Simon Duncan

Mothering, class and rationality

Class theorists ask for research on the ‘paradox of class’ – the fact that while class appears to be materially just as important as ever, it hardly features as part of a self-conscious social identity. At the same time mothering is usually seen as a classless activity. This paper describes class based differences in how mothers combine employment and caring for their children, how they divide labour with their partners, and how they choose childcare. These are not simple structural divisions between working class and middle class, but instead refer to more nuanced social identities. These class based differences in mothering present different mixes of choice and constraint, or of ‘rationality’ and ‘preference’ in choosing alternative courses of action. However, theories focusing on classless individualised preference (Hakim) and class–based rationality (Goldthorpe) do not go far beyond a tautological description of these alternatives. Rather, the paper shows how preference and rationality are socially and culturally created through the development of career as an identity, through biographical experience, through relations with partners, and through the development of normative views in social networks.

People Who Live Apart Together (LATs) – How Different are They?:

‘Living apart together’ – that is being in an intimate relationship with a partner who lives somewhere else – is increasingly recognised and accepted as a specific way of being in a couple. On the face of it, this is a far cry from the ‘traditional’ version of couple relationships, where co-residence in marriage was placed at the centre and where living apart from ones partner would be regarded as abnormal, and understandable only as a reaction to severe external constraints. Some commentators regard living apart together as a historically new family form where LATs can pursue a ‘both/and’ solution to partnership – they can experience both the intimacy of being in a couple, and at the same time continue with pre-existing commitments. LATs may even de-prioritize couple relationships and place more importance on friendship. Alternatively, others see LAT as just a ‘stage’ on the way to cohabitation and marriage, where LATs are not radical pioneers moving beyond the family, but are cautious and conservative, and simply show a lack of commitment. Behind these rival interpretations lies the increasingly tarnished spectre of individualisation theory. Is LAT some sort of index for a developing individualisation in practice? In this paper we take this debate further by using information from the 2006 British Social Attitudes Survey. We find that LATs have quite diverse origins and motivations, and while as a category LATs are often among the more liberal in family matters, as a whole they do not show any marked ‘pioneer’ attitudinal position in the sense of leading a radical new way, especially if age is taken into account.

Policy Discourses on ‘Reconciling Work and Life’ in the EU

This paper outlines the development EU policy discourse on ‘the reconciliation of work and family life’. This imposes a policy disjuncture on New Labour, for, while the British government may be ideologically more attracted to the liberal US model of ‘flexible’ labour, it is bound by EU law to implement a more corporatist gender equality model. The paper notes how themes of economic competition, democratisation, and protecting gender contracts emerged at the foundation EU gender policy. It traces these themes into an ‘equal opportunities at work’ discourse during the 1970s and 1980s and, with the increasing importance of the ‘demographic time bomb’ discourse and of Scandinavian style gender equality, into discourses stressing the ‘reconciliation of paid work with family life’ and gender mainstreaming. The paper ends by addressing the ‘half-empty or half-full’ assessments of EU gender policy.

Combining Lone Motherhood and Paid Work: The Rationality Mistake and Norwegian Social Policy

How lone mothers combine being mothers with employment has become a central policy issue in many western countries. But policy making is dominated by the operational assumption that lone mothers are ‘rational actors’ who make individual utility calculations about the costs and benefits of taking up paid work. This is what we have called the ‘rationality mistake’, for evidence shows that decisions are still made rationally, but with a different sort of rationality. In this article we use a case-study from Norway to explore this issue further. Norway is unusual in having a ‘designer benefit’ – the transitional allowance – exclusively for lone mothers. Before 1998, the transitional allowance positioned lone mothers as mothers at home, whereas after 1998 policy places lone mothers – after the first three years of motherhood – as workers in employment. The policy lever of benefit change was supposed to change how lone mothers – as rational economic actors – behave. Using an intensive research design, we find that lone mothers employ a moral and relational rationality which usually means that both the pre and post-1998 policy would act more as a constraint than an enabler on their behaviour.

Why do people live apart together

Interpretations of living apart together (LAT) have typically counter-posed ‘new’ versus ‘continuist’ perspectives. Recent surveys, however, construct LAT as a heterogeneous category which support a ‘qualified continuist’ position – most people live apart as a response to practical circumstances or as a modern version of ‘boy/girlfriend’, although a minority represents something new in preferring to live apart as a more permanent family form. This paper interrogates this conclusion by examining in detail why people live apart together, using information from a nationally representative survey from Britain and from interview accounts. Our analysis shows well one important feature of living apart together – its flexible pragmatism. LAT as a category contains different sorts of relationship, with different needs and desires. While overall coupledom remains pivotal and cohabitation remains the goal for most, LAT allows more freedom for manoeuvre in conducting relationships. LAT is both ‘new’ and a ‘continuation’.

People who live apart together (LATs): new family form or just a stage?

