizen positioned as a “self-determining, agentic, individual who accepts their obligation to act morally” (Gillies, 2005:77). Citizenship in this respect is used to signify the ideal Reference list social individual rather than formal legal citizenship. It operates at the macro level but is practiced at the micro level, as it is the individual’s actions and behaviours indicate whether their citizenship is good or bad, and whether they are to be included or excluded socially. Through this way of thinking about citizenship, individuals only achieve freedom through the internalisation of the ideals of good citizenship (technologies of the self), which includes an acceptance of self- responsibility, self-sufficiency, and autonomy. Hence, these notions are enacted and used to justify the push in western societies to reduce welfare spending and

‘encourage’ welfare users, such as single parents, into full employment.

Macro level normalisation processes facilitate the mechanisms for removing and dividing people into groups or categories. ‘Dividing practices’ is the term Foucault

(1991) used to describe a technique of normalisation which divides the ‘normal’ from

the ‘abnormal’ (Dreyfus and Rabinow, 1983:208). The processes of normalisation, and the ‘judges of normality’ (Danaher, Schirato and Webb, 2000:61), distinguish between those who are deemed ‘normal’ from those who are not. The category of

‘abnormal’ represents those who do not fit within the bounds of that understood as

‘normal’. “Dividing practices work to qualify and disqualify people as fit and proper members of the social order” (Danaher, Schirato and Webb, 2000:60-61).

Consequently, dividing practices are essential for normalisation processes as they not only distinguish the abnormal, the defective, and the substandard, but they also validate the normal. The concept of dividing practices facilitates an understanding of how and why single parenthood is divided from the normalised ideal of heterosexual coupled parenthood.

Dividing practices as macro level processes are crucial for constituting certain groups of people as social problems. If the deficiency is beyond treatment, or the individual is unwilling to work on themselves, then knowledge of the ‘abnormal’ is Reference list vital for calculating and predicting the level of risk they pose for society. Dividing practices identify and pressure the ‘abnormal’ to undertake practices of normalisation as they are compelled toward self-improvement via techniques of the self, and enjoined to make a project of themselves with the goal of becoming the

‘good citizen’ (Rose, 1996, 1998 and 1999). For the ‘abnormals’ who resist the compulsion to freely work on themselves, more intrusive mechanisms are used that work on the body and mind, such as medical interventions, professional interventions (counsellors, psychiatrists and so on), or incarceration in an institution

(either medical, psychiatric, or penal) (Rose, 2001). Whatever the technique, the objective is the same: to produce good citizens and ameliorate the risk from those incapable of conforming to the ideals of good citizenship, like single parents accessing welfare.

3.4.2 Internalising normalisation practices: technologies of the self

The Foucauldian notion of governance is not so much to do with the state apparatus of government, but more to do with conducting the actions of others and “the direction of human conduct” (Dean, 1995:561). To govern “is to structure the possible field of action of others” (Foucault, 2003:138). As individuals are “governed through the choices that” they themselves make (Rose, 1998:166), not just any choice is available to them, or conveyed as desirable. Through normalisation practices, individuals are encouraged to make good choices, to take responsibility for those choices, and to accept the consequences of those choices (Graham,

2007:205). The internalisation of normalisation practices by individuals Foucault termed ‘technologies of the self’ (2003:145-169). These techniques are internalised by individuals as the behaviours most desirable for them to reproduce, regulating their bodies, thoughts, and actions in the process. They encourage individuals “to work on themselves” in order to comply with the normalised cultural models of

“normal human beings” (Danaher, Schirato and Webb, 2000:127). By recognising Reference list the different ways in which individuals are governed (Dean, 1995:560), technologies of the self highlight the internalisation of ideal models of citizenship. By examining the social construction of subjectivities, the internalisation of these subjectivities are rendered visible as parents who are single work on themselves in order to conform to the idealised norms of good citizens and good parents.

Foucault stressed the “chief function of the disciplinary power is to ‘train’” (1999:97), suggesting that the processes of normalisation and disciplinary practices compel individuals to work on themselves to become ‘good’ citizens. Hence, normalisation practices are not a repressive form of social control but a cultural process where people emulate the desirable behaviours of good citizenship “through the covert reproduction of” their selves (Walkerdine, 1984:196). The mechanisms of

normalisation powerfully make subjects as individuals “internalise this process”

(Burr, 2003:70), as “the relentless pressure to conform” encourages them to

“become isomorphic, or similar in form, to all the other individuals in” society (Meyer,

1986:211). Normalisation not only provides the ideals of good citizenship for individuals to judge themselves, but also to judge others (Roy, 2008:465). These concepts are used in this research to render visible the good and bad citizenship of single parenthood constituted via discourses, and their material effects.

3.4.3 Risk and the importance of children

The macro level mechanisms of normalisation give rise to notions of risk. With the recognition of individuals as collectively valuable social commodities, the essentialness of good citizenship becomes paramount. Thus, the need for normalisation practices at both the macro and the micro level are emphasized.

Individuals resistant to these processes are understood as risks to the maintenance of good society (Rose, 2005). Risk is connected to biopower as it is concerned with Reference list the management of populations and the amelioration of risks in society, such as those posed by single parenthood.

Risk is a central element of neoliberal discourses justifying state intervention at the micro level, in the guise of risk minimisation. Neoliberalism is understood as more than merely a ‘political philosophy’, rather it is:

a mentality of government, a conception of how authorities should use

their powers in order to improve national well-being, the ends they

should seek, the evils they should avoid, the means they should use,

and, crucially, the nature of the persons upon whom they must act

(Rose, 1998:153).

As a technique of governance, neoliberal discourses use normalisation practices to divide subjects into those performing good citizenship and those not. As the state is

seen to have a duty to protect its citizens from threats both inside and outside society, these discourses justify interventions into the lives of those citizens constituted as social problems (Rose, 2005). The mono lens of deficit that dominates research into single parenthood results in parents who are single being embodied into the category of risk: for their selves, their children, and society.

Risk discourse emphasizes the need for the disciplinary practices of biopower, such as the surveillance of risky individuals, with the aim being to restore ‘normality’

(Cheek and Rudge, 1993:273). Foucault (1991) argued the panoptic (which he termed ‘the gaze’) represented an exemplary technique for disciplinary power maximising surveillance and producing an internalised training. The gaze incites

‘docility’ and self-discipline within risky individuals. An additional benefit of this disciplinary practice is that it is able to be replicated by any institution, such as schools, hospitals, and factories (Foucault, 1991:215-216). Social workers, doctors, and teachers act as judges of normality (Hewitt, 1983) within these institutions, Reference list undertaking surveillance of individuals and identifying those at risk of deviating from the idealised normal as defective and in need of treatment. The gaze, as a mechanism of disciplinary power, is used for risk minimalisation and demonstrates the nexus between risk and biopower. These concepts clarify why there is continued and developing interest in examining single parenthood, particularly as it becomes more and more aligned with risk, especially risk for children.

Expert knowledge is a crucial component of risk discourses. These discourses establish “formats for thinking, communicating, deciding and acting” in relation to those individuals perceived as risks (Rose, 2005:489). Risk thinking uses

Foucault’s ‘dividing practices’ to “distinguish between those who are at risk from certain ‘problems’ and those who are not” (Bessant, 2001:32). The objectification of individuals into particular subjectivities (such as those constituted by medical and

scientific discourses), establish specific groups as risky for society. Risk is connected to biopower as both are concerned with the management of social life

(Williams and Calnan, 1996:1614). Risk requires the processes of biopower, such as normalisation and dividing practices, to constitute individuals and groups as risky.

It also operates at both the macro and the micro level. Risk thinking about groups in society at the macro level generates practices at the micro level. Such practices are designed to ameliorate the risks individuals pose for society, such as single parents.

With the inception of the modern understanding of risk, the clinical gaze has shifted to those at risk of abnormality, such as children. They are now understood as a valuable social commodity, both now as subjects of expert gaze, and in the future as adults. Hence, their potential as future citizens needs to be guided in the right direction to ensure they develop into good citizens. According to Rose, the child or young citizen in modern western societies “has become the object of governance through expertise” (1999:134) resulting in a significant increase in normalisation Reference list practices centred on the child:

Childhood is the most intensively governed sector of personal existence

… and rearing of children have been linked in thought and practice to

the destiny of the nation and the responsibilities of the state … the child

– as an idea and a target – has become inextricably connected to the

aspirations of authorities (Rose, 1999:123).

The need to structure and guide the fields of possibility in regards to the future citizenship of children (in the guise of risk minimisation) has resulted in intensive surveillance of the family. Donzelot’s investigation of the family positions the ‘child’ at the centre of a ‘tutelage complex’:

There are no longer two authorities facing one another: the family and

the (state) apparatus, but a series of concentric circles around the child:

the family circle, the circle of technicians (eg social workers), and the

circle of social guardians (eg magistrates) … the more (social) rights are

proclaimed, the more the stranglehold of a tutelage authority tightens

around the poor family (Donzelot, 1980:103).

As Rose (1999) and Donzelot (1980) stress, risk discourses open avenues for surveillance and interventions into the family through expertise. Risk discourses sustain the idea that poor parenting and dysfunctional families produce dysfunctional children, who later become dysfunctional citizens signifying they are a problem for society.

Risk discourses and normalisation practices maintain the idea that children are vulnerable and in need of protection. In order to save children from these risks, interventions become necessary at the first sign of abnormality, especially the moderation of parenting practices (Burman, 1994:184; Armstrong, 2006:271). The

‘at risk’ child is constituted through the “anxiety about the future behaviour of certain children and the risks that follow for the young person and for the wider society” Reference list (Armstrong, 2006:271). Risk discourses depict children and young people in the paradoxical position of being both vulnerable whilst also being a threat. Research situated in risk discourses “claim[s] to speak the truth” about such risks (Gray,

2009:449), and fail to recognise or understand the social construction of risk knowledge itself. As risk discourses dominate single parenthood discourses, the notion of risk renders visible the motivations underpinning research interest in the children of parents who are single.

3.5 Conclusion

This chapter has presented the theoretical concepts for analysing single parenthood discourses. Central to this analysis is a poststructural/Foucauldian understanding of discourse. This theoretical approach comprehends language as cultural and

subjective with no one ‘true’ way for understanding things. Hence, it allows multiple understandings and perspectives to become visible. Each version of reality (Agger,

1991) has “a different story to tell” and “a different way of representing it to the world” (Burr, 2003:64). As a result, language is rethought in terms of slipperiness and instability (St. Pierre, 2002). The instability of language provides avenues for destabilising discourses and rethinking other ways of understanding phenomenon like single parenthood.

Power, knowledge, and truth are integral elements of discourses. As discourses do not simply portray an underlying truth about things, instead making them through the process of depicting them, power is inherent to discourse. Knowledge is also essential to discourse and power. Knowledge is “an integral part of the struggles over power” (Mills, 2003:69) because through the construction of knowledge a claim for power is made. Truth also enters this equation as not all knowledge claims are accepted as truthful versions of events. Hence, power is also intrinsic to truth as the Reference list “person who has the capacity to formulate truths also has … the power of being able to speak truth and to express it in the way he wants” (Foucault, 2003:39). These concepts allow us to see the constructed aspects of discourses and the power struggles tied up in knowledge claims and truth games. Exploration of discourses via these concepts renders visible the authority given to researchers’ versions of things and the marginalisation and discounting of other ways of understanding phenomenon like single parenthood.

Subjectivities occur via discourse as people are objectified and made into subjects of knowledge. We become discursive subjects by taking up a position in discourse, or by being discursively constituted by others (Danaher, Schirato and Webb, 2000).

As subjectivities can be claimed and to some extent rejected, Foucault’s version of resistance is enabled via discourse. The constructive aspects of power provide

opportunities for resistance as people accept, modify, or reject subjectivities (Mills,

2003). As people are not passive clones of each other they have the ability to claim and resist “the identities on offer within … prevailing discourses” (Burr, 2003:110).

For these reasons, the examination of single parenthood discourses not only brings to light the subjectivities constructed for single parents by others, but also the subjectivities parents who are single claim for themselves.

Subjectivities also give rise to disciplinary power and governance. These practices operate at both the macro and micro levels in society. They are used to explain why there is so much interest in studying things like single parenthood. Normalisation and technologies of the self are both practices of disciplinary power. These concepts offer explanations that account for the macro and micro processes that support the idea single parenthood is a social problem. The discourses of neoliberalism and risk sustain these disciplinary practices as it is through these discourses that single parents are constituted as deficient citizens and risky Reference list individuals. Knowledge is important for these processes as information about groups of people is crucial to their management (McHoul and Grace, 1993). Hence, these concepts are important for the analysis presented in this thesis as they underpin many of the assumptions influencing research and knowledge construction processes about single parenthood.

As this chapter has explained, discourses are the central feature of this analysis. As discourses are social and cultural constructions, they are slippery, unstable, and contestable. The poststructuralist approach understands discourse as the ‘major site’ where problematic, constraining, or limiting subjectivities can be ‘challenged or changed’ (Burr, 2003:56). Hence, discourses are important for destabilising perspectives that dominant knowledge about things like single parenthood. It is the location where deficit versions of single parenthood can be rethought and rewritten

in more constructive and helpful ways. Thus, the poststructuralist approach determines the methodological design of this study. Reference list

Chapter 4 Doing knowledge differently: poststructural research design

4.1 Introduction

From a poststructuralist perspective, discourses are understood to dominate fields of thought by setting the parameters for what can and cannot be said about things.

As an examination of single parenthood discourses, this project situates discourses in the form of text and narrative accounts, as the core components of this analysis.

For these reasons, the research design is structured in such a way that it captures single parenthood discourses as they occur in particular areas of thought. Reference list Chapter two presented the discourses that were evident in the authoritative literature about single parenthood. The presentation of those discourses was important for setting up the exploration of the discourses of both newspaper media text and the narratives of parents who are single. The structuring of the coding and classification of the data collected from the two data sources for this project was informed by the identification of the authoritative discourses. Chapter three provided the lens for viewing the discursive constructions of single parenthood.

Poststructural/Foucauldian perspectives are compatible as both comprehend language to be central to the construction of reality and contestations over truth and knowledge.

This chapter sets out the design of this project and how it relates to the aims of the research. It firstly discusses how poststructuralism interprets reality as socially

constructed, and therefore subjective. This understanding of reality is crucial to this project as it renders visible the multifaceted and refracted versions of things (Agger,

1991). Much like a kaleidoscope, the picture of reality constantly changes via the subjectivity of persons. This awareness allows alternative perspectives to come into view. With the aim of the project being the exploration of discursive constructions of single parenthood from multiple perspectives, the design of this study is appropriate for capturing multiple views.

The understanding of multiple and alternative viewpoints also destabilises the concept of validity in research designs. It was therefore necessary to rewrite the notion of validity in order to make it compatible with the poststructural/Foucaudlian approach. This methodology also renders visible ethical considerations for the project. As reality as subjective, and discourses form the basis for understanding ourselves and others, poststructural researchers are cognizant of their role in the construction of process (Scheurich, 1995). The ethical consideration of constituting Reference list parents who are single in problematic and limited ways is overcome by employing the notion of ‘writing under erasure’. The discussion on this notion explains how problematic terms like ‘single parenthood’ are circumvented by stating at the outset the challenge of both using and avoiding them.

As an analysis of discourse, qualitative methods have been preferenced in this project. This poststructural qualitative approach has resulted in a design that has two clear data collection stages. The first stage explored outsider discourses represented by newspaper media texts. The second stage examined insider discourses17 comprised of narrative data collected via interviews with parents who are single.

17 The notion of ‘insider discourse’ was borrowed from the study by Rains, Davies and McKinnon (1998).

100

After outlining the poststructural qualitative design of the study, the usefulness of exploring newspaper media texts is explained. As the media is understood to be a

“second order processor of discourse” (MacDonald, 2003:27) within western societies, it was considered a vital component for exploring the flow-through effects of authoritative discourses into mainstream cultural discourses. The discussion on the importance of exploring newspaper media texts leads into an account of how this data was collected. The texts were selected on the basis they made reference to some form of single parenthood. The processed undertaken for collecting, coding, and classifying this data are discussed along with research findings limited to coding and classification. Within this project, media discourses are constituted as outsider discourses as they speak of single parenthood from a position outside these subjectivities.

The final section in this chapter discusses insider discourses. Parents who are single were recruited for this study in order to provide their perspectives about single Reference list parenthood. These discursive narratives were conceptualised in this study as insider discourses as they represented the standpoint of persons inside the subjectivities of single parenthood. The use of self-selected respondents in this project enabled juxtaposition between the discourses of insiders and outsiders in order to render visible some of the multiple perspectives and nuances of single parenthood subjectivities.

4.2 Fractured mirrors and refracted culture: interpreting the poststructural research design

Poststructuralism provides a theoretical framework for conducting research (Lye,

1996-97). It challenges modernist and structuralist assumptions regarding the universality and absolutism of knowledge (Agger, 1991) by rejecting the idea that there are correct or whole meaning of something that can be discovered studying

101

its available or known parts (Danaher, Schirato and Webb, 2000). As all constructions arise from particular frames of reference or fields of vision (Brown,

1994:230), “there is no intrinsic order to the world itself” other than the one which we construct for it (Mills, 1997:52). This paradigm extends research possibilities to include the construction “of social practices and cultural patterns” (Søndergaard,

2002:188) in order to investigate and explore how reality and truth are notions that are discursively constituted. The poststructuralist understanding of language and reality is consistent with Foucauldian thought as both allow for struggles and contestations over meaning and their effects on games of truth (Parker, 2004:212) to be made visible.

The poststructural paradigm understands language as unstable and contestable

(Scheurich, 1995:240). It imagines language not as a perfect mirror reflecting back social reality as an exact and truthful representation, but instead as a fractured mirror producing refracted and diverse representations of reality. The idea that Reference list reality is not simply reflected in language, but instead constructed by it (Edley,

2001:435) underpins this exploration of single parenthood. It discursively explores

“the ambiguity of language and cultural practice” (St. Pierre, 2002:401), in order to draw attention to diverse and nuanced perspectives of single parenthood. It allows for multiple viewpoints in order to document how different discourses constitute single parenthood by maintaining, contesting, or destabilising other discursive versions.

The poststructuralist rejection of truth requires an analysis of discourse from multiple perspectives. It demands we seek not only the known but also the unknown, the quiet or silent parts of things (Danaher, Schirato and Webb, 2000:7-8), as it is through the silences, disjuncture’s, taboos and paradoxes that resistance is performed (Rose, n.d.). It is necessary therefore to explore both insider and

102

outsider discourses to render visible discounted or marginalised discourses as well as discursive acts of resistance.

Poststructuralist researchers reject the idea that reality can be truthfully and correctly reproduced through research (St. Pierre, 2002). They are also cognizant of their role in the construction process. As research not only presents the social reality of respondents, but also that of the researcher and the research community, it becomes a combination of all of these things (Scheurich, 1995:241). Scheurich makes obvious this notion when he states:

The same set of questions asked by the same interviewer of the same

interviewee can often elicit significantly different answers at different

times or in different places. Changing the interviewer changes the

interview results, even if the new interviewee asks the same set of

questions. Even holding people, place, and time constant, however, will

not guarantee that stable, unambiguous communication occurred in all Reference list or even most of the interview (1995:240).

This notion is important for this study as it rejects the idea the project documents the

‘truth’ of single parenthood. Rather, it documents the multiple perspectives of single parenthood competing with each other in both the research literature and the project data.

Research paradigms inform project methodologies (Lather, 1992) as the two are intricately linked with theory, and influence data-gathering and analysis processes

(Berg, 2007). With the research design for this study grounded in a poststructuralist frame, this project utilises qualitative processes for collecting and analysing data.

The compatibility between the theoretical and methodological nexus informing this study is appropriate as it allows for the discursive exploration of single parenthood subjectivities.

103

4.3 Recognising slipperiness: the qualitative approach to research processes

A qualitative methodology is crucial for this study as it enabled the exploration of how subjectivities are produced and organised discursively. The central premise of a qualitative design “is the concept of ‘reality as text’” (Matt, 2004:327), with qualitative processes enabling the exploration of discursive ‘meaning’ for social phenomenon (Warren and Karner, 2005:3). The poststructural preference for qualitative enquiry (Kaufmann, 2011) is more sympathetic to the collection of

“linguistic and textual data” and is “less likely to decontextualise the experience and accounts of respondents” (Burr, 2003:149). This method enables the study of discursive accounts of reality including single parenthood subjectivities.

The aims of this project were to explore discursive accounts of single parenthood from both outsiders’ and insiders’ viewpoints. The qualitative design of the study provides space for researchers to “detail the various contours and processes” used to ‘create and maintain’ social realities (Berg, 2007:9), allowing for diverse pictures Reference list to be presented (Flick, von Kardorff, and Steinke, 2004:3). Insider discourses were made available by allocating space for respondents to present their interpretations or versions of their subjectivities by presenting their “life-worlds ‘from the inside out’”, in order to “contribute to a better understanding of social realities” (Flick, von

Kardorff, and Steinke, 2004:3). Qualitative methods are consistent with a poststructural project as they make room for the slipperiness of things to be made apparent by accommodating diverse, fractured, tabooed, and paradoxical stories as told by both insiders and outsiders.

Also crucial to this project is the idea that “knowledge influences observation”

(Meinefeld, 2004:153). Instead of having pre-defined parameters, as are necessary for quantitative research, the parameters in qualitative research take shape

104

throughout the research process. As a central tenet of this study is that authoritative discourses inform outsiders understanding of single parenthood, a pre-formulated hypothesis would have been problematic. The inductive nature of qualitative research removed the necessity of the pre-formulated hypothesis. As such, this research design is suitable for a poststructural/Foucauldian project as it facilitated fluidity in the methodological processes allowing concepts to be derived from the research data, enabling the data to shape and structure the research as it unfolded

(Warren and Karner, 2005:8).

Foucault does not provide a ‘totalised’ theoretical or methodological system; instead he problematises ‘borders’ and offers ‘tools’ for analysis (Tamboukou and Ball,

2003:2). Chapter two outlined Foucault’s concepts of discourse, power, knowledge, and truth and these concepts were used in this study as analysis ‘tools’. The analysis of the discursive constructions of single parenthood was undertaken via authoritative discourses, media discourses, and insider discourses. To explore Reference list ‘how’ single people who are parents experienced the subjectivities of single parenthood, an emphasis on descriptors needed to be enabled. The qualitative approach is appropriate to engage with, and explore how, single parenthood is discursively constituted. Discourse analysis is the research method best aligned with this poststructural qualitative approach.

4.3.1 Discursively shaping reality: the analysis of discourse

Discourse analysis is a central component of this project and is understood as the

“study of language in use” (Talbot, 2007:10). Analysis is interpreted as the

‘systematic’ pulling apart of discourses to examine them from “multiple perspectives or in multiple ways” (Johnstone, 2008:30) in order to “increase circumference of the visible” (Søndergaard, 2002:202). Through the process of analysing discourse, texts were “interrogated” to render visible the “unspoken and unstated assumptions”

105

underpinning them (Cheek, 2004:1145). Text and discourse do not mean the same thing as text is understood as an object whereas discourse is thought of as a process (Talbot, 2007:9). Moreover, texts can be transported from context to context, whereas discourses cannot (Talbot, 2007:10). Thus, discourses are envisioned as knowledges and practices that produce people, giving “positions of power to some but not others”, and “taking place in social interaction[s and] in specific situations” (Talbot, 2007:13). By identifying the diversity in the discursive subjectivities of single parenthood, including obscure or discounted subjectivities, dominant discourses are destabilised and reinscribed facilitating enabling and constructive understandings of single parenthood.

Discourse analysis is the exploration of the constructed nature of language with an emphasis on its functional purpose rather than trying to uncover something hidden

“behind or underlying it” (Gill, 2002:178). It is a “highly systematic, thorough approach to critical reading (and listening)”, in order to contest the ‘status quo’ Reference list (Johnstone, 2008:29). The focus is not specifically about what is said, but more about ‘how’ it is said, ‘who’ it is said about, and importantly, what is ‘not’ said (Gill

2002, 180). Discourse analysis is used to explore the different ways social realities are discursively “constructed, made factual, and justified” (Silverman, 2001:178).

For this to occur, a discourse analyst must first “identify the discourses operating in a particular area of life” and then “examine the implications” for subjectivities (Burr,

2003:170). Through this process, discourse analysis has been used as a tool for the problematisation of the subjectivities of single parenthood to disrupt and enable new ways of thinking about this position.

Foucault’s interest in language is situated in the productive and restraining processes of discourse (1984). For Foucault, discourse refers to the manner in which language is used and the ‘rules’ that define how people are thought and

106

talked about (Foucault, 2003:38). Discourses are thus thought of as the ‘scaffolds’ of reality as they both enable and constrain “the production of knowledge”, allowing

“certain ways of thinking about reality while excluding others” (Cheek 2004:1142).

They determine “who can speak, when, and with what authority” and “who cannot”

(Cheek 2004:1142). As this study conceptualised discourse as a producer of people, it endeavours to explore how single parents are discursively worked upon to make them in particular ways, and to observe their effects. In this regard, it explored the ‘discursive rules’ (Mills, 1997:48) that allow and disallow the subjectivities of single parenthood, identifying the ways in which parents whare are single are objectified and discursively made into subjects.

Foucauldian discourse analysis not only explores the relationship between language and power, but also the objectification of individuals into discursive subjectivities

(Burr, 2003:150). This analytic tool also provides the avenue for investigating the consequences of the “discursive possibilities … for the development of self- Reference list narratives by actual subjects” (Søndergaard, 2002:190). The purpose of undertaking a discourse analysis is to ‘destabilise’ the “taken-for-granted” ways of thinking and talking about things in order to ‘expose’ them “for reflection”

(Søndergaard, 2002:191). Through this process, ‘truth claims’ are problematised enabling alternative ways of thinking (Walkerdine, 1984:163). Thus, discourse analysis is a useful tool for exploring the discourses constituting truth claims about single parenthood.

4.4 Worrying the old shibboleths: rewriting validity

The concept of validity in social research is problematic for poststructuralist researchers because this approach understands knowledge as constructed accounts of things, with there being no one and only ‘truthful’ version of social reality

107

(Cheek and Gough, 2005:303). Under this paradigm the notion of validity is understood to be part of the discourse and practice incorporating:

[S]uch familiar shibboleths as reliability, falsifiability, and objectivity.

These criteria are neither trivial nor irrelevant, but they must be

understood as particular ways of warranting validity claims rather than

as universal, abstract guarantors of truth … they serve a deviance-

sanctioning function, marking off ‘good’ from ‘bad’ scientific practice

(Mishler, 1990:420).

As Mishler (1990) reveals, validity discourses set the parameters for constituting

‘good’ social research. Validity, as it is normally understood, becomes inappropriate and problematic for judging the quality of poststructural work (Burr, 2003:158).

Poststructuralist research therefore requires a re-working of the concept of research validity, and this can be achieved by destabilising objectivity.

The notion of objectivity in social research is troublesome because human beings Reference list cannot “step outside of their humanity and view the world from no position at all which is what the idea of objectivity suggests” (Burr, 2003:152). As researchers using a poststructuralist approach acknowledge that they are not only “readers but also the producers of discourse” (Cheek, 2004:1146), they also recognise their position as neither ‘objective’ or ‘subjective’ (Warren and Karner, 2005:6). Rather, it is claimed to be ‘intersubjective’ (Warren and Karner, 2005:6). From this perspective, research projects become stories not only told by respondents, but also by researchers (Mishler, 1990:424). Thus, researchers working within a poststructural framework acknowledge the impossibility of setting aside their own subjectivities as they are always already informing research relations.

An additional problem with objectivity from the standpoint of the poststructuralist approach is the assumption that the standardisation of methods provides objective

108

research processes resulting in project validity. As Mishler points out, these assumptions hide the falsity of these claims:

standard methods are poorly standardized, allowing great latitude to

researchers in how they specify them, and specification is contextually

grounded in the idiosyncrasies and exigencies of particular studies. All

investigators have to adapt, convert, and translate ‘standard’ methods to

solve their practical problems (1990:426)

By claiming that standardised methods generate objective results, which in turn signifies valid research obscures the very diversity occurring in interpretation and application of these methods. By acknowledging the intersubjectivity of all social research, and destabilising objectivity, validity can be rewritten to accommodate poststructuralist thought.

The rewriting of validity into a more compatible form that accommodates poststructural perspectives involves a number of components. The first feature Reference list would be the visibility (or transparency) of the researcher’s “loyalty and commitment to representing the people and settings being studied as fully as possible” (Warren and Karner, 2005:7). In order to do this, “thickly descriptive analysis” is used “to persuade the reader that the interpretation is plausible” (Warren and Karner,

2005:6). These accounts also need to contain detail explaining how texts were selected and analysed (Cheek, 2004:1147), as Matt argues, “[t]exts are written for an audience who have to be convinced with the aid of credibly expressed arguments and analyses” (2004:329) as to their plausibility. With the insertion of textual data, as well as explanations of the process through which conclusions were established, readers can judge for themselves the validity of research claims (Mishler, 1990:429).

By providing an account of the research process, as well as extracts from research data to warrant research claims, the trustworthiness of the study can be measured.

109

Trustworthiness in social research is a different issue to truthfulness and the two need not be confused. Truthfulness relates to the ‘truth’ of something, which is a problematic concept for poststructuralists:

focusing on trustworthiness rather than truth displaces validation from its

traditional location in a presumably objective, nonreactive, and neutral

reality, and moves it to the social world – a world constructed in and

through our discourse and actions, through praxis (Mishler, 1990:420).

The issue of ‘truthfulness’ in the respondents’ account of an event is not in question as it is already understood to be a “reconstruction of the past, shaped by the particular context of its telling” (Mishler, 1990:427). In other words, the truthfulness of the account is not relevant, as it is the respondents’ interpretation that is of interest to the researcher. For this reason, trustworthiness is not related to the truthfulness of the study.

The reworking of validity in terms of trustworthiness is situated in the trust other Reference list researchers place in the study. Mishler argues that the study needs to withstand scrutiny to the degree that other researchers evaluating the reported findings “rely on them for their own work” (1990:417). Validity is enhanced by the usefulness of the research itself. According to Matt, the project needs to be evaluated to ascertain the extent to which the “work contribute[s] to an expansion of the framework for the discussion and interpretation of social reality” (2004:329). Trustworthiness in qualitative research relies on the establishment of the dependability, confirmability, and credibility of the study (Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2007). Dependability is demonstrated through transparency and the usefulness of the study, confirmability is also produced through transparency, and credibility is established by transparency, usefulness, and trustworthiness. Through the combination of all of these concepts, validity is reworked to establish a basis for judging the quality of research undertaken within a poststructural framework.

110

4.5 Writing under erasure: ethical considerations

A significant ethical consideration for this project is the likely impact of further research into an already heavily researched social group. As this project aims to demonstrate, saturating specific groups in society through research can influence the discourses surrounding such groups, impacting negatively on those who are perceived to belong to those social groupings:

all social science research has political implications. … From choosing a

topic to selecting respondents to interviewing and analysis, researchers’

activities are part of the social order at the micro level, through the

interview encounter, and at the macro level, as part of the nexus of

knowledge and power (Warren and Karner, 2005:25).

Although it is an aim of this project to provide avenues for new and enabling ways of thinking about single parenthood, and to destablise the limiting perspectives that dominate the literature, it is also an unfortunate necessity to speak of single parenthood in these problematic terms. This is because we cannot escape the Reference list limitations of discourse. As it is not an intention of this project to contribute to the negative constructions of single parenthood, St. Pierre (2002) provides a process for overcoming around the problem of unintentionally reproducing a social problem.

Writing under erasure allows the use of problematic terminology without perpetuating problematic constructions. It acknowledges the need to use such terminology whilst simultaneously rejecting such concepts:

to write sous rapture ... translates as ‘under erasure’. This is to write a

word, cross it out, and then print both word and deletion. Since the word

is inaccurate, it is crossed out. Since it is necessary, it remains legible

(St. Pierre, 2002:412).

Writing under erasure acknowledges the project’s contribution to the discourses of single parenthood whilst also trying to problematise them. The quandary occurs as

111

single parenthood is comprehended as an essentialising concept and this project seeks to render visible the disjuncture’s, multiplicities, and silences in the discourses in order to resist essentialism. The words ‘single parent’, ‘single parenthood’, ‘single father’, ‘single fatherhood’, ‘single mother’, and ‘single motherhood’ signify this dilemma as “our work is surely limited by our received understandings of such words” (St. Pierre, 2002:399). By “placing these signifiers sous rapture” enables their use “even as we attempt to escape their meaning” (St. Pierre, 2002:399). This project does not claim to be representing the ‘truth’ about single parenthood.

Rather, it endeavours to highlight the various discursively constructed subjectivities of single parenthood to provide alternative ways of thinking about this position.

4.6 Reconfiguring reality: media influence on discursive reality

To undertake a Foucauldian discourse analysis, an “awareness of [the] cultural

trends” is required, as well as “political and social developments” at work in the Reference list discourses (Parker and Burman, 1993:158). This awareness is developed from exploring the discourses of authoritative literature as presented in chapter two.

However, as authoritative discourses are not the only influence on cultural discourses, an examination of media discourses is also necessary.

Media discourses are a central element in the social construction of reality. They play an important role in shaping discursive realities in society by influencing people’s understanding of things (Talbot, 2007; Fowler, 1991). They operate as

“second-order” processors of discourses (MacDonald, 2003:27). As the media does not merely present any version of an event, but a carefully constructed representation that conforms to specific criteria18, media discourses present a world

18 The specific criteria would be variable from media outlet to media outlet and is a complex mix of workplace practices or beliefs, business and customer practices and

112

that is “skewed and judged” (Fowler, 1991:11). This imbalance not only relates to the assumptions underpinning versions of events, or the assertions made in presentations, but also in how events are reported (Fowler, 1991:22-23). The influence of the media on the populace is multidimensional:

from news coverage to advice of healthy lifestyles and images of the

‘body beautiful’, people are continually bombarded with media messages

… [which] have a crucial bearing upon the knowledgeability and

reflexivity of the lay populace in contemporary Western societies

(Williams and Calnan, 1996:1615).

For these reasons, media discourses are thought of as a form of disciplinary power producing and enforcing social norms “against which individuals are judged and against which they police themselves” (Roy, 2008:470). Media discourses are therefore an essential element in any exploration of the discursive constitution of subjectivities for individuals in society. Reference list Examination of media discourses is important as they are a significant contributor to the making of subjectivities and lifestyles of people (Rose, 1998:166). Media representations of reality are considered “a domain of cultural power” (Talbot,

2007:15), circulating “in and across institutions”, and are “deeply embedded” in the social life of “almost everyone” (Talbot, 2007:5). According to Talbot (2007),

‘culture’ is loosely interpreted as the ‘shared meanings’ currently operating within a society, with discourses the vital components in the circulation of those shared social meanings. Media discourses contain many “taken-for-granted assumptions” about cultural reality (Gamson, Croteau, Hoynes and Sasson, 1992:381).

Investigation of media discourses can highlight implicit “propositions” about social phenomenon, many of which usually remain unquestioned (Fowler, 1991:2).

beliefs, the beliefs and practices of convenient and accessible sources, and so on (Fowler, 1991).

113

With language understood as a constructed process rather than a neutral reflection of reality (Fowler, 1991), media discourses present an accessible resource for exploring the discursive constitution of reality in western societies. They are an optimal site for exploring how media representations of things are discursively influenced (Cheek, 2004:1145). Analysis of these discourses can yield valuable insight into the discourses with the most cultural currency operating in society at any one time. For these reasons, an analysis of the subjectivities of single parenthood, via media discourses, is an important component of this project. A media analysis fits with the theoretical framework for this study as it provides an avenue for analysing the nexus between power and discourse by documenting how discursively constituted subjectivities make individuals. It also provides an easily accessible source for examining outsider discourses of single parenthood. Within this project, media discourses are limited to textual presentations contained within newspaper publications. Reference list

4.7 Exploring insider and outsider discourses of single parenthood

This project explores the discourses of single parenthood. It does this by rendering visible both insider and outsider discourses, and the competing claims of each.

Chapter two presented a review of the authoritative literature on single parenthood in terms of the discourses that inform the literature and underpin the subjectivities of single parenthood. The discourses outlined in chapter two were constituted as outsider discourses as they speak of single parenthood from outside this subjectivity. To fully engage with these discourses further exploration is required.

This project explores two further avenues of discourse conceptualised as insider discourses and outsider discourses (Rains, Davies and McKinnon, 1998). This

114

section sets out the processes undertaken to collect and analyse these two bodies of discourse.

The media is a public outlet that contributes significantly to the social construction of reality. It also plays an important role in normalisation processes by portraying a sense of community, performing a ‘policing role’ in terms of abnormality by “focusing on the ‘horrors’ of violent crime and threats to security” (Danaher, Schirato and

Webb, 2000:109). Media discourses contribute to the processes of normalising behaviours recreating and reinforcing dominant cultural values prevailing throughout contemporary western society (Nardi, 1997). The media therefore plays a

“significant role in determining what truth is” and making “sure that it was valued and

‘protected’” within society (Danaher, Schirato and Webb, 2000:42). Media representations of society have powerful reverberations impacting and informing social processes. Foucault’s concepts (as outlined in chapter three) are important when combined with a media analysis in order to explore the public constitution of Reference list both single parenthood and good citizenship.

Media discourses are simultaneously informed by, whilst also informing, dominant discourses or discourses with strong cultural currency. The media provides an excellent site for exploring outsider discourses in action. It is a site where outsider discourses have prominence beyond scholarly thought. The accessibility of media material makes it an attractive and rich data source. For these reasons, stage one of this project undertakes an analysis of media discourses currently operating in an

Australian context. Media discourses are limited in this project to text found in newspaper publications in Australia. The second empirical data source for this project is obtained from single parents themselves. Single parents are enlisted to provide insider discourses about single parenthood. The following sections discuss

115

the methods used to obtain this data and some research findings, limited to coding and classification.

4.7.1 Stage one: highlighting outsider discourses

The stage one data was obtained via electronic searches of three mainstream eastern Australian newspapers and their auxiliary publications. The database used for the media search was Factiva through the Queensland University of Technology.

The newspapers accessed via this electronic platform were: The Australian; The

Australian Magazine; Courier Mail; Daily Telegraph; Sunday Mail; and Sunday

Telegraph. It is important to search across mainstream newspapers as it is known that “different newspapers report differently, in both context and presentation”

(Fowler, 1991:11).

A lexicon of terms pertaining to single parenthood was created in order to retrieve relevant data from a database search of these newspapers (this lexicon of search terms is presented in table A1:1 in Appendix 1). A one year search range was Reference list employed to limit the amount of data retrieved. The date range for the search was from 1st November 2007 to 31st October 2008. This date range was chosen purely for convenience and expediency as it allowed a significant portion of the research to be undertaken in the early stages of the project whilst also remaining proximate to the anticipated completion date. This time period was not selected purposely to enable the selection of specific data that may have been published during this period, although it did result (unknowingly at the time) in the inclusion of data covering a federal election.

The database search was conducted on the 14 November 2008 with a follow-up search undertaken on the 23 December 2008 using additional search terms. A total of 1,090 articles were obtained from both searches and table A1:2 in Appendix 1 sets out the search terms used and the total number of articles retrieved under each

116

term. All data retrieved under each search term was then saved as a Microsoft

Word 2007 text document. All duplicated articles for each search term were eliminated at this point. For an article to be deemed a ‘duplication’, it needed to be retrieved under the same search term, identical in text to another, published on the same day, and in the same newspaper. Duplicated texts occurred when one article appeared in multiple additions of the same newspaper (i.e., an early edition, a local edition and a national edition).

After this initial data cleaning, the remaining data was imported into the qualitative data coding program QSR International NVivo8 (see the second ‘totals’ column in table A1:2 in Appendix 1 for the total numbers of data text for each search term imported into NVivo8). On initial importation, each full text article was coded to the free node19 ‘stage 1 data’. This initial coding was important as it allowed for the differentiation of the two data types (stage two data was coded to the node ‘stage 2 data’). It was crucial to separate and differentiate between the two types of data as Reference list each stage represents different discourses. Next, tree nodes were established for: newspaper source; search terminology; and article type.20 All stage one data was then coded to each of these three groupings. Table A1:3 in Appendix 1 presents the nodes generated for this first round of coding and table A1:4 displays the data totals for both search terms and data source.21 This table indicates the three main media sources predominantly constituted single parenthood as single motherhood with data retrieval fairly evenly spread across these three outlets. Table A1:5 in

Appendix 1 indicates the distribution of data across all six newspaper publications.

19 The term ‘node’ represents a program code for thematically storing data. Nodes can be opened as individual folders and copies of all data coded to each node will be found in the node folder. ‘Free nodes’ are stand-alone categories, whereas ‘tree nodes’ represent themes that are connected. Data is not moved into a node, it is merely copied thereby making it possible for one piece of data to be coded to multiple nodes where it will appear in multiple node folders. 20 The grouping for ‘article type’ represents the nature of the data article for example, a feature, a sports article, a celebrity article, news, and so on. 21 These numbers are based on the final total of articles for analysis after the elimination of unrelated and duplicated texts (see section 4.6.1.1 below).

117

This table is also comprised of the finalised data totals and indicates data was primarily sourced through celebrity articles, features, news articles, and movie reviews. At the end of this initial coding round, each data article was coded four times (i.e., stage 1 data, newspaper source, search term, and type of article). The coding of the full text articles in this manner was important as it enabled the identification of specific themes should they arise from particular newspapers, search terms, or article types as Fowler states “different newspapers report differently, in both context and presentation” (1991:11).

4.7.1.1 ‘Unrelated’ and ‘duplicated’ data

After the initial coding was completed, all data was then individually coded as various ideas and themes arose. Whilst undertaking the second round of coding it became obvious some articles were clearly not related to single parenthood. For example, the two articles retrieved under the search ‘adolescent pregnancy’ were about zoological breeding programs for Tasmanian Devils. These two articles were Reference list coded as ‘unrelated’ and eliminated from further analysis. It was also found that some terms were only partially connected to single parenthood. For example,

‘paternity’ became problematic for the purpose of obtaining search data as it captured many articles not related to single parenthood. During the time period used for the search, there was considerable political and public discussion about paid maternity and paternity leave increasing the response data. Likewise, the term

‘unmarried’ was also problematic as it was not necessarily linked to single parenthood. As a result, data was retrieved during the searches that were unrelated to single parenthood necessitating a node for ‘unrelated articles’ with no further analysis undertaken on this data.

Another form of duplication was found when one article was replicated in the same newspaper over multiple days. This often occurred in relation to reviews (especially

118

movie reviews), where the same review was published over several days. For example, one review would be constructed for a movie and it would then appear in the same newspaper over multiple days without alteration. Therefore one review may have resulted in four or five separate data articles being retrieved under a search term. For the purposes of analysis, it was not necessary to analyse each individual article as they were the same article. This duplicated data was coded as

‘duplicated text’ and also excluded from further analysis. In order to be coded as a

‘duplicated article’, the data needed to be identical and merely reproduced on multiple instances rather than multiple stories about the same topic. Data produced on the same issue or topic that was not completely identical was treated as separate data. This distinction is important, as multiple texts focusing on the same topic can be constructed in different ways. Therefore each data text must be analysed separately. The third ‘totals’ column in table A1:2 in Appendix 1 sets out the final reduced numbers of data articles analysed in NVivo8 after this final round of data cleaning was completed. As this table demonstrates, some terms did not yield Reference list appropriate data, such as ‘unmarried’ as it was reduced from 144 articles initially retrieved, to only 16 relevant to single parenthood and analysed for this study.

4.7.1.2 Second and third coding rounds

After the initial coding of the stage 1 data, two further rounds of coding were undertaken. The coding for the second round was developed purely from initial thoughts on the first reading of the textual data from the initial impression that was conveyed through the article. According to Gill, discourse analysis is concerned with a “search for pattern in the data … in the form of both variability (differences within and between accounts) and consistency” (2002:180). The nodes developed here incorporated both the context of the article as well as the ideas and images being presented, with most data coded to multiple nodes to account for the various ideas and images contained within each (table A1:6 in Appendix 1 displays all nodes

119

created for this round of coding). This free-flowing form of node construction enabled a very comprehensive examination of the data.

After the second round of data coding was completed, the nodes themselves were studied to find similarities and duplicates in ideas amongst them. The data coded to each node was examined to ascertain the degree of appropriateness for categorisation under the current node or whether the data was better represented under a different node. In addition, nodes with similar ideas or themes were merged or grouped together as tree nodes. For example, the data discussing issues regarding parenthood were grouped together as nodes under the tree node

‘parenting’. Likewise, the data focusing on issues relating to children were coded under the umbrella of the tree node ‘children’ and so on. The grouping of similar nodes under tree nodes enables a broader picture of common themes to emerge whilst also facilitating the more detailed examination provided through the second coding round (see table A1:7 in Appendix 1). The additional nodes of ‘father’, Reference list ‘mother’, ‘parent’, and ‘child of single parent’ were established to distinguish the relationship between single parenthood and the person represented in the data.

Table A1:8 presents the data distribution for these relationships and indicates single mothers and generalisations about single parenthood made up the bulk of this data.

Table A1:9 in Appendix 1 outlines the total data coding for each node. The 20 nodes with the highest coding numbers are highlighted to indicate the broad range of themes evident in this data suggesting a significant mix of both negative and positive representations of single parenthood.

Following the final coding round, the data was then merged from individual nodes into groupings and then into word documents to enable analysis of the broader themes apparent in the data.22 Some examples of these themes are: good

22 See table A1:10 for the themed categorisations for this stage of the analysis.

120

parenthood; political powerhouses; threat to traditional values; riskiness of single parenthood; and the battler. The importation of grouped nodes into word documents made available the individual textual data for each theme to enable a more efficient analysis as all related data could be examined at the same time. For the purposes of cross-checking data totals for coding, a further table was created as a word document. In this table all information about the 635 data articles were entered as it allowed sorting of the data into various categorisations as necessary throughout the analysis process.23

4.7.1.3 Research findings: coding and classification

This section presents research findings as they are limited to coding and classification. Predominantly, media representations of single parenthood were conflated with single motherhood as single mothers were overwhelmingly represented in this data. Although a significant amount of data constituted single parenthood negatively, there was also an almost equally large amount of data that Reference list specified single parents in positive and constructive ways. Importantly, it was found media discourses made negative generalisations about single parenthood, essentialising this subjectivity, whilst simultaneously also constituting specific parents who are single in positive and enabling ways. This finding suggests generalisations provide easy avenues for essentialising and pathologising single parenthood, whereas individual perspectives enable more nuanced understandings to occur facilitating positive and empowering subjectivities for parents who are single. These findings demonstrate the complexity of discourses as not one media outlet examined provided only one uniform representation of single parenthood.

The tables set out in Appendix 1 highlight a number of themes. Table A1:2 indicates the terms ‘single mother’ and ‘single mum’ generated almost half the final articles

23 Figure A1:12 in Appendix 1 provides a snapshot of this table.

121

analysed (316 out of 635), followed closely by the gender neutral term ‘single parent’

(with 101 articles). These results, combined with the totals from table A1:8 demonstrate that single mothers were over-represented in the media discussion suggesting these discourses predominantly constituted single parenthood as single motherhood. With the emphasis on single motherhood, single mothers would overwhelmingly be subsumed into the more dominant subjectivities established through the generalisations contained within these discourses. This may not be the case for single fathers as they constituted a considerably smaller portion of these discussions.

Continuing with this theme of gender, table A1:8 indicated that the second highest category of data for analysis was generated from generalisations about single parenthood. As the figures for this table were constructed from the information contained in the newspaper articles themselves, rather than through the totals from the gender neutral search terms, these figures indicate the extent to which media Reference list discourses constitute single parenthood through generalisations about this subjectivity. This result suggests that in the games of truth about single parenthood, outsider discourses dominate sidelining or discounting insider discourses as the perspective of parents who are single were not represented in these discussions. It also suggests, along with the discussions presented in chapters five and six, that media discourses overwhelmingly constituted negative single parenthood subjectivities through generalisations about this position, whereas the representation of specific single parents resulted in the constitution of positive subjectivities. This finding highlights the importance of insider discourses to destabilise dominant and constraining discourses.

