The writings of a sociobiologist are regularly used as scientific backing for the idea that there is a « maternal instinct ». Two popular science magazines have just given another example of that. Is it really about popularizing science, or about defending a « post-feminist » belief?
According to the editor of Sciences Humaines, one of the objectives of this magazine devoted to « popularizing social and human sciences » is « to articulate scientific research […] with questions we each ask ourselves » [1]. Intending to answer the question of whether there is an eternal feminine, an article in the March 2012 issue puts forward, against Elisabeth Badinter’s « culturalist thesis », Sarah Blaffer Hrdy’s thesis according to which « there are important biological foundations (pregnancy hormones, smell of the baby, etc…) that may explain the biological mechanisms of maternal attachment » [2]. A few lines above, the author of the article forgot to use the conditional when writing, as usual exempting herself from referring to any scientific paper: « Testosterone makes men more vulnerable but more inclined to taking risks. Oxytocin makes women gentle and empathetic. ».
As for Sciences et Avenir, the magazine displays on the cover of its February 2012 issue its willingness to bring « science in front of common beliefs » regarding the differences between men and women. Answering the question « testosterone and oxytocin: what is their influence? », a first article tells us that:
« While existing research is uncertain about the role of testosterone, some studies , in contrast, seem to demonstrate that other hormones like oxytocin have the ability to lead us by the nose. Involved in childbirth and lactation, it seems certain that the latter has a role in strengthening the parental relationship, whether maternal or paternal. […] One thing is sure: regarding dependence on oxytocin, it seems that men and women are on an equal footing…» [3].
There is a natural release of oxytocin in parturients. Therefore, despite the apparent declaration of gender equality, the reader can conclude from this paragraph that this hormone helps to create a natural asymmetry between mothers and fathers in the process of strengthening parental relationships. Although he seems to have been influenced by the research hypotheses of Angela Sirigu (he cites her concerning some effects of oxytocin on autistic patients), the journalist does not support his point with scientific papers or with an expert statement. But in another article from the same issue, supposed to dismantle the stereotype that women are naturally motherly [4], his colleague cites a book by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy published in 2002 [5] to support the idea that « some biological mechanisms that attach a mother to her infant do exist (odors, genes, hormones) ».
This discourse is a continuation of a movement initiated in the 2000s
Public discourse contributing to naturalizing the fact that newborns’ main caregivers are their mothers is not new [6]. In France, this discourse in the 2000s specifically combines three characteristics: it mentions the alleged properties of oxytocin, it invokes Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, and its dissemination is overwhelmingly performed by women, often with a feminist perspective.
As early as 2001, in L’amour scientifié (The Scientification of Love), Michel Odent defends the theory that oxytocin released during childbirth – if it takes place in the favorable conditions he advocates – is the source of maternal love that thus comes naturally. The discourse of this obstetrician, longtime activist against the « industrialization of childbirth » which he compares to that of agriculture, is part of the promotion of « natural childbirth ». This movement, invigorated with the rise of ecology, was initiated at Les Bluets maternity ward (Paris, France) in the 1950s with the invention of « Painless Childbirth » supposedly allowed by deprogramming the social conditioning women are subjected to. Midwives and feminists claiming the « de-medicalization » of childbirth and its « reappropriation » by women have been working actively to spread this theory in this context [7]. But it was mainly as of 2004 that the theory of oxytocin as the « love hormone » started spreading in French public space, through the books by Lucy Vincent and their promotion in the media [8]. This former researcher in neurobiology indeed discovered, in 2003, Young and Insel’s studies on the role of oxytocin in the vole, and concluded (correctly) that extrapolating it to the explanation of human love would be a very profitable subject for books aimed at the general public [9].
Meanwhile, the book in which Blaffer Hrdy argues for the existence of biological processes facilitating maternal behavior in human females as well was translated and published in France in 2002 (cf [5]), and warmly received in the media. For example, in 2003 the then editor of Sciences Humaines magazine devoted a long report to it in which among others, he presented as facts Blaffer Hrdy’s assumptions about biological mechanisms involving genes, hormones and infant odor causing a mothering drive in mothers [10]. In 2006, the public channel France 3 co-produced, along with a French company producing wildlife and scientific high-end documentaries, a film devoted entirely to Blaffer Hrdy theses outlined in that book, written and directed by two women with Blaffer Hrdy’s participation. Called Il était une fois l’instinct maternel (Once upon a time the maternal instinct), it was broadcasted for the first time on France 3 in April 2009, with a laudatory comment from a female journalist in the reference magazine Télérama [11]. Through a sequence on female voles featuring the testimony of a female researcher from the same university as Blaffer Hrdy [12], it explains that oxytocin is « what triggers maternal behavior » (and also, by the way, that « romantic love is also an effect of oxytocin, especially among women »). Alternating sociobiological and ethological considerations, the documentary speaks highly of the social organization of motherhood in an ethnic group in Tanzania « living like our prehistoric ancestors » (!) offering, as for it, a favorable context for the full development of maternal instinct [13].
