Feminist Theory has challenged the universality of the 1950s definition of "nuclear family". Through hard work and advocacy, Feminist Theory has broadened what "family" means. If you were to ask someone what the word ‘family’ means today, you may get an answer consisting of, "one or two parents of one or more children". But even this definition remains laden with restrictive ideology. How else would we determine what constitutes a family? Through a historical lens? What about religious? Biological? Medical? Psychiatric? Political? With what lens does your personal values best align?
I tend to look at families through an economic and historical lens. Society treats families as economically independent units that share resources internally, and resent sharing externally. In fact, our culture tends to shame families away from asking for help externally, whether from extended family, strangers or institutions. Welfare recipients are viewed as lazy, and society moralizes whether they are deserving or undeserving. Needing help outside of the immediate family is viewed as a failure to thrive, and a personal issue; one that stems from a lack of personal work ethic rather than systemic failures. Caretakers, especially mothers, are scrutinized for their parenting styles.
But a caretaker's work is invaluable. Caretaking requires a full-time commitment of one's physical and emotional labor. Capitalism does not value care work, however, as this labor typically goes unpaid and overlooked. Women are generally expected to perform most of these duties for free, while relying on a husband for monetary funds. The logic goes that restoring the two-parent household will allow the mother to do the caretaking, and the father to earn an income. This is why capitalism values nuclear families and shames women for being single mothers.
Capitalism has always depended on the unpaid labor of women. How did women do it before the transition to capitalism? During 16th century English feudalism, families looked more like villages. Households consisted of multiple generations, while kinship had little to do with blood ties. Children had the freedom to choose what adults would be their mentor. There was also "the commons", or spaces where people could informally share resources and responsibilities.
The transition to capitalism relied on removal of the commons through "enclosures": a word that refers to strategies implemented to separate people. Common areas were fenced off, and specific owners were granted deeds to properties. This prevented neighbors from passing through, which eliminated their ability to network and share. Without a living wage or adequate government assistance, the commons and shared care work were one of the only social safety nets that mothers had.
The commons pose a threat to capital. Larger institutions that control many aspects of our lives hold onto that power by keeping us dependent on them. They keep us dependent by keeping our families small and isolated from each other. They shame us when we incorporate other resources into our immediate families, or try to rear children in non-traditional ways.
But what happens when we give single mothers the resources they need, instead of expecting them to remain in a toxic relationship or cohabit with someone else? What happens when we allow a group of caretakers unrelated by blood to be considered family? What happens when we assess and intervene within a family, we shape our interventions around all parties regardless of blood ties? What happens when we accept family dynamics as they are presented to us, rather than through our own biased lens?
A mentality that values diversity is a fundamental aspect of family social work. Without acceptance toward differences, the family social worker is unlikely to be trusted and accepted by families. Therefore, family work starts with an examination of our fundamental beliefs about families and family life. Beliefs and attitudes guide what we see, and what we do in our work with families. Through these fundamental changes of how we view families, we can begin to shape unique interventions for unique problems. And through advocacy, we can help others view care networks to be just as valuable and important as a traditional, biological, nuclear family.
About Taylor Scribner
Taylor is a senior at The Ohio State University, and is intensely invested in its social work program. Taylor has volunteered at community gardens, The Sophia Quintero Center, Planned Parenthood, The Farm Labor Organizing Committee, a local Toledo radio station, a justice coalition, and a variety of other important projects in California and Ohio. While pursuing her master’s degree, she is interning at Choice Network. The adoption agency is committed to true choice, autonomy, equity and justice, which is something she wholeheartedly stands behind.