The third, and perhaps most important finding, was that the data was not overwhelmingly negative. Although a significant portion of the data fell into

122

categories which constituted single parenthood into subjectivities from the deficit perspective, a sizeable portion of these discourses also envisioned single parenthood in constructive and enabling subjectivities. Figure 4:1 contains a graph presenting the 20 highest data coding nodes demonstrating the diversity of themes in these discourses. It also significantly indicates that three of the largest categories situated single parenthood into the positive subjectivities of ‘success’, ‘politics’ and

’committed parenthood’.24 Consequently media discourses constitute multiple, diverse, conflicting, and paradoxical subjectivities for single parenthood demonstrating the importance of the exploration of these discourses. Interestingly, research investigating the nexus between single parenthood and media discourses only appears to comprehend an incompatible and discordant relationship between the two.25

Figure 4:1 The 20 largest categories established for coding the stage one data

70 Reference list

24 See chapter seven for the discussions about these subject positions. 25 See for example: Douglas and Michaels (2000); Bullock, Wyche, and Williams (2001); Duncan, Edwards, and Song (1999); Fox (1999); and Atkinson, Oerton, and Burns (1998). See also the discussion contained in section 3.3.9.

These preliminary findings demonstrate the importance of exploring discursive positions from multiple perspectives. Although this project undertook a discourse analysis and the examination of discursive text underpinned the study results, contextualising the findings is also important. The preliminary findings presented here enhance the study results as they provide further insight into the discursive constitution of single parenthood. In particular, the generic term ‘single parenthood’ hides the fact knowledge about single parenthood is primarily thought of in terms of single motherhood. The subjectivities generated by outsider discourses (through generalisations about single parenthood), contributed to insiders’ perceptions of stereotypes, labels, and stigma.26

4.7.2 Making space for insider discourses: the stage two data

Foucault argued power is inherent to discourse with his concept of resistance enabled through insider discourses (Mills, 2003:77). He claimed those who are the subject of knowledge must speak for themselves in order to perform resistance, as Reference list opposed to outsider discourses where others speak for or about them (Mills,

2003:77). As “[t]hought and criticism … enable us to problematise – and, potentially, transform – our subjectivity” (Danaher, Schirato and Webb, 2000:45), poststructuralist researchers “suspend” their “belief in the taken for granted” and focus on the “construction, organization, and functions of discourse” (Gill, 2002:178) in order to destabilise these ‘taken for granted’ ways of thinking. Consequently, this portion of the project provided space for the voices respondents that were parents who were single as insider discourses to question, disrupt, and contest the dominant subjectivities of single parenthood. As such, insider discourses are crucial for resisting dominant subjectivities.

26 See sections 5.5 and 5.5.1.1.

124

4.7.2.1 Constructing the data: the interview questions

The concern for this data was that it captures discourses in action as they are experienced through single parenthood. Discourses are crucial for how we understand ourselves and others, as they are the “cultural narratives that define who we are, why we are the way we are and where we are going” (Burman, 1994:48).

Søndergaard expresses the importance of analysing insider discourses as follows:

who can we be, what positions can we ‘do’ if the conditions and the take

this or that form in the available storylines? Who can we be if we

understand (either on reflection or otherwise) that some of the particular

acts and expressions that we desire are undesirable and must remain

invisible for the very subjects of the category that we are identified as

belonging to? At the same time the very same acts and expressions are

accepted and sometimes attributed to persons that belong to another

category, for no particular reason other than that such behaviour is what

one expects from persons categorized that way. In other words, how do Reference list

subjects locate their own positions within the social and collective

subject positions and storylines that are offered? (2002:194).

Understanding the ramifications of discourses from inside subjectivities is crucial for understanding the material effects of discourses. As this study was exploratory, examining discourses from both inside and outside the subjectivity of single parenthood, it was necessary to construct an interview schedule specific to this project. Richards and Schmiege (1993) advocate constructing individual project interview schedules for exploratory projects such as this where constructed knowledge is predominantly negative.

By identifying the thinking that dominates authoritative discourses in the literature review, the interview schedule was constructed in such a way that it facilitated the examination of the material effects of these discourses. For example, some of the

125

literature positioned children of single parents as disadvantaged in terms of educational achievement. In order to explore how this subjectivity would be translated by parents who are single, especially informing their interactions with teachers and schools, it was necessary to have questions in the interview schedule addressing this issue. Likewise, the literature also constituted single parenthood as economic vulnerability. Again, having questions addressing this idea provided avenues for juxtaposing the different discursive perspectives, and the truth claims of each, against one another.27 This is a necessary step in destabilising dominant perspectives and rendering visible acts of resistance. It also addresses the research aims set out in section 1.2.1.

4.7.2.2 Accommodating diversity: the recruitment process

In line with the poststructural framework which acknowledges the social construction of subjectivities via discourses, the preliminary design for this second stage of the data collection process involved recruitment of parents who are single. The Reference list recruitment processes predominantly utilised in the literature sampled single parents who were either already part of a larger study (mainly longitudinal studies), were accessing specific services (such as support services), or welfare recipients. These recruitment methods generate an over-representation of low socio-economic women in the constitution of knowledge about single parenthood.

Even studies that explored the strengths of single parent families fell into this trap.

To demonstrate: Yardley (2009) recruited teenage single mothers accessing formal support services; Jones (2008) recruited participants on strict economic criteria situating them as neither poor nor middle-class; and Luna (2009) recruited single mothers ‘on welfare’ through community organisations. As a result, those not already accessing formal services such as welfare or part of an established study

27 A copy of the interview questionnaire is contained in Appendix 2.

126

have been excluded from almost all of the research into single parenthood (Yardley,

2009:247).

Baker (2009) attempted to correct this oversight by using self-recruitment methods through the distribution of flyers, complimented with snowball and purposive sampling methods in order to generate a diverse sample. Interestingly, Baker’s

(2009) study did not specifically target single parents although it did identify single mothers as respondents. This research oversight suggests researchers struggle to comprehend single parenthood outside the parameters of the deficit perspective as primarily respondents have been recruited because they accessed welfare, were identified as having low socio-economic characteristics, or were accessing other formal support services designed to overcome individual deficits.

To overcome these sampling problems, a number of recruitment processes were undertaken to encourage single parents to participate in this study. A media release was provided by Queensland University of Technology Media Department to Reference list national media organisations. A number of news outlets published information about the project with the researcher’s contact details to enable respondents to self- select into the project. Through the media release, potential participants were encouraged to contact the principal researcher for further information about the study. All potential participants were provided with information about the project and options for participation. Respondents were able to choose their form of participation, such as: a focus group interview; individual interview in person or over the telephone; or completing the interview questionnaire via the internet.

In addition to the media release, internet organisations were also accessed for recruitment purposes. The internet is an outlet that provides a rich source of information on all manner of social phenomenon. It is therefore a useful tool for accessing single parenthood organisations. The internet contains information about

127

many single parenthood organisations, with a number approached for recruitment purposes. These groups made available information about the study to their members via their internet sites, newsletters, and blogs. Some organisations were nationally representative, whilst others were situated in the eastern Australian states. Flyers, posters, and project information sheets were also distributed to relevant organisations that have contact with single parents, such as family planning organisations, health plaza’s, women’s organisations, parent groups, and telephone information lines. These organisations were all based in either Ipswich or Brisbane.

From the range of recruitment techniques employed, a total of 39 respondents self- recruited into the project and completed individual interviews. No defining criteria were outlined for participation other than respondents self-identify as ‘single parents’. Having the option to complete the interview via the internet was important as privacy was a significant issue for some respondents. This choice allowed respondents who did not want their identity known (not even to the researcher) to Reference list participate in the research whilst remaining virtually unidentifiable. With regard to privacy, all respondents nominated their own pseudonym for their data and all identifying information was deleted from the data.

4.7.2.3 Profile of respondents

Demographic data was not obtained from respondents as it was not the focus of the project. However certain demographic information was provided by respondents through the interview process. From this information it was known participants resided in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, and Western

Australia. Single mothers were over-represented (37) with only two respondents identifying as single fathers. It was also known respondents had between one and five children ranging in age from a few months old to their mid-30s. The experience of single parenthood provided through the interview process covered approximately

128

a 35 year time span. Some respondents were full-time sole care parents whilst others were shared care parents.

Many respondents were also either working or undertaking study. Table 4:2 sets out the known employment status of respondents and indicates they were predominantly employed setting them outside many of the parameters used to recruit respondents in the reviewed literature. Therefore insider discourses constituted in this study provide aspects of single parenthood currently missing from research knowledge.

Table 4:2 The known employment status of respondents

Employed (but not stated as to full or part time) 4 Full time work 12 Looking to self employment 1 Not stated 4 Part time work 7

Retraining 1 Reference list Self employed 5 Stay at home parent 3 Student 3

4.7.2.4 Coding the stage two data

All interviews conducted verbally were audio recorded and transcribed into text documents. The interviews conducted by email were converted to text documents using Microsoft Word 2007. The textual documents were then imported into QSR

NVivo8 program for coding. Initially all interviews were coded as stage two data as well as at the individual question level (i.e., all answers to question 1 were coded at a node for question 1, and so forth). Coding the interview data in this manner allowed for the analysis of particular themes arising from each question. Following on from this initial coding, the interviews were then read as a whole for analysis of

129

additional themes evident in the data. The data was then coded to nodes created for the themes that were obvious from the first reading of each interview (such as isolation, dating and so on). Table A2:1 in Appendix 2 shows the nodes generated for the coding of this data. These nodes were developed from key words taken from the transcripts to assist in the identification of various themes. The data contained within each node was then read as a whole in order to explore these themes more thoroughly.

On completion of the coding of the data, the nodes were then grouped into categories based loosely on the discourses identified in the literature. For example, a category was established for all nodes relating to parenting. The nodes that were grouped into this category were ‘parenting’, ‘defining family’, ‘putting the children first’, ‘children’, ‘child support’, ‘protective’, and ‘dating’. Another theme was the financial positioning of single parenthood. This category incorporated the nodes of

‘poverty and being poor’, ‘finances’, ‘home ownership’, ‘study’, ‘career’, Reference list ‘employment’, ‘employers’, ‘child care’ and so on. By grouping the nodes into themes constructed loosely around the authoritative discourses, the data was then analysed in relation to these discourses as well as in juxtaposition to the stage one data. Through this process, insider and outsider discourses were explored and contrasted against each other.

4.8 Conclusion

This chapter has presented the poststructuralist approach to empirical research as it is used in this thesis. With awareness of the ambiguity of language, this framework understands discourses not as a perfect reflection of everyone’s position, each linking harmoniously with each other’s perspective. Instead, poststructuralism imagines language discursively constructing fractured and multifaceted perspectives

130

of reality, each different and reflective of a person’s subjectivity. For this reason, the research was designed to capture two domains of discourse: insider discourses and outsider discourses. The insider discourses have been provided by parents who are single as respondents self-selecting into this study. The outsider discourses are conceptualised as both authoritative discourses (discussed in chapter two) and media discourses limited to six newspaper publications in eastern Australia.

The subjectivities of single parenthood are explored by examining these three diverse branches of discourse. By juxtaposing the assumptions that underpin particular discourses, the subjectivities of single parenthood are analysed and the games of truth maintaining the discourses are rendered visible. The next two chapters present the analysis of these discourses, with chapter five rendering visible the truth games of outsider discourses juxtaposed by insider’s attempts at resistance in order to assert their own truths about their subjectivities. Chapter six discusses new ways of thinking about single parenthood enabled via insider Reference list discourses that challenge and destabilise the dominant discourses of outsiders.

131

Chapter 5 Social burdens and poor citizens: truth games of a social problem

5.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses the games of truth evident in the outsider discourses of both the media discourses and authoritative discourses. It documents the flow-through effects of authoritative discourses as they inform other outsider discourses like media discourses. By discussing the media discourses as they relate to the themes identified in the authoritative discourses discussed in chapter two, the constancy of subjectivities are made apparent. It also renders visible divergences as these media discourses offer alternative single parenthood subjectivities. The insider discourses Reference list are juxtaposed against the subjectivities of the dominant outsider discourses in order to render visible the truth games of these outsider discourses, as well as the acts of resistance apparent in the insider discourses.

The subjectivities in the authoritative literature (like ‘exploitive welfare users’, ‘social threats’, and ‘economic burdens’), are used as themes for organising this analysis.

Games of truth were evident as the potency of the authoritative discourses sets the parameters around what can and cannot be said about single parenthood. The outsider discourses of newspaper media text are presented first in each section, followed by insider discourses as this contrasting renders visible the acts of resistance by respondents as parents who are single. The insider discourses draw attention to the material effects of dominant discourses for those occupying the subjectivities of single parenthood.

132

The first two themes addressed in this chapter are ‘problematic worker’ and

‘dependency’ and they give rise to the subjectivities of ‘exploitative welfare users’

‘threats to society’, and ‘economic burdens’. The next theme engages risk discourses and the subjectivity of ‘psychological risk’. The final two themes discussed in this chapter are ‘threat, and ‘stigmatisation’. Single mother subjectivities for these themes are ‘marriage threats’ and ‘stigmatised victims’.

5.2 Problematic workers: barriers and vulnerability as economic threat

Authoritative discourses comprehend single parenthood as inhibitive of good worker performance.28 The media discourses examined in this study suggest this notion powerfully informs outsider’s knowledge of single parenthood. The subjectivity of

‘problematic worker’ was evident in the media discourses and was enacted in two ways: via ‘barriers’ inhibiting good worker performance and ‘dependency’. Reference list The ‘problematic worker’ subjectivity was engaged in the media discourses with media accounts emphasizing the restrictions single parenthood places on single mothers abilities to undertake paid work. These accounts repeatedly stated the restrictions of single motherhood implying it is a barrier to full employment. The caring responsibilities of single parenthood were especially highlighted in order to convey this notion of ‘barriers’. For example, the media reports cited single mothers as stating: “I started off in design but after the divorce I found it hard to run a business as a single mum with babies” (O’Neill, 2008:46 in Australian Magazine); and “I had been asked on several occasions to tour, even just interstate to

Melbourne, but I always had to say no because I was a single mum” (Turner,

2008b:10 in Courier-Mail). As these examples demonstrate, the caring

28 See section 2.2.

133

responsibilities of single parenthood were stressed in order to show how inhibited single mothers are when it comes to performing full (read as ‘good’) employment.

With the media discourses reproducing the notion of ‘barriers’ and ‘problematic workers’, this data indicates media knowledge of single parenthood is informed by authoritative discourses. This subjectivity was not particularly strong within the media discourses examined for this study. In contrast however, the ‘dependency’ discourses where predominant suggesting they are a significantly more powerful influence on media discourses.

5.2.1 Breeding in rabbit proportions: welfare dependency and the economic threat of single parenthood

Media discourses indicate the notion of welfare dependency powerfully informs the media’s knowledge about single parenthood. Table A1:3 in Appendix 1 indicated that the ‘welfare’ node fell within the top ten nodes used to code the stage one data, thus suggesting ‘welfare’ was a prominent issue for the newspaper publications Reference list examined for this project. Although the data indicates all six publications constructed accounts of single parents ‘dependency’, The Australian appeared to generate the highest number of articles on this topic (see table A1:11 in Appendix

1). This finding suggests this publication was more informed by dependency discourses than the others.

The influence of dependency discourses in The Australian was evident by broad, generalised statements about single parents. For example, Hughes claims “giving single parents financial support to stay at home could destroy the incentive to work”

(2007:7). Links were also stressed between welfare dependency and ‘dysfunction’

(McKenna, 2008) and ‘intergenerational welfare dependency’ (The Australian,

2008d and 2008f). Welfare dependency was claimed to be antithetical to good citizenship. “Genuine social justice is best served by policies that develop ...

134

‘individual freedom, self-fulfilment and self-reliance’. Welfare dependency does precisely the opposite” (The Australian, 2008d:15). The reproduction of dependency discourses within The Australian’s accounts of single parents suggests this publication views single parenthood as a form of dependency.29

Dependency discourses were also interpreted as ‘economic threat’ within media discourses. Again, these accounts of single parenthood were predominantly generated by The Australian. The ‘economic threat’ of single parenthood was emphasized by suggesting situating single parents are ‘exploitative’ simply because some may receive welfare:

If it is outrageous to continue demanding money from your family and

friends when you are in a position to earn it for yourself, why is it

acceptable to continue demanding money from complete strangers in

exactly the same circumstances? (Saunders, 2008:14 in The Australian).

By situating welfare use as a form of exploitation, the economic threat single Reference list parenthood poses for society is rendered visible:

single mothers (and fathers) would have to be offered better-paying jobs

before losing their pensions. It would be easier to stay home and be

kept by ‘working families’. The move would further blow out the welfare

budget and exacerbate Australia's serious skills shortage (The

Australian, 2008d:15).

By constructing accounts of single parenthood that situate single parents as

‘exploitive’ economic burdens, The Australian was able to position itself on the moral high-ground. It did this by emphasizing the dangers welfare provision generates for society, calling the government ‘foolish’ for ‘relaxing’ “single-parent welfare reforms”

(The Australian, 2008f:15). As these examples make apparent, The Australian

29 See section 2.2.1.

135

constructed single parenthood subjectivities of ‘welfare burdens’ and ‘economic threats’. In doing so, it rendered visible the degree to which it is informed by authoritative discourses.

The problematic worker subjectivity was also used to support the notion single parents are ‘welfare dependent’. Single parents were stated as being ‘unskilled’

(Viellaris, 2008b:13 in the Courier-Mail), ‘unemployed’ (Hughes, 2007:7 in The

Australian), and ‘welfare users’ needing to be compelled to work (Steketee,

2008a:16 in The Australian). By aligning single parents with dependency, their deservedness to receive social provision could be questioned:

Until two years ago, single parents had the right to stay at home and

claim welfare until their youngest child turned 15. There was no

requirement that they should look for work and no mutual obligation

activity attached to those who continued receiving benefits. Jobless

single parents were also paid more than other unemployed people, even Reference list though the unemployed were looking for work and were undertaking

mutual obligation tasks (Saunders, 2008:14 in The Australian).

By juxtaposing single parents on welfare against other unemployed persons,

Saunders (2008) calls into question whether they ‘deserve’ support. The ability of welfare recipients to demonstrate their deservedness was discussed in the literature and appears to be crucial for claiming a moral self.30 As these accounts made general reference to single parenthood, the ability to claim a moral self by demonstrating deservedness was denied to parents who are single.

The ‘threat’ and ‘undeservedness’ of single parent welfare recipients is further stressed in media discourses by claims it is ‘unfair’ to the rest of society. Providing benefits and pensions to single parents is argued to be unfair to those not qualifying

30 See section 2.2.2.

136

for such assistance: “because I was not divorced, nor a single mother ... I was ineligible [for an employment training program]” (Letter to the editor, Sunday Mail,

2007a:60). The Australian claimed single mothers “turn down” jobs to “stay at home watching daytime television” whilst others “continue going out to work to earn the money” to support them (Saunders, 2008:14), whilst “middle-class families lose out

... paying a disproportionate amount of tax and getting nowhere themselves but supporting the children of welfare-dependent single mothers” (Shanahan, 2008:28).

The Australian asserted “[b]eing happily married” and “working hard” places people in the category of “the unlucky Australians” missing “out on a slice of Kevin Rudd's

$10 billion handout” (Hohenboken, 2008b:7). These media discourses imply single parents profit from government policy at tax-payer’s expense. Hence, single parents are seen to be receiving special treatment to the detriment of the rest of society.

These subjectivities remove single parents from the category of tax-payer and legitimate recipient of government services implying their illegitimate form of citizenship. Reference list

Working single parents do not escape being positioned as undeserved recipients of government generosity in these media discourses. The notion single parenthood represents an economic threat was broadened to incorporate all single parents, including those who were working. Section 2.2 demonstrated how work did not remove single parents from the subjectivity of ‘problematic worker’ with the ‘problem’ merely shifting. The undeservedness of working single parents is also evident in media discourses with claims the government is over-generous with taxation support for these families. For example, Edwards claims “the … are among a record 42 per cent of families who receive more in benefits from the government than they pay in income tax” (2008c:5 in The Australian). The generosity of government tax systems was further expounded by calculating tax-free thresholds. For example, The

Australian claimed the “take-home pay of sole parents will be boosted by up to 50

137

per cent” through tax and child care reforms (Karvelas, 2008:2), with a single parent earning “up to $53,819 before paying income tax” (Megalogenis, 2008b:1 in The

Australian). This notion is further stressed by combining the full range of possible benefits available to some single parents:

Single parent working part-time earning $27,000, with two kids aged four

and six. They will get $859 worth of tax cuts plus $626 after changes to

childcare assistance that mean they can now claim 50 per cent of the

cost of child care. They also can now claim up to $375 a year for

education expenses for the primary school-aged child for stationary,

textbooks and computers (Lewis, 2008:6 in Courier-Mail).

These media discourses constitute working single parents as benefiting from over- generous taxation payments considerably bolstering their annual income. It is suggested these benefits provide an unfair advantage and reveal an exploitation of government generosity. Working single parents therefore do not escape the

subjectivity of ‘undeserving’ and are also situated as ‘economic threats’ depleting Reference list the government purse via over-generous taxation benefits. Clearly then, the

‘economic burden’ of single parenthood is not limited in these media discourses to welfare use. Instead, it is broadened considerably from that of authoritative discourses, to include taxation benefits for working parents who are single.

As media discourses viewed government payments as ‘over-generous’, particular policies were singled out for attention. The Baby Bonus was one policy incentive that came under attack in these media publications. The media discourses argued this government policy was misguided and misused, encouraging single mothers to

‘breed’ and thereby sustaining a social problem:

irresponsible and negligent parents, many of whom are second-

generation welfare dependents being encouraged to breed in rabbit

proportions. The Federal Government with its $4000 (soon to be $5000)

138

baby bonus has created a self-perpetuating problem (Letter to the editor,

Sunday Telegraph, 2007:84).

Within these discourses, allegations suggested a link between this policy and increased birth rates to unmarried mothers (Ryan, 2008 in The Australian), with assertions that a voucher system would halt the “single mother juggernaut of producing babies for cash to squander on alcohol, drugs and flat-screen TVs” (Letter to the editor, Daily Telegraph, 2007c:22). Single mothers were dubbed the ‘pram brigade’ and described as “professional baby makers, waiting for the big cash bonus to arrive for another self indulgent splurge on anything but babies” (Letter to the editor, Daily Telegraph, 2007c:22). As these media discourses demonstrate, single mothers are clearly perceived as ‘breeding machines’ who exploit government generosity, burdening society by perpetuating a social problem.

Within this category, the media accounts emphasized notions of ‘unfairness’ and

‘undeservedness’ to situate single parents as ‘exploitative’ of government Reference list generosity. Employment did not remove single parents from this subjectivity.

Instead, working single parents were placed in dependency subjectivities by media accounts stressing government taxation benefits available to them. Welfare dependency was thus broadened in media discourses to include all forms of government benefits, positioning single parents as undeserving recipients, regardless of their employment status. Interestingly, unlike the data for barriers to good employment, the data in this category made generalisations about single parents rather than singling out specific people to represent these problems.

As this discussion has shown, media discourses firmly place single parenthood within the parameters of dependency discourses. It is implicitly aligned with laziness and exploitation, both of which demonstrate poor performances of citizenship.

These accounts of single parenthood all sustain the notion it is an ‘economic threat’

139

and ‘burden’ for society. Clearly, media discourses are powerfully informed by authoritative discourses.

5.2.1.1 Losing jobs and being exploited: respondents engage with problematic worker subjectivities

Respondents engaged with the subjectivity of problematic worker by discussing the material effects of these discourses in relation to their employment prospects.

Respondents alleged they had experienced termination of employment, backlash in the workplace, employment opportunities limited, and been exploited by dishonest and dubious employers as a consequence of these discourses. The respondent discussions for this theme suggest employers used these discourses to construct their knowledge about single parenthood. From insider perspectives, the constitution of single parenthood as inhibiting good worker performance has impacted on respondents as parents who are single in multiple ways.

Respondents provided examples to demonstrate how they perceived employers Reference list engaged the problematic worker subjectivity. Marty claimed her changed marital status resulted in her losing employment contracts:

I lost two jobs in the first month that I became single I was swimming

instructing part time and I was working for two different places and the

fact that they knew that I was single or became single and didn’t have

that back up person if the kids got sick they said that I wouldn’t be able

to fulfil my duties as a swimming instructor because they relied on me

and didn’t have a back up for me and therefore if the kids were sick they

had to cancel the whole day’s lessons and lost their income so I lost

jobs.

Marty believed her newly single status was interpreted by her employers as inhibiting her ability to perform as a good employee. The result of which was the

140

termination of her employment.

For other respondents, employers were constituted as ‘unsympathetic’ toward their caring responsibilities, especially the impact of shift work. Tara claimed her work environment was indifferent to the caring responsibilities required from her single parent subjectivity:

The attitude in nursing quite often (but not always) is that ‘well nursing is

shift work and if you can’t do shift work, don’t do nursing’. And people

are reluctant to make ‘special allowances’ for me as a single mother.

But I think this is a very unfair attitude. I feel like I am being severely

disadvantaged in my choice of career because of my single-parent

status. A lot of work-places claim to be ‘family friendly’ but I wonder if

this is really the case. Nursing is what I really want to do, I don’t want to

be disadvantaged.

Tara implied her work environment individualised her care responsibilities and was Reference list unwilling to think differently about her needs to accommodate her caring role.

Insider discourses suggest employers position the care responsibilities of single parenthood as barriers to good worker performance and act according to this interpretation.

According to these respondent discourses, unsympathetic attitudes have the potential to manifest into workplace backlash against employees who are single parents. Survivor1 asserts:

There’s backlash in the workplaces people just don’t understand how

hard it is and that when the phone rings and it’s a hospital that says your

child’s being admitted with a broken arm or whatever it is you are the

only person who can go there is no other person who can go ‘why do

141

you always have to go’ ‘because I’m it’ (laugh) this one is it I am the only

one who can go.

As these examples demonstrate, there were multiple negative material effects for parents who are single attributed to the subjectivity of problematic worker. Some of these negative effects are loss of employment opportunities, restrictions on employment opportunities, and backlash in the workplace.

Respondents asserted their life choices or opportunities were compromised as a result of these subjectivities. In a study by Hughes and Gray (2005), it was found that single mothers were less likely to take advantage of family-friendly work arrangements compared to coupled mothers. It was speculated two possible reasons for this may have been that employers do not consider single mother employees as having the same ‘value’ as coupled mothers, or that single mothers may have been less likely to be granted more family-friendly work arrangements

(Hughes and Gray, 2005:21). Either way, the implication is that employers perceive Reference list the entitlements of single mothers differently to that of coupled mothers. Burr reminds us, discourses do not simply describe the world, discourse “both constructs the world as we perceive it and has real consequences” (2003:46). The consequences of these subjectivities are negative material effects on the employment opportunities provided to parents who are single.

5.2.1.2 Having to work differently so the wheels don’t fall off: resisting problematic worker subjectivities

Respondents also engaged with these subjectivities by emphasizing the constraint of single parenthood. These discourses correspond with both outsider discourses of authoritative discourses and media discourses. Respondents claimed their caring responsibilities constrained their ability to work, which they interpreted as outsiders perceiving as ‘barriers’. Authoritative discourses situated the caring responsibilities

142

of single parenthood as internal barriers inhibiting employment.31 The notion of internal barriers is implicit within insider discourses as respondents stressed the importance of having to ‘work differently’ to accommodate their care roles.

Paradoxically they also constituted their care responsibilities as impeding their employment via the external provision of child care.

Although respondents argued their caring responsibilities constrained their employment prospects, this did not appear to exclude them completely from the workforce. Instead, they used alternative avenues (wherever they could) to undertake paid employment. Ms Smith explained how her caring responsibilities forced her to change careers:

In my previous life I was a midwife and I was very passionate about that

I’ve had to change my life now and go back to university because I need

a job that is five days a week and has school holidays so I’m re-training

to become a teacher I probably wouldn’t have gone back to university Reference list and done teaching I would have continued being a midwife.

As Ms Smith demonstrates, amongst all the changes that accompany entry into single parenthood, career changes are prominent. Other respondents overcame this problem by becoming self employed:

The reason why I am self employed is for that reason I didn’t want all the

questions and I didn’t want my private business sort of out there with an

employer discussing why I needed time off for this or why this had to be

this way and it was just too hard to work in with an employer and my

children at the same time so that’s why I became self employed so I

could run my own race and I didn’t have to sort of be accountable to

anyone (Benny).

31 See section 2.2.

143

As Benny’s comments suggest, self employment is a mechanism used by respondents to accommodate their caring responsibilities and avoid potential difficulties with employers due to their care work.

These insider discourses highlight the complexity of subjectivities as outsider discourses situate single parents as problematic workers because of their caring responsibilities (as outlined in chapter two), whereas insider discourses stress the necessity of having to ‘work differently’ because of these responsibilities. This alternative interpretation of the impact of care responsibilities on the employment prospects of single parents renders visible the contestation over truth claims about these subjectivities. Outsiders perceived it as inhibiting employment, whereas insiders stress the need to think differently about how employment is undertaken.

The notion of having to work differently was also enacted through negotiation by respondents. As well as having to rethink careers and self-employment, respondents explained they had to negotiate with prospective employers to Reference list accommodate their caring roles:

You choose your jobs because you’ve got to raise your kid on your own

… I chose jobs in situations where I had flexibility as much as I could get

and also negotiated early on about utilising sick leave my sick leave for

the child (Survivor1).

Insider discourses situate prospective employers who were unwilling or unable to accommodate their care responsibilities as unsuitable avenues for employment.

The care responsibilities of single parenthood generated a two way circuit where insiders claim to have been rejected by employers because of this caring role, but also emphasized how they in turn rejected employers as unsuitable on these same grounds.

144

Because the care responsibilities of single parenthood impact significantly on the employment of single parents, respondents externalised these barriers as the need for adequate child care, especially the need for non-conventional child care. Care work was externalised as the provision of professional child care is outside the control of respondents. A number of examples were provided by respondents to demonstrate how inadequate child care provision negatively constrained their employment opportunities. Tara required child care to be available overnight to accommodate shift work:

During the course I had to undertake practicum shifts at the hospital,

which meant working at night. Other women had their partners to rely

on, but I had to rely on friends, with both of my kids going to different

houses, and then me having to collect them again late at night. It was

difficult at times.

Majestyk required child care one week in every four as he stated “I may be put

forward for a job which requires me to travel one week in four I don’t know what the Reference list hell I’m going to do about that”. As Majestyk’s son was above the age qualifying for government assistance, finding a care giver became extremely difficult for him. He stated “finding babysitters that’s one thing I find very hard to do is to find babysitters or someone who’s prepared to come over and look after a 14 year old”. As these insider discourses indicate, with no formal provision for out of hours child care such as overnight or full week care, respondents have been restricted in the type of employment they can undertake. These discourses also render visible governmental assumptions about families in contemporary society underpinning child care policies. It is assumed all families have extended support networks to accommodate such care requirements.

The lack of formal provision of child care required respondents to call on their extended support networks (if they had them), such as family and friends, to fill this

145

void. They needed private resources to assist them with their caring responsibilities in order to fulfil their employment commitments:

At one stage I had a deadline that was late on a Monday night and my

ex-husband wouldn’t swap nights for whatever reason so a girlfriend

used to come on Monday night and look after the kids until I got home to

enable me to keep working I needed that emergency backup so I had a

couple of people I could call on if the wheels fell off or someone got sick

and had to be picked up from school or whatever (Cate).

Although the caring duties pertain to the family structure, it is the lack of appropriate child care that is constituted by insiders as the problem, not the caring responsibility itself. Insider discourses demonstrate how the difficulties of care duties are understood as external factors negatively impacting single parent families, rather than a problem inherent to the family itself. Through these discourses, respondents resisted the subjectivity of problematic worker and constituted themselves as having

to working differently by externalising the barriers constraining their employment to Reference list unaccommodating employers and inadequate child care provision.

This discussion has shown how insider discourses suggest the caring responsibilities accompanying single parenthood constrain the employment opportunities for single parents. Previously chosen careers become problematic on entry into single parenthood. Potential employer’s perceived lack of understanding and accommodation of this caring role forced respondents to become selective in the type of work they undertook, others had to change career directions, and some availed themselves of self employment opportunities to accommodate their roles as primary caregivers. The lack of adequate and diverse child care provision was also constituted by respondents as negatively impacting on their employment decisions.

It also highlighted the assumptions about families underpinning government policy.

146

Through these discourses, respondents resisted the subjectivity of problematic worker, connecting with this issue from the perspective of working differently. These insider discourses are compatible with the findings from Hughes and Gray’s study with the claim “lone mothers’ employment decisions are … affected by their caring responsibilities” (2005:22). It also highlights the problems with the provision of professional child care as government policy does not appear to constitute paid employment beyond standard business hours. As insider discourses have shown, this assumption has serious material effects for the employment opportunities of single parents. If the government was serious in its intention to encourage single parents into employment, it would address the need for non-conventional child care and extend the age limit for the children this care is provided for as a mechanism to support single parents in their employment choices.

5.2.2 Feeling the pinch: the economic vulnerability of single parenthood

Problematic worker subjectivities also gave rise to subjectivities of economic Reference list vulnerability. The interconnection of these subjectivities demonstrates the complexity of discourses as they give rise to multiple subjectivities. These subjectivities were grounded in the assumption single parenthood inhibits employment opportunities exposing single parents to financial insecurity and subsequently, economic vulnerability. These subjectivities were evident in both outsider perspectives of authoritative discourses and media discourses.

The economic vulnerability of single parenthood was primarily constituted by media discourses via financial hardship and poverty. Explicit statements in the Sunday

Mail conveyed this notion, such as: he “was raised by his mother ... in poverty” (Te

Koha, 2008:68), and “[h]is single mother was ... stricken by the poverty and powerlessness that defined women in her situation” (Egan, 2008:52). The

Australian used single parenthood to demonstrate the economic pressures

147

experienced in society, “[f]or cleaner …, 34, a single mother of two from Adelaide's west, a pay rise of up to $26 would not change the fact she cannot afford to run a car” (Edwards, 2008a:5). This example was used to convey the message that the rising cost of living has serious ramifications for people in society. These media publications used single parenthood as a tool to demonstrate the financial hardship in society because it is assumed single parents struggle financially.

The economic vulnerability of single parenthood was emphasized by media discourses in order to imply that financial hardship: restricts single parents’ ability to find rental properties (Daily Telegraph, 2008q; O’Loan, 2008b for Courier-Mail;

Passmore, 2007b for Sunday Mail; Lunn, 2008e for The Australian); results in property evictions (Courier-Mail, 2007a, Thompson and O’Loan, 2008, and O’Loan,

2008a; Daily Telegraph, 2008q, and Quigley, 2008), and homelessness (Daily

Telegraph, 2008q; Litson, 2008b for Sunday Telegraph; Sunday Mail, 2008h;

Courier-Mail, 2008e and 2008g). Single parenthood was used to exemplify the Reference list financial hardship experienced within broader society. By using single parents to emphasize this message, single parenthood is firmly aligned within these subjectivities. Media discourses are not only informed by, and produced through, economic vulnerability discourses; they also perpetuate them.

5.2.2.1 Outsider assumptions and good financial managers: resisting economic vulnerability

Insider discourses indicated respondents were cognizant of these subjectivities.

Interestingly the male respondents in this study appeared to avoid these outsider subjectivities as they stated “no-one’s ever made a particular comment” (Majestyk) and “no one would dare to comment on my finances” (Terry). Female respondents however were clearly constituted in this way.

148

Female respondents argued outsiders made assumptions about their economic vulnerability because they were single parents. Benny argued, “I have two cars I have two houses but I’m still typecast as that poor single parent”. Terpchic stated:

I think we are considered to be quite poor as in I invite people to my

house … they all go “ah wow” and I’m thinking well just because I’m a

single mum doesn’t mean you slot me in where ever you want to slot

me.

Bec explained how this notion of is expressed by outsiders:

It’s just comments like the assumption that I must be struggling for

money so you’re a single parent obviously here’s this program that you

can get involved in which don’t get me wrong sometimes I am struggling

for money but sometimes I’m doing quite well.

Susan interpreted the comments about her financial affairs as constructed by outsiders via assumptions that she was in financial hardship because of her status as a single parent: “there was always that element added on to it which I guess is a Reference list statement about people’s assumptions about my financial situation”. Respondents argued outsiders made assumptions about the financial situation of female single parents. They imply comments made by outsiders reflect social assumptions single parenthood equates to economic vulnerability, suggesting the dominance of these discourses as comments appear to be based on generalisations rather than any factual knowledge about respondents’ financial affairs. Thus, respondents stressed the point about ‘assumptions’.

As the above comments suggest, respondents were cognizant they were perceived to be economically vulnerable. They also recognised that at times this may have been an accurate representation of their situation. However, they resisted it and

149

expressed discomfit about being positioned in this way. Susan explained this conflicting position:

I work for a committee on campus who supports students from low

income disadvantaged backgrounds and because I … received

scholarships because I was a sole parent but then went on to do post

grad and now work here they use my story to promote awareness of the

scholarship scheme but also kind of as a I don’t know what the word is

it’s like a pinup girl almost for other students to say ‘hey if you hang in

there you can do well’ and I don’t have a problem with that because I

believe in the purpose of the scheme but I do find it very challenging

when that story is continually attached and I resist it in many ways as I

did sort of resist it as an undergrad even though I was fully in that

situation but I do find it now I find I’m being quite hypocritical I think look

at where I am now I do find that challenging at times I do resist it at

times but I offer the story in good faith because I’m aware that the Reference list scheme does make an enormous difference to students.

Susan’s comments illustrate the paradox of this position as respondents need to accept this subjectivity in order to receive assistance, whilst at the same time expressing discomfort with it. These insider discourses demonstrate respondents were clearly able to identify the subjectivity of economic vulnerability and understood its influence on their experiences. As this is a powerful subjectivity, and one which respondents acknowledged they often matched, its influence impacted their lives in many ways.

The most obvious area these discourses affected respondents was in the real estate market. Respondents argued real estate agents constituted single parenthood in terms of economic vulnerability, and interpreted as financial risk. According to respondents, this understanding of single parenthood appeared to be most obvious

150

for landlords. Eliza Jones claimed “when I initially had to hunt for a rental house for myself and my daughter, some owners of houses did not want me, because I was a single mum”. Rental agents were also claimed to use this subjectivity. Marty alleged “a couple of my friends are real estate agents and they won’t even look at single mums they talk about it openly”. Respondents identified these subjectivities in their interactions with real estate agents:

As soon as you would say ‘I’m a single parent’ they’d almost question

your ability to manage funds, questioned your standards generally, and

sort of almost assumed you would have multiple partners coming over

so bring the place into disrepute or something (Marie Smith).

Respondents blamed these subjectivities for their lack of success in the rental market:

I have no doubt that real estate agents have rejected my application in

the past based on my parental status but that’s been despite having

outstanding references often from other real estate agents and a solid Reference list

employment history (Susan).

As these examples demonstrate, respondents positioned real estate agents as engaging with single parenthood from a perspective of economical vulnerability and financial risk. Respondents interpreted these subjectivities as having negative material effects for them in the form of difficulties in accessing adequate accommodation. These insider discourses highlight the strength of authoritative discourses as they not only inscribe subjectivities, but also inform the opportunities made available to parents who are single.

Although these discourses clearly have strong cultural currency, and have negative material effects for single parents, respondents resisted these subjectivities. They

151

did this by constituting themselves as ‘diligent financial managers’. Terpchic’s explanation is used to demonstrate this subjectivity:

[outsiders are] surprised at what I achieve but they don’t see … what I

do the time I put in to get what I have everything you see here if it’s not

from the Salvos it’s from a clearance centre which means I have to shop

so I don’t just go to Woolworths and buy everything I go and I buy

specifically what’s on sale or no name brand and then I’ll go to a butcher

that’s advertised cheaper meat that week and then I’ll go to a fruit shop

and then I might do a second shop during the week when I’ve seen

something that’s cheap and I’ll go buy three kilos of it so it’s the time I

put in to have what I have and people don’t realise it and so that’s why

they’re surprised they come and visit my house and want a drink I pull

out a bottle of champagne ‘oh you can afford alcohol?’ I say to them

‘look I don’t drink much because it’s a luxury’ but I do have it there’s

ways I have really good food but it’s all done very much on the hard Reference list yard.

Terpchic’s comments indicate she resented the implication she could not afford her lifestyle by explaining the level of effort she undertakes in order to maintain it.

Through this notion of ‘putting in the hard yards’, respondents constituted themselves as ‘frugal’ spenders (Sari; Survivor1) and “thrifty with money” (Victpoint).

They acknowledged the financial constraints of their position, resisted the subjectivity of economic vulnerability, and repositioned themselves as “good financial managers” (Terry). These insider discourses clearly demonstrate respondents’ performance of resistance, by ‘disowning’ the dominant ways in which they are spoken about (Tamboukou and Ball, 2003:9) and repositioning themselves into subjectivities they believe more accurately reflects their situation.

152

This reworked subjectivity is strengthened with claims businesses accepted this alternative interpretation of single parenthood. Tara claimed the business community, especially banks, have recognised single parenthood as a good potential customer base:

I think people are starting to wake up and realise that a lot of single

parents are actually excellent money managers. For example, ANZ now

offer loans for single parents. Anyone who can raise two kids and pay

rent on about $600 week or less must be an excellent money manager.

We get smart, figure out the cheapest ways to live, learn to live with less,

learn to prioritise. It’s like living in the Depression, you just have to be

really resourceful.

These examples provide clear demonstrations of discourses in action as insiders use them to interpret outsiders’ actions, as well as their own. Respondents resist subjectivities of economic vulnerability, claiming alternative subjectivities of good

financial managers via their financial challenges. These discourses clearly Reference list demonstrate contestations over meaning ascribed to social reality from different perspectives.

Respondents’ comments indicate economic vulnerability can be partly a reflection of the choices made by parents that are single. In particular, it is stated, the choice of prioritising children over employment results in a degree of financial instability or vulnerability. Terry claimed colleagues alleged he was ‘degenerating’ professionally because he was prioritising his children’s needs ahead of his career ambitions. His response being:

No doubt that is very very true but to be honest I don’t care I don’t care

because this is the system that I’m in [it] will support me anyway so it’s

all about me and it’s all about the kids.

153

Terry’s comments, read in combination with the discussion above about choosing jobs to accommodate caring responsibilities, suggests single parents choose economic vulnerability (via their employment decisions) as they prioritise their parenting over career ambitions. Victpoint explained this notion in more detail:

If I need to sell the house I will sell the house and there will come a time

when I will need to because I do want to stay at part time [employment]

but I’d saved enough to have initially the preschool age time with him

and only do part time [work] because I want to be his mum I don’t want

child care bringing him up.

As these comments indicate, respondents prioritised their parenting roles over their roles as breadwinners, to some extent compromising their financial security.

Instead of reading these subjectivities via a negative lens, single parents should be commended for their commitment to their parenting responsibilities in spite of the financial hardships this commitment generates. Reference list By exploring insider discourses, insight into the conditions facilitating particular subjectivities is provided. Outsiders (such as researchers), examining single parenthood interpret the financial situations of single parents as an indication of their economic vulnerability, failing to understand that some single parents prioritise parenting responsibilities over financial security. With the lack of adequate external support services available to single parents, they will continue to balance the competing responsibilities of principal carer against that of primary breadwinner, resulting in their economic vulnerability.

The discussion presented in this section has rendered visible truth games inherent in discourses as respondents attempt to resist the subjectivities of economic vulnerability. It has demonstrated how media discourses interpreted single parent subjectivities via discourses of ‘welfare dependency’ and ‘economic threat’.

154

Respondents’ destabilise these subjectivities and repositioned themselves as good financial managers. Burr reminds us “the meanings carried by language are never fixed, always open to question, always contestable, always temporary” (2003:53).

The contestation over meaning presented in this section highlighted the performative aspect of discourses.

By transforming economic vulnerability into good financial management, respondents constructed alternative ways for understanding their subjectivities.

Their re-writing of economic risk provides avenues for generating opportunities and enhancing life choices for single parents on the proviso outsiders use these alternative subjectivities to inform their understandings of single parenthood. An comprehension and appreciation of the difficult choices single parents make between parenting responsibilities and employment, and the importance they place on their parenting roles, should demand appropriate support be provided to alleviate the conflict between these two competing roles. Reference list

5.3 Constructing abnormality: media accounts engage risk discourses

Risk thinking dominates authoritative discourses. As dominant discourses, risk was also evident in media and insider discourses. Media discourses constituted risk as psychological, physical, and criminal, and described life in a single parent family as

‘chaotic’ (Sandall, 2008a for The Australian, Galvin, 2008, and Sandall, 2008b for

The Australian Magazine; Day, 2008, and Williams, 2008 for Daily Telegraph).

Media discourse predominantly aligned single parenthood with risk via outcomes for children, with the exception of psychological risks, which were assigned to both adults and children. Media discourses demonstrate the cross-over effects of

155

authoritative discourses as intellectual knowledge is used to inform media understandings of single parenthood.

5.3.1 Blighted with mental problems: the psychological riskiness of single parenthood

Media discourses express the riskiness of single parenthood through suggestions of psychological stress, particularly adult mental health problems. In these discourses, movie reviews suggest screen writers use risk discourses to inform their knowledge of single parenthood. The fictional characters depicted in reviews of current movies constituted them as psychologically ‘damaged’ single parents. These media discourses also present a gendering of the psychological risks, with the riskiness of single fatherhood presented as external to these subjectivities, whereas the riskiness of single motherhood was situated as intrinsic to the women portrayed as single mothers. To demonstrate, actor Colin Firth was said to play a “middle-aged, single father who was despondent” and “close to cracking” (Wilson, 2008:16 in The

Australian Magazine), while Melissa George played a single mother “with multiple Reference list personalities” (Bartsch, 2008:7 in Courier-Mail). Another review explored “the day- to-day anxieties of a single mother” (Williams and Stratton, 2008:12 in The

Australian), and another single mother was “gripped by postnatal depression”

(Abernethy, 2007:13 in The Australian). The power of risk discourses are rendered visible in these media discourses as fictional characters as single parents were constituted as suffering various psychological problems. As fictional characters, it is argued, they are constructed around perceptions of single parenthood conceived via risk discourses.

The psychological problems of single parents were not limited to fictional characters.

Single fathers were constituted in this way via the apparent stress associated with raising children on their own. By stressing men’s caring roles, media constructions of psychological risk were gendered in these discourses implying caring roles are

156

primarily women’s roles. For example, Cuneo stated a father’s depression was the result of “the overwhelming responsibility of raising two kids alone” which “spiral[led him] into the depths of despair” (2008b:9 in the Daily Telegraph). Wenham attributed a single father’s mental health issues to not “coping with his responsibilities” (2008:65 in the Courier-Mail). These media versions of single fatherhood implicitly suggest women naturally care for children, thus men struggle psychologically when forced to assume this gendered subjectivity. These results indicate media discourses are informed by risk discourses constituting single fatherhood as a special challenge for men creating a psychological struggle due to the gendered responsibilities of care-giving.32

Media discourses constructed mental health issues for single motherhood differently to those of single fatherhood. Instead of constructing psychological risk via their parental responsibilities, risk was instead constituted as an internal deficit, as an affliction these women suffered from. For example, in these media discourses, Reference list single mothers suffered from depression (Neales, 2008 in Daily Telegraph) or their

“own demons” (McKenna, 2008:15 in The Australian). They battled addictions from drugs (The Australian, 2007o) to gambling (Masters, 2007b in Daily Telegraph).

These media discourses constituted the psychological riskiness of single motherhood as intrinsic to the women occupying these subjectivities rather than external via the role challenge of single fatherhood. The media discourses for this theme are clearly informed by risk discourses demonstrating the power of dominant discourses for informing cultural understandings of other people’s subjectivities. As a result, media discourses are not only influenced by dominant discourses like risk, they also maintain them.

32 See section 2.4.

157

5.3.1.1 Trying not to fall off the cliff: the cataclysmic devastation of single parenthood

Respondents engaged with psychological risk by explaining the emotional and physical challenge single parenthood presented. Lilly stated “I am physically and emotionally tired and exhausted all the time”. Marty asserted “its tiring its tiring tiring exhausting”. Survivor1 maintained “being a single parent is incredibly difficult really hard work completely exhausting”. As a consequence of this exhaustion, respondents claimed they felt stressed and emotional in their roles as single parents. Majestyk stated “my stress levels at the moment are through the roof”.

