Work and Family

The reconciliation between work and family, the public and the private, is one that individuals are in a constant effort to balance their entire life, whether as a student, a spouse, or a parent.  This week's articles focus, however, on attempting to find this balance in the parent stage. 

I found Beck and Moen’s article on dual-earner couples interesting because of their seemingly paradoxical manner of presenting their conclusion.  Primarily, there is an underlying assumption that the family should take precedent over the workplace. While this is valid, it is also a privileged position from which to talk about such issues.  While they acknowledge that their sample was drawn from the white, middle-class, many of their conclusions – such as the need for balance – comes with an assumption of access to making demands of flexibility, of access to choosing less work hours, of access to deciding between a job and a career.   Other issues such as the gender divide are presented as almost inevitable although I did find it interesting how they noted the gendered difference in justifications for cutting back.  It will be interesting to see how this “professionalization of the discourse surrounding family life” will blend with increasing family-focused workspaces, the continual blurring of the private and the public (Becker, Moen, 1003). 

In reference to the pay gap between mothers and non-mothers, the so-called “motherhood penalty,” I found this contradictory to my initial thoughts when I started reading the article.  My instinct would say that there would be a preference to hire mothers because, if they have already had children, then they probably see a job fitting in with their commitment to their children.  I assumed they would have probably figured out, at least mentally, how they are going to maintain the work-family balance and are applying to the job because they feel they will be able to maximize their potential at both.  Non-mothers, on the other hand, have not yet experienced the responsibility of children.  Therefore, if they do have children in the future, there will be a larger visible shift in the balance.  While their study contradicts my initial instincts, I wonder how this “penalty” could be structurally de-sanctioned and less prejudiced. 

The contrasts Hochschild points to between Goffman and Freud in her piece “Working on Feeling” highlights the issue of contextualizing emotions and performance play.  Honestly, reading this piece, while many of the ideas may subconsciously hold true, made me a bit sad.  It is sad to think we don’t just feel emotions but rather manipulate them, forming them to the social conventions that we deem “correct.”  Although, reflexively, I understand how this interplay can be seen in everyday life, it is still disheartening to think that many social interactions (all which involve some sort of emotion, even an emotion of neutrality) are simply an expression of how the person thinks s/he should feel within that context.

In “Love and Gold” I found her observations of the global feminization of migration pointing to a trend that has long existed and rarely acknowledged.  When I was younger, my parents were struggling to start a business and yet hired a nanny from Barbados.  She brought me along with her everywhere – from the supermarket to the tattoo parlor – and I was later told that my parents (jokingly) were afraid I would adapt her accent.  This form of “outsourcing” and commodification of care puts parenthood within a global framework.  Although I don’t foresee any viable solutions to change the system, a system that is perpetuated by the increasing time bind of the workplace, I do like Hochschild’s suggestion that we “find ways to make it easier for migrating nannies to bring their children with them” (Hochschild 195).  This would relieve some of the tension and anguish of the nannies, and also expose the children of both nationalities to ideas of difference as well as help parents to reconcile these different notions and expressions of love.  The merging of the two cultures could become modeled more as a reciprocal exchange than an extractive abuse. 

Hochschild’s piece, “The Emotional Geography and the Flight Plan of Capitalism,” points to the growing discrepancy between time at work and time at home.  As companies increasingly make it easier, and more accommodating, to work more hours, the family sphere looks increasingly dismal in comparison.  While she points to many of the structural reasons behind this, such as increasing time bind issues and seemingly helpful yet restricted “family-friendly” measures, I wonder to the role of the individual in this situation.  An individual can only blame the institution for so long before some level of responsibility must be taken.  The parent’s quoted who say they find a safer haven in work, free from the dishes and their children, simply perpetuate this cycle instead of trying to create a safe space a home.  While this may not be that easy, it is certainly worth trying instead of running back to work.  Just as companies are adapting a “corporate strategy [for]… retaining valued workers,” so individuals need to devise strategies, such as insisting on shared domestic responsibilities, to retain family values (Hochschild 211).

Q1: Do you think there is such thing as a “genuine” emotion?  Do you think there is a difference between “genuine” emotions and an emotion expressed simply because it is deemed appropriate for that social situation? 

Q2: What do you think is the best strategy for reconciling this “extraction of love” from Third World to First World countries?  Do you see any benefits to this exchange? 

Q3: From where do you think this view of mothers as “incompetent” and “uncommitted” is derived?  As an increasing number of women “break” the “glass ceiling” do you think this discrimination and prejudice will lessen with time?