Guilt,
Research on Populations, and Cultural Competence
by
Cynthia Good Mojab, MS, IBCLC, RLC
Popular
culture in the media age is grounded in the values of and driven by the
goals of the media. In the US - and in many other countries - the mass
media is created by powerful industries that strive to profit via every
aspect of their marketing strategies. One of those powerful industries
is the infant formula industry. When risk-based language is used to describe
health outcomes of formula-feeding, a common response from the formula
industry (and the mass media and popular culture it helps create) is that
such wordings are "negative" and will only serve to induce "guilt" in women
who choose to formula feed. However, the goal of this response is necessarily
the protection of profit, not the protection of women. Health care professionals
who have been immersed in the popular culture and/or who work with institutions,
colleagues and families who have been immersed in the popular culture may
also ponder this declared "negativity" and ascribed "guilt". I have listened
to many discussions about guilt and infant feeding rhetoric (i.e., risk-based
versus benefit-based language). Here are a few of my thoughts on the matter.
1.
A propensity to feel guilt is not inherent in all cultural heritages. It
requires belief in a certain type of cause and effect; the power, right,
and/or responsibility of an individual to enact change (in his or her own
life and/or in the lives of others); a focus on the future; etc. Not all
cultures tend to emphasize such beliefs.
2.
The goal of multi-focus group research (such as that done as part of the
development of the US National Breastfeeding Awareness Campaign) is to
uncover trends at the population level so that the intervention most likely
to enact the most change can be developed.
3.
Among other things, the development of cultural competence is a life-long
process whereby people can learn the information and skills, develop the
attitudes and beliefs, and create/modify the structure and processes of
institutions so that the culturally based needs of diverse groups of people
can be met effectively and equitably. This process includes developing
an understanding of the high applicability of research on a population
to the population studied and the potentially more limited applicability
of research on a population to a subpopulation, an individual within that
population, a completely different population, etc. It includes developing
an understanding of how culturally based beliefs may influence both a mother's
evaluation of information (e.g., the particular rhetoric of a particular
public health message) and her emotional responses to that evaluation.
4.
The code of ethics of IBCLCs requires guarding against cultural bias. Measuring
health outcomes against the cultural norm of formula feeding (using benefit-based
language) rather than the biological norm of breastfeeding (using risk-based
language) is a widespread example of cultural bias in research reports.
It is an example of cultural bias because if we consider which came first
in history, breastfeeding or artificial substitutes for breastfeeding,
we can see that the manipulation in the experimental design is actually
the use of formula, not the use of breastfeeding. It is poor science to
report outcomes measured against the results of the actual manipulation.
5.
Part of clinical competence is counseling competence. When we are ethically
obligated to share information that may be difficult for a mother (or colleague
or administrator or ...) to hear (for any reason), it behooves us to assess
and attend to her (or his) evaluation of the information, and to her (or
his) emotional reaction to that evaluation. It behooves us to establish
whatever rapport is needed with the mother (or colleague or administrator
or ...) before sharing that information so that she (or he) has some supportive
emotional context in which to place that difficult information and our
intent in sharing it. It behooves us to work to change our institutions'
structures and processes if those structures and processes prevent us from
having enough time to engage in effective counseling (and other interpersonal
interactions).
I
think that the heatedness of discussions about guilt among healthcare professionals
and breastfeeding advocates is due, in part, to the challenge of addressing
all of these issues in one intervention. Yet that is not what we are actually
trying to do. We are trying to develop multiple interventions for diverse
circumstances. We need interventions at the population level (hence the
many focus groups of the US National Breastfeeding Awareness Campaign).
We need multiple interventions for subpopulations (hence, the work of local
coalitions, organizations, and agencies in their own communities). We need
multiple interventions for individuals (hence, the work of individual IBCLCs,
other health care providers, and peer counselors with individual breastfeeding
mothers). What is effective at one level in one location at one point in
history may be ineffective at another.
I
think the heatedness of discussions about guilt and language is also due
to people's deep concern about the mortality and morbidity associated with
insufficient breastfeeding, their anger and frustration with the continued
and widespread unethical marketing of artificial substitutes for breastfeeding,
and their recognition of the importance and challenge of developing and
applying cultural and counseling competence. The seemingly contradictory
comments that I have heard from many caring professionals often are actually
not contradictory: they address different pieces of this big picture. Each
perspective expressed is important and illustrative. And, each of us can
play an important part in creating and implementing one or more of these
multiple interventions, regardless of whether it is at the level of a population,
a subpopulation or an individual.
©
Cynthia Good Mojab, 2004. All rights reserved.
This
essay is adapted from text first posted on May 21, 2004 to LACTNET, a netlist
for professionals working in the field of breastfeeding and human lactation,
in response to multiple posts from colleagues regarding guilt and risk-based
language.
Cynthia
Good Mojab, MS clinical psychology, IBCLC, RLC is a private researcher,
author, and educator focusing on issues related to culture, psychology
and the family – particularly the area of breastfeeding. She also works
as Research Associate in La Leche League International's Publications Department,
was a member of the LLLI Editorial Review Team for THE BREASTFEEDING ANSWER
BOOK (3rd ed.), and serves on Mothering magazine's Ask the Experts panel,
answering questions about breastfeeding. She has experience providing both
psychological and breastfeeding counseling. Ms. Good Mojab has taught and
guest lectured for undergraduate psychology and statistics courses, and
has spoken about breastfeeding, parenting, culture and psychology to groups,
organizations, and the media. She is an award-winning researcher whose
work was recognized in 1995 by the American Psychological Foundation. Her
website, Ammawell (http://home.comcast.net/~ammawell), offers breastfeeding
and parenting information and support.
Cynthia
Good Mojab, PO Box 5803, Aloha, OR 97006 USA; http://home.comcast.net/~ammawell
(website)
