Why Europe Is Lesbian and Gay Friendly (and Why America Never Will Be)

Chapter 2: Commitment to Care

19 Chapter 2  Commitment to Care In answering the question “Why is Europe lesbian and gay ­ friendly?” this chapter draws on welfare theory literature to begin constructing a frame for understanding the cultural and political context of European lesbian- and gay-friendly policies. In doing so, it lays the foundation for a comparative consideration of European and U.S. lesbian and gay politics later in the book. The focus here is on the shared values that underpin welfare in Europe based on the postWorld War II consensus; the subsequent restructuring of welfare due to the demands of economic efficiency; and the relationship between economic interdependency and welfare policies. The final section opens discussion about the social inclusion of lesbian and gay men by considering policy advances and limitations within the rubric of the EU. The following chapter considers European secularization and Christian values that influence welfare as a distinctive element of this analytical frame. European Welfare In contemporary global capitalism, and in Western democracies in particular, the possible methods of delivering welfare services are somewhat limited. Capitalism and democracy mix to cause particular “welfare reactions.” In this context, ideological disputes about 20 Why Europe Is Lesbian and Gay Friendly the proper role of the state in promoting social welfare are largely differences within a broadly liberal tradition.1 With social democratic models of welfare at one end, and corporatist models at the other, welfare debates are a careful balance between public and private provision. Welfare provision remains one of the last contested small scraps of terrain in which Western democracies find a sense of national identity and state power through, for example, providing efficient , quality services for citizens or by enabling citizen’s free choice in the marketplace without constraints of state intervention. Given the limited parameters of this welfare conversation, it is fairly easy to identify consistencies between countries particularly across geographically close, economically interdependent, and culturally similar countries. However, although the possible ideological terrain is limited and outcomes occasionally are similar, there remain significant points of difference between, for example, European countries and America regarding welfare provision. Often these differences reflect values based on broadly shared understandings of the relationship between the state and citizens. As Michael Moore’s film Sicko aptly depicts on screen, the shared commitment to capitalism and democracy does not necessarily lead to similar health policy outcomes in the United States and in European countries. Moore’s film enacts a simplistic principle: Europe = health care that is good and affordable; Unite States = health care that is good, but only for those who can afford it. Moore does not offer an academic comparative policy analysis. However, what he captures on the faces of participants—and cinema audiences in America and Europe experienced—are the vast cultural differences concerning the type, expediency, cost, and quality of care expected on opposite sides of the Atlantic. This is health care, but not as “we” know it. Of course, this necessitates defining “we.” The implication of audience laughter, shared group responses, identification, or situational recognition is built on some kind of shared cultural currency. It is my argument here that in Europe this shared identity emerged from common post-war experiences and from deliberately cultivated economic interdependency.2 These gave rise to mutual institutional guarantees that facilitate economic growth in conjunction with social protection of citizens. Each EU country maintains its nation-specific mixed economy of care provision, but ideological commonalities are evident in the articulation of a commitment to ensuring basic social rights for citizens, for example, in the emerging European Social 21 Commitment to Care Model (ESM). The Maastricht Treaty emphasizes diversity of social provision over harmonization, but there is a recognizable “progressive convergence of views within the EU.”3 There may be a recognizable European “we” and the European political system reflects and retains significant diversity.4 “We” Compare The challenge of identifying points of similarity and difference between “we” and “not we” motivates much of comparative welfare literature. As Abrahamson observes in “The Welfare Modeling Business ,” typologies are used effectively to distinguish specific policy differences and institutional features as well as to track evidence of globalization and Europeanization.5 Abrahamson notes that the quest for typologies has motivated much of the discipline for the past 50 years, particularly since Wilenski and Lebeaux’s Industrial Society and Social Welfare.6 But, he argues, modeling should be situated: “context matters.”7 For example, Wilenski and...