In a contemporary South African context a family would be classified as “a societal group that is related by blood, adoption, foster care, marriage, civil union or cohabitation and thus its definition go beyond particular physical residence” as it remains central in the lives of its members and provides them with emotional, economic support, socialisation, nurturing and thus care (Department of Social Development, 2012: 3). This essay therefore focuses on the role of care within families, how it is shaped by the racial trends in reference to the historical background of South Africa, the class distinctions that outline the access to care, the different gender norms and provision of care and thus the role of families, the state and the larger market place that persist to shape the provision of care for children within the family context of the contemporary South African context.
Racialised trends of family life and care
According to Budlender and Lund (2011) it was highlighted that the vision Apartheid was to reserve the cities for the White population and the African population was to live in ‘separate homelands’, furthermore this occurred through means of pass laws and restrictions that included the 1923: Native Urban Areas Act that shaped the housings that separated many African parents from each other, as men where often forced to move to urban areas for work, leaving women and children in rural areas (Bray et al, 2010), with limited resources and often under poor living conditions which impacted on the provision of care, shifting family life and structures and thus how care is done and who provides care today.
Although the apartheid often worked in favour of the white population, where family structures where secured alongside job and income security, highlighting the family structure often nuclear and stable family; which seem ideal, one would however note how this further encouraged the role of African and Coloured women as nannies towards the White population, having White children being raised by their caregivers who’s relationships would most often be discouraged as the children got older (Bray et al, 2010). Such differences and approaches to care are still evident in the current context where African and Coloured women are the primary caregivers for the White population whilst the White mothers are in the market place.
Class distinctions and their influence on access to different types of care
In terms of class distinctions, it is significant to note that because different classes have different access to resources, the type of education, income and thus the social context within which families reside; this therefore shapes how care is provided within different classes. In his work, Bray et al (2010) found that in poor/ low income households children are less likely to live with both parents and are more likely to live with one parent, of which would most often be the mother. In support to this the Cape Panel Area Study (2002) highlight that within the low-income population, only 32% of children under 13years of age lived with their parents, whereas it was 46% for the middle- income and a high of 69% in the high-income population (as cited in Bray et al, 2010). More so, of those children, specifically within the low income families are found to live apart from their fathers, of whom many are born outside of marriage, unofficial partnership and absent fathers. However the trend seems to grow throughout the classes as such rates are found to be more and more resulting from death or merely the parental separation (Bray et al, 2010).
Another consideration to the provision of care highlights the issue of accessible resources for different classes. This is seen where the middle to high income families have access to good childcare facilities such as nannies and nursery schools (Bray et al, 2010). However such trend does not exist within the low income families as childcare often comes with having economic stability, of which many lack, therefore we see the role of extended families come in and most often grandparents are left to care for the children whilst their parents seek jobs elsewhere of which the worst scenario would highlight death of the parent (Cohen & MacCartney, 2004).
Gender roles and norms in caring for children and families
For most of the twentieth century, mining industries introduced a trend that gave men eleven month contracts where they were housed in single- sex compounds and only given four weeks a year to spend with their families which gave very little time for men to spend time with their children and mothers being forced to be the primary caregivers (Budlender & Lund, 2011) thus the creation of gender norms and its provision of care. In support to such differences, Statistics South Africa as cited in Budlender & Lund (2011) further discovered that “men aged 15-64 years spent an average of three minutes a day of care while women the same age spend an average of thirty-nine minutes per day in caring for children in their own households” which reveals that women in comparison to men are more likely and are currently the primary carer in the households, considering all races and classes too.
Although migration was highlighted as having men as the majority that moved, there came a trend between the years 1970’s and the 1980’s that saw many women migrating to the cities themselves , leaving their children in the care of the grandparents (Bray et al, 2010). Even more so, positions of men within the households was further undermined as women joined the labour forces thus are able to receive cash grants towards child welfare, further favouring women as the heads of households and care providers (Bray et al, 2010), a trend that seem to be found in all areas of class and race too.
The role of families, the state and the market in the provision of care
The role of families as whole has much to determine the provision of care as families differ thus care is provided differently depending on the family structure. This may be explored in a sense that care within the nuclear families (as parents often work) the care of children would often be provided by nannies or childcare facilities (Cohen & MacCartney, 2004). This further varies where the extended family structure would likely be dependent on the role of the grandmother as the basic carer, where statistics found by Seekings and Moore (2014) support this as 18% of children between 0-6years and 31% of the 7-17years live with neither parent’s, thus care is often dependent on the family and its structures.
With the effects of Apartheid still roaming in the lives of South African families, we see the state getting involved through programmes such as the ECD programmes that aim at creating access to childcare and provide employment opportunities for women (Bulender & Lund, 2011) thus its attempts to develop market for women and further address the need for childcare facilities. This would also include the child care grant that are provided for single mothers, or family members who are primary carers for the children are given a R230, pension grants from grandparents, acting as a useful supplement for household budget and thus assists in care (Budlender & Lund, 2011).
Taking into consideration that Apartheid had shaped current ways in which families are structured, facilitated and how care is provided across all races, gender and class. As such trends persist one would also highlight that mothers’ are also left with the double burden, as they have to provide care whilst father’s spend less time in providing care, thus most often mothers become dependent on the role of the extended family, most often grandmother’s. Although such differences lay between classes and races, the state has and is still in the current process of bridging that gap that the apartheid era has built within families through programmes such as the ECD and the provision of grants.

Reference List
Bray, R., Gooskens, I., Moses, S., Kahn, L. & Seekings, J. (2010). Discourses and realities of family life. In Growing up in the new South Africa: Childhood and adolescence in post-apartheid Cape Town. Cape Town: HSRC Press.
Budlender, D., & Lund, F. (2011). South Africa: A Legacy of Family Disruption. Development and Change, 42(4), 925-946.
Cohen, P. & MacCartney, D. (2004). Inequality and the Family. In J. Scott, J. Treas & Richards,The Blackwell Companion to the Sociology of Families. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. 81-193.
Department of Social Development, 2012: 3, (2014).
Macionis, J., & Plummer, K. (2012). Sociology: A global introduction. Harlow, England; New York: Pearson/Prentice Hall, (5) 622-6228 & 637-653.
Seekings, J and Moore, E (forthcoming, 2014). Kinship, Market and State in the Provision of Care in South Africa. Sozialer Welt, Special Issue “Care set within the context of sociological debate”