amalgamemnon's review against another edition
4.0
Although dated in places (and the authors' summary, written 10 years after original publication, goes some way to redress this), this is a really good, clear introductory critique of the family. Written at the height of Thatcherism there is obviously some focus on blatantly anti-feminist, family-centred social policy - there's a broad focus on the ideology of familialism, where the family arrangement is prioritised as the primary source of childrearing, care and domestic labour, which is very enlightening.
I really liked the chapter that looked at Donzelot's book - a Foucauldian deconstruction of the family, looking at a shift from government of the family to government through the family. The authors are methodologically sympathetic, but the political motivations of this work are masked behind a false universalism and are ultimately anti-feminist. I'd still like to read it, or a more updated version of a Foucauldian family analysis. It feels like such a natural fit for Foucauldians that I'm surprised it's not more prevalent!
The summary of psychoanalytical thinking on the family is great - it's not an area I'm familiar with and this was really well done.
The authors themselves acknowledge the ethnocentrism of their analyses - their experience of white families in Britain is not made explicit, and so they run the risk of centring this. And this is despite being keen to indicate the historical specificity of their work in other sections - it's surprising that they didn't also bracket their experience and examples in other ways (i.e. with regards to ethnicity or cultural experience). But I think this book would be a really good starting point for more specific analyses. I'd like to read more!
I really liked the chapter that looked at Donzelot's book - a Foucauldian deconstruction of the family, looking at a shift from government of the family to government through the family. The authors are methodologically sympathetic, but the political motivations of this work are masked behind a false universalism and are ultimately anti-feminist. I'd still like to read it, or a more updated version of a Foucauldian family analysis. It feels like such a natural fit for Foucauldians that I'm surprised it's not more prevalent!
The summary of psychoanalytical thinking on the family is great - it's not an area I'm familiar with and this was really well done.
The authors themselves acknowledge the ethnocentrism of their analyses - their experience of white families in Britain is not made explicit, and so they run the risk of centring this. And this is despite being keen to indicate the historical specificity of their work in other sections - it's surprising that they didn't also bracket their experience and examples in other ways (i.e. with regards to ethnicity or cultural experience). But I think this book would be a really good starting point for more specific analyses. I'd like to read more!
bedsidearchive's review
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.0
“The Anti-Social Family’s main theme is the idea that while individual families may often approximate to an ideal of loving, caring, mutual aid, and support, these values have only shallow roots elsewhere in the system as a whole. Privatized family collectivism tends to sap the strength of wider social collectivism. So the stronger and more supportive families are expected to be the weaker the other supportive institutions outside of them become.” (171)
Many critiques of this book consider it to be a “dated” topic, but although certain understandings of gender and sexuality have changed (and the writers acknowledge this in the post-scrip (written 10 years later), I think this is still a relevant text on capitalism and its strain of familial and social relationships. I don’t think a book written by two white British socialist feminists has the reach to to cover topics of sexuality and/or race and I don’t need it to.. Both of these authors make very clear mention that they are not attempting to generalize experiences, and understand the variety of family dynamics across various cultures.
While being written about socio-political happenings in the 70s-80s, McIntosh and Barrett do an incredible job reaching to historical influences that have built what we know as capitalism, the nuclear-family, class, patriarchy and sexualiity. They provide a good chapter of the book, they break down “contemporary social arguments” made by male critics that disagree with their work, it was incredible and exciting! And I know nothing about British politics and culture!
Many critiques of this book consider it to be a “dated” topic, but although certain understandings of gender and sexuality have changed (and the writers acknowledge this in the post-scrip (written 10 years later), I think this is still a relevant text on capitalism and its strain of familial and social relationships. I don’t think a book written by two white British socialist feminists has the reach to to cover topics of sexuality and/or race and I don’t need it to.. Both of these authors make very clear mention that they are not attempting to generalize experiences, and understand the variety of family dynamics across various cultures.
While being written about socio-political happenings in the 70s-80s, McIntosh and Barrett do an incredible job reaching to historical influences that have built what we know as capitalism, the nuclear-family, class, patriarchy and sexualiity. They provide a good chapter of the book, they break down “contemporary social arguments” made by male critics that disagree with their work, it was incredible and exciting! And I know nothing about British politics and culture!
garberdog's review
4.0
Very dated, but still contains many interesting insights.