The revival of Blaffer Hrdy’s theory in 2010 against Elisabeth Badinter
In February 2010, the essayist and philosopher Elisabeth Badinter published Le Conflit. La femme et la mère (The Conflict: Woman and mother), in which she denounced the strong resurgence of a naturalism that renovates and establishes the concept of maternal instinct, and that values women’s dedication to their children. This book raised many critical reactions. In particular, Badinter’s rejection of the existence of a maternal instinct is denounced as ideological bias, as one can read in L’Express [14] or in Le Point [15] for instance, where no scientific source is cited to contradict her, however. The same was true when the famous pediatrician and government legislator (member of France’s major right-wing political party) Edwige Antier, criticized in Badinter’s book, was interviewed in Le Journal du Dimanche and in the 8 pm TV news on France 2 : she only invoked common sense evidence Badinter would deny, and described her thesis as being part of what she called « archeo-feminism » [16], as did some environmentalist feminists who were also criticized in Badinter’s book [17]. When critics use a scientific argument, they cite Blaffer Hrdy. Typically and meaningfully, in Le Nouvel Observateur, two (female) journalists challenged Badinter by flinging at her that « rigorous scientific studies, those of Sarah Hrdy precisely, establish that maternal instinct is not a myth » [18]. One of the two then published with another female colleague, on Le Nouvel Observateur’s web site, an interview with Blaffer Hrdy [19]. They wrote bluntly in it, after describing the « “socially constructed mother” hypothesis » as a Franco-French thesis due to Simone de Beauvoir and Elisabeth Badinter, that « the researcher demolishes this doctrine ». Without any reference but her own authority, Blaffer Hrdy explains in it that maternal behavior is, of course, under the influence of natural biological processes, citing the role of oxytocin [20]. Two months later, Sciences Humaines dedicated a special file to what the editor of the magazine and coordinator of this special file called « The era of post-feminism ». In an article she herself signed, she put Badinter among feminists that « keep on seeing women as eternal manipulated victims ». She links her rejection of the « finding » of the existence of natural psychic differences between the sexes to an ideological bias preventing recognition of scientific progress (coming from evolutionary psychology especially), and refers to Blaffer Hrdy’s book published in 2002 as well as to her interview on Le Nouvel Observateur ’s web site [21].
Did « rigorous scientific studies » by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy really establish the existence of a maternal instinct in women?
Let us first recall that Sarah Blaffer Hrdy is a primatologist. Although she holds both a master’s degree and a Ph.D. in anthropology, her doctoral dissertation dealt with the causes of infanticide by males in Hanuman langur, a primate of the Indian subcontinent [22]. This innovative research, co-led by the sociobiologists Robert L. Trivers and Edward O. Wilson, resulted in three scientific papers: two on langurs published in 1974 and 1976, and one on infanticide in animals in 1979, in the first issue of a sociobiology journal that still exists [23]. After 1979, she published only half a dozen minor papers in scientific journals, in ethology ones (American Journal of Primatology, Animal Behavior) or in academic journals devoted to sociobiology or to evolutionary psychology/anthropology (Human Nature, Ethology and Sociobiology, Evolutionary Anthropology). Her writings are characterized by a desire to offer explanations for sexual and parental behavior both as part of evolutionary theory and in a claimed feminist perspective. In fact, it is mostly outside scientific journals that she championed her assumptions, particularly with her book published in 1981 (The woman that never evolved). Thus, first of all the usual presentation of the academic discipline her research is a part of is misleading, for she is not an anthropologist in the French sense of the word, nor a biologist, by the way, contrary to what the editor of Sciences Humaines claims (see [21]). In addition, she has not published any scientific study demonstrating the existence of any form of maternal instinct in the human species (nor in the primates she studied). The popular science magazines do, in fact, nothing more than refer to the writings where she presented her assumptions on the subject, developed within a theoretical framework positing that some biological mechanisms selected during the evolution process cause some differences between men and women’s sexual and parental behavior.
Is it established that the peripartum release of oxytocin triggers a mothering drive?
The first pharmacological study suggesting a role for oxytocin in the onset of maternal behavior through an effect on the brain, beyond its well-established peripheral action on the uterus (contractions) and mammary gland (milk ejection) was published in 1979. Conducted on female rats, it was followed by congruent research also on rat, and then on sheep. This research hypothesis has been further supported, since 1992, by the publication by Thomas Insel et Larry J. Young of a series of studies on vole. In these studies, they suggest that oxytocin is involved in social bonding, including adults to pups bonding. But even Young, albeit leader of neurobiological research on this and fervent proponent of this theory, admitted in 2009 that the role of oxytocin in the onset of maternal behavior in rats has not been confirmed in mice, and that data addressing the question of whether it « might modulate human social relationships » was « scarce and inconclusive » [24].
In October 2010, I contacted the leader of a study whose results had just been popularized incidentally saying that oxytocin plays a role in maternal behavior, as had been the case in February 2010 when a study conducted by another French research group led by Angela Sirigu was published [25]. I asked her to tell me which scientific publications had established this role in humans. She admitted that in our species, this role was only « suggested », and she sent me a forthcoming scientific paper addressing this issue in primates. This paper, published in 2011 [26], concludes that the existing scientific literature provides some evidence that in primates as in other mammals, oxytocin may act within the brain to facilitate the onset of maternal behavior, but that further studies are needed to confirm that it does. It stresses in particular that the only studies on women deemed relevant, published in 2007 by Ruth Feldman and Ari Levine’s group, must be interpreted cautiously [27].
