The literature presents fostering families as tradition based with clearly defined masculine and feminine roles. Conceptualising family as traditional presupposes a normative structure and from this normative concept emanates gender relationships which are inherent within the definition. The context of this study enables the reappraisal of fostering by recourse to complex social systems and social agency in the performance of gender.
Dynamic families
Fostering is delivered in both the public and private spheres as it combines family caring with a fostering agency. Family is associated with the private sphere and paid work with the public sphere, which also includes communal and social activity that is external to family. However, social workers transcend both the public and private spheres because they work within families to look at the internal private family through the lens of the public sphere, a process involving professional surveillance of families (Dominelli, 2002b). As a process, fostering necessitates some form of interaction between the public and private spheres when social workers intervene in private family life. The apparent conventionality in fostering families, represented in the literature, implies consistent uniformity to family type and concrete gender relations. Far from being static, families and interactions within families have evolved (Giddens, 1992) and the diversity of family types has been recognised with the growth of alternatives to the nuclear family. The dynamic construction of family results in the evolution of diverse and non-nuclear families not only nationally and internationally, but also geographically. Social work judgements are influenced by personal belief systems and the robustness of practice assessments has been questioned, particularly when social workers are confronted by unfamiliar and complex situations (Saltiel, 2013).
53
There are a number of factors that influence how families are formed, that include class, race, gender and geography, which can influence foster families too. In a study on family types Duncan and Smith (2002) identified the evolution of regionalised and localised family types that predominate within local communities. They argue specific family types emerge to become culturally predominant as localised versions of mothering and fathering become normalised within local communities; for instance some communities favour breadwinning fatherhood while others are more reliant on single-parent mothers. Foster carers are similarly influenced by localised family discourses and notions of parenting. This localised diversification of family types would seem to challenge the literature’s homogenous representation of foster caring families. The notions of idealised families and parenting within communities transcend geography because regulatory norms may exist within non-localised community groups, such as religious groups, and can relate to fostering as a sub-group within society. There is also the potential for idealised family practices within the fostering community.
Therefore, rather than there being one type of family, there is a multitude of family types dependent on local, historical, cultural and social factors and fostering families are equally open to these influences just as much as any other community. Butler’s (1990, 2004) conjecture that performance transcends identity, as it involves the acting out and imitation of roles in line with social codes and regulatory discourses, conforms to the diversification of parenting roles and the hegemony of parental types. Social work practice can miss the complex makeup to families who foster as performances are multi-faceted and little understood. While most people foster as part of a man and woman couple there are single carer households and same-sex couples who foster (Skeates and Jabri, 1988). The literature, by presenting fostering families as uniform, demonstrates the regulatory gender discourse and its influence on the performance of gender as fostering families tend to conform to masculine and feminine norms. Butler (2004) argues, the production of regulatory norms allows for some diversity in the performance of gender and therefore carers through agency can
54
perform gender to challenge masculine and feminine norms. There is diversity in fostering families and through the use of agency foster carers are able to take on roles which are not usually associated with their gender, which is evident in same-sex and single-caring households in fostering, though this diversity is largely absent in the literature. The presentation of uniformity (and hegemony of parenting roles) in fostering is partly explained by the general short-fall of material dealing with lesbian and gay fostering and adoption (Hicks and McDermott, 1999).
It has been argued, by Charnley and Langley, that anti-heterosexist social work has been constrained with practice, compromised by limited recognition of sexual minority cultures as well as personal and political reluctance to change (Charnley and Langley, 2007). Currently there are over 45,000 fostering households in the United Kingdom (Fostering Network, 2012) and legislation on equality (Equality Act 2010), alongside recruitment short-falls, have promoted the active recruitment of carers outside of those perceived to be part of the typical fostering population and to recruit from within Black and Ethnic Minority and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender groups (Betts and Mallon, 2004; Rule, 2006). As with general social trends, fostering families evolve so that their makeup and composition alter over time. Fostering by same-sex couples, within the families of choice discourse, subverts gender roles based on the heterosexual binary logic (Butler, 1990) because they perform gender outside of the traditional man as breadwinner and woman as carer family construct. Therefore, far from being homogenous, fostering has internal variations due at least to the diversity of the types of families who foster. While the literature and social work practice construct fostering around hegemonic masculine and feminine norms the actual performance of gender, by both single women carers and same-sex couples, subvert these norms. Fostering families, as with families in general, have evolved to allow variety and diversity; and this diversity tends to be overlooked in both the literature and social work practice, except for specific material that reflects on issues relating to same-sex couples fostering.
