It is an unwritten rule in sociology courses on issues such as the family (or perhaps any specialization within the discipline, for that matter) to end the semester with readings and discussion of politics and public policy. Tacitly, by doing this, we suggest that sociological knowledge ought to lead to social change—“philosophers,” as Marx dismissively declared, “have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it” (Theses on Feuerbach, thesis 11); we suggest, as well, that you are, in fact, free to define who you want to be and how you want to live your life, regardless of all of those messy social forces that seem to define everyone else. The direct admission of this might go something like: “I know that it seems as though everything we have covered over the course of this semester either explicitly or implicitly communicates how much our lives are conditioned by social forces and determined by institutions outside of our control, but, in reality, you can change things. You can have agency. Oh, and what of those really depressing statistics on your chances of success in relationships, including marriage, divorce, etc.? Nah, they don’t apply to you now, because you have knowledge. So cheer up, be empowered, you can do it!” In this, we are perhaps practicing the “power” (i.e. delusion) of positive thinking which Barbara Ehrenreich finds so frustrating:
In fact, following Ehrenreich, it is perhaps our stubborn blindness to the real risks of intimacy and family life in the name of optimism (read: romance, love, etc.) which leaves us powerless to address change.
In this week’s readings, therefore, I embraced the caution of realism. These readings focus on the pressures of navigating messy institutions and policies that do not easily translate into the manifold dialects of our intimate relationships. Comparative lessons from Europe and the United States demonstrate differences in social patterns even as they suggest that the state’s struggle to adjust to family diversification is common. Interestingly, a few pages ripped from the headlines are most apt in drawing distinctions and sparking discussion. First, from the society pages: “Eric” and “Lola”, who after a 10-year relationship, three kids, and lots of drama, called it quits in Quebec in 2001. As “de-facto” partners, however, Quebec policy stipulates that Eric has a financial responsibility to his kids after the separation but not to their mother. If they had been married, it would have been a different story. While the case seems headed to the Supreme Court, it highlights the significance of contracts and the legal (unromantic) issues of family support that so few expect to encounter:
In another case, Alberta just passed legislation to render parenting relationships to children born with assistance from reproductive technologies more easily recognizable to existing law and thus assure child support responsibilities:
In both of these circumstances, the cool modern approach points us in the direction of caution, even as most of us so carelessly cast it aside in the name of romance or love. In facing intransigent or uncertain institutions with a clear head, however, it seems we can develop strategies for resilience that improve our chances for success. Think gender flexibility = agency, I suppose. Thus, as we end the semester on the heels of cautious optimism, let’s think clearly about the risks and rewards of family life in all its messy incarnations. What questions should we ask? Here are two suggestions to start:
1. What rights and responsibilities do intimate partners have to one another? What rights and responsibilities do they have to one another if they have children? How should these change (if at all) in the aftermath of a break-up? Most importantly, what role does the state have in assuring that these rights and responsibilities are respected?
2. What explains the persistent gap between peoples’ expectations and experiences of family life? How might the law or expectations change to better suit the needs of family members?
Please label your post "Family Politics and Policy"
Thank you!
No comments:
Post a Comment