‘Survivor’, ‘Home’, ‘Mother’, ‘Resident’, ‘Illegitimate’, ‘Birth Mother’.
These are just some of the contentious words highlighted in a recently published report on Ireland’s mother and baby institutions, county institutions and other related institutions. Entitled Language, Terminology and Representation this report was authored by researchers in the UNESCO Child and Family Research Centre at the University of Galway.
Since 2014, mother and baby ‘homes’ have become notorious due to the meticulous research and indefatigable campaigning of historian Catherine Corless, who discovered that the remains of 796 infants and children had been concealed in an underground ‘septic tank’. Corless’s efforts drew attention to the (mis)treatment of women and children in such institutions in Ireland and led to the establishment of a high-profile state investigation in 2015. The Mother and Baby Homes Commission of Inquiry (2020) (MBHCOI) investigated a representative sample of fourteen mother and baby institutions and four county homes. It published its Final Report in January 2021, running to 2,865 pages. The protracted process drew international attention to the treatment of children of parents who were not married and highlighted the great extent of institutionalisation in Ireland historically.
Mother and baby institutions were set up from 1921 as both private and public institutions. Women often entered them whilst pregnant and remained there until the birth of their child and for some, months or years afterwards. Often their child was forcibly removed and there is an interconnected history involving boarding out of then-children and adoption practices. Single women had long been stigmatised for becoming pregnant and although these institutions were new in terms of targeting pregnant women specifically, they are part of a longer history of institutionalisation in Ireland. The histories of mother and baby institutions are interwoven and connected to those of other institutions including the foundling institutions, the Magdalen Laundries/Asylums and County Institutions.
The Language, Terminology and Representation project emerged from recommendations in the First Report of the Collaborative Forum into Mother and Baby Homes, and four members of the steering group were directly affected by the topics discussed. How has language and historical labels been used to stigmatise, to retraumatise and to ‘other’ many individuals, both past and present? How critical is it to prioritise the voices and views of those directly affected? How can we, as academics, students, journalists, and social workers, begin a movement towards changing how we respectfully address the lives of thousands of citizens? How do we ensure that we are responsible and respectful in how we write, speak and communicate in language that does not harm? These are the questions and aims which guided this research, and our focus now is on disseminating the learnings.
Some words were found to be universally unacceptable such as the use of ‘home’ instead of ‘institution’, the continued use of the term ‘illegitimate’ in written and verbal forms and for many, the use of the term ‘resident’. The lack of terminology for fathers was a notable absence, and while language has changed in some instances since the 1970s (‘lone parent’ being an example), there are many other areas where further change is needed. References to adults as ‘children’ or ‘babies’ was criticised, and the stigma and secrecy associated with being ‘adopted’ was widely spoken about. The terminology of ‘victim’ and ‘survivor’ was also very contested and complicated. Some people identified with these terms whilst others found them offensive, preferring alternatives such as ‘directly affected’. The report is full of many other words people identified as offensive, especially when used by people who were in positions of power or authority. It is not just words used, but how the terminology misrepresented people’s identities and the lack of empathy and understanding when individuals chose to be addressed in a different manner.
‘Mother’ was one of the words most often referred to in this research. ‘Unmarried mother’, a term that has been used widely within academia and the media for many years was universally rejected as unacceptable. As one survivor said, ‘I don’t have to be married to have a child’. Another participant stated ‘We were never described as real people. We were just clustered together and were known as either unmarried mothers or birth mothers’. Several people disagreed with the term ‘birth mother’ and found it extremely offensive. Others thought the term accurately described the circumstances of the child’s birth. One recommendation from the report is that the term ‘mother’ could be used as in the 2022 Birth Information and Tracing Act. Several participants discussed the experience of becoming and being a mother and how they were treated at this time, and the impact of being denied their motherhood. All the experiences reported were negative with a range of reasons attributed to this. Largely, this was seen to be a result of their single status and the judgement associated with this.
Overall, the research has shown the stigmatising effects of certain language, and the intergenerational trauma this has caused to people directly impacted by the institutions. It highlights the complex way family and society reinforced exclusion, marginalisation and discrimination against women and then children because of their association with the institutions. However, the findings leave little doubt that it was especially the power of language – to include, exclude, stigmatise, and re-traumatise – demonstrated through the dominant discourse of the (primarily Catholic) churches and various governments and government departments that was most damaging and insidious. The influence of Catholic social teaching was particularly highlighted. It censured female sexuality and shamed both single pregnant women and single persons having sexual relationships through stigmatising sermons, in gendered legislation and within a general culture of classism and sexism.
It is not just words and terms that affect people, but the context they are used in to represent someone’s identity and experience. This has certainly been the most powerful learning for us. The lifelong and intergenerational impact of offensive language and terminology for many people is evident, and the need for a more historically just, accurate and honourable representation of people’s experiences and identities is clear. As authors who work in the disciplines of History and Social Work, this report has challenged us to acknowledge our previous published work – work in which we did not use language that was sensitive and cognisant of the persons we were researching and writing about. It has forced us to consider our own positionality, as academics, as researchers and as advocates. For this report to have the impact we believe it deserves, the impact that those who contributed both from the steering group to the respondents deserve, we must be activist scholars. We must challenge colleagues, the media, social work professionals and many others to consider their own position, their own biases. This will be uncomfortable at times, but it is arguably a necessary discomfort if we are to affect any real change.
So, what can we done now? Firstly, look at the report. Become familiar with the terms and language that could harm someone. Ask questions, respectfully. Listen. Challenge. For those in positions of power and authority, particularly in government, in social work/care and in the media, action must be taken to create policies and codes of conduct which eliminate the use of stigmatising language and historical labels. For academics, international best practice must be observed, and an ethical, trauma-informed approach to research ensured. In short, education, awareness and proactive practice and policy changes are necessary.
‘Getting it right’ in the present is only one step towards historical justice for those directly affected by Ireland’s institutional history – but it is one we can all be involved in. It is the beginning of a long overdue conversation, a conversation many different groups have had before which has led to more honest and inclusive engagement. It will not be without contention, and agreement may not always be achieved but the conversation needs to occur. As participants emphasised: ‘we can’t take back, and we can’t undo the wrong, but we might be able to do something right in the future for the people who got such a raw deal’. As historians, academics and citizens we must begin that process now.
The full report can be read here.