This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Breastfeeding is a natural act, and humans have evolved to feed their babies in this way. However, it is generally not depicted in English-language picturebooks. In this article, I analyse how babies and toddlers are fed in picturebooks and explore why bottle-feeding is the prevalent method, and then I compare this to a selection of Swedish-language picturebooks. This analysis suggests a number of salient points and areas for further exploration. First of all, breastfeeding of babies and toddlers is mainly only depicted in books that are either about new babies or that are about breastfeeding, and even when breastfeeding is seen in these works, the mother’s breasts are often scarcely visible. The reason that breastfeeding is not often depicted in children’s books seems to be because society is uncomfortable with seeing breasts except as sexual objects, and also because formula-feeding is more prevalent in Western society today. Breasts appear to be too sensual to be seen carrying out their primary evolutionary function.
Breasts: among other things, they can feed a baby and they can titillate an adult, but it seems that in some societies, they can only do one or the other. As Nodelman discusses, in reference to picturebooks, “[b]oys can be naked without their clothes on, whereas traditionally, naked girls are nude” (“Nakedness” 28). In other words, an image of a woman breastfeeding her child in a picture book may not be acceptable, because women (and girls) without clothes are always nude and sexualised, even if they are carrying out non-sexual tasks. In this article, I compare English-language picturebooks to a selection of Swedish picturebooks to explore how babies are fed and how this reflects or comments on the society in which the books are produced. I take a feminist approach, arguing that breastfeeding is a feminist activity, and that women’s breasts can be bare and naked in public – including in literature – without being nude. My findings suggest a number of interesting points. First of all, in English-language texts, the breastfeeding of babies and toddlers is mainly depicted in books that are either about new babies or that are about breastfeeding in particular, and even when breastfeeding is seen in these works, the mother’s breasts are often scarcely visible. The reason that breastfeeding is not often depicted in children’s books seems to be because society is uncomfortable with seeing breasts except as sexual objects, and also because formula-feeding is more prevalent in many Western countries today. The Swedish case, however, is different, in that breastfeeding appears to be the norm in the books I have analysed, although there is still some discomfort with female nudity.
Breastfeeding has, until recently, been the biological and societal norm; there is no room here to discuss wet-nursing and artificial milk, but it is worth pointing out that throughout history most babies have been breastfed or else they have simply not survived. But today, as Blakemore notes, “It’s one of the most culturally powerful symbols out there: the image of a mother nursing her baby.”
At the same time, however, our society seems to view women’s bodies as being primarily sexual; breasts are revealed in advertising, films, or TV shows, while women who breastfeed in public are asked to cover up (for just one of many examples, see Tran
Below, then, I explore the depiction of breastfeeding and nudity in English and Swedish picturebooks, and suggest reasons why artificial milk and covered breasts are more acceptable than breastfeeding.
The way a woman’s breasts are viewed and used is a feminist issue. There are multiple reasons why breastfeeding is now less common than formula-feeding in the UK, the US, and many other countries. While space constraints prevent me from analysing this topic in great depth, I want to briefly mention a couple of points that are relevant to the Western context and thus to the publication of the books discussed below (for further detailed information on the topic, see Jennifer Grayson’s book
Women in the West began to see breastfeeding as something that kept them tied to the home. Liberation discourse and the rise in feminism gave women the idea that feeding children artificial milk was freeing, because it was then a task that could be shared among a variety of people; in other words, feeding a baby was no longer solely women’s work (Hausman 3). As Van Esterik discusses, however, in actual fact formula-feeding creates more work for women (183–90). Palmer writes that “[i]n the 20th century, women were presented with an illusion of liberation through the artificial feeding of babies, only to find their breasts appropriated by men and popular culture.” (3; also see 33 for more on how breasts are used to sell items to us). That is to say that once breasts were “freed” from their role as nurturers of children, they were then given a new role, which was to tantalise and serve men.
