Part II Gender as psychological essence
5.2. The construction of women, children and men
5.2.3. The discourse on children and family
standing of child care and at the same time consolidated this burden in the private sphere.
By nuancing the means test to take account of various rural and urban conditions, the State’s discourse on qualified support is however an acknowledgement of the
specific broader social contexts of care and that the experiences and burdens of rural and urban primary care givers are different. Although this resonates with
Chodorow’s theory, where mothering is understood to happen in specific social contexts, it differs in that Chodorow refers to the micro level of social relations within the family and not the broader macro social context and other structures in society. However, to really understand this, it needs to be explored empirically which would make a topic for further research.
5.2.3. The discourse on children and family
In the WPSW (Department of Welfare 1997) children are identified as one of the vulnerable groups in South Africa and therefore a target of social welfare
programmes. The discourse on children’s vulnerability talks in terms of their being victims of and affected by a litany of external structural and systemic forces. These include historical injustices, poverty, living in vulnerable female headed households, discrimination, the absence of financial support from fathers, being orphaned by HIV/AIDS, violence in communities, natural disasters, disability, chronic illnesses, child abuse and neglect, substance abuse, malnutrition and nutritional deprivation.
126
As “(o)ver half (54%) of all South Africa’s children live in poverty” (p.1) they are held to be particularly vulnerable to a condition that should and can be addressed through social welfare policies and programmes. Just as in its discourse on women, the WPSW’s discourse on children’s vulnerability to poverty is nested in other social relations. Thus,
“While poverty is widespread throughout South Africa, African people are most affected. Women and children (particularly in female-headed households), people with special needs and those living in rural areas, informal settlements and on farms” (p.7).
Overall an indelible link is drawn between childhood poverty and growing up in female-headed households – the experience most common to children in South Africa. Not only does this combination carry with it negative physiological and nutritional consequences for children, but it also makes them vulnerable to negative social consequences, particularly contravention of the law (p.7). Clearly, addressing children’s poverty is of highest priority and it needs is to be done
“by enabling impoverished households to provide adequate care for their
members, especially children and those who are in vulnerable households” (p.2).
‘Enabling households’ means helping women take care of their families, particularly the children in their care. These ideas are spelt out in ‘The Family and the Life- Cycle: Families, Children, Youth and Ageing’ a special section that specifically elaborates on social security strategies for the social integration of vulnerable children.
Thus, while vulnerability among all children is conceived of as a denial of their basic human rights which impairs their growth and development (p.39), some categories of children are identified as being more vulnerable and more in need of care and State support. Amongst others, these include those suffering from chronic illness, children suffering from abuse and neglect, children living on the street because of poverty, children involved in child labour, children involved in substance abuse, children of divorced parents and nutritionally vulnerable children (p.39-41). In the process, from a discourse of general vulnerability a hierarchy of need allows for the creation of a hierarchy of interventions.
127
In the process of considering children’s vulnerability, children themselves are cast as passive subjects in need of care and dependent upon others. Consequently, the discourse singles out ‘the family’ as the key institution of care, and care within the family is assigned as the responsibility of parents. For its part, the State sees its role as indirect – to support and facilitate the parenting of children through various social security mechanisms. The logic of this understanding of needs and responsibilities leads ‘naturally’ to the inclusion of children among other vulnerable categories in the social security system. Thus, people entitled to non-contributory, means-tested benefits from the state are:
“groups such as people with disabilities, elderly people and unsupported parents and children who are unable to provide for their own minimum needs”
(p.31).
Children, it appears, acquire their vulnerable status through their fathers’ failures – in that it is the absence of their financial support that renders children eligible for a state grant (p.32). In the WPSW the only relationship that is deemed of relevance to the system between fathers and children and indeed fathers and mothers, is that of financial provider.
HIV/AIDS adds another dimension to the discourse on children’s vulnerability and their need for care. Children’s vulnerability is not directly associated with the impact of the disease on their own health, but rather arises from the consequences of chronic illness and death of primary care givers on childcare. As the loss of parents deprives children of care and homes, so they become eligible for State intervention to assist with foster and adoptive care as a result of being homeless (pp.33, 35, 65).
