Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The term “childless” is highly problematic. Attempts to split it into “voluntary” and “involuntary” may appear to give more detail on context, but the differentiation can be misleading. The condition of “-less” has negative connotations and implies “missing” something; possibly something which is “natural.” The term “childfree” has been employed as an alternative expression which denotes active choice, freedom, and emancipation. Few studies, however, have explored how individuals refer to themselves, or how they interpret—or even care—about these distinctions. Such existing studies only explore the use of these English expressions among speakers of English as their primary language. This exploratory qualitative study explores how women without children define themselves in their native language in an Asian setting—Cantonese in Hong Kong. It also explores how such women interpret the various terms developed in English to describe their circumstances. Respondents refer to themselves in neutral, factual terms—literally “without children.” Others make an explicit link between being unmarried and childless status. While respondents find the English expression of “childfree” positive, they do not express a strong need to either deploy it in English, nor “develop” a Cantonese equivalent. The study provides further evidence that “labels” generated and applied by academics in one context and in one language may not be universally applicable.

Keywords

sociology social sciences family studies women’s studies sex & gender sociology of population demography

Introduction

Childlessness is a key component of the demographic landscape of family formation. However, the term itself can be highly problematic. Both communities of individuals without children and scholars have stressed the importance of making distinctive definitional cleavages between different states of, and pathways to, childlessness. These “labels” include “voluntary childless,”“involuntary childless” and, more recently, “childfree” and “childless by choice.” These “labels” can act as a convenient definitional shorthand for academics and stakeholders to describe different communities and their own pathways to family formation with (or without) children. Recently, however, greater attention has been paid to how individuals without children use and apply these “labels” to their own experience (S. A. Gietel-Basten et al., 2021). By attaching importance to self-identification, these “labels” can help individuals to deduce their own pathways to divergent family formation, and potentially, their perception to parenthood (Moore, 2014). As valuable this discussion on (self-)definition may be, the reality is that it is overwhelmingly grounded in an English language context. An important and overlooked issue concerns the circumstance where there is no terminology that accurately describe one’s state of being without children when one’s own native language is not English. How would individuals describe their status as being without children linguistically, or else, do the terms “childless” and “childfree” hold a special, divergent meaning? How would people perceive these “Western” terminologies? Do they even agree on the necessity or value of labels to describe their family forms?

In recent decades, a series of drastic changes in reproductive behavior has occurred in several East Asian territories (S. Gietel-Basten, 2019), including the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong in the People’s Republic of China (hereafter Hong Kong; Basten, 2015). Such territories are now home to some of the very lowest total fertility rates in the world United Nations Population Division (UNPD, 2019). A sizable part of this transition is the sharp increase in the number of women in their mid- to late-40s who have not borne children (Frejka et al., 2010; S. Gietel-Basten, 2019). This is especially the case in Hong Kong which currently has a total fertility rate (TFR) of just above one child per woman (UNPD, 2019), and where it is believed that female childlessness would be a significant contributor as recent evidence has shown that the proportion of female who remain without children at the end of their reproductive cycle has increased significantly compared to those 10 years ago.

Despite the extensive numbers of demographic studies that investigate the causes behind the ultra-low TFR of Hong Kong, studies which specifically explore the context of female childlessness remain scarce. More precisely, there is no extant study which explore existing Chinese/Cantonese terminology to describe one’s status of being without children, or to even evaluate the value of these terms as applied in English to a Chinese population. This study, then, seeks to investigate Hong Kong’s childless women’s self-identification in English and Cantonese, and explores their understanding of various English terminologies of “childlessness.”

Literature Review

Definition and States of Childlessness

Childlessness, by definition, denotes the absence of children, either biological or adopted, in an individual’s life. Traditionally, a cleavage was constructed between being “voluntary childless” versus the more biologically deterministic “involuntary childless” (Kreyenfeld & Konietzka, 2017)—the former referring to individuals that intend to “avoid parenthood” while the later refers to those “unable” to obtain parenthood because of biological reasons. Over the past two decades however, this definitional cleavage has been attacked for being overly simplistic, not least as it can ignore the transitional states between “voluntary” and “involuntary” (Basten, 2009; Clarke et al., 2021; Shapiro, 2014). Furthermore, the term “childless” has been problematized on the assumption that “-less” is associated with a negative outcome (such as “homeless,” or “penniless”) (Blackstone, 2014), or that something is “missing” from the lives of such people (Gillespie, 2001). Instead, the term “childfree” has grown in prominence as a means of identifying an active, positive choice to live a family life without children (Agrillo & Nelini, 2008; Blackstone & Stewart, 2012; Rowlands & Lee, 2006; Settle, 2014; Watling Neal & Neal, 2021). Such a status is an explicit rejection of parenthood (and all its associated activities), and indicates a sense of chosen emancipation (Gillespie, 2003).