Formula milk is, of course, an important alternative for those women who cannot breastfeed or for those babies who are unable to latch onto the breast or who have sick, dead, or absent mothers. However, it is well known that artificial milk does not have the same ingredients as breastmilk, does not offer the same nutrition or comfort, and is not individualised for each child the way breastmilk is (see e.g. Baumslag and Michels, Renfrew, Fisher, and Arms, or Wiessinger, West, and Pitman). In addition, as Hausman notes, “Breastfeeding as an act is no panacea for the subordination of women, but an examination of breastfeeding uncovers central feminist tensions around the meaning of women’s bodies, the authority of science, and the social value of maternity in contemporary culture” (ix). Van Esterik expands on this idea: “Women’s control over their own lives and bodies has much to do with the choices available to them for infant feeding. Their access to food, flexibility in scheduling and work load, and social support system influence their management of lactation or their decision to bottle feed. Ultimately, infant feeding choices relate to the position and condition of women, ideologically and economically, in different societies” (18).
The feeding of children is an issue for medical, cultural, and political reasons. And yet, breastfeeding is currently subordinate to formula-feeding in many societies. This is, I believe, reflected in how children’s literature depicts the feeding of infants and toddlers, and in turn this tells us something about society’s view of women’s bodies.
One would imagine that books for children generally feature any topic or issue that occurs in children’s lives. But I would like to briefly refer to my methodology here because I believe it relates to the taboo regarding breasts and breastfeeding in children’s literature.
To find books that include breastfeeding, I initially studied book-shelves and catalogues in libraries. For English-language books, I used the Norfolk library system, where the main Norwich library is considered the busiest public library in the UK (see Bury), since the collection is extensive, and for Swedish-language books, I visited Svenska barnboksinstitutet (The Swedish Institute for Children’s Books) in Stockholm, which is a public research library dedicated to children’s literature. I did not focus specifically on literary or high-quality texts or texts from a particular year, but rather I read any book I could find that was about babies, especially new babies. My assumption was that such books would be more likely to show a baby being fed. I also looked for books that were about families, especially diverse families. I used a variety of search terms such as breastfeeding, attachment parenting, baby-carrying, and so on, as well as the equivalent Swedish terms, to try to find additional books. In the UK, I was generally not able to find books on the shelves that featured breastfeeding simply as a matter of course; instead, I had to get suggestions from mother groups and breastfeeding groups, such as the Association of Breastfeeding Mothers, on Facebook, via email, and in person, for books they knew depicted breastfeeding, and I had to look for books produced by publishers that are pro-breastfeeding, such as Pinter and Martin in the UK. Often, the books that did feature breastfeeding were not in the Norfolk library and had to be requested from other libraries or purchased. The few books that the library already had that included breastfeeding were in a separate “New Experiences” collection, as they tended to have storylines about a new baby joining a family. In other words, such books are thought to be only for young children who are getting a sibling and need to be prepared, rather than for children generally (see Epstein
In short, my method was to be open to any books that might show feeding, no matter the publisher, style, or quality, but the fact that breastfeeding was so difficult to find in English-language books is evidence of society’s discomfort with it. Further evidence was found in the depiction of feeding in these works.
I have not, as is already clear, systematically looked at every picturebook in English or every book from a particular year but rather analysed whatever I could find. Only 11 out of 28 books depicted exclusive breastfeeding (with around 1/3 of those books being translations), 6 showed exclusive bottle-feeding, and 5 had combination-feeding. An analysis of the words and images (following Moebius and Nodelman) suggests that not all is positive here. In my analysis, I pay special attention to the words used to describe breastfeeding, the position of the baby at the breast and the position of the mother-and-baby dyad on the page, how much of the breast was visible, the presumed age of the nursling, and so forth.
