“Postnatal depression” denotes the syndrome of dysphoria, debility, and anxiety that follows childbirth in about 10–20% of women (as variously estimated). Its etiology is seen to be lodged in a variety of psychosocial as well as biological factors, among which the isolating and pressured culture of contemporary society (especially for women/mothers) is commonly singled out as a powerful precipitator. This view is extended here through the evolutionary perspective which casts maternal distress as a set of adaptive responses with the function, (...) in ancestral environments, of soliciting support for a mother who feels that her maternal responsiveness may be threatened. As continuous caretaking of the infant is the active expression of evolved maternal responsiveness, departures from this pattern result in anxiety and distress that seek resolution. Manifestations of maternal distress in contemporary society are dysfunctional, however, since the present social structure does not provide spontaneous and immediate support that can spring forth within small, closely knit social units. Furthermore, for present-day mothers distress is self-perpetuating since the ingrained tendency toward continuing responsiveness rarely finds practical expression and is thus converted into anxious vigilance and depression. This view generates the hypothesis that the emotional and cognitive contents of maternal vigilance are associated with the needs of the infant and will therefore be focused on crying and feeding. A number of qualitative studies of women’s experiences during the postpartum bear out this prediction and support the feasibility of the evolutionary hypothesis of “postnatal depression” as a set of adaptive responses, now out of place in a novel environment. (shrink)

Since the late 1970s, disruptions and “failure” of maternal-infant bonding have been causally linked to postpartum depression. Part I of this paper examines the grounds for this connection while tracing the ramifications of bonding theory (Klaus and Kennell 1976) through obstetrics, pediatrics, and psychiatry, as well as in the (mis)representations of it in the popular media. This discussion resolves into a view of maternal attachment as a long-term development progressively established through intensive mother-infant interaction. The forms of this interaction are (...) phylogenetically determined, albeit culturally and personally mediated. Flowing from this premise, Part II of the paper casts postpartum depression as an adaptive response to threat (from whatever cause) to adequate mothering, and develops an argument for the evolutionary role of enacted social ties in the establishment of maternal responsiveness. (shrink)

For Maria Markus, a significant feature of ‘decency’ of a society is respect for the dignity of each person. Here I contemplate the notion of ‘respect’ in the light of Sennett’s (2004) inquiry into the role of respect in encounters between individuals and institutions. Underlying this question is the structure/ agency dynamic. As Markus points out, decent institutions do not necessarily presuppose decent individuals (and vice versa). Yet the separation of these entities is analytic; in life, they are intertwined and (...) the resulting fabric rarely loses its opacity under sociologists’ inquiring gaze. One task of this article is to consider Sennett’s approach to the problem. But methodology is not my primary concern. More important is Sennett’s investigation of the vicissitudes of respect in the context of sundry inequalities. With reference to Markus’s discussion of ‘decency’, this article elucidates Sennett’s views concerning the necessary conditions for the generation and maintenance of respect in the face of obstacles put in its way by both social arrangements and human nature. (shrink)

This book considers the place and value of knowledge in contemporary society. “Knowledge” is not a self-evident concept: both its denotations and connotations are historically situated. Since the Enlightenment, knowledge has been a matter of discovery through effort, and “knowledge for its own sake” a taken-for-granted ideal underwriting progressive education as a process which not only taught “for” and “about” something, but also ennobled the soul. While this ideal has not been explicitly rejected, in recent decades there has been a (...) tacit move away from a strong emphasis on its centrality, even in Higher Education. The authors address the values that inform knowledge production in its present forms, and seek to identify social and cultural factors that support these values.Against the background of increasingly restrictive conditions of academic work, the first section of this volume offers incisive critiques of Higher Education, with examples drawn from Australia and New Zealand. The second group of chapters considers how academics have viewed, and have tried to adapt to, present circumstances. The third section comprises papers that consider epistemological issues in the generation and promulgation of knowledge. The chapters in this volume are indicative of the work that needs to be done so that we can come to comprehend – and perhaps try and improve – our relationship to learning and knowledge in the 21st Century.This timely book will be of particular interest to workers in higher education; it should also inform and challenge all those who have concerns for the future of the intellectual life of our civilization. (shrink)