Ange claimed “there were many times when I just kind of fell off the wagon emotionally”. Clearly, insiders comprehend the psychological challenge of single parenthood, which is encapsulated in the risk discourses of outsiders.33 However, what separates insider and outsider discourses, is contextualisation. That is, insider discourses are able to provide meaning to the psychological challenges of their subjectivities, whereas outsider discourses generally do not. Reference list

Although respondents spoke of the emotional and physical challenge single parenthood entailed, they comprehended these challenges as part of the process of grief. They argued, divorce and separation had the biggest impact on their emotional wellbeing, rather than single parenthood itself. Speaking of this period in her life Caz stated, “it was a very difficult time and I felt very sorry for myself”. It was claimed “you are going through an obviously very traumatic emotional time” (Ange) as “you’re pretty much thrown into an emotional turmoil when you have a separation” (Terry). Insider discourses described divorce as a ‘black hole’ or

‘terrible pit’ (Cate). Part of the emotion was dealing with the grief of a lost relationship (Lilly), or a deceased spouse (Ms Smith). Cate endeavoured to express the cataclysmic devastation of loss associated with separation:

33 See section 2.3.6.

158

I think I would have had a nervous breakdown because it was just so

cataclysmic and so devastating and it had been the longest relationship

of my life that had just sort of imploded … I can’t remember exactly what

happened but I remember ending up in the en suite with a towel shoved

in my mouth because I was just sobbing and I didn’t want the children to

hear me sobbing … and just thinking if I don’t stop this I won’t be able to

stop this this hysteria and so I did manage to pull myself together but it

was at that point I thought I've got to get some counselling or get some

help because I’m not coping … I can see how many people would just

fall off that cliff.

Insider discourses suggest the loss of a coupled relationship (whether through separation, divorce, or death) generates a grieving period, which has been interpreted through research as psychological risk. Respondents did not express this understanding of single parenthood. Rather, they situated their emotions as

part of the grief process. Cate stated “people say its stress it’s not stress its grief Reference list which is different to stress”. Ms Smith said “I was going through a grief process that was my grief”. The research outlined in section 2.3.6 envisaged responses of this nature as evidence of the psychological riskiness of single parenthood, generally failing to appreciate these emotional responses as part of a grieving process connected with loss.

As many respondents aligned the psychological stress of single parenthood with grief, they also positioned it as something to be worked through. As part of a process, emotional turmoil generated feelings of isolation, invisibility, and resentment. Ange stated, “when it initially happens you can feel very isolated”.

Sonic claimed having young children resulted in her feelings of isolation, leading some respondents to feel ‘invisible’. Ms Smith claimed single parenthood is an

‘invisible’ or hidden subjectivity. She alleged, “I’m under the radar I’m the black hole

159

… it’s like child birth its secret women’s business kind of thing its very much behind the closed doors of home” (Ms Smith). Lilly explained her feelings of resentment and anger over her situation:

For the initial years after separation and divorce from my husband, it

was heartbreaking and difficult, emotionally. I did go through a period of

being depressed and very resentful that we had been “thrown away” and

“left alone”. To a certain extent that pain is still there. I've spent many

years being angry at my circumstances, angry at my kids, angry at

myself. It took me a long time to be okay with being alone and not

lonely.

Lilly’s explanation of the emotional turmoil of divorce demonstrates the level of psychological distress accompanying this life transition. Divorce involves a process of change and encompasses loss. As such, it generates feelings of stress and emotional turmoil, both of which are powerfully aligned with psychological risk in

authoritative discourses. Reference list

With divorce and separation events in people’s lives, respondents asserted acknowledgement of this trauma was important in overcoming it. Decision-making processes were crucial to this endeavour. Survivor1 asserts:

When you have that howl in the shower in the middle of the night …

that’s okay you’re entitled to feel sad you’re entitled to feel angry entitled

to feel upset and frustrated and irritated and feel like smacking people

but it’s how you deal with all that stuff that’s the issue so you choose not

to be bitter and twisted and that’s a choice I made (laugh) and its stood

me in good stead.

By constituting psychological stresses as surmountable, respondents placed positive interpretations (after the fact), on this period in their lives:

160

I didn’t have the luxury of lying in bed feeling sorry for myself it was 7

o’clock there were two little kids poking you in the head going “what’s for

breakfast” you couldn’t lay in bed and feel sorry for yourself you just get

up and that’s a blessing (Cate).

By taking a positive view of their situation, respondents expressed the need to take care of themselves in order to withstand the rigours of single parenthood. Ange asserted “you do have to take care of yourself a lot better … you’ve got to draw on a lot of internal strength I think to sort of stay positive”. By acknowledging the psychological challenges single parenthood posed, respondents were able to shift single parenthood from the constraining subjectivity of psychological risk and align it with the more constructive concept of resilience. Levine argues “[h]ow an individual perceives the stressor … will influence the individual’s adaptation” (2009:405). As respondents comprehended their emotional challenges as part of a grief process, they did not imagine single parenthood itself as a psychological risk to their

wellbeing. Rather, they understood the emotional stress of separation and divorce Reference list as responsible for the psychological challenges they faced as single parents.

The insider discourses presented in this section emphasize the importance of exploring discourses from multiple perspectives. Outsider discourses constituted this data as evidence of the psychological riskiness of single parenthood,34 whereas insider discourses conceived it as part of the process of grief, a subjectivity that is more closely aligned with resilience discourses35 than risk. Risk discourses are situated within a negative or constraining paradigm, whereas resilience discourses are constituted through a positive and enabling framework. This discussion has also highlighted the discursive contestations over truth. Brown argues “reality and truth are formed through practices of representation and interpretation” (1994:229). This

34 See section 2.3.6. 35 See section 2.7.

161

notion was apparent in these discourses as outsiders and insiders contested the meaning of emotional stress. As resilience discourses are obscured within authoritative discourses of single parenthood, their impact on outsider perspectives have been minimal. Although respondents offered alternative interpretations of the psychological challenges of single parenthood, risk discourses are powerful influences on cultural understandings suggesting they will be difficult to dislodge, especially in relation to children.

5.3.2 Mentally destabilised children: the riskiness of single parenthood for children’s wellbeing

Outsider perspectives perceive single parenthood to be a particularly risky form of parenthood, especially for children in terms of their wellbeing in and psychological, physical, and criminal outcomes.36 Underpinning this perspective is the idea that single parenthood is a defective form of parenthood. As authoritative discourses, this understanding of single parenthood was also evident in media discourses with

some single parents clearly constructed as defective parents. Reference list

Media discourses portrayed defective parents as selfish, self indulgent, and greedy.

‘Deadbeat dads’ were situated as fathers who no longer financially supported their children (Gee, 2008a:14 in Daily Telegraph). They were said to be ‘greedy’ men, with “no moral conscience” (Daily Telegraph, 2008l:26), who “turned their backs on their children” (Viellaris, 2008b:1 in Courier-Mail) in order to “hurt the ex” (Daily

Telegraph, 2008l:26). In the Daily Telegraph, Gee states:

SHE claims he was the ultimate deadbeat dad: A divorced father of two

who earns more than $500,000 a year, lives in a palatial home, yet

reneges on his child maintenance - claiming to be broke (2008a:14).

In this example, this father is portrayed as capable of providing financial support for

36 See section 2.3.7.

162

his children, but declines to do therefore he is constituted as a ‘deadbeat dad’.

Although it was acknowledged not all non-paying absent parents were men (Daily

Telegraph, 2008l), it was stated “most of them [are] fathers” (Viellaris, 2008b:1 in

Courier-Mail). It was further claimed, the damage to the children is not only in economic terms (with a lack of financial support), but also psychological as “they know their parent is lousy and doesn't care enough to help them out financially when they need it” (Daily Telegraph, 2008l:26). Clearly, defects parents were constituted in media discourses as deadbeat dads and absent fathers, as selfish and emotionally distant men. As outsider discourses, these subjectivities draw on good fatherhood discourses37 with ‘absence’ as a signifier of poor fatherhood.

Risk discourses stipulate parental separation as damaging for children’s wellbeing.

As a consequence of this interpretation, media discourses situated good parenthood as entailing, among other things, the responsibility to split amicably when relationships end. In The Australian Magazine, parents who did not practice Reference list ‘graceful disconnections’ were deemed poor or deficient parents as “[f]ailure to do so is ‘not just poor etiquette. It's wicked’” (Maushart, 2008:28). Parents were encouraged to split ‘amicably’ with those persisting in separation conflict positioned as ‘vengeful’ and ‘bitter’ to expose their defective parenthood:

She claims to be motivated by a principle that men can't be allowed to

run away from their responsibilities. Yet her actions scream that this is

simply all about revenge ... She wants to get square, to humiliate him

publicly and have the last word on their sorry relationship ... And what

about your eight- and nine-year-old sons Ms …? Will they be happy then

too? They must be chuffed to have some newspaper clippings as a

memento of their deadbeat father who they haven't seen for three years

(Toy, 2008:22 in Daily Telegraph).

37 See section 2.3.4.

163

The media discourses in this study constructed parents that were not obviously ending their relationships ‘nicely’ as ‘embittered’ and ‘vengeful’, placing their children at risk from the damaging consequences of their defective parenting. Maushart asserts that, as “divorce will double the risk of ‘mental health difficulties’ for kids - the quality of the break-up is a critical variable” (2008:28 in The Australian Magazine).

Apparent in these media discourses are the discourses of risk defining separation and divorce as detrimental to children’s well being. Underpinning these notions are the discourses constituting single parenthood as a destabilising influence on families.38

Defective parenthood was also made apparent through reference to the parental abandonment of children. This data made reference to various forms of parental abandonment to stress the defectiveness of this parenting. Physical abandonment occurred by a parent leaving the family unit with words like ‘deserted’ to convey parental abandonment (The Australian, 2008h:9). State care, foster care, and Reference list adoption were also all used to expose the parental abandonment of children (Egan,

2008:52 in Sunday Mail). The idea of parental abandonment in these media discourses enabled the alignment of single parenthood with emotional trauma and neglect. Single parenthood was constituted as causing “deep, scarring sorrows” in children (Lyons, 2008a:4 in The Australian). Further reference was made to

“children who are displaced and emotionally wounded by the divorce of their parents” (Milne, 2008:2 in Sunday Mail). Milne claimed, “teenagers are often the most affected, are often exposed to bad parenting, suffer behaviour problems and have trouble interacting socially” and as a consequence “suffer increased psychological problems” (2008:2 in Sunday Mail). These discourses played on notions of parental abandonment to construct a defective parenting subjectivity for single parenthood underpinned by risk discourses.

38 See section 2.3.1.

164

Outsiders primarily understand single parenthood to be single motherhood, and the psychological riskiness of single parenthood is constructed by the absence of fathers. As a consequence of this understanding, fathers (especially biological fathers) are positioned as essential for children’s wellbeing. Within these media discourses, children without both biological parents were situated as ‘at risk’ because of the absence of the other parent (primarily the father) (Trounson, 2008 in

The Australian). The idea of biological importance was most clearly articulated in the following:

LEGISLATORS in many places now recognise that knowledge of one's

biological inheritance is so important to the development of identity and

the finding of fulfilment in life that children are entitled to know their

parents ... Unless all individuals have access to their original birth

certificates and information about their biological parents, they will be

severely disadvantaged ... Children who are not raised by both birth

parents are usually disadvantaged in respect of those who do enjoy the Reference list nurture of their biological mother and father ... some types of family

formation and alternative parenthood are highly problematic and should

be actively discouraged ... [some] could disadvantage a child in the long

term or leave them virtually disabled. In the worst situations, men and

women claim to have been emotionally harmed or mentally destabilised

because they have lacked a mother or a father, and-or to have been

denied access to information about their biological forebears (The

Australian, 2008e:27).

Evidently, media discourses situate the rights of children over and above the rights to parent, with a child’s right to their biological heritage constructed as fundamental to their wellbeing. Failure to respect this important right was constituted as causing serious disadvantage and even disability in children. It was asserted children would

165

be ‘emotionally harmed’ or ‘mentally destabilised’ by the lack of this biological information, again constituted single parenthood as detrimental and risky for the psychological wellbeing of children.

5.3.2.1 Natural phobias and protection: respondents engage with risk discourses

Insider discourses indicated respondents were cognizant of risk discourses. Their engagement with these discourses renders visible the messiness and unpredictability of discourses as they never ‘merely mirror’ cultural practices

(Søndergaard, 2002:199). Burr argues “[w]e are all in the process of claiming and resisting the identities on offer within the various prevailing discourses” (2003:110).

Discourses in this category highlight the ways respondents engaged with risk implicitly through the notions of surveillance and protection. They also demonstrate acts of resistance and repositioning by respondents as they reject ‘offered identities’.

Risk discourses expose groups considered ‘at risk’ to intrusive or covert behaviours Reference list in the guise of governance. Our subjectivities specify us as targets for practices of governance seeking evidence of abnormality (Cheek and Rudge, 1993:273). One such technique enacted covertly through everyday interactions with single parents is surveillance. Padme Skywalker discussed the close relationship she had with her doctor:

Whenever I've been to my doctor she’s great she’s always very

interactive with the kids she’ll talk to them apart from talking to me and I

think as a doctor that allows her knowing that I’m a single parent to know

that the kids are healthy well looked after and there’s nothing untoward

happening to them which I think is good because I think a lot of the time

doctors are a first sort of point of call for anything that’s suspicious to

children.

166

Padme Skywalker’s explanation of her doctor’s practice indicated a covert form of surveillance. According to Williams and Calnan, risk discourses shift the clinical gaze to “biographical forms of medicine”, emphasizing “patient subjectivity” and blurring the boundaries “between medicine and sociology” (1996:1612). Since risk discourses constitute single parenthood as a site of risk for child well-being, state agents (like doctors and teachers) are ever on the lookout for signs of abnormality in these at risk groups. As Padme Skywalker falls into the category of risk, her doctor acts as a surveillance officer watchful for evidence of these abnormalities.

The power of risk discourses as dominant discourses necessitated respondents engage with these concepts in order to claim an ethical self. One way they did this was to externalise risk and employ the notion of protection. Respondents expressed the necessity of protective practices in order to shield the family unit from external risks. Insider discourses positioned risk as an external factor, as opposed to outsider discourses that understand risk as internal to single parenthood. Hence, Reference list insider discourses rendered visible acts of resistance by respondents as they destabilised the notion of risk:

I am also very protective of my children and their safety and

development. I take a while to get to know people and to trust them, and

this relates to protecting my home as a sanctuary for my family (Molly).

Respondents interpreted protection as having control of external influences affecting their children:

Mainly it’s me deciding how the day to day lives of my children are run

and what people are allowed to associate with them what children and

especially what male influences come in and I think that’s great in the

sense allowing them to see what I want them to see and protecting them

from the rest of it that’s mainly why I think being a single parent has

suited me so much (Padme Skywalker).

167

By externalising risk, respondents situated outsiders as a threat to their family units.

Padme Skywalker explains why outsiders are considered a significant risk for single parenthood:

Knowing the complex people that are out there nowadays to invite a new

person into your house relatively quickly is a very big mistake it’s a very

big risk … you’re really dicing with a very mixed bag of people … I know

what’s out there and I’m scared to be honest and so that’s something I

think people need to put more thought into because once you invite the

demons in they are bloody hard to get rid of.

Insider discourses constitute risk as external to their family units. Respondents positioned outsiders as potential risks for themselves and their children and enacted protective practices to minimise this risk, such as hibernating from dating. This data demonstrates the importance of exploring discourses from multiple perspectives as respondents interpret their subjectivities differently to outsiders. They subvert the

dominant understanding of risk by constituting outsiders as the risk. Through this Reference list process, they reinscribe the notion of risk and resist these subjectivities.

These insider versions of risk necessitated cautious behaviour from respondents when undertaking activities like socialisation with new people, especially dating.

Consequently they separated these activities in order to be protective:

I am aware that often paedophiles will often target children of single

mothers and this frightens me so at times I may be over protective of my

son (had a very close experience) and it also means at times I will go

into hibernation from dating (Katlin).

Victpoint explained how this interpretation of risk influenced her protective practices:

I’ve never had a boyfriend in front of [son] if I had been dating anyone it

was definitely either when he wasn’t around … as he’s concerned I’m

168

either at work he’s at child care or he’s at nanny and poppy’s having a

camp over and I’m at work or I’m having mummy time … so dating

comes underneath that.

For Victpoint, dating is constituted as ‘mummy time’ removing it completely from

‘family time’ as a protective practice. For insiders, risk minimisation required separation of parental responsibilities from social activities. Female respondents limited their opportunities (by hibernating from dating for example), self-imposing restrictions to perform protective practices. This alternative interpretation of risk may provide a rationalisation for why some single mothers remain single, as the literature suggests they are less likely to marry or re-marry.

The externalisation of risk also has important ramifications for men. Risk discourses constitute single parenthood as a site of risk for the physical wellbeing of children.

Respondent data suggests these subjectivities have been broadened to include all children into the category of risk. Terry explained the difficulties he experienced Reference list socialising his children:

I find it very difficult because there's that natural phobia about males or

dads or singles … we haven’t had kids over to stay friends of kids who

didn’t know me in some respect whereas a mum would have no problem

and I can understand that there is a safety issue and there's the whole

society stance of taking well the worst case scenario and all the press

stuff but it puts dads fathers in a very bad position.

Terry implied he is considered a risk for other children because he is male. The intellectual knowledge discussed in chapter two stipulated single parents as a risk for their children’s wellbeing because of their defective parenting. Terry’s comments suggest this notion of risk has been subverted culturally to constitute single fathers as risks for all children because they are men. This data indicates the ‘slipperiness’

169

of discourses as they are “subject to endless reinterpretation’” (Scheurich,

1995:240). Interestingly, single fatherhood has generally escaped constitution as a risk in authoritative discourses as these subjectivities have primarily been constituted via single motherhood.

5.3.3 Born on the wrong side of the tracks: single parenthood as criminal risk

With risk discourses dominating authoritative discourses of single parenthood, the riskiness of these subjectivities are effortlessly constituted by media discourses as criminal risk. These subjectivities are dealt with separately in this section as they represent the extreme end of the risk continuum with harsh ramifications for single parents and their children. Media accounts in this category discussed criminal behaviours with various links made to single parenthood, such as the criminality of single parents, their children, or generalised to all single parents as a collective group. Reference list As dominant discourses, risk powerfully informs outsiders’ perceptions of single parenthood. In media discourses, single parenthood was constituted as a contributing factor for criminality and part of its truth claims about these subjectivities. In these discourses, a background in single parenthood apparently explains criminal behaviour:

Mark Dixie born into a broken home in South London, where he was

abused before being dumped at a children's home in 1982 and

embarking on criminal career of bashings and muggings (Miranda,

2008:11 in Sunday Telegraph).

Evidently, single parenthood is constituted as a contributing factor in the anti-social or criminal activity of this person. However, this notion of single parenthood as an excuse for antisocial conduct is most clearly illustrated by the following:

170

Judge Karas praised the family but said close family ties only showed

that Montgomery had no difficult childhood or broken home to blame for

his wrongdoing (Sunday Telegraph, 2008f:45).

The absence of a childhood in a single parent family worked against this person as it was stated he could not use his upbringing to excuse his behaviour. This data demonstrates the strong associations made in media discourses between single parenthood, delinquency, and criminality indicating the powerful influence risk discourses have on media discourses.

Not all discourses in this category provided explicit links to particular single parents and their children. Often, a generalised link was made between criminality and single parenthood suggesting the riskiness of these subjectivities. For example, an article about a man charged with assaulting his elderly mother stated:

our courts are full of the likes of the 37-year-old from Inala - you can see

the problems political leaders now need to address. Domestic violence, Reference list drug addiction, disabilities, broken families, how we treat the elderly, the

role played by courts and the indifference of many politicians - they're

the main themes of his case, which played out in the District Court (King,

2008:29 in Courier-Mail).

This text was not about a specific single parent or their child, but the journalist deliberately crafted a link to single parenthood to convey the threat of this position via criminal risk. The riskiness of single parenthood was also generalised and made explicit by crafting this link through geographical information:

THE Gold Coast is fast becoming one of Queensland's disadvantage

hotspots. Despite its glitzy image, the region has one of the state's

highest unemployment rates, a higher-than-average proportion of single-

171

parent families and the state's highest property-crime rate (Viellaris,

2008a:13 in Courier-Mail).

These examples suggest media discourses are powerfully informed by authoritative discourses like risk, which are then generalised to whole groups emphasizing the criminal risk single parents and their children represent for society.

Media representations also broadened risk to encompass single parents as adults with criminal behaviours. In these media discourses, single parents were connected to: welfare fraud (Connolly, 2008 in Sunday Telegraph); theft (Downie, 2008 in Daily

Telegraph); corruption (Lyons and Wilson, 2008 in The Australian); underworld crime families (Quigley, 2008 in Daily Telegraph); and the murder of a child

(Courier-Mail, 2008m). These accounts made explicit links to criminal risk and single parenthood as follows: “A struggling single mother who cheated social security for six years was jailed yesterday” (Oberhardt, 2008:20 in Courier-Mail); “a single mother who hangs her children and then herself” (Courier-Mail, 2008m:25); Reference list and “a single mother of nine steals to feed drug habit” (Downie, 2008:40 in Daily

Telegraph). These accounts render visible the construction of single parenthood as criminal risk in media discourses.

Within these media discourses, risk is not so much about a present and precise danger, instead it is the embodiment of individuals (especially groups) as encompassing “abstract factors which render more or less probable the occurrence of undesirable modes of behaviour” (Castel, 1991:287). Williams and Calnan argue knowledge is a “crucial resource through which the perception of risk is filtered”

(1996:1614). Authoritative knowledge on risk constitutes single parenthood as a specific locus for riskiness. Outsiders influenced by these perspectives envision the necessity of emphasizing the threat risky groups represent for society. Media

172

discourses as outsider discourses stressed the criminal activity of single parents to expose the threat this group represents for society.

5.3.3.1 A natural distrust: respondents engage with criminal risk

Respondents did not specifically discuss criminal risks. However, their discourses did provide evidence of nuanced perceptions of risk in their discussions about

Centrelink. Overall, respondents indicated positive interactions with Centrelink staff.

Nevertheless, accounts were provided by respondents indicating they perceived some Centrelink practices were premised on the notion of risk.

Respondents’ discussions about the actions of some Centrelink staff indicated a level of distrust and ‘disbelief’ about the circumstances of single parents, implying there is a degree of dishonesty within them. Marty explained how disbelief in her story was expressed by the Centrelink staff she interacted with:

Centrelink was a huge one for me because I don’t look like a poor single

mum the first time my husband left me … [I went to] Centrelink to get Reference list

some emergency housing or something and the first lady I spoke to I

wear makeup obviously and wear a small amount of jewellery so the first

lady I saw said ‘why don’t you hock your jewellery’ I cried and asked to

speak to somebody else and then the second lady was pretty much the

same she just said ‘ah I don’t believe you’ …[I] tried to explain to her that

I’m in dire straits nup wouldn’t believe me so then I called for the social

worker and when I got the social worker I showed her where I lived I

explained my situation and instantly I was given help (Marty).

Marty interpreted her interactions with Centrelink staff from the perspective of risk.

She understood her self image did not conform with their perceptions of claimants.

As a result, staff expressed ‘disbelief’ about her situation suggesting her dishonesty and possible criminality.

173

The Centrelink requirement for filling in forms was also viewed by respondents as evidence of the Departments distrust in its claimants. According to respondents, this lack of belief by Centrelink generated the need for constant form filling in order to prove the trustworthiness of claimants:

When I tried to get on to single parent parenting payment and I got onto

it eventually you have to prove your whole life from birth to the age of

whatever you are and I think I must have filled in a hundred pages of

documentation just to get the bloody thing … you have to prove every

step of what you do of everyday and every fortnight and what not …

following every cent … to fully justify my existence and I just found that

very frustrating … it was just a lack of belief (Ange).

As the need for filing in forms is ongoing, respondents interpret these practices as a demonstration of Centrelink’s continuous distrust in claimants:

You’re all the time filling out forms and giving them things you have

given them a hundred times before its just hopeless I have better things Reference list

to do with my time Centrelink take up too much of my time I’d rather be

doing better things for my children than filling out their stupid forms

which they’ve probably got all the information there on the computer and

I don’t know why I have to keep doing reviews … you have to explain a

situation twenty times and you have to repeat giving them information all

the time (Benny).

As these examples demonstrate, the constant requirement to provide information and fill in forms was interpreted by respondents as a lack of belief by Centrelink in its claimants. Respondents interpreted this practice as an indication that they were understood to be potential risks in terms of fraudulent claims.

174

Risk discourses sanction surveillance of target populations to seek out evidence of abnormality. As respondents’ discussions comprehend the practices of Centrelink as evidence of the natural distrust of this Department, they also perceived some of its other practices as forms of covert surveillance of their lives:

When my first daughter was a baby I was living on my own in a flat at

the time. I got a call from one of the people at my previous address

telling me that some guy from Centrelink came and knocked on the door

and was asking questions about my personal relationship and living

arrangements. Someone had told them I was living with the father,

which I wasn’t. I don’t know why. This guy from Centrelink started to

harass me – well it felt like harassment. I had to come in for an interview

and explain myself. I had to set about proving that I wasn’t living with

the father. I felt like a criminal. He even demanded that I tell him if I was

“seeing anyone”, even if it was just ‘casual’ (Tara).

According to Tara, this Centrelink practice operated from a perspective of risk Reference list constituting single parent claimants as potential criminals requiring external surveillance of their living arrangements.

Implicit within these respondent accounts of Centrelink is the belief that this

Department operates from a position of distrust to justify the need for continuous form filling and surveillance as a mechanism to keep claimants honest. Pollack and

Caragata argued the ‘professional approach’ by welfare officers in Canada was

“founded on disrespect and suspicion” (2010:268). Respondent discourses on

Centrelink practices appear to confirm a similar approach in Australia. This perspective is also supported by Webber and Boromeo who found that their respondents claimed they were subjected to ‘extra surveillance’ through Centrelink practices (2005:279). Risk discourses are implicitly understood by respondents to

175

inform Centrelink practices constitutes them as potential criminals with the need to continuously prove their trustworthiness.

5.3.4 Changing horses midstream and uncertainty of life: the contradictions of risk discourses

The media discourses in this study provide evidence of the contradictory nature of discourses, as meaning is always ambiguous (Mills, 2003). The notion of risk has been constituted within some media discourses suggesting an interpretation contradicting dominant risk discourses. Underlying dominant risk discourses is the premise that risk potentials can be calculated and managed. However, the commonsense view of risk is that something is a risk because it is unknowable or uncertain. That is, we do not really know what the outcome will be hence the risk it represents. In this broader sense risk becomes uncertainty. Within these media discourses, the notion of risk is expanded to incorporate life itself so that life represents uncertainty and consequently, a risk. Reference list In these accounts of uncertainty, risk is constituted as the risk of becoming a single parent because life itself is uncertain. Media discourses do not position single parents as the risk; instead single parenthood is understood as the result of risk.

The implication is that as we cannot guarantee the outcomes of our lives, with the possibility of single parenthood a risk that we all must factor into our lives because life itself is uncertain. This alternative version of risk is a demonstration of the contradictions of discourses (Foucault, 1976:102). Hence, the poststructuralist assertion that discourses are always “slippery, unstable, and ambiguous”

(Scheurich, 1995:240) is demonstrated by these alternative and contradictory versions of risk.

By emphasizing the diverse ways people entered single parenthood, media discourses craft life itself to be risky and uncertain. Obviously there are a number of

176

pathways leading to single parenthood. The first and more obvious route emphasized in these media accounts were via relationship breakdown (Clune,

2008a in Sunday Mail) or the death of a spouse (Cuneo, 2008b in Daily Telegraph).

The following example is used to demonstrate how the change from coupled parent to single parent was expressed:

I'm pretty sure he said he slept with her, which would make sense if he

was leaving me. He would need that sort of validation, you know, for

changing horses midstream … Oh my God. Kids. That's right. I look

down at my daughter. "But we just adopted a baby." The phrase "single

mother" pops up in my brain. I start to feel weightless as I cross the

divide between together and alone (Eustace, 2008:24 in The Australian

Magazine).

As this example demonstrates, the circumstances of parenthood can change instantly, with anticipated coupled parenthood quickly transformed to single

parenthood. The death of a spouse also propelled people from coupled parenthood Reference list into single parenthood:

Three years ago, he thought life couldn't get any better. He was married

to a woman he adored, had just bought the farm and the pair were proud

parents of a little boy, aged 2, and a six-month-old baby girl ... That all

changed when his wife Erin, 27, died suddenly (Cuneo, 2008b:9 in Daily

Telegraph).

These examples illustrate how the intention for coupled parenthood can quickly transform into single parenthood, thus demonstrating the uncertainty and riskiness of life. These notions of uncertainty undermined the concept of risk, with it now encompassing life itself.

177

Separation and death were the most obvious routes to single parenthood with both emphasized in these media discourses. However, death also brings with it the possibility of single parenthood for those not previously parents. Media accounts in this category outlined how people who were not parents became single parents after the death of a family member, relative, or friend. For example, there was the woman who became a single mother after her sister died and she became the

‘parent’ of her nephew (Turner, 2007 in Courier-Mail). There was also the grandmother whose single mother daughter died (Cuneo, 2008a:11 in Sunday Mail).

There was also the man whose parents both died and he “courageously carried on to effectively become a single parent to his prepubescent brother” (Bantick, 2008:14 in The Australian). These media accounts stressed the multiple routes to single parenthood, including those previously unconnected to biological parenthood. By emphasizing the dramatic changes generating single parenthood, the precariousness of life was conveyed. Single parenthood was therefore constituted as a consequence of the uncertainty of life, and closely associated with loss and Reference list tragedy.

5.3.4.1 Losing the big fig tree: loss as a manifestation of single parenthood

Respondents engaged with the notion of uncertainty stressing the loss they experienced via single parenthood. Loss was not a prominent theme of insider discourses as respondents’ emphasized their successes; however they also acknowledged the hardship and challenges single parenthood represents. The loss of a coupled relationship has serious ramifications for single parent families because it generates losses on top of the primary relationship, like extended family relationships or material resources.

In the context of the family, respondents mainly related loss to the in-law relationships. These extended family relationships appeared to be the hardest to

178

maintain and were frequently cited as lost through relationship breakdown and single parenthood. Ms Smith explained how this loss occurred for her:

We have no family support and when my husband died his family left so

it went from being the great big fig tree to being the three of us that was

a classic case of shooting the messenger it was my responsibility to tell

them of their son’s death it was like a roller door coming down and I’ve

never been able to really rebuild that relationship but it is slowly

improving.

As a result of the loss of extended family relationships, respondents spoke of having to go it alone on the parenting journey. Sari expressed how what it meant to be left to journey alone:

When the marriage broke up the family left us too if that’s the right term

he was one of eight so we had this huge family network … but nobody

has followed us along the journey even my family haven’t followed us

along the journey. Reference list

The breakdown and dissolution of relationships generated the loss of extended family relationships with respondents expressing concern for how these losses might impact negatively on their children:

I think my children miss out a lot because they don’t see my parents and

of course the in-laws they can only access the kids two days a fortnight

… we have no input no goodness no family backup … your family’s

halved instantly … I just wish that there was someone that would come

and say ‘kids I’ll just play with you today’ not to be a babysitter because

that’s not what I mean I mean someone who’s got an interest in your

child that cuts me (Marty).

According to respondents, relationships with ex-partners extended family were the hardest to maintain and those most frequently lost in the fallout of relationship

179

breakdown. These losses resulted in respondents constituting themselves as being left to go it alone, and children missing out on valuable relationships.

Another aspect of this theme of loss was about losing material resources and having to start all over again. For some respondents, loss was part and parcel of separation. Elvie stated “I lost half of what I had” because of her separation. Lou-

Jane provided a good example of the financial challenges generated by separation:

I’m 60 next year and all my super went everything’s gone because of the

settlement alright everything went so at sort of 50 whatever I was four

years ago five years ago mid fifties I had to start again.

As these examples demonstrate, separation and divorce have significant financial ramifications for single parents as respondent’s lost substantial portions of their assets when their relationships ended. Consequently, vulnerability was implicitly emphasized by respondents as these financial losses placed them in financially vulnerable positions. Reference list

Not all loss associated with single parenthood occurred as a result of separation.

For some respondents, loss came about because of the challenges of single parenthood, rather than separation itself. Catherine claimed, “I was a middle class income earner, with a mortgage, when I had my child. I eventually had to sell my house as I was unable to afford to keep it”. Majestyk recounted the losses he endured as a result of moving from access father to single custodial father:

When [son] came with me he was 9½ and I had a partner which was a

bit of a help … we ended up basically splitting up because there was

animosity between [son] and her … the first couple of years it was

extremely stressing (sic) … I actually had a business at the time when

[son] came across and the business itself through a little bit of fault of

mine because I was so stressed out and a lot because of the franchise

180

or whatever the business went bust I ended up being on a pension and

supporting [son] for quite a while cause I couldn’t get well I couldn’t go to

work because it was a case of he was too young at the time being at 10

to try and get full time work and then I guess pay for the caretakers and

the childminders and everything else I couldn’t find a job that would just

fit in with the whole association of it without the work we ended up

financially becoming totally desperate as far as just trying to get by it just

got to that situation where we were really lost there were a lot of things

that he just missed out on whereas previously when he was living with

his mother I was working full time had a very good income exceptionally

good income and when I did get a chance to see him we’d fly all over

Australia and I’d fly him here or there but all of a sudden as I said being

the single parent there was the loss of work [and] a loss of self respect

as well.

In addition to the loss of employment, Majestyk later stated that he and his son Reference list became homeless. This data suggests the constraints of single parenthood place considerable financial strain on some single parents, sometimes with devastating consequences for both parents and children. It also reveals some respondents lost many vital material resources as a consequence of single parenthood. Therefore loss is a feature of single parenthood that extends beyond the primary relationship to the loss of extended family and support networks, and valuable material resources. These insider discourses provide valuable insight into these subjectivities as outsider discourses predominantly emphasize primary relationships in the context of loss.

Although this data on loss indicates a level of vulnerability, the resilience of respondents suggests this data cannot, or should not, be read on its own. Hardy

Palmer and Phillips (2000:1232) remind us of the necessity of contextualising

181

discursive activity. That is, this data needs to be contextualised as part of the overall picture respondents convey about their lives. As they focused on both the challenges and positive outcomes39 of single parenthood, loss cannot be constituted as the dominant feature defining single parenthood.

5.4 Generating substandard beings: single parent and threat discourses

Risk discourses situate single parenthood as a threat to society, and therefore a social problem. The notion of threat was primarily established via the destabilisation of the traditional family, but it also incorporated other notions of social problems.

For example, King states, “[t]he problems political leaders now need to address.

Domestic violence, drug addiction, disabilities, broken families” (2008:29 in Courier-

Mail). In this example, single parenthood is envisioned as a generic social problem.

Generalised social problems included over-population, “[p]opulation control? …‘limit Reference list the single parent pension to single parents of one child. Everyone was entitled to make one mistake’” (Adams, 2008:45 in The Australian Magazine). Clearly, these media discourses perceive single parenthood to be a significant problem for society, and therefore a threat.

As a threat to the stability of society, single parenthood was effortlessly consigned to a problem of the lower classes. Shanahan states:

for the educated middle classes, who have other things to occupy them

in their 20s, such as education and professional training, there is a buffer

against the corrosive ‘no strings’ new morality. Yes, they have delayed

marriage and babies - the dramatic fall in the fertility rate of the '80s and

'90s reflected this - but eventually the middle classes are marrying and

39 See chapter 6 for the discussion on the positive aspects of single parenthood.

182

having children, forming stable families with no great harm done along

the way. But for the young underclass mothers and their children, this is

not the case. These girls are providing a growing proportion of the

nation's children, about 30 per cent of all births, which means a larger

proportion of our children are growing up fatherless, with all the

problems that entails: poor education, lack of family stability, lack of

male role models and so on. Not a good prospect for one of the richest

countries in the world (2008:28 in The Australian).

The terminology utilised by Shanahan in this media account is very divisive with the middle class aligned with notions of ‘education’, ‘professional training’, ‘forming stable families’, and ‘no great harm’, which are all features of good citizenship. In contrast, the lower class is represented as the ‘underclass’ with terms such as

‘corrosive’, ‘problems’, ‘poor’, and ‘lack’ indicating the defectiveness of this group of women, signifying their poor citizenship. The generalisations made about single

parenthood in these media discourses constitute it as a social problem, Reference list depersonalising and essentialising it, and gendering it as primarily a single mother problem.

The problem, and subsequent threat, of single parenthood was further expressed in media discourses via letters to the editor. Two examples are used to demonstrate this point as they explicitly employ notions of traditional values to situate single parenthood is a social problem. The topic of the first letter is sperm donation and the author clearly expressed his preference for the ‘traditional’ family unit:

If I were to donate I would want the child to grow up in a loving home

environment with a mum and a dad. I would be wanting to help a

childless couple, not a single mother or lesbians, to have children ... if

the child was being raised as a sub-standard being, some of the

183

responsibility rests with me for donating sperm and creating the life

(Daily Telegraph, 2007e:18).

The second letter tackles obesity:

We now have both parents working or a single parent, which means no

home-cooked meals. Overweight was not a problem in the past

because we had the male responsible for the income and the female

responsible for the home - a good system (Daily Telegraph, 2008b:18).

As these accounts demonstrate, the traditional family is contrasted against the claimed deficiencies of single parenthood, exposing the threat of single motherhood via ‘substandard’ and ‘obese’ children. The faultlessness of the traditional family is assumed with the problems of ‘obese’ and ‘substandard’ children removed from these families.

Media discourses broadened the single mother problem to encompass new social

issues, such as artificial fertility treatments (AFT) and sperm donation. As a result, Reference list the threat this group represents for society was elevated. Media accounts claimed these matters as contentious struggles of the right to parent against social expectations. Accounts on sperm donation discuss laws in Victoria excluding single women from accessing ART’s (Powell, 2008a in The Australian). Other media accounts draw attention to ‘loopholes’ in Queensland laws providing avenues for single mothers to pursue sperm donors for child support payments:

responsibility reverted to the sperm donor in cases where single women,

or women in same-sex relationships, had a child. This means an IVF

father can be pursued for child support payments even though he never

even knew the child's mother (AAP, 2008:2 in The Australian).

The availability of sperm donation through ART is constituted as a threat to men exposing them to the possibility of being held financially accountable for unintended

184

paternity. These accounts broaden the threat single mothers represent for men and society as a hold, strengthening the potency of these discourses.

Difference was another way media discourses conveyed the threat of single parenthood. Difference was emphasized in these accounts suggesting people in single parent families are not the same as those in traditional families. Maushart asks a child “if he’s ever felt different to other kids” (2008:28 in The Australian

Magazine). As the child’s parents are divorced, Maushart suggests he is not the same as other children. Although the article was written to express the idea of family diversity, Maushart’s focus on difference implies these families are different.

This idea was further stressed in The Australian with Lunn citing “[o]ne-parent families were more than twice as likely to have adult children living with them than couple families” (2007b:8), and Haynes in the Daily Telegraph asked “is a single mother of two walking around a shopping centre thinking the same things as a family in Perth?” (2008:22). Difference was also emphasized between single mother Reference list families and single father families:

Around 12 per cent of lone-parent families with children under the age of

15 are headed by men. These families tend to be smaller than those

headed by single women: 1.3 kids compared with 1.6 kids ... single-dad

hotspots are located in picturesque tree-change communities within

striking distance of capital cities ... Single mothers, on the other hand,

are more likely to cluster within middle suburbia (Salt, 2008:25 in The

Australian).

This representation of single fathers stressed the differences between these two family types implying one is better than the other.

The more favourable understanding of single fatherhood was further emphasized

Salt stating “it’s time to celebrate single dads and to reinstate them to the celebrity

185

position they held (on television at least) a generation ago” and “it’s time to bring single fathers into the mainstream and to celebrate the job they do” (2008:25 in The

Australian). He further asserts:

IN the 1950s the traditional nuclear family dominated US television ...

But as the baby boom progressed and as audience tastes matured, so

too did the need for variations on the happy family theme. It was time to

kill off mum ... I suspect the reason why widowers were popular was

because they were perceived as being less vulnerable than widows.

And besides, who could resist a widower stoically doing his best to bring

up kids alone? (Salt, 2008:25 in The Australian).

These media discourses construct a version of single parenthood situating it as different to coupled parenthood. Moreover, single fatherhood is constituted as better than single motherhood, and subsequently, less of a social problem.

Since single parenthood (implicitly understood as single motherhood) is constituted Reference list as a threat to the traditional family and a social problem, it becomes necessary to measure the extent of this threat. Media discourses attempts to quantify the extent of this threat. For example, it is stated “[t]he once-dominant traditional family unit is under threat by the soaring number of single parents” (Labi, 2008b:22 in the Sunday

Telegraph). Viellaris uses the numbers of single parents in a geographical area to explain the claimed high rates of unpaid child support. “Data shows 11 per cent of families on the Gold Coast are single-parent and men are responsible for the majority of child-support payments” (Viellaris, 2008b:1 in Courier-Mail). Reducing single parenthood to a population essentialises these subjectivities with a large and diverse group of individuals reduced to a few features constituting them as a threat for both society and the traditional family.

186

5.4.1 Sex and the single parent: shameless single mothers and philandering men

Media discourses constitute single motherhood as a threat to marriage and the traditional family by exposing the sexual activities of these risky women, implying they are promiscuous. Media accounts in this theme make reference to the sexual behaviours of single mothers, with many disclosing affairs with married men. In this way, they are implicitly constructed as threats for married women destabilising their marriages. Examples of this positioning are: a ‘single mother’ involved in “an ostensible sex scandal” (Shanahan, 2008b:12 in The Australia); a “separated mother of two [who] had an affair with her driver” (Neales, 2008:19 in Daily

Telegraph); a “shameless” single mother who “continues to cash in on her affair”

(Cartwright, Harris and Bartsch, 2007b:20 in Courier-Mail); a “crafty single mother” caught in a love triangle with a married “philandering duke” (McEachen, 2008c:108 in Sunday Telegraph); a “single mother [who] claimed she has been the spin king’s secret lover for the past two years” (Byrnes, Grant and Saurine, 2007d:23 in Daily

Telegraph); a single mother with a “substantial sex drive” (Abernethy, 2007:13 in Reference list

The Australian); a single mother who had “a one-night stand after the booze-soaked after-party” (Harris and Bartsch, 2008b:20 in Courier-Mail); the “long-time affair with exotic dancer and single mum” (Reines, 2007:126 in Sunday Telegraph); and the single mum who “prefers one-night stands” and “cruising the streets for good times with the opposite sex” (Orr, 2008a:14 in Courier-Mail). The public exposure of this sexual behaviour renders these women as promiscuous and immoral single mothers. By using words such as ‘shameless’ and ‘crafty’, their moral deviancy was made explicit. The connection to married men via ‘affairs’ and ‘secret lovers’, the threat they constitute for married couples is clear.

Interestingly, these accounts also rendered visible the ‘philandering’ actions of married men. These media discourses primarily focus on the sexual activities of

187

politicians and celebrities, highlighting their role in creating single parent families.

The actions of political figures featured heavily in these accounts, like the ‘energetic’

Australian politician “whose passion for social reform was matched by his womanising, [and who] was believed to have fathered at least five illegitimate children” (Faulkner and McGarry, 2008:5 in The Australian). Celebrities were also over-represented in these accounts with actor Jack Nicholson reportedly claimed

“he could well have fathered up to 9000 children” (Courier-Mail, 2007b:47). These media accounts on the sexual activities of single mothers and ‘philandering’ men, not only constructs these women as morally deviant, it also renders visible a gaping hole in research accounts of single parenthood. The role middle and upper socio- economic men play in the creation of single parent families has, until now, remained largely invisible. The conclusion must therefore be formed, that researchers do not consider these men to be part of the social problem of single parenthood, again revealing the skewed nature of the research in this field, with the over-emphasis on low socio-economic parents. Reference list

5.4.1.1 Stealing husbands: insiders respond to threat discourses

Respondents indicated they were cognizant of these discourses of threat. They argued partnered women envision they are out to ‘steal’ their husbands and imagine single mothers as a future vision threatening their stable world of coupled parenthood. As an act of resistance, respondents rejected the idea they are a threat to coupled relationships and reflect the negative connotations of these discourses back onto coupled women, positioning them as insecure.

Respondent discourses constituted the threat single mothers supposedly represent as primarily enacted by coupled women. They claimed coupled women situate them as threats to their relationships. They rejected these subjectivities and performed resistance by positioning coupled women into subjectivities of insecurity. Katlin

188

stated, “I have been perceived as a threat to other women in relation to their partner as being single must mean that I will try to go after their man”. Marie Smith also claimed, “when I’ve been invited to social situations there's been two occasions where women coupled women have felt very threatened by me and made it very uncomfortable”. Detailed examples were provided by respondents demonstrating the everyday context in which they were perceived as threats by coupled women:

Well I had a friend a male friend … we had no friendship other than he

was a handyman I would call once every six months ‘I’ve saved up a

morning’s work four hours of work can you come when can you come’ …

one day I mean I was grotty from head to foot I’d spent digging

shovelling you have no idea and he’d been around to help me do a few

things I continued on [after he left] I was sweeping and I was filthy I was

black he pulled up in the car with his wife in the car they’d had a shower

and were going out for dinner and I was just sort of doing the last bit in

the day light and he said something ‘I can come round and drop off that Reference list whatever whatever’ and she said ‘now I know where to come to throw

the eggs’ right and I’m thinking look at you absolutely gorgeous makeup

jewellery immaculate in a nice car with a husband here I am looking like

(laugh) something the cat dragged in and I’m sweeping away thinking I

have never had anything other than a professional and a friendly sort of

relationship with your husband it was enough to make her feel very

insecure and to make a comment to me (Terpchic).

Respondents as insiders claimed outsider discourses constitute single mothers as threats to coupled relationships. This understanding of single mothers informs partnered women’s responses to this threat, compelling them to take action to discourage associations with single mothers by threatening them with territory

189

marking behaviour, like throwing eggs. Respondents interpreted these actions as evidence of the insecurity of partnered women.

Respondent discourses also suggested the threat of single motherhood was constituted as a future vision by coupled women. This threat was the possibility of relationships ending and partnered women becoming single mothers themselves.

Rileys Mum explained this notion:

Some partnered parents don’t talk to me anymore, it seems me being

single proves to them that they also could be in this situation which

scares them and they have told me this and they don’t like spending too

much time with me because they fear their partners may see me coping

and they will know they can leave them.

Implicit within these discourses is the notion single parenthood is contagious like a virus or illness, something that is communicable through contact:

Some other people can be ‘keep away from her because she’s single or Reference list getting divorced and I don’t want to get that pick that up because my

marriage is hanging by a thread’ (laugh) so you can get that as well

(laugh) cause they’ve got huge issues in their marriage and they just

want you to keep right away from them so suddenly where you had a

friend you’ve suddenly got a vacuum happening (Ange).

Is notion that single parenthood is like a ‘virus’ is all represented in authoritative discourses with researchers using words like ‘exposure’ to indicate the level of risk single parenthood represents.40 Respondents rejected the notion they are threats to coupled relationships and deflected back the negative connotations of these discourses, positioning relationships as unstable and partnered women as insecure.

40 See section 2.3.7.

190

5.5. Surveillance via stigma, stereotypes and labelling: living publicly examined lives

Outsider discourses powerfully constitute single parenthood as a deficit model of parenting and by default, a risk and threat to society. Inherent to risk discourses is the need for surveillance and discipline of problematic groups in society. Foucault’s concept of discipline is premised on the understanding we are socialised to “make ourselves the subject of our own gaze”, thereby acting as our own surveillance officers (Danaher, Schirato, and Webb, 2000:54). For groups identified as risky the problem of discipline creates a need for constant surveillance. Fox argues “public scrutiny of private behaviors … has a regulatory purpose … the control of individual behavior through social means” (1999:826). For this reason, single parenthood as risk establishes the need for single parents to be put under surveillance, exposing them to public gaze.

