Blockchain Papers

Joanna Bourke

In 1957, Mrs A. walked into the labour ward of a hospital, intending to work hard — labour — with all her energies, but expecting an exhilarating natural birth. Her shock was still palpable when she sat down later to describe what happened: I was immediately given Demerol [an opioid pain medication] and forbidden to get up. Then I was taken to the labor room and left in the hands of a nurse whose only thought was to get out by 3 o’clock. She talked about pain all the time — told me my pains were not strong enough and she kept saying, ‘Let’s get this show in the road’. The nurse gave her an injection of Pitocin, a synthetic version of oxytocin which is used to induce strong uterine contractions, after which labour began in earnest. Mrs A. recalled that As I writhed about in agony she said, ‘remember having a baby is very, very painful!’ They ruptured my membranes to speed things up (I wasn’t in a hurry and said so) … They put the bars up in the bed and I felt like a caged animal — wasn’t allowed to go to the bathroom, wasn’t allowed a drink of water. I was surrounded by strangers who treated me like a cross between a newly captured wild bear and a mentally retarded ten year old. A doctor appeared for only a few seconds, leaving her with the nurse who told her that ‘I wouldn’t have this natural childbirth stuff [if they gave it to me] on a silver platter’.1 This wasn’t the natural event that Mrs A. had been anticipating. The start of her mothering life was supposed to be intuitive and empowering. Stories like hers became part of a concerted campaign for a different way of bringing forth children — a natural way. But what was meant by ‘natural’? Mrs A’s description of her ordeal can’t be read as an unmediated account of her experience, although there is no reason to doubt that Mrs A. existed and that she did send this letter to the natural childbirth obstetrician Frederick Goodrich. He then published Mrs A.’s letter in order to propagate a particular definition of the natural and one that came to dominate medical practice in the long 1950s. Childbirth is the first form of mothering labour. Indeed, the term ‘labour’ is used to stand in for parturition itself, throughout the period explored in this article as well as today. It is recognized as an incredibly labour-intensive, tiring, sweaty, bloody and personal form of women’s work. Although seen as an inevitable task for the pregnant woman in the sense that labour (that is, giving birth) cannot be delegated to othermothers, shadow mothers, relatives, charities, local authorities, or non-pregnant substitutes, it is highly scripted and historically variable. This article asks: what did ‘natural’ mean to physicians and their popularizers between 1947 and the mid 1960s? The focus is primarily on British and American physicians, who drew their knowledges and practices from each other through reading the same medical journals, attending similar international conferences, and forging personal and well as professional relationships. Their debates were drawn from western fantasies of an unequivocal dichotomy between what was natural and unnatural. Unlike the other articles in this volume, the main sources used here are medical ones: professional journals and textbooks. I also explore how their views were popularized in the press. Diaries, letters, oral histories and memoirs provide relatively few accounts of childbirth labour, partly due to the extremely intimate nature of this form of labour and partly due to the notorious difficulty in finding words for bodily torment beyond mention of its ‘unspeakability’.2 This is what Elaine Scarry meant in her classic The Body in Pain (1985) where she argued that pain is outside of language, absolutely private and untransmittable.3 In contrast, medical texts primarily addressed other professionals, not birthing mothers themselves, although they were informed by birthing women’s expectations and also influenced those expectations. In other words, these texts were both responsive and prescriptive. The sources I draw upon were written by highly educated, white, urban, heterosexual professionals. Even the words of ‘Mrs A.’, with whom I started this article, were being used by a male obstetrician to bolster his arguments about natural childbirth. There was little space in the deliberations of these physicians for non-birth mothers or for women who gave birth but would not be labelled ‘mothers’ either because of the death of the embryo or infant, or surrogacy. The physicians, obstetricians, midwives, nurses and other medical professionals involved in parturition that I discuss persisted in a narrow definition of mothering: one that was linked to a few hours in a pregnant woman’s life. They had an important stake in defining and managing the nature, possibilities and limits of childbirth labour. In the period explored in this article, they framed many of their arguments around ideas about what was natural. I will be arguing that the concept ‘natural’ did not mean the absence of technology; it did not require birthing women or their physicians to eschew analgesics. Rather, I will be arguing, the ‘natural’ part of natural childbirth involved emphasizing two states of being. The first referred to a woman’s response to birth: that is, giving birth was a woman’s telos and should therefore be naturally exhilarating. I will be arguing that this ‘natural’ response to the first stages of mothering was conceived of as an emotional, rather than a physiological, one, which was why it was not ‘unnatural’ to have recourse to artificial chemicals and technologies. The second emphasis was on the hierarchies of power involving a range of medical practitioners and birthing women. However, these hierarchies did not devolve into ‘women/nature; men/culture’. As we shall see, birthing women were conceived of as possessing too much culture; and male obstetricians and physicians were portrayed as being in touch with nature and what was natural. Their calm presence in the face of the unruly force of labour pangs would see the natural event through to its successful conclusion. Equally important, natural childbirth sought to establish as to their is the period between 1947 and The first reason to the long of medical into In British and American there have been two of in with childbirth. The first was the of the In obstetrician and to that the pangs of labour. that labour pains be not by or other physicians were extremely in their There is a about this in the of pain in the of and The second is the focus of this It is the of the period between 1947 and As we shall see, this in the and practice of pain in childbirth to in the of the birthing The from the term which to the and sense is the to as well as an with the it is of the of In an important these two in childbirth are in and in the was the to In contrast, although the did it for the in The second reason the two after 1947 were important is because of a in emphasis in the of mothering from a to In and from the mid to the mothering a woman’s after the birth of her The birthing from medical medical popularizers and mothers As we will see, this in the with the of parturition being as in the of The mothering no started with the birth of the but with the labour of birthing that The is also because it the of the medical of labour, which only from the the ‘natural’ birthing in part because of its emphasis on the and its to women of their This which after the period explored