‘Living apart together’ – that is being in an intimate relationship with a partner who lives somewhere else (LAT) – is increasingly recognised and accepted as a specific way of being in a couple. On the face of it, this is a far cry from the ‘traditional’ version of couple relationships, where co-residence in marriage was placed at the centre and where living apart from ones partner would be regarded as abnormal, and understandable only as a reaction to severe external constraints. Some commentators regard living apart together as a historically new family form where partners can pursue a ‘both/and’ solution to partnership – they can experience both couple intimacy, but at the same time maintain personal autonomy and pre-existing commitments. Alternatively, others see LAT as just a ‘stage’ on the way to cohabitation and marriage, where LATs are not radical pioneers moving beyond the family, but are cautious and conservative, and simply show a lack of commitment. Behind these rival interpretations lies the increasingly tarnished spectre of individualisation theory. Is LAT some sort of index for a developing individualisation in practice? We take this debate further by using information from the 2006 British Social Attitudes Survey and from in-depth interviews with LAT partners. We find that LATs do resemble cohabitating (unmarried) couples in demographic and social terms, but also display quite diverse origins and motivations. One group of LATs do not see themselves as couple partners at all, but more as special boy/girlfriends. Others live apart mainly in response to external circumstances. But some LATs do seem to be developing a new way of living in their relationships, as a means of balancing both couple intimacy and personal autonomy over the longer term.

The World We have Made? Individualisation and Personal Life in the 1950s:

This paper focuses on a fundamental problem with individualisation theories – the assumption that contemporary personal lives are radically new and different from those in the past. This is a particularly important issue for individualisation theories because they essentially depend on the idea of epochal, even revolutionary, historical change. Empirically, I examine the experience of personal life in Britain in the late 1940s and early 1950s (where a number of excellent sources exist) and compare it with today. Looking first at the personal life of gay and lesbian people, and of heterosexual spouses, I find substantial, but not unambiguous, ‘improvement’ – in terms of equality, openness and diversity – over the period. But this improvement does not necessarily mean transformation in how people think about their personal lives and how they ought to conduct them. The paper goes on, therefore, to examine ‘tradition’ and ‘individualisation’ through the lens of ideas around extra-marital sex and divorce. Rather than some duality between ‘traditional’ and ‘individualising’ people in the two periods, I find that how people thought, and the range of their thoughts, about how to conduct personal life seem similar in 1949/50 to the present day – given the debates and issues of the time. In both periods the married, older and more religious were the more ‘traditional’, and the young and the more professional were more ‘progressive’. But the bulk of both samples were ‘pragmatists’, holding practical views of what was reasonably proper and possible in adapting to, and improvising around, their circumstances.

Practices and perceptions of living apart together

This paper examines how people living apart together (LATs) maintain their relationships, and describes how they view this living arrangement. It draws on a 2011 survey on LAT in Britain, supplemented by qualitative interviewing. Most LATs in Britain live close to their partners, and have frequent contact with them. At the same time most see LAT in terms of a monogamous, committed couple, where marriage remains a strong normative reference point, and see living apart as not much different from co-residence in terms of risk, emotional security or closeness. Many see themselves living together in the future. However, LAT does appear to make difference to patterns of care between partners. In addition, LATs report advantages in terms of autonomy and flexibility. The paper concludes that LAT allows individuals some freedom to manoeuvre in balancing the demands of life circumstances and personal needs with those of an intimate relationship, but that practices of LAT do not, in general, represent a radical departure from the norms of contemporary coupledom, except for that which expects couples to cohabit.

Sex, Love and Security: Accounts of Distance and Commitment in Living Apart Together Relationships

Drawing on a 2011 national survey and 50 semi-structured interviews, we explore the differing ways in which those in living apart together (LAT) relationships discuss and experience notions of commitment. We found that sexual exclusivity in LAT relationships is expected by the large majority, regardless of their reasons for living apart. The majority of the interviewees also expressed a high degree of commitment to their partner in terms of love, care and intimacy, alongside an appreciation of the increased freedom and autonomy that living apart has to offer. Respondents were divided into four groups according to their perceived commitment: 1. Autonomous commitment, 2. Contingent commitment, 3. Ambivalent commitment, and 4. Limited commitment. Despite differing degrees of commitment, however, the overall finding was that the importance of relating and making relational decisions was central, even in the lives of those living in such unconventional relationship styles.

Development Gains and Housing Provision in Britain and Sweden

The paper examines the effects of land development gains on housing provision. It uses comparative analysis of two contrasting cases, Britain and Sweden, to examine housing land costs, the land cost element of housing prices, and the distribution of development gains among different social groups. In Britain, housing land costs and the land cost element are increasingly high and unstable compared to Sweden. State policy in Sweden significantly restricts the ability of landowners and builders to make land development gains in housebuilding. These are instead transferred to housing consumers in the form of cheaper, better located housing and in capital gains. This also encourages builders in Sweden to make profits through increasing labour productivity and product innovation, further stimulating housing output. The paper ends by briefly considering the policy implication of the Swedish model for Britain.