Recently, more effort has been made to observe the extent such “labels” are actually “felt” by subpopulations themselves. The recent study by S. A. Gietel-Basten et al. (2021) explored such self-ascribing behavior among members of “Childfree” meet-up groups in the United States. The study found that while some strongly identified themselves with the term “childfree,” others were agnostic about the specific definitions which are used. In a sense, then, this revealed an irony that, despite the wide literature providing tremendous definitional heterogeneity to outline diverse pathways to childlessness, many of the subjects of research appear indifferent to such scholarly concern. Most importantly, each respondent in the study by S. A. Gietel-Basten et al. (2021) appeared to have their own unique interpretation toward the terminologies, with some even suggesting that their attitudes toward the “labels” themselves were not constant. This constitutes a clear need to study the terminology of being without children from a more person-centered approach.

The discovery in S. A. Gietel-Basten et al. (2021) has synergies with the study by Moore (2014) which distinguished a multitude of meanings connoted in accordance with the labels used among self-proclaimed childfree individuals. The labels which are applied to the self, to others, their ideas of what it means to be either “childfree” or “childless,” and the way they position themselves among the numerous states of being without children, could all express their (fluid) attitudes and perceptions toward parenthood and children. Together, these findings link back to Hayden’s (2010) implication of childlessness descriptors as scholarly foisted boundaries which fail to address the nuanced picture of the complex experience of being without children. Hayden proceeds to call for a qualitative, Grounded Theory approach to investigating the identity/identities of individuals without children.

In a more general manner, this approach links into both postmodern concepts of (multiple) self-identification (Riggs & Turne, 1997) and reflexivity both as researchers and subjects (O’Boyle, 2018) where “the self becomes a reflexive project” (Giddens, 1991, p. 32 emph. in original). Fundamentally, though, this “reflexive project,” and its description and elucidation to others/the self, is also grounded in language and terminology. In his rejection of de Saussure’s view of linguistics, Pierre Bourdieu insisted that language is something beyond simply a means of communication or a system of internal rules (Bourdieu, 1992). Rather, it is necessary to “the interaction of language with its surrounding social variables, such as power, politics, ideology, and so forth” (Borjian & Häberl, 2016). Such an approach links to the notion of metapragmatics, which investigates speakers’ views and stances concerning linguistic phenomena and language use (Bublitz & Hubler, 2007; Culpeper, 2011; Culpeper & Haugh, 2014).

Under these circumstances, any attempt to understand the meaning of the terms associated with being without children needs to consider not only the language which the terms are presented in, but also to be located the specific geographical context. To the best of our knowledge, almost all studies of these terms as mentioned above are (a) universally in their English expression; and (b) of their expression in English-speaking settings. As such, this places clear limits on the generalizability of the discussion to the experiences of such families in many parts of the world. It is in this context that we propose to study the individual and linguistic construction of being without children in a setting where English is not the primary language of communication: namely in Hong Kong.

Childlessness in Hong Kong

Territories in East and South-East Asia have seen dramatic declines in their TFR over the past half-century (Casterline & Gietel-Basten, 2018; S. Gietel-Basten, 2017; Gietel-Basten & Chen 2023; UNPD, 2019). Hong Kong is an archetypal example of rapid fertility decline: with TFR declining from more than five children per woman in the early 1960s to around 1.1 today, one of the lowest in the world (Freedman et al., 1970; UNPD, 2019). Again, in common with other territories in the region (Samir & Lutz, 2017; Hayes, 2017), this change was brought about through structural developments in industrialization, urban intensification, human capital development, female labor force participation and gendered emancipation, as well as a strong family planning campaign (Basten, 2015; Freedman et al., 1970; Yip et al., 2001). Again, in common with elsewhere in the region (Raymo et al., 2015), births to single mothers and those occurring outside of marriage are rare in Hong Kong, although these numbers have increased in recent years (S. Gietel-Basten & Verropoulou, 2018). While cohabitation and the prevalence of so-called “pre-nuptial pregnancies” have also increased in recent years, married couples (with or without children) are routinely granted more legal and social rights than unmarried couples (S. Gietel-Basten & Verropoulou, 2018).

It is important, however, to go beyond the aggregate figure of the TFR to understand how different family forms feature in the demographic landscape of the region, and of Hong Kong in particular (S. Gietel-Basten, 2019, chap. 3). Upon closer inspection, we can clearly observe a variety of changes to family size. A universal change in Hong Kong, Japan, and South Korea, for example, is the sharp decline in “large” families of three or more children, as well as a general, though more modest, increase in the number of one-child families (Frejka et al., 2010). The percentage of women who are at—or almost at—the end of their “reproductive careers” without having borne children has also risen sharply. In Japan, for example, less than 8% of women born in 1949 remained without children for their entire lives. For women born in the early 1970s, however, this figure had risen to more than 30%. In Hong Kong, meanwhile, the figures are even higher—perhaps, even, some of the highest in the world. For women born in the early 1970s, more than 35% remain without children (Frejka et al., 2010; S. Gietel-Basten, 2019). These figures are lower than, for example, South Korea. This change is striking both demographically, but also culturally. As Leung (2018) observes, “childlessness was considered as jue hou (prohibiting posterity) in the traditional Chinese culture which was regarded as a taboo.”

