Grazia’s chapter entitled gamily verses the states discusses the perplexing relationship that develops between the family and the state with the rise of fascism. She outlines that the new ideology of the fascist government is to incorporate the family into the government, but then shows how those socialist measures to accomplish this integration in actually undermines the family.
For example, the new ideology set forth was that men should be able to work and earn enough money to support his family so his wife could stay home (embracing this idea of separate spheres). So in an attempt embrace this family ideology the government established the family allowance system. However, to even get this set wage system you have to have the right connections with the proper private or governmental organizations. This new welfare state changes the role of women. Because men should be working to earn a wage for the family the women or the elitist class have to carry this idea out with the lower classes. Also, women of the lower classes are also forced to work as their husbands are unable to make enough money for their family. Thus, family size begins to shrink and with the realization that the state is not providing a support group. Families have to begin to rely on their kin for support. Grazia then exemplifies her point through the letter the wife of Milanese man to the government (103-104).
Grazia argues that two different family ideologies emerge. The first is then the fascist familism emphasizing family unity, paternity, and female devotion to the family. This ideology is then altered through its impracticable practice and gives way to oppositional familism. This placed more focus on the father and gave priority of jobs and wages to those fathers with larger families (in hopes of increasing the population). People during this time appeared to operate on the idea that you had to maximize your resources in the short run and not worry about future generations. Her discussion of oppositional familism is limited and somewhat confusing compared to her expansive explanation of fascist familism.
Grazia’s article could fall under three of the categories we have discussed. The most fitting category would be that of the Law, State, and Church. Her article focuses on how the state regulations affect the family. This leads to the next category of family relationships and family economics. Grazia takes great length to describe how the government imposes different ideas on the roles of men and women in the family. Men should be earning enough money for a large family while women stay at home and work. Furthermore, that state is suppose to step in and subsidize a husbands wage but jumping through the hoops to get this money is impossible. The last category this could fall under then is gender. In Grazia’s description of the family she does discuss the role of children briefly but she tends to focus on the different roles that husband and wives have (men and women).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I find it very interesting that in most cases when a government tries to promote a certain set of ideals, it typically backfires. For example, we have talked a lot in class about how in Eastern Europe countries have made it more difficult to have abortions, like in Croatia, will the hope of encouraging more births. The actual result is that people are still getting abortions, sometimes even illegally, and the population of natural born citizens is declining.
The same situation can be seen in Fascist Italy. The ideals set forth by the state are not carried out in the reality of everyday life. I wonder if it's some sort of reverse psychology, or maybe that people just don't like to be told what to do?
I found this article to be very interesting because of the extreme contradiction to be found between what the state says and what the state does. The Fascist government stressed the importance of family and the ideal household, yet the policies the government imposed on the people prevented them from fulfilling that familial ideal as prescribed by the government. I believe this contradiction to be an interesting trend that can be found in all governments, past and present. It can be difficult to trust and support a government body when these inconsistencies are glaringly visible. I suppose families must make do as much as possible, live their lives, and include the government as little as possible.
I think when looking at De Grazia's argument it is important to not overgeneralize her argument and apply it to the whole of Europe. As we have seen through other family patterns, geography can make a difference. Although Fascist Italy was considered unsuccessful in terms of changing families as a totalitarian government it is important to see that Nazi Germany did actually have much of its family policies fulfilled by the people. Oppositional familism could have existed, but for the most part through historians research on Nazi families they did actually follow policies. So it is important to note that there could be other factors that attribute to the governments success in getting families to function a certain way, such things as effective propaganda etc.
In addition to this, other factors should be considered such as if it were not for Italian population growth policies would the Italian population have declined even more than it did?
Post a Comment