The notion of living publicly examined lives arises for groups constituted as social problems, and was evident in the insider discourses of respondents. This Reference list surveillance was most obvious in discussions about ‘stigmatisation’, ‘stereotypes’, and ‘labelling’. It is not the position of this thesis to claim single parenthood is a stigmatised identity. Rather, it brings attention to the notions of stigma apparent in both outsider and insider discourses. ‘Stigma’ is the concept that dominates media discourses, and ‘stigma’, ‘stereotypes’, and ‘labelling’ all obvious in insider discourses. These concepts render visible how some single parents live publicly examined lives of risky subjectivities.

5.5.1 Soiled goods: single motherhood and stigma discourses

Stigmatisation is a concept feminist scholars employ to indicate the victimisation of single motherhood.41 This notion was evident in media discourses suggesting it is

41 See Section 2.3.9.

191

an outsider understanding of single motherhood. Media discourses assigned stigmatisation to the past (as if it was something that used to happen but now no longer does), and to other cultures (as something other cultures do but not ours).

There were many media accounts of a cricket sledging incident where reference to being born ‘out-of-wedlock’ was made to a member of a touring Indian cricket. It was asserted, the comment was “a cultural taboo and heaps great shame on a family” (Pierik, 2008d:22 in Courier-Mail). Importantly, this idea one is stigmatised if born ‘out-of-wedlock’ was assigned in these media articles as part of Indian culture.

Media discourses imply Australian culture does not stigmatise those born ‘out-of- wedlock’, thereby positioning this concept as a feature of other cultures.

The stigmatisation of out-of-wedlock childbearing was also assigned to the past in

Australian culture. Johnston discussed a person’s family history and states the family name was changed “to avoid the stigma of William’s illegitimate birth”

(2008:48 in Courier-Mail). Lennon claimed, “women who gave birth out of wedlock Reference list were stigmatised” (2008a:24 in Daily Telegraph). McWhirter stated, “if you think of the 1950s and prior to that - an unmarried mother with a child wasn't accepted in the community” (2008c:42 in Daily Telegraph). This idea was further articulated by

Davies with the statement “the general population was not happy about girls getting pregnant out of wedlock and many babies were adopted and sometimes taken from their mothers at birth” (2008:52 in Sunday Mail). Houghton’s comment “her own mother told her she was ‘soiled goods’ unlikely ever to find a decent man” (2008c:48 in Courier-Mail) expresses the stigmatisation of these subjectivities. Media discourses in this study clearly perceive the stigmatisation of single motherhood to be a behaviour of the past, suggesting it as an outmoded way of thinking.

On careful analysis however, evidence was found in media discourses suggesting stigmatisation of single parenthood still occurs today, although it is more covert than

192

overt. In a letter to the editor a reader stated, “I appreciate that pensioners have a tough time, but don’t lump me in the same category as welfare cheats. I’m an honest, hard-working single mother trying to do the best I can for my son” (Sunday

Telegraph, 2008a:86). Another asks “can we, finally, expect a lessening of the generic and infantile stereotyping of sole-parent families by the media and politicians?” (letter to the editor, The Australian, 2008l:15). These accounts imply single parents are still a stigmatised group. The veiled stigma of single parenthood is evident in the following text:

THE ALP has pulled a sudden switch in its choice of candidate for the

looming Gippsland by election, choosing a father of two who joined the

party just two days ago over the single mother who stood last year. The

last-minute change comes amid fears from some in the ALP that the

marital status of the former candidate, Jane Rowe, would prove a

detriment in the deeply conservative Victorian electorate (Wallace,

2008b:6 in The Australian). Reference list

This media account implies disapproving social attitudes are still prevalent in society with a person’s marital status morally judged. Wallace (2008b) stated Jane Rowe’s career opportunity was obstructed because she was a single parent, thus rendering visible the stigmatisation of this subjectivity. Clearly, single parenthood is still subjected to a stigma, limiting the opportunities available to single parents. The belief in a stigma operates as if there is a stigma.

5.5.1.1 Sucking breath and having to tell the bad story: insider discourses on stereotypes, labels, and stigma

Stigmatisation was also apparent in insider discourses. Again, this research is not claiming single parents are stereotyped, labelled, and stigmatised. Rather, these are issues respondents raised in relation to single parenthood. “I have no doubt there is a stigma attached to the words ‘single mother’. A woman is generally

193

perceived in many ways by society as a burden for family, the workplace, the taxpayer, and potential relationships” (Mars). Cate stated “under the previous federal government I really did feel it feel that stigma as a single parent in their policy decisions … even though I had chosen to work it felt as though the choice was being taken from me”. This section presents insider discourses where respondents reflected on their positioning by outsiders claiming they have been

‘labelled’, ‘stereotyped’, and ‘stigmatised’.

The first aspect of these discourses was the notion of being labelled.42 ‘Labelling’ was understood by respondents as something that was imposed on them by others outside single parenthood and meant being categorised or ‘placed in a box’. Benny explained what it meant to be given a label:

Before you were able to tell your story or explain the situation

immediately you were labelled and put in a box … just immediately you

were judged and immediately before you could explain the situation you Reference list were immediately labelled and that was the problem because you were

a single parent and I came across that a hell of a lot and it just was so

wrong.

Being ‘put in a box’ suggests truth games where alternative truth claims of insiders are marginalised or silenced by outsiders. This notion is further demonstrated as

Benny explained how her son’s behaviour (later attributed to a disability) was

‘labelled’ and deemed a consequence of her single parenthood:

My eldest son has a disability … until the teachers got to know me it was

very much ‘your son has a behaviour issue because you’re a single

parent and you can’t control his behaviour because you’re a single

42 Labelling in this context was not based on the concept of Labelling Theory. It was merely a notion respondents discussed making it a theme in respondent discourse. This research is not claiming to make a link to labelling theory.

194

parent’ and that was the label that was placed on him right from a very

early age … the doctors did come up with a diagnosis.

As Benny demonstrates, her son’s behaviour was interpreted by teachers via deficit discourses where her parenting was perceived as defective and thus, the cause of her son’s behaviour problems. Burr reminds us, the power of authoritative discourses results in “some discourses and not others receiv[ing] the stamp of truth”

(2003:76). Benny’s subjectivity of single parent surpassed her authority to make truth claims about her son’s behaviour. As a result, her explanations were disregarded as they were not in harmony with the teachers understanding of her as a single parent.

Respondents interpreted labelling as damaging, marginalising, and hurtful. ‘Labels’ were constituted by insider discourses as outsider’s truth claims incompatible with respondents’ accounts of themselves. Katlin argued, “It can be hurtful when all single parents are labelled ‘welfare cheats’ and have multiple children to different Reference list partners and that we all get everything for nothing”. Coffee Nazi also objected to being label:

I think that the label in itself is limiting and damaging I don’t like labelling

single parents I don’t like labelling gay parents or whatever because it’s

the label that marginalises them.

Fowler argues, a “stereotype is a socially-constructed mental pigeon-hole into which events and individuals can be sorted, thereby making such events and individuals comprehensible” (1991:17). Fowler’s notion of stereotype suggests a form of shorthand for understanding people and events. This interpretation appears to fit with respondents’ notion of labelling. Respondents therefore claimed outsiders employ

‘labels’ as shorthand to understand single parenthood, with the ‘label’ supposedly representing the truth about single parents.

195

Labelling was part of the notion of being stereotyped. Within these insider discourses, labelling appeared to be more individualised in that respondents had personal accounts of being ‘labelled’. In contrast, stereotyping seems to be more generalised. “I think single parenthood and single parent families are sort of held out as this example of what happens to children when things go wrong” (Cate).

Respondents also claimed part of the stereotype of single parenthood is the assumption single parents are never-married parents and their children have different fathers:

If people find out you’re a single parent there has been assumptions that

either I choose that for myself or that I was some woman that went and

got pregnant to some guy or that I had a number of children to different

fathers there’s those different kinds of perceptions real negative

perceptions about people’s circumstances as a single parent without

really ever finding out what the circumstances were so I think that is a

real perception about it and I’ve had that with people that have sort of Reference list made comments about my personal situation without knowing what my

personal situation was.

As Susan demonstrated, insiders understand outsiders’ assumptions about their situation generating stereotypical knowledge which has little bearing on the actual situation of respondents. Cate explains how these assumptions are expressed through social interactions:

They make a lot of assumptions people are always quite shocked when I

say I have five children anyway whether I was partnered or single

because it’s just not a common thing anymore and then when they find

out you’re a single parent I always sort of feel like throwing in ‘ah but it’s

okay they’ve all got different fathers’ or something because you know

what they’re thinking you just know it’s on the tip of their tongue they

196

want to ask you ‘is it the same father?’ and I think I’ve only been asked

once but people do make a lot of judgments and I think too when you’ve

got that many children I think there is an assumption that they must be

from different relationships or something so people do assume a lot …

people can be quite insensitive about it.

Respondents imply ‘stereotypes’ operate as shorthand for outsiders to construct their knowledge about single parenthood. Respondents employ the notion of

‘assumptions’ to make sense of outsider positioning when confronted with stereotypical claims not according with their own account of their situation. The term

‘assumptions’ is used to indicate the lack of factual information informing outsiders’ understanding of single parenthood, implying outsiders are ignorant about it.

As part of the aims of this project was to explore the material effects of discourses, respondents gave examples of negative encounters with outsiders. Victpoint explained how, as an older single mother of choice, her interactions with a new Reference list mothers’ social group were informed by stereotypes:

I went to a play group when I first came out here and had [son] and all

the mums were sitting around and they were all whinging about their

husbands and not doing this and that sort of stuff and then they said

‘what does your husband do’ and I said ‘well actually I’m a single parent’

and a couple of women went ‘urgh!’ like that like fucken the hairs on the

back of my neck went up and I thought here you are you’ve got a brat of

a child slagging your husband and you suck in air at the fact that I’m a

single parent I was well dressed I had makeup on [son] was immaculate

and they were all saying ‘how sweets he’ soon as I told them I was a

single parent geez I was actually quite offended and I was angry anyway

so I left I got up and left and they were like ‘I’m sorry blah blah blah’

‘don’t worry about it maybe next time be a bit more discreet about your

197

[prejudices]’ I just found that really bizarre there was probably about 12

women there and it was a community play group this was the damn

community group so they should be expecting all sorts of family

dynamics and stuff.

Insider discourses suggest outsiders employ negative stereotypes to inform their knowledge of single parenthood. Respondents argued this use of stereotypes positions them negatively as single parents, which they find offensive.

Dividing practices were also evident in the respondents’ discussions of stereotypes.

Respondents argued public perceptions are divided and depend on the category the single parent is ‘slotted’ into. According to respondents, single fathers are perceived differently to single mothers:

If I say ‘I’m a single mum with two kids’ or if my ex-husband says ‘oh I’m

a single dad with two kids’ people see that completely different he’s the

hero and I’m the ‘you must have done something wrong’ or ‘you failed at Reference list your relationship that’s why you’re in this situation’ so it’s quite different

(Karma).

Catherine stated “it is generally seen that the woman must be at fault. I rarely found people questioning my child’s father’s status”. Kate asserted “single fathers seem to have a better ‘perception’ from members of society”. Stella claimed the public perception of gendered differences apply to the parenting role:

One thing I notice was it’s my job to look after the kids but if the father’s

looking after the child they’re doing me a favour and it’s like you’re not

doing me a favour you’re spending time with your child its weird I don’t

understand it.

Respondents argued stereotypes are gender based with women positioned as responsible for parenting and single fathers constructed more favourably than single

198

mothers. The comments by Karma, Catherine, and Stella allude to Salt’s construction above of single fathers as ‘heroes’ (see section 5.4) and supports

Kleist’s assertion, “the public may support single fathers’ efforts to succeed more than single mothers” (1999:375). Insider discourses suggest dividing practices operate at a gendered level differentiating single fathers from single mothers, situating one as better than the other.43

Dividing practices were also apparent in insider discourses via age and route to single parenthood. Respondents argued public perceptions are structured differently depending on the age of the single parent and the circumstances that lead to it. Katie argued:

I think that views depend on the single parent’s age, but in general it is

quite negative. I think that if a person under about 30 (as a rough age)

is a single parent, people are negative, assuming that the child hasn’t

been planned, or has been born from a ‘mistake’, and they view the Reference list parent as irresponsible, and immature to a degree. I think that society

also generalises, and that they believe that single parents older than this

must have conceived their children as part of a relationship, and

therefore are more ‘accepted’ by society, and not viewed with that ‘single

parent dole bludger’ stigma that many younger single parents are.

According to Katie, age is an important element in the construction of stereotypical ideas about single parenthood, with younger single parents constituted as

‘immature’ and ‘irresponsible’. The circumstances leading to single parenthood is also claimed to signify the ‘type’ of single parent a person is believed to be:

Depends on what type of single parent you are if you’re a widow it’s not

your fault if you’re divorced it depends why if you’re young you get

treated differently I think it depends on why you’re a single parent … and

43 See also section 2.4.

199

whether you’re like a working single mum … and if you’re got a whole

heap of kids and you’re on benefits they just think that you’re popping

out kids for money and it depends on what you look like everything

(Stella).

According to insider discourses, there are subtle aspects to single parenthood stereotypes, with age and route signifying the division of ‘good’ from ‘bad’. Dividing practices are enacted differently in these discourses from those of authoritative discourses where single are divided from coupled, females divided from males, and then divided again via ethnicity.44 What does remain constant however, is the implication one form of single parenthood is better than another.

Respondents argued the media is an influential factor contributing to the stereotyping and stigmatisation of single parenthood. They singled out the media as contributing to and enforcing notions of the stereotypical single parent. According to

Catherine, “such stereotypes seem to be exacerbated by some sections of the Reference list media”. Susan argued, “any news report you see [if] its of single parents you see the teenage mother pushing the pram with a trail of children behind her so there's never any other type of portrayal of single parents other than that one”. Stella also took issue with this portrayal of single parenthood:

What drives me insane is like you know those Today Tonight shows and

its always those like the 18 19 year old girl who’s got 3 or 4 kids to

different dads and she’s just feral that is how single parents are

portrayed like they don’t they never talk about the older single parents.

Respondents were critical of the media for what they perceive as limited and uninformed depictions of single parenthood. They argued the media pushes a

44 See section 2.4.

200

version of single parenthood informed by risk discourses and constructed around teenage single motherhood as deficit parenting.

According to Talbot (2007) and Williams and Calnan (1996), media messages powerfully inform individuals understanding of social subjectivities. Respondents argued the media was a powerful constructor of negative subjectivities for single parenthood. These subjectivities are so powerful; it is hard for people to move beyond them in order to understand single parenthood in any other way:

I had a stereotype before of single parents years ago there was a

commercial on TV and it was about why women couldn’t find time to get

a pap smear test and they go through ‘could be the weather’ and then

there was one that says ‘I’m a single mum with a daughter’ that was one

it always stuck in my mind to say well single parents don’t take care of

themselves they have financial difficulties they’re in that situation

because of something that they might have done and usually they might Reference list abuse alcohol they’re heavy smokers they don’t look after their children

and all that sort of stuff and I think that society still has that kind of view

on them but on the other hand my mum’s a single mum so although I

had that stereotype of other people I never saw that in my mum so even

now like when I say ‘I’m a single mum’ people kind of go ‘ah really’ they

kind of have a bit of pity on you in some ways so I don’t think that’s very

fair (Karma).

Karma’s example demonstrates that although she herself was raised by her single mother, she was unable to recognise the disparity between the media image of single parenthood and her own understanding of her mother’s situation. Now she herself is in this position, she argues it is ‘unfair’ when she experiences the negative consequences of this stereotype. Karma’s discussion clearly illustrates the

201

difficulties people experience separating media constructed images about others, regardless of how close they are to the situation themselves.

As a tactic of resistance, respondents explained their attempts to distance themselves from single parent subjectivities. “I don’t advertise that I am a single parent by any means as I don’t want to be judged for it” (Sonic). Kelly explained her attempts at distancing herself from negative subjectivities:

Most days I’m volunteering in some sort of a field and I have found that

awkward when people specially when say you go out and you’re at a

club or something and they go ‘so what do you do’ and I’ll just say

‘whatever I want’ (laugh) and they’ll go ‘no no really what do you do you

must be in fashion or you’re a nurse or something’ and I’ve worked out

now a happy medium where I say either I’m in nursing which I was in

nursing or I work in disabilities because my foster child has disabilities

and I always did work in disabilities so it’s sort of partly the truth but it Reference list makes them happy gives me a label and that’s what people are looking

for.

Single parenthood requires additional work to create ways of distancing one’s self from the negative subjectivities. This is an important undertaking, as successfully resisting negative subjectivities may have tangible consequences for single parents in terms of social support.

Stereotypes are important because they influence the level of social support respondents receive. Although research indicates social support is a crucial factor for successful transition into single parenthood,45 not all respondents received beneficial support. Rosie Blenkiron stated “I get almost no support from my family”.

For some respondents, families are divided in their support:

45 See for example, Robinson (2009) and Levine (2009).

202

My family is split in their support/opinion of me. Some people in my

family offer me emotional, practical, sometimes financial support and say

that they think I’m doing an amazing job, despite my circumstances.

Others say I am an embarrassment to them and am not achieving

enough in my life (eg. financial, career, relationships) to provide a strong

enough role model to my daughters (Molly).

Molly’s example suggests living up to the expectations of others is important as her level of support is dependent on her ability to do so. Rileys Mum also explained the necessity of accounting for her situation in a form acceptable to outsiders in order to obtain support:

My family offer support as long as it suits them, which was not often …

my family tell my story to everyone as it is, if anyone asks they say my

ex strangled me and I had to get out, which tends to always get the kind

words of ‘wow she was doing a good job’, however I don’t know why I

need to tell the bad story to get people to accept my single status, they Reference list

should just realise something happened and I am doing it alone.

Respondents expressed the need for conformity with outsider expectations in order to obtain approval and support. Implicit within this data is the notion of deservedness as support is constituted as contingent on single parents ability to conform to outsiders perceptions of acceptability. For those whose deservedness was obvious, support was unconditional: “as an older single parent they knew that I wasn’t a flibber de gibbet or whatever and I had the most fantastic support from the community friends neighbours” (Lou-Jane). However, for others support was dependent on constructing a version of themselves that indicates their deservedness.

203

As a reaction against stereotypes and labels, respondents performed resistance and constitute outsiders as thoughtless. They crafted subjectivities for outsiders positioning them as thoughtless because they lacked knowledge and understanding.

“I don’t think there is any rationalisation for that negative stigma I believe that it is people that don’t have insight don’t understand other people’s situations empathy”

(Marty). Survivor1 asserted “some people are just like got no clue no clue and they’re like that about everything anything that’s not in their framework of what’s normal goes to hell in a hand basket (laugh)”. Respondents argued outsiders utilises simple understandings garnered from stereotypes to construct their knowledge of single parenthood. Through this notion of thoughtlessness, loss of friendships and social exclusion occurred.

Respondents asserted single parenthood was the basis for losing friendships. “I believe their interests change and in my experience coupled people mainly associate with other coupled people. I have had many relationships over the years Reference list fade out as I do not ‘fit’ their lifestyle” (Kaitlin). Difficulties in maintaining relationships with coupled friends resulted in respondents being ‘dumped’:

You were dumped in a way that you weren’t invited to things anymore

because they have their little group of what I call the Noahs Ark

Syndrome the two by twos by twos and they go out for each other’s

birthdays and I used to go out with them when I was married but not

anymore you were dumped (Elvie).

Webber and Boromeo found respondents in their study were “dumped from friendship groups because they were now single, and thus a ‘threat’ to others”

(2005:274). Being ‘dumped’ is akin to social exclusion. Majestyk stated “I haven’t been invited anywhere for many many years (laugh) too long I couldn’t even remember”. Elvie expressed annoyance at being relegated to the singles table at weddings: “I don’t want to be at the singles table I don’t want to be with singles all

204

the time I want to mix with people”. She suggests this assignment to the singles table amounts to an exclusion from coupled friends. Dividing practices are evident in these accounts as social exclusion divides singles from couples. By positioning outsiders as thoughtless, respondents deflected this negative subjectivity onto outsiders and performed resistance.

Insider discourses constitute outsiders as using stereotypes to enable a quick and easy categorisation of single parents to ascertain their course of action, such as befriend them, support them, or avoid them. By linking support with outsider expectations, the idea of living a publicly examined life is rendered visible. Truth games were evident in these discourses as we are reminded to examine “[w]ho speaks, according to what criteria of truth, from what places, in what relations”

(Rose, 1998:178). Insiders perceive outsiders’ use of stereotypes and labels as evidence of their ignorance and thoughtlessness, thereby redirecting negative subjectivities back onto outsiders. Reference list

5.5.2 Public scrutiny and the problem of teenage single mothers

Teenage single parenthood is a prominent issue with public interest high on this matter. Authoritative discourses overwhelmingly construct teenage single parenthood as a social problem in need of fixing.46 It is considered immature parenthood with discourses of risk and developmental psychology powerfully informing these subjectivities. An effect of this is that teenage single motherhood attracts considerable public scrutiny, which leads to claims teenage single mothers live publicly examined lives. Media discourses situated teenage single motherhood as a social problem in need of fixing. The strength of these discourses was demonstrated by the emotive terminology employed in media accounts examined for this study, conveying teenage single motherhood as a problem.

46 See section 2.3.8.

205

The concept of living a subjectivity open to public examination was most evident in accounts expressing public outrage and indignation over a claimed school girl ‘baby pact’ in the US. The alleged incident was reported in the Courier-Mail by Trujillo

(2008) who used terms like ‘shock’, ‘aghast’, ‘disturbing’, ‘alarming’, and ‘bizarre’ to stress the inappropriateness of this behaviour. The seriousness of this event was conveyed by the words ‘gravity’ and ‘exploded’, with a statement repeated three times in the article that the matter has been referred to police for investigation.

Reference was also made to the community as a “hard-luck New England fishing town” implying this form of single motherhood was a career choice for low socio- economic women. The immaturity of the women involved was expressed by focusing on their chronological age and situating them as easily seduced and passive receptacles for vacuous Hollywood culture:

the blame lies with the nation's Hollywood-obsessed culture … “Baby

bumps get written about the same way designer handbags do. It's just

one more lifestyle choice, just another personal expression: these Reference list shoes, this bump and that handbag,” Ms Brown said. “It's not surprising

that teenage girls can get confused or even seduced by the allure of

celebrity pregnancy” (Trujillo, 2008:48).

The young women in this account were further divided from norms of good citizenship by emphasising their deviancy:

“A typical girl you would think would say, ‘Oh my God! What am I going

to do now? How am I going to support this baby? How am I going to

finish school?’ “These young women clearly have not seen that” (School

superintendent cited in Trujillo, 2008:48).

Their deviance was further expressed by claiming one possible father may be “a 24- year-old homeless guy” (Trujillo, 2008:48). Trujillo’s (2008:48) account alerts

206

readers that certain forms of parenthood are not socially acceptable, especially single parenthood by teenagers.

The inappropriateness of the behaviour of the women in Trujillo’s (2008:48) account was emphasized by their lack of conformity with norms of good citizenship. Graham asserts “we are free only in so long as we ‘choose’ to adhere to the narrow parameters of the social norms established by and through existing relations of power” (2007:207). Evidently, media discourses do not consider teenage single parenthood as appropriate forms of good citizenship, instead relegating it as immature parenthood and evidence of problematic citizenship. The manner in which this account was constructed serves as a warning to young people not to demonstrate poor citizenship in this way by emphasizing the public moral outrage and condemnation that accompanies these subjectivities. These media discourses render visible the public aspects of single parenthood, especially teenage single motherhood, as these subjectivities provoke public criticism and condemnation. Reference list

5.5.2.1 Stuffing up your life or creating opportunities: insider discourses on teenage single motherhood

With teenage motherhood constructed as immature motherhood, young mothers were subjected to public scrutiny via this subjectivity. Insider discourses provided evidence of normalisation practices engaged in by respondents to deflect this condemnation of their teenage parent status. These discourses suggest that, although chronological age is used by outsiders to indicate the immaturity of teenage mothers, ageing does not appear to remove these women from this subjectivity entirely. Insider discourses imply the strength of negative discourses about teenage motherhood created negative material effects for young women by outsiders undertaking action to mitigate the riskiness of these subjectivities.

Respondents rejected the negative connotations attached to their roles as teenage

207

mothers, and demonstrated resistance by claiming a more enabling subjectivity by stating teenage motherhood was an opportunity maker.

Respondents argued outsiders made comments about the quality of their parenting and made assumptions about the type of person they must be simply because they had been teenage mothers. When asked if she received many negative comments as a young mother Marie Smith stated “I did I really really felt it I felt very inadequate and out of place in society”. Stella too stated she was subjected to negative comments as a young mother: “I found when I was younger you’d get the dirty looks at the shops and you go to Centrelink and they treated you badly because you’re young”. Marie Smith explained how the disapproval that accompanies young motherhood compelled her to ensure she conformed to social standards:

Well I think that because I was a very young mum I have felt that

pressure to justify my behaviour from that point onwards and so I

probably went to the full other extreme so that I toed the [line]. Reference list Marie Smith’s statement rendered visible the performative function of normalisation.

Rose asserts “the most powerful way of acting upon the actions of others is to change the ways in which they will govern themselves” (n.d.). Normalisation practices as a technology of governance draw attention to abnormality to induce conformity, as the individual “achieves freedom and power only under the condition that he [sic] become isomorphic, or similar in form, to all the other individuals in the society” (Meyer, 1986:211). Marie Smith understands that her subjectivity as teenage mother was defective compelled her to change her behaviour and conform to social norms in order to deflect further public censure: which she termed “doing the righty”. Her example also demonstrates the paradox of single parenthood as respondents expressed that at times they conformed with outsiders perspectives of their subjectivities (via internalisation), and at other times engaged in practices of

208

resistance. These insider discourses render visible the public scrutiny and censure teenage mothers are subjected to as deviant subjectivities.

Chronological age is fundamental to the construction of teenage single motherhood as immature parenthood. Interestingly, insider discourses indicate ageing does not remove these women from this subjectivity. Marie Smith (now considerably older) explained how she still attracts cross-examination from outsiders because she was once a teenage single mother:

I’d have to say new people annoy me particularly when they find out I’m

a single parent and when they calculate my age of motherhood and

judge me I rarely foster new friendships.

When asked to explain this statement Marie Smith elaborated further:

I’ve got two children and they’ve got very large numbers in between 11

and so I’m not terribly old but I feel a bit more respectable now because

I’m heading toward middle age but because I was a young single mum Reference list people even currently they will see my oldest son and myself and they’ll

‘oh how old were you when you had your boy’ and I feel really horr[ible] I

feel really uncomfortable saying … or they’ll say ‘how old are you now

and how old are you [to son]’ and they’ll calculate I hate it very

judgmental in front of you they’re doing the calculations it’s just horrible I

think it’s an invasion of [privacy].

When asked who asks these questions Marie Smith replied:

Just about everybody male and female it’s just horrible it really is (laugh)

very horrible and sometimes I just look at them and stare and think ‘well

do you realise how rude that is and how invasive’ and I don’t know what

it is about me that they think it’s okay to crunch the numbers.

These examples demonstrate the power of immature parenthood discourses, as

209

Marie Smith (now as an older mature woman) is still subjected to public examination because of her parenthood. Marie Smith’s examples are evidence of the strength of outsider discourses as chronological maturity has not shielded her from a public gaze.

The social construction of teenage parenthood as immature parenthood has had serious material effects for individuals occupying these subjectivities. The intense interest in teenage single motherhood is generated via the notion these women pose significant risks for the well-being of their children. Babs explained how her first child was taken from her and her partner as they were believed to be immature parents and thus a risk to their child:

My first child was taken from his father and me when I was sixteen

because we were considered too young and unmarried to deserve to

keep him when there were so many respectable married couples who

couldn’t have a baby. Reference list The forced adoption of Babs’ child is evidence of one route taken by outsiders to address the risk teenage parenthood poses for children. It also renders visible the adverse effects of discourses for those pathologised by them. Tara provided another example:

My most memorable negative experience was when I was pregnant with

my first child and the father coerced me into visiting his doctor for a

paternity test. I didn’t take the test, but I did let myself be subjected to

his doctor telling me that he recommended I have an abortion because I

was ‘too young’ and I ‘didn’t even have a job’. He tried very hard to

convince me that I was not going to be a worthy parent and went so far

as to give me the phone number for the abortion clinic after I clearly

stated that I was not going to have an abortion. It still makes me angry

210

now to think about it, and I’m so glad I didn’t listen to him. That was in

1996.

Tara’s comments indicate her doctor was informed by risk discourses situating young mothers as immature, inadequate parents and considerable risks for children.

As a consequence of this understanding of young motherhood, this doctor went to extraordinary lengths to encourage Tara to terminate her pregnancy. These insider discourses draw attention to the material, and often negative, effects of discourses that dominant fields of knowledge and marginalise or silence alternative perspectives.

Respondents rejected the subjectivity of immature motherhood. They argued young motherhood created opportunities by providing direction and enhancing their lives.

They stated motherhood forced them as young people to take more responsibility for their lives. Stella stated, “by having him so young it’s made me want to do something with my life so I did study I went back to school I worked and I think that’s Reference list a reward”. Bec also made this claim:

Before I had my son I was probably just floating about and didn’t really

have a lot of direction and I think after having him it kind of woke me up

a bit and that’s what’s pushed me on to go and do further study and

work and all those things.

Respondents claimed young motherhood provides direction and opportunity, via study and employment training. For these reasons, they rejected the idea young motherhood results in negative life trajectories:

I choose not to be negative about it I’ve had people say ‘that’s it your

life’s over’ when I had my youngest ‘you’ve stuffed your life up’ and I’m

like ‘no I haven’t’ why think like that if I thought like that I’d probably be in

that situation so try and be positive (Stella)

211

The respondents in this study that had been young single mothers used the opportunities provided to them via motherhood to find purpose for their lives and take the opportunity to study and gain employment skills. A number of them had been through, or were currently at, university. Others had trained for employment in other areas.

These findings are similar to those of Schultz (2001) and Hanna (2001) who both claimed teenage single motherhood can be personally transformative. Respondents in this study envisioned young motherhood as simply a life stage that happens earlier for some women than for others. This interpretation allows other life stages

(such as education and travel for example) to be reordered to fit into a new life trajectory. As some of these respondents are now one, two, three, or four decades on from teenage motherhood, they exemplify how young people can move past negative and constraining subjectivities like immature parenthood and become productive members of society. Importantly, respondents exhibited resilience by Reference list moving on with their lives and rejecting the limited subjectivities constructed for them because of their parenthood. They performed resistance by reshaping their life trajectories and claiming positive subjectivities for their family structures by stating single parenthood was an opportunity maker.

5.6 Conclusion

This chapter has discussed discourses dominating authoritative knowledge about single parenthood as they were reworked in both media discourses and insider discourses. Insider discourses were used to draw attention to the effects of dominant discourses for those inside subjectivities. Authoritative discourses do not sit in a vacuum; rather they influence and inform people understandings of

212

themselves and others. The games of truth evident in discourses were made obvious as subjectivities were claimed, contested, resisted, and destablised.

This chapter has focused on the discourses informing research literature as authoritative discourses. It has documented the cross-over of these dominant discourses into media discourses and insider discourses. The discussion presented by juxtaposing the discourses of outsiders and insiders demonstrates the refractory nature of discourses as they are given meaning from multiple perspectives. As deficit discourses dominate authoritative discourses, the subjectivities of outsider discourses are overwhelmingly negative. For this reason, this chapter has concentrated on the constraining or limiting ways of understanding single parenthood. The next chapter presents media discourses and insider discourses that envision positive and enabling ways of thinking about single parenthood. Reference list

213

Chapter 6 Re-thinking single parenthood via resilience and metamorphosis

6.1 Introduction

Chapter five discussed media and respondent discourses relating to dominant authoritative discourses identified in chapter two. It showed how authoritative discourses set the parameters for what can and cannot be said about single parenthood. Although authoritative discourses appear to dominate the way we think about single parenthood, they do not silence completely alternative discourses.

With a poststructuralist approach informing this study, alternative and marginalised discourses are rendered visible. This chapter therefore presents media and Reference list respondent discourses from the margins, and offers other ways of thinking about single parenthood.

Marginal discourses are primarily rendered visible via insider discourses, and to a lesser extent, media discourses. As marginalised discourses, the subjectivities discussed in this chapter address research question five by rendering visible alternative subjectivities with constructive and enabling ways of thinking about parents who are single. The two dominant themes underpinning these marginal discourses are citizenship and parenthood.

Contrary to dominant discourses, media discourses constitute a version of single parenthood that is aligned with good citizenship. These subjectivities occur via accounts of political events in Australia, especially the 2007 federal election.

214

Correlating with these subjectivities of good citizenship are media versions of single parenthood as good parenthood. Media discourses construct these subjectivities by crafting links between successful people and single parenthood. These media subjectivities destabilise dominant single parenthood discourses as they highlight the many ways that parents who are single are successful as individuals and as parents. Good parenthood is also demonstrated via discussions of successful people raised in single parent families. These subjectivities are at odds with dominant discourses that predominantly envisage single parenthood as detrimental to the wellbeing and outcomes of children, and thus, deficit parenthood.

Insider discourses also constructed subjectivities within the frames of good citizenship and good parenthood. Respondent discourses framed the struggles and challenges of single parenthood via a lens of personal growth and metamorphosis.

That is, respondents acknowledged the hardships of their situation and were also able to understand the positive effects single parenthood has in their lives, and Reference list therefore, what these subjectivities have allowed them to do. With a focus on the constructive aspects of subjectivities, a reconstructing of single parenthood in positive and enabling ways occurs.

6.2 Media fashioning single parenthood into good citizenship

This section discusses media discourses constituting single parenthood as good citizenship. These subjectivities are constructed via two themes. The first crafts single parents as a powerful voting force responsible for the ousting of a long term popular government. The second is influenced by a strong Australian cultural belief, that of the ‘battler’. By using the ‘battler’ subjectivity, single parents are constituted as both successful parents and good citizens.

215

6.2.1 The mouse that roared: Single parents as voting powerhouses Single parenthood as an influential voting power is discursively situated at the macro level of Australian culture with voting rights understood to be fundamental to citizenship. There are two features to these discourses producing different subjectivities for single parents. The first theme constructed single parents as a powerful voting force mobilised by the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) in order to oust a popular government (Milne, 2007a in Sunday Mail). In the immediate aftermath of the federal election, single mothers were constituted in media accounts as a powerful voting force responsible for the downfall of a long term incumbent government. With the swearing-in of the new government, many politicians were depicted as claiming a nexus with single parenthood, usually as a child from a single parent family. Hence, the second theme explores the exploitation of single parenthood by politicians as a tactic for reflecting residual ill feeling towards the government lingering in this newly recognised powerful group of voters. Reference list

Newspaper media accounts explored for this study depicted the ACTU as waging a campaign against the then Howard government’s Work Choices policy via the single parent vote. This campaign capitalised on the image of “a tearful single mum”, and was claimed to be “pivotal in swinging voters” (Canning, 2008:34 in The Australian).

Canning described this fictitious single mother as “the marketing mouse that roared”

(2007:6 in The Australian). According to Emerson, the advertisements tapped “into a strong Australian sentiment that it is unfair to sack good employees on the spot with no explanation and no remedy” (2008b:12 in The Australian). These media accounts implied single parents retaliated against the Howard government with such ferocity, that they expelled it from power:

The decision to force single mums out to work ... [was] implicated in the

Howard Government's devastating defeat ... They may have taken out

216

their anger, about being forced into the workforce, on the Government

(Dunlevy, 2007:8 in Daily Telegraph ).

The power of the single parent vote was further emphasized by Pearson:

By Monday it was clear that, of the 10 seats with the biggest swings to

Labor … eight had an extremely high incidence of single-parent families

(2007:28 in The Australian).

These accounts of single parents are powerful.47 They imply single parents are a cohesive voting cohort with significant leverage bringing down a popular and long- standing government.

The framing of single parenthood in this way in these media accounts is almost unique. The collective voting power of single parenthood is almost entirely missing from research literature. Minor traces of this theme were evident in Atkinson,

Oerton and Burns (1998) research into media and political discourses of single motherhood. They alluded to the political power of single parenthood by discussing Reference list how explicit public vilification of single mothers by politicians in the UK in 1997 backfired. As a result, they claim some ministers were ousted while others had to change tactics when pushing their conservative policy agendas (Atkinson, Oerton and Burns, 1998:64). Although Atkinson, Oerton and Burns (1998) imply the explicit vilification of single parents in the UK backfired on politicians, they did not envisage single parents as a powerful and cohesive voting cohort.

No discourses identified in chapter two imagined single parenthood as a subjectivity of power, especially a collective power available for harnessing by savvy political campaigns. To the contrary, single parenthood was overwhelmingly constituted as a marginalised and disempowered subjectivity. These media discourses provide avenues for rethinking single parenthood as a legitimate and cohesive voting cohort

47 These accounts were strongly correlated with single motherhood.

217

and a collective power to be reckoned with. By constituting single parenthood with voting power these media discourses align it with good citizenship, although perhaps unintentionally. They also demonstrate the unpredictability of discourses as material effects can never by fully and accurately foreseen (Burr, 2003:77).

6.2.2 Growing up in shabby Vauclause: single parenthood as tactical support for politicians

One outcome from the discourses rendering visible the voting power of single parents was that politicians appeared to recognise the weight of this voting cohort.

Media accounts suggested politicians attempted to align themselves favourably with single parents in order to avoid their wrath by explicitly claiming a nexus with single parenthood. It was implied this account occurred as a strategy to deflect any residual anger lingering from the federal election. Primarily, these media accounts were dominated by stories about the Honourable Malcolm Turnbull, the then leader of the Liberal party (Madigan, 2008 in Courier-Mail), however other politicians also

engaged in this conduct. Reference list

Media discourses emphasized Mr Turnbull’s background as a child of a single father and the apparent hardship that entailed. It was claimed, Mr Turnbull “acted early to head off envious Labor attacks on his personal wealth by pointing out his early life in a rented flat with a single dad” (Shanahan, 2008c:4 in The Australian). “He moved to shake his millionaire banker tag, saying he grew up as the child of a single father and knew what it's like to live in rented flats'' (Farr, 2008b:1 in Daily Telegraph).

According to Franklin, Mr Turnbull claimed “I do not come to the position of leader of the Liberal Party from a lifetime of privilege ... I know what it's like to be very short of money” (2008a:1 in The Australian). Overington and Madden state that as a child he “had to deal with being alone, and with trauma” (2008:1 in The Australian). In the

Daily Telegraph Mr Turnbull confessed that “as a young person he knew what it was to go hungry, to be short of money, to live in dingy rented premises and be brought

218

up by a single parent” (2008s:24). Clearly, Mr Turnbull, as the newly elected leader of the opposition, is constituted in these media accounts as robustly aligning himself with single parenthood.

Media discourses suggested Mr Turnbull capitalised on his background as a child of a single parent to appear more ‘in touch’ with the Battlers of society. This notion was made clear in an article titled ‘You call that poor’ with the following comments made:

Newly elected Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull, in an attempt to

eclipse Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's stories of childhood hardships, has

revealed that he once lived in a rented flat with his single-parent father in

shabby old Vaucluse48 (O’Connor, 2008:84 in Courier-Mail).

Media accounts imply politicians attempted to align themselves with single parenthood as a tactic to gain voter sympathy and appear more in touch with the average voter. Single parenthood is constituted as a political powerhouse via the Reference list subjectivity of powerful single parent voter, and also the eagerness of politicians aligning themselves with this voting cohort.

Although Mr Turnbull dominated these discourses, he was not the only politician constituted as capitalising on a background of single parenthood hardship. Brendan

Nelson (The Australian, 2008b), Danielle Ecuyer (Howden, 2007b in Daily

Telegraph), Brett Raguse, and James Bidgood (Houghton, 2008a in Courier-Mail) were all reported to have constructed themselves in this way. Dr Nelson reportedly drew on “his personal experience as a doctor and his father's separation from his unmarried teenage mother” (The Australian, 2008b:17) to claim:

Knowing the impact of my own father's removal from his unmarried

teenaged mother, not knowing who you are is the source of deep,

48 Vaucluse is known as a prestigious suburb in Sydney.

219

scarring sorrows the real meaning of which can be known only to those

who have endured it (Lyons, 2008a:4 in The Australian).

James Bidgood also reportedly articulated this connection:

My mother ... was a single parent ... I was fostered out when I was born

at St Andrew's Hospital, by the railway tracks, in Bromley-by-Bow ... I

can truly say that I was born on the wrong side of the tracks (Houghton,

2008a:60 in Courier-Mail).

These media discourses imply politicians went to great lengths to point out their connection to single parenthood as a tactic for distancing themselves from the privilege generally associated with Parliament. Politicians made these connections explicit in order to avoid the same fate as Mr Howard. It was speculated this occurred as a response to the newly conceived understanding that single parents were a powerful voting force. Through the flexing of single parents collective voting power, politicians paid homage to this newly recognised status. Reference list Interestingly, these subjectivities were only visible in media discourses. Neither authoritative (researcher) discourses nor insider discourses constituted single parents in this way. Respondents did not make reference to their voting rights.

Cate was cognizant of the marginalisation of this issue:

That’s probably been one of the great revelations for me … I work in the

media so I shouldn’t be surprised but I suppose the general attitude

towards single parents as a group … its different from aged pensioners

or disability pensioners single parent pensioners are like this subclass of

welfare recipient people have been bleating long and loud about the

changes to the aged pension that sort of came through last year that

was a long campaign to try and get some sort of cost of living balance

happening for aged pensioners … single parents weren’t included in the

changes to legislation I don’t remember any commentator or any

220

comment anywhere from a member of the public saying what about the

single parents they’re just seen as this subclass of welfare recipients.

As Cate states, the organisation Grey Power successfully advocated for the rights of retired citizens by emphasizing their collective voting power. In spite of the construction of single parenthood as a powerful voting cohort, and one that was recognised by politicians, this understanding of single parents does not appear to have strong cultural currency.. The employment of these discourses by advocacy groups could dramatically alter the discursive constructions of single parenthood in the public arena.

6.2.3 The single parent battler: media discourses influenced by cultural beliefs

Implicit within almost all discourses discussed in chapter two was the notion single parenthood was a deficit position demonstrating poor citizenship. The concepts underpinning deficit perspectives like hardship and adversity were interpreted in media discourses via the lens of the Australian cultural icon of ‘the battler’. The Reference list

Macquarie Dictionary states the ‘battler’ is a colloquial term used to describe someone who “struggles continuously and persistently against heavy odds” and is “a conscientious worker, especially one living at subsistence level” (1987:148). By drawing on these notions, as well as discourses of meritocracy, media discourses constructed versions of single parenthood that aligned it with good citizenship and success.

Media accounts of specific single parents emphasized their self-discipline and hard work in their effects to overcome the adversity envisioned as intrinsic to single parenthood. These accounts suggest media discourses are not merely reproductions of authoritative discourses, instead being a complex mix of dominant cultural beliefs and dominant discourses resulting in alternative subjectivities. As a

221

result, battler subjectivities can be understood as media utilisations culturally specific discursive ideas that promote norms of good citizenship to a group generally considered poor or problematic citizens. Thus, the battler subjectivity can be understood as media discourses crafting exemplars for good citizenship for single parents.

Media discourses in this category constituted single parents as battlers. Shearer stated “the people borrowing from fringe lenders are our state’s real battlers; single parent families…” (2008:24 in Courier-Mail). The terms ‘battle’, ‘struggle’, ‘juggle’,

‘hardship’, and ‘hard luck’ were used frequently within these media accounts to express the conditions necessary for battler subjectivities. Specific single parents were described as a “battling single mother” (Lawrence, 2008a:4 in Daily Telegraph) and a “battling farmer and single father” (Cuneo, 2008b:9 in Daily Telegraph). They were also described as having to face ‘battles’: “there was a battle being waged here” (Jones, 2008:23 in Courier-Mail); “it has been a battle from the start” (Gullan, Reference list 2008a:126 in Daily Telegraph); and “left to battle on their own” (Milne, 2008:13 in

Sunday Mail). They struggled to make ends meet (Ostrow, 2008 in The Australian

Magazine), to find love (Harris, 2008 in Courier-Mail), or simply to find the will to live

(Cuneo, 2008b in Daily Telegraph). Emphasizing the idea that single parenthood is a challenging role enabled it to be framed with battler discourses. Adversity was part of the challenge of single parenthood and an important concept for battler subjectivities. Individuals needed to be seen to be working hard to overcome adversity in order to justifiably be constituted as a battler.

Media discourses emphasized adversity to express the hardship of single parenthood. The concept of hardship was important for battler subjectivities as it was necessary that specific individuals were seen to be deserving of support and recognition. Media discourses stressed the hardship of successful individuals by

222

highlighting their childhood backgrounds. The following statements demonstrate this concept: “the commonplace hardship of growing up in a broken home”

(Coombes, 2007:100 in Sunday Telegraph); and “the hardship of growing up with a single mother” (McAsey, 2008a:4 in The Australian). Success was claimed to occur because of, or in spite of, this hardship: “despite the hardships, or perhaps because of them, he would reach the wealth and privilege beyond the comprehension of most

Australians” (Egan, 2008:52 in Sunday Mail). The deservedness of success for these individuals was established through battling, struggling, and juggling the hardships associated with single parenthood. With success occurring because of or in spite of these hardships, the notion of meritocracy was interwoven in these discourses emphasizing the importance of hard work to overcome adversity and achieve success. Thus, good citizenship is performed via hard work and success.

The ethical self in battler subjectivities was situated in notions of the hardworking citizen. Media discourses situated specific single parents in this way as they were Reference list claimed to be hardworking to secure a good or successful future for their children.

The notion of the hardworking single parent was most clearly expressed in the following example:

On weekdays from 8am until 5pm, she worked as a machinist in a

clothing factory. After the evening meal, she worked at home making

sheets, pillow cases and mosquito nets and became an expert in

alterations to men's and women's clothes. On Saturday mornings she

cleaned houses and flats while on Saturday afternoon she cleaned the

local Congregational Church, then did her own family's washing and

ironing (Courier-Mail, 2008d:19).

The necessity of hard work was communicated in these discourses to express the level of effort needed to achieve success and fulfil the requirements of good citizenship.

223

Foucault’s concept of technologies of the self (2003:145-169) is relevant to these subjectivities as single parents are presented as having internalised the notion of hard work and are thus able to claim an ethical self. This idea was demonstrated in media accounts situating specific claims to selfhood by single parents, such as: “I work two jobs” (Sunday Telegraph, 2008j:115); “I’m an honest, hard-working single mother” (Sunday Telegraph, 2008a:86); “I am a single mother of three boys who works two jobs” (Daily Telegraph, 2008g:38); and “I work two jobs so my children can attend private schools” (Sunday Mail, 2008h:66). Hard work was a necessary condition of battler subjectivities, which constituted single parents as deserving of their success, or the success of their children. These subjectivities render visible normalisation practices informing media discourses as norms of good citizenship are discursively emphasized to stress how good citizenship should be performed.

Media discourses constructing battler subjectivities stressed the need for hard work in order to overcome the hardships of single parenthood. They did this to signpost Reference list the necessary conditions for performing good citizenship for single parents. These subjectivities were underpinned by notions of meritocracy and highlights normalisation processes with single parents provided exemplars for modelling their behaviours. Battler subjectivities underscore good work ethics and draw on ideals of good citizenship and good parenthood as good parents are constituted as working hard to meet the needs of their children. These discourses were silent in authoritative discourses as single parenthood was not comprehended in terms of success in chapter two.

