Аксиологические проекции современных семейно-гендерных практик

Главная

Статья в Elpub

РУС ENG

Вестник Томского государственного университета. 2017; : 184-191

Аксиологические проекции современных семейно-гендерных практик

Лукина Н. П., Сазонова П. В.

https://doi.org/10.17223/15617793/420/28

Аннотация

Статья посвящена анализу аксиологических оснований моделей семейной политики в современных западных обществах. Аналитика семейных отношений осуществлена в контексте идеологической доктрины государства всеобщего благосостояния и позднейших трансформаций семейно-гендерных практик. Представлен аргументированный вывод о том, что, несмотря на масштабные трансформации института семьи, он остается эксклюзивным агентом, выполняющим основные социокультурные функции: репродуктивную, экзистенциальную, социализирующую.

Список литературы

1. Григорьева И. Российская социальная политика в последние годы: между уже пройденным путем и все еще неопределенным будущим // Журнал исследований социальной политики. 2007. Т. 5, № 1.

2. Esping-Andersen G. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge : Polity Press, 1990.

3. Уэбстер Ф. Теории информационного общества. М. : Аспект Пресс, 2004.

4. Bell D. The coming of the post-industrial society. The Educational Forum // Taylor & Francis Group. 1976. Vol. 40, № 4. P. 574-579.

5. Иноземцев В. Постиндустриальный мир Даниела Белла // Белл Д. Грядущее постиндустриальное общество. М., 1999.

6. Bauman Z. Liquid modernity. London : John Wiley & Sons, 2013.

7. Giddens A. The transformation of intimacy: Sexuality, love and eroticism in modern societies. London : John Wiley & Sons, 2013.

8. Beck U., Beck-Gernsheim E. Families in a runaway world // The Blackwell companion to the sociology of families. 2004. P. 499-514.

9. Cherlin A. J. The deinstitutionalization of American marriage // Journal of marriage and family. 2004. Vol. 66, № 4. P. 848-861.

10. Williams F. Rethinking families. London : Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, 2004.

11. Кузьмина К. Трансформация модели семьи и потребностей в социальной защите в условиях соцтально-демографических и социально-экономических перемен // Журнал исследований социальной политики. 2008. № 6 (2). С. 201-216.

12. Hank K., Kreyenfeld M. A multilevel analysis of child care and women's fertility decisions in Western Germany // Journal of Marriage and Family. 2003. Vol. 65 (3). P. 584-596.

13. Etzioni, A. The Parenting Deficit. London : Demos, 1993.

14. Лексин В. Н. Государственная семейная политика и обычная русская семья // Общественные науки и современность. 2010. № 2. С. 5769.

15. Beck-Gernsheim E. Reinventing the family. In search of new lifestyles // Polity. 2002.

16. Федотова В. Хорошее общество. М. : Прогресс-Традиция, 2005.

17. Giddens A. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. University of California Press Berkley and Los Angeles, 1984.

18. Daly M., Rake K. Gender and the Welfare State. Care, Work and Welfare in Europe and the USA. Cambridge : Polity Press, 2003.

19. Чернова Ж. Кто, о ком и на каких условиях должен заботиться? Гендерный анализ режимов заботы и семейной политики // Журнал исследований социальной политики. 2011. № 9 (3). С. 295-318.

20. Lewis J., Daly M. The concept of social care and the analysis of contemporary welfare states // British Journal of Sociology. 2000. Vol. 51 (2). P. 281-298.

21. Kremer M. The Politics of Ideals of Care: Danish and Flemish Child Care Policy Compared // Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society. 2006. Vol. 13 (2). P. 261-285.

22. Hochschild A. R. The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. University of California Press, 2003.

23. Pfau-Effinger B. Gender cultures and the gender arrangement - a theoretical framework for cross-national comparisons on gender // Innovation: the European Journal of Social Sciences. 1998. Vol. 11. P. 147-166.

24. Солодников В. Глобальные демографические и институциональные изменения семьи // Социологические исследования. 2014. № 7. С. 152-154.

25. Van de Kaa D.J. The Second Demographic Transition Revisited: Theories and Expectations. Population and Family in the Low Countries / ed. by G.C.N. Beets et al. Lisse, Zwets and Zeitlinger, 1993. P. 81-126.

26. Jurczyk K. Time in Women's Everyday Lives Between Self-Determination and Conflicting Demands // Time & Society. 1998. Vol. 2-3. P. 283308.

27. Schneider N.F., Ruppenthal S., LUck D. Beruf, Mobilitat und Familie // Zukunft der Familie. Prognosen und Szenarien. Opladen, 2009. S. 111136.

28. Tanskanen A.O., Rotkirch A. The impact of grandparental investment on mothers' fertility intentions in four European countries // Demographic research. 2014. Vol. 31. P. 1-26.

