Power & Regulation of the Family
Through Government & It's Social Agencies

Although we are characterized by our cultural, geographical, social and economic differences, people all over the world have one thing in common--family life. Family life includes daily routines: children going to school, family meals, chores, leisure activities, social relations of sexuality, intimacy, reproduction, parenting and sharing a household-of-family... Relationships are shaped by the larger social context and social structure; to a great extent by gender inequality and the partial private and public domain of family life--it is "the outcome of a disciplinary society".

The following describes "the operation of networks of discipline and regulation, that create and organize", in sometimes subtle and not so subtle forms. Power and regulation is not from a central authority, and is highly dispersed; through the education agencies, health agencies (doctors, pediatricians, psychologists, and other agencies that provide support), lawyers, and through the management of children. These social agencies, medecines, lawyers... are powerful because "they carry the weight of public sanction". The intervention and surveillance by courts, health agencies, and educational agencies "screen family conduct for signs of failure".

"Since the 18th century social regulation has occured around the management of children. There has been a shift from the patriarchal family, where father was controlling their families, to the rights of children and women protection. With government guiding the family, by applying subtle pressure or through social policies and legal statutes, they may and do alter the way family functions.

Government sets laws and regulations, through years of public pressure or in many cases a game of politics during re-election time. We then face governments protection of e.g. women, and at the same time can infringe on what would have been private rights. An example would be a mother separates from her husband. At one time the husband could have left with the children and the mother would have no rights. Today the mother, in most cases, has access to her children. she later finds out her husband is sexually abusing their child. At one time she could have gone into hiding with her children (although with the fear that he would find her), but today, she would first have to prove her husband is doing this. If the court cannot be provided with proof ( since children can be considered as non-reliable witnesses), or if the individual does not have the money to wage a custody fight, or has an inexperienced legal aid lawyer, the mother could be expected to continue with the same access rights to the abusive parent, or could actually lose access to her children. If she tries to go into hiding to protect her child, whe will be considered as abducting her child - and lose custody of her children. The children she is trying to protect could end up being put in full custody of the other parent. Thus, we can assume that the government regulates to the best of its abilities, but at times infringes on family and its functioning.

The government regulates schools, and through the schools, the family. An example would be the arab women who, according to their Koran (religion), must wear their head scarves. I must wonder if the governments involvement/power in passing legislation in how people should not be different, and should or cannot practice their religions within our school systems, not only impedes on our right in private family life, but also increases the stigmatism towards other people. There are surely some customs and rituals which are not acceptable in our society (such as genital mutilation), but are all customs and rituals to be stigmatized?

The magnitude of a government's direct power on family, is China having set regulation that each family was allowed to only one child. They allowed the natural instinct to bear children to one, or the option to leave their girls homeless, and have a boy. What horror in this day and time. The government not only is a catalyst of crimes, but has proven that gender inequality truly exists.

Government policies and regulations have also affected pregnant women. Examples would be; where women can give birth to their children. In some areas in Canada, agencies are available for free meetings, lamaze, and breastfeeding help. The agencies employee also comes to the home, if you need help with the baby. It is regulated by the hospital; putting you on the agency's list as soon as you have given birth--they contact you within the first or second week the parent is home. Also the governement pays a small amount per month if the parent breastfeeds for the first six months. They also offer paid pregnancy leave for moms or dads to spend time with their newborns.

Governments have also set social policies for removal of children from abusive/incestuous homes. They are also regulating parent/child relations through pediatricians, agencies, and the education system. As is the case in the U.S. with regards to ADHD children and drugging. Although their is a limit to their protection of children. An example would be Katie Lynn Baker affected with Rett's syndrome.

Dr. Brian advised Cheryl Mclean (the single mother of Katie and seven other children) that she had "the choice to admit Katie to the hospital and take radical measures to save her life, or let her disorder take its natural course". (Dianne Rinehart, Sick Child New not Eating Would Kill Her, Southam Newspapers, November 1996) McLean contacted her lawyer, "he said that the choice had been given to me and I wouldn't have been given it (by the doctor) if it wasn't legal".(Dianne Rinehart, Sick Child New not Eating Would Kill Her, Southam Newspapers, November 1996) Katie Lynn Baker stayed home, and died May 28, 1996. Social workers took four children away from the home, because they were "concerned about the family, during and after the inquest". (Steve Thornton, Stomach Device Helps Feed Girl Suffering from Rett, Canadian Press) "Family court Judge Ron Fabbro said McLean can have reasonable number of visits with the children under the supervision of child-care officials." (Steve Thornton, Stomach Device Helps Feed Girl Suffering from Rett, Canadian Press)

The doctor, the lawyer, and social workers all had a say in the way this situation was to resolve itself, and in how to protect these children--they all failed. And now the court is deciding on the outcome of the other children.

Other social policies affecting and helping families are literacy programs, better health care, welfare, school loans and grants, after school daycare centers, subsidized daycare and housing, hiring the handicapped, and equal opportunity (helps women mostly, but also the family, and thus the economy). Working moms are a rapidly growing female labour force ["Women are 70% of worlds poor" (First Lady Hilary Rodham Clinton, United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women, Beijing China, September 5th, 1995)] and contribute to the nations economy. Therefor social programs have been created for child care programs, tax credits, insurance and community resources, and through these social programs, government continues to regulate for failure.

Within Quebec, Canada, power and regulation prevails; all immigrants and its francophone citizens will go to french schools, learn french history, and become Quebec citizens--becoming non-dependent of Canada and interdependent of Quebec (through unilinguism) and its resources, and becoming part of its economic strength. What will happen in divorce cases when one parent is anglophone and the other francophone? What power will the governement have, through court decisions, on the outcomes of these children's education? In protecting the family, the government will have taken away individual choices. Thus, where does private domain begin, and public domain end?

Elderly care will increase immensely. Most elderly care is given by mother's/women. It is difficult for them to balance work and home life--they may still be taking care of their own children at the same time. Stresses of competing demands of work and family are increasing. There is alleviation by some employers by alternative work arrangements, including flexible leave and work times.

With feminist demands making political what is personal, we are moving away from programs and policies to strengthen two-parent, patriarchal families. Feminists have put on the forefront abortion, sexual harrassments, wife abuse, discrimination against gays and lesbians issues, and wanting to reduce conflict between work and family obligations. Women are important to the family, to the state, and to the economic survival of the state.

In creating social policies for women's protection and aid, and in accepting them, we have become state regulated. I must question if we are an outcome of our society, or rather an outcome of our social policies and state regulations--imposing on us, in subtle and not so subtle forms, who we are and who we should be.

REFERENCES