6.2.4 Reaching stellar heights: single parenthood as success

Battler subjectivities enable single parenthood to be framed via success. These media discourses incorporated many success stories about single parents and their children. They were predominantly constructed around high-profile people such as

224

celebrities, top-tier business people, and athletes with the following individuals’ connections to single parenthood stressed: Kerry Stokes (Egan, 2008 in Sunday

Mail); J.K. Rowling (Witheridge, 2008 in Courier-Mail); Tara June Winch

(Hohenboken, 2008a in The Australian); Nova Peris (Daily Telegraph, 2008c); Elle

McPherson (McNicoll, 2008a in The Australian); Lea Gay (Lund, 2008 in Courier-

Mail); Kate Atkinson (Jewell, 2008 in The Australian); Erin McGowan (Walshaw,

2008 in Daily Telegraph); Tara Morice (Daily Telegraph, 2008u); Alannah Hill (Lam,

Hoyer, Halliwell and Reines, 2008 in Sunday Telegraph); Antonia Kidman (Byrnes,

Grant and Saurine, 2007a in Daily Telegraph); Liz Byrski (Noonan, 2008a in

Courier-Mail); US president Barack Obama (Balogh, 2008c in Courier-Mail); and

Queensland Premier Anna Bligh (Trad, 2008 in The Australian). Successful people were constructed as taking personal responsibility for their lives and working hard to overcome adversity and challenges: all of which are paramount to performing good citizenship within neoliberal discourses. Reference list Media accounts discursively constructed success in diverse ways for single parents.

The success of single fatherhood was demonstrated by being: “named the hottest man in the world” (Edwards, Harris and Bartsch, 2008c:32 in Courier-Mail); “a successful doctor” (Anderson, Ross, Jones and Rodgers, 2008:22 in Courier-Mail); and a “business manager” (The Australian, 2007c:20). The Courier-Mail situated success for single mothers as: a writer “stunned by [a] book’s success” (Lund,

2008:29); winner of the “1995 Whitbread Prize” (Sibree, 2008b:20); and winner of

“the Telstra Businesswoman of the Year award in 2005” (Tilbury, 2008:57). These examples indicate success for single parents is broad and constituted in assorted ways. The presentation of success in ordinary individual’s lives highlights normalisation processes at work in these discourses:

After nine years as a single parent raising my daughter, I finally

purchased my very own ground-floor apartment in a small boutique

225

block of four in Cammeray. It was the first property I'd purchased on my

own, without a partner, and it was my statement to the world that single

mothers can have a career, be successful and raise a child. It was a

defining moment in my life and one I'm exceptionally proud of (letter to

the editor, Sunday Telegraph, 2008b:6).

These examples clearly constitute single parenthood in successful terms and contradict the subjectivities dominating authoritative discourses. These accounts highlight the problems with the sampling techniques dominating research in this field as such success stories would be excluded from most studies discussed in chapter two. They also provides examples of the performative function of media discourses as they reinforce norms of good citizenship.

With the necessary condition of battler subjectivities being the need for overcoming adversity, success cannot be promoted if it was not perceived as deserving. Elle

Macpherson was described as having “had her challenges” (Lambert, 2008b:15 in Reference list Sunday Mail). Millionaire businessman Kerry Stokes was also stated as claiming life as a single father “was really a challenge” (Egan, 2008:52 in Sunday Mail). Finally,

Antonia Kidman was quoted as stating “it’s not until you face challenges that you realise you can cope with them” (Byrnes, Grant and Saurine, 2007a:25 in Daily

Telegraph). Emphasizing the challenges these individuals have overcome constructs their success as ‘deserved’ which is essential for maintaining an ethical self. These discourses serve to signpost good citizenship as a means of encouraging and producing good citizens.

Following on from the successes of single parents are the successes of their children. Media accounts in this category presented highly successful people from single parent backgrounds. Success was demonstrated by the following statement:

“from the commonplace hardship of growing up in a broken home, to the stellar

226

heights of international fame and adoration” (Coombs, 2007:100 in Daily Telegraph).

The strength and determination of the parent was crafted as pivotal to children’s success. Attention was drawn to this commitment through statements such as:

“[she] was so determined to give her daughter every chance to succeed” (Craddock,

2008c:51 in Courier-Mail); and she “worked two jobs to scrape together enough money to send her little girl to athletics carnivals” (Gullan, 2008c:103 in Sunday

Mail). The determination of the parent was stressed in media discourses to convey the level of commitment parents need to make in order for their children to succeed.

Although success is an alternative subjectivity not apparent in authoritative discourses, such discourses still influence media knowledge of single parenthood.

The idea that children’s success is determined by the level of commitment made by the parent is informed by discourses of good parenthood holding parents accountable for the outcomes of their children, regardless of whether those outcomes are good or bad. Success subjectivities still interpret single parenthood Reference list via deficit discourses as parents have to work hard to overcome the adversity these subjectivities entail. Unlike authoritative discourses, media discourses did not appear to lock single parents into deficit subjectivities and establish a route out of adversity through success via hard-work and determination.

Media accounts of highly successful people constituted single parent families as having the capacity to produce successful children. These versions of single parenthood destabilise subjectivities dominating authoritative discourses situating single parenthood as damaging and detrimental to good outcomes for children, as if it is a foregone conclusion. Media discourses provided evidence of the many successes arising from single parenthood. The children from single parent families were constituted as capable of becoming leaders in their chosen fields. These discourses highlight the complexity of discourses conceiving multiple subjectivities

227

(Burr, 2003) as deficit perspectives are reinterpreted into enabling subjectivities.

They also highlight normalisation practices with ‘the productive subject’ fashioned through media discourses as a ‘free choosing self’ adhering to norms of good citizenship projecting the onus for success squarely onto individuals.

6.2.5 Constructing good single parenthood through devotion

Media discourses of success were underpinned by notions of parental determination and commitment. These concepts were constituted as parental devotion to children.

Devotion was necessary for envisioning single parenthood as good parenthood by in media discourses. The following statements demonstrate this concept: “[d]evoted single mother” (Hellard, 2008a:68 in Courier-Mail); “[s]uch was her dedication to her daughter” (Craddock, 2008b:94 in Courier-Mail); “devoted to her children” (Lawrence et al, 2008:4 in Daily Telegraph); and a “devoted and loyal father” (Farr, 2008b:1 in

Daily Telegraph). Good single parents were constructed as ‘devoted’ to their children through the terms ‘committed’, ‘dedicated’, and ‘devoted’. Reference list

These accounts also expressed the level of commitment required to demonstrate devotion, such as making sacrifices: the “single father who has deferred full-time studies to drive his son to training all over southeast Queensland” (Chilcott, 2008:13 in Courier-Mail); and the single mother who “gave up everything for the kids”

(Montgomerie, 2008:28 in Daily Telegraph). The idea that good parenthood is performed through devotion was demonstrated in an article about Elle Macpherson where it was claimed the “devoted single mother” stated “[t]oday I am a single parent. I don't have any staff because I have chosen to be a more present parent”

(Lambert, 2008a:58 in Sunday Mail). Within these media discourses, good single parenthood was understood as performed by parents prioritising their children’s needs ahead of all else: “this single dad works every day to be both mother and father to his child. What matters most to him is his son’s happiness” (The Australian

228

Magazine, 2008b:38). Media discourses craft good single parenthood via parental commitment, dedication and devotion to children with the goal being their happiness, wellbeing, and success.

6.2.5.1 The pull of the Supermum phenomenon: respondents engage with good motherhood discourses

Respondents were cognizant of these discourses of good parenthood via devotion.

Devotion comes from good motherhood discourses and is embodied in supermum subjectivities. Respondents felt the influence of these discourses on their parenting and resented outsiders questioning the quality of their motherhood.

Supermum discourses stress that good mothers are devoted mothers. Female respondents discussed the effects of these discourses on their parenting roles.

Cate explained the influence of supermum discourses: “there’s a lot of pressure I think on mothers in particular now to be perfect to be the perfect mother and to devote your entire life to giving your children everything”. The cultural prominence Reference list of this discourse exerts pressure on women as mothers with respondents feeling pressured to conform to this ideal. Katie explained how supermum discourses influence her parenting:

I’m already feeling the pull of the ‘supermum’ phenomenon, I already

feel like I should be doing ‘more’, in relation to housework,

fitness/leisure, study, etc. I worry about my ability to be able to do all

these things, as well as be sole carer for my child 24/7.

As respondents felt the effects of these discourses they were also able to identify the crucial elements of these subjectivities:

To be superwoman you have to work you have to upkeep your house

you’ve got to have well behaved smart kids doing well at school and if

anything goes wrong its always the mothers fault like you’ve failed in

some way (Stella).

229

Supermum discourses place the emphasis for parenting with mothers. Any problems children may experience are envisioned as the fault of the mother, through some lapse in good mothering. These discourses have strong cultural currency and exert pressure on women as parents. Interestingly this issue was not raised by the single father respondents suggesting they do not experience the same degree of pressure regarding their parenting.

A crucial element of supermum discourses is devotion. These interpretations of devotion require mothers to put their children first. Although respondents acknowledged the importance of prioritizing children’s needs and wellbeing, they resented outsiders questioning their devotion to their children, implying they were not good parents. They argued outsiders insist that they must always put the needs of the children first, ahead of their own needs, wants, and desires:

My parents had a subtle way of inferring that my leisure time (which was

negligible) should not see me involved in any way with a man as this Reference list would be detrimental to my children’s well being – read; children’s needs

come before all else ... there is no room for your personal needs, wants

or desires (Mars).

Mars perceived her parent’s expectation of continuous devotion to her children as a sign of good parenthood. According to respondents, ex-partners also imply devotion is a sign of good parenthood. Stella explained how her attempt at socialisation resulted in her ex-partner cutting off child support payments:

Work had Thursday night drinks at the pub a couple of weeks ago the

father was meant to watch the boys and then I think he kind of clicked

that I was going to the pub and he’s like ‘no stuff you I’m not watching

them’ … and so he thought I was a bad mother and so he cut off his

child support because if I can afford to go out on a Thursday night he

doesn’t need to pay child support so it’s like I have to justify that yeah I

230

can afford 20 bucks at the pub like I can afford to have a few drinks at

the pub it’s not a big deal.

According to Stella, her ex-partner constituted her need for socialisation as a sign of bad parenthood and questioned her devotion to her children. As a form of censure, he stopped her child support payments to force her behaviour back into the parameters of his expectations of good motherhood. According to respondents, their efforts to take time out from their children were seen as a sign of bad parenthood by outsiders. These insider discourses suggest these subjectivities are enacted by outsiders (especially ex-partners) as a form of control to constrain respondents’ behaviours.

Although respondents positioned themselves as good parents, they perceived outsiders as interpreting good parenthood through devotion. This resulted in respondents believing they had been positioned as bad parents because they wanted their own leisure time. From respondents’ perspectives, outsiders attempted Reference list to censure their behaviour and bring it into line with normative expectations about appropriate parental behaviour, such as devoted parenthood. These findings are comparable with Webber and Boromeo’s findings suggestion support for single parents is conditional on compliance with outsider expectations of devotion to children and an absence of a life outside the family (2005:276).

These insider discourses constitute single parenthood as an all-encompassing form of parenthood requiring great personal sacrifice on the part of individuals as parents who are single. They also demonstrate the power of discourses as they make people in particular ways that have material effects. Outsider discourses, especially media discourses, frame good parenthood via devotion to children which has consequences for single parents not performing this version of good parenthood.

231

6.3 Rocking their boat: schools enacting deficit parenthood

Insider discourses also suggested schools were a major institution that questioned the quality of parenting in single parent families. Respondents’ discussions about their interactions with social institutions indicated that schools may be utilising deficit perspectives as knowledge bases for understanding single parenthood.

Respondents argued schools operate on the normative of the traditional family sidelining alternative families in the process. Respondent discourses also suggested schools situate single parenthood firmly within risk discourses and constitute it as deficit parenthood. These deficit perspectives constitute single parenthood as the cause of behavioural problems (and lower educational function) in children.49 Although respondents predominantly expressed positive interactions with schools, they also provided examples of negative encounters implying deficit subjectivities inform school perspectives.

Respondents argued schools operate on the normative of the heterosexual nuclear Reference list family. They stated feeling excluded when their family structures did not conform to the normative standards of these institutions. These situations mostly arose in relation to school forms:

I think I’m a minority they generally don’t cater for single parents for

example on enrolment forms there’s always mothers name fathers name

that sort of thing I just scribble it out to make a point that you’ve

excluded my family situation in your paperwork (Coffee Nazi).

She further argued “there’s no excuse for it because with the databases that we can have these days and just the way that we operate we should cater for different family types different family units” (Coffee Nazi). As Coffee Nazi’s comments indicate, the paperwork required for school enrolment adheres to the notion of the

49 See section 2.3.7.

232

traditional family. As Coffee Nazi’s family did not conform to this normative structure she felt her family had been excluded.

Respondents perceived schools as operating under normative expectations which are no longer relevant to current society. They claimed this lack of identification of alternative family arrangements can have real (and potentially serious) ramifications for single parent families:

There was one incident where we rewrote out the contact details for the

children an emergency contact is me first and then I wanted to put their

fathers second because I’ve told the fathers ‘if they can’t contact me it’s

your responsibility to come and get the kids from school’ well apparently

the program that a lot of Queensland schools run on only has one space

for fathers details so they’ve erased my first child’s father’s details and

put in the second one so when my child was sick and they couldn’t reach

me they automatically rang the other parent which was not that parent Reference list and I said ‘well that’s quite confusing because I can’t expect that man to

leave his job to come and get my other child’ of course he did but that’s

not the point … nowadays the way families run they should have

something else in place or be able to attach something to say don’t ring

that parent for that child that was something that really got to me

(Padme Skywalker).

Padme Skywalker’s example highlights the serious consequences for some families when schools do not recognise diversity in family units. According to respondents, not only are alternative family structures discounted, so too are alternative primary caregivers.

Respondent discourses indicated schools operate on the norm of the traditional family and do not engage adequately with fathers. Karma stated “because I’m the

233

primary caretaker they [the school] inform me a lot more than him [child’s father] they don’t really deal with him much on the school stuff”. As a result of this normative expectation, Terry as a single father experienced difficulties being accepted into the system: “its very difficult to be accepted in any kind of school network or parent network or that type of thing”. According to respondents, schools sideline families not conforming to the norm of the traditional family. This expectation discounts alternative family arrangements such as Padme Skywalker’s and establishes barriers for single fathers as primary caregivers like Terry.

Respondent discourse also expressed how school personnel constitute single parenthood as a deficit family structure demonstrated by interactions with these personnel. Mars stated “I distinctly remember certain teachers and principals void of empathy and most judgemental of my situation” (Mars). Ange explained the contradiction of schools being both supportive and judgemental:

Teachers the older generation may have been a little bit judgemental Reference list about it and have been supportive on the one hand but a little

judgemental on the other in terms of my kids behaviour they’ve not been

consistent some of them in their approach to my children and

understanding sometimes and other times they haven’t they’ve thought

‘well why has it happened I mean you must be a very dysfunctional

family if you’re going through a divorce’ sort of thing.

Ange suggested the behaviour of some school personnel indicated to her that they perceived single parenthood as a dysfunctional family. Katlin provided an example of how interactions with school personnel are understood to be judgmental:

I have had an issue with my son’s school in the past. He has injured his

eye at school during an activity approximately 10 months earlier and at

the time I had raced him to the hospital and optometrist as his vision had

been blurry. So about the 10 months after he was complaining of

234

problems with the eye, so I booked him in to GP who referred us to the

RCH to have him tested. I rang the school to explain what was

happening and if he did have problems with the eye how they might

support him eg: put in front of class etc. I was promptly told by the

admin woman that if I was so concerned about him why did I not do

anything straight away when the injury occurred and the school was not

going to pay for anything (not why I rang). And that I get everything for

nothing anyway as a single mum on a pension. I must admit I did let fly

a little when I told her that I did do something for my son at the time and

he has struggled silently with this on his own accord and secondly I

actually work full time to support him and do not get assistance, I pay for

all his needs. Hence to say she shut up but when I raised this with the

principle I never received acknowledgement or apology.

According to Katlin, her frustration with her son’s school was caused by the school staff making assumptions about her personal family situation. This example Reference list suggests the school was unwilling to engage in constructive dialogue with Katlin to ascertain her son’s particular needs. According to Katlin, her experience was overwhelmingly negative because the school personnel viewed her from the negative subjectivity of deficit parenthood. In particular, the assumptions that she was welfare dependent and a defective parent were evident in this example.

Katlin’s statement suggests insiders are cognizant of the deficit positioning of their families and interpret interactions with outsiders such as school personnel as evidence of this perspective.

Insider discourses understand deficit perspectives dominate schools’ understanding of single parenthood, establishing the expectation that children from single parent families will exhibit behavioural problems. Catherine claimed “I did occasionally feel like I was an inadequate parent because my son didn’t have a live-in dad, as the

235

odd teacher would allude to a behaviour as belonging to that situation”. For Benny, problems having her son’s disability acknowledged within the school system demonstrated its constitution of her family as dysfunctional. She stated “until the teachers got to know me it was very much your son has a behaviour issue because you’re a single parent” (Benny).

According to respondents, these expectations facilitated the rejection or dismissal by school personnel of other factors outside the family situation which may have caused problems for children:

I’ve had frustration with teachers and doctors communicating about

challenges my children have faced at school as too many of them have

assumed that I am unable to provide a sustaining environment at home,

the children lack role models (father) and are just acting out their stress.

This led to a late diagnosis of my eldest daughter’s learning differences

(Molly). Reference list Molly argued that the school’s positioning of her as a dysfunctional parent resulted in its failure to recognise her child’s learning difficulties. These insider discourses demonstrate the narrowing influence of authoritative discourses as they exclude “a wide range of phenomena from being considered as real or as worthy of attention, or as even existing” (Mills, 1997:51).

According to insider discourses, schools demonstrate tunnel vision by insisting children’s problems are a manifestation of a dysfunctional family structure ignoring any possible causes outside this viewpoint. Insider discourses illustrate how dominant discourses constituting single parenthood as deficit parenthood can result in material effects for families as the truth of the authoritative knowledge over-rides or discounts insider truth claims. These discourses highlight Foucault’s notion of truth games as parents and teachers struggle with each other for the ‘truth’ of their

236

situation. Insider discourses indicated that dominant discourses dominate school knowledge of single parenthood, delegitimizing truth claims outside the parameters of the authoritative discourses.

Games of truth sideline or delegitimize some versions of social reality whilst validating others. Truth games played out in schools indicate that single parents need to undertake additional work and build relationships with teachers to have their truth claims accepted. Respondents suggested they have to provide teachers with explanations that teachers will accept as truths to account for a child’s problem behaviour:

I work very closely with the school and I know with my son’s teacher

she’ll say ‘[child] was upset on Monday’ and I can say ‘well that’s

because he had the weekend with his dad’ and they’re just

understanding (Kelly).

Kelly’s example suggests the primary parent50 needs to provide an explanation to Reference list account for the child’s behaviour which corresponds with the teacher’s expectation of that behaviour. If the parent can attest to this ‘truth’ by conforming to the teacher’s expectation, then they will be shown understanding and escape positioning as dysfunctional and the source of the child’s problem.

Exempting the primary parent from the cause of a child’s problem transfers this subjectivity to the non-resident parent, generally the father. Karma stated:

The teachers at my son’s school they tend to kind of because they know

the situation cause my son’s dad picks him up one day a week so they

know kind of okay well he’s coming to pick him up and they do notice

changes in his behaviour so they understand that okay he’s going to his

50 The term ‘primary parent’ is used in this context only to indicate the parent predominantly engaging with the school environment.

237

dads for the weekend and his behaviour changes because of that and

they kind of try to fill me in on his behaviour.

Karma’s statement indicated the cause of her child’s behaviour problems was transferred from her to her ex-husband. As deficit discourses constitute parents as the source of children’s problems, if one parent is not the problem, then the other one must be. The contestation over truth in this situation is not about whether the child’s problem rests with the parents; it is over which parent is to be accorded blame. Dominant discourses of risk and deficit do not provide for behavioural problems to be situated outside single parent families.

Discourses are not merely perceptible in institutional practices; they also flow into everyday social interactions. Risk discourses powerfully influence cultural perceptions of single parenthood, especially educational risk. Respondent discourses indicate risk discourses operate not only in school environments, but also outside of them: Reference list Friends sometimes say thoughtless things about being a single parent

but it’s not with malice it’s just that its thoughtless for example a school

parent said to me one day ‘wow your son is so level headed I would

never have picked him as coming from a single parent family’ and I had

another parent who said to me ‘your son’s one of the best readers in

year three that’s unusual for a child of a single parent’ and I mean these

are people that I call my friends and that we sort of hang out with and

stuff but there’s those kinds of discussions sometimes and they don’t

particularly then go on to say ‘but that makes sense because of your

professional role and you’re a teacher’ it stops with the single parent

status so that’s quite interesting it’s not certainly not done with malice

they’re trying to give a compliment but it’s interesting how its [delivered]

(Susan).

238

Susan’s example suggests the power of risk discourses and deficit positioning as she perceives her friends using these discourses to inform their knowledge of her situation. The power of these discourses are visible as Susan was a lecturer in education, a fact which would have been known by her friends. According to Susan, her friends appear unable to recognise the disparity between their knowledge of her professional role and negative subjectivities of deficit:

If people have those perceptions it’s almost a struggle for them to think

of it in a different way so they’ll just hold on to that because that makes

sense to them that’s all they’ve ever heard about single parents so we’ll

just go with that sort of thing so.

Susan’s awareness of her contradictory subjectivities arising through dominant discourses such as risk and deficit, highlight the truth games that surround her.

Powerful discourses influence people’s interpretations of subjectivities regardless or irrespective of their own knowledge (Foucault, 2003:316-317). Reference list As this section has demonstrated, discourses are powerful influences in people’s lives, especially when the cultural currency of dominant discourses override their own truths. Some discourses have such strength in social thought it becomes difficult, if not impossible, for others to see alternative subjectivities. People’s own

‘truth’ can become irrelevant if others fail to allow them to be anything other than what they perceive them to be. Respondent discourses indicated schools reject alternative versions of single parenthood constituting the truth of these subjectivities as defective parenthood and the site of risk for child wellbeing. Levine also found in her study that professionals (including those in education) continue to operate from the deficit perspective magnifying “mothers’ feelings of powerlessness and shame”

(2009:413). These insider discourses demonstrate the power of outsider discourses in terms of truth claims as they influence and inform individual’s beliefs and social interactions.

239

6.3.1 Resisting deficit discourses: insider discourses constructing good single parenthood

Risk discourses constitute single parenthood as a social problem because of the perceived risk it represents to society via deficit. Insider discourses in this section specify the ways in which respondents engaged with deficit discourses, and their attempts at resistance. Respondents demonstrated resistance by questioning the adequacy of coupled parenthood. They drew on commonsense notions of good parenting to constitute single parenthood as good parenthood.

Respondent discourses indicate they perceived outsiders as constituting their parenting as bad parenthood. They argued deficit discourses exposed them to judgements about their parenting with outsiders seeking evidence of bad parenthood. It was claimed not having the right food was a sign of bad parenthood.

“I ate a lot of noodles at uni that’s what I lived off he had food because he was at day care and you can’t send bad food to day care cause they judge you (laugh)”

(Stella). Caz explains how the notion of deficit family was conveyed to her socially: Reference list

I joined a local church, which overall was a great support, but I still

remember comments about ‘broken families’ in a sermon or two – and

also religious publications. I suppose it was well meant – i.e. one must

feel sorry for people in broken families, I always cringed and wondered

how children would feel hearing this. The word ‘broken’ sounds so

negative.

According to Caz, her church community’s application of the term ‘broken family’ to single parenthood emphasized the notion of deficit, because to suggest something is broken implies it no longer works properly. Susan explained how deficit discourses allowed her family to be positioned as ‘not a real family’:

I remember back when I was doing my undergrad we had to interview a

family as part of a families unit and I did the people up the road who

240

were very good friends for a long time and I was quite surprised during

the interview when the mother said we were talking about families and

she said ‘well yours isn’t really a family’ and I said ‘why is that?’ and she

said ‘because you don’t have a father’ and I said ‘oh does that make us

less of a family than say you’ and she said ‘well I think it does’ and I said

‘but do you think my son and I feel less of a family because we don’t

have a father figure in there’ so it ended up in this very sort of big

conversation about it but I was really quite surprised having been friends

with them for a long time that there was that perception that we weren’t a

real family because we didn’t have a father.

Susan’s example suggests the notion of the traditional heterosexual family produces strong normative expectations within society. As Susan’s family did not conform to these norms, her friend could not perceive her family as a ‘real’ family. Deficit perspectives also informed perceptions of Victpoint’s family:

When I first told my friends that I was going to be a mum I had friends Reference list very close friends that were really quite dirty on me and disappointed …

the ‘how selfish of you to bring a child into the world on your own

children need a mother and a father’ and I remember having pretty much

a stand-up argument with a really close girlfriend this totally blew me out

of the water and it’s taken quite a bit for us to sort of just stay friends and

what have you and for her to grow any sort of attachment to [son].

Both Susan and Victpoint asserted that their friends failed to accept their single parent family units as legitimate families, consigning them to deficit positions.

Insider discourses indicate outsiders (including friends) can be challenged by families not conforming to normative beliefs of the ‘traditional family’. These examples demonstrate the power of discourses and the normalising assumptions underpinning them.

241

Respondents argued against the constitution of their family structure as defective families. As a resistance tactic, they rejected this positioning and deflected it back onto coupled parenthood:

I’m going to pass judgement here this has been my observation and I’m

completely honest with it … it’s my observation that man and woman

and more than one child families are chaotic I think that’s the only way I

can describe them and I find that the parents are busy working because

they’ve got the big houses and the cars and the jet skis or the whatever

toys and all that sort of stuff they’re tired whereas we’re up and at the

skate park so the choice the lifestyle choices are different so some

families chose to build their lifestyle around the children and some build

their lifestyle around society and they don’t adapt to having children as

well and I think as a result of that from my observations children are

more temperamental (Victpoint).

Victpoint used the notion of choice to justify her family structure and contested the Reference list validity of the two parent family as normative. She drew on commonsense notions of good parenthood, constituted as quality time spent with children, to deflect the deficit back onto coupled parenthood. By emphasizing choice between time with children or time working to finance adult toys, the dichotomy of good parenthood/bad parenthood is implied. Situating coupled parents as choosing adult toys over quality time with children constitutes them as bad parents. Victpoint enacted resistance through choice and claimed a more ethical subjectivity for herself. She also provided a route for situating single parenthood as good parenthood. This strategy of resistance is comparable with a finding from Levine’s study wherein her respondents reframed “single parenthood as the superior and empowering choice” assisting “them in managing others’ negative perceptions”

(2009:409). These insider discourses indicate the ability to deflect negative subjectivities is important for constituting a positive and constructive self image.

242

Respondents rejected discourses situating their families as deficit families and claimed a subjectivity of good parenthood. As indicated by Victpoint’s example above, ‘choices’ and ‘time’ were vital to this endeavour. Time was understood in these discourses as parenting space free of other influences (such as partners).

Terpchic attributed her son’s good behaviour to the time she spends parenting him,

“he’s had my time he’s a very respectful well mannered boy and that takes time”.

Padme Skywalker explained the necessity of ‘positive time’ with children:

The positive time I have with the children I think be it afternoons after

school if we just want to come home and vege out we vege out if we

want to go visiting we go visiting if we want to stop at the park we stop at

the park or we stop and do some groceries and they’re allowed to pick

what they want and things like that I think is something that I've really

enjoyed.

Cate argued single parenthood enabled her to make the choice to become a better mother: Reference list I think it’s made me a better mother because without even knowing it but

in hindsight so much of my energy was sapped trying to make that

marriage work that I really wasn’t the mother I wanted to be because so

much of it so much of me was about trying to keep my ex-husband

happy without that burden I’ve just been able to focus on the kids.

Implicit within Cate’s example is the notion of time as space. Without her husband’s drain on her energy, she was able to channel her time and energy back into her children making her a better mother. Respondents argued single parenthood enabled them to demonstrate good parenthood by giving them space for parenting.

These ethical subjectivities are facilitated by respondents picking and choosing elements from common-sense understandings of good parenthood. The inference of time as space for parenting allows the singleness of single parenthood to be crafted into a form of freedom.

243

The notion of freedom was engaged by respondents to rewrite ‘single’ as ‘free’ within these discourses. Survivor1 asserted single parenthood provides a ‘mono- cultural’ environment that facilitates freedom through self-determination in decision making processes providing stability to the family unit. “Its a single framework in that the child knows that that’s how it is and so there's not too much messing around which gives them some stability”. Singleness defined via freedom also implied

‘unencumbered’ parenting:

I could focus 100 percent on her needs and didn’t have to worry about

dividing my attention with any other children or any other person and I

think we both flourished under that environment just having each other

one on one (Coffee Nazi).

Freedom also facilitated fun in parenting:

I like the fact that I can have so much fun with my child I don’t have to

worry about having a husband as in I don’t have to worry about what he

wants to eat or that we’re not supposed to go to the park … we both Reference list wake up at 5 o’clock in the morning and we can have fun we can have a

wrestle we don’t have to be quiet for anybody else our life revolves

around ourselves so I find it a bonus that I have a lot more fun and I

don’t have to sit and grit my teeth when I see some discipline getting put

that I don’t feel is the right sort of discipline or that someone’s over

reacting because they’re a bit grumpy and my partner was very

emotionally grumpy so just putting up with those emotions where we

don’t and we can discuss things and it’s just its really good I really enjoy

it (Kelly).

Equating single with parenting freedom introduced further features of good parenthood, like developing closer relationships with children. “There is more one on one contact with the children. I also feel a lot closer to my children now than when I was married” (Ponzy). It also provides more control over the family unit.

244

“The children only have one adult that sets the rules. In the past there was often conflict over who made the rules and who carried out punishment etc” (Lena). By redefining ‘single’ as parenting freedom respondents were able to disrupt dominant parenthood discourses and constitute their parenthood as good parenthood.

Respondents resisted and rejected negative constructions of their parenthood by claiming singleness provided freedom from the unfavourable constraints of coupledom.

Rethinking ‘single’ into ‘free’ enabled respondents to assert single parenthood has been a positive feature in their lives. They argued single parenthood provided a better life than that which would have been achieved through coupled parenthood:

In retrospect and looking at it I feel my children have had a better life

with me as a single parent than they could ever possibly had had their

father and I stayed together that would have been a disaster a total

disaster so I’m lucky that we did separate to give the whole four of us a Reference list better life (Benny).

Benny’s claim of a better life suggested single parenthood liberates families from the constraints of unhappy relationships. Bec also employed this notion of liberation and claimed she was free to write her own definition of family. She also argued her son has freedom in his choices because of her single status:

Even just how I raise him like I don’t subscribe to the meat head football

player mentality and all the rest of it and I don’t know I think he’s sort of

picked up not anti like not anti those things but he can make his own

choices so he’s started high school this year and he’s enrolled in home

ecc [economics] because he wants to be a chef and sometimes I wonder

if he’d had that overly masculine presence in the house whether he

would of pursued that so he’s got the freedom to be who he wants to be

without trying to live up to some standard.

245

As these examples attest, insider discourses define ‘singleness’ via freedom and liberation from the constraint coupled relationships entail. Through the utilisation of a more nuanced interpretation of freedom, respondents were able to assert their singleness as enabling a version of good parenthood.

6.4 When you’re going through hell just keep on walking: the resilience of single parents

Insider discourses predominantly situated single parenthood as a major facilitator of personal growth. Resilience was an important concept within these discourses.51

Respondents acknowledged the challenges and responsibilities of single parenthood and embodied them in a process of personal growth. These themes also highlighted a paradox as respondents argued it was necessary to be both selfish and selfless. Selflessness was necessary through the constant need to be self-sacrificing. “You learn to sacrifice your own desires, over and over, to be Reference list selfless” (Tara). Selfishness was necessary to “look after your health mentally and physically” (Terry) as taking time out for themselves enabled them to be good parents. According to Levine, resilience is interpreted as “positive family adaptation within a context of significant adversity” (2009:405). These insider discourses render visible the adaptive strategies employed by parents who are single as the cope with the difficult experiences of single parenthood. They also highlight the complexity of discursively constructed knowledge as subjectivities contain multiple nuanced layers, contradictions, and paradoxes.

Single parenthood was constituted by insiders as a challenging position with overwhelming responsibilities. Respondents asserted “its almost like a constant crisis mode because if you drop one ball no-one’s there to pick it up so I think that’s

51 See section 3.8.

246

one of the biggest challenges” (Cate). Part of the challenge of this position was due to “all the changes” that occurred when entering this family structure, such as moving from a coupled family to a single parent family (Ange). For respondents, the sense of responsibility made it a daunting prospect:

Scariest part of being a single parent is the realisation that it is now

totally up to you to bring up the children. To realise that their mental and

physical health in the future is reliant on how you handle the situation

and them. The examples you set everything you do must matter (LB).

The physical demands of undertaking the day to day parenting alone contributed to the challenge. “It was the physical sheer physical demands of caring for five children that I think was the greatest challenge” (Cate). Respondent discourses used terms like ‘responsibility’, ‘burden’, and ‘perseverance’ to signify the challenges single parenthood entailed.

Another aspect of the challenge of single parenthood was the feeling of being Reference list burdened. Respondent discourses constituted burden as part and parcel of the challenges of single parenthood. They argued it was about being left with the responsibility of raising children alone. “I have been left with this burden I have to bear this on my own I have to do everything myself I’m sick of it” (Cate). Karma explained how her ex-husband’s desire for a second child left her with the burden of two children instead of one:

Before I had [youngest child] he was already seeing someone else

behind my back so why then say ‘let’s have another child’ and when I

asked him that he said ‘well I thought it would make everything I thought

my feelings would change’ well who’s responsible for the burden now

well I don’t mean my daughter’s a burden but yeah.

When relationships end the responsibility for raising children predominantly falls to the custodial parent resulting in their feeling burdened by having to undertake this

247

normally joint responsibility alone. These insider discourses support the claims in the literature that single mothers are bearing the burden of social reproduction.52

The challenges and extra work demanded by single parenthood left respondents feeling stressed, lonely, and isolated. Ms Smith stated “I am often more stressed because I do all the lifting and all the carrying and all the driving … I find it quite stressful”. Catherine claimed “single parenting is a lonely life” leading to feelings of isolation. Respondents demonstrated their resilience through an assertion that isolation and loneliness can be overcome. “It took me a long time to be ok with being alone and not lonely” (Lilly). Part of the challenge of single parenthood was learning perseverance:

Perseverance learning how to preserve I know throughout the years

there's been times where you just don’t think you can take another day

of it another minute of it another second but knowing that even if you do

hit rock bottom it’s not the end you will come out of it and I think that’s Reference list been a pretty big big thing for me is that you just put one foot in front of

the other you just keep going (laugh) it’s that saying when you’re going

through hell just keep walking (laugh) (Bec).

According to insider discourses, successful single parenthood requires the development of perseverance to deal with the challenges of this position. Resilience were implied in these discourses as it enabled reflection and a sense of accomplishment. “It has been a very hard and long road but one that I will never regret choosing to travel upon” (Mars). Although it was acknowledged these subjectivities extract a high toll physically and emotionally, over time respondents persevered to triumph over this adversity. This understanding of the transformative process over time is specified by family resilience researchers as an indication of successful family adaption (Levine, 2009:405).

52 See section 2.5.

248

Insider discourses highlight narrow research lens dominating single parenthood research. Family resilience studies focus primarily on two parent families and ignore or render invisible the successful adaptation of single parent families. As deficit perspectives control outsider perceptions, researchers examine single parenthood from this point of view. The challenges of single parenthood are predominantly interpreted as evidence of dysfunction or risk rather as part of a process facilitating personal growth. This is an important research oversight as Silberberg argues families often make reference to times of adversity to illustrate their strengths

(2001:55). Truth games are made visible in these discourses with contestation between outsiders envisioning single parenthood as dysfunction and insiders emphasizing resilience and personal growth.

6.4.1 There's got to be an easier way to learn than having it nearly kill you: the transformative functions of single parenthood

The most prominent theme identifiable in respondent discourses was the concept of personal growth. Respondents reflected on the changes that occurred in their lives Reference list as a result of single parenthood and constituted these changes as evidence of their personal growth and development. Richards and Schmiege’s study in the USA generated similar findings, prompting them to argue that stressful life experiences such as divorce may serve as “stimuli for personal growth” (1993:283).

Respondents made claims of growing up, developing assertiveness and inner strength to convey the idea of personal growth.

A powerful notion evident in respondent discourse was single parenthood as metamorphosis. Respondents demonstrated personal growth through assertions of the positive effects of single parenthood. Lilly stated “I’ve grown up a lot”. Bec asserted “it kind of woke me up a bit and that’s what’s pushed me on to go and do further study and work and all those things” facilitating the realisation “this is my life

249

and I’ve got to make it count”. Other respondents situated their growth in juxtaposition with marriage constraint. “I’ve had a lot of personal growth being a single parent compared to what I would have been as a married person” (Benny).

They also recognised their own personal changes. “I think I really definitely come into myself as a person since I’ve been a single parent” (Padme Skywalker).

Respondents explained how personal growth occurs. “You have to keep getting better, have to keep learning more about yourself and how you react, what your needs are” (Tara). Ange explained single parenthood as metamorphosis:

You really become the master of your own life and you really complete

your own identity and then you’re ready for the next phase and I think

you let go it’s like a metamorphosis really you let go of the old life the old

values the old habits the old and its almost I mean I see it as a second

chance of having the life that maybe I should have lead rather than the

one that I it was more of an obligatory sort of life rather than a choose

happiness life so it was showing me this whole [new way] … you have to Reference list do things to make you happy not just everybody else it’s about

happiness rather than full on obligation all the time so it’s getting the

balance right that I’ve been learning.

Ange’s explanation illustrates how respondents were able to conceptualise single parenthood as a facilitator of positive personal growth. Single parenthood was constituted as a constructive force moulding and shaping individuals in positive ways.

Although respondents constituted single parenthood as a facilitator of personal growth, they were not blind to its constraining and challenging impact. Terpchic stated “I’ve battled it’s just not there initially you just sort of you think life’s going to be the same and it takes a while to realise it’s not”. Tara argued “I have had to develop myself personally, constantly, over and over again. It’s a process that

250

never ends”. For Ange the challenge of single parenthood was a test of self belief.

“I found the process of that emotion and the whole reality and the belief in whether you could do it on your own it is a real test in your own sort of self belief”. It is the need for self-belief and the challenge that it entails which is understood as facilitating personal growth. “It really forces you to challenge your beliefs/perceptions about yourself” (Lilly). The ability to adapt was also important for reaping the positive benefits of single parenthood. “When your circumstances change you have to adapt” (Karma). Underpinning these notions was the importance of recognising growth rather than dwelling on the challenges:

I’ve come through but you think gosh it could’ve been easier than that

couldn’t it ... I hate that stupid saying what doesn’t kill you makes you

stronger I hate that stupid saying there’s got to be an easier way to learn

(laugh) than having it nearly kill you (laugh) (Cate).

For Cate, the growth process facilitated through single parenthood included her children as she reflected on the development of their resilience: Reference list I think it’s built their resilience as well in terms of when one of the worst

things that can happen to you happens to you you can pick up and move

on and you can be happy and you can be successful and it shouldn’t it

doesn’t have to hold you down forever.

Insider discourses show how challenges pushed them to become better people forcing them to learn and grow as individuals and as parents. They resisted dominant constructions of single parenthood as deficit subjectivities and constituted it as a mechanism for personal growth and metamorphosis thereby demonstrating their resilience.

Although respondents acknowledged the challenges of single parenthood, they were comprehended as exactly that, challenges, something that pushes individuals to their limit, not always seen to be defeating, and certainly something to be overcome.

251

Molly claimed “I find single parenting very rewarding but also extremely challenging”, and Rileys Mum stated “it is challenging and rewarding”. By emphasizing both the challenges and rewards of single parenthood, respondents demonstrated their resilience. They were able to look beyond the immediate constraints and challenges generated through this role and look at the benefits and opportunities for personal growth facilitated via single parenthood. This finding corresponds with Levine’s

(2009) study of family resilience for single mothers and children with disabilities as she claimed single motherhood was interpreted as personally ‘transformative’.

6.4.2 Just the little things: autonomy performed through freedom and happiness

The idea that single parenthood can be constituted as a positive influence in people’s lives through the facilitation of personal growth is a radical departure from dominant discourses constituting the knowledge on these subjectivities. Discourses do not merely allow the constitution of any version of things; rather they constrain

what can and cannot be said about them (Mills, 2003). For these alternative Reference list versions to be accepted as legitimate they need to draw authority from dominant discourses. The foundations for these insider discourses of single parenthood are found in neoliberal notions of autonomy.

By emphasizing ideas of self-confidence, assertiveness, strength, and independence, respondents projected themselves into a subjectivity underpinned by autonomy. These notions were conveyed through the following statements: “it taught me to … plan ahead and be assertive and stand up for myself for the right reasons” (Babs); “I’m totally independent and I can do anything” (Kelly); “you have more confidence … and more assertiveness” (Benny); and “I believe I am a stronger lateral thinker and doer” (Lilly). Karma claimed single parenthood forced her to become more assertive. “I didn’t really fight didn’t really speak my mind … I can really kind of speak my mind and just not be such a not be so submissive”. For Lilly,

252

single parenthood has produced a new found confidence in her own strength. “I’m pretty sure that I can handle any life crisis from now on into the future, as there is not much I have not gone through”. As this data demonstrates, respondents were able to draw on the challenges of single parenthood and rethink them as a positive influence. Autonomy it is implied in these discourses via the concepts of independence, strength, assertiveness and self-confidence, all of which are necessary criteria for acting autonomously.

Insider discourses demonstrate the tensions between discursive perspectives as

“subjects never merely mirror” the practices constructed for them as they are always open to “the subjects’ interpretation and use of them” (Søndergaard, 2002:199).

Insider discourses used neoliberal terminology like autonomy in order to construct a moral subjectivity for themselves. Although these discourses interpret autonomy differently to neo-liberal discourses (which situate autonomy in purely economic terms), it is the concept of autonomy itself that is important for claiming an ethical Reference list self and a subjectivity aligned with good citizenship.

Within insider discourses, autonomy projected a sense of freedom with claims it leads to happiness. Outsiders comprehend single parenthood as more constrained than two parent families with less freedom experienced by parents who are single.

This perspective is demonstrated by researchers seeking evidence of barriers to employment for single parents.53 Insider discourses provided a more nuanced conceptualisation of personal freedom than outsider discourses allow. Respondents discussed personal freedom as embodied within everyday practices. Lou-Jane claimed freedom comes in the form of sleep, “you can go to bed at night and go to sleep (laugh)”. For Maggie, freedom was linked to watching movies, “I can go to the movies and see a ‘chick flick’!! and cry all I want, eat meals when and if I want and

53 See section 2.2.

253

whatever time I choose”. For Stella, showering represented freedom, “just little things like having a shower shaving your legs lying in bed and reading a book”. As these examples illustrate, insider discourses constitute freedom as performed through every day practices. In resistance to dominant outsider perspectives, respondents employed a nuanced interpretation of freedom to assert single parenthood provides them with more freedom than coupledom allowed.

Being in control was an important aspect of freedom for insiders. Respondents linked personal freedom to control as they discussed having control over their lives and destinies. Molly stated “the bonuses are feeling that I am in control of my own destiny”. Cate liked the freedom to make “the choices that I thought were right and spent my money the way I wanted to spend it”. For Rosie Blenkiron it was about

“being able to decide pretty much everything”. The freedom to control their financial situations was a significant factor for respondents. This concept was most obvious when enduring the financial ramifications of a partner’s debts: Reference list When I was in my relationship I was working very very hard and making

all this money and I mean for a first full time job I should have really

been seeing some sort of bonuses arising from putting in all these hours

of work and I didn’t because the money was all taken up with bills that

someone else had incurred (Padme Skywalker).

As Padme Skywalker explained, her previous relationship acted as a constraining mechanism on her financial affairs. This understanding of freedom from debt was further elaborated upon by Karma whose example provided a clearer understanding of this concept:

[In the marriage] we were making all this money we were living way

above our means and now financially I’m living below my means but still

comfortably the kids are still fed they’re clean their clothes I’m paying

basically just what we need not what we want kind of thing so when your

254

circumstances change you have to adapt so even though the monies not

what I used to make its still I think plenty for just getting back to basics

and so I’d rather be in my situation than having all this debt I don’t have

any debt now and that’s one thing that’s really it’s a relief that you don’t

have a debt that you have to worry about you’re losing sleep (laugh) so

it’s good (laugh).

By locating past relationships as constraining, respondents positioned ‘single’ as

‘freedom from constraint’ and asserted a positive interpretation of financial limitations. This process comprehends control of finances as a performance of personal freedom (autonomy). By employing the concept of freedom and situating it within control, insider discourses resisted negative subjectivities generated by deficit perspectives.

Another feature of personal freedom and autonomy was the ability to set goals and this was assembled around a number of features. First was the idea that single Reference list parenthood forces people to become more focused in their lives and goal oriented.

“Its forced me to make realistic life goals, instead of just day dreaming about stuff”

(Lilly). Next, single parenthood compels people to work harder to achieve their goals. “Being a parent has made me strive harder and work harder toward my goals” (Tara). Finally, single parenthood provides the room for developing goals.

“There is more room to grow up and create personal goals and then plan around those goals” (Lilly). Insider discourses constituted single parenthood as providing the compulsion, motivation, and space required for setting and achieving personal goals. Kate stated “I have still managed to do everything that I wanted to do. I got an education. I got a job and I am raising the next generation”. This alignment with personal goals encouraged respondents to reflect on the many opportunities provided to them via single parenthood. A few examples of these are: travel (Ange;

Babs; Katlin; Mars; Sari); having a foster child (Kelly); pursuing wine making (Marty);

255

study (Bec; Catherine; Caz; Karma; Stella; Susan; Tara); and self-employment

(Benny; LB; Lou-Jane; Sonic). Rather than being confined by deficit frameworks, these examples demonstrate the many ways respondents positioned single parenthood as adding value to their lives enabling them to live their lives more fully

(Kelly) by having the best of both worlds (Rosie Blenkiron). Insider discourses reject the limited interpretations of single parenthood dominating outsider discourses and render visible the many opportunities facilitated through this subjectivity.

Respondents demonstrated their resilience by rejecting dominant subjectivities and emphasizing how a potentially negative life changing event can be an empowering and constructive influence in their lives.

Insider discourses destabilised dominant discourses constituting coupledom as the most beneficial position for adults. They emphasized the adverse financial consequences brought about through coupled relationships through their lack of financial autonomy. Moreover, by asserting their control, freedom, and autonomy Reference list respondents professed to being happy with their lives. Explicit claims of happiness were made by respondents: “I’m happy … you cannot buy this sort of happiness”

(Victpoint); “I feel that we have a much happier and calmer existence on a daily basis” (Lena); and “I am so much happier ... I would not change it for the world”

(Ponzy). These insider discourses are compatible with feminist assertions that

“many single mothers report being happier after divorce” (Young, 1994:90).

Respondents moved away from limited and restrictive subjectivities and provided more enabling and constructive accounts of their subjectivities.

As these insider discourses indicate, single parenthood facilitates personal growth providing respondents with an unmistakeable sense of achievement, fulfilment, and pride. These discourses also show that deficit perspectives do not dominate insider perceptions of their subjectivities. Respondents drew on affirming interpretations of

256

their situations and performed resilience by emphasizing personal growth, freedom, and autonomy. With outsiders envisioning singleness as a deficit generating constraint, insiders interpreted singleness as freedom by emphasizing the facilitating conditions of single parenthood. They highlight the complexity of discourses and destabilise deficit perspectives by rethinking these subjectivities in helpful and enabling ways.

6.4.3 The global village thing: social support and random acts of kindness

Insider discourses destabilised the parameters of single parenthood and broadened them to enable the constitution of these subjectivities as a form of good parenthood.

Respondent discourses suggested good single parenthood was facilitated by social support. The insider discourse for this theme conveyed the idea that members of the community showed support for parents who are single by performing acts of kindness for respondents. It suggests that although the deficit model dominates

knowledge of single parenthood it is not the only understanding with cultural Reference list currency.

For some respondents social support was provided by family and friends. They argued this support was important (although not essential) to assist and encourage success as a parent who is single. Many respondents considered themselves fairly well supported:

My family is rock solid in their support of me, especially my parents, they

have helped me by letting me move back in with them when my

marriage fell apart and helped financially when I chose to build a new

house … My brothers have been very supportive to me, also to my

children by offering advice to them and taking them on outings and

camping, also helping if they have problems in school and how to handle

situations (Maggie).

