美国的育儿经济:育儿投资的理想如何支撑起家庭敌对政策

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIOLOGY Sociological Forum Pub Date : 2023-11-02 DOI:10.1111/socf.12948
Nina Bandelj
{"title":"美国的育儿经济:育儿投资的理想如何支撑起家庭敌对政策","authors":"Nina Bandelj","doi":"10.1111/socf.12948","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The American parenting economy is built around the notion that raising children is a matter of private parental investment. This essay outlines briefly the features of what is best characterized as, not family‐friendly, but rather family‐hostile policy in the United States, before it proposes two reasons for why the ideal of parental investment holds its grip. The first is the historical political entanglement of neoliberalism with neoconservatism that continues to entrench the focus on traditional family values. The second is the more recent cultural backdrop of building knowledge infrastructure around “the economic way of looking at parents” to repurpose economist Gary Becker's Nobel Laureate lecture title, which has permeated public discourse and reframed “childrearing” as “parental investment.” Therefore, the possibility of policy change is not simply a matter of political struggle. A potent obstacle to family‐friendly policy is cultural. Parents and nonparents will not demand, nor will politicians embrace, radical institutional transformation of the American family policy if we do not shift our thinking. We need less economic reasoning and more sociological imagination, recognizing that parenting, no matter how intimate and personal it seems, is inextricably and thoroughly bound up with social structures and culture. And that raising children—all children in the manner they deserve—is not a matter of private investment but a common responsibility.","PeriodicalId":21904,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Forum","volume":"207 S1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"America's Parenting Economy: How the Ideal of Parental Investment Scaffolds Family‐Hostile Policy\",\"authors\":\"Nina Bandelj\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/socf.12948\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The American parenting economy is built around the notion that raising children is a matter of private parental investment. This essay outlines briefly the features of what is best characterized as, not family‐friendly, but rather family‐hostile policy in the United States, before it proposes two reasons for why the ideal of parental investment holds its grip. The first is the historical political entanglement of neoliberalism with neoconservatism that continues to entrench the focus on traditional family values. The second is the more recent cultural backdrop of building knowledge infrastructure around “the economic way of looking at parents” to repurpose economist Gary Becker's Nobel Laureate lecture title, which has permeated public discourse and reframed “childrearing” as “parental investment.” Therefore, the possibility of policy change is not simply a matter of political struggle. A potent obstacle to family‐friendly policy is cultural. Parents and nonparents will not demand, nor will politicians embrace, radical institutional transformation of the American family policy if we do not shift our thinking. We need less economic reasoning and more sociological imagination, recognizing that parenting, no matter how intimate and personal it seems, is inextricably and thoroughly bound up with social structures and culture. And that raising children—all children in the manner they deserve—is not a matter of private investment but a common responsibility.\",\"PeriodicalId\":21904,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sociological Forum\",\"volume\":\"207 S1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sociological Forum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12948\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociological Forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12948","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

美国的育儿经济是建立在这样一种观念之上的:抚养孩子是父母的私人投资。本文简要概述了美国最典型的非家庭友好型,而是家庭敌对型政策的特征,然后提出了亲代投资理念占据主导地位的两个原因。首先是新自由主义与新保守主义的历史政治纠葛,这种纠葛继续巩固对传统家庭价值观的关注。第二个是最近的文化背景,围绕“看待父母的经济方式”建立知识基础设施,以重新定义经济学家加里·贝克尔(Gary Becker)诺贝尔奖得主的演讲标题,这已经充斥了公共话语,并将“养育子女”重新定义为“父母投资”。因此,政策变化的可能性不仅仅是一个政治斗争的问题。家庭友好政策的一个强大障碍是文化。如果我们不转变思路,父母和非父母都不会要求,也不会让政客接受对美国家庭政策进行彻底的制度性改革。我们需要少一些经济上的推理,多一些社会学上的想象。我们要认识到,无论养育子女看起来多么亲密,多么个人化,它都与社会结构和文化有着千丝万缕的联系。以他们应得的方式养育孩子不是私人投资的问题,而是一项共同的责任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
America's Parenting Economy: How the Ideal of Parental Investment Scaffolds Family‐Hostile Policy
The American parenting economy is built around the notion that raising children is a matter of private parental investment. This essay outlines briefly the features of what is best characterized as, not family‐friendly, but rather family‐hostile policy in the United States, before it proposes two reasons for why the ideal of parental investment holds its grip. The first is the historical political entanglement of neoliberalism with neoconservatism that continues to entrench the focus on traditional family values. The second is the more recent cultural backdrop of building knowledge infrastructure around “the economic way of looking at parents” to repurpose economist Gary Becker's Nobel Laureate lecture title, which has permeated public discourse and reframed “childrearing” as “parental investment.” Therefore, the possibility of policy change is not simply a matter of political struggle. A potent obstacle to family‐friendly policy is cultural. Parents and nonparents will not demand, nor will politicians embrace, radical institutional transformation of the American family policy if we do not shift our thinking. We need less economic reasoning and more sociological imagination, recognizing that parenting, no matter how intimate and personal it seems, is inextricably and thoroughly bound up with social structures and culture. And that raising children—all children in the manner they deserve—is not a matter of private investment but a common responsibility.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Sociological Forum
Sociological Forum SOCIOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
73
期刊介绍: Sociological Forum is the flagship journal of the Eastern Sociological Society. The journal is peer reviewed and committed to publishing high quality, cutting edge research on substantive issues of fundamental importance to the study of society. The journal"s mission is broad in scope, encompassing empirical works (both quantitative and qualitative in nature), as well as works that develop theories, concepts, and methodological strategies. All areas of sociology and related fields are welcomed in Sociological Forum, as the journal strives to create a site of learning and exchange for scholars and students of the social sciences.
期刊最新文献
Kids in limbo: War, uncertainty, and the school experiences of Ukrainian refugee students in Poland Know your place: Fractured epistemic privilege among women in state organizations Dividing paradise: Rural inequality and the diminishing American dream By JenniferSherman, Oakland, CA: University of California Press. 2021. pp. 288. $29.95 (pbk). ISBN: 9780520305137 Educational inequality as a consequence and cause of race The contribution of intimate partner violence to socioeconomic inequality among Black, Latina, and White women
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1