Do you know the Duggar family? The family consists of a couple who follow a movement called "quiverfull" who consequently have a billion kids (okay, so maybe a little hyperbole there!)

The Quiverfull Movement essentially disavows all methods of birth control. Children are conceived as often as nature dictates.

Now, I want to relate this to the articles I presented, Mauss's "Techniques of the Body" and Douglas's "The Two Bodies." Mauss argues that what we perceive as "natural" acts are really subconsciously "learned" acts that we adopt from the culture that surrounds us. Douglas uses this premise, but alters it to suggest that "natural" and "normal" are products of perspective derived from the symbiotic relationship of the "two bodies", the individual and social body. She argues that "the human body is always treated as the image of society" (pg 79) and therefore, the individual is taught to control his human body to conform to the standards set by the social body.

Moving forward from these two perspectives, Erving Goffman (who we did not read) expounds upon this concept suggesting that the conformity of our actions, our appearances, signals others that we are members of the social body. Our bodies communicate to others that we can be interacted with, included, or excluded from a specific situational order. Our minds develop schemas to predict expectations and ascertain our appropriate responses.

Pierre Bourdieu (whom we also did not read) dissects what we classify as instinctual or intuitive determinations (our "practical sense"), suggesting that these too are "un-natural" thoughts, but rather a by-product of social construction developed through enough ssubtle conditioning that we cease to recognize it as a responsive behavior. He believes that these responses "learned by the body" aren't really knowledge at all because they are not the object of conscious thought. These behaviors become incorporated (literally "made body"). Because they become a part of whom someone "is", they cannot be rejected. He believes it is this "practical sense" that gives us membership to a particular structural segement of society, such as class or gender.

Now combine all of these philosophies and put them into the perspective of social normalization and the discussion we were having the other day about how societal "norms" are fluid and changing, what is "normal" to one generation or one group would not be acceptable to another.

Now consider Michelle Duggar and all of her children. What is your first response?

Our generation, our current society, pregnancy is now a controllable physiological, bodily action and in the fluid realm of societal expectation, things that can be controlled should be controlled. We are conditioned to believe that child-bearing should be limited, because one cannot be a "good" parent if one has too many children, but too many children is a subjective term. Is too many a specific number or a ratio? Is too many established by income, time, or both? But I digress -- the real point of this statement is to point out that the Duggar family is uncommon. They do not fit into our schema of "normal" family. They represent other, the abject, in society. Logic dictates that if we are what's "normal" and we are different from them, they must be ABnormal. In terms of Schema Theory, the Duggar family challenges our schematic classifications.

What is your "instinctual" response?

Just to take this to another level as well, I explained the Quiverfull Movement with "as often as nature dictates." If conception is biologically natural and natural implies an uncontrollable occurance, why do we look down upon this practice? Is it because now that pregnancy can be controlled, it no longer meets the basic requirements of natural? So, is natural really a relative term?