257

Maggie’s example shows how good support is performed by family. Although all respondents expressed the need for their own independence, they argued support was beneficial and encouraged successful single parenthood, especially at transition into this family form:

I think while I was going through it they had to give me a lot of emotional

support I mean there were many times when I just kind of fell off the

wagon emotionally because you’ve got no one to rely on except yourself

so when I was going through the really hard part they’ve always had

very good empathy and sympathy and they have done as much as they

could to emotionally support and listen so I’ve always had that I couldn’t

really do without them actually (Ange).

Getting good support from family and friends at the initial stage of entering single parenthood was constituted by respondents as important for successful single parenting. For Survivor1, support was provided to her by a friend (‘a kitchen elf’) who made great sacrifices to undertake these acts for her: Reference list It was actually a big sacrifice I mean it was really not any easy thing for

her to do that which made it all the more meaningful I knew how much it

cost her to do that so they’re the things that keep you going.

Respondents emphasized the encouragement they received from friends and family who supported them in their parenting. They also argued this need for support was not specific or unique to single parenthood:

Parents of any family group can face the same challenges that a single

parent can face and so they all should have the ability to get [support]

I’m a big believer in the global village thing that it takes a community to

raise a child (Coffee Nazi).

Insider discourses emphasized the emotional and physical benefits provided by support from family and friends and the benefits of this support in facilitating good parenthood. Robinson supports this idea and claims there is a “need to adopt a

258

blanket approach to supporting stability in relationships regardless of family structure” (2009:50). Engaging deficit models and seeking evidence of abnormality does not provide fertile ground for encouraging good parenthood. Policy initiatives underpinned by deficit models may fail to provide material results if they fail to recognise how beneficial support is defined by those such initiatives target.

As social support was considered beneficial for successful single parenthood, respondent discourses indicated there were pockets of exceptional support available to single parents in the wider community. Apart from family and friends, respondents explained how the wider community also operated as good support mechanisms for single parents. This idea was conveyed through respondents revelations of random acts of kindness:

You know it’s funny it’s been the kindness of strangers more than

anything certainly initially in the first weeks after my ex-husband and I

separated I had people turning up on the doorstep with meals people Reference list that I didn’t even know and my neighbour from across the road would

just mow my grass he’d just do it during the day when I was at work and

I’d come home and the lawn would be mowed and I don’t know whether

that’s because I was a single parent or because I had so many children

whether people sort of felt motivated to do things to help probably a bit

of both I think because I had so many children (laugh) people felt sorry

for me but just sort of random acts of kindness that was lovely it sort of

restores your faith in human nature a bit and doesn’t make you think as

though the world’s looking down on you (Cate).

Another example of these random acts of kindness was provided by Ms Smith:

After my husband died I had a gentleman and his fiancé who are older

than myself and I’m in my mid-forties they were being married and they

invited my children to their wedding they were the only children at the

259

wedding but they wanted to show the children that people can get

married in later life and it wasn’t just any old wedding they were at a

resort at Stradbroke and we went and stayed there for three days with

them and their hundred guests flown in from all over the world just

because they wanted to show my children what can happen so there’s

been some lovely random acts that have come through in that way it

was really nice so some lovely lovely things have happened.

Other random acts of kindness were filling a respondent’s cupboards with groceries

(Lou-Jane), discounted fees by lawyers and cleaners (Cate), and the offer of a loan of a porćhe to make a road trip more enjoyable (Ms Smith). For some respondents, members of the community demonstrated significant support for parents who are single in unexpected ways. According to Levine (2009:411), developing strong support networks not only strengthens families, but is also a demonstration of resilience. Parent’s ability to recognise their need for support and to actively construct resourceful relationships is a manifestation of family adaptation and Reference list resilience (Levine, 2009).

6.6 Conclusion

This chapter has presented the constructive discourses evident in the media and insider discourses. It has shown how media discourses allowed enabling subjectivities for single parents as good parents and good citizens. Games of truth were played out between insider discourses and outsider discourses in school environments with respondents rejecting the idea their families were dysfunctional.

Insiders performed resistance by engaging commonsense notions of good parenthood to position their parenthood within this subjectivity. They destabilised the dominance of the traditional family normative by stressing the constraints of relationships and defining singleness via freedom. This rethinking singleness

260

allowed them to align single parenthood with autonomy and personal freedom. By emphasizing these notions, and acknowledging the challenges single parenthood entailed, respondents demonstrated their resilience and constituted single parenthood as a facilitator of personal growth and metamorphosis.

The exploration of discursive constructions of single parenthood rendered visible truth claims made through intellectual knowledge as authoritative discourses. The juxtaposition of authoritative discourses with discourses of both media outsiders and respondent insiders highlighted multiple perspectives oscillating around subjectivities of single parenthood in order to draw attention to the social construction of reality. Metamorphosis was an appropriate interpretation of single parenthood as this project endeavoured to make visible the transformative power of discourses. Reference list

261

Chapter 7 Conclusion

7.1 Introduction

The primary aim of thesis was to explore discursive accounts of single parenthood. It has shown how these subjectivities have primarily been constructed by outsiders as positions of deficit, and thus, as risks and threats to society. The three perspectives of researchers, newspaper media, and single parent respondents provided the means for exploring the discursive construction of single parenthood. The review of research literature documented dominant discourses informing researchers’ perspectives of single parenthood. These dominant discourses were tracked as they informed or influenced newspaper Reference list media constructions of single parents. Negative material effects of dominant discourses were rendered visible via insider discourses. The alternative methodological and theoretical approach adopted for this project provided the mechanisms for rethinking single parenthood in order to move beyond the dominating deficit subjectivities.

The literature review indicated that predominantly the knowledges produced about single parenthood were one dimensional. That is, they were constructed by researchers as outsiders assessing the characteristics of parents who are single. The lack of a partner for these parents was read as an indicator of the

‘defectiveness’ as the vital ingredient for ‘good parenthood’, being the second parent, was missing. Even those researchers who sought to ‘help’ single parents viewed them through a deficit lens. Hence, the power inherent in knowledge

262

produces and reproduces single parenthood as a social problem rendering visible the ‘circular relations’ between power, knowledge and truth (Foucault, 2003:317).

Analysis of newspaper media discourses indicated they often perpetuated the idea single parenthood was a social problem. Generalisations about ‘single parenthood’ locked it into deficit subjectivities. In contrast however, accounts of particular individuals as parents who were single constructed alternative and positive subjectivities like success. Drawing on information about individuals identified as single parents, media discourses constituted them as successful individuals and successful parents. By emphasizing the successes of these people, media discourses act as powerful mechanisms for normalisation practices (Foucault, 1997:184) constituting them as role models by demonstrating their good citizenship via hard work, courage and determination in the face of adversity. As role models, these single parents were constructed in such a way that they signposted how good citizenship was to be performed to an otherwise Reference list risky group of citizens.

Respondents, as parents who were single, provided insider discourses for this study. They emphasized personal growth and the transformative functions of single parenthood. Many respondents had taken advantage of the opportunities provided via single parenthood and undertook further studies to improve their career prospects, or retrain for a career that was more accommodating to their caring responsibilities. They also engaged with deficit subjectivities, such as those constituted via risk discourses, and reflected the constraining elements of these discourses back onto outsiders as a technique of resistance.

This combination of insider and outsider discourses provided considerably more insight into subjectivities of single parenthood. The games of truth inherent in

263

authoritative discourses were rendered visible as they often discounted insiders’ perspectives constituting them as evidence of family dysfunction. The exploration of insider discourses has enabled new or alternative ways of understanding these subjectivities.

7.2 A new conceptual framework

In accordance with the secondary aims of this project, it has presented an alternative conceptual framework for undertaking research into social phenomenon. A poststructuralist approach combined with Foucauldian concepts allowed the exploration of discursive subjectivities of single parenthood from multiple perspectives. The examination of dominant discourses highlighted how intellectual knowledge, constructed via research discourses, govern truth games of single parenthood. Insider discourses are crucial in order to destabilise, contest, and resist dominant perspectives. They rendered visible marginalised Reference list discourses, especially those constituting positive subjectivities for single parenthood, most of which have been largely ignored by researchers.

Identifying and documenting dominant discourses influencing authoritative discourses revealed how knowledge is influenced by discursive ‘truths’. It also exposed gaps, silences and taboos in this knowledge field overlooked or rendered invisible because of the over-dominance of particular frames of reference in this field of study. By emphasizing discursive constructions of ‘truth’, constraining and limiting subjectivities are contested and destabilised enabling more beneficial, supportive and inclusive understandings of singe parenthood to develop in line with a more socially just society. This framework is useful for investigating complex, multifaceted social phenomenon as it demands

264

mindfulness from researchers regarding the dominance of particular discourses is specific fields of study.

7.3 Highlighting the problems of a singular lens

The juxtaposition of authoritative discourses, media discourses, and insider discourses enabled a much broader examination of subjectivities of single parenthood than previous studies have allowed. From this broader investigation a number of issues became apparent.

The first was that authoritative discourses have been primarily constructed via studies of women as single parents. The over-recruitment of single mothers into studies supposedly investigating single parenthood has essentialised these subjectivities to the point that ‘single motherhood’ and ‘single parenthood’ have come to represent the same thing for many people. As a result, single Reference list fatherhood has largely escaped the deficit positioning by outsiders. It has also rendered invisible many aspects of single fatherhood, to the detriment of both mothers and fathers as parents who are single.

It has also been found that researchers played a significant role in the constitution of single parenthood as a social problem, often failing to explore the perspectives of single parents themselves in order to contextualise their responses. The discussion on grief and the prioritisation of parenthood over economic security in chapter six highlighted the disparities between researchers’ perspectives and those of single parents as insiders of these subjectivities.

These discussions demonstrated how approaches using a singular lens, adopted by most researchers, concealed these oversights in the theoretical and methodological designs of their studies.

265

The concentration of social problem research on single mothers ignores negative material effects these studies create for women as parents who are single. There are no or few studies investigating how schools, the rental and finance sectors, or medical professionals for example, interpret research knowledge about single parenthood. Studies along these lines would provide vital insights into both negative and positive material effects of discursively constituted subjectivities like single parenthood. The lack of alternative perspectives in the single parenthood knowledge has skewed social understanding of parents who are single, locking them into deficit subjectivities.

7.4 Identifying gaps and taboos: possibilities for future research

This project explored single parenthood from the three perspectives of researchers, newspaper media, and single parent respondents. Other avenues Reference list for exploration not addressed in this project would be those of service providers

(such as social workers, doctors, and teachers), coupled parents, and children themselves. These additional perspectives would provide insight into the social meanings of single parenthood. This study could also be replicated in other western countries such as New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and Canada to explore the similarities or disparities between single parenthood subjectivities in these countries. In identifying these further avenues for research, the importance of mindfulness in the research process must not be overlooked. Researchers need to remain mindful of the negative material effects arising from the ways in which they inscribe single parenthood.

The examination of the three avenues of discourses indicated gaps, invisibilities, and taboos in single parenthood discourses. The literature review rendered

266

visible dominant discourses informing the subjectivities of single parenthood.

The vast majority of that literature situated single parenthood in terms of low socio-economic characteristics ignoring those outside these parameters, with the exception of single mothers by choice. Researchers’ fixation on low socio- economic characteristics implies they are more powerful indicates of social problems than single parenthood itself. This fixation also renders invisible many other aspects of single parenthood, such as, middle and upper socio-economic single parents, single fathers, gay and lesbian single parents, single parents with disabilities or children with disabilities, and single parenthood that arises via the armed services.

As the research literature primarily sampled mothers, fathers were rendered invisible in single parenthood discourses. This is despite the data from the

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2011) indicating single father families represent 15 percent of all single parent families in Australia with children under Reference list the age of 18 in residence. The sexual activities of middle- and upper-socio- economic men also remain unexamined as absent fathers were constituted as low socio-economic men only, maintaining the belief middle and upper socio- economic men only cohabitate and procreate in stable unions. The problems with this perspective were made apparent in media discourses discussing the sexual activities of ‘philandering’ middle class men.54 Clearly men with diverse socio-economic characteristics contribute to the conception of single parent families. Teenage single fathers were also a group excluded from research. This could be due to the relatively small group these men represent or it could be an indication that sociological researchers do not recognise them in caring roles.

54 See section 5.4.1.

267

The nexus between disabilities and single parenthood is also mostly invisible.

There is a large field of literature studying children with disabilities; however few of these studies connect to single parenthood discourses. This is contrary to assertions that having a child with a disability significantly increases the likelihood of the parent’s relationship ending (Corman and Kaestner, 1992). It is claimed

“[c]hildren with disabilities are more likely to live with single parents, and especially their mothers, than are other children” (Cohen and Petrescu-Prahova,

2006:630). Notions of ‘deservedness’ may underpin this invisibility. It is hard to construct and maintain deficit subjectivities when the ‘deservedness’ of social support of the objects of study is so obvious.

There is also little or no research examining single parenthood and the disabilities of parents. The ABS (1998) claims, disability services in Australia are primarily set up to support parents with disabled children, not children caring for disabled parents. In Australia, there are currently many children who act as primary Reference list caregivers to their disabled parents on their own. ABS figures from 1998 indicate there were 86,600 single parent families where the parent had a disability.55 This is clearly an area of research that has been overlooked to the detriment of children and parents alike.

Equally important, and just as obscure, is single parenthood that comes about through the armed services. When armed services personnel are deployed to conflict regions they not only risk their lives but also the possibility of returning

55 The figures provided by the ABS were provided from a 1998 survey and do not appear to have been updated. A search of other relevant websites such as Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS), Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY), Young Carers New South Wales, Carers Australia, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), Department of Families, Housing, Community Services & Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) were unsuccessful in locating up-to-date statistical information on the numbers of children acting as carers for their disabled parents in Australia. FaHCSIA’s 2002 report into young carers used the ABS 1998 figures therefore this report, although more recent, did not have up-dated statistical figures for the rate of young carers in Australia.

268

home with post-traumatic stress disorder. Although the effects of this disorder have been documented through other areas of research, it has been ignored in the single parenthood literature. Ruger, Wilson and Waddoups found that military

“combat significantly raises the probability of marital dissolution” (2002:99).

Stetter (2007) claims statistics in the USA indicate military personnel have a higher than average divorce rate. By looking beyond limiting deficit perspectives that appear to have locked single parenthood into the parameters of low socio- economic women who are parents that are single, the effects of military service on families can be explored.

The absence of the above groups in single parenthood research indicates that researchers ignore diverse routes to single parenthood. Media discourses revealed how people could become single parents via the death of their siblings, parents, relatives, and friends. Researchers need to move away from deficit perspectives and broaden their sampling practices in order to explore the vast Reference list diversity represented by people who are parenting as singles. Rethinking these subjectivities outside the deficit lens would not only accommodate the diversity of parents who are single, but also the many paths that lead to single parenthood.

Acknowledgement of these multiplicities enables a normalisation where these subjectivities are no longer constituted as social problems; instead they simply become lifestyle choices or life transitions.

7.5 Policy issues

A number of policy issues became apparent via the exploration of insider discourses. The first, and perhaps most important, was the provision of broader forms of child care to accommodate different working hours and older children.

Study or training was also important for ensuring parents could meet the financial

269

responsibilities of providing for their families. Associated with this, was an acknowledgement of the significant financial losses that accompany single parenthood. There is also a need for a much broader acknowledgement within society and business sectors of the diversity of families.

The lack of provision for appropriate and diverse child care inhibited respondents’ choices when it came to employment. Their choice to work was not simply about working or not working: it was about finding work that accommodated their care responsibilities; and sometimes that meant lower paid work, part-time work, or changing the way they worked. Child care support is crucial for not only supporting single parents in work but also in their career choices. It would eliminate the need for them to change careers, retrain, or limit their employment potentials. If governments are committed to encouraging single parents to work they would address their needs for diverse and complex child care arrangements instead of assuming they have social networks that can provide this form of Reference list support for free.

As many of the respondents in this study took the opportunity to study or retrain, funding for educational and training programs is essential to assist parents who are single to bear the financial responsibilities of providing for their children adequately. The positive perspectives many respondents presented in this study may not have been possible had they not been given the opportunities to undertake further study or retrain for new careers in order to better accommodate their competing care and ‘breadwinner’ responsibilities. The insider discourses asserted the positive effects of governments providing education and training as mechanisms for assisting people into paid employment. It suggests ‘assisting’ policies like education and training incentives would be more effective and helpful

270

in facilitating people to become independent of government support than harsh welfare policies forcing them off benefits.

Also just as important, is recognition of the significant financial losses that accompany separation and divorce. Often the custodial parent bears a greater portion of the costs of supporting the children. This greater financial burden occurs at a time when their assets shrink significantly. Lou-Jane and Majestyk provided poignant accounts of the losses that accompanied their transition to single parenthood. Recognition of the financial losses they endure is necessary if policy is to be developed that takes serious the negative material effects these losses create for single parent families.

Lastly, there needs to be more acceptance of the role of men as parents who are single. The recognition of diversity in families would encourage acknowledgement of men as single fathers. The insider discourses rendered visible the sidelining of men as fathers in society. Schools appear to struggle to Reference list legitimise men’s caring roles with the noted preference of holding mothers responsible for all matters relating to the children, like behaviour issues or payment of school fees. Societal expectations about caring roles have marginalised the needs of men as parents limiting their access or provision of social support to help them in these roles. Terry stated he had to look to single mothers in order to find his way as a single father as there was very little or no support specifically for men as carers in the community. Understanding of the diversity found in families today would dispel restrictive and outmoded ways of thinking about caring roles to the benefit of both men and women as parents.

271

7.6 Conclusion

This project has demonstrated how researchers reproduce single parenthood as a social problem ignoring the many diverse aspects of these subjectivities. This study has attempted to correct some of the oversights of previous studies by exploring the discursive construction of single parenthood from multiple perspectives to render visible the truth games setting research parameters. As researchers are the primary constructors of knowledge, they must demonstrate more mindfulness regarding the material effects of their research for the people they are studying.

With authoritative discourses constituted via research knowledge, it is easy to see how deficit subjectivities enable governance (Rose, 1999, 1998) of families constructed as ‘risky’. Foucault’s concepts of discourse, knowledge, truth and power are crucial for rendering visible the truth claims that maintain dominant discourses such as deficit, risk, and threat. McHoul and Grace argue: Reference list the question of subjection, and the political struggles associated with

‘identities’, constitute the most important issues of our time …

Foucault’s writings on power cannot be discussed outside his

investigations of the production of ‘truth’ … Foucault’s conception of

discourse is indispensible for an understanding of the role of ‘power’

in the production of knowledge (1993:57).

By rendering visible truth claims and truth games bound within knowledge and discourses, it is hoped that this project goes some way towards remedying the imbalance generated by the dominance of deficit perspectives in the field of research about parents who are single.

272

Appendix 1

Tables for Stage 1 Data

Table A1:1 Lexicon of search terms for stage one data collection process

Adolescent pregnancy Out-of-wedlock birth* Solo mother* Broken families Out-of-wedlock Solo mum* Broken family childbearing Solo parent* Broken home* Paternity Teen dad* Divorced dad* Premarital pregnancy Teen father* Divorced father* Separated dad* Teen mother* Divorced mother* Separated father* Teen mum* Divorced mum* Separated mother* Teen parent* Divorced parent* Separated mum* Teenage dad* Illegitimacy Separated parent* Teenage father* Illegitimate birth* Single dad* Teenage mother* Lone dad* Single father* Teenage mum* Lone father* Single mother* Teenage parent* Lone mother* Single mum* Teenage pregnancy Lone mum* Single parent* Unmarried Lone parent* Sole dad* Unmarried father Marital disruption Sole father* Unmarried mother* Marital dissolution Sole mother* Unmarried parent* Non-marital birth* Sole mum* Unwed father* Non-marital childbearing Sole parent* Unwed mother Out of wedlock Solo dad* Unwed parent Solo father*

273

Table A1:2 Results for database searches

Search terminology for database Search results Total after first Total analysed search elimination in NVivo8 Adolescent pregnancy 2 2 0 Broken families 11 11 6 Broken family 4 4 0 Broken home* 27 27 20 Divorced dad* 2 2 2 Divorced father* 14 14 9 Divorced mother* 18 18 13 Divorced mum* 1 1 1 Divorced parent* 0 0 0 Illegitimacy 4 4 0 Illegitimate birth* 1 1 1 Lone dad* 0 0 0 Lone father* 1 1 1 Lone mother* 1 1 1 Lone mum* 0 0 0 Lone parent* 3 3 3 Marital disruption 0 0 0 Marital dissolution 0 0 0 Non-marital birth* 0 0 0 Non-marital childbearing 0 0 0 Out of wedlock 22 22 14 Out-of-wedlock birth* 0 0 0 Out-of-wedlock childbearing 0 0 0 Paternity 149 143 22 Premarital pregnancy 0 0 0 Separated dad* 0 0 0 Separated father* 5 4 3 Separated mother* 2 2 1 Separated mum* 0 0 0 Separated parent* 0 0 0 Single dad* 23 22 20 Single father* 42 40 22 Single mother* 262 241 206 Single mum* 127 120 110 Single parent* 123 117 101

274

Sole dad* 0 0 0 Sole father* 0 0 0 Sole mother* 0 0 0 Sole mum* 0 0 0 Sole parent* 31 26 22 Solo dad* 0 0 0 Solo father* 0 0 0 Solo mother* 0 0 0 Solo mum* 1 1 1 Solo parent* 2 2 1 Teen dad* 0 0 0 Teen father* 0 0 0 Teen mother* 0 0 0 Teen mum* 3 3 2 Teen parent* 0 0 0 Teenage dad* 2 2 0 Teenage father* 3 3 0 Teenage mother* 9 9 6 Teenage mum* 1 1 1 Teenage parent* 3 3 2 Teenage pregnancy 26 22 14 Unmarried 144 99 16 Unmarried father 0 0 0 Unmarried mother* 11 11 10 Unmarried parent* 0 0 0 Unwed father* 0 0 0 Unwed mother 10 10 4 Unwed parent 0 1 0 TOTAL 1090 993 635

Newspaper sources searched: The Australia, The Australian Magazine, The Courier Mail, The Daily Telegraph, The Sunday Mail, The Sunday Telegraph Database utilised: Factiva Date of search: 14 November and 23 December 2008 Date search range: 01/11/2007 to 31/10/2008

The results from the database searches retrieved a total of 1090 text documents. From these initial results, working through each search term, duplicated texts were eliminated (referred to as the ‘first elimination’). Following on from this initial elimination, the remaining 993 text documents were imported into NVivo8. In NVivo8, the next elimination of duplicated and unrelated texts left 635 textual documents remaining for analysis.

275

Table A1:3 Nodes created for first round of coding in NVivo8 FREE NODES:  Illegitimate birth  Teenage parent Stage 1 data  Lone father  Teenage pregnancy  Lone mother  Unmarried TREE NODES:  Lone parent  Unmarried mother Newspapers:  Out of wedlock  Unwed mother  The Australian  Paternity  The Australian  Separated father Type of article: Magazine  Separated mother  Career  Courier-Mail  Single dad  Celebrity  Daily Telegraph  Single father  Feature  Sunday Mail  Single Mother  Finance  Sunday Telegraph  Single mum  News  Single parent  Reader's comment Search terms:  Sole parent  Review  Broken family  Solo mum o TV review  Broken home  Solo parent o Movie review  Divorced dad  Teen mum o Live show  Divorced father  Teenage dad o Event  Divorced mother  Teenage father o DVD review  Divorced mum Book review  Teenage mother o  Illegitimacy o Art  Teenage mum  Illegitimate  Sport

Table A1:4 Totals for search term and newspaper

Search terms TOTAL Sunday Sunday magazine Telegraph Courier Mail Mail Courier Sunday Mail Sunday The Australian The Australian Daily Telegraph Daily Broken families 1 1 3 1 0 0 6 Broken home 4 1 4 5 2 4 20 Divorced father 2 0 1 2 3 1 9 Divorced dad 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 Divorced mother 5 0 5 1 1 1 13 Divorced mum 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Illegitimate birth 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Lone father 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lone mother 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lone parent 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 Out of wedlock 1 0 7 4 2 0 14 Paternity 8 0 5 3 4 2 22 Separated father 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 Separated mother 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Single dad 3 1 5 5 5 1 20 Single father 5 1 9 3 2 2 22

276

Single mother 51 7 54 54 17 23 206 Single mum 21 2 30 31 13 13 110 Single parent 32 3 30 18 11 7 101 Sole parent 9 1 8 1 2 1 22 Solo mum 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Solo parent 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Teen mum 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 Teenage mother 3 0 1 0 1 1 6 Teenage mum 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Teenage parent 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 Teenage pregnancy 10 0 1 0 2 1 14 Unmarried 7 0 2 1 5 1 16 Unmarried mother 0 0 5 2 3 0 10 Unwed mother 1 0 1 2 0 0 4 171 17 175 136 74 62 635

Table A1:5 Totals for article type and newspaper

TOTAL Type of article Sunday magazine Telegraph Courier Mail Sunday Mail The Australian The Australian The Australian Daily Telegraph Daily Celebrity 10 4 24 25 12 18 93 Feature 36 11 23 10 12 5 97 Finance 4 0 3 0 2 0 9 News 70 0 56 54 23 15 218 Readers comments 6 1 9 15 5 5 41 Sport 8 0 13 7 2 2 32 Art review 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Book review 18 0 8 1 3 0 30 DVD review 2 0 2 0 0 1 5 Live show review 3 0 3 9 1 3 19 Movie review 7 1 20 5 12 12 57 TV review 6 0 14 10 2 1 33 171 17 175 136 74 62 635

News stories dominated, followed by features, then celebrity articles. Movie reviews and readers comments were the next two largest categories. The Courier Mail had by far the most articles, followed closely by The Australian. However The Australian carried the most news and feature articles.

277

Table A1:6 Free nodes created for second round of coding in NVivo8 A family Feisty Rent A label Fighting Restrictions All relationships end Financial hardship Scapegoat or excuse Baby bonus Frazzled and fiery Selfish and self absorbed Background to success Good children Sexy Battle Hardship Sharing care Biological ties Hardworking Single parent = single Busy Harried mother Challenges Hero Social attitudes Challenging assumptions Hip and fun Social cost Champion the cause Home ownership Social problem Changing circumstances Homelessness Social support Chaotic life Importance of father Statistics Children poor outcomes Increased numbers of Stigma Choice single parents Strong women Committed parenthood Inequality Struggle Courage Law Successful Crafty Likeable Tax Criminality Love Teenage pregnancy Deadbeat dad Marginalisation Together apart Debt Melodrama Traditional values Delinquency Mistreated children Troubled Depression Multiple marriages Unemployed Deserving Overcoming adversity Unfair Desperate Parental conflict Unglamorous Difference Parenting Unmarried and pregnant Disability Pathological parents Unorthodox Disadvantage Politics Unrelated articles Discrimination Poverty Victims Dowdy Problematic children Vulnerable Down to earth Promiscuous behaviour Vulnerable children Education Psycho Welfare Emotional trauma Pushy and determined Work Exploitation Puzzle pieces

278

Table A1:7 Nodes used for third round of data coding in NVivo8 FREE NODES: Love TREE NODES: MOTHER PARENTING: A family Multiple marriages Committed parenthood Adult mental health Numbers of single Importance of biology Baby bonus parents Importance of fathers Background to success Overcoming adversity Parental conflict Battle PARENT / generalisation Poor parenting Challenges Paternity and illegitimacy Uncoupling amicably Challenging assumptions Personal attributes of Champion the cause single parents MONEY: Changing circumstances Politics Financial hardship Chaos / family chaos / Restrictions Home ownership chaotic life Scapegoat or excuse Homelessness CHILD of single parent Sexual behaviour Poverty Child support Single parent = single Rent Choice mother Courage Social attitudes CHILDREN: Criminality Social problem Adoption or state care Desperate Social support Child abuse Different to Stigma Child mental health Disability Strong women Delinquency Disadvantage or Struggle Emotional trauma or marginalisation Successful neglect Discrimination Tax Hyperactivity Education Threat Parent as risk Exploitation Traditional values Parental abandonment FATHER Unfair Poorer outcomes Hardship and hard luck Unmarried and pregnant Responsible children Hardworking Unorthodox Teen pregnancy and Heroic Victimisation parenting Law Welfare Unsettled life Loss or tragedy Work Vulnerable children

Table A1:8 Featured individual’s relationship to single parenthood

Relationship to single parenthood Total Child (parent not specified) 13 Child of single father 21 Child of single mother 54 Generalisations about single parenthood 113 Single mother 335 Single father 58

{Figures generated on articles after duplicates from other search terms deleted. Contains four overlaps – 2 x children of single fathers and single mothers and article about both single mother and single father}.

279

Table A1:9 Totals for final coding in NVivo8 for analysis

Node Total Node Total A family 12 Strong women 7 Adult mental health 20 Struggle 40 Baby bonus 9 Successful 39 Background to success 52 Tax 14 Battle 18 Threat 1 Challenges 10 Traditional values 1 Challenging assumptions 8 Unfair 19 Champion the cause 4 Unmarried and pregnant 13 Changing circumstances 26 Unorthodox 5 Chaos 3 Victimisation 34 Child support 6 Welfare 41 Choice 10 Work 21 Courage 3 Criminality 29 CHILDREN Desperate 3 Adoption or state care 9 Different to 5 Child abuse 12 Disability 8 Child mental health 4 Disadvantage or marginalisation 8 Delinquency 13 Discrimination 4 Emotional trauma or neglect 10 Education 11 Hyperactivity 3 Exploitation 9 Parent as risk 12 Hardship and hard luck 20 Parental abandonment 23 Hardworking 26 Poorer outcomes 12 Heroic 10 Responsible children 8 Law 4 Teen pregnancy/ parenting 30 Loss or tragedy 24 Unsettled life 4 Love 18 Vulnerable children 6 Multiple marriages 5 Numbers of single parents 11 MONEY Overcoming adversity 13 Financial hardship 34 Paternity and illegitimacy 24 Home ownership 17 Personal attributes 49 Homelessness 17 Politics 59 poverty 26 Restrictions 2 Rent 24

280

Risk or vulnerable 1 Scapegoat or excuse 7 PARENTING Sexual behaviour 28 Committed parenthood 46 Single parent = single mother 13 Importance of biology 4 Social attitudes 28 Importance of fathers 9 Social problem 26 Parental conflict 8 Social support 9 Poor parenting 18 Stigma 19 Uncoupling amicably 2

{Within the 635 articles, there are 45 duplicated articles captured under multiple search terms resulting in a total of 590 unduplicated text data with the duplicated data removed from this chart}.

Table A1:10 Nodes merged into word documents outlining broader themes Criminality Changing circumstances and the uncertainty of life Economically vulnerable Earth goddesses and melancholies Loveless and lonely Good parenthood Political powerhouses Not a bad effort – successful single Riskiness of single parenthood parenthood Soiled goods – stigmatised single Re-defining family parenthood Shameless single mothers and Threat to traditional values philandering men Work / employment The Battler Welfare issues

281

Table A1:11 Data spread for articles coded to welfare node

Article type Total Total Daily Sunday Magazine Telegraph Telegraph Australian Australian Australian Courier Mail Courier Sunday Mail

Celebrity 7 1 0 1 0 3 2 Feature 8 5 2 1 0 0 0 Finance 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Movie review 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 News 18 8 0 5 1 2 2 Readers comment 5 0 0 2 0 1 2 40 14 2 10 1 6 7

282

Figure A1:12 Snapshot of data table for stage one

Appendix 2

Stage two data

Interview schedule

1. Tell me generally about your experiences of single parenting?

2. Are there any difficulties you experience on a regular basis as a single parent?

3. What are some of the benefits/rewards of single parenting?

4. How do you think society in general views single parents?

5. Can you tell me if you have experienced any difficulties with professionals (i.e. teachers, Dr’s, lawyers, real estate agents, bank officers, Centrelink staff, job agencies etc)? In what way do you think these difficulties might relate to your role as a single parent?

6. Alternatively, can you tell me if there are any groups like those just discussed above, who provide you with positive experiences? In what ways do you think these positive experiences might relate to your role as a single parent?

7. How do you think your family thinks or talks about you as a single parent? For example, how do they offer you support?

8. How do you think your friends think or talk about you as a single parent? Again, how do they offer you support?

9. Describe for me your circle of friends for example are they mostly other single parents, or do you have a ‘mix’ of friends such as coupled, married or single friends?

10. I have often heard that single parents lose their friends from coupled relationships. Why do you think this would occur and have you any experience of this yourself?

284

11. How have your experiences of meeting new people been? Do you think these are in any way related to your role as a single parent?

12. Tell me if you have had comments from other people about how you manage your finances? If so, who are these people? And why do you think they ask these questions?

13. Have you ever experienced any comments about how you manage your time? For example, has anyone commented that you are/are not: doing enough housework, spending enough time with the children, working to much or not enough, spending too much on your own leisure etc? And again, if so, who are these people making these comments? And why do you think they ask these questions or make these comments?

14. In what ways have you (if ever) been asked to justify any part of your behaviour as a single parent to others? And if so, what are these behaviours, and who are you asked to justify them to?

15. What do you think are the bonuses that arise from single parenting? For example, perhaps being able to pursue your own goals, personal freedom etc

16. Name some of your major achievements arising from your single parenting role?

17. To finish – you can talk about anything you wish in relation to single parenthood, this interview, etc – maybe something that hasn’t been covered in the interview that you feel is important – anything you like…

285

Table A2:1 Nodes established for the first round of coding for the stage two data Abandonment Disadvantage Independent Real estate agents Abuse Discrimination In-laws Relationship Advantage Doctors Insecure Resentment Advertising the fact Doing it alone Invisible Responsibility Angry Doing well Isolation Restrictions Assistance Dreams Jealousy Rewarding Assumptions Embarrassment Judged Role models Baby bonus Emotional Juggle Sacrifice Bad Employers Keeping it simple Security Balancing Employment Labelling and Self care Battles Exclusion stereotypes Singles penalty Belonging Exhaustion Lack of Socialisation social Burden Expectations understanding support Career Families behaving Laws Strength Centrelink badly Lawyers Stress Challenges Family Lonely Struggle Child care Fault Losing everything / Study Child support feed back starting over Supermum Children Feeling low Lucky Surprise Choices Finances Media Sympathy Church flexible Neediness Teachers Comfort Freedom Otherisation Thoughtless Confidence Goals Overwhelming Threats Consuming Grief Parenting Time Control Guilt Personal attributes Tired Couples Happy Personal growth Understanding Credit Hard work Physical Unfair Dating Healthy Pity Unwelcome Decisions Home ownership Police Vulnerable Depression Humour Poor Welfare Destiny Hurtful Protective Young mums Differences Impose Proud Difficulties Impossible Putting the children Disability first

286

Appendix 3

Bibliography for media data

AAP. 2008. Paternity loophole closed, The Australian, 12 May, pg 2. Abernethy, M. 2007. Women behaving badly in the Highlands, The Australian, 22 December, pg 13. Adams, C. 2007. In from the dark side, Courier-Mail, 6 December, pg 55. Adams, P. 2008. Rudd invited a thousand to his 20/20 summit - and I invited ideas from the millions in the salon des refuses. Here's a selection, The Australian Magazine, 24 May, pg 45. Allan, J. 2007. Unions not the enemy, The Australian, 20 November, pg 14. Anderson, R., J. Ross, A. Jones, and E. Rodgers. 2008. Books fiction, Courier Mail, 19 April, pg 22. AP. 2008a. Jacko's face folly - What the prince of pop should really look like at 50, Sunday Mail, 31 August, pg 50. 2008b. What Tour? Lance rides for awareness, The Australian, 12 July, pg 58. Armitage, C. 2008. Feast of fascinating Chinese flavours, The Australian, 23 February, pg 13. Arndt, B. 2008. Adoption option gets a fresh look, Courier-Mail, 4 February, pg 22. Aston, H. 2008. Taking us for fuels - Out of patience, ACCC puts petrol giants on notice – exclusive, Daily Telegraph, 26 January, pg 3. Baldwin, T. 2008. Cancer made wife stand by Edwards after affair, The Australian, 16 August, pg 15. Balogh, S. 2007. Bad states of disrepair, Daily Telegraph, 29 December, pg 81 2008a. Cheated on dying wife Ex-presidential hope's `egocentric shame', Sunday Mail, 10 August, pg 33. 2008b. Deadly Oz drag racer begs for forgiveness, Daily Telegraph, 16 August, pg 10. 2008c. Pressure point, Courier-Mail, 26 April, pg 67. 2008d. Sex scandal hits campaign, Sunday Mail, 10 August, pg 40. 2008e. Showdown state, Sunday Mail, 20 April, pg 60. 2008f. The long goodbye, Courier-Mail, 19 April, pg 51. 2008g. Burnout victim forgives drag-racer, Sunday Mail, 17 August, pg 12. Bantick, C. 2008. Having ticker's not the same as playing the hero, The Australian, 19 January, pg 14. Barrett, D., and R. Noone. 2008. Homeowners running to stand still – Fair go for families, Daily Telegraph, 16 August, pg 8. Bartlett, C. 2008a. Alive and kicking, Sunday Mail, 6 July, pg 8. 2008b. Dying a very slow death, Sunday Mail, 20 April, pg 9. Bartsch, P. 2008. Starlet sails home to Brisbane horror flick, Courier-Mail, 13 June, pg 7.

287

Berkovic, N. 2008. Extra cash helps with nursery set-up costs, The Australian, 12 January, pg 4. Bevin, E., and P. Gosnell. 2008. 300 axed workers thrown a lifeline, Daily Telegraph, 15 February, pg 7. Bita, N. 2008. Australia still the land of the fair go, The Australian, 22 October, pg 3. Black, J. 2008. Yes Minister a comedy not a health blueprint, The Australian, 31 March, pg 8. Blake, S. 2007. Nine boss in sexist claim - Nine's woes intensify as more women speak out, Sunday Telegraph, 16 December, pg 5. 2008. The young mother Heath left behind, Sunday Telegraph, 27 January, pg 92. Blundell, G. 2007. Meaner pastures, The Australian, 1 December, pg 4. Bodey, M. 2008. How the director of the decade stays under the radar, The Australian, 28 May, pg 12. Boland, Y. 2008. By the book, Sunday Mail, 8 June, pg 17. Bond, G. 2008. Teen-mum comedy with a kick, Sunday Telegraph, 13 January, pg 99. Bourke, N. 2008. Postgraduate parenting – postgrad – higher education special report, The Australian, 6 September, pg 26. Box, D. 2008. P&O expelled pedophile from troubled cruise ship, The Australian, 9 January, pg 5. Bramwell, M. 2008. Mother lode of cruelty and love, The Australian, 22 July, pg 14. Budd, H. 2008. Long lease on dynamic role - 60 seconds in the 9 to 5 of a Property Manager, Daily Telegraph, 26 February, pg 2. Byrnes, H. and S. Grant. 2008a. Sydney Confidential, Daily Telegraph, 22 May, pg 34. 2008b. Sydney Confidential, Daily Telegraph, 29 May, pg 34. 2008c. Sydney Confidential, Daily Telegraph, 14 June, pg 26. 2008d. Sydney Confidential, Daily Telegraph, 18 June, pg 31. 2008e. Sydney Confidential, Daily Telegraph, 23 June, pg 22. 2008f. Sydney Confidential, Daily Telegraph, 30 June, pg 21. 2008g. Sydney Confidential, Daily Telegraph, 9 July, pg 31. 2008h. Sydney Confidential, Daily Telegraph, 16 September, pg 26. Byrnes, H., and J. Spence. 2008. Television guide - Sunday April 27, Daily Telegraph, 23 April, pg 61. Byrnes, H., S. Grant, and A. Saurine. 2007a. Sydney Confidential. Daily Telegraph, 12 November, pg 25. 2007b. Sydney Confidential, Daily Telegraph, 5 December, pg 35. 2007c. Sydney Confidential, Daily Telegraph, 8 December, pg 36. 2007d. Sydney Confidential, Daily Telegraph, 4 December, pg 23. Byrnes, H., S. Grant, and R. Devlin. 2008a. Sydney Confidential, Daily Telegraph, 9 April, pg 26. 2008b. Sydney Confidential, Daily Telegraph, 12 May, pg 22. Caines, C. 2008. Don't call me a sex symbol, Sunday Telegraph, 2 March, pg 112. Campion, V. 2008. Never too young for courage - Pride of Australia medal 2008, Daily Telegraph, 23 July, pg 18. Canning, S. 2007. Pay row over ad that sank Work Choices – Labor in power, The Australian, 15 December, pg 6. 2008. Now life's imitating ad for star of ACTU, The Australian, 28 February, pg 34.

288

Cartwright D., A. Harris, and P. Bartsch. 2007a. Q Confidential, Courier-Mail, 11 December, pg 26. 2007b. Q Confidential, Courier-Mail, 17 December, pg 20. 2008. Q Confidential, Courier-Mail, 25 February, pg 22. Casey, M. 2008. The day I met Mum - After 40 years, Robyn's lifelong wish came true, Daily Telegraph, 10 July, pg 21. Cencigh, L. 2007. Time to Chill – New horizons - Fabulous Fifties: A travel guide for the generation on the move - over 50s: The travel experience - A special advertising report, The Australian, 6 November, pg 10. Chalmers, E. 2008. Cash bonus for battlers - One-off payment to be delivered before Christmas, Courier-Mail, 15 October, pg 5. Chesterton, L. 2008. Spotlight – Kelly Rowland, Sunday Telegraph, 17 August, pg 9. Chesterton, R. 2008. Farewell to our Lizzie - Family's agonising goodbye - Exclusive- Sydney Harbour tragedy, Daily Telegraph, 3 May, pg 1. Chesterton, R., K. Galer, C. Critchley, C. Sutherland, and L. Power. 2008. Books, Daily Telegraph, 3 May, pg 83. Chilcott, T. 2008. Sporting all-rounder Joel chasing a field of dreams, Courier-Mail, 24 June, pg 13. Christiansen, M. 2008a. Nesters fly the coop, Courier-Mail, 18 January, pg 22. 2008b. Plight of single mums 'to worsen', Courier-Mail, 6 May, pg 3. 2008c. Single dad makes adjustments, Courier-Mail, 16 October, pg 4. Christie, J. 2007. Playing with pregnancy - Girls offered drugs, sex on mobile phone game, Daily Telegraph, 17 November, pg 11. Chudleigh, J. 2008. Going the distance, Courier-Mail, 22 July, pg 27. Clark, L. 2007. Reading room reviews, Sunday Mail, 2 December, pg 18. 2008. Reading room reviews, Sunday Mail, 6 January, pg 14. Clarke, S. 2008. Comedy oils trip into wartime past, Courier-Mail, 16 February, pg 10. Clayfield, M., and L. Hall. 2008. Competition shelves savings, The Australian, 6 August, pg 6. Clune, R. 2008a. Reality check, Sunday Mail, 22 June, pg 5. 2008b. His recipe for change, Sunday Telegraph, 19 October, pg 112. Connolly, E. 2008. Charges weigh on Ajay, Sunday Telegraph, 26 October, pg 27. Connolly, S. 2008. 'Politics' turmoil in Scouting rift, Sunday Mail, 4 May, pg 48. Connolly, S. and H. Davies. 2008. Report slams inaction - Homeless ranks swell to 100,000 in past 20 years, Sunday Mail, 6 April, pg 26. Conville, N. 2007. Off the shelf, Sunday Mail, 25 November, pg 8. Conway, D. 2007. Prosperous yet controversial era, Courier-Mail, 26 November, pg 28. Cook, M. 2008. Michael Cook, on MercatorNet, on the disintegration of the Aboriginal family, The Australian, 27, February, pg 15. Coombs, R. 2007. Beauty lies in greener pastures, Daily Telegraph, 15 December, pg 100 Courier-Mail. 2007a. Father of sick child 'evicted for Fardon', 1 November, pg 3. 2007b. Hot warm cool cold, 13 December, pg 47. 2008a. Defined country twang, 6 February, pg 75. 2008b. Blogger's view, 23 February, pg 29. 2008c. Blogger's view, 10 March, pg 15.

289

2008d. Strong caring attitude, 15 March, pg 111. 2008e. Talking point, 31 March, pg .16 2008f. Talking point, 5 April, pg 28. 2008g. Homeless disgrace, 8 April, pg 11. 2008h. Grief for boat victims - Six dead are identified in joyride crash investigation, 3 May, pg 4. 2008i. Blogger's view, 15 May, pg 29. 2008j. In fast lane for cutting edge career, 21 May, pg 3. 2008k. Blogger's view, 29 May, pg 29. 2008l. Better than nothing, 5 July, pg 52. 2008m. Write your destiny, 19 July, pg 25. 2008n. Fast news, 28 July, pg 12. 2008o. Blogger's view, 28 July, pg 19. 2008p. Wednesday, August 13 Highlights, 6 August, pg 14. 2008q. Big Mac spoke his mind, 13 August, pg 77. 2008r. Talking point, 10 September, pg 32. 2008s. Coming soon, 20 September, pg 9. 2008t. Pension fraud punished, 26 September pg 16. 2008u. The big issue, 18 October, pg 64. 2008v. Talking point, 24 October, pg 36. Coyle, J. 2008. No body of work but sex made her a star - Wreaking havoc is a good career move, Daily Telegraph, 15 March, pg 3. Craddock, R. 2008a. Same treatment for 'bastard' case, Courier-Mail, 10 January, pg 77. 2008b. Judo champ rockets her way to Beijing, Courier-Mail, 3 April, pg 94. 2008c. Feisty girls will make their mark, Courier-Mail, 16 July, pg 51. Crawford, C. 2008. Denton will rope a dope, says Carey Snr, Courier-Mail, 31 March, pg 5. Croll, V. 2008. How would you like to sleep on the streets of Brisbane? Three of the city's homeless young women tell Vanessa Croll the cold reality and their struggles to live a normal life, Courier-Mail, 9 April, pg 43. Cummings, L. 2008. $400,000 payout in Breast Screen ruling, Daily Telegraph, 30 October, pg 23. Cuneo, C. 2008a. Hero mum's medal - She died shielding her kids, Daily Telegraph, 17 March, pg 11. 2008b. Out of the pit of despair - Children pulled this farmer back from the edge, Daily Telegraph, 21 June, pg 9. Cuthbertson, I. 2008. Too much character for a mere telemovie – Sunday, March 23, The Australian, 22 March, pg 28. Cuthertson, I., S. Fowler, and K. Murphy. 2008. DVD Reviews, The Australian, 12 July, pg 25. Daily Telegraph. 2007a. Welfare fraud mother jailed - $84,000 by claiming she was single, 12 November, pg 15. 2007b. Your say...Letters to the Editor, 14 November, pg 31. 2007c. Letters to the Editor, 19 November, pg 22. 2007d. Your say ..., 19 November, pg 22. 2007e. Your say ... / Letters to the editor, 29 November, pg 38. 2008a. Your say .../ Letters to the Editor, 16 January, pg 20. 2008b. Your say, 29 January, pg 18. 2008c. Birthdays, 25 February, pg 24.

