Charlotte Hobson reflects on whether the meaning of Mother’s Day has been lost to commercialism.

Interested by this? Share it on social media. Join our monthly e–newsletter to keep up to date with our latest research and events. And check out our Supporter Programme to find out how you can help our work.

Mother’s Day owes its existence largely – though not completely – to Anna Jarvis, an American teacher and Methodist organist born in 1864.

The holiday is now widely observed around the world which would, by most standards, render Jarvis’ work successful. She would disagree. As Mother’s Day’s popularity grew she devoted her life to fighting the commercialised, materialistic event that it was becoming. She deplored the greetings card companies and florists – a.k.a. the ‘charlatans, bandits, pirates, racketeers, kidnappers and…termites’ – who turned what she initiated as ‘a holy day, a Sabbath celebration of maternal love and sacrifice’1 into a money–spinner by spreading the idea that proper celebration necessitated buying gifts and sending cards over spending time and showing true affection.

If she bewailed the way Mother’s Day was observed back in the early 20th century, I can’t imagine she would be thrilled with modern–day celebrations. Cards and flowers are still firm favourites but the list of appropriate gifts has expanded somewhat – alcoholic beverages, soft toys, toiletries and chocolate are all advertised as ‘perfect gifts for Mum’; ‘just what she deserves’. The implicit notion that gift–buying is obligatory in order to honour your mother runs consistently through the adverts that bombard us from all angles during the weeks prior to Mother’s Day.

If the way we do Mother’s Day so drastically opposes its founder’s original intentions, are we doing it wrong?

I can understand Jarvis’ frustration with the commercialisation of the holiday – there is a danger that the emphasis on buying things enables us to avoid proper recognition and appreciation of our mothers. It becomes a habit and requires little thought on our part. For Jarvis, the day was intended to be a personal, intimate affair – it is Mother’s Day, not Mothers’ Day, for this very reason – and although spending time with your mother was Jarvis’ preferred form of celebration, writing a heartfelt letter came second–best and far above signing your name in a generic, mass–produced card.

Yet it is also precisely because of Mother’s Day’s personal and intimate nature that Jarvis couldn’t have controlled how it was celebrated. Giving gifts and cards can bring joy and convey appreciation if done with such intentions and thought. The two aren’t mutually exclusive and therefore to staunchly oppose all such offerings is perhaps unnecessary.

What’s more, the commercialised nature of the day has some positives.

For one, the constant advertisements that pervade popular culture around this time serve to remind us of its date. In the UK Mother’s Day is celebrated on the 4th Sunday of Lent – Mothering Sunday – which during medieval times was a day where domestic servants could return to and venerate their Mother Church (Parish Church/Cathedral or church they were baptised in) and also, consequently, visit their biological mothers. As this date changes annually, widespread and constant reminders are somewhat helpful, but significantly, they also serve to draw public attention to an important part of the church calendar – something churches often struggle to do themselves.

Another point concerns the incorporation of figures other than the biological mother as worthy of recognition and appreciation. Mother’s Day cards and gifts for grandmas and step–mums are widely available and although this diversification is likely motivated by a desire for profit – the more people Mother’s Day applies to the more cards/gifts you have to buy – it also makes the holiday more reflective of the reality of modern life where the nuclear family set–up is less normative than it once was. In fact, popularising Father’s Day also serves this purpose as child–rearing is often shared between parents nowadays. Such adaptation ensures that the holiday maintains relevance in modern society.

However, adaptations can also end up separating the celebration from its roots.

As a result of Mother’s Day being closely associated with gift–giving, Anna Jarvis who actively fought against this is largely unheard of. The religious elements at the core of the holiday – Mothering Sunday, church services to commemorate mothers, and specific liturgies – are also often side–lined. Honouring motherhood can be done with or without religious underpinnings, but that this holiday’s origins are rarely discussed, and therefore largely forgotten, is worth analysing.

This year we celebrated 100 years since (some) women were granted the right to vote. It is a lesser–known fact that May 2018 will mark the 110th year since Anna Jarvis, building on campaigners that came before her, managed to instate a holiday devoted to honouring mothers in a society which severely restricted women’s rights. Due to her negative perception of commercialism in relation to Mother’s Day, Jarvis is hardly a figure that companies hoping to profit from the day will promote. That she is rarely discussed or remembered by members of the general public, as well as in the discourse promoted by such companies, highlights how they have shaped public understanding of the topic. This is problematic; just as Jarvis couldn’t control how people celebrated Mother’s Day back in the early 20th Century, so we shouldn’t allow profit–focused companies to determine the parameters in which we think about it.

Going back to my original question then, it would seem that we’re not doing Mother’s Day wrong so much as doing it differently. Due to its personal nature, no one can judge who is appreciating their mother correctly and who isn’t. The holiday has evolved alongside society and therefore remains relevant but also consequently differs from its original form. This evolution has been enabled by companies who have commercialised the holiday which isn’t necessarily a negative thing; one can buy into the gift–giving traditions and genuinely appreciate their mum at the same time. The issue comes when the discourse propagated by these companies becomes stronger than that of more neutral and historically accurate sources. When this happens, as it seems to today, public understanding of the meaning of Mother’s Day is shaped by a carefully constructed narrative that side–lines essential elements of the holiday’s origins when they don’t suit companies’ agendas. Anna Jarvis and those who came before her are forgotten – though their hard work is taken advantage of – and the festival’s original religious core, although observed by many Christians today, is often ignored.

Even if we aren’t doing Mother’s Day wrong on account of our gift–giving habits, we certainly aren’t doing it justice if we allow its origins to be distorted and founders forgotten by the selective narrative of profit–seeking businesses.

1 Commercialisation of the Calendar: American Holidays and the culture of consumption, 1870–1930, The Journal of American History, 78, 3 (1991), pp. 887–916, (p. 900).