The Family Versus the State Victoria de Grazia

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).

Reconstructing the social after the Terror by Suzanne Desan

This article discusses the reforms that occurred during the Reign of Terror in France during the French Revolution. These reforms affected families drastically. Divorce was embraced. Inheritance was no longer given to a specific person, but was being fought over by the siblings or relatives. The status of illegitimate children. A main concern for Frenchmen of this time was the ownership of property, which also caused problems within families.

The French were fighting among themselves at the expense of family relationships. Desan states that, "Reformulation of the Republic was fundamentally intertwined with a new emerging vision of the relationship between the family, law, and state." The petitioners or opposing side of all these reforms argued that social order was based on families being unified. The family was being separated during this time of political upheaval and the petitioners took it upon themselves to reunite the family and in so doing they would bring back social order of the state.

Ultimately, these reforms were kept to a minimal. The law was given less power over the family.

"Till death us do part": life after a failed marriage, by Bailey

Bailey's article outlines her argument that "the majority of individuals suffered ...socio-economic decline" upon dissolution of their marriage. She cites numerous records of marital difficulties to support her claims. Men and women alike found themselves in a worsened situation if they chose to separate. These records can also be utilized to visualize the living and working arrangements of ex-spouses. Much of Bailey's documentation comes from eighteenth century England.

"Poverty frequently fragmented families," Bailey says. Among the poorer families, husbands left wives and children in times of dire economic need. Bailey points out that the connection between abandonment and economic difficulties is strong in the second half of the eighteenth century: this is a period when desertions rose, and simultaneously food prices increased and "probably outstripped wage rates." Monetary penalties, incarcerations, and transfer to America all are recorded methods of punishment for fathers guilty of absconding. This suggests the importance and severity with which desertion of families by fathers was viewed upon by the state.

Bailey argues that single and previously married people alike sought to create a household like unto marriage, where multiple parties work as one to fulfill responsibilities and pool resources. Even relatively well-off gentlemen who had dissolved marriages were compelled to find others that fulfilled the role of wife and mother. Bailey states the amount of co-dependency between husband and wife in this period was great, thus the dissolution of marriage had mutual detrimental affects. Bailey cites records of employment as the best gauge of living arrangements post-divorce, as records do not reveal living arrangements of separated spouses.

While women were often the victims of abandonment, Bailey states that it is a mistake to "type-cast" deserted wives as victims, as there is plenty of evidence that they were able to find jobs. Rather, divorced men are the ones more reliant on wives. This statement is backed by her using the statistic of more elderly women living alone than elderly men in the eighteenth century. However, the greatest lesson to be learned is the "extensive co-dependency within marriage.