29. Zdravomyslova E. Working mothers and nannies: Commercialization of childcare and modifications in the gender contract (a sociological essay) // Anthropology of East Europe Review. 2010. Vol. 28 (2). P. 200-225.

30. Utrata J. Babushki as surrogate wives: How single mothers and grandmothers negotiate the division of labor in Russia. Berkeley Program in Eurasian and East European Studies, 2008.

31. Pahl R., Spencer L. Personal Communities: Not Simply Families of "Fate" or "Choice" // Current Sociology. 2004. Vol. 52 (2). P. 199-221.

32. Чернова Ж. Семья как политический вопрос: государственный проект и практики приватности. СПб. : Издательство Европейского университета в Санкт-Петербурге, 2013. 288 с.

33. Рождественская Е. Отцовство: либеральный тренд от отца к папе? // Социологический журнал. 2010. № 3. С. 75-89.

34. Ferri E., Bynner J., Wadsworth M. Changing Britain, Changing Lives: Three Generations at the Turn ofthe Century. University of London, 2003.

35. Рождественская Е. Биография как социальный феномен и объект социологического анализа. М., 2012. 555 с.

36. Lewis J. Work-family balance, gender and policy. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2009.

37. Leitner S., Ostner I., Schmitt C. Family policies in Germany. VS Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaften, 2008. S. 175-202.

38. Bekhouch Y. et al. The global gender gap report. Geneva, Switzerland : World Economic Forum, 2013.

39. Ebert I.D., Steffens M.C., Kroth A. Warm, but maybe not so competent? // Contemporary implicit stereotypes of women and men in Germany. Sex roles. 2014. Vol. 70 (9-10). P. 359-375.

40. Leschke J., Jepsen M. Is the Economic Crisis Challenging the Prevailing Gender Regime? A Comparison of Denmark, Germany, Slovakia, and the United Kingdom // Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society. 2014. Vol. 21 (4). P. 485-508.

41. Sullivan O. Changing gender relations, changing families: Tracing the pace of change over time. Lanham, MD : Rowman & Littlefield, 2006.

42. Cooke L.P. Persistent policy effects on the division of domestic tasks in reunified Germany // Journal of Marriage and Family. 2007. Vol. 69 (4). P. 930-950.

43. Xydias C. Women's Rights in Germany: Generations and Gender Quotas // Politics & Gender. 2014. Vol. 10 (01). P. 4-32.

44. Lange A., Jurczyk K. The Globalized Family // DJI-Bulletin. 2010. P. 4-6.

45. OECD. Female labour force participation: past trends and main determinants in OECD countries. OECD Economic Policy Reforms. Paris. 2005. P. 161-174.

46. Kenworthy L. Jobs with Equality. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2008.

47. Pettit B., Hook J.L. Gendered Tradeoffs: Family, Social Policy, and Economic Inequality in Twenty One Countries. New York : Russell Sage Foundation, 2009.

Tomsk State University Journal. 2017; : 184-191

Axiological projections of modern family-gender practices

Lukina N. P., Sazonova P. V.

https://doi.org/10.17223/15617793/420/28

Abstract

The article discusses the axiological foundations of family policy in contemporary Western societies. The analysis is carried out within the framework of a welfare state ideology and current transformations of family and gender relations. The authors consider traditional and modern approaches to the family and gender diversity of modern societies which has become one of the central issues of the socio-humanitarian discourse. Family relations and family policy are among those social institutions that have distinct axiolog-ical characteristics. Axiology forms a set of goals, methods, and mechanisms for the reproduction of family relations. Reflections on the axiological parameters of modern family relations penetrate into the public debate. The issues highly discussed are the modernization of a family, its changing gender and demographic characteristics, its impact on the development of national economies. Radical social, economic and technological transformations of modern societies affect the nature of family and gender relations. Traditional wedlock is no longer the only legitimate institution that has the power to control sexuality, reproduction and gender identification. New patterns of marriage and family relations emerge. The family structure becomes more heterogeneous and often includes not only family ties, but also employees, friends and virtual communities. Different types of care, support and resource exchange within the extended family networks are formed. They perform complementary and substitutive functions for inefficient state and social institutions. The research question is: How do the axiological foundations of family and gender relations in modern societies transform? The methodology of the research is an interdisciplinary approach to the family, which unites the knowledge from philosophy, sociology, culture studies, political science, economics and demography. The authors convincingly show that, despite the significant transformations of a family, it remains an exclusive institution that performs the basic socio-cultural functions, mainly reproductive, existential, socializing. The elimination of tensions and contradictions caused by axiological transformations of modern social reality is possible by means of the implementation of a gender-balanced family policy. The authorities need to create the most favorable environment for families, which enables working parents to combine professional and family duties. This requires the combination of efforts and resources of the state, the market and the family.

References

1. Grigor'eva I. Rossiiskaya sotsial'naya politika v poslednie gody: mezhdu uzhe proidennym putem i vse eshche neopredelennym budushchim // Zhurnal issledovanii sotsial'noi politiki. 2007. T. 5, № 1.

