311
See also: Sylvia Walby 96–99 ■ Talcott Parsons 300–01 ■ Adrienne Rich 304–09 ■
Ulrich Beck and Elisabeth Beck-Gernsheim 320–23 ■ Jeffrey Weeks 324–25
FAMILIES AND INTIMACIES
there is a move toward blended
families, lesbian and gay families,
cohabitating couples, and single
parents—all of which are part of
what she calls the “postmodern”
family (although many have argued
that these forms have always
existed and that Parson’s nuclear
family was only relevant for a few
privileged middle-class families).
To reflect this new reality, Stacey
insists that the work structure
needs to ensure equal pay for men
and women, and universal health
and child care should be provided.
A pioneering spirit
The economic role of the family
has declined, Stacey argues, and
as a result, intimacy and love have
become more important. Despite
the decline of marriage, Stacey
does not believe that individuals
no longer form meaningful social
ties, but rather that complex ties
continue to be formed as a result
of divorce and remarriage.
Because traditional roles and
legal- and blood-ties within the
family are less relevant today
than they were in the past, family
members now have greater choice
and are therefore creating more
experimental intimacies. She
suggests that the heterosexual/
homosexual binary is becoming
less stable and is being replaced
by a “queering” of family relations.
These “brave new families” are
endeavoring to fully embrace
change and diversity and forge
more unconventional and
egalitarian relationships.
Stacey is in line with other key
thinkers, such as Jeffrey Weeks and
British sociologist Gillian Dunne,
in suggesting that lesbian and
gay families are at the forefront of
creating more democratic and
equal relationships. For her, these
relationships represent an ideal
of postmodern kinship for which
traditional roles are less applicable.Equal love?
The British sociologist Anthony
Giddens is in agreement with
Stacey when he suggests that
contemporary family forms bring
greater equality to relationships
and undermine stereotypes
and traditional gender roles. In
contrast, recent studies in Britain
have revealed that in heterosexual
couples, women are still largely
responsible for housework.
Some have questioned the
extent to which same-sex
relationships are more equal.
Canadian researcher Janice
Ristock, for example, has pointed
to the prevalence of domestic abuse
among same-sex couples. Others,
such as sociologists Beck and
Beck-Gernsheim, have emphasized
the many difficulties associated
with living a detraditionalized life.
Nevertheless, Stacey contends
that social experiments in ties
of love are ongoing. ■Gay parenthood
Stacey notes that US pressure
groups are claiming that the
country is facing a crisis due
to fatherlessness: heterosexual
men are abandoning pregnant
partners or opting not to
have children at all. New
technologies and the
availability of contraceptives
have separated sex from
procreation. And having a
child no longer guarantees
a future income for parents.
Thus Stacey argues that
parenting is now more about
emotion than finances.
Yet increasing numbers
of gay men are opting for
parenthood, even though they
face many more challenges
than lesbian and heterosexual
couples, including access to
the means of reproduction
(eggs and a womb). When
straight couples adopt, they
are often given healthy babies.
Gay men tend to be offered
older children or those who
are unwell or thought of as
“difficult” in some way. Thus
it is gay men, says Stacey, who
are giving homes to some of
society’s most needy children.Gay men who choose to become
fathers challenge many of society’s
stereotypes about masculinity,
fatherhood, and gay promiscuity.The family indeed
is dead, if what we mean
by it is the modern
family system.
Judith Stacey