Family and Capitalism (was Nationalism...)

[Celia Winkler <cwinkler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

A lister sent me a personal message saying that my post answered some
questions but raised others.  Indeed, this is true, as we can see by
Martha's post.  In fact, it is something that I (and shall I say feminist
theorists in general) have been struggling with--the tension revealed here.
 On the one hand, families are the site of resistance and survival, while
on the other hand, families have been the source of much oppression of both
women and children.  On the one hand, individual independence has been a
means to escape the oppressive qualities of family, while on the other, it
is precisely that individualism that is the hallmark of capitalist society.
 I attempted to come to grips with the problem of social solidarity in a
paper published in an obscure british journal, Community, Work, and Family.
 In it I argued for the creation of something I called the "social
individual."  (Not marx's social individual, but certainly related.)   This
is not the "possessive individual" of capitalism--but, as Martha points
out, it is often difficult to distinguish between the two.  The culprit, as
always, is private property, and this goes beyond simply ownership of the
means of production, but ownership of a wife, children, rights...

I don't think the left should give up on family.  I don't argue that.  But
we have to be clear about whose family we are arguing for.  Is it the
family as defined top-down?  Or bottom-up?  Families that have been truly a
site of resistance, survival, liberation have been those that are defined
"bottom-up."  It is the top-down that is the problem, and can occur even in
the context of "family-friendly" social policy, because by its nature, such
social policy must define what a family is.  Grump.  I've having
difficulties putting this into words--I SEE it but can't SAY it.  When the
state defines what a family is, this definition will depend on who has
hegemony.  And if it is a capitalist hegemony, the definition will be
consistent with the capitalist world-view.  The bottom-up definitions will
almost always be deviant.


 That is why I am nervous when any social policy confers benefits based on
any definition of family.  A case in point is the Family and Medical Leave
Act.  Although gays and lesbians point to their partnerships as deserving
coverage, there are a host of other possible relations when leave may be
essential (e.g. care of close friends, neighbors, etc.--why base
eligibility on the existence of a sexual relationship?)  What is the value
to be promoted?  Care or family?  It is clear that the construction of the
FMLA is promoting the value of family, not care.  (Arguing against
myself--the movement to include gays and lesbians in the FMLA could well
push open the discussion to include nonrelatives, and thereby burst out
into a valuing of care. This happened in the context of student housing at
the University of Oregon; the push by gays and lesbians to open up "married
student housing" to gays resulted in a much broader eligibility, that
included friends and just plain old roomies.)

But we should be clear that assumptions of family responsibility (family
values?) already tacitly exist outside the policy making arena. Today, most
surgery is done on an out-patient basis with an assumption that there is
someone at home to care for the individual.  Capitalism has long relied on
"family values" to ensure that the worker is reproduced.  Family values are
necessary for the survival of capitalism, which relies on us to organize
our private lives in a way that will benefit capital.  So that which we
require is exploited and shaped by capitalism.  Social policy takes this
tacit assumption and makes it explicit, e.g. dependent tax deductions, FMLA...

Tensions.  Even if a cultural group defines family in a counter-hegemonic
way, and this family serves as a site for survival and resistance, there
will be those who are excluded.  For example, gays and lesbians or other
individuals who engage in behavior the group defines as deviant.  I'm
reminded of a provocative piece by a Pakistani woman living in the UK
(can't remember author, I'm sorry to say).  The Pakistanis were an
oppressed group, and had formed family structures that provided a place of
protection against the oppression, but this family structure felt
oppressive to this woman.  Similarly, women may have some sense of power
within the family as mothers (see Miriam Johnson's book, Strong Mothers,
Weak Wives). But often that comes through their power relations over their
children which may or may not be informed by caring values.

The point of autonomy is not to live isolated lives, but to really give
people choice in how they constitute what they consider to be family.  For
my part, my family of origin is still important to me, but I know that
death and the requirements of work and the formation of nuclear families
within this large extended family of mine makes it less a support than it
could be.  Rather, I think fondly back on the old collective living days of
my youth, and fantasize about a retirement community for old lefties.
Would they become family?  Would we define it that way?

And the final question takes me back to the first, what do people think of
when they hear the term, "family" or "family values"?  Does it mean care,
as asserted by feminists, or does it mean ownership and exclusion?
Remember the Colorado "parental rights" initiative.  Is the term so loaded
with right-wing or even just plain old capitalist meaning that its use by
the left would leave us in coalition with the right?




Celia Winkler
Sociology Department
University of Montana
Missoula, MT  59812-1047
Office: (406) 243-5863
Home: (406) 549-6285
Fax:    (406) 243-5951
cwinkler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx