Birth in Four Cultures: A Crosscultural Investigation of Childbirth in Yucatan, Holland, Sweden, and the United States

This book by Brigitte Jordan compares the way we look at and carry out the birth process in the US compared the way the Mayans in Yucatan do. Birth in Holland and Sweden is also examined, somewhat secondarily. The author is an anthropologist and was clearly committed to using social science methodology to carry out her studies. The result is not a countercultural advocacy piece but rather a thorough treatise that acknowledges what is good in the American, technological births, and what may be less than optimal in the Mayan culture. She also does a good job articulating how the US approach creates more problems and solves them in the same way that the problem was created, and how the Mayan culture avoids many of these problems. She discusses what seems to work and what seems not to in the way that technological innovation is introduced to indigenous people. Dr. Jordan does all of this with a sensitivity to those in the birth process, a recognition that when birth does not go right for whatever reason, the result can be traumatic for the mother and the child.

This was an excellent book to read in medical anthropology class. It gave a view of birthing systems in only some cultures, but that was enough to show some of the drastic changes between cultures one sees in the woman giving birth and the hospital personnel. Amazing how even with technology some of the fundamental needs of the patient are not being met.

I first read this ethnography as an undergraduate major in anthropology, and now that I've started to teach college level courses as a graduate student in anthropology, I have assigned it in my classes for the last 2 years. Students are always fascinated with the information found in the book -- (largely because this may be the first time in their entire lives that anyone has given them frank information about birth in the US, let alone in other cultural contexts) -- and fruitful and interesting discussions have taken place in my classes after students have read this ethnography. I would highly recommend it for undergraduate and graduate courses in general anthropology, medical anthropology, ethnography, and a myriad of other anthropology, social science, and medical/biology courses.One thing that I have noticed about those who want to argue about Jordan's findings is that they overemphasize the quoting of statistics from third world nations and that they have a need to justify how Jordan's statistical info about the United States is not as bad as statistical info from other nations -- as if the deaths of a few thousand babies per year here is better than the deaths of many thousands of babies per year elsewhere. This information is often coupled with a need to bring in still other types of birth statistics that are meant to nullify or throw into question the validity of birth statistics that show how the US consistently lags behind other industrialized nations in infant mortality rates -- today as well as in Jordan's "ethnographic present" time in the late 1970's.But these kinds of arguments just show how much people can and do miss the point of reading this ethnography.The most pressing, and central, point to Jordan's work is that everywhere people are convinced that their birthing system is superior to the birthing systems of other peoples in other places and that this superiority is always defined according to what the people within a culture believe to be the "natural" definition of birth. In the Yucatan, birth is hard work that women need to accomplish in their homes with their husbands at their sides, so it is inferior to give birth in a strange room in a hospital with few family members in attendance and with strangers violating their bodies with vaginal exams while they labor. In the United States, in contrast, birth is seen as a medical event out of necessity because Americans focus on birth pathology and they want medical professionals in attendance to save them "just in case" anything goes wrong. So, it is inferior to many Americans to labor at home, with non-AMA medical professionals in attendance, and with the awful possibility of something going wrong looming over their labor. This kind of chauvinism is cross-cultural and, unfortunately, it is very much in evidence whenever I see any negative American response (i.e. to quote statistical data on birth pathology, of course!) to Jordan's work.Birth in Four Cultures is not a sta

I loved this book. It brought a whole new perspective on giving birth and the beauty of it. I gave birth at a big HMO Hospital and I felt that I was treated as a number basically. This book has taught me a lot and probably I will make different choices for my next baby.

Jordan examines the birth event within the context of the social norms of that culture. For example, in a culture where no one is "in charge" of the birth, a specialised tool (e.g. forceps) has no place, for that would defeat the equality of all participants. The midwife's role is to assist the family in fulfilling their decisions. By contrast, in a country where birth is hospitalised, birth often becomes an "illness" which needs to be "treated" - the mother becomes the patient, and the doctor takes charge.I preferred this to "Birth traditions and modern pregnancy care" (Priya), which listed a variety of customs without examining the sociological implications. "Birth in four cultures" touches upon a variety of lessons that a culture's birth event can teach: the women's role in society, how the birth experience is defined (natural vs medical), etc. Jordan writes in the first person, and gives many accounts of births she attended. This is an excellent read for anyone interested in comparing the birth experience in the USA with other countries, possibly with the aim to change their opinions of what an "ideal" birth is. As a feminist, I found this empowering: since the birth experience is uniquely female, the societal norm will tell us a lot about our place in that culture.