• Breadcrumb navigation uses Javascript

---

The value of the family

by Simon Longstaff

The Year of the Family has come and gone – leaving us with many more questions than answers.

For example, how are we to define what constitutes a 'family'? Is a single parent with a child a family? Are parents without children a family? Does each parent have to be of a different gender before a family can be said to exist? The questions could go on ... and they do!

Plenty of heat (and a little light) has been generated in the course of debate about how the family is to be defined. However, while people are divided over definitions, there is agreement about at least one thing. The idea of the family is important! Why else be bothered with arguing about who has a right to apply the label?

Yet, if the idea of the family is so important to us, then why do we seem so unconcerned about creating the conditions in which families might thrive? More specifically, why have we allowed a situation to develop in which increasing work pressures (for the employed) mean less and less time spent with families? How has this occurred when there are nearly one million people whose families are placed under severe stress because of the effects of unemployment?

I still recall a conversation with Hugh Mackay during which he predicted that future generations will look back on this period and marvel at the way in which this imbalance was allowed to develop and persist. One idea, canvassed by High, is that we should seriously consider adopting work practices that make job-sharing a serious option for most of us.

While I suspect that a majority of people would not have too many problems endorsing the principle that lies behind this proposal, I also realise that it doesn't take much effort to generate a list of practical objections. For example, many would be concerned that job-sharing would lead to a reduction in disposable income. It's hard to avoid concluding that this is likely to be so. However, the loss of income may be less than many think. The combined efforts of two people sharing a job may be more productive than one person doing the job alone. Productivity gains could then be used to help maintain an acceptable level of income.

There are many other objections that could be stated and answered. But it is not my purpose to mount a defence of job-sharing in this article. Rather, I wish only to suggest that there are steps that might be taken if we are serious about encouraging the enjoyment of family life.

But are we serious the value of the family? Or is it just a matter of paying lip-service to a concept that stands alongside 'motherhood' in the ranks of non-negotiable public sentiments? Perhaps it is a matter of degree. We can assume that most will agree that the idea of the family is important. However, how might they rank its importance alongside other values such as personal freedom, cultural diversity, economic wellbeing and so on?

The ancient Greek philosopher, Plato, thought the family to be expendable when it came to rearing the guardians of his ideal state. He argues, in The Republic, that the traditional family gives rise to bonds of affection that can interfere with the process of developing the kind of detached wisdom needed by philosopher-kings and queens (unlike Aristotle, Plato believed that women were fit to rule!) This leads to a crucial question: do we think families are valuable in themselves, or do we only value them for the benefits that they bring to society? And likewise, if we were convinced that society (as a whole) would be better off without families, then would we accept their passing?

It may seem pointless, even ridiculous, to pose such questions. However, my concern is that we tend to take families (and many other institutions) for granted. To the extent that we fail to understand why we value families (and the reasons are bound to be diverse), so we risk allowing them to grow weaker, by default. This lack of understanding may explain the paradoxical situation in which rhetoric is undermined by practice. Let us hope that the debate goes on a little longer!

discuss this article

---