Indeed, extrapolating studies that report some effects of intranasal administration of oxytocin (as part of neuroeconomics research conducted in the hope of juicy applications, and more recently as a therapeutic approach to autism) is problematic for several reasons. Similarly, the very few studies that reported a link between oxytocin and maternal attitudes in humans remain to be replicated on larger samples, suffer from methodological flaws linking to how ocytocin levels and attachment are measured, and are based only on the observation of correlations that can easily be explained without assuming a causal role for oxytocin. For example, one knows that stimulating the nipples increases oxytocin release in the blood. High levels of oxytocin may then be an effect of breastfeeding, itself being correlated to a certain degree of maternal investment, and not its cause. Alternatively, women having a malfunction in their oxytocinergic system that prevents milk ejection, thereby failing to breastfeed, may develop complications in their relationship with their baby owing to their inability to comply with social injunction to breastfeed, in no way due to an action of oxytocin on hypothetical cerebral systems specifically in charge of these relationships. It could also be that women with a satisfactory sexual and romantic relationship during pregnancy, with oxytocin release thereby regularly stimulated (whether due to orgasms or to nipple stimulation, for instance), could develop thanks to this favorable environment a better relationship with their baby than women who are single or who have marital problems. Furthermore, a study in which Young participated suggests that women with a history of childhood neglect or abuse have lower oxytocin levels in their cerebrospinal fluid than the average woman [28]. They might well have relationship problems with their baby due to the reactivation of their difficult childhood, together with a low level of oxytocin, these two facts not having a cause-and-effect relationship here.
Since it is only hypothetical, why is this theory about oxytocin promoted by Blaffer Hrdy so successful in the media?
First, one may note that it is consistent with common sense, fed by both old scholarly myths and the feelings expressed by a number of mothers. It is also consistent with the conservative social philosophy advocating the assignment of women to child care. But these explanations are largely insufficient.
As noted above, this theory has the advantage of appearing congruent with research findings which are intensely promoted by Thomas Insel and his former colleagues (he has been heading the US National Institute of Mental Health since late 2002) and successfully popularized by Lucy Vincent (via the attractive “couple and sexuality” topic), and it also helps to establish the relevance of some projects conducted in two French research centers. Moreover, Blaffer Hrdy’s position, most often emphasized in the popular writings that spread her theories, gives her a special authority status: first, as emanating from a sociobiologist and member of the US National Academy of Sciences, her view is supposed to reflect the scientific state-of-the-art and to be relieved of taboos against sociobiology imposed by French mainstream anti-sexism, anti-racism anti-biologism [29] ; secondly, as a woman and feminist, she is viewed as being above suspicion of anti-feminism [30]. Moreover, her explanations and recommendations regarding infanticide, massively committed in India under social pressure or rarely (but with a lot of media publicity) in France, necessarily generate interest. In addition, presenting as natural the postpartum development of fulfilling maternal feelings has the advantage of reassuring women who are distressed by the injunction to be successful at maternity, an unexpected side-effect of the right to a « chosen maternity » obtained by the Women’s Liberation Movement [31]. Implying that any exception to this idyllic scenario is due either to a mother’s environment or to a purely biological dysfunction has for its part the advantage of exonerating the concerned mothers and of allowing them to avoid questioning their life choices [32].
Another dimension of Blaffer Hrdy’s discourse which is crucial to its success is the fact that it does not relentlessly assign all mothers, and mothers only, to mothering as natural destiny [33], in contrast with Edwige Antier’s position [34]. Her discourse thereby fits perfectly in the (now) hegemonic doxa that scientific advances have enabled us to « move beyond the nature/nurture debate ». By granting a role to both « nature » and « nurture » (« field of free will and emancipation » according to [14]), this doxa is in line with contemporary questionings and social philosophies: it gives simple explanations of persistent differences between social groups, it provides individuals that are lacking in models and stability with a solid biological anchoring point for their identity, while still leaving them the possibility (dear to the liberal individualism) to challenge social norms and to make life choices that are consistent with their « true self ». Thus, the discourse specifically analyzed here allows to explain why women, although freed from the radical feminism of the 70s deemed totalitarian and outdated, « choose » to keep on investing significantly more than men in child-care. It also helps to provide a biological basis for the « distinction between sexes » to which many of our contemporaries cling so desperately, while respecting the claim of not being trapped in a destiny dictated by one’s sex [35].
Odile Fillod
Original article: Odile Fillod, « Instinct maternel, science et post-féminisme », 12 March 2012, online on http://allodoxia.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/03/12/maternite-science-feminisme/.
___________________________________
Notes and references
[1] Cf http://www.scienceshumaines.com/sciences-humaines-l-aventure-d-une-revue_fr_26638.html#26641.
