Legislating a "Normal, Classic Family": The Rhetorical Construction of Families in American Welfare Policy

Gring‐Pemble, Lisa M.

doi:10.1080/10584600390244202

Cited by 13 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As this theoretical framework has not yet been applied to the study of social policy, I build on this important tradition by expanding the social contexts in which its value has been demonstrated. In addition, despite a wealth of literature examining the evolution of welfare policies (Gring‐Pemble ; Guetzkow ), the policymaking processes of child support legislation has been largely understudied. In particular, scholars of family policy have not analyzed child support as a critical component of the broader welfare state.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cultural scholars have studied policy patterns using a number of approaches, including examining the relationship between public opinion and policy change (Burnstein ), the use of narratives to secure policy change (Stewart ), the impact of cultural conceptualizations on policy (Schneider and Ingram ), and the significance of moral values for policy development (Gring‐Pemble ). The development of social policies around poverty in particular has been the focus of much sociological research.…”

Section: Culture and Social Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Deservingness, Deadbeat Dads, and Responsible Fatherhood: Child Support Policy and Rhetorical Conceptualizations of Poverty, Welfare, and the Family

Battle

2018

Symbolic Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since 1974, the U.S. federal government has passed more than 30 pieces of legislation related to child support. Such policies have significant implications for children and their custodial and noncustodial parents. I examine the evolution of these policies since the 1970s through cultural conceptualizations of poverty, welfare, and the family in presidential rhetoric. Using written and oral presidential statements from 1970 to 2011 as a symbolic representation of the nation's collective attention, I identify three themes-deservingness, deadbeat dads, and responsible fatherhood. These themes correspond with major shifts in child support policy through periods of welfare reform, the criminalization of the noncustodial father, and the strengthening of families, and helped to legitimize substantial shifts in child support policy over time.Prior to 1974, American custodial parents had little recourse when noncustodial parents did not meet their child support obligations. Since then, the federal government has passed more than 30 pieces of legislation related to child support. Noncustodial parents who do not comply with support orders now face suspended licenses, property forfeiture, and incarceration. The federal child support system began essentially unregulated, with no legal requirements for noncustodial parents to financially support their children. The system first transitioned to weak civil regulation, and then to strong criminal justice penalties for noncompliance. Currently, punishment is somewhat less central, replaced by a stronger focus on healthy relationships between parents and children. Such policies have significant implications for the approximately 6.5 million custodial parents with support orders (in 2013) as well as for noncustodial parents-typically fathers as more than 85% of custodial parents are women (Grall 2016).

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Culture and Social Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Deservingness, Deadbeat Dads, and Responsible Fatherhood: Child Support Policy and Rhetorical Conceptualizations of Poverty, Welfare, and the Family

Battle

2018

Symbolic Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They also provide a setting in which activists and advocates enter the state directly to make their strategic and discursive case. They are thus a rich source of qualitative data on how witnesses and organizations frame their positions and their claims of connection to each other (Allahyari 1997;Brasher 2006;Gring-Pemble 2003;Holyoke 2009;Miller 2004;Molotch and Boden 1985;Naples 1997).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking Coalitions

Whittier

2014

Social Problems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social movements interact in a wide range of ways, yet we have only a few concepts for thinking about these interactions: coalition, spillover, and opposition. Many social movements interact with each other as neither coalition partners nor opposing movements. In this article, I argue that we need to think more broadly and precisely about the relationships between movements and suggest a framework for conceptualizing noncoalitional interaction between movements. Although social movements scholars have not theorized such interactions, "strange bedfellows" are not uncommon. They differ from coalitions in form, dynamics, relationship to larger movements, and consequences. I first distinguish types of relationships between movements based on extent of interaction and ideological congruence and describe the relationship between collaborating, ideologically opposed movements, which I call "collaborative adversarial relationships." Second, I differentiate among the dimensions along which social movements may interact and outline the range of forms that collaborative adversarial relationships may take. Third, I theorize factors that influence collaborative adversarial relationships' development over time, the effects on participants, and consequences for larger movements, in contrast to coalitions. I draw on the case of the relationship between antipornography feminists and conservatives during the 1980s, charting the dynamics of their interaction across arenas and over time.Social movements interact in a wide range of ways, yet we have only a few concepts for thinking about these interactions: coalition, spillover (mutual influence without shared collective action), and opposition. The concept of coalition has come to carry excessive conceptual weight as the term for a wide range of relationships between movements. Many social movements interact with each other as neither coalition partners nor opposing movements. In this article, I argue that we need to think both more broadly and more precisely about the relationships between movements. In order to understand modes and consequences of collective action more fully, I suggest a framework for conceptualizing movements' interaction and analyze noncoalitional interaction between opposing movements. Although social movements scholars have not theorized such interactions, they are widely recognized with the colloquy "strange bedfellows" and are not uncommon (Smith 2008). They differ from coalitions in their forms, dynamics over time, relationship to larger movements, and consequences. Understanding their dynamics is intrinsically important, as is understanding coalitions or countermovements, for understanding specific social movements as well as the broader forces that influence movements' interactions with each other. Here, I draw on the case of the relationship between anti-pornography feminists and antipornography conservatives during the 1980s to conceptualize the dynamics of noncoalitional interactions and develop an analytical approach that may be applied more broadly.

show abstract

“…Dominant U.S. family norms have traditionally advocated long-term marriage, discouraged cohabitation, and discouraged having children outside of marriage (Edgell & Docka, 2007; Gring-Pemble, 2003; Smith, 1993). However, among poor urban Black populations, marriage has become increasingly less common.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cohabitation Duration and Transient Domesticity

Golub

Reid

Strickler

et al. 2013

Marriage & Family Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research finds that many impoverished urban Black adults engage in a pattern of partnering and family formation involving a succession of short cohabitations yielding children, a paradigm referred to as transient domesticity. Researchers have identified socioeconomic status, cultural adaptations, and urbanicity as explanations for aspects of this pattern. We used longitudinal data from the 2001 Survey of Income and Program Participation to analyze variation in cohabitation and marriage duration by race/ethnicity, income, and urban residence. Proportional hazards regression indicated that separation risk is greater among couples that are cohabiting, below 200% of the federal poverty line, and Black but is not greater among urban dwellers. This provides empirical demographic evidence to support the emerging theory of transient domesticity and suggests that both socioeconomic status and race explain this pattern. We discuss the implications of these findings for understanding transient domesticity and make recommendations for using the Survey of Income and Program Participation to further study this family formation paradigm.

show abstract

Legislating a "Normal, Classic Family": The Rhetorical Construction of Families in American Welfare Policy

Cited by 13 publications

References 0 publications

Deservingness, Deadbeat Dads, and Responsible Fatherhood: Child Support Policy and Rhetorical Conceptualizations of Poverty, Welfare, and the Family

Deservingness, Deadbeat Dads, and Responsible Fatherhood: Child Support Policy and Rhetorical Conceptualizations of Poverty, Welfare, and the Family

Rethinking Coalitions

Cohabitation Duration and Transient Domesticity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About