Across the region, few studies have been performed on the topic of “voluntary childlessness” (see Li et al., 2013 for an important exception). Despite the remarkably high numbers of individuals without children (at all ages) in Hong Kong, studies of the topic in the city are surprisingly scarce, with a general focus on the economic consequences (Lui, 2013), or the impact of being without children in later life (Cheng et al., 2014). Several important studies have, however, sought to explore issues of identity and “coping strategies”—however, these have only been explored in the context of “infertility” or “subfertility” (Loke et al., 2012; Tiu et al., 2018). As far as we are aware, there have been no full-length studies of voluntary childlessness, or being “childfree” in Hong Kong to date. No study has yet explored the meaning of these various associated terms—childless, voluntary childless, involuntary childless, childfree etc.—in application to the self, or the general condition of others in Hong Kong. In other words, there is no existing literature that explores self-perception among Hong Kong’s population of individuals without children and the link to their identity in relation to children in their own language. (In fact, we believe that this one of the first studies to explore this in a non-English language setting more generally).

Research Question and Framework

Grounded Theory is a qualitative inductive methodology that sets out to construct theories and hypotheses from data which has been systematically collected and analyzed (Glaser & Strauss, 2017). Such an approach enables researchers to find patterns by exploring raw data, and to formulate theory, to provide an “abstract and conceptual understanding of the phenomena” (Charmaz, 2006, p. 6). As such, Grounded Theory is also said to be particularly useful when studying a social phenomenon where a limited number of social theories exist to explain. We have already identified the current gap in theorizing individuals without children in Hong Kong and their self-identification.

Before turning to the research question, however, we must first define our population of analysis. Childlessness is a matter which equally concerns males and females. Indeed, there is a large an important literature on the topic of childlessness among males (Dykstra & Keizer, 2009; Keizer et al., 2010), from both a “voluntary” (Waren & Pals, 2013) and “involuntary” (Hadley & Hanley, 2011) perspective. In this first study of the topic, however, we confine our analysis to females. A second important definitional issue concerns age. According to standard demographic measures, the upper age bound for women’s “reproductive careers” is set at 45 or 49 (Shryock & Siegel, 1976, p. 287). While ages at birth are certainly increasing because of postponement and the availability of assisted reproductive technology (Basten et al., 2014; Leridon & Shapiro, 2017), births above aged 45 are still (relatively) rare. In 2015, for example, of the 32,359 births registered in Hong Kong, only 59 (or 0.18%) were born to mothers aged 45 or above (authors calculations based on Hong Kong registered births microdata). We also wish, however, to explore perceptions among the most recent cohorts possible. As such, we choose the age group 45 to 54 (i.e., born between 1971 and 1976). Finally, we need to define the language. In Hong Kong, English, and Putonghua (Mandarin) are extensively used in official and/or commercial circles, and English can operate as a kind of lingua franca. However, by the most common language of Hong Kong is Guangdonghua (more commonly known as Cantonese). According to the 2016 by-census, Cantonese was the “usual spoken language” for 88.9% of the population aged five or above (HKSARG, 2021). As such, we confine our population under analysis to females, aged 45 to 54, whose “usual spoken language” is Cantonese.

In this light, we can then turn to our two exploratory research questions:

RQ1: How do women in Hong Kong aged 45 to 54 identify themselves regarding their status as having no children?

RQ2: How do the same women interpret the terminologies emanating from the Western, English language literature?

The first research question was constructed to explore our own sentiment that there were no directly equivalent terms for “voluntary/involuntary/childfree” in Cantonese; and to explore what alternative means of self-identification may be determined. The second research question was constructed to allow for the viewing of these “Western labels” through the lens of women in Hong Kong.

Methodology

In this study, a qualitative research design was applied. The study is designed to be exploratory in nature. As such, to maximize our understanding of at least one group, we decided to focus on women without children who were beyond reproductive age according to the standard demographic measure (45 years). To adequately explore the range of self-description of individuals without children in Hong Kong, we did not filter respondents by any kind of pre-screening of self-described pathways to being without children. This approach clearly presented a potential risk to reaching saturation point, as we discuss in the Conclusion section.

There are (to the best of our knowledge) no specific social media posting sites specifically dedicated to being without children in Hong Kong. As such, we posted short adverts asking for potential recruitments on Facebook pages relating to social life in Hong Kong. Seven responded to our initial post, and a further six were recruited via snowball sampling. In terms of reaching saturation point, Hennink et al. (2017) distinguish between code saturation (when researchers “heard it all”) as opposed to meaning saturation when researchers “understand it all.” Given the preliminary nature of this investigation, we do not claim to have met meaning saturation, but we did reach code saturation after 13 interviews were completed. This can be defined by our general findings (described below) regarding labels (either extant ones, or the perceived need to define new ones), stigma and marginalization in a pro-family and pro-natalist context.

The demographic characteristics are presented in Appendix I. Four of the respondents were married, while nine were unmarried. All self-defined as being heterosexual. Most respondents work in clerical jobs and are characterized by secondary or tertiary levels of education.

