The interactional organization of sex assignment after childbirth

doi:10.1558/genl.v9i2.17810

Gender and Language, Vol 9, No 2 (2015)

The interactional organization of sex assignment after childbirth

Anna Lindström, Shirley Näslund, Christine Rubertsson

Issued Date: 5 Aug 2015

Abstract

That society divides its members into females and males is the point of departure for much research on gender and language and yet the situated accomplishment of the primordial sex categorisation of the newborn child has not attracted much scholarly attention. The present study fills this research gap by exploring the interactional organisation of sex assignment in a corpus of 67 video recordings of Swedish hospital births. We present quantitative and qualitative support for the idea that sex assignment is a prioritised activity during the first minutes after childbirth. Contrary to descriptions and assumptions in previous research, we find that sex assignment typically is sequentially accomplished in the social interaction between parents and medical staff. Our analysis reveals a normative preference that selects parents (rather than medical staff) as the ones who should discover and declare sex. We also provide tentative evidence that sex assignment may be a gendered practice that prioritises the father (rather than the mother) as the individual entitled to assign sex.

Download Media

PDF (Price: £17.50 ) Restricted Access

DOI: 10.1558/genl.v9i2.17810

References

Bavelas, J. and Chovil, N. (1997) Faces in dialogue. In J. A. Russell and J.-M. Fernandez-Dols (eds) The Psychology of Facial Expression 334–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511659911.017

Bourdieu, P. (2001) Masculine Domination. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Braun, V. and Kitzinger, C. (2001) Telling it straight? Dictionary definitions of women’s genitals. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5(2): 214–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00148

Braun, V. and Wilkinson, S. (2001) Socio-cultural representations of the vagina. Journal ofReproductive and Infant Psychology 19(1): 17–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02646830020032374

Butler, J. (1996) Gender Trouble. London: Routledge.

Daly, M. and Wilson, M. I. (1982) Whom are newborn babies said to resemble. Ethology and Sociobiology 3: 69–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(82)90002-4

Ekman, P. (2003) Emotions Revealed. New York: Henry Holt.

Fenstermaker, S. and West, S. (2002) Introduction. In S. Fenstermaker and C. West (eds) Doing Gender, Doing Difference: Inequality, Power, and Institutional Change xiii–xviii. New York: Routledge.

Garfinkel, H. (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Goodwin, C. (1981) Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic Press.

Jefferson, G. (1990) List-construction as a task and a resource. In G. Psathas (ed) Interaction Competence 63–92. Washington, DC: University Press of America.

Katz Rothman, B. (2010) Laboring now: current cultural constructions of pregnancy, birth and mothering. In L. J. Moore and M. Kosut (eds) The Body Reader 48–65. New York: New York University Press.

Kessler, S. J. and McKenna, W. (1978) Gender: An Ethnomethodological Approach. New York: John Wiley.

Kidwell, M. (2006) ‘Calm down!’: the role of gaze in the interactional management of hysteria by the police. Discourse studies 8(6): 745–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461445606069328

Kitzinger, C. (2005) Heteronormativity in action: reproducing the heterosexual nuclear family in after-hours medical calls. Social Problems 52(4): 477–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/sp.2005.52.4.477

Lerner, G. L. and Kitzinger, C. (2007) Extraction and aggregation in the repair of individual and collective self-reference. Discourse Studies 9: 526–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461445607079165

Lindgren, H. E., Rådestad, I. J., Christensson, K. and Hildingsson, I. M. (2008) Outcome of planned home births compared to hospital births in Sweden between 1992 and 2004: a population-based register study. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 87(7): 751–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00016340802199903

Lindström, A. (1994) Identification and recognition in Swedish telephone conversation openings. Language in Society 23(2): 231–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S004740450001784X

Livia, A. and Hall, K. (1997) ‘It’s a girl!’ Bringing performativity back to linguistics. In A. Livia and K. Hall (eds) Queerly Phrased: Language, Gender, and Sexuality 3–18. New York: Oxford University Press.

Macfarlane, A. (1977) The Psychology of Childbirth. London: Open Books.

Milles, K. (2011) Snippa: a success story of feminist language planning. Gender and Language 5(1): 89–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/genl.v5i1.89

Mondada, L. (2003) Working with video: how surgeons produce video records of their actions. Visual Studies 18(1): 58–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1472586032000100083

Näslund, S. (2012) I begynnelsen var ordet: tal genom ofödda och nyfödda på förlossningsavdelningen. [In the beginning was the word: speech through the unborn and the newborn at the delivery ward.] Språk och stil 22(2): 185–214.

Näslund, S. (2013a) Att samkonstruera en faderskapsrit: en studie av interaktionen vid klippet av navelsträngen. [The interactional underpinnings of a paternity rite: cutting the umbilical cord.] NORMA 8: 168–88.

Näslund, S. (2013b) Födandets sociala utformning: språkliga och kroppsliga praktiker i förlossningsrummet. [The social making of birth: linguistic and bodily practises in the delivery room]. Doctoral dissertation, Örebro University, Sweden.

Rubin, J. Z, Provenzano, F. J and Luria, Z. (1974) Parents’ views on sex of newborns. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 44(4): 512–519. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.1974.tb00905.x

Schegloff, E. A. (1968) Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist 70: 1075–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030

Schegloff, E. A. (1979) Identification and recognition in telephone conversation openings. In G. Psathas (ed.) Everyday Language 23–78. New York: Erlbaum.

Schegloff, E. A. (1992) Repair after next turn: the last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology 97: 1295–1345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/229903

Schegloff, E. A. (2007) Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208

Speer, S. A. (2005) The interactional organization of the gender attribution process. Sociology 39(1): 67–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0038038505049002

Speer, S. A. and Stokoe, E. (2011) An introduction to conversation and gender. In S. A. Speer and E. Stokoe (ed.) Conversation and Gender 1–28. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511781032.002

Stokoe, E. (2000) Toward a conversation analytic approach to gender and discourse. Feminism and Psychology 10(4): 552–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0959353500010004018

Stokoe, E. (2011) ‘Girl – woman – sorry!’ On the repair and non-repair of consecutive gender categories. In Speer, S. A. and Stokoe, E. (eds) Conversation and Gender 85–111. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stokoe, E. (2012) Moving forward with membership categorization analysis: methods for systematic analysis. Discourse Studies 14(3): 277–303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461445612441534

West, C. and Zimmerman, D. H. ([1987]2002) Doing gender. In S. Fenstermaker and C. West (eds) Doing Gender, Doing Difference: Inequality, Power, and Institutional Change 3–23. New York: Routledge.

Refbacks

There are currently no refbacks.

Equinox Publishing Ltd - 415 The Workstation 15 Paternoster Row, Sheffield, S1 2BX United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 (0)114 221-0285 - Email: [email protected]