[2] Cf Sarah CHICHE, 03/2012, Y a-t-il un éternel féminin ?, Sciences Humaines, n°235, p. 40-42. Sarah Chiche takes maternal instinct (written without quotation marks) to illustrate a quotation from the essayist and philosopher Peggy Sastre who says that as regards feminity, researchers now consider that nature forms a tendency which is later shaped by nurture (« s’agissant de la féminité, […] les chercheurs travaillent […] davantage en considérant que l’inné donne une tendance que façonne ensuite l’environnement »). She refers to a text box in which Sastre’s ideas are promoted, these ideas being developed in a book (Ex utero. Pour en finir avec le féminisme, 2009) Sastre published in a collection she edits. Sastre proposes in it to « get out of feminism », through what she calls « evo-feminism », by having a better knowledge of female biological evolution and of the means we have to direct it (« une meilleure connaissance de l’évolution biologique féminine et des moyens actuels de l’orienter : ce que j’appellerai un évoféminisme »). The other source Sarah Chiche cites in this article is the Canadian Susan Pinker, referring to her book Le sexe fort n’est pas celui qu’on croit (2009, French version of The sexual paradox, 2008), supporting the idea that there are « a nature and qualities that are specific to women » (« une nature et des qualités spécifiquement féminines »). It is not the first time the sister of Steven Pinker (a famous researcher in cognitive psychology and evolutionary psychologist), herself psychologist but not researcher, is used by Sciences Humaines in order to set up ideas that would probably not be acceptable from a man.
[3] Hervé RATEL, 02/2012, Testostérone et ocytocine : quelle influence ?, Sciences et Avenir, n°780, p.47, italics added by me to underline the journalist’s shilly-shallying: he is obviously uncertain of the solidity of his sources, or maybe of his ability to distinguish facts from opinion in these sources.
[4] Rachel MULOT, 02/2012, Six clichés démontés – Les femmes sont naturellement maternelles, Sciences et Avenir, p.51.
[5] Sarah BLAFFER HRDY, 2002, Les Instincts maternels, Payot. It is the French version of her book originally published in 1999 under the title Mother Nature: a history of mothers, infants, and natural selection, and in 2000 under the title Mother nature: maternal instincts and how they shape the human species. Note the strategic removal, in the title of the french version, of the references to « Mother Nature » and to natural selection, probably considered likely to scare away the potential readers because of their ideological connotations.
[6] Cf Francine MUEL-DREYFUS, 2001 [1996], Vichy and the Eternal Feminine: a Contribution to a Political Sociology of Gender, Duke University Press.
[7] One can notably find many examples on web sites and forums that are dedicated to pregnant women and recent mothers. This discourse is sometimes relayed by the media. For instance, on Psychologies magazine’s web site, one can read: « Ce que de plus en plus de parents, et certains praticiens, demandent n’est finalement qu’un meilleur respect de la physiologie. Michel Odent, célèbre obstétricien français, en est l’un des grands défenseurs. Dès les années 60, il mit en garde contre la “technicisation” de l’accouchement. Selon Odent, si les êtres humains ont un accouchement plus difficile que les autres mammifères, c’est en grande partie en raison du surdéveloppement du néocortex – le cerveau de l’intellect. Durant l’accouchement, le néocortex est censé se mettre au repos, permettant à la femme de “décrocher”. Or, de nombreuses pratiques actuelles en salle de naissance viennent stimuler ce néocortex : une lumière violente, le fait de se sentir observée, le caractère anxiogène des différents appareils, etc. Ces situations augmentent la sécrétion de l’adrénaline, un antagoniste de l’ocytocine, l’hormone de l’accouchement indispensable aux contractions, mais aussi à l’instinct maternel… Retourner à la physiologie, oui, mais pas retourner en arrière. “A nous d’inventer une naissance qui ne soit pas un retour au passé, mais qui, en s’appuyant sur toutes les connaissances récentes, remette à l’honneur la physiologie et redonne aux femmes la puissance d’enfanter qui est en elles”, résume si bien Claude-Suzanne Didierjean-Jouveau [porte-parole de la Leche League]. » (09/2008, Pourquoi une naissance autrement ?, online on www.psychologies.com, accessed on 21/02/2011).
[8] In popular media, oxytocin is also called « attachment hormone » or « empathy hormone », or is claimed to increase generosity, dedication, cooperation, self-confidence or even trust in others, to regulate stress, to have a relaxing effect, to improve face recognition, etc, depending on the latest scientific paper mentioning it. Although the books by Lucy Vincent mainly led to talk of oxytocin as the « love hormone » released during orgasm and promoting attachment between sexual partners, they were also explicitly referenced in articles reporting that oxytocin facilitates mother to child attachment. For instance in Gilbert CHARLES, Jean-Sébastien STEHLI, 16/08/2004, Pourquoi l’amour est bon pour la santé, L’Express (« En étudiant les rouages biologiques de la sexualité, les chercheurs ont découvert des mécanismes de l’attachement qui font de l’homme un animal social incapable de vivre sans les autres. La molécule qui procure une sensation de plaisir pendant l’orgasme – l’ocytocine – est aussi celle qui favorise le lien unissant la mère et l’enfant au moment de la tétée […]. […] Cette molécule joue un rôle essentiel dans le lien qui relie la mère à l’enfant […]. »), or in [Anonymous], 05/2007, Toi et moi, une réaction chimique, Psychologies magazine, n°263, 05/2007, p.196 (« […] ocytocine, élue “miss hormone” de l’amour ! Elle mérite bien ce titre. […] Projetée massivement dans l’organisme lors du premier rapport amoureux, l’ocytocine est également responsable des contractions pendant l’accouchement. C’est l’hormone du premier attachement, de la première empreinte, […]”. »). One can feel the influence of the book Lucy Vincent published in 2004, though it is not explicitly mentioned here, in the words of David Servan-Schreiber reported in Ursula GAUTHIER, 14/10/2004, Santé : Y a-t-il une méthode Servan-Schreiber ?, Le Nouvel Observateur, n°2084 (« Prenez l’ocytocine. C’est un tout petit peptide […]. Voici qu’on découvre qu’il joue un rôle considérable dans l’attachement émotionnel – ainsi que dans l’orgasme ! C’est parfaitement “logique” du point de vue de l’évolution: allaiter fait mal, oblige à se relever la nuit, c’est donc “normal” que l’évolution ait mis dans le même package ce qui amène le lait dans le sein et ce qui provoque une émotion de dévouement pour son bébé. »).