in this article, a and by as and In the words of from the put the of women’s to through the rather than around became on their ‘natural’ was a woman said it The reason the period between 1947 and is important is that these an in as well as medical about childbirth. The of this was the of about the pain of childbirth. A of the be seen by the long with the period immediately In the when of the of the informed the in to for as well as on other of to that she to on the about the to women’s pain in the was They her to which she However, a contractions, and were being in the In a into for pain for women giving of they were or of of pain as a out to the that they gave there would be than … to also to accounts of by women who had been pain of for told the that enough to for is given pain when in labour, but the were The had their expectations. They that a a out to have or A on the when in to But a woman in the of what she had her of for all her and what is enough for is enough for They had a in the of professional or were to be given labour as the of In this be by the that women were to be seen by a rather than a This was important when a doctor a was used in of all with than when a was in It was also the that were to to women and women There was reason why the pain of childbirth in this it was that there were in the of analgesics. in in out by the of and and the in it was that of women giving birth in were given with only in This was not due to in the of women giving birth or the were very similar in both the the or of local to in the to a of midwives, and to by with to the and the pain in labour had as part of debates about the that had been by of both the the of the and a of women’s throughout the which began their for As a the of women pain in childbirth In of women giving birth in were given no form of a this had been to and it then in the and This in pain in the long was by a about what was ‘natural’ in childbirth. The definition of ‘natural’ was extremely Although obstetrician was the British of natural the concept ‘natural’ meant much than his about a (that is, a woman’s of labour pain in which the pain she was ‘natural’ meant I will be arguing, it mean that what was natural was was to about it was an for and medical of the debates between 1947 and about what was natural in childbirth had been to the the concept ‘natural’ was primarily used to women with in childbirth. In a and The of Pain in I that the that British women to pain in childbirth for a after of had been was not due to the a of from about the of pain on the birthing Rather, the by physicians of pain was due to that pain in well as in was natural. Pain was or it in birthing women was the of In the to pain was a and a highly of In the period explored in this article, similar arguments be As one in the British in when she gave the woman that and doubt also gave her the of There was also a of arguments that labour pains the of The of the was published in but was throughout the and had argued that birth pain is the which the to the in all from the to the pain is and are pain is there is absolutely no He that was to this by when they gave arguments were in the British by that childbirth pains those that were the of the and physicians not to women who to have their and to the that it for their This was not but a and much in the of the British as well as the press. for like birthing mothers with for drew on her of giving birth to two to she natural and labour as a be to and her She that it was that is about by a of and therefore the of bringing forth a was This was not obstetrician and one she were not they had reason for Even was a for and their In her words, this is the which women are supposed to by the pains of labour, I not that the will be very much Pain in labour of a to but in it was and … and it be by the of that is but one of to his and up to the about the of and pain did not to the was the because was by the of the to her because of the agony of her The of mothers for their was by of the of and the touch of all of which up of … for all also the between parturition and of from animal was to practices of to the in the had of and that the by these women was no way had to the whose is in way by being a in the pain of The same was of the mothers of children who were the words of with the In other words, mothering practices were not on a woman the pangs of labour. In the long it was much to that it was natural to in childbirth. Indeed, not the was for being the of labour arguments be into The first to the telos of the birthing the to between and and the that natural mothering practices involved will be explored in The first of these arguments that ‘natural’ was that or a woman’s In the words of in childbirth was the of a woman’s — it was her — that it by This was what meant in when she argued that to be that women in labour in the her of This allowed the concept ‘natural’ to be with in childbirth as well as a of or Even that the of is that we should or the pain of women in which meant that who did not of should be of a As in the British and were childbirth did not out or it was with and Indeed, natural childbirth a of with other of it the labour of a of professionals, obstetricians, midwives, birth and This physicians to that ‘natural’ were too Indeed, in that it would go as to that women require being to their natural of that natural childbirth with their of and other with for for like and the was not that physicians were in childbirth — which they was with natural childbirth — but that were In a woman’s mothering was meant too much too little it also a between too much or too little pain little pain would see the birthing woman into an her from naturally in the birth. too much pain would the birthing woman into a from which she not be to be the birth of her also the of the and the for the began to The was portrayed as a being who a that it to be rather than in a into the of the and the these chemicals the and therefore the was The was by the medical journals and natural childbirth Although was conceived of as part of the natural it did have the that many birthing women felt that they had in the task of women who of were left with a sense of and This was the response of who gave birth in She had had read texts on labour, and had a birth. her time pain was that I was she for pain it was In her words, ‘I felt … an that I had not been to in the recognized that the was which was why like that a birthing woman who for to be that she was not or her or her by It is a the of mothering a into the was by as well as the In this telos was as the mothering However, it out in the telos of the and as This was by about the birth this were natural in childbirth because they to the of the Even local in the and accounts arguing that the in the would be women have a childbirth and physicians and that the of women to have than one baby with labour to in their as an were for being with pain that mothers would not have second The that women year in the were being into in and from was also on the pain of As one the of pain was of the to in The of the was upon the first of from there were two linked that had to be in childbirth was to be natural. of these to or the in the The birthing woman had to be and had to to the birth. the when were and they on the of a woman being the time of and the that of is, for many an important part of the of The birthing woman had to be of all that a woman a male in the British in of her out of would be in her In addressed this