The Ideology of Familism

THE IDEOLOGY OF FAMILISM

By Gisela Notz [This article published in Ossietzky 3/2016 is translated from the German on the Internet, http://sopos.org.]

The ideology of familism that derives the social form of organization from the concepts of an “ideal family” still has a boom season although it only had a practical relevance for a fraction of the population: the family. It has less practical relevance than ever. The little middle class family as known today did not exist in all ages. Nevertheless the ideology of familism inevitably leads to discrimination of individuals and groups who do not correspond to this picture. In this part of the world, the central concept of middle class heterosexual, monogamous father-mother-child-family prevails that unquestioned still mostly underlies many social-, family-, labor market- or social building decisions.

All attempts of women’s movements to shake the familist ideology in the course of different political epochs ran aground. The ideology’s power still exists today and is supported by the political influence of conservative circles and Christian circles that sought for decades to defend familism against all signs of disintegration.

FAMILY AS “GERM CELL” OF SOCIETY The seemingly natural order of the middle class nuclear family is bound with a strict gender-hierarchical distribution of roles. This has effects on the living situation of women because welfare work is mainly assigned to them while the man is the “main breadwinner.” The social reality has long deviated from this ideological painting. Many forms of life together like single parents, patchwork-, rainbow families, communes, flatsharing communities and forms for which family sociology has not found a name testify to that.

Despite this infiltration, state policy still supports and promotes the ideological painting – the “normal” nuclear family with father, mother and children. Not by chance, this ideological painting stands under special protection according to German Basic Law since children should be (Christianly) educated, needy persons supplied and seniors and handicapped cared for in it. The social and nursing infrastructure ensures this. However this also leads women still offered non life-sustaining part-time work, mini-jobs and other precarious working conditions because it was assumed they could only make their profession and family compatible this way. Women have 70% of precarious working

conditions. For a long while, not all were married, were mothers, wanted to be mothers or cared for their relatives at home.

TRADITIONAL FAMILY OR DISCONTINUED MODEL? The media published “classical family in retreat,” “change in family life” or similar titles for years. Even if it is not a discontinued model, the traditional heterosexual nuclear family is by no means the dominant life-model in Germany. According to data of the German Statistical Office, the number of persons who choose this life form constantly decreases. In 2014, 28% of 40.2 million households with 80.8 million people lived in the classical nuclear family in households of two generations where parents and their children live together. Step-, foster-, adopted children and grandparents who live with their grandchildren are included. If families with underage children are counted, they would only be 20.3% of all households. Three-generation households are hardly calculated statistically at 0.5%. On the other hand, single parents are a constantly growing family form. According to the 2011 micro-census, they amounted to 22.9% of all households. 90.1% of this household form are mothers with their children. The most frequent household type at 37.2% is the single household. The rest of the households consist of same gender partnerships, flat-sharing communities et cetera.

FAMILY HAPPINESS AND GREAT VARIETY In polls, people always say one needs a family to be happy… The heterosexual nuclear family with married parents is no longer the dominant life form but has central significance for many people – if the sociological findings are to be believed.

The fear of not finding the “right” way in the labyrinth maze of the multi-option society, the fear of not belonging, obviously leads people to long for permanent relations, for long-lasting dependability and loyalty that mostly proves to be an illusion not only for heterosexual relations.

Acknowledgment of the diverse life forms is more important and more sensible than the constant attempts at reconstructing the family as a screened “private” organization in its old form or the expansion of the familist system to the increasing “new life forms” that adjust to the norms of the middle class nuclear family. This is only possible through the abolition of privileges connected with one life form (marriage and family – all the same whether homo- or heterosexual). Family policy may not serve the protection of certain life forms and discrimination against others. Equality is first attained when no life form is preferred, no one is disadvantaged and all people are entitled to the same right to exist in their chosen life form as long as no one is exploited, oppressed or mistreated against

their own interests. Generation communities can first arise in which young and older persons – irrespective of age, gender, origin and worldview – can live together with equal rights without exclusion. This involves the possibility of free alliances among free persons without oppression and violence. If that is achieved, the often strained term family does not need to be expanded and reinterpreted. “The family” could be abandoned and replaced by “way of life.” Family policy would be superfluous since a human policy would be enough. That would be the end of familism.

Gisela Notz: “Criticism of Familism. Theory and Social Reality of an Ideological Picture, Schmetterling Verlag, 2016