55
Tom Shakespeare, in his focus on disability, critiques the construction of idealised families as he reflects on the lived experience and individual narratives (Shakespeare, 2000). It can be argued that the construction of fostering as a substitute family essentially mirrors Shakespeare’s argument concerning the idealised nuclear family and social concepts of caring and helping (Butler and Charles, 1999). This transference of the idealised family concept onto fostering may well affect the perceived roles of foster carers, effectively generalising them within an idealised construct of family, particularly as foster care has largely replaced residential care in a trend to mirror family life (Fulcher, 2009). Therefore, current methodological frameworks for working with foster carers are biased towards a perception that locates foster carers within the nuclear family construct and its inherent demarcation of gender roles, classifying women as homemaking-carers and men as breadwinners. To counter this generalised way of understanding foster carers, a more individual approach is required to reflect the experiences of carers themselves. I show through my data that masculinity is flexible and fluid and while some foster-fathers perform gender to challenge traditional masculinity, many of them still construct family within an idealised version based on the man as breadwinner and woman as homemaker.
Men and masculinity
The roles of men and fatherhood in particular have received increased attention due in part, at least, to a perceived crisis in fatherhood with increasing numbers of non-resident fathers and the changing nature of employment (Hearn et al., 1998). Conceptualising and operationalising breadwinning work without any real reflection on the nature of these roles has resulted in the demarcation of gender functioning with masculinity defined in association with the breadwinning concept (Warren, 2007). Psychologically, men are portrayed as being more individualistic and achievement orientated with women portrayed as more socially and relationship orientated (Gilligan, 1993). Studies highlight the positive benefit of fathers and men to children (Knight, 2004; O'Brien, 2005; Towers, 2006) though the focus of working with men has primarily seen them as the source of concern in relation to the welfare of children (Ryan, 2000). There is evidence that when fathers and men are more involved
56
with the care of children these children often do better in later life, particularly in their psychological and social development. It is argued by Lamb and Tamis-Lemonda (2004) that the absence of a father figure in a child’s life can be harmful because many paternal roles go unfulfilled.
The concept of masculinity and its association with the tough and aloof man, along with the tendency to treat boys as little men, encourages toughness and emotional aloofness that can result in sad and lonely boys (Pollack, 1999). Pollack suggests this tough man image should be contrasted with the lived experiences of boys and these experiences need to be more fully understood. Influential work by Connell has transferred the Gramscian concept of hegemony (Gramsci and Buttigieg, 1992) to masculinity through men’s use of violence to maintain a dominant gender position within society (Connell, 1995; Connell, 2002). Connell maintains that masculinity is historically constructed with complex intersections between the genders and class which, through diverse and historically relative social codes, maintain gender hierarchical positioning. Therefore, Connell suggests a plurality of masculinities rather than one form of masculinity though the suggestion is that the hegemonic type remains predominant. Hearn and Pringle (2006) argue the notion of masculinity operates within patriarchy and the development of plural and dynamic masculinities fits with a diversified understanding of patriarchies, rather than a singular version that is mostly associated with the traditionally tough, aloof and hegemonic version (Hearn and Pringle, 2006). This plurality of masculinities and patriarchies implies that men are not solely defined by recourse to a singular version of masculinity and that social agency influences identity and roles within families. Butler’s (1990) performativity helps to explain the multiple masculinities, and patriarchies, as men perform gender to produce and reproduce masculinities along the gender binary continuum with hegemonic masculinity associated more with traditional masculinity and patriarchy. Hearn et al. also argue masculinity is a social construct which relates to the time and place of its context (Hearn et al., 1998).