did it mean to have a natural she one from in which the is the of and is to her baby a or or is it one in which the is that the and is her baby its first and her baby a few after that she had an as well as and when she gave but this did not the birth ‘unnatural’ because she had … in natural and was The of was I shall She that the of mothers would that they too would its naturally in the sense of the and therefore up to only of of pain and This definition of ‘natural’ was by She was a of natural childbirth but was as her when it was that she was to analgesics. that of had when children were — She and her natural childbirth the a into — her will — the of her life. The of natural childbirth is to have of all that is It not mean have no or from A woman who was by the that she was of what was was not natural. This was one of the of one of the used in the and of the involved giving a birthing woman an injection of and which of the pain of childbirth. It what had from the birthing be from the in the long where the birthing was being This woman was to for the in and of the of the of birth was a particular of natural As put the in bringing a into the was not In the words of the part of childbirth was but the woman who is still and this be an of — it is by the of the first that it is well the The of an the of in that to have a baby an would be to having one for the stages of It is the and the of that up and it all This ‘natural’ response was conceived of as an emotional, rather than physiological, one, which was why it was not ‘unnatural’ for it to be by artificial chemicals and technologies. childbirth meant an birthing woman as Indeed, the of a woman giving birth became as as This be by one of the of the mid of and for and This was between the and the In to the which were with and from the there was a of emphasis to women’s the first the informed that women to be the of of the baby — a of this to be important to many In later a one as to pain They also on the and of for the first time the a between pain and childbirth is into the second is a to the because she the baby will be There is a in the of she of pain and the of and the of the of the mothers the in the second of labour as to get on with their This was Unlike which with the of the that one is with the which are in are personal and as well as In to Mrs A.’s of being to a bed with in this the power the the birthing to get go to the bathroom, bear the of the and the bloody It was a by the of that did not birthing women the of like and obstetricians had the to a woman to the the first of ‘natural’ on the telos of the mothering woman and her the second was framed in of what it meant to be This drew with and As one natural childbirth in a few are to we cannot from … for birth in that a than with Indeed, the of natural childbirth the as a had the between the way and women gave birth. In the birth with and This was gave birth this was natural. The main women from a similar labour was that pregnant women in their and would a natural or from In this ‘natural’ meant to the natural although not from There was a much to these physicians and that which they meant and the They that this was that it was not natural for to As one of natural childbirth … have like In Mrs that women were as strong as ‘labour’ of all women became The women who in childbirth were white, primarily because they were to labour because they were thought to be highly therefore As the in in a a There were a many for the of but one — in the British — that it was due to the that women to in whom the of the and the of are a In contrast, women in came from very and there was therefore a between the and the In this about were linked to debates about — physicians — to In the words of gave birth with relatively little pain because in a very and natural their bodily are not or It that women who with nature like the would also little out that in women the that the are and it was the of that and She as well as women who and in for being to birth with In her words, those who are and who have to upon their for the of on the and to whom is a little from This that and women gave birth pain medical and throughout the — well into the It also had a much being an extremely for As in this volume, the of There was no space in this for the It is important to that the that white, women pain did not to that they should be given pain Rather, it to arguments that women to be how to to a and for It was only from the mid that medical began that and women labour pains in different were the medical The of the of ‘natural’ mothering involved practices that and The important was the of medical professionals, and The in were to to other medical the they to that and were not allowed to the of and when birthing women. There were also the medical about how to power to birthing women In this was what obstetrician a of natural childbirth who of argued that the was the natural in out the mothering the giving birth to her first with who had through one of the for in natural The would have a ‘natural’ childbirth because she would have in her with the to her to the baby as as In contrast, the woman in natural to an on childbirth of natural or unnatural. She is then to into long arguments with her doctor about from the and of to the of used for the … be and than to have to and to who not had medical In other words, although was a of natural she that it too the birthing woman that she had a to the power of medical professionals. The other that had to be was a heterosexual of and This was not It was a of the debates the of the and as when of argued that it was not natural to the because it the birthing woman the and hands of male that the was that would the of a to have to his A the this was out There were to in the labour with a as to their and of the to which were to be involved should not be As as the of and that be allowed to with the but that it was that very few will be to the of the time to be with their the first However, when were given a it was as This was in A. Childbirth The of these was This be by an account published in the American of in and Childbirth — from a In this article, her very of for childbirth the with her This is how she the nature of this … my each for an incredibly long two and a me in all those I that I was to his like a As a of I began to when women about their labour and me I and referred to as by like were published which to show that when were allowed to be ‘natural’ their presence the is much male in childbirth than she was birthing would to The to As the of the term to the of the … a about what of the are to in the she is other than the they are as … rather than that by childbirth labour a the of the woman’s and as one whose and of pain and should be by her women were allowed to be about their in the but their in mothering the into the was the of a and heterosexual of labour were framed around the concept of ‘natural’ was a In British medical and it a range of and the and of an range of birthing women and their on the in natural was this was why the obstetricians framed their in of the natural. natural hierarchies also meant or the birthing who was involved in the of Mrs A. was to be an and in the labour ward she was not allowed to be too and Childbirth and were to the natural by the obstetrician and the did not mean pain — what it did mean was a of was with nurses women in labour and obstetricians a of an of the woman and the medical and a of the mothering It was a that had on the of and the