What I find particularly valuable is the emphasis on how “the family” meets real needs for which there remain few to no viable alternatives and how the emphasis should be on collective, communal, and democratic solutions and not just “diverse households.” This strand of socialist feminist critique, that focuses on the collective meeting of human needs, seems to have gotten almost completely lost in contemporary queer critiques of marriage. These latter are typically more concerned with “domesticity” and “heteronormativity,” where these are primarily critiqued for their implied sexual conservatism and on aesthetic grounds rather than for the material race, class, and gender inequalities they entrenched and the distorted forms of social life they undergird.
What I find particularly valuable is the emphasis on how “the family” meets real needs for which there remain few to no viable alternatives and how the emphasis should be on collective, communal, and democratic solutions and not just “diverse households.” This strand of socialist feminist critique, that focuses on the collective meeting of human needs, seems to have gotten almost completely lost in contemporary queer critiques of marriage. These latter are typically more concerned with “domesticity” and “heteronormativity,” where these are primarily critiqued for their implied sexual conservatism and on aesthetic grounds rather than for the material race, class, and gender inequalities they entrenched and the distorted forms of social life they undergird.
hzboy's review against another edition
4.0
I read in English but this review is in Bahasa Indonesia
Perlu diketahui, Verso adalah salah stau penerbit buku yang cukup radikal. Kalau bertandang ke situs dan akun media sosialnya, jangan kaget ya. Maka dari itu buku-buku yang diterbitkan pun sejalan dengan penyebarluasan pengetahuan mengenai salah satu ideologi atau paham tertentu.
Sekitar 2 tahun yang lalu, aku sempat membaca Communist Manifesto yang ditulis oleh Karl Marx dan Frederich Engels. Jujur saja, tulisan itu bukan bacaan yang mudah. Meski tipis, aku menghabiskan hampir seminggu untuk dapat menuntaskannya. Dalam manifesto itu, memang disebut bahwa organisasi terkecil yang bisa berpengaruh terhadap penyebarluasan paham itu adalah melalui keluarga. Tetapi keluarga yang bagaimana? Itulah yang diangkat oleh Michele Barrett dalam The Anti-Social Family.
Barrett menggambarkan bagaimana tipe keluarga yang ada di masyarakat adalah hasil konstruksi dari kapitalisme. Di mana laki-laki sebagai suami (dan ayah) adalah pekerja yang wajib mencari nafkah dan perempuan sebagai istri (dan ibu) bertanggung jawab untuk mengurus rumah. Pokoknya begitu suami pulang kerja, istri harus sudah siap sedia dengan kebutuhannya. Istri tidak perlu memikirkan mendapat uang dari mana karena itu adalah yang dipikirkan oleh suami.
Pemahaman semacam itu sebenarnya melemahkan perempuan. Sebagaimana yang pernah disuarakan oleh Betty Friedan dalam That Problem That Has No Name. Di samping itu, posisi perempuan hanya dilihat sebagai second class citizen. Kehadiran keluarga (yang dibentuk oleh kapitalisme itu) nyatanya memang menguntungkan laki-laki. Itu kalau keluarga tersebut adalah keluarga heteroseksual. Bagaimana jika keluarga itu terdiri dari pasangan homoseksual, hanya terdiri dari satu orangtua dengan anak? Tentu narasi "keluarga" tidak bisa diberikan kepada mereka.
Konstruksi sosial terhadap keluarga salah satunya menghasilkan kebijakan di masyarakat. Buku ini menyebutkan seperti kepemilikan aset, social security number, tunjangan, hingga gaji seorang istri atau wanita yang sudah menikah. Hal-hal yang sejatinya dari awal sudah menguntungkan pihak laki-laki yang heteroseksual. Namun menyusahkan pihak yang lain.
Tidak itu saja, narasi "keluarga" yang mengglorifikasi "blood is thicker than water" juga dianggap merugikan. Seorang anak menjadi seakan-akan bertanggung jawab terhadap orangtua atau saudara/i-nya. Dikatakan bahwa keluarga sebenarnya hanya berdasarkan relasi genetis tetapi seharusnya tidak meletakkan beban terhadap anggotanya.
Ada banyak hal yang cukup membuat kaget ketika membaca The Anti-Social Family (yang sebenarnya juga tidak terlalu membuat terkejut jika terbiasa membaca buku-buku aliran ini). Bagaimana Barrett menantang ide soal pernikahan, berkeluarga, dan memiliki anak. Sebab bagi Barrett itu semua hanya taktik kapitalisme untuk menciptakan kelas pekerja baru dengan harapan mereka bisa lebih produktif namun dengan bayaran yang murah. Ini mengingatkanku soal kemiskinan dan diskrimansi sistemik dan struktural.