In English-language books, it is often difficult to tell if a baby is being breastfed or is simply being cuddled close. Of course, as people are often at pains to point out, breastfeeding can be done discreetly (although as Wiessinger, West, and Pitman note, using a cover or blanket over a baby while nursing often just attracts more attention (145), and babies often kick them off), and the picturebooks that do feature breastfeeding bear – rather than bare – this out. For example,
Intriguingly, one of the books that shows the most in terms of the breast being visible is also the book that is the most multicultural. Emery Bernhard and Durga Bernhard’s
The four most explicit breastfeeding books are published by Pinter and Martin, a publishing company that regularly produces pro-breastfeeding texts. Interestingly, three are translations. Mònica Calaf and Mikel Fuentes’
Each page in Calaf and Fuentes’ book is about breastfeeding. For example, the text “When you came out of my tummy… the first thing you looked for was my breast” is accompanied by an illustration of the umbilical cord being cut and the baby feeding. Other images show breastfeeding in a variety of situations, such as in the swimming pool, or while exercising, or in the garden. The texts are calm and affirmative, such as “When you were breastfeeding, you were relaxed, happy and contented. We both love these intimate and special moments.” The images show the areola quite clearly, which is indeed what one would see if the baby’s latch were correct, and they often show the nipple itself, in scenes where the baby has his mouth open and is about to latch on. The areola and nipple are brown and prominent, while the rest of the mother’s chest is white; there is no discretion here. The same can be said of Victoria de Aboitiz’s and Afra’s
One of the publishers’ few English-language originals is
Stoneley, Ellie.
I would argue that it is important to show breastfeeding in picturebooks and for children and adults to see breastfeeding taking place throughout society, and likewise it could be beneficial to read a book where there is a plot and breastfeeding just happens to be one part of what the nurser and nursling do together. D’Alton Goode’s images approach this, but the words do not. Indeed, an issue with books such as Calaf’s and Fuentes’ and Stoneley’s and D’Alton Goode’s is that they have no plot per se. They appear to exist solely to depict and promote breastfeeding. One of the very few books that does have a plot is
In many books, sometimes it is not even clear that the baby is or has been breastfeeding. For instance, in
There are a number of books that show both breastfeeding and bottle-feeding, often on the same page. One example is
One could argue that it is realistic to show combination-feeding or only bottles, given the high percentage of artificial feeding in the UK and the US. But one oddity about bottles is that in some books, such as
To summarise, then, most of the picturebooks that feature the feeding of infants are either books about families about to have new babies (which appear to be meant to teach and comfort older children who are soon to become big sisters or brothers) or they are books that are very explicitly pro-breastfeeding. The former books have a tendency to show breastfeeding and bottle-feeding in equal measure and/or they do not make it clear in the pictures that breastfeeding is taking place. The latter books tend to be plotless, focusing instead on normalising and celebrating breastfeeding in a positive manner. In all but the most breastfeeding-centric texts, breastfeeding is depicted discreetly, so much so that in many cases, it would be easy to miss or ignore the act. Possible reasons for this will be discussed below.
As I had a shorter period of time in Sweden to analyse books there, I could not find or read as large a number in Swedish as I did in English. Still, the results are intriguing.
10 out of the 14 Swedish-language books I analysed show exclusive breastfeeding. I found one book that seemed to show containers of artificial milk, but because I was not absolutely sure, I have not included it. While my Swedish sample is smaller than my English one, it nonetheless suggests that more babies are breastfed in Swedish books. In Sweden, breastfeeding rates at 6 months are around 62% (either exclusively breastfeeding or in combination with other food), according to the National Board of Health and Welfare, which is clearly much higher than the figure of 35% in the UK mentioned previously (“Statistik om amning
In many cases, the child being breastfed is a baby, and the story is about the older sibling’s feelings about having a new baby in the house. Breastfeeding causes confusion or jealousy in the older child. A typical example is
Zetterberg Struwe, Hanna.
A few books show breastfeeding but do not remark upon it, such as
Ruta, Matilda.
Therén also produced a book solely about breastfeeding, similar to the Spanish books that have been translated to English, as discussed above.
A couple of books show both breastfeeding and what follows it, namely spitting up and excrement. It is interesting how detailed some of the descriptions are. For instance, in
As in English, there were a couple of examples of “new baby” books that do not show any feeding at all, such as
As a final note of comparison, most of the pictures of breastfeeding in the Swedish-language books discussed in this article are both more accurate in terms of how they depict the way a baby is latched on, and they are also more explicit, showing more of the breast and areola (for example Broomé and Alin’s book). Additionally sometimes they refer to the emotional effects of breastfeeding, such as mentioning the bonding between the breastfeeding mother and the baby (also in Broomé and Alin, where baby Arne gazes at his mother, or in Therén, where breastfeeding is said to feel so “skönt”, or “pleasant/lovely”).
