Challenging tradition : exploring men's experiences of being at-home

The fundamental question driving this thesis is: Is the ‘Individualisation thesis’, as presented by Beck and Beck-Gernshiem (2002), a useful framework for understanding the historical transformation in family structures, from the predominance of the traditional nuclear family to contemporary ‘families of choice’. An exploration of family work experiences as recounted to me by Australian men who I argue are situated in an archetypal ‘democratic family’, what Russell (1987) referred to as the “reversed-role family” will provide the primary data for interrogating this question. This is because the reversed-role family not only diverges from the traditional model of the family but also challenges traditional ideas of gender on which ideologies of the family are ostensibly built. These families, according to Smith (1998: 139) “contradict conceptual prejudices that we inscribe on female and male bodies…(and) embody a challenge to stereotyped views of men as non-domesticated and non-nurturing”. The appeal of individualisation as presented by Beck and Beck Gernsheim (2002) is understandable. Imagery of the individual cut free from the confined and constrained bonds of ‘tradition’ (which elicits connotations of something passé or out-dated) is an attractive idea. Such imagery is particularly powerful when it comes to the family and gender, since the ideology of the nuclear family has been recognised as being a significant factor in women’s subjugated position within the patriarchal order of things and also men’s ongoing disconnection from family life, particularly family work. The notion that ‘tradition’ is disappearing or becoming less influential though was not found in this study. Certainly at stages the men narratives suggested that they were acting in a non-traditional manner. But these actions had limitations. To push any further would disrupt their overarching sense of who they were as men. I don’t want to imply that ‘tradition’ was left unchallenged though. The large majority of these men entered into a family arrangement which arguably would not be given consideration by most Australian men and for them to do so is an indication that tradition is not sacred or protected from appraisal. What I would argue is occurring is not that ‘tradition’ (both structural and ideological) is dissolving but is being adapted by these men so as to balance up beliefs about their position in their family and their conception of masculinity. Traditional conceptions of family life (based on hegemonic masculinity and the nuclear family model) acted as a base from which the men could explore alternative ideas. Tradition appeared to remain an integral way in which the men understood their position at-home, but there was some flexibility and fluidity with the way in which the men adapted these to suit their ideas of what it meant to be at-home. New ‘knowledge’ played a role, but not in replacing tradition but enabling the men to add layers to it. Moreover, it was not something that was chosen, as such, but rather it implicitly influenced the choices the men made. Fundamentally traditional conceptions of gender permeated the men’s narratives of their experience with being at-home but this was rarely explicitly expressed. The men retained a freedom (some might argue power) to pick and choose their level of participation and wives retained their specialist status as the ‘experts’ of household labour. For those men with children, fathering activities were a primary source of how they positioned themselves in the home. The few instances when the men explicitly referred to their masculinity it was when they were describing masculine work or ‘man time’ which was disconnected to the home. Although I agree with both Mythen (2005) and Skelton (2005) that Beck and Beck-Gernsheim (2002) somewhat exaggerate the dissolution of tradition, the ‘Individualisation’ thesis is not wholly without merit. Despite the fact that discussion and negotiation stalled after transition, the men displayed receptivity to negotiate and adapt, reflective of the dimensions of the ‘democratic family’. Admittedly there appears to be an essentially class influence underpinning this responsiveness, but it is encouraging to witness ideologies of mutual respect, emotional and sexual democracy, and equality penetrating men’s perspectives of not just relationships but also their expectations associated with home life. This is perhaps a particularly positive sign when you consider how strong patriarchal entitlement pervades Australian culture