Why Do Policymakers See the Family as Central to the Solutions to Social Problems - Essay Example

Why Do Policymakers See the Family as Central to the Solutions to Social Problems? Introduction There does not appear to be any singular or universal definition for ending social problems within any given nation as economic differences and cultural dissimilarities vary from nation to nation. However, in many of today’s Westernized and progressive nations, such as the United Kingdom, policy makers are shifting toward the belief that family is integral to changing the social landscape. Receiving increased attention in contemporary society is the family as the most central variable to curbing social issues. Specifically, lone parenting will be discussed in this paper utilising several theorist and professional viewpoints as support for the argument of family as a social problem solution. The lone parent The traditional nuclear family is best defined as the classical mother/father unit, sustaining biological children within the same home environment (Gordon, 2004). It has been criticised that the nuclear family is the most ideal type of family environment which provides the most significantly-positive environment for all family members. This argument may have been constructed by the psychological outcomes which occur in families that are non-traditional (non-nuclear) in which children experience a wider variety of dilemmas such as lower academic achievement, diminished self-confidence, and difficulties with positive peer socialisation (Morris & Maisto, 2005). Many of these negative social outcomes, especially for children, stem from inadequate support in the non-nuclear household (such as the lone parent environment) due simply to time-related constraints such as balancing work and family (Weiten & Lloyd, 2005). Giles (2007) argues that policy makers have traditionally spent a great deal of financial resources on assisting single parent families to improve their economic condition. However, such spending is not improving social issues, lending policy makers to consider alternative methods at building a more cohesive and rewarding social landscape in the UK (Giles). Thus, restructuring the concepts of family and creating new policies and programmes to best suit the non-nuclear household lends credence to the notion that family can be a viable variable in improving today’s social problems. For instance, Grewal (2007) offers that nearly 30 percent of children in London alone live within lone parent households; with England (as a whole) sustaining lone parent households at 23 percent. These are considerably high demographics for the lone parent environment, thus suggesting that the traditional nuclear family is being eroded by alternative family lifestyles. Essentially, when the nuclear family becomes a lone parent household, the burdens on the head of the household begin to erode the parent’s tangible ability to provide adequate academic and emotional support to children (Morris & Maisto). Additionally, The Economist (2007) flatly offers that children of lone parent households are considerably less-well-off than their nuclear peer counterparts. Lone parent households, in far greater majority than other family structures, face considerable economic difficulties, as in many respects the job market is not catered to single parents (Himmelweit, Bergmann, Green, Albelda & Koren, 2004). Many lone parent households have women as the head of the family, as actually 90 percent of all lone parent homes maintain no father (Gordon). Many female lone parents work in some of the most underpaid positions in management and service professions and, due to scheduling issues, must further rely on paid child care, a costly reality of single parenthood (Gill & Davidson, 2001). This phenomenon is referred to as the time-squeeze hypothesis, which essentially suggests that work and other scheduling issues prevent lone parents from participating in any structured family activities (Voyandoff, 2004). All of the aforementioned aspects of the lone parent family appear to provide today’s youths with substantially limited parental support at a time where stable childhood development is paramount to future social successes. Thus, due to the statistics presented which highlight the negative outcomes of lone parent households, it is really no considerable surprise that policy makers are turning toward family as a means to reduce modern social issues, in terms of redeveloping the family structure and providing family-oriented, governmentally-funded programmes designed to offer the support needed to create a more stable lone parent environment. Rather than merely addressing youth social dysfunction from an individual perspective, such as providing counselling or other psychological/psychiatric assistance to adolescents plagued by self-confidence issues or other negative social attributes, creating policy which reinforces elements such as emotional support and quality togetherness will, in theory, strengthen the family unit and limit long-term negative social outcomes. This would be especially true for children of these lone parent environments. It would appear that the majority of modern governmental policy created toward improving familial relationships is geared toward practice which attempts to recreate the definition of lone parenting households in favour of the nuclear ideology. Where the generic social perception of the nuclear family is one where strong bonds are developed and adequate family support is granted, the policy makers’ viewpoint of lone parenting is a far cry from the nuclear household. Thus, policies designed to foster internal communication and mutual support are likely designed to exert the nuclear agenda on all varieties of households. Clearly, the most negative outcomes of the lone parent household are felt by the offspring, however these are tangible realities of the burdens and stresses experienced by an over-worked lone parent. Thus, rather than taking generations of children and offering them adequate support as a post-childhood measure to improve socialisation skills in troubled youths, it is likely becoming more important to move proactively to secure the bonds of positive family relationships to avoid long-term negative consequences. There may be a wide variety of reasons as to why policy makers turn toward family as a viable launching point for improving social problems, however it does appear that policy makers recognise that assisting lone parent families to cope and succeed in the short-term is a more viable alternative than trying to tackle long-term damage caused by dysfunctional family environments. The family environment is where the majority of youth perceptions about life and the self are developed, thus it is a rational argument that family issues must be addressed as a paramount objective to social improvements. Bibliography Giles, Chris. (2007). ‘Praise for family spending – but government must try hard to get lone parents into work’. Financial Times. London, UK. 3 Dec 2007: 4. Gill, S. & Davidson, M.J. (2001). ‘Problems and pressures facing lone mothers in management and professional occupations – A pilot study’. Women in Management Review. Bradford. 16(7/8): 383-396. Gordon, Winsome. (2004). ‘Module 3: Social Work – The Family’. Unesco-Swaziland. Retrieved 3 Mar 2008 from http://www.unesco.org/education/mebam/module_3.pdf Grewal, Herpreet K. (2007). ‘London kids more likely to be with lone parents’. Regeneration & Renewal. 12 Oct 2007: 2-3. Himmelweit, S., Bergmann, B.R., Green, K., Albelda, R. & Koren, C. (2004). ‘Lone Mothers: What is to be Done?’. Feminist Economics. London. 10(2): 237. Morris, C.G. & Maisto, A. A. (2005). Psychology: An Introduction. 12th ed. Pearson Prentice Hall: 451-464. The Economist. (2007). ‘Suffer the children? Children in rich countries’. London. 14 Feb 2007. Voyandoff, Patricia. (2004). ‘Work and Community Resources and Demands on Family Integration’. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 25(1): 7. Weiten, W. & Lloyd, M. (2005). Psychology Applied to Modern Life: Adjustment in the 21st Century. United Kingdom, Thomson Wadsworth: 184-186. Read More