Book Review: Family Values: Between Neoliberalism and the New Social Conservatism
| Published date | 01 December 2017 |
| Author | Martha Fineman |
| DOI | 10.1177/0964663917747316a |
| Date | 01 December 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Book Reviews |
MELINDA COOPER, Family Values: Between Neoliberalism and the New Social Conservatism.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2017, pp. 416, ISBN: 9781935408840, £24.95 (hbk).
Reviewers for this anniversary issue of Social and Legal Studies were asked to assess a
contemporary book to reflect on how a field has changed (if at all) since their own book
on the topic was reviewed in the journal’s first issue. I recalled how delighted I had been
when I read the reviewer’s comments on my first book, The Illusion of Equality: The
Rhetoric and Reality of Divorce Reform.
1
The reviewer complimented my ‘distrust of the
symbolism of family law’, which had led to my thesis that ‘a spurious equality has
replaced judgments of real need’. He also noted that I was writing in a ‘tradition of
feminist legal scholarship which adopts an explicitly woman-focused perspective’ in
which there was no attempt to be gender-neutral (often dismissively referred to as
‘cultural feminism’). I highlighted existing inequalities women faced in the workplace,
as well as during and after divorce, and argued that they deserved more in terms of the
division of marital property and the consideration of primary caretaking as determinative
in awarding custody. As the title suggests, that book was critical of divorce reform efforts
driven by so-called liberal or equal treatment feminists’ commitment to gender equality
rather than the needs of women and children post-divorce.
Twenty-five years (and a great deal of written words) later, my scholarship has
evolved from focusing on the imperfections of the patriarchal family to looking at the
functions the social and legal institution we call ‘family’ is asked to perform, and how
that functions are accommodated and su pported or frustrated and impeded by other
social and legal arrangements. The insight that led to this reorientation of my work was
realizing that the difficulties and burdens (economic and social) attached to care work
were not a problem of gender discrimination to be solved by the imposition of a regime
of gender neutrality. Rather, the problems arose because of the failure of other institu-
tions (particularly the state and the market) to support, accommodate and subsidize care
work. In other words, the problem was not the gender of the caretaker, but the refusal of
society and its institutions to recognize and appropriately value care work. This problem
is both conceptual and political. Attempts to address it must transcend the family, placing
the human dependency and vulnerability that necessitates care within the larger social
and ideological contexts. Therefore, I am not sure at this point how I would define my
‘field’, except as broad and no longer women-focused.
In the 90s, I argued for a vision of ‘subst antive equality’ that would allow suc h
different treatment, focusing on equality of results rather than treatment. That proposed
remedy was inadequate because it was confined to divorce rules and therefore to the
family and its members. I also now realize the quest for equality itself can be the
problem, particularly because institutional flaws and foibles can elude a discrimination
lens, even when it is focused on outcomes rather than treatment. The Illusion of Equality
was the beginning of a scholarly journey that has culminated in my current preoccupa-
tion with the legal and political implications of inherent and inevitable inequality that
mark the human condition.
I think it is importantto give this short rendition of my evolutionfrom a women-centred
feminist to what might be called a ‘pre-discrimination institutional analysist’.
2
It helps to
illuminate why I have some reservations about Melinda Cooper’s Family Values, which I
Book Reviews 781
To continue reading
Request your trial