Civil society: Bringing the family back in

Sally Power,Esther Muddiman,Kate Moles,Chris Taylor

doi:10.1080/17448689.2018.1498170

Sally Power, Esther Muddiman + Show 2 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1080/17448689.2018.1498170

Copy DOI

Abstract

ABSTRACTThis article explores the complex and contradictory positioning of the family within civil society literature. In some accounts, the family is seen as the cornerstone of civil society. In others, the family is positioned firmly outside – even antithetical to – civil society. This paradox arises from the ways in which civil society is variously defined through a series of binary oppositions – in relation to each of which the family sits uneasily. And while feminist critiques have tried to bring women back into view, they too tend to marginalize the family. In addition, the normative nature of these oppositions has meant that while civil society tends to be seen as the property of the political ‘left’, the family is often associated with the political ‘right’. The article argues that we need to move beyond oppositional definitions of civil society and assumptions about the family if we are to understand the multiple ways in which the family is implicated as not only the ‘reproducer’ of particular resources and dispositions but as a principal source and focus of civil society engagement and activism.

Highlights

In attempting to chart the social history of the family, Davidoff, Doolittle, Fink, and Holden (1999, p. 51) point to the simple conundrum that ‘the family is everywhere and the family is nowhere’
The normative nature of these oppositions has meant that while civil society tends to be seen as the property of the political ‘left’, the family is often associated with the political ‘right’
This article began by outlining the paradoxical positioning of the family in relation to civil society

Summary

Introduction

In attempting to chart the social history of the family, Davidoff, Doolittle, Fink, and Holden (1999, p. 51) point to the simple conundrum that ‘the family is everywhere and the family is nowhere’. Far from contributing to the public sphere, the self-interest associated with families may even be seen as working against the development of a strong civil society. Do these accounts often fail to recognize the significant contribution that women have made to the development of civil society, the bracketing of ‘private’ interests into the domestic domain denies the political dimensions of the gendered division of labour and unequal power relations within households and families.

Results

Conclusion