In sum, based on my case study, I would suggest that Swedish books discuss and portray breastfeeding more often than English-language texts, which implies that Swedes, including Swedish authors and publishers, are more comfortable with breastfeeding as a concept and with the illustration of breasts in books for children. It is not surprising that a country with a longer, more generous maternity leave, and a more breastfeeding-normative culture, would be more likely to feature breastfeeding in picturebooks.
Although breasts and breastfeeding are not listed as societal taboos in Holden’s
As noted above, when breastfeeding is depicted in the English books, if any of the breast is visible, it is simply a thin line of skin. In general, one does not see much of the breast, and certainly not the areola or nipple. The babies’ heads tend to hide the nipple. Nipples may be seen as too sexual for children’s books. For example, Palmer describes how children’s author and illustrator Jan Pienkowski’s picture of Sleeping Beauty was edited so the nipples were removed in the US version “even though in the illustration she had just given birth to her baby” (3). But even if publishers wanted to avoid the nipple, they could show more of the breast, or attempt to make it more obvious that babies are being breastfed in either the words or the pictures or both. The fact that they do not suggests they see the breasts as sexual rather than as the source of nourishment. In the Swedish books analysed here, the nipple and areola do not seem to be such challenging sites.
Perry Nodelman’s article about nakedness in children’s books focuses on the depiction of naked children. However, it seems from my research that many of his points hold true for the depiction of naked adults, particularly women’s breasts, as well. Nodelman describes illustrations of naked children in literature as “androgynous naked torsos” with a “curiously sexless sensuality” (“Nakedness” 27). In his research, he finds that most naked babies in children’s literature are male. His “theory is that we are so used to thinking of naked females as nudes that the only way we can look at a naked body innocently, without overtones of sexual titillation, even a baby’s body, is to make the body a male body” (“Nakedness” 28). Nodelman continues, “That the naked young bodies in picturebooks are not without sexual significance is made clear by the almost total absence of female frontal nudity in the entire history of the genre” (ibid.). He calls our category for naked females the “pinup” and reminds us, as stated above, that girls are nude where boys are naked (ibid.).
I would like to suggest, then, that we see few bare breasts in children’s literature for the same reason. In English-language cultures, we sexualise women’s bodies to the extent that the historically normal act of breastfeeding – an act that female mammals have evolved to do – is not accepted as a subject for discussion or illustration in books for children. Even the books that have breastfeeding as their main topic often show breastfeeding taking place discreetly, with little of the breast, and none of the areola, visible (with Swedish books and books translated to English as exceptions). We know that the literature made available for children was and is “fastidiously controlled by institutions such as the school, the increasingly privatized family, and the church in order to ensure that the literary experience taught the child the value systems of the society into which it was to be integrated” (Miller 128). It is not a surprise, then, that in a society where women’s breasts are considered to be sexual and for men’s pleasure, those breasts would not often be depicted in the non-sexual act of breastfeeding in illustrations.
Interestingly, in my analysis of these and other recent Swedish picturebooks, I found quite a few naked baby boys, with their penises depicted clearly (such as Stark and Wirsén, and Broomé and Nordstrand Alin), but no naked girls. So even though the Swedish books showed more acceptance of the naked breast, to the point that a breastfeeding mother is a centrefold in one of the works (Therén), female genitals seem one step too far, at least in contemporary literature.
An alternative reading of this absence is possible, though. Nodelman argues that males are active in the illustrations of children’s books, while females are passive and apparently exist to be gazed at (“Nakedness” 29; and cf. Mulvey on the male gaze). I wondered, therefore, whether not showing breastfeeding would be a way of fighting back against the idea of women as being subservient and inactive. If the illustrators mostly show females, and especially the mother characters, as busy, energetic, and full of motion, then perhaps they are deliberately attempting to depict women in multiple roles. In other words, since breastfeeding requires that a woman slow her movements, sit or lie down, and focus mainly on her infant or toddler, images reflecting this may suggest that women serve their children and are “creatures who must smile at those who have the right to look at them” (Nodelman, “Nakedness” 29). Unfortunately, this rather complex, challenging perspective does not seem borne out by the literature. Women in these books serve their children in other ways, including by giving them bottles of what is presumably artificial milk or spoon-feeding them other food, which men do not do in the illustrations, and women also frequently are shown to be sitting down. They hold their babies, rock them, clothe them, and otherwise put their children’s needs first. The women seldom seem to be active in other ways. All this suggests that we are comfortable with women fulfilling the traditional roles required by mothering, but that we are not comfortable with seeing the women’s breasts in the process of a breastfeed. Breastfeeding, then, is a taboo in English-language children’s literature. Breasts are too sensual to be seen carrying out their primary evolutionary function.