[9] Cf Nolwenn LE BLEVENNEC, 13/02/2010, Lucy Vincent, chimiste de l’amour, Le Journal du Dimanche.
[10] Jean-François DORTIER, 01/2003, Y a-t-il un instinct maternel ?, Sciences Humaines, n°134, p.48-49. Extract (italics added by me): « Les chercheurs ont mis en évidence chez les mammifères une zone spécifique du cerveau (située dans l’hypothalamus) qui stimule les comportements d’élevage. Cette zone cérébrale est sous la dépendance d’une famille de gènes appelés “gènes fos”. […] C’est l’odeur des petits qui déclenche l’activation de ce gène, qui lui-même participe à la production d’hormones spécifiques stimulant la réaction maternelle. […] Un autre mécanisme déclencheur du comportement maternel provient de la prolactine, une hormone qui produit la lactation chez les jeunes mères. La montée de lait déclenche chez les jeunes mères des pulsions maternantes. […] Hormones, odeurs, gènes… il existe donc de puissants motifs biologiques pour encourager les mères à s’occuper de leurs petits. Mais cela suffit-il à faire de toutes les jeunes femmes des mères aimantes et attentionnées ? En aucun cas. Après avoir décrit quelques bases biologiques de la maternité, S. Blaffer Hrdy rappelle que certaines mères sont négligentes, d’autres distantes ou même maltraitantes à l’égard de leurs petits. […] L’importance de l’abandon et de l’infanticide suffit à remettre en cause l’idée d’un instinct maternel irrépressible. »
[11] Catherine PORTEVIN, 15/04/2009, Il était une fois l’instinct maternel, Télérama, p.106 (« […] réalisation splendide et intelligente […] », TT)
[12] Karen L. Bales, University of California Davis. Holder of a master’s degree in anthropology and of a Ph.D. in biology, she has been studying the biology of parental and social behavior from the early 2000s (including sex differences in these and their links with oxytocin), in vole mainly, as well as in some primates.
[13] Extract from Il était une fois l’instinct maternel, 20/04/2009, France 3 : « L’instinct maternel existe bien chez tous les mammifères. Une nuance toutefois : en ce qui concerne les femmes, cet instinct ne va pas tout-à-fait de soi. Il lui faut pour se développer un contexte favorable. […] Dans la grande famille des primates, il n’y a que les mères humaines pour rejeter, abandonner, ou même tuer leurs enfants. […] Dans cette tribu vivant comme nos ancêtres préhistoriques, le taux d’enfants tués, ou même abandonnés, est très faible. […] L’instinct maternel est en tout cas bien ancré dans la réalité. Le biologique est essentiel, l’environnement fait le reste. » Blaffer Hrdy explains that among Hadzas, dietary restrictions, walking, and work done by breastfeeding mothers prevent ovulation, causing a natural spacing of births of 3 or 4 years that allows them to take good care of their children.
[14] Cf Claire CHARTIER, 11/02/2010, La défaite des mères ?, L’Express, n°3058, p.86-87: « On comprend que la philosophe féministe soit déçue. Cette désillusion, perceptible entre les lignes, l’amène hélas à forcer le trait, fustigeant pêle-mêle l’écologie, la croyance dans l’instinct maternel ou le rejet des accouchements trop “techniques”. La nature n’a pourtant, en soi, rien d’idéologique. Pourquoi vouloir l’évacuer à toute force au motif qu’elle serait aujourd’hui mise en avant à des fins sociopolitiques? La culture, champ du libre arbitre et de l’émancipation, a toujours trouvé à dialoguer avec la logique naturelle. Plutôt que des childless -ces femmes sans enfants par choix, ultraminoritaires- en qui Elisabeth Badinter semble voir les pionnières d’une nouvelle féminité éclairée, c’est de cette génération de mères écartelées, sensibles à l’appel de la nature sans forcément y succomber, que doit venir la relève. ».
[15] Cf Le Point, 04/02/2010, n°1951, in a special file mentioned on the cover under the title « La charge d’Elisabeth Badinter contre les tyrans de la maternité », p 58-62, ending with critical interviews with the President of Les Verts, the main French environmentalist party (Cécile Duflot : “Le XXIe siècle d’Elisabeth Badinter est manichéen”) and with media neuropsychiatrist Boris Cyrulnik (Boris Cyrulnik : “Elisabeth Badinter provoque mon étonnement”). The latter argues against Badinter saying he is unfavorable to the prohibition of scientific research on this subject, stating that Badinter is in fact worried by the implicit ideological contents of scientific literature (« En fait, ce qui inquiète à juste titre Elisabeth Badinter, c’est l’implicite idéologique que contient toute publication scientifique. »).
