Work and Leisure

42 Chas Critcher and Peter Bramhamallegiances and contradictory wishes are stretched across generations anddiverse family networks.Beck (1992) has interpreted such changes to indicate the family as a site ofcontradictions. A basic one is that the logic of the market, driving inexorablytowards modernisation and individuation, undermines what it is posited on:the existence of a ‘normal’ nuclear family and its inherent gender divisions.The equality of the market is incompatible with the inequalities of family life.The normative constraints of gender dissolve in the face of increasing individuationso that the definition of roles in a heterosexual partnership becomemore fluid and problematic. The very proliferation of apparent lifestylechoices of residence, work and household structures reveals the constraintson choice, opening up greater possibilities of conflict within the family. Itbecomes ‘the setting but not the cause’ (Beck 1992: 103) of the disjunctionwhere ‘production and family work are subjected to contrary organisationalprinciples’ (Beck 1992: 107). The freeing of women from their traditionalroles is attributed to five changes: increasing life expectancy, the restructuringof housework, contraceptive and family planning, the fragility of marriageand educational opportunity. As women gain greater control over their biographies,so their enforced dependence on men becomes irksome. The familyis where these contradictions are acted out, with the result that ‘the traditionalunity of the family breaks apart in the face of decisions demanded ofit’ (Beck 1992: 117). Since the clock cannot be turned back and equality is notachievable within the confines of the family, the only solution is to reformemployment and family structures so they can be made more compatible witheach other.Beck’s portrait may seem overblown. Perhaps more couples do, if not atthe first attempt, find ways of living through these tensions. Yet it may remindus that the creation of a family is psychologically wearing and its dissolutionno less devastating for being commonplace. The solutions found by individuals– nuclear families, lone parenting, divorce with or without remarriage,living alone or cohabiting – may appear to be choices but cumulatively theyindicate that the changes in work and family are interconnected, both forindividuals and for the society as a whole.For Giddens (1999), one dimension of globalisation is this decline of tradition,changing gender relations and a growing ‘democracy of the emotions’.Long-term structural processes express themselves and are mediated bychanges in family structures and personal relationships, especially betweengenerations. Traditional nuclear families, sustained by patriarchal divisionsof labour, put localised community identities at the heart of post-war Fordistsocial policies. Men were occupational breadwinners, contributed to nationalinsurance schemes and determined public policy; in contrast women andchildren were confined to the private domain, expected to participate in localneighbourhood networks but dependent on husbands/fathers for state benefitsand services. As Clarke and Critcher (1985) have argued, it is crucial to