2. Esping-Andersen G. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge : Polity Press, 1990.

3. Uebster F. Teorii informatsionnogo obshchestva. M. : Aspekt Press, 2004.

4. Bell D. The coming of the post-industrial society. The Educational Forum // Taylor & Francis Group. 1976. Vol. 40, № 4. P. 574-579.

5. Inozemtsev V. Postindustrial'nyi mir Daniela Bella // Bell D. Gryadushchee postindustrial'noe obshchestvo. M., 1999.

6. Bauman Z. Liquid modernity. London : John Wiley & Sons, 2013.

7. Giddens A. The transformation of intimacy: Sexuality, love and eroticism in modern societies. London : John Wiley & Sons, 2013.

8. Beck U., Beck-Gernsheim E. Families in a runaway world // The Blackwell companion to the sociology of families. 2004. P. 499-514.

9. Cherlin A. J. The deinstitutionalization of American marriage // Journal of marriage and family. 2004. Vol. 66, № 4. P. 848-861.

10. Williams F. Rethinking families. London : Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, 2004.

11. Kuz'mina K. Transformatsiya modeli sem'i i potrebnostei v sotsial'noi zashchite v usloviyakh sotstal'no-demograficheskikh i sotsial'no-ekonomicheskikh peremen // Zhurnal issledovanii sotsial'noi politiki. 2008. № 6 (2). S. 201-216.

12. Hank K., Kreyenfeld M. A multilevel analysis of child care and women's fertility decisions in Western Germany // Journal of Marriage and Family. 2003. Vol. 65 (3). P. 584-596.

13. Etzioni, A. The Parenting Deficit. London : Demos, 1993.

14. Leksin V. N. Gosudarstvennaya semeinaya politika i obychnaya russkaya sem'ya // Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost'. 2010. № 2. S. 5769.

15. Beck-Gernsheim E. Reinventing the family. In search of new lifestyles // Polity. 2002.

16. Fedotova V. Khoroshee obshchestvo. M. : Progress-Traditsiya, 2005.

17. Giddens A. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. University of California Press Berkley and Los Angeles, 1984.

18. Daly M., Rake K. Gender and the Welfare State. Care, Work and Welfare in Europe and the USA. Cambridge : Polity Press, 2003.

19. Chernova Zh. Kto, o kom i na kakikh usloviyakh dolzhen zabotit'sya? Gendernyi analiz rezhimov zaboty i semeinoi politiki // Zhurnal issledovanii sotsial'noi politiki. 2011. № 9 (3). S. 295-318.

20. Lewis J., Daly M. The concept of social care and the analysis of contemporary welfare states // British Journal of Sociology. 2000. Vol. 51 (2). P. 281-298.

21. Kremer M. The Politics of Ideals of Care: Danish and Flemish Child Care Policy Compared // Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society. 2006. Vol. 13 (2). P. 261-285.

22. Hochschild A. R. The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. University of California Press, 2003.

24. Solodnikov V. Global'nye demograficheskie i institutsional'nye izmeneniya sem'i // Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya. 2014. № 7. S. 152-154.

26. Jurczyk K. Time in Women's Everyday Lives Between Self-Determination and Conflicting Demands // Time & Society. 1998. Vol. 2-3. P. 283308.

27. Schneider N.F., Ruppenthal S., LUck D. Beruf, Mobilitat und Familie // Zukunft der Familie. Prognosen und Szenarien. Opladen, 2009. S. 111136.

28. Tanskanen A.O., Rotkirch A. The impact of grandparental investment on mothers' fertility intentions in four European countries // Demographic research. 2014. Vol. 31. P. 1-26.

30. Utrata J. Babushki as surrogate wives: How single mothers and grandmothers negotiate the division of labor in Russia. Berkeley Program in Eurasian and East European Studies, 2008.

31. Pahl R., Spencer L. Personal Communities: Not Simply Families of "Fate" or "Choice" // Current Sociology. 2004. Vol. 52 (2). P. 199-221.

32. Chernova Zh. Sem'ya kak politicheskii vopros: gosudarstvennyi proekt i praktiki privatnosti. SPb. : Izdatel'stvo Evropeiskogo universiteta v Sankt-Peterburge, 2013. 288 s.

33. Rozhdestvenskaya E. Ottsovstvo: liberal'nyi trend ot ottsa k pape? // Sotsiologicheskii zhurnal. 2010. № 3. S. 75-89.

34. Ferri E., Bynner J., Wadsworth M. Changing Britain, Changing Lives: Three Generations at the Turn ofthe Century. University of London, 2003.

35. Rozhdestvenskaya E. Biografiya kak sotsial'nyi fenomen i ob\"ekt sotsiologicheskogo analiza. M., 2012. 555 s.