[16] Cf Edwige ANTIER, 11/02/2010, interview broadcasted in the 8 pm TV news on France 2: « L’instinct maternel existe ! Attendez, je l’ai rencontré tous les jours en maternité ! 40 ans de pratique ! 40 ans que je vois une jeune mère avec son bébé ne plus penser qu’aux besoins du bébé, sous l’effet de l’ocytocine, de la prolactine, de toutes ces hormones qui permettent à notre corps et à notre cerveau d’être en alerte pour les besoins de notre enfant ! ». Quelques jours plus tôt, Antier expliquait dans la presse qu’ « Elisabeth Badinter est une archéo-féministe qui connaît mal les aspirations des jeunes mères d’aujourd’hui. Elle est dans un déni de la maternité. Pour les néoféministes comme moi, il est évident que les femmes veulent à la fois s’épanouir dans leur vie professionnelle, à l’égal des hommes, et dans la maternité. » (Cf Anne-Laure BARRET, 06/02/2010, “Elisabeth Badinter a deux trains de retard”, Le Journal du Dimanche).
[17] Cf Marie BACH, 04/2010, L’écolo radicale, les habits neufs de la mère-poule, Sciences Humaines, n°214, p.49, mentioning this attack against Badinter by « ecofeminists », where they proclaim their differentialist essentialism for which Badinter criticizes them: « Les principales intéressées répliquent “Il existe deux types de féminismes, égalitariste et essentialiste, précise Anne, maman depuis six mois. Je me revendique du second, qui sublime ce qui fait de moi une femme, c’est-à-dire mes fonctions biologiques.” ». Similarly, in an article published in the comments columns of Libération by women who claim they are « ecofeminist », one can read: « Le féminisme égalitariste fondé en France par Simone de Beauvoir, en ignorant l’aspect biologique de la différence des sexes, a poussé les Françaises à adopter des comportements masculins, sans les ajustements nécessaires, et donc au détriment des femmes et des besoins des enfants. La situation des femmes est meilleure dans les pays inspirés par un féminisme différentialiste.» (18/02/2010, Le féminisme de Badinter n’est pas le nôtre, Libération, n°8954, p.28).
[18] Anne CRIGNON, Sophie des DESERTS, 11/02/2010, Entretien avec Elisabeth Badinter – “La femme n’est pas un chimpanzé”, Le Nouvel Observateur, n°2362, p. 76-77.
[19] Véronique CASSARIN-GRAND, Anne CRIGNON, 12/02/2010, Une chercheuse américaine répond à Elisabeth Badinter, online on http://bibliobs.nouvelobs.com.
[20] Extracts from Blaffer Hrdy’s words in [19] : « […], je ne suis pas d’accord avec sa théorie selon laquelle il n’y aurait aucun fondement naturel et biologique pour expliquer le comportement maternel. Bien sur qu’il y en a ! […] La réalité c’est qu’au cours de la grossesse, se met en place une chaîne de changements physiologiques considérables et qu’à la naissance, des neurotransmetteurs comme l’ocytocine sont libérés, qui favorisent la transformation de la mère. Si elle se trouve dans un contact intime et prolongé avec ce petit étranger sorti d’elle, ses circuits neuronaux se modifient et l’encouragent à répondre aux signaux et aux demandes émis par son enfant. Une fois que la mère commence à allaiter […] et que le bébé stimule ses tétons, elle devient encore plus nourricière. »
[21] Martine FOURNIER, 04/2010, Femmes, le choix des armes, Sciences Humaines, n°214, p. 33-36. Extract, italics added by me: « En définitive, les féministes de tout bord continuent de voir les femmes comme d’éternelle victimes manipulées, […]. Ce n’est pas l’avis de la psychologue Susan Pinker pour qui les femmes contemporaines pilotent leur vie en fonction de leurs goûts et de leurs choix. Cette psychologue canadienne avance que la différence des sexes s’ancre dans des spécificités issues de la nature. Un constat bien peu audible en France, et plus généralement dans le champ des études de genre qui mettent à distance les thèses naturalistes, en raison des justifications qu’elles peuvent apporter à la hiérarchie des sexes. La psychologie évolutionniste notamment attribue à l’évolution un rôle déterminant dans les différences hommes/femmes. Cette discipline est cependant considérée comme tabou dans l’Hexagone, accusée d’endosser les vieux oripeaux idéologiques justifiant la domination masculine. Quoi qu’il en soit, ces dernières années, les expériences se sont multipliées qui mettent en évidence des spécificités masculines et féminines dès la naissance notamment liées au rôle des hormones. Qu’il s’agisse de fonctionnements intellectuels, de comportements sociaux, de sexualité, d’instinct maternel, les comportements masculins et féminins seraient biologiquement différenciés. Ce qui, précisent aujourd’hui la plupart des chercheurs, n’invalide en rien le rôle de la culture. En matière d’instinct maternel par exemple, l’anthropologue et biologiste Sarah Blaffer Hrdy a bien montré la complexité et la diversité des mécanismes qui attachent une mère à ses petits (6). Si la psychologie évolutionniste soutient l’existence de puissants motifs biologiques pour attester d’un instinct maternel, cette anthropologue qui s’inscrit dans ce courant cite le cas des nombreux infanticides pratiqués dans certaines sociétés humaines, ainsi que la pratique des abandons d’enfants, pour montrer que l’instinct maternel, chez les humains, est aussi une affaire de culture… »
[22] This research, carried out on a colony of these primates in Rajasthan, has led her to view infanticide perpetrated by male langurs as one element of the reproductive strategies selected during evolution in this species: males taking control of a group would kill newborns so their mothers are sexually receptive and fertile again, and thus likely to pass their genes; for their part, females would have developed a counter-strategy consisting in copulating with as many males as possible, especially outside the group, for a male is reluctant to kill a baby if it is possible that it is his. Her 1975 doctoral thesis (Harvard University) was published in 1977 (The Langurs of Abu: female and male strategies of reproduction, Harvard University Press).
