> If the third way represents an attempt to regulate
> family life, or to split the interests of parents from children within
> the family, then I vote for a fourth way.
> --
> cheryl hudson
Quite so - I agree. I think we should avoid confusing the personal and
societal role of the family. The personal role is to provide a stable
framework to relationships, particularly to those involving children. Most
people seem to choose to adopt this framework, or variants of it - so we
certainly should avoid policies which discourage it. But on the other hand
some choose other forms of relationship. As far as the personal dimension is
concerned this must be a matter for personal choice.
The societal role goes beyond this - the family is a ready-made and familiar
structure for providing care for children and support for individuals who
cannot support themselves, whether temporarily or permanently. When compared
with state welfare provision, it appears to offer many advantages - it's
cheaper, more flexible and so on. But what of other models? More 'extended
families' or closer-knit communities could ensure societal needs are met
without prescribing the personal. We should explore the economic and social
'norms' which prevent such solutions being more widely available.
Diarmid Weir
-------------------------------------------------------------
Posted to uk-policy, a service of Nexus. http://www.netnexus.org/
Hosting and email provided by new media consultants On-Line Publishing