Blowing up the nuclear family
Almost 4 months into the year and this is my first Substack. It’s been a hectic few months, with a relationship breakdown, finding and moving into a new place, starting a social work placement and general life things, having the spoons to write for something for funsies is a luxury! I always have lots of thoughts that buzz like a fridge inside my head, and this has been this piece of writing has been a few months in the progress. The reality is that I’m at the point in my life where I want to throw out the normative ways that we structure our relationships, romantic, sexual, platonic or otherwise. It doesn’t work for me, and I very much doubt it works for most people, whether they know it or not.
We don’t exist in a vacuum, as much as the narrative of capitalism says that we are free to have individual autonomy. We exist in a web of systems, dominant discourses, laws, and economic conditions that govern our decision making, tell us what is acceptable or not, decide what is deviant or moral, as well as who has resources, economic power, and who doesn’t. Those dominant discourses are fed to us by large media companies that are owned by billionaires who have agendas, cultural norms, religious organisations, and other groups and individuals who have the power, the money and the connections to influence decisions made. I know that I have a level of influence, but I don’t have the sort of influence that, say, Rupert Murdoch, Clive Palmer, Gina Reinhart or even Andrew Bolt has, because they have the money, the power, and the connections with other powerful people, particularly those who sit in parliament and make laws that govern the rest of us.
One of the things that are highly governed is our relationships. Heck, we place a high value on what amounts to registering with the government a contract between two people. Our sexual relationships have historically for hundreds of years been regulated by the government and society as the supposed cornerstone relationship that bears children and forms what we consider the construct of family. Sexual relationships outside of a marriage between a cis gender man and woman was considered deviant, living together outside of marriage was “living in sin.” Queer relationships and diverse expressions of gender were illegal, with big jail sentences, and the likelihood that if you were outed, you could have been bashed or even murdered.
So, let’s deconstruct all of this, pull the engine apart if you will and see what is actually driving the way we see relationships, families and communities more broadly. Let’s look at the influence of economics, discourse, religious beliefs, the impacts of neurodivergence and the othering of people who don’t fit within heteronormative structures that society deems as “normal,” “moral,” and “ideal.” Hungarian philosopher Lukacs writes about the idea of “reification,” the idea that institutions and ideals are stable and unchanging, like gravity. We often get stuck in present ideas about how things are and assume that these things have always been. The conservative belief in so called “traditional marriage” is presented as an ideal that has always existed. Leaving aside the inherent racism present in this concept, that only “civilized” people engage in these norms, this assumption is just inherently inaccurate. Relationship norms, and how families are formed have shifted and changed through the centuries, influenced by societal beliefs, economics, social policy, how women are viewed and different ideas around child rearing, among other things.
Of course, the prevailing ideal within the mainstream of society that has embraced neoliberal capitalism is the ideal of the nuclear family. Mum, Dad, and two and a half kids, living together in a three-bedroom house in the suburbs with a backyard and a white picket fence. Mum has the primary responsibility to raise the children and be the home maker, Dad earns most of the money, and the kids dutifully attend school, play sport on a Saturday, and perhaps attend church on Sunday. The extended family, the grandparents, aunties, uncles, cousins, as well as friends don’t have a lot of input into raising the children, they might hang out a few times a year for special occasions, but otherwise are disconnected from one another.
This is presented as the ideal on TV, is baked into how government policy operates in the realm of social services (if anyone who has a family structure outside of this and has dealt with Centrelink would know very well how confusing non-nuclear families are to them) and is inherent in many of our assumptions. I have had many awkward (for them) conversations with people who have assumed that I’m still married to my children’s mother, even though we have been divorced for almost six years.
It’s so interesting to me that this is still the assumption when, there really is only one time in history and place where this was actually the norm. During the 1950’s and early 1960’s, before neoliberalism took a stronghold over the political class and society more generally, housing was cheaper and often provided by the state. Wages were high, largely owing to a highly unionized workforce who ensured decent pay and conditions for employers, and often jobs were for life. Manufacturing of cars and other items was done locally, providing secure jobs, aided by the fact that there were big tariff protections that ensured there was no competition with cheap labour overseas. These families could survive on a single income, household tasks could be done because the wife would stay home while the husband worked 5 days a week.
This is not the world we live in anymore. Second and third wave feminism fought for equality, ensuring that women could have financial autonomy (like having a loan or a bank account not co-signed by a husband or father), could go to university and work, regardless of her relationship status, with the advent of “no fault divorce” giving options for couples who are in unhappy marriages. The cost of living from the 1970’s onwards increased with high inflation, and over the last 40 years, wages have largely stagnated while the cost of housing has grown exponentially. It is incredibly difficult to maintain a quality lifestyle, home ownership, the so called “Australian dream” with just one income. Add to that, the fact that the employment market has become increasingly insecure, manufacturing has largely gone offshore, and the profit motive for corporations is largely the only motive, outside of any social contract that it might have towards its employees and the community that it finds itself in.
A cursory look at history would suggest that these shifts in economic realities have profound influences on families. Going back a few generations, having large families was an economic benefit, because you were breeding a workforce that would keep the family business going, particularly in agrarian societies. These days, children, whilst they are a blessing, are a huge financial cost, with the cost of education, healthcare, food, and the expected extra-curricular activities being a huge financial impost. Refer to the fact that adults need to work, mostly in workplaces that aren’t child friendly, and the cost of childcare is hugely expensive. Those of us who have walked through that early childhood season would know that childcare centres are Petrie dishes of infectious disease, and sick leave is a very limited commodity.
There is so much more here that I could list, but my question is, is this the best life? The nuclear family ideal largely places all our needs onto one other adult, with very little assistance and input from anyone else in our village. We rely on one person to be our friend, companion, business partner, lover and co parent, while we often isolate ourselves into the routine of work, kids, paying bills, and just trying to exist. The capitalist machine demands that we buy more stuff, bigger houses, more gadgets, the latest cars and extravagant holidays, all the while we become more and more isolated from one another. We are expected to survive on our own two feet, to lift ourselves from our bootstraps, with the idea of asking for help and the giving and receiving of mutual aid being a potential source of shame and guilt.
My musings here are driven by the fact that I realized I felt increasingly isolated from my village. Over the last few months, I have reconnected with friends I haven’t seen for over 2 years in some cases, having thrown my energy into a relationship and a family behind, quite literally, a white picket fence. I depended on another person for my needs, for help, for affirmation and for understanding, particularly as a person newly diagnosed with ADHD. That person also relied on me to provide care to children, with every decision running through the filter of “is this going to put extra load on my partner?” On reflection, for me, this was a recipe for disaster, and a life that wasn’t very fulfilling.
In the economic times we live in, we need to re-examine, deconstruct, and dismantle the nuclear family ideal, which for many of us doesn’t serve us. We need to examine relationship norms, our attitudes to sex and relationships, our attitude to platonic friendships, and how we build community. We need, in these tough economic times to examine the role of capitalism, how we share our resources, how we connect, how we parent and how to include others in our neighborhoods.
This year, for me, is a year of experimentation and creativity when it comes to my community. My goal, outside of my study is to repair and build the village and find ways to live in a more lifegiving way incorporating a more collectivist ethic of inclusion, having meals, participating in the tending of community gardens, protesting, campaigning, having picnics, seeing gigs, and being intentional about being together while having my own space. We need to dismantle the hierarchies that privilege romantic relationships over platonic friendships and ensure that everyone has what they need.
This is resistance. This is creative. This is where life comes.