Canadian Journal of Sociology Online July-August 2006
This is a book well worth reading. It squarely addresses a policy issue that is fundamental to the pursuit of equality and equity, it is theoretically engaged while making concrete policy proposals, and it is closely argued.
Author Paul Kershaw correctly identifies the gendered system of unwaged social care as being both inequitable and invisible to most social theorists, save of course feminists. Viewing "care as a lens of analysis for citizenship and social policy" (9), he confronts the powerful structures that reinforce men's "socially sanctioned irresponsibility for caregiving" (14), and thus women's marginalization as they are excluded "from many social spaces" (83).
In developing his case, Kershaw draws on an impressive array of social theorists, ranging from John Rawls and T.H. Marshall to Nancy Fraser and Carole Pateman, from Will Kymlicka and Thomas J. Corchene to Jane Jenson and Margrit Eichler. Those familiar with these names — and many more are also discussed to good effect throughout the book — will not be surprised that the concept of 'social citizenship' and its critique by feminists for embracing a male breadwinner model are central to the book's argument. So also with Gøsta Esping-Andersen's analysis of welfare capitalism. It too marks a progressive advance in social thought, and it too is criticized by Kershaw, who draws on Ann Orloff and others to point out how limiting for women the de-commodification agenda is. (It is gratifying, to this reviewer at least, to read a male scholar who takes feminist scholarship seriously. Would that there were more.)
Given that in Canada and other western countries most unpaid care is provided by women, de-commodification can simply mean more of the same burden for them. This is where Kershaw's argument comes in. Adopting a version of welfare contractualism, he rejects any dichotomy of (social) citizenship as public and care as private. Instead he advocates an expansion of social obligations or duties that would "integrate care as a constitutive responsibility and right of social citizenship that binds men as much as women" (4).
In advancing position, he invokes neo-liberalism. He sees it as a hegemonic ideology, and finds that its emphasis on duties resonates well. At the same time, he seeks to refashion it because of its silences on gender inequality. This will, in his view, enable us to re-prioritize neo-liberalism. We can thus move, à la Anthony Giddens and Amatai Etzioni, "beyond the left/right political framework" (5). The Carefair goal then is to establish an equitable balance between earning and caring, between work and 'life,' between men and women, so that all might finally enjoy social justice, social security, and dignified community membership.
Although Kershaw discusses a number of contemporary political stances (New Labour's Third Way in the UK, communitarianism, social conservatism, civic republicanism, and Marxism), at the core of the book is his acceptance of neo-liberalism as qualified by feminism. In commendably seeking to make caring labour more visible and more valued, he privileges welfare contractualism and individual responsibilities. The rationale for this acceptance is in large part realist, for he acknowledges the hegemony of neo-liberal thought. He also endorses its insistence on individual responsibilities, or the "duty discourse" (45). His rationale for being "unabashedly feminist" is largely normative (9), a matter of the fundamental unfairness of women's care burdens. Informed by and at the same time complementing his value position, he succinctly documents three public policy areas that entail moral hazard (employment leave, employment standards regulating full-time work, and child care). He then advocates for paid work time reductions over the life course, as well as for more public child care provision.
These are worthy proposals, but as a set of incentives designed to prod enough men to undertake enough unpaid caregiving so that earning and caring, work and 'life,' and men and women will be equally valued, they are in my view inadequate. Nor would they become adequate if simply supplemented by other worthy proposals, such as full unionization, more vigorous pay equity mechanisms, and comprehensive supportive housing for those with disabilities and for seniors. As long as capitalism remains in force, its dynamic will be one of producing inequalities, and what it deems most valuable will be what can be bought and sold. These harsh realities can, and should, be softened by feminist policy initiatives, but the left/right framework will remain salient as well, for it is the left, but not the right, that struggles against inequalities. Neo-liberalism, an ideology that privileges markets and individuals, is necessarily located within and supportive of capitalism and its inequalities. It thus cannot be refashioned to promote fundamental equalities.
That stated, Carefair is an important and stimulating book. It should be widely read.
Hugh Armstrong
Carleton University
http://www.cjsonline.ca/reviews/Carefair.html
July 2006
© Canadian Journal of Sociology Online