The research interviews took place face-to-face, and in semi-structured format. The interview language was Cantonese. Parts of the interviews referred to terms in English. As such, proficiency in English language was a pre-requisite of the interviews. Given the very high rates of English competency in Hong Kong, this was not a factor in rejecting any prospective interviewees. The interviews were recorded (with permission from participants, lasted around 30 min, and were led by a female student from the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST). The interview questions are reproduced in Appendix II. Responses were transcribed and analyzed in Traditional Chinese and then translated into English for presentation. The study team was comprised of both native Cantonese and English speakers The study was reviewed and approved by the HKUST Human Research Ethics Committee (Protocol Number: HREP-2021-0067).

Findings and Discussion

The Descriptors, and the Interpretation by Individuals in Relation to Their Self-Positioning

Respondents were first invited to describe their childlessness status in Cantonese. As can be seen in Table 1, the divergence of responses from participants are aligned with our assumption no terminology that precisely describe “childlessness” in Cantonese. Most respondents simply describe themselves as having “no children,”“no kids” or, quite literally, “no little people” or even “no little friends” (“無小朋友,”“無細路仔,”“無兒無女,”“無孩”). Two respondents were explicit about their “single” status first, which then linked implicitly to their status as not having borne children: “單身貴族” (Chinese expression denoting single, but “noble”) (A); and “老姑婆” (Chinese expression denoting older and unmarried) (J). Only one respondent used a more “active” term which went beyond description: 不婚不育主義者, or “no marriage no parenthood activist” (B).

Table 1.

Responses to: “How Would You Describe Your Childless Status in Cantonese? Is There a Specific Term for it?”Also“How Would You Perceive Your Terminology? Does it Represent Something That Might Be Positive, Neutral or Negative?”

Respondent	Self-ascribed Chinese expression	English literal translation	Value statement
A	單身貴族	Single, but “noble” or “royal”	Neutral
B	不婚不育主義者	No marriage no parenthood activist	Neutral
C	無細路仔	No kids	Neutral
D	無生小朋友	Not having a kid	A bit negative
E	無小朋友	No kids	Neutral
F	無小朋友	No kids	Neutral
G	無小朋友	No kids	Neutral
H	無生小朋友	Not having a kid	Negative
I	老姑婆	Older and unmarried (akin to stereotypical view of “spinster”)	Negative
J	無孩	No kids	Neutral
K	無孩	No kids	Neutral
L	無細路仔	No kids	Positive
M	無小朋友	No kids	Neutral

We then asked respondents how they themselves perceived their own self-ascribed terminology. Ten respondents perceived their own self-ascribed labels as “neutral,” two described the terms as “negative,” and one each responded that they felt the terms were “somewhat negative” or “positive.”Table 1 also shows that there is no uniform link between the self-ascribed terms and the connotation. Even respondent (B) who made the most active statement of a rejection of marriage and childbearing regarded her “label” as neutral. In short, most of the respondents hold a stance of neutrality regarding their identity as not having borne children. It is purely a statement of fact. As mentioned by 45-year-old (M):

“The word ‘No children’ is neutral…it is only reflecting the reality. Although one could intend to adopt a ‘no-child’ lifestyle, having no kid is a factual issue which carries no emotions.”

When articulating their thinking about their self-ascribed term, respondents (D), (G), and (L) elaborated on the connotative meaning which associated the term with their social, cultural, and personal experience. (D) and (G) understood “no kids” as negative since they believed it latently conveys that “childless women are abnormal” (D). (D) illustrated this sentiment as follows: “The term could be negative, because society’s first impression [upon] hearing ‘no kid’ would be suspecting an issue in the [childless] individual’s personality or fertile ability.” (G)’s idea is like that of D: “No kids refer a personal issue…with her marital status or [a] biological problem.” (L) is the only one to perceive “no children” as a positive terminology, describing it as a freedom, and escape from pressure.

No significant systematic difference were found between the married and unmarried. However, as an exploratory study, the sample size of the current study might not be large enough to conclude significant comparison on the perception on the “child free” terminology between the two groups.

No Kid—An Intended Outcome of Being Unmarried?

In the scholarly literature, the word childlessness simply denotes an absence of children in an individual’s life, regardless of his or her social condition or marital status. However, as disclosed from some of our respondents’ discourse, there is an apparent cognitive association between being without children and being unmarried. For instance, when being asked to describe their status of being without children with a specific terminology, (A) referred to the Chinese expression “單身貴族,” which denotes single, but “noble” or even “royal” (A) which may denote an insight into of individuals’ (perceived) prosperous lifestyle in a single and unmarried status. Relating to herself as a “noble” from being childless, reflects a positive attitude of the participant of being without children. Originating in Chinese social media, the term “single noble” is a popular term in mainland China and Hong Kong these years, not restricted to any gender and age groups. It is a term that describe that oneself could also enjoy a life like a “noble”: a single lifestyle of being carefree. (I), meanwhile, referred to herself as “老姑婆,” a more negative Chinese expression denoting older and unmarried, akin to the stereotypical usage of the word “spinster” in the English canon. In (B)’s case, she declared herself as a “No marriage no parenthood activist”—a rejection of two life processes which, in Hong Kong, appear intrinsically linked.