290

2008d. Your Say...Letters to the Editor, 26 February, pg 19. 2008e. Your Sydney... 4 March, pg 18. 2008f. Tourist in fatal crash, 18 April, pg 21. 2008g. Your say..., 16 May, pg 38. 2008h. Mums remind boffins of the real world – Maternity leave: the debate, 22 May, pg 13. 2008i. Your say .../ Letters to the Editor, 22 May, pg 30. 2008j. Letters to the Editor, 12 June, pg 34. 2008k. Your say / Letters to the Editor, 25 June, pg 26. 2008l. Your say, 25 June, pg 26. 2008m. Home for sale with an in-built princess-bride, 3 July, pg 26. 2008n. Hatpin shows its mettle, 11 July, pg 83. 2008o. Your Sydney..., 29 July, pg 20. 2008p. Birthdays, 31 July, pg 69. 2008q. Evicted after just four days, 27 August, pg 7. 2008r. Dad's fight to save son, 17 September, pg 7. 2008s. Your Say / Letters to the Editor, 18 September, pg 24. 2008t. Author's powerful feelings, 17 October, pg 23. 2008u. Morice bounces back from her ballroom blues, 25 October, pg 20. Dale, A. 2008. Bendigo's spirited leader will not give in, Daily Telegraph, 18 July, pg 110. Dalton, T. 2008. Santa to slay Rudd's cash bonus, Courier-Mail, 18 October, pg 10. Dardanis, A. 2008a. Look what’s cooking, Sunday Mail, 18 May, pg 14. 2008b. Vision of psychic supernanny, Sunday Mail, 13 July, pg 14. 2008c. New role takes toll on Melissa, Sunday Mail, 3 August, pg 23. 2008d. Living the dream, Sunday Mail, 10 August, pg 4. Dardanis, A., and R. Lynch. 2008. Mother superior, Sunday Mail, 2 March, pg 4. Davies, H. 2008. Modern techniques take much of the risk out of giving birth, Sunday Mail, 11 May, pg 52. Day, E. 2008. Life has to go on, but not for James, Daily Telegraph, 15 March, pg 100. De Brito, K. 2008. Open door to skeleton cupboard with respect --- ask bossy, Daily Telegraph, 8 October, pg 25. Deitz, M., and L. Ramsden. 2008. We are family, Sunday Telegraph, 16 March, pg 2. Devlyn, D. 2008. Really genuine article, Courier-Mail, 4 June, pg 4. Dibben, K. 2008a. Fire girls in red-hot fundraiser, Sunday Mail, 13 July, pg 37. 2008b. Grieving mum wants answers, Sunday Mail, 28 September, pg 33. Donovan, M. 2007. Driving big rigs the No. 1 choice for brainy Amy, Courier-Mail, 13 December, pg 3. Downie, S. 2007. When family experience counts, Courier-Mail, 12 December, pg 3. 2008. Your Sydney..., Daily Telegraph, 16 May, pg 40. Downie, S. and J. Spence. 2008. Television Previews - Wednesday 2nd January 2008, Daily Telegraph, 2 January, pg 3. Dunkerley, S. 2008. Australian kids doing it tough, Courier-Mail, 22 October, pg 3. Dunlevy, S. 2007. Single mums work out their anger - 2007 Election: The blame game, Daily Telegraph, 26 November, pg 8. 2008a. Means testing to deliver welfare where it's needed - BUDGET 2008: FAMILIES, Daily Telegraph, 14 May, pg 2.

291

Earley, D., G. Green, and G. Stolz. 2008. Floodwaters claim a life, Courier-Mail, 10 January, pg 4. Edmistone, L. 2008a. Money soon runs out on Struggle Street, Courier-Mail, 30 August, pg 11. 2008b. Violence is brought home to all, Courier-Mail, 18 September, pg 13. Edwards, A., A. Harris, and P. Bartsch. 2008a. Confidential, Courier-Mail, 23 May, pg 34. 2008b. Confidential [corrected], Courier-Mail, 14 June, pg 52. 2008c. Confidential, Courier-Mail, 18 June, pg 32. Edwards, V. 2008a. New wage rise push fuels fears, The Australian, 10 July, pg 5. 2008b. Wage rise push worries business, The Australian, 10 July, pg 5. 2008c. Side benefit of having three children, The Australian, 23 September, pg 5. 2008d. `If banks get a break then so should we', The Australian, 6 October, pg 2. Egan, C. 2008. Foster child at 3, homeless at 15 . . .the amazing rise of a billionaire, Sunday Mail, 13 April, pg 52. Elks, S. 2008. Shoppers think twice before filling up the trolley – Inflation shock, The Australian, 24 April, pg 4. Elsworth, S. 2007. Sons go walkabout to save mum, Courier-Mail, 30 November, pg 2. 2008. Dorothy banks on a good life, Courier-Mail, 12 August, pg 4. Emerson, C. 2008a. Barbecues for the beautiful game, Courier-Mail, 9 April, pg 25 2008b. Pathway to fair dismissal, The Australian, 23 September, pg 12. Eustace, M.J. 2008. Tori Spelling stole my husband, The Australian Magazine, 5 April, pg 24. Farr, M. 2008a. Does new leader boast a wealth of ideas? Daily Telegraph, 17 September, pg 4. 2008b. How I will beat Rudd - Triumphant Turnbull takes aim at economy, Daily Telegraph, 17 September, pg 1. 2008c. Tailor-made for leadership, Daily Telegraph, 20 September, pg 35. Faulkner, A. and A. McGarry. 2008. Womanising pioneer of politics exhumed over paternity rumours, The Australian, 27 May, pg 5. Ferrari, J. 2007. Education in the first five years shapes kids' future. The Australian, 1 November, pg 2. Fife-Yeomans, J. 2008a. Action on rape claim - Police begin P&O inquiry, Daily Telegraph, 11 January, pg 16. 2008b. Toddlers on ritalin - Data shows two-year-olds now on ADHD drug – Exclusive, Daily Telegraph, 30 May, pg 1. Forbes, C. 2008a. Movie highlights, Sunday Telegraph, 13 April, pg 8. 2008b. Movie highlights, Sunday Telegraph, 29 June, pg 8. Franklin, M. 2008a. Turnbull reclaims economy, The Australian, 17 September, pg 1. 2008b. Bishop to keep Treasurer in check, The Australian, 18 September, pg 1 Fraser, A. 2008. A simple plan turned so sour: the rise and fall of Eddy Groves – Global financial crisis, The Australian, 4 October, pg 33. French, C. 2008. Changing direction, Sunday Mail, 11 May, pg 3. Galvin, C. 2008. Exposing Annie Leibovitz, The Australian Magazine, 25 October, pg 24. Gardam C. 2007. Stars revealed. Courier-Mail, 8 December, pg 23.

292

Gardner, N. and M. Neill. 2008. Interest-rate pain hits credit cards - Battlers feel the strain of expanding mortgages as a flat market drives down real-estate values, Sunday Telegraph, 20 January, pg 14. Gee, S. 2008a. Crusade to destroy Sydney dead-beat dad --- I will never forget, never forgive, Daily Telegraph, 10 June, pg 14. 2008b. Dawn cracks at sunrise - Swimming icon scared by cleaner's threats, Daily Telegraph, 12 March, pg 9. 2008c. Three-day minister carrying the baby, Daily Telegraph, 12 September, pg 5. Giles, D. 2008. Teachers must pick up slack, says Minister, Sunday Mail, 20 January, pg 5. Glover, D. 2007. The forum. The Australian, 22 December, pg 2. Gorman, E. 2008. F1 boss ordered Nazi-themed orgy: prostitute, The Australian, 8 April, pg 17. Green, G. 2008. Truth be told, there is no split, Courier-Mail, 11 October, pg 14. Green, T. 2007. Money matters, Sunday Mail, 18 November, pg 14. 2008. Maybe baby, Sunday Telegraph, 6 April, pg 6. Gritten, D. 2008. I don't want to be seen as just a pretty face, Sunday Telegraph, 3 February, pg 99. Guilliatt, R. 2008. The secret of Rhonda’s success, The Australian Magazine, 23 August, pg 12. Gullan, S. 2008a. No Jana, no worries - Sally leaps into Beijing medal contention - Beijing Olympics – 21 days to go, Daily Telegraph, 18 July, pg 126. 2008b. Sally, I'm out to get you - Our glamour girl tackles US star, Courier-Mail, 15 August, pg 118. 2008c. All go-go and ready for Lolo - Sally McLellan is right in the gold medal mix, Sunday Mail, 17 August, pg 103 2008d. C'mon, nerves no hurdle for Sally - And she sure didn't dilly dally, Courier-Mail, 21 August, pg 93. Halliwell, E. 2008. Scrutiny on teen mothers. Sunday Telegraph, 1 June, pg 33. Hannan, E. 2008. Clients betrayed by Hoy's revolving door, The Australian, 26 April, pg 4. Harris, A. 2008. Hanson's next TV step could help her find the one, Courier-Mail, 13 August, pg 5. Harris, A., and P. Bartsch. 2008a. Confidential, Courier-Mail, 22 July, pg 24. 2008b. Confidential, Courier-Mail, 29 July, pg 20. 2008c. Confidential, Courier-Mail, 2 August, pg 46. Haynes, R. 2008. Reserve fire: innocent civilians are being hit, Daily Telegraph, 5 March, pg 22. Hellard, P. 2008a. A scientific Cruise, Courier-Mail, 19 January, pg 68. 2008b. Gold rush, Sunday Mail, 3 February, pg 16. 2008c. Heartbreak of Ledger split - Star tells of an uncertain future, Courier-Mail, 16 February, pg 16. Hetherington, D. 2008. Using our human capital, The Australian, 8 March, pg 27. Hewett, J. 2008a. Relentless ambition, The Australian, 17 September, pg 15. 2008b. The Opportunist, The Australian Magazine, 25 October, pg 16. Higgins, E., L. Wilson, A. Klan, J. Stapleton, and J. Madden. 2008. Families grieve for loved ones lost – Harbour tragedy, The Australian, 3 May, pg 5. Hildebrand, J. 2008. Rees clanger has killed pay strategy, Daily Telegraph, 29 October, pg 2.

293

Hills, R. 2008. Do you think I'm sexy? The Australian, 2 July, pg 18. Hohenboken, A. 2008a. Aboriginal writer's timely award, The Australian, 30 May, pg 3. 2008b. Hard workers miss out on the handouts – Road to recovery, The Australian, 16 October, pg 7. Hook, C., and D. Partridge. 2008. Previews – Wednesday June 11, Daily Telegraph, 11 June, pg 47. Hooper, J. 2008. The league legend who dedicated his life to drug addicts - After four premierships, Steve Ella's doing his best work off the field - NRL 2008: Celebrating 100 years of rugby league, Sunday Telegraph, 6 April, pg 56. Houghton, D. 2008a. True confessions, Courier-Mail, 29 March, pg 60. 2008b. Review for adoption laws, Courier-Mail, 23 August, pg 2. 2008c. The other stolen generation, Courier-Mail, 23 August, pg 48. 2008d. Fallen idols, Courier-Mail, 30 August, pg 60. Housden E., J. Fynes-Clinton, and G. Readfearn. 2008. Children's books, Courier-Mail, 6 September, pg 25. Howden, S. 2007a. Hunky sidekicks appeal to the cool and gay - 2007 Election: Battle for NSW, Daily Telegraph, 9 November, pg 6. 2007b. Outing demons - Ecuyer puts past behind for election fight - Election 2007: Wentworth, Daily Telegraph, 12 November, pg 9. Hoyer, M. 2008. Scene, Sunday Telegraph, 2 March, pg 123. Hudson, F. 2007. It's your fault he cannot read. Sunday Telegraph, 2 December, pg 22. 2008. New system outrages single parents, Sunday Telegraph, 27 April, pg 2. Hudson, J. 2008. Call of the curious, Courier-Mail, 14 July, pg 39. Hughes, G. 2007. Single parents lagging on jobs. The Australian, 3 December, pg 7. Ironside, R. 2008. Being blue for a living - Police recruits yearn to serve public, Courier-Mail, 20 June, pg 31. James, S. 2008. A picture postcard, Courier-Mail, 17 April, pg 42. Jenkins, S. 2008. Fine acting still on show, Courier-Mail, 16 September, pg 52. Jewell, S. 2008. Liberated by her own inventions, The Australian, 23 August, pg 10. Johnson, N. 2008. Thriller pushes Neeson, Courier-Mail, 14 August, pg 46. Johnston, B. 2008. Family history search, Courier-Mail, 15 February, pg 48. Jones, A. 2008. Inside the goldfish bowl, Courier-Mail, 17 May, pg 23. Jones, D. 2008. Great yarn waiting to get out, The Australian, 3 March, pg 18. Jones, J. 2008. Good guys win again, Courier-Mail, 24 July, pg 40. Karvelas, P. 2008. Reforms to boost pay for sole parents, The Australian, 17 March, pg 2. Keane, A. 2008. Making sense of the perks, Courier-Mail, 31 March, pg 30. Keim, T. 2008. Mum dies despite son's valiant help, Courier-Mail, 13 September, pg 38. Kent, P. 2007. Hunting child killer's lover - Mobs attack the wrong women, Daily Telegraph, 27 December, pg 48. King, M. 2008. A sea of social ills, Courier-Mail, 19 April, pg 29. Klan, A. 2008. Project spruiked by Maggie runs dry, The Australian, 21 April, pg 4. Koch, T. 2008. Ute-men helped drive out Howard, The Australian, 3 March, pg 2. Krilly, R. 2007. Fury at bear blasphemy - Teacher to face whip for 'insult', Courier-Mail, 28 November, pg 22.

294

Kurosawa, S., G. Blundell, and I. Cuthbertson. 2008. Television Guide – Sunday, January 27, The Australian, 26 January, pg 28. Labi, S. 2008a. Families pushed to brink, Sunday Telegraph, 10 February, pg 26. 2008b. More families going solo, Sunday Telegraph, 1 June, pg 22. Lalak, A., and L. Davies. 2008. Insult to Dianne's memory - Play on Brimble death, Daily Telegraph, 7 February, pg 13. Lalor, P. 2008. Paper world'storn lines, The Australian, 12 July, pg 10. Lam M., M. Hoyer, E. Halliwell, and R. Reines. 2008. Scene, Sunday Telegraph, 1 June, pg 122. Lambert, C. 2008a. Elle content in her own (perfect) skin, Sunday Mail, 5 October, pg 58. 2008b. The Body goes back to basics, Sunday Mail, 5 October, pg 15. Larmer, C. 2008a. Home work, Sunday Telegraph, 15 June, pg 6. 2008b. Daddy's girl, Sunday Mail, 7 September, pg 2. Laurie, V. 2008. Seeing Woods for the creeds, The Australian, 10 June, pg 15. Lawrence, K. 2008a. Good Corey's bravery breaks the stereotype - Teen hero redeems a tarnished name, Daily Telegraph, state edition, 24 July, pg 4. 2008b. Teen hero redeems a tarnished name - Good Corey's bravery breaks the stereotype, Daily Telegraph, city edition, 24 July, pg 4. Lawrence, K., D. Barrett, C. Masters, J. Vallego, and B. Kaye. 2008. Shelly robbed of everything she loved – Cowra massacre: the victims, Daily Telegraph, 2 July, pg 4. Lehmann, G. 2007. Telling tales, The Australian, 17 November, pg 8. Lennon, T. 2008a. Horror crimes led to childcare rules, Daily Telegraph, 25 February, pg 24. 2008b. Fighting for justice, Daily Telegraph, 29 February, pg 63. Levasseur, J. 2008. Faith-based initiative offers an amusing target, The Australian, 15 March, pg 10. Lewis, S. 2008. The Razor Gang means business (CORRECTED), Courier-Mail, 14 May, pg 6. Lewis, S., and E. Chalmers. 2008. Struggle St - Families battle to pay off bills, Courier-Mail, 29 October, pg 1. Lill, J. 2008. Couldn’t care less - She had three drink-driving charges before 10am..., Courier-Mail, 11 March, pg 1. Linnell, G. 2008a. Mum deserves medal -- McLellan dedicates silver to No.1 fan's sacrifice - Beijing 2008, Daily Telegraph, 21 August, pg 4. 2008b. Sterling athletes jump own hurdles - Anything's possible with a mum's help, Courier-Mail, 21 August, pg 5. Lipworth, E. 2008a. Applegate's ascendancy, Sunday Telegraph, 28 September, pg 103. 2008b. Christina's ready to rock again, Sunday Mail, 5 October. 2008c. Shining through, Sunday Mail, 5 October. Litson, J. 2008a. Tragic Sydney tale inspired a musical, Sunday Telegraph, 17 February, pg 105. 2008b. Musical doesn't quite score, Sunday Telegraph, 2 March, pg 105. 2008c. Reflections on a sick society, Sunday Telegraph, 27 July, pg 105. Lumineck, L. 2008. Alien invasion remake falls very flat, Courier-Mail, 28 February, pg 45. Lund, M. 2008. For just a few diamonds more, Courier-Mail, 6 October, pg 29. Lunn, S. 2007a. To succeed, be born in a rich area. The Australian, 3 December, pg 3.

295

2007b. All grown up but won't leave the nest, The Australian, 7 December, pg 8. 2008a. No place like home, The Australian, 8 April, pg 13. 2008b. Abuse fears `deter mentors', The Australian, 5 May, pg 3 2008c. Changes sacrifice a salary, The Australian, 19 June, pg 1. 2008d. Childcare key to end poverty, The Australian, 9 July, pg 3. 2008e. Boom no shelter for the homeless, The Australian, 5 September, pg 2. 2008f. Income dropped, say most earners, The Australian, 15 September, pg 3. 2008g. Young fogies keeping Mars and Venus locked in place, The Australian, 16 September, pg 10. 2008h. Children don't come first in lucky country, The Australian, 21 October, pg 1. Lunn, S. and L. Wilson. 2008. Time to rethink baby bonus, The Australian, 14 March, pg 1. Lyons, J. 2008a. Liberal leader's speech reveals father's own tale of separation – Sorry day, The Australian, 14 February, pg 4. 2008b. Lives devastated by pull of the pokies, The Australian, 26 April, pg 11. Lyons, J., and L. Wilson. 2008. The cafe rendezvous that would rock a state – Inside story, The Australian, 23 February, pg 1. Madigan, M. 2008. Turnbull rallies his troops for 2010 win - From a 'log cabin' to would-be PM, Courier-Mail, 17 September, pg 8. Malone, P. 2008. Heated row has silver lining, Courier-Mail, 23 August, pg 114. Marquardt, B. 2008. How to celebrate when you're single and lonely, Courier-Mail, 13 February, pg 47. Marsh, S. 2008. A child of her circumstances, The Australian, 11 August, pg 29. Martin, H. 2008a. Families turning to units, Sunday Mail, 27 April, pg 22. 2008b. Big ticks for women - Awards recognise achievements of state's brightest, Sunday Mail, 31 August, pg 38. 2008c. Scientist mum earns big tick - Cattle vaccine doctor in Smart final, Sunday Mail, 31 August, pg 33. Martins, B., and E. Connolly. 2008. Drowned girl brought back to life, Sunday Telegraph, 13 January, pg 11. Masters, C. 2007a. Holiday parent kidnap season, Daily Telegraph, 29 December, pg 17. 2007b. Playing a loser's game, Daily Telegraph, 8 December, pg 92. 2008a. Elle's Body of advice on tanning risk, Daily Telegraph, 4 January, pg 1. 2008b. Children's attacks on parents out of control -- Prisoner in own home – EXCLUSIVE, Daily Telegraph, 30 June, pg 4. Masterson, L. 2008a. Julia on the war path, Sunday Telegraph, 20 January, pg 96. 2008b. Cuts & Bruges, Sunday Mail, 31 August, pg 6. Matchett, S., R. Higson, and S. Fowler. 2008. DVD reviews, The Australian, 8 March, pg 25. Mathewson, C. 2007. In the box seat, Daily Telegraph, 24 November, pg 6. Mathewson, C. and M. Connors. 2008. DVD reviews, Courier-Mail, 28 February, pg 48. Maushart, S. 2008. Leaving Lessons, The Australian Magazine, 18 October, 28, pg 28. McAsey, J. 2008a. Hurdlers from Struggle Street - Olympics 2008, The Australian, 15 August, pg 4. 2008b. Sally surprises even herself -- Athletics - Olympics 2008, The Australian, 20 August, pg 14. 2008c. Home-made drive fuels Sally -- How cake stalls and scones led to historic hurdling medal - Olympics 2008 – Beijing games of the XXIX Olympiad 8-24 August, The Australian, country edition, 21 August, pg 13.

296

2008d. How cake stalls and scones led to historic hurdling medal -- Home-made drive fuels Sally - Olympics 2008, The Australian, metro edition, 21 August, pg 14. McCarthy, J., G. Stolz, T. Jensen, S. Elsworth, and P. Michael. 2008. Floor ripped from under battlers [CORRECTED], Courier-Mail, 8 March, pg 4. McEachen, B. 2008a. It's more than just a chick flick, Sunday Telegraph, 11 May, pg 117. 2008b. Drifting off to nowhere, Sunday Telegraph, 1 June, pg 117. 2008c. Into the gilded cage, Sunday Telegraph, 28 September, pg 108. McKenna, M. 2008. Alone and in limbo, The Australian, 7 February, pg 15. McMahon, B. 2008. Down home rock makes it halfway, Courier-Mail, 27 September, pg 4. McNicoll, D.D. 2008a. Elle and high water plus a dab of zinc, The Australian, 4 January, pg 3. 2008b. The Diary, The Australian, 31 July, pg 36. McPhedran, I. 2008. Troops swap guns for family's loving arms, Daily Telegraph, 3 June, pg 13. McWhirter, E. 2008a. Collette as you've never seen her, Daily Telegraph, 8 March, pg 7. 2008b. Television Review - Saturday July 19, Daily Telegraph, 19 July, pg 82. 2008c. Jack hits the road in search of tear-jerker moments, Daily Telegraph, 20 August, pg 42. McWhirter, E., and V. Roach. 2008. Television Review, Daily Telegraph, 10 May, pg 84. McWhirter, E., V. Roach, and J. Spence. 2008. Television Review, Daily Telegraph, 6 June, pg 151. Megalogenis, G. 2008a. Labor's tax-cut bill leaps to $46bn - Budget 08: Tax & Family, The Australian, 14 May, pg 6. 2008b. Four in 10 families pay no tax -- Welfare a game of give and take, The Australian, 20 September, pg 1. 2008c. The tax-free middle class, The Australian, 20 September, pg 24. 2008d. Exploding the twin urban myths about big families, The Australian, 23 September, pg 5. Michael, P. 2008. Angie's 'umbrella' helps open hearts, Courier-Mail, 4 August, pg 13. Miles, J. 2007. Nurturing a vital role - Cadetships aim to get Aborigines into nursing, Courier-Mail, 31 December, pg 14. Miles, K. 2008. Baby on board, Sunday Mail, 11 May, pg 2. Milne, G. 2007a. Nelson dumps Howard era policies, Sunday Mail, 2 December, pg 13. 2007b. Split with the past - Exclusive: New Liberal leader backs gay justice, Sunday Telegraph, 2 December, pg 7. 2008. Cash lift for child services - Split families aided, Sunday Mail, 7 September, pg 13. Miranda, C. 2007a. Murderer's `House of Horrors' - Police fear convicted rapist and handyman killed and hid the bodies of 18 women, Sunday Telegraph, 18 November, pg 48. 2007b. Sunk by their lies, Daily Telegraph, 15 December, pg 112. 2008. Police blunder led to model's murder - Scotland Yard blasts Aussie cops' `fatal mistake', Sunday Telegraph, 24 February, pg 11. Mirosch, N. 2008. Gentle journey of discovery, Courier-Mail, 26 April, pg 22. Montgomerie, G. 2008. Best blog --- How is The Australian Idol grabbing you, or not, so far? Daily Telegraph, 27 August, pg 28. Moran, J. 2008a. Toni's juggling all sorts of roles, Sunday Telegraph, 9 March, pg 111.

297

2008b. Keisha v Mischa, Sunday Mail, 16 March, pg 4. Morrissey, T. 2008. Hoop stars get into the Spirit of helping kids at risk, Daily Telegraph, 16 October, pg 94. Murphy, P. 2008a. Childcare costs keep mum at home, The Australian, 24 September, pg 9. 2008b. Baby gear beats cash in remote towns, The Australian, 29 October, pg 7. Murray, D. 2008. Sienna goes for onscreen action, Courier-Mail, 21 August, pg 43. Neales, S. 2008. MP's love affair with her driver -- Suicide bid scandal, Daily Telegraph, 7 August, pg 19. Neill, R. 2007. Kids’ Lit, The Australian, 24 November, pg 10. 2008a. Kids’ lit, The Australian, 26 January, pg 10. 2008b. The strumpets sound for sex in a new city, The Australian, 26 April, pg 32. Nelson, B. 2008. We look back with pride, but occasionally shame - Brendan Nelson's response – Sorry day, The Australian, 14 February, pg 13. Newton, C. 2008. Family frolic flags, Sunday Mail, 21 September, pg 8. Nicholson, S. 2008. Mountain mystery, Courier-Mail, 19 March, pg 8. Noonan, K. 2008a. Beware the Byrski effect, Courier-Mail, 15 March, pg 20. 2008b. Paying for break-ups, Courier-Mail, 15 March, pg 72. Nowell, L. 2008. Our $6bn food waste bill, Sunday Telegraph, 15 June, pg 19. O’Brien M. J., M. Wenham, J. Miles, and D. Earley. 2008. Death house - Children left with body of dead sister after father flees, Courier-Mail, 2 January, pg 1. O’Brien, C. 2008. Don't be coy about sex education, Sunday Mail, 28 September, pg 43. O’Brien, E. 2008. Divided over the diatribe, Courier-Mail, 21 January, pg 23. O’Brien, J. and J. Chudleigh. 2008. DVD reviews, Courier-Mail, 10 July, pg 52. O’Connor, M. 2008. Opportunities for all, Daily Telegraph, 22 October, pg 23. O’Connor, S. 2008. You call that poor? Courier-Mail, 22 September, pg 84. O’Gorman, L. 2008. Helen's new hunting ground, Sunday Telegraph, 11 May, pg 107. O’Loan, J. 2008a. 'As soon as tenants stand up for their rights, they boot you out', Courier- Mail, 12 March, pg 3. 2008b. Needy in long wait for homes, Courier-Mail, 20 March, pg 18. 2008c. Teen mum program delivers results and rewards, Courier-Mail, 15 September, pg 7. O’Malley, S. 2008. Courage rewarded, Courier-Mail, 17 March, pg 10. O’Neill, H. 2008. Designer lives – space 08, The Australian Magazine, 21 June, pg 46. Oberhardt, M. 2008. Single mum jailed for fraud, Courier-Mail, 13 February, pg 20. Odgers, R. 2008. Parents' windfall chopped up, Courier-Mail, 14 May, pg 52. Orr, J. 2007. Television Friday, Courier-Mail, 30 November, pg 56. 2008a. Highlights - Wednesday, March 5, Courier-Mail, 27 February, pg 14. 2008b. Television Wednesday, Courier-Mail, 27 February, pg 44. 2008c. Highlights, Courier-Mail, 5 March, pg 10. 2008d. Sunday, March 23 Highlights, Courier-Mail, 19 March, pg 8. 2008e. Sunday, May 11 Highlight, Courier-Mail, 7 May, pg 8. 2008f. Television Wednesday, Courier-Mail, 13 August, pg 44. 2008g. Highlights - Monday, November 3, Courier-Mail, 29 October, pg 58.

298

Ostrow, R. 2008. Ruth Ostrow, The Australian Magazine, 17 May, pg 6. Overington, C. 2008a. Kids and carers victims of a broken system, The Australian, 27 September, pg 1. 2008b. Foster carers seeking help to cover car, housing costs, The Australian, 22 October, pg 4. Overington, C. and J. Madden. 2008. I'm no silvertail, says new leader, The Australian, 17 September, pg 1. Paley, B. 2008. Got it covered - Tiny beaded dolls' beds a bargain, Daily Telegraph, 23 February, pg 1. Parker, M. 2008. Big future in forward thinking, Daily Telegraph, 20 August, pg 16. Parnell, S. 2008. Poor keep fertility high despite fewer baby bonus claims, The Australian, 15 January, pg 3. Partridge, D. 2008a. Depth and power to real-life military thriller, Courier-Mail, 28 February, pg 44. 2008b. Suspense and romance in Houdini escapade, Courier-Mail, 13 March, pg 46. 2008c. Hunt steals show in low-budget film, Courier-Mail, 15 May, pg 45. 2008d. A to Z, Courier-Mail, 4 September, pg 46. 2008e. Oh brother, the joke's over, Courier-Mail, 11 September, pg 45. 2008f. Plot falters, Courier-Mail, 25 September, pg 44. 2008g. Now Showing, Courier-Mail, 27 September, pg 8. Partridge, D., and R. Chester. 2008a. A to Z. Courier-Mail, 16 February, pg 14. 2008b. A to Z. Courier-Mail, 31 July, pg 48. Partridge, D., R. Chester, and V. Roach. 2008a. A to Z. Courier-Mail, 28 February, pg 48. 2008b. A to Z. Courier-Mail, 1 March, pg 14. Passmore, D. 2007a. Grim picture of a divided Australia, Sunday Mail, 9 December, pg 42. 2007b. Home for Christmas, Sunday Mail, 23 December, pg 51. Peake, C. 2007. Step into my parlour, said the rock spider, The Australian, 10 November, pg 17. Pearson, C. 2007. Howard could have won. The Australian, 1 December, pg 28. Pell, G. 2008. Beautiful tale of two lost souls, Sunday Telegraph, 9 March, pg 90 Perkin, C. 2008. New era of remembrance - A nation turns out to honour its veterans - ANZAC Day 2008, The Australian, 26 April, pg 6. Pierik, J. 2008a. Hogg spin: no malice, Courier-Mail, 10 January, pg 77. 2008b. Week of turmoil tipped on race row, Courier-Mail, 14 January, pg 1. 2008c. Edmund Hillary spin on Hogg's defence - Claims of no malice in remark to Indians, Courier-Mail, 14 January, pg 62. 2008d. A sticky wicket before it begins, Daily Telegraph, 14 January, pg 22. Powell, S. 2008a. Fertile ground for doubt, The Australian, 16 February, pg 21. 2008b. One-stop centre would relieve tired feet, The Australian, 19 April, pg 1. 2008d. Danny’s gift, The Australian Magazine, 31 May, pg 32. 2008d. Assault on innocence. The Australian, 5 July, pg 29. Prisk, T. 2007a. DVD Review, Sunday Telegraph, 11 November, pg 98. 2007b. Movie highlights, Sunday Telegraph, 16 December, pg 8. 2008. Search for clues in the fog of war, Sunday Telegraph, 24 February, pg 116. Purdon, F., J. Barry, and E. Housden. 2007. Books children's. Courier-Mail, 1 December, pg 28.

299

Quigley, A. 2008. The festering sadness behind Underbelly chic, Daily Telegraph, 9 April, pg 21. Rabalais, K. 2008. Pre-attack titillation does not ask the big questions, The Australian, 5 July, pg 10. Read, P. 2008. Don't let the facts spoil this historian's campaign, The Australian, 18 February, pg 8. Readfearn, G. 2008. Gay mums' baby joy, Courier-Mail, 30 April, pg 41. Rehn, A. 2008. More pain for families as grocery prices soar, Daily Telegraph, 30 January, pg 11. Reid, T. 2008. Edwards denies paying his mistress, The Australian, 12 August, pg 18. Reines, R. 2007. Hush, Sunday Telegraph, 9 December, pg 126. 2008a. HUSH, Sunday Telegraph, 24 August, pg 126. 2008b. Living like a Monk in LA, Sunday Telegraph, 21 September, pg 126. Roach, V. 2007. Celluloid year in focus – Shining on the silver screen, Daily Telegraph, 27 December, pg 3. 2008a. Also Showing, Daily Telegraph, 28 February, pg 46 2008b. Queen Meryl is dancing for ABBA, Courier-Mail, 10 July, pg 46. 2008c. Hipper-ever-after twists, Daily Telegraph, 31 January, pg 44. Roach, V., E. McWhirter, D. Partridge, S. James, and R. Chester. 2007. Also showing, Daily Telegraph, 8 November, pg 8. Roberts, G. 2008. Violent youth crime on the rise, The Australian, 19 July, pg 12. Ross, N. 2008. Underbelly star in a life drama - Court battle with former lover over assets, Daily Telegraph, 24 May, pg 7. Rout, M. 2008. Shorter grocery list mum's only option – Climate change, The Australian, 17 July, pg 5. Rowbotham, J. 2008. Underwhelmed by undergrads over here - Wednesday, March 26, The Australian, 22 March, pg 34. Rowbotham, J., and I. Cuthbertson. 2008. Television Guide – Friday, February 1, The Australian, 26 January, pg 38. Ryan, S. 2008. Baby bonus failing to deliver, The Australian, 6 August, pg 2 Safe, M., G. Callaghan, and S. Rintoul. 2008. Inspire - Part 1 of 4, The Australian Magazine, 2 August, pg 18. Safe, M., K. Legge, D. Warne-Smith. 2008. 1988 - 2008 Twenty years of covers – The platinum series - Celebrating 20 years, The Australian Magazine, 13 September, pg 18. Salt, B. 2008. Spotlight on single dads, The Australian, 4 September, pg 25. Sandall, R. 2008a. The Ballad of Emmylou Harris, The Australian, 5 July, pg 6. 2008b. Judging Amy, The Australian Magazine, 16 August, pg 32. Saunders, P. 2008. Parents work for the soul, The Australian, 19 March, pg 14. Saurine, A. 2008. 10 reasons why the RBA must cut rates – End the mortgage plan, Daily Telegraph, 2 August, pg 5. Scott-Norman, F. 2008. What's new pussycat, The Australian, 19 April, pg 16. Serjeant, J. 2008. The case that rocks Hollywood, Sunday Telegraph, 6 April, pg 41. Shanahan, A. 2008. Why we're only pushing single mothers to breed, The Australian, 9 August, pg 28. Shanahan, D. 2008a. Coalition finally adopts leader's baby, The Australian, 24 May, pg 8.

300

2008b. Cautionary tale of two preselections, The Australian, 13 June, pg 12. 2008c. Biggest problem now is himself – Turnbull takes charge, The Australian, 17 September, pg 4 Shearer, E. 2008. Repayable loans in our interest, Courier-Mail, 18 March, pg 24. Shearer, G. 2008. Mothers get the flick, Courier-Mail, 7 March, pg 31. Sibree, B. 2007. Afloat with a tale, Courier-Mail, 8 December, pg 16. 2008a. Jamaican seduction, Courier-Mail, 12 April, pg 20. 2008d. Secrets at the heart of her success, Courier-Mail, 23 August, pg 20. Sikora, K. 2008. Every day is precious for Linda – Jane McGrath: the legacy, Daily Telegraph, 24 June, pg 5. Sinclair, K. 2008. Pay claims on the boil - * High interest rates * Soaring prices * Housing affordability crisis, Courier-Mail, 28 June, pg 76. Sinnerton, J. 2008. Mum's car baby is cleaning up, Sunday Mail, 26 October, pg 64. Smith, T. 2008. Disadvantage is more than socioeconomic status, The Australian, 26 March, pg 12. Spagnolo, J. 2007. 'Stranger' kidney swap - New law allows life-saving operations, Sunday Mail, 4 November, pg 39. Speed, J. 2008. Ryan no longer just a face in the crowd, Sunday Telegraph, 13 April, pg 101. Starford, R. 2008. Abstract intimacies amid senseless cruelty, The Australian, 4 October, pg 8 Steketee, M. 2008a. To those who have, more shall be given, The Australian, 20 March, pg 16. 2008b. Illegimate claim in Enid Lyons's closet, The Australian, 7 June, pg 3. Stolz, G. 2007. White Lightning on top of world, Courier-Mail, 8 November, pg 2. 2008. Boy, 11, given probation after officer gang bashed, Courier-Mail, 14 August, pg 22. Stratton, D. 2008. Bitter pill with power to heal, The Australian, 1 March, pg 23. Sunday Mail. 2007a. Your say, 18 November, pg 60. 2007b. Box Office, 30 December, pg 9. 2008a. Your say, 24 February, pg 58. 2008b. Mum and daughter doing fine, 2 March, pg 5. 2008c. British youth 'in crisis', 30 March, pg 50. 2008d. Don't let terrorism ruin your life, 6 April, pg 12. 2008e. Your say, 25 May, pg 60. 2008f. Woman held for 18 years, 15 June, pg 36. 2008g. Box Office, 29 June, pg 11. 2008h. Your say, 20 July, pg 66. 2008i. Sexy makeover in hunt for fugitives, 10 August, pg 10. 2008j. She Wore A Yellow Ribbon, 10 August, pg 24. 2008k. Rich List 08, 31 August, pg 14. 2008l. Your say, 7 September, pg 62. Sunday Telegraph. 2007. Letters, 16 December, pg 84. 2008a. Letters, 17 February, pg 86. 2008b. My First Property - Jennine Leonarder-Collins, 9 March, pg 6. 2008c. Bursting to share news, 16 March, pg 83.

301

2008d. A chef you can swear by, 30 March, pg 113. 2008e. DNA test ordered, 27 April, pg 37. 2008f. Olympic champ's four-year jail term, 18 May, pg 45. 2008g. Cyber thriller presses right buttons, 21 September, pg 116. 2008h. Letters to the Editor, 19 October, pg 84. 2008i. Scene – Wollongong, 26 October, pg 115. Swanwick, T., and M. Wenham. 2008. Google 'street' fight, Courier-Mail, 6 August, pg 13. Switzer, P. 2007. Training pays off as champion businesswoman beats 24 contenders, The Australian, 8 November, pg 24. 2008. Weighing up maternity pay, The Australian, 26 March, pg 21. Syvret, P. 2007. Health's a pain for Moreton, Courier-Mail, 10 November, pg 56. Szep, J. 2008. Bishop fuels gay debate, Courier-Mail, 10 June, pg 25. Tabakoff, N. 2008. A life of passion and grit – Queen’s birthday honours, The Australian, 9 June, pg 7. Taylor, L. 2008. Money tight for 5.4m workers, The Australian, 29 October, pg 5. Te Koha, N. 2008. Dux in school of hard knocks, Sunday Mail, 8 June, pg 68. The Australian Magazine. 2008a. Feedback, 18 October, pg 6. 2008b. What matters most - Relationships Australia – Photographic Competition presented by the Weekend Australian, 19 July, pg 38. The Australian. 2007a. Fahey looking forward to challenges of fighting drugs, 10 November, pg 56. 2007b. Letters to the Editor, 22 December, pg 12. 2007c. Seats in play - Election 2007, 24 November, pg 20. 2008a. In brief, 3 January, pg 6. 2008b. Building a bridge to better future, 14 February, pg 17. 2008c. Hotseat, 23 February, pg 17. 2008d. Easier handouts bad news for single mums, 14 March, pg 15. 2008e. Children are not a right, 5 April, pg 27. 2008f. Child centres should target those in need, 18 April, pg 15. 2008g. Short Aussie film blows away Cannes judges, 27 May, pg 7. 2008h. Letters to the Editor, 9 June, pg 9. 2008i. Letters to the Editor, 20 June, pg 13. 2008j. Archetypal supermodel was more than a face, 16 July, pg 16. 2008k. Letters to the Editor, 3 September, pg 13. 2008l. Letters to the Editor, 18 September, pg 15. 2008m. Bracket creepers, 20 September, pg 25. 2008n. Journals, 11 October, pg 30. Thompson, E. and J. Loan. 2008. Soaring rates show no mercy, Courier-Mail, 11 March, pg 1. Tilbury, A. 2008. Showing women how to matter, Courier-Mail, 22 September, pg 57. Tohme, S. 2008. First Home, Sunday Telegraph, 6 April, pg 23. Toy, N. 2008. Revenge the new partner in her life, Daily Telegraph, 11 June, pg 22. Trad, S. 2008. Bligh first woman to lead sunshine state. The Australian, 9 January, pg 4. Trounson, A. 2008. Children `safer with biological parent', The Australian, 7 May, pg 3. Trujillo, M. 2008. Police hunt dads - School baby pact case shocks nation, Sunday Mail, 22 June, pg 48.

302

Turner, T. 2007. Picking up the pieces, Courier-Mail, 8 December, pg 10. 2008a. Living out the dream, Courier-Mail, 12 January, pg 8. 2008b. Leaving home for new love, Courier-Mail, 9 August, pg 10. Uren, D. 2007. Tall order to match Howard on poverty – Labor in power. The Australian, 8 December, pg 6. Vallejo, J. 2008a. Families brought to ruin on Adelaide St – Property crash: broken dreams, Daily Telegraph, 3 March, pg 4. 2008b. Costs more to fill tank than feed boys, Daily Telegraph, 30 May, pg 5. Vickery, C. 2008. Actor earns her stripes, Courier-Mail, 15 October, pg 41 Viellaris, R. 2008a. Shine comes off glitter strip, Courier-Mail, 9 January, pg 13. 2008b. Deadbeats - Queensland dads top child-pay shame list, Courier-Mail, 5 May, pg 1. Walker, J. 2008. Our Third World shame, The Australian, 7 May, pg 13. Wallace, R. 2007. McGauran yet to forgive state Nats - Election 2007: Seats, The Australian, 7 November, pg 8. 2008a. Poll is `life or death' for Nats, The Australian, 4 April, pg 4. 2008b. Gippsland ALP shift, The Australian, 18 April, pg 6. Wallace, R., and P. Karvelas. 2008. Bizarre merger idea falls flat, The Australian, 9 April, pg 6. Walshaw, N. 2008. Erin's big fight - Champ wants to be taken seriously, Daily Telegraph, 1 May, pg 93. Weaver, C. 2008. Formula for true love - Secret to a perfect match-up, Sunday Mail, 3 February, pg 35. Welsh, K. 2008a. Finding inspiration in the everyday, Courier-Mail, 21 July, pg 39. 2008b. Is this my child? Courier-Mail, 23 July, pg 39. Wenham, M. 2008. Lessons in death, Courier-Mail, 19 January, pg 65. Wenham, M., and T. Chilcott. 2008. Killing sparks change - Departments to talk about mentally ill, Courier-Mail, 5 January, pg 3. Wenzel, M. and S. Elks. 2008. Power prices to rise 7pc, The Australian, 8 February, pg 6. Whiting, F. 2008. Bite size, Sunday Mail, 7 September, pg 19 Whittaker, N. 2008. Do research before you buy, Courier-Mail, 14 April, pg 28. Wieland, L. 2008. Solution must be to break the cycle of dysfunction, The Australian, 16 February, pg 6. Wilding, M. 2008a. Reality lost in pursuit of simple life, The Australian, 26 January, pg 14. 2008b. Limited push for personal liberation, The Australian, 31 May, pg 14. Williams, E. 2007. Free-to-air films, The Australian, 15 December, pg 28. 2008a. The 14-year-old virgin, The Australian, 22 March, pg 22. 2008b. Time is on their side, The Australian, 31 May, pg 22. 2008c. If the scenario's Fritz ..., The Australian, 27 September, pg 23. Williams, E., and D. Stratton. 2008. Critical list, The Australian, 28 May, pg 12. Williams, L. 2008. Sofa from home and living in lounge room, Daily Telegraph, 7 May, pg 22. Williams, S. 2007. Broken families can shatter the season's festivities, Daily Telegraph, 31 December, pg 17. 2008. Dream feels property squeeze, Daily Telegraph, 25 October, pg 2.

303

Williamson, G. 2008a. Fiction not a patch on history, The Australian, 19 January, pg 10. 2008b. Her dark inheritance, The Australian, 25 October, pg 8. Wilson, C. 2008. Sally's queen of the battlers, Sunday Telegraph, 21 September, pg 60. Wilson, L. 2008. Biggest Loser host in court, The Australian, 9 July, pg 5. Wilson, P. 2008. The reluctant romantic, The Australian Magazine, 10 May, pg 16. Wilson, S. 2007a. Mum's nightmare: baby missing in the dead of night - `It could happen to anyone' – Exclusive, Daily Telegraph, 3 December, pg 11. 2007b. Toddler took midnight stroll along the Pacific Highway - Baby's amazing escape – Exclusive, Daily Telegraph, 3 December, pg 11. 2008. Young widow found help in time of need - Legacy Week 2008: A Special Advertising Report, The Australian, 5 September, pg 27. Wiseman, J. 2008. Tight ship wobbles, The Australian, 25 October 24, pg 24. Witheridge, A. 2008. A tearful JK bids to ban Potter guide, Courier-Mail, 16 April, pg 19. Wynhausen, E. 2008. Coming apart at the seams, The Australian, 19 April, pg 21.

304

Reference list

Agger, B. 1991. Critical theory, poststructuralism, postmodernism: their sociological relevance. Annual Review of Sociology, 17(1):105-131. Albelda, R., S. Himmelweit, and J. Humphries. 2005. The dilemmas of lone motherhood: key issues for feminist economics. In Dilemmas of Lone Motherhood, R. Albelda, S. Himmelweit and J. Humphries, eds. New York: Routledge. Allen, B.D., J.M. Nunly, and A. Seals. 2011. The effect of joint-child-custody legislation on the child-support receipt of single mothers. Journal of family economic issues, 32:124- 139. Amato, P.R. 2004. Tension between institutional and individual views of marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(4):959-965. Ambert, A.A. 1994. An international perspective on parenting: social change and social constructs. Journal of Marriage and Family, 56(3):529-543. Anderson, A.L. 2002. Individual and contextual influences on delinquency: the role of the single-parent family. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(6):575-587. Argys, L.M., S.L. Averett, and D.I. Rees. 2000. Welfare generosity, pregnancies and abortions among unmarried AFDC recipients. Journal of Population Economics, 13:569-594. Armstrong, D. 2006. Becoming criminal: the cultural politics of risk. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10(2-3):265-278. Atkinson, K., S. Oerton, and D. Burns. 1998. ‘Happy families?’: single mothers, the press and the politicians. Capital and Class, (64):1. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2011. Family Characteristics, Australia, 2009-10, http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Latestproducts/4442.0Main%20Features 22009-10?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=4442.0&issue=2009- 10&num=&view= {accessed June 29, 2011}. 1998. Family formation: children with parents with a disability. http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/2f762f95845417aeca25706c00834efa/91 df042707be0b9dca2570ec000e2819!OpenDocument {accessed 6/7/11}. Azar, D., G.A. Naughton, and C.W. Joseph. 2009. Physical activity and social connectedness in single-parent families. Leisure Studies, 28(3):349-358. Baird, M., and L. Cutcher. 2005. 'One for the father, one for the other and one for the country': an examination of the construction of motherhood through the prism of paid maternity leave. Hecate, 31 (2):103. Baker, D., K. North and the ALSPAC Study Team. 1999. Does employment improve the health of lone mothers? Social Science and Medicine, 49(1):121-131. Baker, J. 2009. Young mothers in late modernity: sacrifice, respectability and the transformative neo-liberal subject. Journal of Youth Studies, 12 (3):275-288. Baker, M. 2000. New employment policies, poverty and mothering. Family Matters, (55):46- 51. Baker, M. and D. Tippin. 2002. ‘When flexibility meets rigidity’: sole mothers’ experiences in the transition from welfare to work. Journal of Sociology, 38(4):345-360 Bansak, C., H. Mattson, and L. Rice. 2010. Cars, employment and single mothers: the effect of welfare asset restrictions. Industrial Relations, 49(3):321-345. Barnes, S.L. 2008. A case study of the working poor single mother experience: an analysis

305

of the structure versus agency discourse. Journal of poverty, 12 (2):175-200. Barrett, G.F. 2002. The dynamics of participation in the Sole Parent Pension. Economic Record, 78(240):1-17. Beckert, T.E., P.S. Strom, R.D. Strom, K. Darre, and A. Weed. 2008. Single mothers of early adolescents: perceptions of competence. Adolescence, 43(170):275-. Berg, B.L. 2007. Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Sixth edition. Boston: Pearson. Berger, L.M., M.J. Carlson, S.H. Bzostek, and C. Osborne. 2008. Parenting practices of residential fathers: the role of marital and biological ties. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70:625-639. Berridge, C.W., and J.L. Romich. 2011. “Raising him … to pull his own weight”: boys’ household work in single mother households. Journal of Family Issues, 32 (2):157- 180. Bessant, J. 2001. From sociology of deviance to sociology of risk: Youth homelessness and the problem of empiricism. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29:31-43. Bianchi, S.M. 1995. The changing demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of single parent families. Marriage and Family Review, 20(1-2):71-97. Biblarz, T.J. and A.E. Raftery. 1999. Family structure, educational attainment, and socioeconomic success: rethinking the ‘pathology of matriarchy’. The American Journal of Sociology, 105(2):321-365. Birrell, B. 2000. Australian mothers: fewer and poorer. People and Place, 8(2):33-42. Birrell, B., V. Rapson and C. Hourigan. 2002. The origin of lone-parent concentrations in metropolitan and regional Australia. Family Matters, (62):11-17. Bock, J.D. 2000. Doing the right thing? Single mothers by choice and the struggle for legitimacy. Gender and Society, 14(1):62-86. Boonstra, H. 2002. Teen pregnancy: trends and lessons learned. The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy, Guttmacher Institute. Brady, M. 2007. Institutionalized individualism and the care of the self: single mothers and the state. In Contested individualization: debates about contemporary personhood, C. Howard, ed. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Brandon, P.D. 2004. Identifying the diversity in Australian children's living arrangements: a research note. Journal of Sociology, 40 (2):179-192. Branigan, E., and S. Keebaugh. 2005. A feminist family agenda: putting the mother back into sole parenting. Just Policy, (38):6-11. Breivik, K., D. Olweus, and I. Endresen. 2009. Does the quality of parent-child relationships mediate the increased risk for antisocial behavior and substance use among adolescents in single mother and single father families? Journal of divorce and remarriage, 50 (6):400-426. Brodie, J. 1997. Meso-discourses, state forms and the gendering of liberal-demographic citizenship. Citizenship Studies, 1(2):223-242. Brooks, M.G. and J.C.. Buckner. 1996. Work and welfare: job histories, barriers to employment, and predictions of work among low-income single mothers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 66(4):526-537. Brown, B.V. 2000. The single-father family: demographic, economic, and public transfer use characteristics. Marriage and Family Review, 29(2/3):203-220. Brown, G.W. and P.M. Moran. 2000. Single mothers, poverty and depression. Psychological Medicine, 27(1):21-33.

