For Beck and Elizabeth Beck-Gernsheim issues concerning women are important and they point out that within historical developments change for women has not occurred in a linear fashion but in “peculiarly wave-like movements of progress and regress” (Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, 2002: 55). They argue that changes in modernity open up new opportunities in education and working lives for women, freeing them from the bonds of traditional roles to pursue individual choices. Conversely however, for many women in family settings, issues of equality and expectations are complex; conveying contrary messages and constraints.
On the one hand women have built up expectations of equality in both employment and family roles. On the other hand, structures of society are set up in ways that presuppose the persistence of gendered ascribed roles. This creates dependency on the unequal positions of men and women in society (Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, 2002: 105). According to Beck, inequality in this way contradicts the principles of modernity for reflexive modernisation and individualisation. It may also create tensions and conflict within family roles where possibilities for the right to choose and make decisions on lifestyle career options are hampered by a lack of institutional solutions, such as flexible work conditions, or good quality child care.
These oppositions are seen by Beck as part of modern dilemmas for men and women, pointing out that, “what remains central is that the equalisation of men and women
76
cannot be created in institutional structures that presuppose their inequality” (Beck, 1992: 109). When related to family life, this means that whereas for men the freedom to work and make independent choices is a given, women experience greater issues.
As outlined in chapter one, in the past women in Ireland were strongly influenced by the teaching of the Catholic Church which promoted large families. However, data from the 1970s shows that with the introduction of contraception family size fell over time (Collins and Wickham, 2001: 44). Yet, while women today have choice
regarding whether to bear children or not, having children and feeling responsible for their care can be an obstacle to working and to occupational competition and
advancement for women. As a result, in terms of pursuing one’s own biography, women’s choices may constantly be pulled back and forth between traditional ascribed roles and employment, creating contradictory desires for individuals (Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, 2002:86).
At a structural, political level, Beck acknowledges that changes for women in the individualisation process, and the shift from ‘living for others’ to a bit of ‘a life of one’s own’ may also be uneven and slow. How women experience change is important as they build up a new awareness of issues which ultimately lead to demands for change. He contends that, change does not just occur at a private, subjective level, but in the public political sphere also. So that while the structures of society act on what constitutes, for example, a normal female biography, ‘so do new normal biographies react back upon the structures of society as a whole’, which can produce tensions and conflict but will trigger change in the long run (Beck and Beck Gernsheim, 2002, 74,76).
77
This view reflects a sense that women are challenged to become self reliant and act rationally in their own self interest in the first instance, as they make their way in the world. Yet this creates a paradox in the sense that structurally societies operate in such a way that they take for granted that supportive roles will be fulfilled so that society can run smoothly.
For Giddens and Beck modernity opens up a new kind of possibility for reflexive individualisation. However, their theories offer a specific vision of modernity which offers only one account of how social actors engage with society and make decisions in the light of societal change. For women in particular this is seen as a non-linear process where institutions remain rooted in traditional modes of operation.
There are several points of criticism from different perspectives of Giddens’ and Beck’s theories of modernity. Firstly, they have been criticised for their work on individual reflexivity and the lack of inclusion of the role of culture in modernity. Lash and Alexander from different perspectives, argue that their idea of reflexivity is too reductive and they fail to include an adequate understanding of the role of culture in their theory. Lash (1994) also argues that culture plays a significant role in
mediating between agency and structure in the form of information and
communication structures. Delanty (1999) also points to an inadequate perspective on culture within their work, stating that where it does occur it is reduced to a narrow view. He argues that we are living in a global age where contemporary societies are no longer defined by any particular institutional structures. In this age culture is seen as a structured form of social knowledge which social actors draw from. Further, that modernity as a concept of social change necessarily refers to an involvement between
78
a cultural model of society along with institutional aspects of social, economic and political structures for the transformation of society (Delanty, 1999:11).
