Should the state interfere in matters concerning the family? A feminist view

Introduction

Is the family a private matter in which the state should not interfere, or is it a place where the state has duties to protect persons? The question asks for a discussion from the feminist perspective, which is why the family and the idea of privacy are central to this debate.

State intervention in the family

The case against intervention. On the conventional view the family is a private sphere of government non-interference, outside the domain of justice, which concerns the public sphere. Liberals, suspicious of political authority, value the family, caste or community only to the extent that individuals value them, and tend to put individual liberty first. Whether a grown daughter takes a job in another city, on this view, is hers to decide, not her relatives' or her community elders'.

The feminist reply. The syllabus sets the question within the feminist public/private debate and lists the 1985 essay "The Myth of State Intervention in the Family" among its readings. Susan Moller Okin argues that the family must be a main unit in any discussion of justice. A theory such as Rawls's, which leaves the household to private non-interference, has nothing to say about the oppression inside it: the unpaid work of the home, from meals to the bearing and raising of children, falls almost wholly on women, and that imbalance follows them into public life. A working mother in Kanpur who still cooks every meal and sits up with the baby every night, while her husband's evenings are his own, is the pattern in miniature. NCERT shows the same pattern in the division of labour and the double burden produced by patriarchy. And the state is never wholly absent: customs and legal systems have long protected unequal arrangements, so equality requires that the law stop protecting them. Intervention is then required to protect the equal rights of the family's members.

Where intervention is justified. (1) To secure children's rights: a constitutional right to primary education stays a right on paper for children whom household poverty keeps out of school; think of a twelve-year-old in a brick-kiln family that moves every season, who never stays long enough in one school to learn. (2) To end legal support for inequality: where a custom with the force of law gives, say, the husband alone the right to decide where the family lives, equality requires that the law stop protecting it. (3) To share the work of the household: radical feminists demanded an equal sharing of child care and housework. (4) To support family work so that women can enjoy equal rights outside it, since women sometimes need to be treated differently in order to enjoy the same rights as men; an employer that offers flexible hours to parents of young children, so that mothers are not pushed out of their jobs, is an example.

Limits. Intervention must protect persons, not enforce one pattern of family life. On reform of personal laws, NCERT's view is that the state should help change along by backing the liberal and democratic voices inside each religious community; it should not force reform through, or let one group force it, and nor should it keep entirely out of the matter. And consensual adult choices about one's own life remain the individual's.

The public/private divide and the feminist critique

The conventional division. The common view marks off a public sphere (state, law, politics, the market), the proper business of politics and of justice, from a private sphere (family and household) left to non-interference by government. NCERT shows how patriarchy builds on the division: women are made responsible for private and domestic matters, men for work in the public domain.

The feminist critique. Feminists make four points. (1) The division hides power. Calling the home private puts its arrangements, above all who does its unpaid daily work and the raising of children, beyond the reach of any test of fairness; a theory of justice that stops at the front door is, for that reason, incomplete. (2) The line is not real in practice. Women do not stay on the private side of it: most of them also work outside the home and still carry the housework alone, the double burden, and what they lose at home they lose again in public life. (3) The private is already shaped by law: unequal social arrangements have been protected by customs and by legal systems, so equality requires that the law stop protecting them; in India, personal laws on marriage, inheritance and other family matters are debated precisely because they may treat women unequally. Non-intervention is therefore itself a choice. (4) The slogan the personal is political (coined in the second wave by Carol Hanisch, and placed at the centre by radical feminists) says that women's personal lives reflect the power structures of a patriarchal society, and are therefore a matter of politics, not of private morality.

What follows. Feminists conclude that the public/private distinction and all forms of gender inequality can and should be eliminated: radical feminists sought to bring sexual politics into public discussion and to secure an equal sharing of child care and household work.

Cautions. Privacy remains a value. NCERT treats it as a right of individuals, one that can conflict with another person's freedom of expression and must then be balanced against it; reading a person's private messages and forwarding them to a family group without her consent is the kind of act it rules out. Liberals add that decisions about one's own life belong to the individual, not to the family, caste or community. The task is therefore to protect privacy as a right of persons and not as a shield for households.

Patriarchy

What strikes the observer first is a division of labour: women are expected to look after the private, domestic side of life and men the work of the public world. Yet most women also work outside the home, so they carry a double burden, and they are still given little or no voice in the decisions taken in public. Feminists name the system behind this patriarchy: a social, economic and cultural order that values men above women and gives men power over them. Its defence is the claim that the two sexes differ by nature and that the difference warrants their unequal positions. Feminists reply that most of the inequality between women and men is made by society rather than by nature, and can therefore be changed.

Forms. It works through law and custom, which for long kept women out of many professions and activities. It works through the family, where much of what women do goes unrecognised: the emotional and practical labour of raising children, nursing the sick and making the home liveable for those who work outside it. A household where the men are served first at every meal and the women eat what is left shows the same ranking in daily life. It follows women into paid work, where socialist feminists point to lower wages than men's and to sexual harassment. Second-wave writers such as Germaine Greer and Kate Millett widened the analysis to the sexual, psychological and personal side of women's oppression. Feminist strands explain it differently: ecofeminists see it in hierarchical pairs such as culture over nature and male over female; Marxist feminists, following Engels, ground women's oppression in class exploitation and in the family, where patriarchal forces make it appear natural; and socialist feminists, for whom capitalism is the first cause and patriarchy the second, see women's oppression as the joint product of gender together with class, race, ethnicity and sexuality.

Ending it. Feminists argue that the public/private distinction and all forms of gender inequality can and should be eliminated. The routes they have pressed include equal political and legal rights, notably the vote; equal access to education and economic opportunity; and an equal sharing of child care and household work.

Conclusion

A defensible position is selective intervention: where the family is a site of injustice or violence, the state both may and should act to protect the equal rights of its members, as feminists argue; for the rest, in matters of consensual choice and everyday family life, the state should leave persons free, as liberals insist.