306

Brown, R.H. 1994. Rhetoric, textuality, and the postmodern turn in social theory. In The Postmodern Turn: New Perspectives in Social Theory, S. Seidman, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brush, L.D. 1997. Worthy widows, welfare cheats: proper womanhood in expert needs talk about single mothers in the United States, 1900 to 1988. Gender and Society, 11(6):720-746. Budgeon, S. 2008. Couple culture and the production of singleness. Sexualities, 11(3):301- 325. Bull, T., and M.B. Mittelmark. 2009. Work life and mental wellbeing of single and non-single working mothers in Scandinavia. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 37:562-568. Bullock, H.E., K.F. Wyche and W.R. Williams. 2001. Media images of the poor. Journal of Social Issues, 57(2):229-246. Burden, D.S. 1986. Single parents and the work setting: the impact of multiple job and homelife responsibilities. Family Relations, 35(1):37-43. Burman, E. 1994. Deconstructing developmental psychology. Routledge: London. Burnett, G.H. 2002. Unwed teenage mothers: an ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cure. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 30:57-61. Burr, V. 2003. Social Constructionism, second edition. London: Routledge. Butterworth, P. 2003. Multiple and severe disadvantage among lone mothers receiving income support. Family Matters, 64:22-29. Buvinić, M., and G.R. Gupta. 1997. Female-headed households and female-maintained families: are they worth targeting to reduce poverty in developing countries? Economic Development and Cultural Change, 45(2):259. Cairney, J. and T.J. Wade. 2002. Single parent mothers and mental health care service use. Social Psychiatry, 37:236-242. Cairney, J., M. Boyle, D.R. Offord, and Y. Racine. 2003. Stress, social support and depression in single and married mothers. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 38(8):442. Cancian, M. and D.R. Meyer. 1998. Who gets custody? Demography, 35(2):147-157. Carlson, M.J., and F.F. Furstenberg. 2006. The prevalence and correlates of multipartnered fertility among urban U.S. parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(3):718-732. Castel, R. 1991. From dangerousness to risk. In The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, G. Burchell, C. Gordon and P. Miller, eds. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Catanzarite, L. and V. Ortiz. 2002. Too few good men? Available partners and single motherhood among Latinas, African Americans, and Whites. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 24(3):278-295. Cebulla, A., G. Flore, and D. Greenberg. 2008. The new deal for lone parents, lone parent work focused interviews and working families’ tax credit: a review of impacts. Department of Work and Pensions, United Kingdom. Chatterji, P. and J. Brooks-Gunn. 2004. WIC participation, breastfeeding practices, and well- child care among unmarried, low-income mothers. American Journal of Public Health, 94(8):1324-1327. Cheek, J. 2004. At the Margins? Discourse Analysis and Qualitative Research. Qualitative Health Research, 14(8):1140-1150. Cheek, J. and N. Gough. 2005. Postmodernist perspectives. In Research Methods in the Social Sciences, B. Somekh and C. Lewin, eds. London: Sage Publications, 302-309.

307

Cheek, J., and T. Rudge. 1993. The power of normalisation: Foucauldian perspectives on contemporary Australian health care practices. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 28(2):271-284. Cherlin, A.J. 2004. The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(4):848-861. 2005. American marriage in the early twenty-first century. The Future of Children, 15(2):33-55. 2008. Multiple partnerships and children’s wellbeing. Family Matters, 80:33-36. Cherlin, A.J., P.L. Chase-Lansdale and C. McRae. 1998. Effects of parental divorce on mental health throughout the life course. American Sociological Review, 63(2):239- 249. Cho, Y.I, M.J. Martin, D.C. Rand, and K.F. Widaman. 2010. Differential item functioning on antisocial behavior scale items for adolescents and young adults from single-parent and two-parent families. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 32 (2):157-168. Chunn, D.E., and S.A.M. Gavigan. 2004. Fraud, and the moral regulation of the ‘never deserving’ poor. Social and Legal Studies, 13 (2):219-243. Clarke, L., E.C. Cooksey, and G. Verropoulou. 1998. Fathers and absent fathers: sociodemographic similarities in Britain and the United States. Demography, 35(2):217-228. Cohen, P.N. 2002. Extended households at work: living arrangements and inequality in single mothers employment. Sociological Forum, 17(3):445-463. Cohen, P.N. and M. Petrescu-Prahova. 2006. Gendered living arrangements among children with disabilities. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(3):630-638. Condon, S. 2005. Sole mothers ... sleep, control and leisure. Annals of Leisure Research, 8(2-3):91-104. Cooke, M. 2004. Widowhood, living with the State, Just Policy, (34):14-21. Cooksey, E.C., and M.M. Fondell. 1996. Spending time with his kids: effects of family structure on fathers’ and children’s lives. Journal of Marriage and Family, 58(3):693- 707. Copeland, D.B., and B.L. Harbaugh. 2010. Psychosocial differences related to parenting infants among single and married mothers. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 33:129-148. Copeland, I. 1996. The making of the dull, deficient and backward pupil in British elementary education 1870-1914. British Journal of Educational Studies, 44(4):377-394. Corman, H. and R. Kaestner. 1992. The effects of child health on marital status and family structure. Demography, 29(3):389-408. Craig, L. 2005. The money or the care: a comparison of couple and sole parent households’ time allocation to work and children. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 40(4):521- 540. Curtis, L.J. 2001. Lone motherhood and health status. Canadian Public Policy, XXVII(3):335-356. Daly, A. 1998. Indigenous female sole parents, a preliminary analysis of 1996 census data. People and Place, 6(1):13-17. Daly, A. and D. Smith. 1998. Indigenous sole parent families: welfare dependency and work opportunities. Australian Bulletin of Labour, 24(1):47-66. Danaher, G., T. Schirato, and J. Webb. 2000. Understanding Foucault. Crows Nest, New South Wales: Allen & Unwin.

308

De Vaus, D.A. and M. Gray. 2004. The changing living arrangements of children, 1946- 2001. Journal of Family Studies, 10(1):9-19. Dean, M. 1995. Governing the unemployed self in an active society. Economy and Society, 24(4):559-583. Delpit, L.D. 1988. The silenced dialogue: power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58(3):280-298. Demo, D.H., and A.C. Acock. 1996. Singlehood, marriage, and remarriage: the effects of family structure and family relationships on mothers' well-Being. Journal of Family Issues, 17 (3):388-407. Department of Families, Housing, Community Services & Indigenous Affairs. 2002. Young Carers Research Project: Final Report. Australian Government. Dockery, A.M. and T. Stromback. 2004. An evaluation of a Parenting Payment intervention program. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 39(4):431-442. Doherty, W.J., E.F. Kouneski and M.F. Erickson. 1998. Responsible fathering: an overview and conceptual framework. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60(2):277-292. Doiron, D.J. 2004. Welfare reform and the labour supply of lone parents in Australia: a natural experiment approach. Economic Record, 80(249):157-176. Donzelot, J. 1977. The tutelage complex, in The policing of families. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 96-168. Douglas, S., and M. Michaels. 2000. The mommy wars: how the media turned motherhood into a catfight. Ms, 10 (2):62-68. Downey, L., and B. Hawkins. 2008. Single-Mother Families and Air Pollution: A National Study*. Social Science Quarterly, 89(2):523-536. Downey, D.B. and B. Powell. 1993. Do children in single-parent households fare better living with same-sex parents? Journal of Marriage and Family, 55(1):55-71. Downey, D.B., J.W. Ainsworth-Darnell, and M.J. Dufur. 1998. Sex of parent and children’s well-being in single-parent households. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60(4):878- 893. Downey, L. and B. Hawkins. 2008. Single-mother families and air pollution: a national study. Social Science Quarterly, 89(2):523-536. Dreyfus, H.L., and P. Rabinow. 1982. Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics, second edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Dufur, M.J., N.C. Howell, D.B. Downey, J.W. Ainsworth, and A.J. Lapray. 2010. Sex differences in parenting behaviours in single-mother and single-father households. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72:1092-1106. Duncan, S., R. Edwards and M. Song. 1999. Social threat or social problem? Media representations of lone mothers and policy implications. In Social Policy, the Media and Misrepresentation, B. Franklin ed, London: Routledge, 238-252. Eardley, T. 2001. Sole parents and welfare dependency. Just Policy, (21):2-7. Edin, K. 2000. What do low-income single mothers say about marriage? Social Problems, 47(1):112-133. Edley, N. 2001. Unravelling social constructionism. Theory & Psychology, 11(3):433-411. Engels, B. 2006. Old problem, new label: Reconstructing the problem of welfare dependency in Australian social policy discourse. Just Policy, (41):5-14. Farbstein, I., I. Mansbach-Kleinfeld, D. Levinson, R. Goodman, I. Levav, I. Vograft, R. Kanaaneh, A.M. Ponizovski, D.A. Brent, and A. Apter. 2010. Prevalence and correlates of mental disorders in Israeli adolescents: results from a national mental health survey. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51 (5):630-639.

309

Fletcher, R. 2003. Defining fatherhood. Paper read at 8th Australian Institute of Family Studies conference, 12 February, at Melbourne. Flick, U., E. von Kardorff, and I. Steinke. 2004. A Companion to Qualitative Research. U. Flick, E. von. Kardorff and I. Steinke, eds. London: Sage Publications. Foster, E.M., D. Jones, and S.D. Hoffman. 1998. The economic impact of nonmarital childbearing: how are older, single mothers faring? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60(1):163-174. Foucault, M. 2010. The Archaeology of Knowledge. New York: Vintage Books. 1976. The History of Sexuality: Volume 1: An introduction. London: Penguin. 1980a. Two lectures. In Power/knowledge: Selected interview and other writings 1972-1977. C. Gordon, ed. Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 78,108. 1988a. Truth, power, self: an interview with Michel Foucault. In Technologies of the Self: A seminar with Michel Foucault. L.H. Martin, H. Gutman, and P.H. Hutton, eds. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 9-15. 1988b. Technologies of the self. In Technologies of the Self: A seminar with Michel Foucault. L.H. Martin, H. Gutman, and P.H. Hutton, eds. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 16-49. 1991. Discipline and Punish: the birth of the prison. New York: Vintage Books. 1994. The Order of Things. New York: Vintage Books. 1999. The Means of Correct Training. In The Blackwell Reader in Contemporary Social Theory. A. Elliott, ed. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers Inc, 97- 106. 2003. The Essential Foucault: Selections from Essential Works of Foucault, 1954-198. P. Rabinow and N. Rose, eds. New York: The New Press, 6-457. 2006. The means of correct training. In Education, globalization, and social change. H. Lauder, P. Brown, J.A. Dillabough, and A.H. Halsey, eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 124-137. Fowler, R. 1991. Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press, London: Routledge Fox, G.L. 1999. Families in the media: reflections on the public scrutiny of private behaviour. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61(4):821-830. Fox, R.L., and C. Bruce. 1999. The anticipation of single parenthood: a profile of men’s concerns. Journal of Family Issues, 20(4):485-506. Fraser, N., and L. Gordon. 1994. A Genealogy of Dependency: Tracing a Keyword of the U.S. Welfare State. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 19(2):309-336. Fuller, S., P. Kershaw and J. Pulkingham. 2008. Constructing 'active citizenship': single mothers, welfare, and the logics of voluntarism. Citizenship Studies, 12(2):157 - 176. Fundudis, T. 1997. Single parents: risk or resource? Child Psychology and Psychiatry Review, 2(1):2-14. Furstenberg, F.F. and K.E. Kiernan. 2001. Delayed parental divorce: how much do children benefit?, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63(2):446-457. Gamson, W.A., D. Croteau, W. Hoynes, and T. Sasson. 1992. Media images and the social construction of reality. Annual Review of Sociology, 18(1):373-393. Gantt, A.L., and G.L. Greif. 2009. African American single mothers raising sons: implications for family therapy. Journal of Family Social Work, 12 (3):227-243. Gardiner, J. 1999. Putting sole mothers in their place: the normalising discourse of social policy. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 34(1):43-58. Gilding, M. 2001. Changing families in Australia, 1901-2001. Family Matters, 60:6-11.

310

Gill, R. 2002. Discourse Analysis. In Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sound: A Practical Handbook. M. W. Bauer and G. Gaskell, eds. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishing. Gillies, V. 2005. Meeting parents' needs? Discourses of 'support' and 'inclusion' in family policy. Critical Social Policy, 25 (1):70-90. González, L. 2008. Single mothers, welfare, and incentives to work. Labour, 22 (3):447-468. Goodban, N. 1985. The psychological impact of being on welfare. Social Service Review, 59:403-421. Graefe, D.R. and D.T. Lichter. 1999. Life course transitions of American children: parental cohabitation, marriage and single motherhood. Demography, 36(2):205-217. 2002. Marriage among unwed mothers: Whites, Blacks and Hispanics compared. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 34(6):286-293. 2007. When unwed mothers marry: the marital and cohabitating partners of midlife women. Journal of Family Issues, 28(5):595-622. Graham, L.J. 2007. (Re)Visioning the centre: Education reform and the 'ideal' citizen of the future. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 197-212. Grall, T.S. 2007. Custodial mothers and fathers and their child support: 2005, U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau. Gray, M., L. Qu and J. Renda. 2006. Changes in the labour force status of lone and couple Australian mothers, 1983-2005. Australian Journal of Labour Economics, 9(4):395- 416. Gray, M., L. Qu, D. De Vaus and C. Millward. 2003. Determinants of Australian mothers' employment: an analysis of lone and couple mothers. Australian Journal of Labour Economics, 6(4):597-617. Gray, P. 2009. The political economy of risk and the new governance of youth crime. Punishment and Society, 11(4):443-458. Greene, M.E. and A.E. Biddlecom. 2000. Absent and problematic men: demographic accounts of male reproductive roles. Population and Development Review, 26(1):81- 115. Greif, G.L. 1995. Single fathers with custody following separation and divorce. Marriage and Family Review, 20(1-2):213-231.. Gucciardi, E., N. Celasun, and D.E. Stewart. 2004. Single-mother families in Canada. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 95(1):70-73. Guzzo, K.B., and S.R. Hayford. 2009. Single mothers, single fathers: gender differences in fertility after a nonmarital birth. Journal of Family Issues, 31 (7):906-933. Halme, N., P. Åstedt-Kurki and M.T. Tarkka. 2009. Fathers’ involvement with their preschool-age children: how fathers spend time with their children in different family structures. Child Youth Care Forum, 38:103-119. Hanna, B. 2001. Negotiating motherhood: the struggles of teenage mothers. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 34(4):456-464. Hardy, C., I. Palmer, and N. Phillips. 2000. Discourse as a strategic resource. Human Relations, 53(9):1227-1248. Harris, KM. 1996. Life after Welfare: Women, Work, and Repeat Dependency. American Sociological Review, 61(3):407-426. Hawkins, A.J., and D.J. Eggebeen. 1991. Are fathers fungible? Patterns of coresident adult men in maritally disrupted families and young children’s well-being. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53(4):958-972.

311

Hawthorne, B. 2003. Nonresident fathers: missing in action? A preliminary analysis of a study of nonresident fathers. Paper read at 8th Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference, February 12, Melbourne. Hayes, A., R. Weston, L. Qu and M. Gray. 2010. Families then and now 1980-2010. Australian Institute of Family Studies, Australian Government. Hays, S. 1996. The cultural contradiction of motherhood. New Haven: Yale University Press. Heath, D.T. and D.K. Orthner. 1999. Stress and adaption among male and female single parents. Journal of Family Issues, 20(4):557-587. Hemovich, V., and W.D. Crano. 2009. Family structure and adolescent drug use: an exploration of single parent families. Substance Use & Misuse, 44:2099-2113. Henriques, J., W. Holloway, C. Urwin, C. Venn, and V. Walkerdine. 1984. Changing the Subject: Psychology, Social Regulation and Subjectivity, eds. London: Methuen. Hertz, R. 2002. The father as an idea: a challenge to kinship boundaries by single mothers. Symbolic Interaction, 25(1):1-31. Heuveline, P., J.M. Timberlake, and F.F. Furstenberg. 2003. Shifting childbearing to single mothers: results from 17 Western countries. Population and Development Review, 29(1):47-71. Hewitt, M. 1983. Bio-politics and social policy: Foucault’s account of welfare. Theory, Culture and Society, 2(1):67-84. Hil, R. and J. Bessant. 1999. Spaced-out? Young people’s agency, resistance and public space. Urban Policy and Research, 17(1):41-49. Hill, M. 2009. Ways of seeing: using ethnography and Foucault's 'toolkit' to view assessment practices differently. Qualitative Research, 9(3):309-330. Hobbs, A. 2008. It doesn’t add up: myths and measurement problems of births to single women in Blackpool, 1931-1971. Women’s History Review, 17(3):435-454. Hobcraft, J., and K. Kiernan. 1999. Childhood poverty, early motherhood and adult social exclusion. Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion. London School of Economics, London. Hoffman, S.D. 1998. Teenage childbearing is not so bad after all ... or is it? A review of the new literature. Family Planning Perspectives, 30 (5):236-243. Hofmeyr, B. 2008. The contemporary pertinence of the later Foucault. Have his strategies of resistance stood the test of time? South African Journal of Philosophy, 27(2):106-119. Holden, K.C. and P.J. Smock. 1991. The economic costs of marital dissolution: why do women bear a disproportionate cost? Annual Review of Sociology, 17(1):51-78. Holzer, H.J. 1999. Will employers hire welfare recipients? Recent survey evidence from Michigan. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18(3):449-472. Hook, J.L. and S. Chalasani. 2008. Gendered expectations? Reconsidering single fathers’ child-care time. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70:978-990. Hope, S., C. Power, and B. Rodgers. 1999. Does financial hardship account for elevated psychological distress in lone mothers? Social Science and Medicine, 49:1637-1649. Horowitz, J.A. 1995. A conceptualization of parenting: examining the single parent family. Marriage and Family Review, 20(1-2):43-70. Howe, B. and R. Pidwell. 2004. Single parents and paid work. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 39(2):169-181. Huang, C.C. 2005. Pregnancy intention from men’s perspectives: does child support enforcement matter? Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 37(3):119- 124.

312

Huang, C.C., R.B. Mincy and I. Garfinkel. 2005. Child support obligations and low-income fathers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(5):1213-1225. Hughes, J. and M. Gray. 2005. The use of family-friendly work arrangements by lone and couple mothers. Family Matters, (71):18-23. Hunter, N. 2007. Families and communities: The context in which Australian children are growing up. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, access 23, May 2007. Huston, T.L. and H. Melz. 2004. The case for (promoting) marriage: the devil is in the details. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(4):943-958. Hymowitz, K.S. 1998. There's no honor in unwed motherhood. Wall Street Journal, 1. Jackson, A.P., P. Gyamfi, J. Brooks-Gunn, and M. Blake. 1998. Employment status, psychological well-being, social support, and physical discipline practices of single black mothers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60(4):894-902. Jayakody, R. and D. Stauffer. 2000. Mental health problems among single mothers: implications for work and welfare reform. Journal of Social Issues, 56(4):617-634. Jennings, P.K. 2004. What mothers want: welfare reform and maternal desire. Journal of sociology and Social Welfare, XXXI(3):113-130. Johnstone, B. 2008. Introduction. In Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Jones, B.D. 2003. Single motherhood by choice, libertarian feminism, and the Uniform Parentage Act. Texas Journal of Women and the Law, 12(2):419-449. Jones, S. 2008. Exercising agency, becoming a single mother. Marriage and Family Review, 42(4):35-61. Joshi, P., J.M. Quane, and A.J. Cherlin. 2009. Contemporary work and family issues affecting marriage and cohabitation among low-income single mothers. Family Relations, 58:647-661. Kalil, A., and S.K. Danziger. 2000. How teen mothers are faring under welfare reform. Journal of Social Issues, 56(4):775-798. Kanata, T. and N.J. Banks. 1997. A comparison of social issues affecting Japanese and British lone mother households. The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 17(5):52-. Kaufmann, J. 2005. Autotheory: an autoethnographic reading of Foucault. Qualitative Inquiry, 11(4):576-587. 2011. Poststructural analysis: analyzing empirical matter for new meanings. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(2):148-154. Kelly, D.M. 1996. Stigma stories four discourses about teen mothers, welfare, and poverty. Youth and Society, 27(4):421-449. Kendall, G., and G. Wickham. 1999. Using Foucault's Methods. London: Sage Publications. Kenway, P., T. MacInnes, S. Fothergill, and G. Horgan. 2010. Working-age ‘welfare’: who gets it, why, and what it costs. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, UK. Kerr, D. And J.H. Michalski. 2007. Family structure and children’s hyperactivity problems: a longitudinal analysis. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 32(1):85-112. Kiernan, K. 2003. Cohabitation and divorce across nations and generations. CASEpaper 65, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics, London. 2005. Non-residential fatherhood and child involvement: evidence from the millennium cohort study. CASEpaper 100, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics, London. Kiernan, K. and G. Mueller. 1998. The divorced and who divorces. CASEpaper 7, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics, London.

313

Kincaid, C., D.J. Jones, J. Cuellar, and M. Gonzalez. 2011. Psychological control associated with youth adjustment and risky behavior in African American single mother families. Journal of Children’s Family Studies, 20:102-110. King, L.Y. 2003. Social welfare services for single parent families in Hong Kong: a paradox. Child and Family Social Work, 8:47-52. King, V. 2002. Parental divorce and interpersonal trust in adult offspring. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64 (3):642-656. Kleist, D.M. 1999. Single-parent families: a difference that makes a difference? The Family Journal, 7 (4):373-378. Kotchick, B.A., S. Dorsey and L. Heller. 2005. Predictions of parenting among African American single mothers: personal and contextual factors. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(2):448-460. Kullberg, C. 2005. Differences in the Seriousness of Problems and Deservingness of Help: Swedish Social Workers' Assessments of Single Mothers and Fathers, British Journal of Social Work, 35(3):373. Lampard, R. and K. Peggs. 1999. Repartnering: The relevance of parenthood and gender to cohabitation and remarriage among the formerly married. The British Journal of Sociology, 50(3):443-465. Larner, W. 2000. Post-welfare state governance: towards a code of social and family responsibility. Social Politics, 7(2):244-265. Larson, R.W. and S. Gillman. 1999. Transmission of emotions in the daily interactions of single-mother families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61(1):21-37. Lather, P. 1992. Critical frames in educational research: feminist and post-structural perspectives. Theory into Practice, XXXI (2):87-99. Lee, S.M., and J. Kushner. 2008. Single-parent families: the role of parent’s and child’s gender on academic achievement. Gender and Education, 20(6):607-621. Legleye, S., I. Obradovic, E. Janssen, S. Spilka, O. Le Nézet, and F. Beck. 2010. Influence of cannabis use trajectories, grade repetition and family background on the school- dropout rate at the age of 17 years in France. European Journal of Public Health, 20(2):157-163. Leighninger, L. 2001. The discovery of illegitimacy in the 1950s. Journal of Progressive Human Services, 12 (1):101-107. Lerman, R.I. and C. Ratcliffe. 2001. Are single mothers finding jobs without displacing other workers? Monthly Labor Review, 124(7):3-12. Lesko, N. 2001. Act your age: a cultural construction of adolescence. New York: Routledge Farmer. Lessa, I. 2002. Unravelling a relationship: single motherhood and the practices of public housing. Affilia, 17(3):314-331. 2004. “Just don’t call her a single mother”: shifting identities of women raising children alone. Atlantis, 29(1):43-51. 2005. Discursive struggles within social welfare: restaging teen motherhood. British Journal of Social Work, 36(2):283-298.

Levine, K.A. 2009. Against all odds: resilience in single mothers of children with disabilities. Social Work in Health Care, 48(4):402-419. Lewis, J. 1998a. The problem of lone-mother families in twentieth-century Britain. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 20(3):251-283. 1998b. 'Work', 'welfare' and lone mothers. The Political Quarterly, 69(1):4-13.

314

Lino, M. 1995. The economics of single parenthood: Past research and future directions. Marriage and Family Review, 20(1-2):99-114. Livermore, M.M., and R.S. Powers. 2006. Employment of unwed mothers: the role of government and social support. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 27(3):479. Lleras, C. 2008. Employment, work conditions, and the home environment in single mother families. Journal of Family Issues, 29(10):1268-1297. Loxton, D. 2005. What future?: the long term implications of sole motherhood for economic wellbeing. Just Policy, (35):39-44. Loxton, D., R. Mooney, and A.F. Young. 2006. The psychological health of sole mothers in Australia. MJA, 184(6):265-268. Luna, Y.M. 2009. Single welfare mothers’ resistance. Journal of Poverty, 13(4):441-461. Lye, J. 1996/1997. Some post-structural assumptions. http://www.brocku.ca/english/courses/4F70/poststruct.php MacCallum, F. and S. Golombok. 2004. Children raised in fatherless families from infancy: a follow-up of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers at early adolescence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(8):1407-1419. MacDonald, M. 2003. Discourse and Ideology. London: Arnold Publishing. Manning, W.D. and P.J. Smock. 2000. “Swapping” families: serial parenting and economic support for children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(1):111-122. Mannis, V.S. 1999. Single mothers by choice. Family Relations, 48(2):121-128. Marlow, S. 2006. A safety net or ties that bind? Women, welfare and self-employment. The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 26(9):397-410. Marsh, A., and S. Vegeris. 2004. The British lone parent cohort and their children 1991 to 2001. Department of Work and Pensions, United Kingdom. Marsiglio, W., P. Amato, R.D. Day, and M.E. Lamb. 2000. Scholarship on fatherhood in the 1990s and beyond. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(4):1173-1191. Matt, E. 2004. The presentation of qualitative research. In A Companion to Qualitative Research. U. Flick, E. von Kardorff and I. Steinke, eds. London: Sage Publications. May, V. 2004. Meanings of lone motherhood within a broader family context. The Sociological Review, 52(3):390-403. 2008. On being a `good' mother: the moral presentation of self in written life stories. Sociology, 42(3):470-486 Mayson, M. 1999. Ontario works and single mothers: Redefining "Deservedness and the Social Contract". Journal of Canadian Studies, 34(2):89-109. McArthur, M., J. Zubrzycki, A. Rochester, and L. Thomson. 2006. 'Dad, where are we going to live now?' Exploring fathers' experiences of homelessness. Australian Social Work, 59(3):288-300. McHoul, A., and W. Grace. 1993. A Foucault Primer: Discourse, power and the subject. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press. McKenzie, H. and K. Cook. 2007. The influence of child support and welfare on single parent families. Just Policy, (45):13-19. Medved, C.E., and E.L. Kirby. 2005. Family CEOs: A feminist analysis of corporate mothering discourses. Management Communication Quarterly, 18 (4):435-478. Meinefeld, W. 2004. Hypotheses and prior knowledge in qualitative research. In A companion to qualitative research. U. Flick, E. von Kardorff, and I. Steinke, eds. Sage Publications: London. Mendes, P. 2000. Reconstituting the public as the private: John Howard on the welfare state. Journal of Economic and Social Policy, 4(2):33-47.

315

2004. Is there such a thing as welfare dependency? Arena Magazine, (69):31-34. Merewether, M. 2010. Maverick Mother: from social pariah to social progressive. Hecate, 36(1/2):101-118. Meyer, D.R. and S. Garasky. 1993. Custodial fathers: myths, realities, and child support policy. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55(1):73-89. Meyer, J.W. 1986. Myths of socialization and of personality. In Reconstructing Individualism: Autonomy, Individuality, and the Self in Western Thought., T. C. Heller, M. Sosna and D. E. Wellbery, eds. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Mills, S. 1997. Discursive Structures. London: Routledge. 2003. Michel Foucault, Routledge Critical Thinkers. Oxford: Routledge. Mishler, E.G. 1990. Validation in inquiry-guided research: the role of exemplars in narrative studies. Harvard Educational Review, 60(4):415-442. Mokhtar, C. and L. Platt. 2009. Lone mothers, ethnicity and welfare dynamics. Journal of Social Policy, 39(1):95-118. Mollborn, S. 2007. Making the best of a bad situation: material resources and teenage parenthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(1):92-104. Monroe, P.A. and V.V. Tiller. 2001. Commitment to work among welfare-reliant women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(3);816-828. Morehead, A. 2002. Behind the paid working hours of single mothers: managing change and constructing support. Family Matters, (61):56 Moskovitz, S. 2010. Representations of mother in the daughter of a single gay father. Infant Observation, 13(3):309-324. Myles, J., F. Hou, G. Picot, and K. Myers. 2009. The demographic foundations of rising employment. Population Research Policy Review, 28:693-720. Nadesan, M.H. 2002. Engineering the entrepreneurial infant: brain science, infant development toys, and governmentality. Cultural Studies, 16(3):401-432. Nardi, P.M. 1997. Changing gay and lesbian images in the media. In Overcoming Heterosexism and Homophobia: Strategies That Work. J.T. Sears and W.L. Williams, eds. New York: Columbia University Press. National Survey on Drug Use and Health Report. 2008. Parent awareness of youth use of cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana. National Survey on Drug Use and Health, April 24. Neal, D. 2004. The relationship between marriage market prospects and never-married motherhood. The Journal of Human Resources, 39(4):938-957. Ning, .AM. 2005. Games of truth: rethinking conformity and resistance in narratives of heroin recovery. Medical Anthropology, 24(4):349-382. Noble, C.L., L.T. Eby, A. Lockwood and T.D. Allen. 2004. Attitudes toward working single parents: Initial development of a measure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64:1030-. Nock, S.L. 1998. The consequences of premarital fatherhood. American Sociological Review, 63(2):250-263. O'Connor, B. 2001. The Intellectual Origins of 'Welfare Dependency'. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 36(3):221-236. Onwuegbuzie, A.J., and N.L. Leech. 2007. Validity in qualitative research: an oxymoron? Quality and Quantity, 41(2):233-249. Page, M.E. and A.H. Stevens. 2004. The economic consequences of absent parents. The Journal of Human Resources, 39(1):80-107. Pakizegi, B. 1990. Emerging family forms: single mothers by choice – demographic and psychosocial variables. Maternal-Child Nursing Journal, 19:1-19.

316

Park. H. 2007. Single parenthood and children’s reading performance in Asia. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(3):863-877 Parker, I. 2004. Discourse Analysis. In A Companion to Qualitative Research. U. Flick, E.V. Kardorff and I. Steinke, eds. London: Sage Publications. Parker, I., and E. Burman. 1993. Against discursive imperialism, empiricism and constructionism: thirty-two problems with discourse analysis. In Discourse Analytic Research: Repertoires and Readings of Texts in Action. E. Burman and I. Parker, eds. London: Routledge. Patterson, L. and C. Briar. 2005. Lone mothers in liberal welfare states: thirty years of change and continuity. Hecate, 31(1):46-59. Peled, E. 2000. Parenting by men who abuse women: issues and dilemmas. British Journal of Social Work, 30(1):25-36. Perloff, J.N. and J.C. Buckner. 1996. Fathers of children on welfare: their impact on child well-being. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 66(4):557-571. Peterson, R.R. 1996. A re-evaluation of the economic consequences of divorce. American Sociological Review, 61(3):528-536. Philp, M. 1983. Foucault on power: a problem of radical translation? Political Theory, 11(1):29-52. Pike, L.T. 2000. Single mum or single dad? The effects of parent residency arrangements on the development of primary school-aged children. Paper read at 7th Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference, July 24-26, Sydney. Pillow, W.S. 2004. Unfit Subjects: Educational Policy and the Teen Mother. New York: Routledge Farmer. Pollack, S. and L Caragata. 2010. Contestation and accommodation: constructions of lone mothers’ subjectivity through workfare discourse and practice. Affilia, 25(3):264-277. Power, E.M. 2005. The unfreedom of being other: Canadian lone mothers' experiences of poverty and 'life on the cheque'. Sociology, 39(4):643-660. Puls, J. 1996. Re-forming the single parent family: the way of the future? Just Policy, (7):15- 21. Rabinow, P., and N. Rose, eds. 2003. The Essential Foucault: Selections from Essential Works of Foucault, 1954-1984. New York: The New Press. Radford, A.J., G.A. Brice, R. Harris, M. Van der Byl, H. Monten, M. McNeece-Neeson, and R. Hassan. 1999. The ‘easy-street’ myth: self harm among Aboriginal and non- Aboriginal female sole parents in urban state housing. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 23(1):77-85. Rains, P., L. Davies and M. McKinnon. 1998. Taking responsibility: an insider view of teen motherhood. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, May- June: 308-319. Rangarajan, A. and P. Gleason. 1998. Young unwed fathers of AFDC children: do they provide support? Demography, 35(2):175-186. Rawsthorne, M. 2006. Instability among low income families: [receiving income support]. Just Policy, (40):25-31. Reekie, G. 1996. Single parents and social scientists: towards a discourse analysis of a contemporary social 'problem'. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 31(3):327-339. 1997. Malthus, women, and the 'end of welfare'. Just Policy, (10):20-25.

Rhodes, R. and M.M. Johnson. 2000. Students’ perceptions of single parents and social injustice: a women’s issue. Affilia, 15(3):434-446.

317

Richards, L.N. and C.J. Schmiege. 1993. Problems and strengths of single-parent families: Implications for practice and policy. Family Relations, 42(3):277- . Richardson, J.E. 2007. Analysing newspapers: context, text and consequence. In Analysing Newspapers: An Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Richardson, N., D.J. Higgins, L.M. Bromfield, G. Tooley, and M. Stokes. 2005. The relationship between childhood injuries and family type. Family Matters, 72:44-49. Robinson, E. 2009. Sole-parent families: different needs or a need for different perceptions? Family Matters, 82:47-51. Rose, N. 1996. Governing ‘advanced’ liberal democracies. In Foucault and political reason: liberalism, neo-liberalism and rationalities of government, A. Barry, T. Osborne, and N Rose, eds. London: UCL Press. 1998. Inventing our selves: Psychology, power, and personhood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1999. Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self, second edition. London: Free Association Books. 2001. The Neurochemical Self and its Anomalies. In Risk and Morality, R. Ericson, ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 2005. Governing Risky Individuals: The role of psychiatry in new regimes of control. In Governing Risks. P. O'Malley, ed. Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing Company. n.d. Power and Subjectivity: Critical History and Psychology. Rowlingson, K. and S. McKay. 2005. Lone motherhood and socio-economic disadvantage: insights from quantitative and qualitative evidence. The Sociological Review, 32-49. Roy, S.C. 2008. Taking charge of your health: discourses of responsibility in English- Canadian women's magazines. Sociology of Health & Illness, 30(3):463-477. Ruger, W., S.E. Wilson, and S.L. Waddoups. 2002. Warfare and welfare: military service, combat, and marital dissolution. Armed Forces & Society, 29(1):85-107. Sabia, J.J. 2008. Minimum wages and the economic well-being of single mothers. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(4):848-866. Samuels-Dennis, J. 2007. Employment status, depressive symptoms, and the mediating/moderating effects of single mothers’ coping repertoire. Public Health Nursing, 24(6):491-502. Sarfati, D., and K.M. Scott. 2001. The health of lone mothers in New Zealand. New Zealand Medical Journal, 114(1133):257-260. Sauvola, A., J. Miettunen, M.R. Järvelin, and P. Räsänen. 2001. An examination between single-parent family background and drunk driving in adulthood: findings from the Northern Finland 1966 birth cohort. Alcoholism Clinical and Experimental Research, 25(2):206-209. Sawhill, I.V. 2002a. Is lack of marriage the real problem? The American Prospect, 13(7):28- 29. 2002b. The perils of early motherhood. Public Interest, 146:74-84. Scarbrough, J.W. 2001. Welfare Mothers' Reflections on Personal Responsibility. Journal of Social Issues, 57(2):261-276. Scheurich J.J. and K.B. McKenzie. 2005. Foucault’s Methodologies: Archaeology and Genealogy. In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln, eds, third edition. London: Sage Publications, 841-868. Scheurich, J.J. 1995. A postmodernist critique of research interviewing. Qualitative Studies in Education, 8(3):239-252.

318

Schultz, K. 2001. Constructing failure, narrating success: rethinking the ‘problem’ of teen pregnancy. Teachers College Record, 103(4):582-607. Seccombe, K., K.B. Walters, and D. James. 1999. "Welfare mothers" welcome reform, urge compassion. Family Relations, 48(2):197-206. Segal-Engelchin, D. and Y. Wozner. 2005. Quality of life of single mothers by choice in Israel: a comparison to divorced mothers and married mothers. Marriage and Family Review, 37(4):7-. Shaff, K.A., N.H. Wolfinger, L. Kowaleski-Jones, and K.R. Smith. 2008. Family structure transitions and child achievement. Sociological Spectrum, 28(6):681-704. Shanok, A.F. and L. Miller. 2007. Stepping up to motherhood among inner-city teens. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31:252-261. Sheppard-LeMoine, D.F. 2000. The social construction of low income single mothers lives: the link to understanding their parenting experiences. Masters Thesis in Nursing, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia. Sidel, R. 1996. The enemy within: a commentary on the demonization of difference. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 66(4):490-495. 2000. The enemy within: the demonization of poor women. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 27(1):73. Siegel, J.M. 1995a. Looking for Mr Right? Older single women who become mothers. Journal of Family Issues, 16(2):194:211. 1995b. Voluntary stigmatization and social comparison: single mothers view their lot. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(22):1953-1972. Silberberg, S. 2001. Searching for family resilience. Family Matters, 58:52-57. Silverman, D. 1985. Qualitative Methodology & Sociology: Describing the social world. England: Gower Publishing Co Ltd. 2001. Interpreting qualitative data: methods for analysing talk, text and interaction, second edition. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Simon, R.W. 2002. Revisiting the relationships among gender, marital status, and mental health. The American Journal of Sociology, 107(4):1065-1095. Simons, R.L., K.H. Lin, L.C. Gordon, R.D. Conger and F.O. Lorenz. 1999. Explaining the higher incidence of adjustment problems among children of divorce compared to those in two-parent families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61(4):1020-1033. Singh, S., J.E. Darroch and J.J. Frost. 2001. Socioeconomic disadvantage and adolescent women’s sexual and reproductive behaviour: the case of five developed countries. Family Planning Perspectives, 33(6):251-289. Smart, C. 2000. Wishful thinking and harmful tinkering? Sociological reflections on family policy. Journal of Social Problems, 26(03):301-321. SmithBattle, L. 2007. Legacies of advantage and disadvantage: the case of teen mothers. Public Health Nursing, 24(5):409-420. Søndergaard, D.M. 2002. Poststructuralist approaches to empirical analysis. Qualitative Studies in Education, 15(2):187-204. South, S.J., and K.D. Crowder. 1998. Avenues and barriers to residential mobility among single mothers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60(4):866-877. Spencer, N. 2005. Does material disadvantage explain the increased risk of adverse health, educational, and behavioural outcomes among children in lone parent households in Britain? A cross sectional study. Journal of Epidemiol Community Health, 59:152-157. St. Pierre, E.A. 2002. Methodology in the fold and the irruption of transgressive data. In Qualitative Research in Practice: Examples for Discussion and Analysis. Sharan B. Merriam and Associates, eds. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

319

Stacey, J. 1993. Good riddance to ‘the Family’: A response to David Popenoe. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55(3):545-547. Sterrett, E.M., D.J. Jones, and C. Kincaid. 2009. Psychosocial adjustment of low-income African American youth from single mother homes: the role of the youth-coparent relationship. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 38(3):427-438. Stetter, A. 2007. Marriage in the military. Soldiers, February: 32-35. Stoltz, P. 2000. Single mothers and the dilemmas of universal social policies. Journal of Social Policy, 26(4):425-443. Talbot, M. 2007. Introduction: media and discourse. In Media Discourse: Representation and Interaction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Tamboukou, M., and S.J. Ball. 2003. Genealogy and Ethnography: Fruitful Encounters or Dangerous Liaisons? In Dangerous Encounters Genealogy & Ethnography. M. Tamboukou and S. J. Ball, eds. New York: Peter Lang. Tan, T.X., and J. Baggerley. 2009. Behavioral adjustment of adopted Chinese girls in single- mother, lesbian-couple, and heterosexual-couple households. Adoption Quarterly, 12(3):171-186. Targosz, S., P. Bebbington, G. Lewis, T. Brugha, R. Jenkins, M. Farrell, and H. Meltzer. 2003. Lone mothers, social exclusion and depression. Psychological Medicine, 33:715-722. Taylor, Z.E., D. Larsen-Rife, R.D. Conger, K.F. Widaman, and C.E. Cutrona. 2010. Life stress, maternal optimism, and adolescent competence in single mother, African American families. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(4):468-477. Teachman, J.D., L.M. Tedrow, and K.D. Crowder. 2000. The Changing Demography of America's Families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(4):1234-1246. The Macquarie Dictionary. 1987. Australia: The Book Printer. Thomas, A., V. Stone, and D. Cotton. 1999. Modernising service delivery: the lone parent prototype. Department of Social Security, United Kingdom. Thomson, E., J. Mosley, T.L. Hanson, and S.S. McLanahan. 2001. Remarriage, cohabitation, and changes in mothering behaviour. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63(2):370-380. Törrönen, J. 2001. The concept of subject position in empirical social research. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 31(3):313-329. Travers, P. 1998. Welfare dependence, welfare poverty and welfare labels. Social Security, (2):117-128. Tsushima, T. and V. Gecas. 2001. Role taking and socialization in single-parent families. Journal of Family Issues, 22(3):267-288. Tucker, J.S. 2006. The new future of motherhood. Off our backs, 36(2):32-38. Turner, H.A. 2006. Stress, social resources, and depression among never-married and divorced rural mothers. Rural Sociology, 71(3):479-504. Tyler, D. 1993. Making Better Children. In Child and Citizen: Genealogies of schooling and subjectivity. D. Meredyth and D. Tyler, eds. Brisbane: Griffith University. Usdansky, M.L. 2008. The emergence of a social problem: single-parent families in U.S. popular magazines and social science journals, 1900-1998. Sociological Inquiry, 78(1):74-96. Uttley, S. 2000. Lone Mothers and Policy Discourse in New Zealand. Cambridge Journals Online, 29(03):441-458. Van Acker, L. 2005. The Howard government's budgets: stay-at-home mothers good - single mothers bad. Hecate, 31(2):90-102.

320

Vartanian, T.P., and J.M. McNamara. 2004. The welfare myth: disentangling the long-term effects of poverty and welfare receipt for young single mothers. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, XXXI(4):105-140. Wagmiller, R.L. Jr, E. Gershoff, P. Veliz, and M. Clements. 2010. Does children’s academic achievement improve when single mothers marry? Sociology of Education, 83(3):201- 226. Walkerdine, V. 1984. Developmental psychology and the child-centred pedagogy: the insertion of Piaget into early education. In Changing the subject: Psychology, social regulation, and subjectivity. J. Henriques, W. Hollway, C. Urwin, C. Venn and V. Walkerdine, eds. London: Methuen. Wallbank, J.A. 2001. Challenging Motherhood(s). England, Essex: Pearson Education Limited. 1998. An unlikely match? Foucault and the lone mother. Law and Critique, IX(1):59- 88. Walter, M. 2000. Australian non-custodian unwed fathers: What is their level of parental involvement? Paper read at 7th Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference, 24- 26 July 2000, at Sydney. 2002. Working their way of out poverty? sole motherhood, work, welfare and material well-being, Journal of Sociology, 38(4):361-380. 2003. Orientation to Motherhood: Comparing the attitudes and values of sole and married mothers on the congruence of labour market participation and good motherhood. Paper read at 8th Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference, 12 February, at Melbourne. 2005. Exploring mothers' relationship to the labour market. Just Policy, (35):13-21.

Warren, C.A.B., and T.X. Karner. 2005. Discovering Qualitative Methods: Field Research, Interviews, and Analysis. California: Roxbury Publishing Company. Weathers, D. 1999. On our own: Straight talk on single mothering. Essence, 30(8):137-. Webber, R., and D. Boromeo. 2005. The sole parent family: family and support networks. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 40(2):269-283. Weitoft, G.R., A. Hjern, B. Haglund, and M. Rosén. 2003. Mortality, severe morbidity and injury in children living with single parents in Sweden: a population-based study. The Lancet, 361(9354):289-295.. Weitoft, G.R., B. Haglund and M Rosen. 2000. Mortality among lone mothers in Sweden: a population study. The Lancet, 355(9211):1215-1219. Weitoft, G.R., B. Haglund, A. Hjern, and M. Rosén. 2002. Mortality, severe morbidity and injury among long-term lone mothers in Sweden. International Journal of Epidemiology, 31(3):573-580. Weitzman, L.J. 1996. The economic consequences of divorce are still unequal: comment on Peterson. American Sociological Review, 61(3):537-538. Whitbeck, L.B., R.L. Simons, and M.Y. Kao. 1994. The effects of divorced mothers’ dating behaviours and sexual activities on the sexual attitudes and behaviours of their adolescent children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 56(3):615-621. Williams, K., S. Sassler, and L.M. Nicholson. 2008. For better or for worse? The consequences of marriage and cohabitation for single mothers. Social Forces, 86(4):1481-1511. Williams, S.J., and M. Calnan. 1996. The 'limits' of medicalization? Modern medicine and the lay populace in ‘late' modernity. Social Science & Medicine, 42(12):1609-1620.

321

Wilkins, R., D. Warren, M. Hahn and B. Houng. 2011. Families, Incomes and Jobs, Volume 6: A statistical report on waves 1 to 8 of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australian survey, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, University of Melbourne. Willis, R.J. 1999. A theory of out-of-wedlock childbearing. The Journal of Political Economy, 107(6):S33-S64. 2000. The economics of fatherhood. The American Economic Review, 90(2):378-382. Wilson, H. and A. Huntington. 2005. Deviant (M)others: the construction of teenage motherhood in contemporary discourse. Journal of Social Policy, 35(1):59-76. Wilson, J.Q. 2002. Sex and the marriage market, Commentary, 40. Wilson, K. and M. Prior. 2003. Father involvement: pathways to taking responsibility. Paper read at the 8th Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference, Melbourne 12 February. Withorn, A. 1996. "Why do they hate me so much?" A history of welfare and its abandonment in the United States. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 66(4):496. Wittekind, J.E.C. and A.T. Vazsonyi. 2003. Deviant behaviour among Swiss adolescents: the effects of sex, age and family structure. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 27(2):179-195. Wright, J. 2000. Disciplining the body: power, knowledge and subjectivity in a physical education lesson. In Culture & Text: discourse and methodology in social research and cultural studies. A. Lee, and C. Poynton, eds. Australia: Allen & Unwin, 152-169. Yardley, E. 2009. Teenage mothers’ experiences of formal support services. Journal of Social Policy, 38(2):241-257. Young, I.M. 1994. Making single motherhood normal. Dissent, Winter: 88-93. Zabkiewicz, D. 2010. The mental health benefits of work: do they apply to poor single mothers? Social Psychiatric Epidemiology, 45:77-87. Zhan, M. 2006. Economic Mobility of Single Mothers: The role of assets and human capital development. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, XXXIII(4):127-150. Zhan, M. and S. Pandey. 2004. Economic well-being of single mothers: Work first or postsecondary education? Journal of sociology and Social Welfare, XXXI(3):87-112.

322