Throughout the WPSW the dominant discourse on the family characterises the institution in an essentialist and functionalist way – as largely integrated, undifferentiated and functional for the care for children.
128
“The approach underlying the way forward is a broad commitment to the preservation of the family as a unit in which children are raised to healthy adulthood...”(p.35).
The family, as a nurturing, caring and socialising institution according to the WPSW therefore functions as an integrative social institution that serves all its members.
“The family, ideally, seeks to care for, nurture and socialise its members. These members differ in terms of gender, age, stage of development, and physical and mental abilities. Children and young people, persons with chronic illnesses, physical and mental disabilities, the elderly and those individuals who are not functioning optimally and have special needs are normally members of a family.
Their needs should be addressed in the context of the family life-cycle approach.
Policies and programmes to strengthen and support families must be developed by Government and civil society” (p.37).
In this account children are cast as having special needs.
The family’s caring responsibilities are linked to the idea of the human life-cycle which is imbued with both biological and social content. Thus,
“As far as is appropriate, the life-cycle approach should guide and inform programming. This approach refers to the interaction between family members, the wider social environment and social support networks. Programmes must make provision for the needs of families in accordance with the different stages in the life cycle. These stages are: early childhood and childhood development phase (including the preparation and child-bearing phase); the school-going and adolescent years; the launching of young adults; middle age; and retirement and old age” (p. 37).
129
Although all ‘stages’ are listed, in fact the state does not see itself or the family as an institution having the same level of obligation to each. Rather, it is the understanding of the family as a site of physical and social reproduction that directs the State’s
various social security provisions for the care of children into family structures; be they biological or surrogate. Daly and Rake (2003:23) in their studies on the Welfare State and gender point out that social policies define the onset of childhood,
adulthood and later life, and influence the conditions under which people pass through the life phases.
“The environment best suited to meeting the primary needs of children is the family. Maintenance and foster grants are key forms of community care provision. Adoption allowances to enable less wealthy families to adopt, and possible assistance to families who are prepared to adopt children with
disabilities will be fully explored, bearing the best interest of the child in mind”
(p.35).
There are various sub-discourses in the WPSW on the family. One refers to its diversity of form and structure.
“Children grow up in a wide range of family forms and structures, with different needs, role divisions, functions and values” (p. 39).
In this sub-discourse, paternalism and the subordination of women and children is acknowledged as issues, albeit ones that can be dealt with.
“Significant efforts need to be made to transform family relationships which currently contribute to the subordination of women and children” (p.41).
Another sub-discourse points to family problems, which are listed as, alcohol and drug abuse, marital conflict, family violence, and family breakdown. These too can be dealt with.
“Family-based policies and programmes should reflect the changing nature and structure of families. Programmes should be devised to strengthen families, and reconcile family and work responsibilities” (p.41).
130
Generally speaking these sub-discourses, diverse family form and structure and family problems, have little bearing on the dominant essentialist view of the institution or its primacy in dealing with the array of vulnerable children’s needs.
“The well-being of children depends on the ability of families to function
effectively. Because children are vulnerable they need to grow up in a nurturing secure family that can ensure their survival, development, protection and
participation in family and social life. Not only do families give their members a sense of belonging, they are also responsible for imparting values and life skills.
Families create security; they set limits on behaviour; and together with the spiritual foundation they provide, instil notions of discipline. All these factors are essential for the healthy development of the family and of any society” (p. 39).
Overall, in the WPSW the institution is cast as a panacea for most social problems as well as being the provider of multiple social, physical, spiritual, moral and emotional needs of individuals in society and especially children. So it can be asked, why then is there a need for State intervention? As the WPSW puts it, the need for State intervention in the family arises because of the family’s inability to fulfil its parenting and social support functions.
“As a result of the increasing pressure on families, they are often unable to fulfil their parenting and social support roles effectively without the active support of the community, the State and the private sector” (p.39).
The WPSW continues:
“Special attention must be given to families who are vulnerable and at risk, and who are poor and involved in child-rearing and caring for their members at unacceptable social cost to themselves” (p.41).
Under these conditions, the State has an explicit purpose:
131