Palmer comments that “[i]t is now known that even in a rich country, a millionaire’s baby who is artificially fed is less healthy than the exclusively breastfed baby of the most disadvantaged mother” (xv). Clearly, then, the topic of how to feed babies is an important one. And yet, as mentioned above, the percentage of women in the UK who breastfeed is quite low; Gallagher calls the UK’s rate “the world’s worst”. So from the perspective of bottle-feeding being a societal norm today, it is not strange that bottles are seen more often than breasts in picturebooks, on television, on cards congratulating new parents and signs for baby-changing and baby-feeding areas, and as accessories for dolls, among other places (see, e.g., Burbidge, and Baumslag and Michels xxvi). There are obvious economic and cultural reasons why bottle-feeding has become more prevalent, and there are strong feminist – and other – arguments for fighting against this.
While terms such as “norm” and “normal” are complex and problematic, in this case, I would state that they are accurate. Breast milk is the biological norm for feeding babies and it is the cultural norm in the majority of the world’s countries. And yet, authors, illustrators, and publishers do not seem to want to depict it in English-language books for children. The few children’s books I have found that feature breastfeeding tend to be ones that are specifically about breastfeeding, or about baby-wearing or attachment parenting more generally. In other words, someone would have to already be passionate about breastfeeding to seek out these texts. A parent is arguably not likely to pick up a work such as
A large part of the reason that breastfeeding is less common in English may be due to discomfort with breasts; as Nodelman writes, “I suspect that picture book artists avoid depictions of female nakedness simply because it is so hard not to turn female nakedness into traditional ”nudity” (”Nakedness” 28). But another explanation is that as bottle-feeding has become more common and more accepted, it seems old-fashioned, and perhaps even anti-feminist, to feature breastfeeding. I would argue that not only is it healthier to promote breastfeeding, but it is also a feminist issue. Van Esterik writes that “feminist goals, however envisioned, require a variety of core activities: political mobilization, legal changes, consciousness raising, and popular education to deal with women’s issues as they emerge” (69–79). Increased education leads to more breastfeeding (e.g. Van Esterik 90), and “[t]he only foolproof means of protecting breastfeeding is to ensure that every family, community, health worker, and policymaker has full access to factual, scientific, and unabridged information—both about the benefits of breastfeeding and also about the risks involved in foregoing the practice” (Jolly xv). Children’s literature can be seen as a form of education, and a way of normalising a topic, for both adults and children.
In my case study here, the statistics for breastfeeding in children’s books in English and Swedish match quite closely the statistics for breastfeeding in the respective cultures; these numbers can be increased, but it seems that the way to do so is through minimising the sexualisation of women’s bodies. Breastfeeding bodies need not be seen as nude, and the depiction of breastfeeding in children’s books is a feminist issue.
Many of the quotes and images, especially the examples from picturebooks, do not have page numbers. Rather tha11n repeat “n.p.” each time, I will assume the reader understands that there is no pagination when page numbers are not listed.
All translations from Swedish are my own. The original reads: ”tycker om att få mat ur mammas bröst. Men Emma tycker inte om när mamma matar Lillebror. Då vill hon ge bort honom till en annan tant. Då vill Emma bli bebis igen så hon får ha mamma för sig själv.”
The original reads: “Bebisbajs är gult och luktar inte alls så där bajsigt. Vet du varför? Jo, för att bebisar bara äter mjölken från mammas bröst. Men när Arne börjar äta riktig mat kommer bajset att bli bajsbrunt och börja luka bajsilla.”
The original reads: “När barnet har kommit ut ur kvinnans mage, behövs inte kvinnan längre. Vem som helst kan ta hand om barnet och tycka om det.”