|
Strand 5 is a study of the ‘moral’ claims, positions and challenges articulated by national and local voluntary organisations and trade unions in the UK, in the areas of parenting and partnering. These voluntary organisations include a range of big national charities, advocacy groups, campaign groups, pressure groups and mutual aid and self-help groups. 55 key informants from such groups and organisations were interviewed, including support groups in the CAVA localities. This strand is led by Fiona Williams and Sasha Roseneil. Williams has recently released her findings from the analysis of the local groups. In summary, her work has found that, diverse as the groups studied are, their activities constitute forms of vitally important care and support, based on shared interests or identities, emerging out of experiences of isolation, marginalization, stigma and professional indifference. A shared identity based upon common experience is the most significant element of involvement. This shared identity becomes the basis for:
However, in some cases, the very informality and commitment to shared identity that is the basis for the most intense and empowering support, contributes to forms of social closure. Most notable is the lack of involvement of men and racialized minority groups. The claims of all local groups are influenced by local cultural contexts, and they are both enabled and constrained by dominant local and national political discourses, and the funding opportunities that these make available. Priorities around crime and community safety, health and social exclusion, skew claims around parenting and partnering. At the same time, structures and strategies of local political participation often serve to dissipate the efforts of all but the most experienced and networked activists. This is exacerbated by the lack of concentrated focus at the local level for universal (rather than targeted) provision for what have traditionally been called “family policies”. Data analysis of the material from the national voluntary organisations has also been initiated. In a paper for the journal Social Politics, Roseneil and Williams compare approaches to policies concerning parents, partners and children of New Labour and national voluntary organisations in the field. They argue that there is both overlap and difference in their dominant value discourses. The voluntary organisations could be said to be generating an ethos of welfare which emphasises holistic, accessible, affordable user-centred support for parents and children and which places value on care as an activity, on interdependence and on state support for financial adequacy. This ethos is underpinned by notions of social justice which promote anti-discriminatory policies, recognition and respect for diversity and resistance to widening inequalities. Visions and claims for a more just society were more likely to be played through a conception of child centredness. Their conceptions of child centredness were about respecting childhood itself, of giving children a voice and attending to their needs for enjoyment, creativity and emotional development, and, as such, were much broader than New Labour’s investment approach which emphasises education and self-discipline as part of their becoming adult citizens. Indeed it was noticeable that a ‘social investment’ approach did not find much expression in the voluntary organisations’ own values, even though it was acknowledged as a self-conscious strategy which might have to be adopted as a way to frame important issues. Similarly, with a couple of exceptions, interviewees had a robust approach to the social changes that had happened in family lives and personal relationships and did not see the point of defending more traditional family forms. The needs of parents and children for support was seen as much more important and appropriate than moralising about responsibility and discipline. Recent publications from the Collective Voices on Care, Diversity and Family Life project include:
|
|
|
 |
|
|
