Children (but not women) first: New Labour, child welfare and gender

Abstract

The paper’s starting point is an analysis of New Labour’s agenda for children in an emergent ‘social investment state’. It provides an overview of policies for children, which simultaneously invest in children and regulate them and their parents/mothers. Although children have moved to the heart of social policy, there is some disquiet about the way they are being positioned in this brave new world of social investment. This disquiet focuses in particular on: the construction of children as ‘becomings’ rather than ‘beings’; the paid-work-focused and future-oriented model of citizenship; the relative neglect of groups of children who are not seen to represent such a good investment; and the eclipse of parents’, and in particular, mothers’ welfare. The final section sketches out how the social investment approach might be modified in the interests of children’s well-being and flourishing and with reference to principles of (gendered) social justice.

Changing children's geographies

“…Their policies placed greater emphasis on schools' role in child enrichment, empowering headteachers to target the needs of their school community in order to educate flexible citizen-workers, and ensure current and future social inclusion. Our interviews reveal that these state actors have very different interpretations of their client groups: headteachers' representations of parents in higher income schools coincide with normative models of parenting found in Government policy (Lister 2006;Reay 2008); by contrast, in low-income schools, the image of an ideal parent only emerges in headteachers' accounts in opposition to their construction of the parents of children attending their school. Although child enrichment activities were valued by headteachers in all socio-economic areas, these differential understandings of their client base influence the implementation of policy.…”

“…Although child enrichment activities were valued by headteachers in all socio-economic areas, these differential understandings of their client base influence the implementation of policy. Headteachers in low-income schools adopt a future-orientated perspective on childhood seen in wider Government policy (Lister 2006;Mayall 2006) and seek to enhance children's future social mobility by ensuring their access to activities which develop social and cultural capital. Headteachers in higher income areas draw on alternative narratives about childhood as a time for freedom and family life to question the very busy schedule of some children (Katz 2008), suggesting that this time might be better spent with parents who are envisioned as highly competent.…”

Disciplining Professionals: A Feminist Discourse Analysis of Public Preschool Teachers

“…437, 433). Lister (2006) observes that we risk (further) decoupling children from care, and Hochschild (2003, p. 8) argues for 'a revolution in our society and our thinking, one that rewards care as much as market success'. This analysis and our illumination of possibilities for resistance afford examples of how teachers did, and can, move beyond the performance of teacher as either expert or caregiver, and beyond the hierarchizing of the professional over the caregiver, to enact also the identities of teacher as activist and as change agent (Osgood, 2009).…”

From Pillar to Post: Understanding the Victimisation of Women and Children who Experience Domestic Violence in an Age of Austerity

“…Furthermore, the social investment discourses (Lister, 2006) of childhood which have dominated policy making in the last 15 years have played a role in overshadowing parental, and especially mothers', welfare. As such, arguments made by feminist theorists (Mullender, 2004;Women's Budget Group, 2005;Thorne, 1987) for approaches to social issues, such as domestic violence, poverty and citizenship, that honour the relationship between mothers and their children continue to be relevant and important, especially in light of legislation and service provision that persists in viewing problems from a population perspective (adult and child services) and splitting engagement with mothers and children.…”