57
Though Connell (1995) promotes the primacy of hegemonic masculinity this plurality of masculinities, and patriarchies, implies that men are not solely defined by recourse to a singular version of masculinity. Men therefore show some agency in how they develop their identity and roles within families. However, the conceptualising of gender difference, based on non- interchangeable mothering and fathering roles, continues to influence social work childcare practice and the engagement of men (Scourfield, 2006a; Scourfield et al., 2012) through mother-blame (O'Hagan and Dillenburger, 1995) and the ‘good dad-bad dad’ binary (Pleck, 2004), which results in under-assessed fathers (Featherstone, 2003, 2004) where dads are invisible ghosts (Brown et al., 2009) so that a child welfare discourse locates men at either end of a risk or asset continuum. Locating men as risk or asset limits their role, particularly as masculinity can be problematized as risk. The construction of problematized masculinity relates it to a singular, or traditional, version of masculinity that is linked to male power. This singular and problematic version of masculinity contradicts the diversity of male discourses and identities.
The underrepresentation of foster-fathers in the literature corresponds to an apparent perception that men in general are somehow difficult to engage in childcare, in contrast to research that increasingly supports active fathering in child development (Lamb and Tamis-Lemonda, 2004). Social work assessments can miss the potential contribution men play in children’s lives by not recognising diversity in family practices and types of family. Men are therefore seen in the context of a risk or asset binary in relation to Elizabeth Pleck’s ‘good dad-bad dad’ binary (Pleck, 2004). Social workers can perform gender to see men as either risk or asset in relation to their own value system and understanding of masculinity. Men are expected to perform gender roles that conform to social workers’ understanding of masculinity which can be problematized when it relates to a singular version of masculinity, mostly associated with the traditional one. This perception of men, as potential risk or asset, marginalises them away from care and does not reflect the diverse possibilities provided by foster-fathers as I show in chapter six. My data show foster-fathers to
58
identify with the ‘good dad’ breadwinning role and continuing to identify with the ‘good dad’ concept when they produce new masculinities to include negotiation and nurturing.
Men and gender journeys
The transitions men, and women, undergo throughout life have been explored by O’Neil et al. (1993) through the development of the gender role journey theory and subsequent measure of gender journey. This theory explores the changes and adaptations men go through and it provides a theoretical framework to explore how men construct and adapt their gender identities when they are seen to move from traditional masculinity to more feminised activities as they mature (O’Neil et
al., 1993). The journey metaphor provides a framework for evaluating thoughts, feelings and
behaviours concerning gender roles, sexism and gender role conflict. It also proposes men go through a series of stages in their gender identity. The journeys are varied and often involve childhood, maturation, employment, relationships and partnering, parenting and endings. A longitudinal study using the gender role journey measure, by Marcel et al. (2011), found that most men’s perceptions become less traditional over time. In their study Marcel et al. suggest that the transitions and experiences during young adulthood are crucial in a man’s gender identity. A recent study by McDermott and Schwartz (2013), using the gender role journey measure with 551 student and graduate men, supports the validity of the test. In their study, McDermott and Schwartz suggest that the intersection of gender and other cultural and contextual spheres, like age, gender and sexuality should be further explored as they appear to impact on gender identity (McDermott and Schwartz, 2013). While in my study I am not using the gender role journey test, it is useful to highlight its application as it relates to the socialisation and transition of gender through experience. It also demonstrates how gender performance can alter throughout the life-course, with socialisation enabling the production of new realities and masculinities. Gender identity and gender performance can move to performativity and the possible subversion of masculine norms though the logic of the gender binary remains intact. Through the gender journey measure it is argued, by
59
Marcel et al. (2011) and McDermott and Schwartz (2013), gender identity changes, but new gender is not produced because existing gender relations are reproduced.