In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

CHAPTER 9 Everyday Continuity and Change: Family and Family Policy in Russia ——————————————————————————————————— Zhanna Kravchenko Introduction Social development in Russia in recent decades has been characterized by a complex and often contradictory constellation of traditional and modern elements of family life (Zdravomyslova, 2002). Public response to family change in the form of social policy has been contradictory as well. On the one hand, family policy inherited many legal and practical instruments from the Soviet period, which ensured some continuity in policy design. On the other hand, it has been reconsidered, redefined, and transformed. In the 1990s and the decade after, many national studies (see, for example, Antonov and Borisov, 1990; Darmodekhin, 2001; Lovtsova, 2003) were dedicated to formulating a normative foundation for implementing family policy—ideas about what should be done in order to sustain “a healthy, wealthy , and law-abiding family” (Klimantova, 2002, p. 13; emphasis added). The research on the relationship between institutionalized policies and family patterns tells us that “the governments do a lot [according to their ideas of the desired results for families] and want to do much more to support families with children” (Abrahamson et al., 2005, p. 210). It is commonly expected that such measures will be gratefully received by the target groups and incorporated into their practices. However, if it is assumed that the family is not merely a passive target of public policy and that individuals (groups) take responsibility for their own well-being, it is only logical to suggest that a policy can have varying effects that have not necessarily been anticipated by policymakers. This chapter first discusses the theoretical opportunities that the analysis of everyday life provides for understanding social policy. It then highlights how the transformation of family policy in one particular national context (the Russian Federation) suffers from data shortage, and it goes on to make a case for applying an everyday life perspective that has already produced an insightful body of research on social change in the country. Data analysis follows with a focus on daily routines developed by working parents and their reflections on the appropriate division of responsibilities and the role of policies in the process of reconciliation. I argue that family interactions at the individual level embrace the structural opportunities embedded in the design of family policy, translate the established hierarchical principles of gender organization in society, and at the same time create room for maneuvering and sustaining practices that are efficient for families depending on their individual circumstances. Social Policy and the Theory of the Everyday There are several axioms in classic social policy analysis. First, welfare policy is conceptualized in terms of interaction between the market and the state aimed at the (re)distribution of resources via the cash nexus and authoritative redistribution (Esping-Andersen, 1990). Second, redistribution effects vary between countries, but redistribution is generally aimed at decreasing the inequalities in the living standards (re)produced by the market (Korpi and Palme, 1998). And third, the opportunities for organizing the redistribution are structured by the system of economic and political relationships in a particular national context (O’Connor and Olsen, 1998). The most common criticism of this classical approach is presented by feminist scholars, who emphasize that the conventionally accepted postulates outlined here are rooted in the experiences of men. As a result, primarily by upholding the patriarchal division between the public and private spheres and by binding the entitlement to social rights to participation in the labor market (Sainsbury, 1996), they fail to reveal some of the mechanisms that in fact sustain inequalities. A considerable amount of research has emphasized the role of female employment and social rights (e.g., Hobson, 1990, 2000; Lewis, 1992; Orloff, 1993; Sainsbury, 1996). But more importantly, it has revealed that the welfare system can mirror and regulate gender relations in a rather explicit way before, during, and beyond employment. With regard to the latter aspect, it is important to note that, although women’s position as workers is important for how they realize their social rights, their role as potential caregivers (mothers) is also built into social policy design, even though not all women necessarily experience it (Daly and Lewis, 2000; Leira, 1992). Crompton (1999) and Pfau-Effinger (2004) introduce one more dimension to the discussion about the gendered division of labor in society, namely men’s involvement in work and care. All these studies develop the notion that there are multiple dimensions in gender relations that can both exist in...

Share