Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-18T20:24:22.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Have Families Been Rethought? Ethic of Care, Family and ‘Whole Family’ Approaches

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 September 2010

Lesley Murray  and
Marian Barnes
Lesley Murray
Affiliation:
Social Science Policy and Research Centre, School of Applied Social Science, University of Brighton E-mail: [email protected]
Marian Barnes
Affiliation:
Social Science Policy and Research Centre, School of Applied Social Science, University of Brighton E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

‘Whole family’ approaches to intervention and prevention have raised the profile of ‘family’ within social policy, where the family is constructed as a site of child care and protection, neglect and disadvantage. However, ‘family’ is a taken-for-granted and narrowly defined concept within policy documentation, and often used interchangeably with ‘parents’. This paper uses Sevenhuijsen's (2003) ‘Trace’ approach to explore the use of the concept of ‘family’ across a number of interrelated social policy streams. The efficacy of familial approaches is considered through a feminist ethic of care approach that questions both gendered and generational assumptions about families in practice.

Type
Themed Section on Family Minded Policy and Whole Family Practice
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , October 2010 , pp. 533 - 544
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Artaraz, K., Thurston, M. and Davies, S. (2007), ‘Understanding family support provision within the context of prevention: a critical analysis of a local voluntary sector project’, Child and Family Social Work, 12, 4, 306–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, M. (2006), Caring and Social Justice, Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Barnes, M. (in press), ‘Caring Responsibilities: the making citizen carers?’, in Newman, J.E. and Tonkens, E. (eds.), Active Citizenship in Europe, Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press.Google Scholar
Beck, U. and Beck-Gernsheim, E. (1995), The Normal Chaos of Love, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Cabinet Office (2008), ‘Ministers launch new “think family” approach to help vulnerable parents and children’, Press release CAB/003/08, available at www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/social_exclusion_task_force/news/2008/080110_families.aspx.Google Scholar
Cabinet Office (2009), New Opportunities: Fair Chances for the Future, White Paper, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Cabinet Office Strategy Unit and Department for Children, Schools and Families (2008), Families in Britain: An Evidence Paper, London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
Chase, S. E. and Rogers, M. F. (2001), Mothers and Children: Feminist Analyses and Personal Narratives, New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, L. (1996), ‘Demographic change and the family situation of children’, in Brannen, J. and O'Brien, M. (eds.), Children in Families, London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) (2003a), Every Child Matters Green Paper, London: DCSF.Google Scholar
Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) (2003b), Every Child Matters: The Next Steps, London: DCSF.Google Scholar
Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) (2004), Every Child Matters: Change for Children, London: DCSF.Google Scholar
Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) (2007), The Children's Plan, London: DCSF.Google Scholar
Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) (2008), The Children's Plan: One Year On, London: DCSF.Google Scholar
Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) (2009), Think Family Toolkit, London: DCSF.Google Scholar
Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) (2010), Support for All: The Families and Relationships Green Paper, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2004), Sustainable Cities and the Ageing Society: The Role of Older People in an Urban Renaissance, London: DCLG.Google Scholar
Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2009), Inspiring Communities Grant Programme, London: DCLG.Google Scholar
Department for Transport (DfT) (2006), Young People and Transport: Understanding Their Transport Needs and Requirements, London: DfT.Google Scholar
Department for Transport (DfT) (2007), Understanding the Travel Aspirations: Needs and Behaviour of Young Adults, London: DfT.Google Scholar
Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) (2009), Building a Society for all Ages, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Department of Health (DoH) (2008), Carers at the Heart of 21st Century Families and Communities: A Caring System on Your Side, a Life of Your Own, London: DoH.Google Scholar
Duncan, S. and Edwards, R. (1999), Lone Mothers, Paid Work and Gendered Moral Rationalities, Basingstoke: Macmillan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, S. and Smith, D. (2002), ‘Geographies of family formations: spatial differences and gender cultures in Britain’, Transactions of the British Geographical Society, 27, 4, 471–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finch, J. (1989), Family Obligations and Social Change, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Gubrium, J. F. and Holstein, J. A. (1990), What is Family, Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Hendrick, H. (2003), Child Welfare, Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Government, HM (2003), Every Child Matters Green Paper, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Government, HM (2007), Putting People First, London: HM Government.Google Scholar
HM Government (2009), Shaping the Future of Care Together, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
HM Treasury and Department for Children, Schools and Families (2007), Aiming High for Disabled Children: Better Support for Families, London: HM Treasury.Google Scholar
Home Office (2006), Respect Action Plan, London: Home Office.Google Scholar
James, A., Jenks, C. and Prout, A. (1998), Theorizing Childhood, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Morris, K., Hughes, N., Clarke, H., Tew, J., Mason, P., Galvani, S., Lewis, A., Loveless, L., Becker, S. and Burford, G. (2008), Think Family: A Literature Review of Whole Family Approaches, London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
Newman, J. E. and Tonkens, E. (eds.) (in press), Active Citizenship in Europe, Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press.Google Scholar
Nixon, J. and Parr, S. (2008a), ‘Family Intervention Projects – sites of resilience, resistance and domination’, in Barnes, M. and Prior, D. (eds.), Subversive Citizens: Power, Agency and Resistance in Public Policy, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Nixon, J. and Parr, S. (2008b), ‘Family Intervention Projects and efficacy of parenting interventions’, in Blyth, M. and Solomon, E. (eds.), Prevention and Youth Crime: Is Early Intervention Working? Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Pain, R. (2006), Intergenerational Relations and Practice in the Development of Sustainable Communities, Background Paper for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London: ODPM.Google Scholar
Parr, S. and Nixon, J. (2008), ‘Rationalising Family Intervention Projects’, in Squires, P. (ed.), ASBO Nation: The Criminalisation of Nuisance, Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Sevenhuijsen, S. (2003), ‘Trace: a method for normative policy analysis from the ethic of care’, Paper presented at the Seminar ‘Care and Public Policy, Centre for Women and Research’, University of Bergen.Google Scholar
Silva, E. B. and Smart, C. (eds.) (1999), The ‘New’ Practices and Politics of Family Life, London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Smart, C. and Neale, B. (1999), Family Fragments, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Social Exclusion Task Force (2003), Making Connections: Final Report on Transport and Social Exclusion, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Social Exclusion Task Force (2006), Reaching Out: An Action Plan on Social Exclusion, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Social Exclusion Task Force (2007), Reaching Out: Think family Analysis and Themes from the Families at Risk Review, London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
Social Exclusion Task Force (2008a), Think Family: Improving the Life Chances of Families at Risk, London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
Social Exclusion Unit (2003), Transport and Social Exclusion: Making the Connections, London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
Tronto, J. C. (1993), Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
White, C., Warrener, M., Reeves, A. and La Valle, I. (2008), ‘Family intervention projects: an evaluation of their design, set-up and early outcomes research report’, DCSF-RW047, DCFS, London.Google Scholar
Williams, F. (2003), ‘Response to the Government Green Paper Every Child Matters on behalf of ESRC Research Group on Care, Values and the Future of Welfare (CAVA)’, DfES, November 2003.Google Scholar
Williams, F. (2004), Rethinking Families, London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.Google Scholar