[23] These three papers are: Male-male competition and infanticide among langurs (presbytis entellus) of Abu, Rajasthan, Folia Primatologica, vol.22(1), p. 19-58 (1974); Hierarchical relations among female Hanuman langurs (primates: colobinae, presbytis entellus), Science, vol.193(4256), p. 913-915 (1976, co-authored by her husband); Infanticide among animals – review, classification, and examination of the implications for the reproductive strategies of females, Ethology and Sociobiology, vol.1(1), p. 13-40 (1979). Ethology and Sociobiology journal was founded in 1979 by Michael T. McGuire, an american psychiatrist actively advocating the application of evolutionary theory to psychiatry research. It later became the official journal of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society (HBES), founded in 1988 at the University of Michigan to promote the sharing of ideas and research findings using evolutionary theory to better understand human nature. The name of the journal was changed to Evolution and Human Behavior in January 1997, when Canadian psychologists Martin Daly and Margo Wilson, two members of the North-American group who founded evolutionary psychology, became co-editors of it. With Human Nature: an Interdisciplinary Biosocial Perspective journal, it is one of the main places where evolutionary psychology research and theory are published.
[24] Cf Heather ROSS, Larry J. YOUNG, Oxytocin and the neural mechanisms regulating social cognition and affiliative behavior, Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, vol.30, 2009, p. 534-547 : « Animal studies have implicated a role for OT [ocytocine] in mediating maternal behavior, mother-infant bonding, and pair bonding and begs the question of whether OT might modulate human social relationships. Data addressing this issue is scarce and inconclusive. » (p. 541). The first two studies (one by Insel and Young) conducted on genetically modified mice, published in 1996, contradicted the assumptions based on rat studies: in two strains of mice in which the oxytocin gene was inhibited, created by two independent teams, it has been found that the « maternal motivation » was normal. It was not until 2005 and 2006 that further studies moderated (and not contradicted) this observation. Réf. : K. NISHIMORI, L.J. YONG, Q. GUO, Z. WANG, T.R. INSEL, M.M. MATZUK, 1996, Oxytocin is required for nursing but is not essential for parturition or reproductive behavior, PNAS, vol.93, p.11699-11704; W.S. YOUNG 3rd., E. SHEPARD, J. AMICO et al., 1996, Deficiency in mouse oxytocin prevents milk ejection, but not fertility or parturition, Journal of Neuroendocrinology, vol.8, p.847- 853; A.K. RAGNAUTH, N. DEVIDZE, V. MOY, K. FINLEY, A. GOODWILLIE, L.M. KOW, L.J. MUGLIA, D.W. PFAFF, 2005, Female oxytocin gene-knockout mice, in a semi-natural environment, display exaggerated aggressive behavior, Genes Brain and Behavior, vol.4, p.229-239; C.A. PEDERSEN, S.V. VADLAMUDI, M.L. BOCCIA, J.A. AMICO, 2006, Maternal behavior deficits in nulliparous oxytocin knockout mice, Genes Brain and Behavior, vol.5(3), p. 274-281.
[25] In CNRS press release dated 15/02/2010 on the study led by Angela Sirigu, reporting effects of intranasal intranasal administration of oxytocin to autistic patients, one can read that oxytocin is « a hormone known to promote mother-infant bonds » (in the French version of the press release, one can read it is « une hormone connue pour son rôle dans l’attachement maternel »). In CNRS/INSERM press release dated 18/10/2010 on the study led by Françoise Muscatelli, reporting a role for oxytocin in the onset of suckling behaviour in young mice, one can read that oxytocin plays a role in mother-infant bonding (« Chez la mère, cette hormone joue aussi un rôle dans la parturition, l’allaitement et l’attachement de la mère à son bébé. »). These statements, in no way supported by the studies in question, were taken up in the press. For example, when popularizing the first study, Sandrine CABUT wrote on 16/02/2010 for Le Figaro that recent studies, including human studies, have demonstrated a role for it in mother-infant bonding, among others (« Ces dernières années, des expériences chez différents animaux et chez l’homme ont affirmé son rôle dans toute une série de comportements sociaux positifs : lien mère-enfant, confiance, attachement social, fidélité… »), and Marie-Laure THEODULE wrote in La Recherche dated April 2010 that oxytocin was also known to play a role in mother-infant bonding (« est aussi connue pour jouer un rôle dans l’attachement entre la mère et l’enfant »). The research institute to which Françoise Muscatelli belongs studies the impact of events occurring at an early stage of development, hence including the possible effects of oxytocin on the fetus and newborn. A pioneering study on this subject, led by Yehezkel Ben-Ari (founder of this institute), had led Le Figaro to state that oxytocin was probably responsible for the emergence of maternal feelings (« responsable de la montée de lait chez la future mère et probablement aussi de l’émergence du sentiment maternel », Catherine PETITNICOLAS, 18/12/2006, Comment le fœtus se prépare à l’accouchement, Le Figaro). It is interesting to note that in the AFP news that was used by the journalist from Le Figaro, it was mentioned as an assumption only, and it was put in the mouth of the researcher: « L’hormone […] est déversée dans le sang quelques heures avant l’accouchement. “Elle agit sur l’utérus, mais aussi sur les seins contribuant a la sortie du lait et favoriserait même le sentiment maternel”, ajoute auprès de l’AFP M. Ben-Ari » (Brigitte CASTELNAU, 14/12/2006, La mère prépare son futur bébé au stress de la naissance, AFP). When another study authored by Yehezkel Ben-Ari on thi subject was published in 2011 (Michel MAZZUCA et al., 2011, Newborn analgesia mediated by oxytocin during delivery, Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, vol. 5, article n° 3), the INSERM press release has this time refrained from lending to oxytocin an effect on maternal attachment. Unfortunately, a journalist from Pour la Science reported it adding that oxytocin promotes attachment to the newborn (« favorise la contraction de l’utérus, l’allaitement et l’attachement au nouveau-né », Marie-Neige CORDONNIER, 20/04/2011, L’ocytocine, antidouleur naturel des nouveau-nés, paper also available on Cerveau & Psycho)’s web site. (see additional information in the French version of the present paper)
[26] Wendy SALTZMAN, Dario MAESTRIPIERI, 2011, The neuroendocrinology of primate maternal behavior, Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry, vol.35, p.1192-1204.