Steven J. Keays

The great digital convergence runs through the internet, the mother of all technological threads, the virtual tapestry upon which are inscribed the patterns of transformation. The tapestry is woven from five main threads offered in several hues: the power chip, artificial intelligence, distributed ledgers, the energy lattice, and the internet of things. The relentless advances in chip design has powered the third industrial revolution and doing the same for the Symbiocene. The science of “artificial intelligence” began in the 1950s and has evolved by fits and starts along dramatically different theoretical directions. Five application subsets are associated with artificial intelligence: big data, materials, medicine, complexity, and job automation. Functional sentience captures the essence of the transformative character of the Symbiocene age. A successful digital management transformation cannot be brought to fruition without understanding a firm’s relationship to its holobiome, as a consequence of the first digital paradox.

Marie‐Laure Legay

International audience

A. Lanethea Mathews-Gardner

This article examines the intersection of race, gender, and American political development in the National Association of Colored Women (NACW) in the mid-twentieth century. In the late 1940s and 1950s, the NACW was one of the last remaining autonomous Black organizations that could truly be called “civic.” Membership was decentralized, active, and widespread among female citizens who might not otherwise be engaged in public affairs. Political change and subsequent developments in African American and women's organizations in the mid-twentiethh century encouraged NACW leaders to begin considering new approaches to organizing Black womanhood. The collective identity that defined NACW clubwomen's public activism as local, nonpolitical, and nonpartisan eventually gave way to more deliberately nationalized, partisan, and political forms. This article argues that NACW clubwomen worked in solidarity and shared common goals with other African American and civil rights organizations, but faced a transformation unique to women's clubs, one that involved questions not only about who would participate in public life, but also about how and through what kinds of organizations. The struggles of the NACW to integrate the collective identities that defined their race and their gender, on the one hand, with forms, and, on the other hand with strategies of organization are particularly useful for thinking and theorizing about contemporary forms of intersectionality.