As illustrated by the respondents, there are considerable expectations relating to parenthood within marriage in Hong Kong society. Being without children was highlighted by several respondents as being perceived as a “deviant” behavior in marriage. (C), for example, added that:

“I think the general public sees having no children in middle age as a negative thing, particular [among] married couples. As a married woman, I was always asked if I have any kid. As I tell them that I do not [have kids], their response makes me feel uncomfortable…it is like they consider having no kid in marriage life to be a pity and something strange….”

(E)’s response elaborated on society’s tendency to link married women without children to a biological inability, even if this is not the case:

“In general, when others heard from me that I was married but I did not have a kid, I think their first impression would be more likely as ‘ummm is it the case that you could not produce a child biologically? It creates a certain pressure.”

As well as noting the expectation of parenthood within a marriage, an alternative perspective is offered by respondents who observed that others were more likely to suspect women without children were single. (F), for example, considered the term “childless” to be an active mocking of one’s inability of finding partner and to begin childbearing. This interaction between marital status and childlessness appears to be a more important phenomenon in the Hong Kong context, and one which is seldom revealed in the (predominantly Western) extant literature.

Diverged Understanding of Western Terminologies of Being Without Children

When being asked about their perception toward the English expressions “childfree” and “childless,” all the respondents, apart from (J), noticed a more positive connotation in “childfree.” Some believed the “-free” in “childfree” referred to a freedom, indicating one’s reason to adopt a “no-kid lifestyle,” and that the more widespread use of the term could be more friendly to the community of adults without children. However, in contrast to much of the writing which justifies the need for the term “childfree,” not all respondents agreed that there was a negative meaning embedded in the term “childless.” Many simply referred to it as a neutral, descriptive statement. Only a minority observed that the “-less” in childless could deliver a possible meaning of “having something less” or a denoting a “lack of something” (A, D, M). In this sense, a varied definition and approach toward English terminologies could be noted within Hong Kong individuals without children. More importantly, it is observed that (as expected), different populations in different contexts could have different interpretations toward the same terms.

Indeed, the participants’ idea about “Western” terminologies of childlessness appear sometimes to be affected by their perception toward childbearing as well. One respondent’s idea about being “childfree” suggests that while intended to be empowering, such terminologies may not always be viewed as something innately good. According to (J), for example, who denoted a neutral perception of her own status of “having no children”:

“I understand Westerners tend to be more individualistic, but I feel kinda uncomfortable when hearing about ‘childfree.’ I don’t see a necessity in glorifying [a] childless lifestyle… it is a personal choice anyway. And I actually think such emphasis would make the community become further stigmatized because it makes the consideration of having children a big issue. I don’t see children as a burden… [the term] childfree [seems] to some extent a bit frivolous to me.”

Hong Kong Women Without Children—Marginalized or Not?

“Naming” can be a crucial behavioral act for members of marginalized groups to both claim their lived experiences, to elucidate their experiences to others.

Nevertheless, our respondents do not see an urgency, nor a necessity in creating their own specific, Cantonese childless terminologies which differentiate between condition and/or motive. Despite agreeing that a creation of such terminology might raise societal awareness toward the community of individuals without children and alleviate discrimination (E, H), and highlighting the current insufficiency of voices concerning the rights of women without children, there was little enthusiasm for the necessity to create an alternative set of terminologies. (B), for example, mentioned that “I think it is not necessary. I don’t think I’m stigmatized by the current terms.” (C) added that “Indeed, I think ‘no kids’ already represents everything very sufficiently. [I] Don’t need [extra] terms to make childless lifestyle a very positive thing.” (M) was equally ambivalent: “if there is a word, I would support. But at this stage, I don’t see an urgency in raising such a term.” (D), (E), (K), and (L) were the only respondents who are more interested in such a development of terminology, observing that “there a no related terms in Cantonese” (L). (K) felt that such updated terms “could help me to differentiate the cause of my status,” while (D) suggested that “developing such a term could advocate the idea that having no kids is not a shame.” Finally, (E) opined that:

“the current term put us in a passive position. I think a creation of term can let people know sometimes having no kid is not always [grounded in a] problem in fertility or some other issue…it can be that childless women intend to have this lifestyle.”

As such, a divergent attitude toward the creation of terminologies regarding individuals without children could be noted.

Discussion and Conclusion

Our project represents a first “glance” at the language and terminology used by Hong Kong women without children to describe themselves, as well as their evaluation of “imported,” English expressions. Overall, the research gives some insights into the way Hong Kong women describe their status as individuals without children and their ideas toward related terminologies emanating from the English canon. Importantly, a heterogeneous approach toward “childless” terminology and its linkage to marriage status was highlighted, in apparent contrast to the “Western” literature. Most respondents agreed that “childfree” represented a more positive expression for their status, and that the “label” had the potential to raise greater awareness of society toward the community of individuals without children. Despite this, the same respondents do not see a necessity in creating such a term that specifically denotes their reason not having a child. While respondents may not necessarily see a stigmatization in terms of the extant Cantonese terminologies, they do believe that individuals without children are often stigmatized and marginalized by the social norms prevalent within the Chinese traditional pro-natalist family attitude, and the associated value placed on continuing the lineage. Despite this, most respondents feel satisfied with the existing terminology, and therefore do not think it is fundamentally necessary to create a new terminology (akin to “childfree”) that might help ease social discrimination or raise awareness of their circumstances.