[27] Extraits de [26] : « These correlational findings in macaques and women must be interpreted cautiously, however, in view of the possible dissociation between peripheral and central oxytocin concentrations, the failure of peripheral oxytocin to penetrate into the brain, and the acute effects of suckling bouts on circulating oxytocin levels […] Thus, in primates, as in nonprimate mammals, oxytocin may act within the brain to facilitate the onset of maternal behavior; however, this conclusion must remain tentative until additional, larger-scale experimental studies are performed. »
[28] C. HEIM, L.J. YOUNG, D.J. et al., 2008, Lower CSF oxytocin concentrations in women with a history of childhood abuse, Molecular Psychiatry, vol.14, p.954-958.
[29] See above. Beyond Blaffer Hrdy, it should be noted that it is often Anglo-Saxon speech , whether American or British, which is used in France in support of the theories developed in this framework. For example, as regards « maternal instinct », it was on the occasion of French TV broadcast of a documentary series produced by the BBC that a journalist from Le Nouvel Observateur wrote: « Ce documentaire britannique étudie les mécanismes de l’héroïsme qui se manifestent chez certains d’entre nous. Ainsi, une mère sacrifie sa vie pour sauver son fils attaqué par une bête sauvage. Un soldat américain sauve un de ses camarades, bravant les balles qui pleuvent autour d’eux. […] Ces petits gestes de compassion ou ces grands actes d’héroïsme obéissent, en fait, à des instincts hérités de nos ancêtres et à des mécanismes neurologiques. L’ocytocine, que produit la mère, développe ses sens et son attachement à son nouveau-né, renforcé par les liens génétiques qui les unissent. » (Séverine DE SMET, 09/04/2009, TéléObs, article signalant la diffusion sur France 5 du volet « Héros par nature » de la série documentaire Les secrets de nos instincts).
[30] In France, the promotion of Blaffer Hrdy’s theses has been more particularly carried out in a feminist perspective from the beginning (see additional information in the French version of the present paper)
[31] Significantly, in the interview with Blaffer Hrdy mentioned above, the journalists suggest by claiming maternal instinct does not exists, Badinter might make some women doubt about their mothering ability (« Quand Elisabeth Badinter proclame que l’instinct maternel n’existe pas, n’est-ce pas déstabiliser certaines femmes, les faire douter de leur capacité d’être mère ? »).
[32] See the now common presentation of postpartum depression as a « hormonal desease » (wording used by Mathilde BLOTTIERE in Télérama, 17/11/2010, about the movie L’étranger en moi (The stranger in me) :« En abordant la dépression postnatale, une maladie hormonale fréquente et pourtant méconnue, la réalisatrice […] »).
[33] As consistently emphasized in media popularization of her theses (see additional information in the French version of the present paper).
[34] Cf her interview in the 8 pm TV news on France 2 (note [16]). In her book Eloge des mères published in 2001 at Robert Laffont, she writes « lorsqu’une femme met au monde, […], elle est submergée par un véritable orage hormonal et affectif qui ne peut être contrôlé. Elle devient instinctive. Cet instinct la pousse vers son bébé, qu’elle a envie de garder contre elle, dans une attitude enveloppante. […] L’instinct maternel est un élan qui pousse à agir pour le bébé sans y réfléchir. Il s’agit d’une préoccupation que toutes les femmes ont en elles, qui fait partie de l’essence même de la femme. ». Of course, the fact that Edwige Antier is less cited than Sarah Blaffer Hrdy is also due to her very different position: she is a simple pediatrician, not a researcher, she is French, and she is politically involved in a conservative movement (now government legislator as member of UMP, France’s major right-wing political party, she is particularly committed against same-sex parenting for many years).
[35] The special file dedicated by Sciences Humaines in 2010 to « the post-feminist era » is characteristic of this perspective (see additional information in the French version of the present paper)