In this exploration of family policy, the author identifies the basic assumptions that shape differing perspectives on such policies. Focus is on the definition of the family, the privileging of certain definitions, the state-family relationship, the valuing or devaluing of the family, and the tension between familism and individualism. The social worker's role in shaping family policy to reflect social work values is examined.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbramovitzM. (1991). Social policy in disarray: The beleaguered American family. Families in Society, 72, 483–495.
2.
AbramovitzM. (1992). Poor women in a bind: Social reproduction without social supports. Affilia, 7, 23–43.
3.
AbramovitzM. (1994). Challenging the myth of welfare reform. Social Justice, 21(1), 17–21.
4.
AxinnJ. M., & HirschA. E. (1993). Welfare and the “reform” of women. Families in Society, 74, 563–572.
5.
BainesC. T., EvansP. M., & NeysmithS. M. (1992). Confronting women's caring: Challenges for practice and policy. Affilia, 7(1), 21–44.
6.
BarbaraF. (1979). The case against family policy. Social Work, 24, 455–457.
7.
Bowers and Hardwick, 478 U. S. 186, 194 (1986).
8.
Center on Social Welfare Policy and Law. (1994). Welfare developments in 1994.New York: Author.
9.
DinermanM. (1992). Is everything women's work?Affilia, 7(2), 77–93.
10.
EhrenreichB. (1988). The family is not an ideal slogan for the left. Democratic Left, 16(3), 7.
11.
FoucaultM. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings.New York: Pantheon Press.
12.
FurstenbergF. F., & HarrisM. K. (1990). The disappearing American father? Divorce and the waning significance of biological parenthood.Unpublished manuscript. Philadelphia: Department of Sociology, University of Pennsylvania.
13.
GlendonM. A. (1991). Rights talk.New York: Free Press.
14.
GoodmanE. (1994, October 9). Family values, family relationships. Daily Hampshire Gazette, p. 12.
15.
HennebergerM. (1994, October 9). Managed care changing the practice of psychotherapy. New York Times, p. 1.
16.
KamarckE. C., & GalstonW. A. (1990). Putting children first: A progressive family policy for the 1990s.Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute.
17.
LAMBDA. (1992). Domestic partnership: Issues and legislation.New York: LAMBDA Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc.
MillerD. D. (1990). Women and social welfare: A feminist analysis.New York: Praeger.
20.
MoroneyR. (1980). Families, social services, and social policy: The issue of shared responsibility.Rockville, MD: National Institutes of Mental Health.
21.
MoynihanD. P. (1989). Toward a post-industrial social policy. Public Interest, 96, 16–27.
22.
MurphyP. (1993, June 19). Family preservation and its victims. New York Times, p. 21.
23.
MurrayC., & HerrnsteinR. (1994). The bell curve.New York: Free Press.
24.
NaplesN. A. (1991). A socialist feminist analysis of the Family Support Act of 1988. Affilia, 6(4), 23–38.
25.
NuccioK. E., & SandsR. G. (1992). Using postmodern feminist theory to deconstruct “phallacies” of poverty. Affilia, 7(4), 26–48.
26.
QuindlenA. (1992, June 14). Digging a divide. New York Times, p. E19.
27.
ReynoldsB. D. (1934). Between client and community: A study in responsibility in social casework. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 5(1), 5–128.
28.
SpakesP. (1992). National family policy: Sweden versus the United States. Affilia, 7(2), 44–60.
29.
WhiteM. (1994). The politics of therapy: Putting to rest the illusion of neutrality.Adelaide, Australia: Dulwich Centre.
