THE FAMILY POLICY FORUM

By Ann Hartman

The Family policy Forum welcomed Judith Stacey for an informal and highly informative presentation on, and discussion of, families and family policy as we move toward a national election. Stacey, author of the fascinating critique In the Name of the Family, is Streisand Professor of Gender Studies at the University of Southern California. A founder of the Council on Contemporary Families, she has been in the forefront of the challenges to the "family values" movement and to the "virtual social science" that supports the effort to enshrine one form of family and blame those families that do not fit the traditional definition for all of our social ills.

Judy began her discussion by noting that "family values," an increasingly central political issue since the Carter administration, has surprisingly disappeared from the prime time electoral radar screen. She did not speculate on the meaning of this silence but noted that it was clearly not because the conflicts over family change have been resolved nor that the needs of families are being adequately addressed.

Although the politicians have been quiet, the family values "virtual social science" apparatus continues in high gear. The emphasis, she continued, seems to have shifted from critiques of single parenthood, divorce, and fatherlessness to advocacy of restoring heterosexual marriage, the marriage renewal movement, required pre-marital preparation, and the targeting of gay and lesbian marriage and parenting.

Turning to a consideration of the changing family and family policy, Stacey described some of the dilemmas that make the development of sound policy so difficult and complex. She emphasized that no matter what efforts are made to return to the "fifties family," it's not going to happen. Family diversity is here to stay, and there is no going back. The historic trajectory has been toward the "pure relationship," which brings both risks and promise. The marital relationship of the past has been sustained by constraining divorce laws, property, kinship requirements, the church and other social and cultural structures, values, and often for women, survival. Stability has been rooted in various kinds of coercion.

We have seen over the past decade a democratization of intimacy, sexuality, and gender and a rise in the standards of intimacy. But with this democratization, with higher expectations and the enhancement of options, comes a rise in volatility, instability, and prospects of rejection and betrayal. Most people need not, and in many cases will not, live out their lives in miserable relationships as many did in the past.

The diversity that inevitably follows from freedom means that our social policies and institutions must be equally differentiated, must be able to support and enhance the lives of people in a wide variety of family situations. Further, the insecurities that come with freedom, while difficult enough for adults, pose a major problem for children. Stacey posed the key question: How can continuity and security of a child's family and social life be maintained? Such issues point to the question, "What should the basic unit of social policy and support be?" Marriage has been the central status protected and privileged by law and policy. These privileges and protections, however, set up enormous inequities and primarily benefit white, heterosexual, employed men. They are often not available to people of color, people in poverty, people who chose not to marry or remarry. Nor are they available to gays and lesbians. Even with the increased democratization of marriage, gender inequities continue to exist for women in terms of entry, membership, and exit. The "burdens" of freedom are compounded by structural inequality in terms of gender, race, class, sexuality, and family status. Children growing up with parents excluded from marital privilege suffer from these inequities.

How, then, asks Stacey, to level the playing field? How to protect and support children? How to meet the needs of diverse families? Certainly, we must enhance our efforts to reduce structural inequality. We say this, however, in the face of growing inequality in this country and a political atmosphere that predicts a continuation of this trend. A second step would be to work toward the separation of social and economic benefits from marriage and family status as has been done in Scandinavia. Stacey threw out some different ways to define the social unit with the recognition that none of these would be likely to be accepted in this country. Fineman, for example, suggests that the "mother-child" dyad should be the unit of social policy and support. A more flexible and less biologically defined arrangement would be through "negotiated parenting kinship compacts." Other suggestions have been to expand the number of committed responsible adults in children's lives through registered kinship. These suggestions provided stimulus for discussion concerning the deficits that currently exist in our uncaring society.

The presentation was followed by a lively discussion focussed on the needs of children and families in all their diversity. It was suggested that the family is so deeply embedded in American social policy, appearing thousands of times in the national and states' codes that the way we may be able to develop a more level playing field is through the redefinition of the family. Although there is resistance to this, there have also been remarkable shifts in this direction in some legal decisions and legislation. The group was reminded that AFTA has taken a strong position is favor of a broad and inclusive definition of family."