It is first necessary to remark on the several limitations in this project. Our “sample size” and sampling strategy is appropriate to the Grounded Theory approach taken here; but, of course, any findings should not be seen as representative, but indicative of perspectives. The research only focuses on female childlessness, despite a call for further research on not only males, but also couples as an important unit of analysis in recent years. We also omit any exploration of childbearing attitudes among sexual minorities. We were not able to reach meaning saturation point regarding some of the key themes which were drawn out—especially relating to the issue of being childfree. This may be because we did not draw a distinction in the recruitment of subjects about their having made an active choice not to not bear children. However, we were able to determine a code saturation in terms of a predominance toward neutral statements of not having children. A larger scale, quantitative survey to test out the theories derived from the findings would be a logical, necessary follow-on study. Such a survey could expand the scope and diversity of the analysis, including differentiation by age, gender, ethnicity, marital status, and educational level.

As illustrated by Hayden (2010), a qualitative, person-mannered study is necessary to provide a nuanced picture of the complex experience of individuals without children in relation to their own identity. Furthermore, S. A. Gietel-Basten et al. (2021) suggest that the way individuals without children “label” themselves may allow scholars to better observe the expression of their state of mind which, in turn, could be relatable to their reasons and discourse of not having a child. In this research, we have sought to explore the Cantonese notion of being without children in such a person-centered manner. At the outset, we applied a Grounded Theory approach for two reasons (apart from the fact that no such study had been performed in Hong Kong). Firstly, we wanted to explore the conceptual notion of what it means to be “without children” for women in Hong Kong; and secondly the linguistic characterization of that within Cantonese. Because of this “double” goal’ which would inevitably have internal interplays, it was felt inappropriate to perform deductive, hypothesis-based research.

The first, perhaps obvious, theoretical contribution of this study, therefore, lies in the revelation of a linguistic and cultural complexity regarding the application and creation of terminologies relating to being without children. Participants were invited to describe their identity of being without children in precise terminology in their native language, and to express their opinion of its implication. The lack of an adequate expression relating to “childfree” in Cantonese reduces the parameters of self-identification through simple terminology as compared to English, for example. Rather, most respondents tended to rely on neutral, definitional, literal wordings when describing their status without children. Moreover, the research contradicts much existing literature in terms of the interpretation of terminologies relating to individuals without children, and the perception of respondents of the necessity to produce alternative terminologies for self-identification and empowerment. This appears in contradistinction to the prevailing narrative in the English literature, which emphasized a strong differentiation between such phrases as “voluntary/involuntary” childlessness, being “childfree” and so on. However, the findings in this paper partially accord with the finding in S. A. Gietel-Basten et al. (2021) for the United States, which found an ambiguity among many respondents on the phrases and descriptions deployed.

More broadly, therefore, we can state that our primary theoretical contribution relates to the dangers of deploying the western social and linguistic constructions of being without children universally. This is especially important given the changing circumstances of family formation not only in Hong Kong, but in Asia and most non-English speaking parts of the world. As more and more women (and men) around the “low fertility world” appear to be eschewing childbearing, it is extremely important to understand the reasons why, and how these choices interact with their identity (formation) and self-perception. Indeed, the application of a “childfree label” is frequently seen in many discussions of low fertility across the region, including in Hong Kong (Appleton, 2021), Indonesia (Azwar, 2023), Singapore (Yuen-C, 2021), and in South Asia (Haider, 2022). Our study provides some clarity in terms of the absolute need to specify and define what individuals themselves mean when they describe their status as being without children within the cultural, social and linguistic space which they inhabit. When seeking to understand these motivations and modes of self-identity, social scientists should be extremely mindful that what can be applied on one place certainly may not be equally valid in another.

Finally, from a policy perspective, it is important to note that many governments around the world are concerned about low fertility rates (and their contribution to macroeconomic challenges such as population stagnation/decline and aging). In response to this, many governments (and commentators and stakeholders) are seeking to increase fertility rates through more or less crude pronatalist means (S. Gietel-Basten et al., 2022)—albeit with limited success. In response to this limited success, said stakeholders and commentators are ready and poised to “blame” people—especially women, and especially those without children—for this eschewing their responsibility and accelerating “national decline” (Dildar, 2022; S. Gietel-Basten, 2019). All of this clearly brings about heightened levels of stigmatization toward people without children, thus negatively impacting on their well-being (Park, 2002). Such an approach also does little to understand how and why people without children came to be in such a situation and, again returning to the “voluntary” and “involuntary” labels introduced earlier, can overlook opportunities to support women (and men) who are not currently able to meet their reproductive aspirations. Understanding these reasons and doing so in their own cultural and linguistic context, is therefore critical to better appreciating this demographic trend. Most importantly. It is critical to realize that even within one community, such self-descriptions and self-perceptions differ. Again, this provides further evidence that a rights-based, bottom-up approach to family policy is the most effective in this postmodern era of family formation.

Footnotes

None

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Ethics Statement

The study was reviewed and approved by the HKUST Human Research Ethics Committee (Protocol Number: HREP-2021-0067).

ORCID iD

Stuart Gietel-Basten

References

Agrillo

Nelini

(2008). Childfree by choice: A review. Journal of Cultural Geography, 25(3), 347–363.

Appleton

(2021, July 12). Being childfree by choice: 7 Asian women share their stories. Tatler Asia. https://www.tatlerasia.com/power-purpose/ideas-education/hk-being-childfree-by-choice-asian-women

Azwar

(2023). Child-free and happy: A group for Indonesians without kids – by choice. The Jakarta Post. https://www.thejakartapost.com/life/2021/04/14/child-free-and-happy-a-group-for-indonesians-without-kids-by-choice.html

Basten

(2009). Voluntary childlessness and being childfree. The Future of Human Reproduction: Working Paper. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.701.9495&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Basten

(2015). Understanding ultra-low fertility in Hong Kong. In Rindfuss

R. R.

Choe

M. K.

(Eds.), Low and lower fertility: Variations across developed countries (pp. 63–86). Springer.

Basten

Sobotka

Zeman

(2014). Future fertility in low fertility countries. In Lutz

Butz,

W. P.

Samir

K. C.

(Eds.), World population and human capital in the 21st century (pp. 39–146). Oxford University Press.

Blackstone

(2014). Childless… or childfree?Contexts, 13(4), 69–70.

Blackstone

Stewart

M. D.

(2012). Choosing to be childfree: Research on the decision not to parent. Sociology Compass, 6(9), 718–727.

Borjian

Häberl

(2016). Introduction: At the intersection of language and social variables: The case of Middle Eastern languages in the United States. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2016(237), 3–18.

10.

Bourdieu

(1992). Language and symbolic power. Polity Press.

11.

Bublitz

Hubler

(Eds.) (2007). Metapragmatics in use. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 165. John Benjamins Publishing.

12.

Casterline

Gietel-Basten

(2018). Exploring family demography in Asia through the lens of fertility preferences. In Gietel-Basten

Casterline,

Choe

M. K.

(Eds.), Family demography in Asia (pp. 1–15). Edward Elgar Publishing.

13.

Charmaz

(2006). Constructing grounded theory. Introducing qualitative methods series. Sage Publications.

14.

Cheng

S. T.

Chan

T. W. S.

G. H. K.

Leung

E. M. F.

(2014). Childlessness and subjective well-being in Chinese widowed persons. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 69B, gbt049-.48–gbt049-.52.

15.

Clarke

Hayfield

Moller

Braun

(2021). A critical review of the interdisciplinary literature on voluntary childlessness. In H. Cummins, J. Wouk, & J. A. Rogers (Eds.), The truth about (m)otherhood (pp. 29–54). Demeter Press.

16.

Culpeper

(2011). Studies in interactional sociolinguistics: Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence series number 28. Cambridge University Press.

17.

Culpeper

Haugh

(2014). Pragmatics and the English language. Red Globe Press.

18.

Dildar

(2022). The effect of pronatalist rhetoric on women’s fertility preferences in Turkey. Population and Development Review, 48, 579–612.

19.

Dykstra

P. A.

Keizer

(2009). The wellbeing of childless men and fathers in mid-life. Ageing and Society, 29(8), 1227–1242.

20.

Freedman

Namboothiri

D. N.

Adlakha

Chan

K. C.

(1970). Hong Kong’s fertility decline 1961-68. Population Index, 36(1), 3.

21.

Frejka

Jones

G. W.

Sardon

J. P.

(2010). East Asian childbearing patterns and policy developments. Population and Development Review, 36(3), 579–606.

22.

Giddens

(1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the Late Modern Age. Polity Press.

23.

Gietel-Basten

(2017). Fertility decline. In Zhao

Hayes

A.C.

(Eds.), Routledge handbook of Asian demography (pp. 64–86). Routledge.

24.

Gietel-Basten

(2019). The “population problem” in Pacific Asia. International Policy Exchange Series. Oxford University Press.

25.

Gietel-Basten

S. A.

Obispo

Zhang

Wilcockson

(2021). Childless or ‘free of children’? Self-definition and being ‘childfree. In Cummins

Wouk,

Rogers

J. A.

(Eds.), The truth about (m)otherhood: Choosing to be childfree (pp. 71–91). Demeter.

26.

Gietel-Basten

Chen

(2023). From protests into pandemic: Demographic change in Hong Kong, 2019–2021. Asian Population Studies, 19, 184–203.

27.

Gietel-Basten

Rotkirch

Sobotka

(2022). Changing the perspective on low birth rates: Why simplistic solutions won’t work. BMJ, 379, e072670.

28.

Gietel-Basten

Verropoulou

(2018). The changing relationship between marriage and childbearing in Hong Kong. PLoS One, 13(3), e0194948.

29.

Gillespie

(2001). Contextualizing voluntary childlessness within a postmodern model of reproduction: Implications for health and social needs. Critical Social Policy, 21(2), 139–159.

30.

Gillespie

(2003). Childfree and feminine: Understanding the gender identity of voluntarily childless women. Gender & Society, 17(1), 122–136.

31.