Membaca The Anti-Social Family bagiku agak sulit di bagian awal untuk menangkap ide besar dari gagasannya. Namun sekalinya paham, sisanya bisa diikuti dengan cukup mudah.
Feminism, too, has seen some disturbing responses to the pro-family movement in the USA. One notable example is the latest reflections of Betty Friedan, much discussed in the light of the prominent role she played in the development of feminism in America.
Perlu diketahui, Verso adalah salah stau penerbit buku yang cukup radikal. Kalau bertandang ke situs dan akun media sosialnya, jangan kaget ya. Maka dari itu buku-buku yang diterbitkan pun sejalan dengan penyebarluasan pengetahuan mengenai salah satu ideologi atau paham tertentu.
Sekitar 2 tahun yang lalu, aku sempat membaca Communist Manifesto yang ditulis oleh Karl Marx dan Frederich Engels. Jujur saja, tulisan itu bukan bacaan yang mudah. Meski tipis, aku menghabiskan hampir seminggu untuk dapat menuntaskannya. Dalam manifesto itu, memang disebut bahwa organisasi terkecil yang bisa berpengaruh terhadap penyebarluasan paham itu adalah melalui keluarga. Tetapi keluarga yang bagaimana? Itulah yang diangkat oleh Michele Barrett dalam The Anti-Social Family.
Barrett menggambarkan bagaimana tipe keluarga yang ada di masyarakat adalah hasil konstruksi dari kapitalisme. Di mana laki-laki sebagai suami (dan ayah) adalah pekerja yang wajib mencari nafkah dan perempuan sebagai istri (dan ibu) bertanggung jawab untuk mengurus rumah. Pokoknya begitu suami pulang kerja, istri harus sudah siap sedia dengan kebutuhannya. Istri tidak perlu memikirkan mendapat uang dari mana karena itu adalah yang dipikirkan oleh suami.
Pemahaman semacam itu sebenarnya melemahkan perempuan. Sebagaimana yang pernah disuarakan oleh Betty Friedan dalam That Problem That Has No Name. Di samping itu, posisi perempuan hanya dilihat sebagai second class citizen. Kehadiran keluarga (yang dibentuk oleh kapitalisme itu) nyatanya memang menguntungkan laki-laki. Itu kalau keluarga tersebut adalah keluarga heteroseksual. Bagaimana jika keluarga itu terdiri dari pasangan homoseksual, hanya terdiri dari satu orangtua dengan anak? Tentu narasi "keluarga" tidak bisa diberikan kepada mereka.
Konstruksi sosial terhadap keluarga salah satunya menghasilkan kebijakan di masyarakat. Buku ini menyebutkan seperti kepemilikan aset, social security number, tunjangan, hingga gaji seorang istri atau wanita yang sudah menikah. Hal-hal yang sejatinya dari awal sudah menguntungkan pihak laki-laki yang heteroseksual. Namun menyusahkan pihak yang lain.
Many feminists identify, the family as a primary site, if not the primary site, of women's oppression and seek to abolish it (no doubt the 'world campaign' referred to earlier).
Tidak itu saja, narasi "keluarga" yang mengglorifikasi "blood is thicker than water" juga dianggap merugikan. Seorang anak menjadi seakan-akan bertanggung jawab terhadap orangtua atau saudara/i-nya. Dikatakan bahwa keluarga sebenarnya hanya berdasarkan relasi genetis tetapi seharusnya tidak meletakkan beban terhadap anggotanya.
Ada banyak hal yang cukup membuat kaget ketika membaca The Anti-Social Family (yang sebenarnya juga tidak terlalu membuat terkejut jika terbiasa membaca buku-buku aliran ini). Bagaimana Barrett menantang ide soal pernikahan, berkeluarga, dan memiliki anak. Sebab bagi Barrett itu semua hanya taktik kapitalisme untuk menciptakan kelas pekerja baru dengan harapan mereka bisa lebih produktif namun dengan bayaran yang murah. Ini mengingatkanku soal kemiskinan dan diskrimansi sistemik dan struktural.
Membaca The Anti-Social Family bagiku agak sulit di bagian awal untuk menangkap ide besar dari gagasannya. Namun sekalinya paham, sisanya bisa diikuti dengan cukup mudah.
Education has become seen as the main road to success in life. It is what you do rather than where you are that counts.
More...