Discourse, Meaning-Making, and Emotion: The Pressure to have a “Feminist Abortion Experience”

• In Event: 1161 - Regular Session on Sociology of Emotions: Managing Emotions in Conflict

Abstract

Whereas we typically think of emotions as private, abortion-related emotions are often the object of public scrutiny. Drawing on intensive interviews with 27 feminist-identified people, I find that the portrayal of abortion in pro-choice discourse creates a standard by which feminists judge their own abortion experiences. Respondents believe they “ought,” to feel relieved and empowered after their abortion, with little attachment to the pregnancy. Some express profound discomfort when their experiences deviated from these perceived norms, and even try to minimize or alter their “negative feelings.” In order to explain this phenomenon, I engage with and ultimately extend Arlie Hochschild’s feeling rules framework (1979). First, whereas the feeling rules framework argues that people compare themselves against a desirable norm, I use the concept of stigma to show how respondents also compare themselves against undesirable categories they wish to avoid. I also use the concepts of personal and collective identity to explain what motivates feminists to self-police their emotional state. Whereas Hochschild attributes emotion work to a sense of obligation in private relationships (what we “owe’ our loved ones) or on the labor market (what we “owe” our customers), I argue that respondents are motivated both by the desire to manage their feminist identities as well as a sense of collective obligation to the pro-choice movement. Finally, I suggest how these findings connect to other social movement contexts and the “everyday experience” of social movement participation.

Author

• Derek Siegel, University of Massachusetts Amherst