Glaser

B. G.

Strauss

A. L.

(2017). Discovery of grounded theory. Observations. Routledge.

32.

Hadley

Hanley

(2011). Involuntarily childless men and the desire for fatherhood. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 29(1), 56–68.

33.

Haider

(2022). Being childfree isn’t selfish - It’s my moral responsibility. South Asian Today. https://southasiantoday.com.au/article-10252-being-childfree-isnt-selfish–its-my-moral-responsibility-details.aspx

34.

Hayden

(2010). Purposefully childless good women. In Hayden

O’Brien Hallstein

D. L.

(Eds.), Contemplating maternity in the era of choice: Explorations into discourses of reproduction (pp. 269–291). Lexington Press.

35.

Hayes

A. C.

(2017). Family planning policies and programmes. In Zhao

Hayes

(Eds.), Routledge handbook of Asian demography (pp. 87–108). Routledge.

36.

Hennink

M. M.

Kaiser

B. N.

Marconi

V. C.

(2017). Code saturation versus meaning saturation: How many interviews are enough? Qualitative Health Research, 27(4), 591–608.

37.

HKSARG. (2021). Hong Kong – The facts. GovHK. https://www.gov.hk/en/about/abouthk/facts.htm

38.

Keizer

Dykstra

P. A.

Poortman

A.-R.

(2010). Life outcomes of childless men and fathers. European Sociological Review, 26(1), 1–15.

39.

Kreyenfeld

Konietzka

(2017). Analyzing childlessness. In Kreyenfeld

Konietzka

(Eds.), Childlessness in Europe: Contexts, causes, and consequences (pp. 3–15). Springer International Publishing.

40.

Leridon

Shapiro

(2017). Biological effects of first birth postponement and assisted reproductive technology on completed fertility. Population, 72(3), 445–472.

41.

Leung

J. T. Y.

(2018). Families in transition in Hong Kong: Implications to family research and practice. International Journal of Public Health, 10(2), 143–155.

42.

A. E. H.

Plüss

Kwok-bun

(2013). To be or not to be: Chinese-Singaporean women deliberating on voluntary childlessness. In Kwok-bun

(Ed.), International handbook of Chinese families (pp. 231–248). Springer.

43.

Loke

A. Y.

P. L.

Hayter

(2012). Experiences of sub-fertility among Chinese couples in Hong Kong: A qualitative Study. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 21(3-4), 504–512.

44.

Lui

F. T.

(2013). Demographic transition, childless families, and economic growth. In Ito

Rose

A. K.

(Eds.), The economic consequences of demographic change in East Asia (pp. 351–373). University of Chicago Press.

45.

Moore

(2014). Reconsidering childfreedom: A feminist exploration of discursive identity construction in Childfree LiveJournal communities. Women’s Studies in Communication, 37(2), 159–180.

46.

O’Boyle

(2018). Encounters with identity: Reflexivity and positioning in an interdisciplinary research project. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 41(3), 353–366.

47.

Park

(2002). Stigma management among the voluntarily childless. Sociological Perspectives, 45(1), 21–45.

48.

Raymo

J. M.

Park

Xie

Yeung

W. J.

(2015). Marriage and family in East Asia: Continuity and change. The Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 471–492.

49.

Riggs

Turne

B. S.

(1997). The sociology of the postmodern self: Intimacy, identity and emotions in adult life. Australian Journal on Ageing, 16(4), 229–232.

50.

Rowlands

Lee

(2006). Choosing to have children or choosing to be childfree: Australian students’ attitudes towards the decisions of heterosexual and lesbian women. Australian Psychologist, 41(1), 55–59.

51.

Samir

K. C.

Lutz

(2017). Human capital formation in Asia 1970–2010. In Zhao

Hayes

(Eds.), Routledge handbook of Asian demography (pp. 412–430). Routledge.

52.

Settle

(2014). It’s the choices you make that get you there’: Decision-making pathways of childfree women. Michigan Family Review, 18(1), 1.

53.

Shapiro

(2014). Voluntary childlessness: A critical review of the literature. Studies in the Maternal, 6(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.16995/sim.9

54.

Shryock

Siegel

(1976). The methods and materials of demography. Studies in population. Academic Press.

55.

Tiu

M. M.

Hong

J. Y.

Cheng

V. S.

Kam

C. Y.

B. T.

(2018). Lived experience of infertility among Hong Kong Chinese women. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 13(1), 1554023.

56.

UNPD. (2019). World population prospects: The 2019 revision. World Population Prospects 2019. https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Standard/.

57.

Waren

Pals

(2013). Comparing characteristics of voluntarily childless men and women. Journal of Population Research, 30(2), 151–170.

58.

Watling Neal

Neal

Z. P.

(2021). Prevalence and characteristics of childfree adults in Michigan (USA). PLoS One, 16(6), e0252528.

59.

Yip

P. S. F.

Lee

Chan

(2001). A study of demographic changes under sustained below-replacement fertility in Hong Kong SAR. Social Science & Medicine (1967), 53(8), 1003–1009.

60.

Yuen-C

(2021, October 31). ST CloseUp: Why some women choose to be childfree. The Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/why-some-women-choose-to-be-child-free