In examining theories of change and their impact on families, Crow (2002) points out that in Beck’s work there is a recognition that change can vary significantly within different state structures which will have a bearing on the extent to which
individualisation can proceed. In addition, by focusing analysis on individuals as ‘reflexive selves’, Giddens and Beck fail to explore the variable access that different individuals and family groups may have to negotiate personal autonomy and power in their lives (Crow, 2002,291).
From another perspective, Adams (2005) critiques their portrayal of pre-modern traditional societies as non-reflexive, where identities were relatively fixed and unchanging, and which rely on accounts of increased reflexivity at a personal and institutional level to make sense of contemporary identity. Drawing on analysis by Heelas et al (1996), he argues that traditional societies were sites for exploration in self identity and reflexivity as individuals challenged, forged new insights, and charted new directions within societies with relatively fixed rituals, rules and myths. For Adams (2005: 8) reflexivity was part of traditional identity where changes were wrought by individuals leading to innovation and change, and that Giddens and Beck’s view of reflexivity and individualisation as a project of modernity is exaggerated and over stated. .
While Giddens and Beck offer comprehensive theories of modernity their work is criticized for failing to acknowledge reflexivity as part of traditional societies, and also to fully integrate aspects of individuality and reflexivity with structures in
79
society. For other theorists culture is not adequately represented as part of
understanding and negotiating the processes of change from within both structural and social actors’ perspectives. Overall, their perspectives on social change and
individualisation focused on the reflexive self fail to take account of the uneven and varied access individuals have to exercise personal autonomy. They do not provide an analysis at the level of class which influences the relative access to power and resources individuals may possess. Their emphasis on personal fulfilment for individuals also fails to focus on other aspects of everyday family life and the implications of uneven patterns of cultural and social change occurring over time.
When endeavouring to understand how social change may be understood at family level through historical periods of change the work of Finch (1989) is relevant. In Family Obligations and Social Change, Finch (1989) offers a comprehensive account of patterns of support in families and how they have changed over time. Her work was based on looking at kin support systems and obligations in the wider context of supporting others, of the principles on which areas of responsibility and obligation are founded, understood over time, and in a contemporary context. Her analysis focused on what lies underneath decisions people make in relation to duties towards others. In addition, she explored how state policies and ideas reflect a certain perspective, portraying the naturalness and moral character of taking responsibility and care for others within one’s own kinship group. Questioning this perspective, she draws on a variety of evidence from kinship groups, including historical,
demographic, economic and social contexts to assess the nature and extent of how family responsibilities and duties may be understood. The conclusions drawn suggest that relationships and duties to kin posses a moral quality that is inescapable, which
80
does not apply to other unrelated groups. Duties are also negotiated in relation to the sense that people make of their own position in the social world at a given time, and place, and are culturally specific. She also argues that material self interest is a strong force, and that it may work against priorities of kinship needs. She further contends that meaning in terms of kinship is built up over time where relationships are
sustained, affirmed and reinforced. On a structural level, the economic climate, demographic issues, and state policies all shape the level to which individuals will take on responsibilities for kin when required (Finch, 1989:228, 232, 236). Finch’s study thus offers an overarching view of the complex nature that responsibility and duty to kin involves over time, of pragmatism, along with moral choices, and how it may be understood in a contemporary context by families and the state.
Taking account of increased individualisation as part of societal change in modernity, how the process of change is worked out at a gendered level is important. Drawing on perspectives associated with macro social change the question must be asked; how and to what extent are (traditional, structural, or cultural practices) implicated in understandings of gender and gendered roles? To explore these themes the following sections will focus on theories and ideas as applied to gender roles.
2. 7 Perspectives on gender and gendered roles
Macro level theories focused of social change in modernity propose that
individualisation can bring increased opportunities for individuals to pursue their own goals. They support the idea of women having a choice to engage equally in family life and career, while creating more freedom for personal fulfilment. Yet for women within families this is not fully realised as they continue also to fulfil a supportive role within the political economy of societies. The right to make choices and decisions is
81
compromised by a slow rate of change at policy level to provide flexible options for women regarding commitment to family and career. The next section presents how gender and gendered roles are understood from biological, gender relational and feminist perspectives.