ANNOTATED LITERATURE REVIEW

Use this table of contents for the model Literature Review to find the section(s) you want to look at.

Introduction

2.1 Fathers – And a Secure Base

2.2 Fatherhood - The Changing Role

2.3 Feminist Theory – Gendered Roles

2.4 Fatherhood and its Complexities …

2.5 Fathers in other cultures

2.6 Working-Class Fathers …

2.7 Fathers and the Family Friendly Workplace

2.8 Research Question

Chapter Two

Literature review

The literature relevant to research into fatherhood is diverse and describes some dynamically interactive elements constitutive of the social construction of fatherhood. This chapter provides a summary of those topics considered to be most relevant to the research problem. It begins with a discussion of the significance of the father to the development of children followed by a brief description of the changing role of fatherhood. This is followed by an analysis of gendered parenting roles and the contradictions that exist for men between dominant patriarchal views of fatherhood and those fathering behaviours that are resistant to dominant beliefs. A comparative analysis is provided through the examination of cross-cultural experiences followed by a discussion on oppression and resistance and the relevance of this to working-class men. Finally there is a review of the current literature on the development of Family Friendly Workplace Policy

2.1 Fathers – And a Secure Base

Move 1. The importance of attachment to the child leading to the importance of attachment to the father; its impact on the child Theories about the significance of attachment for the mental health of humankind raise the issue of the significance of fathers as care givers and providers of secure attachment to their children.

Writers on attachment theory emphasise the importance to a child of forming secure attachments to care givers. The security provided by such attachments will improve the opportunity for that child to be confident, outgoing and secure, and to form secure attachments when adult (Bowlby 1969; Garbarino 1999). Move 2. Primary attachment can be to both parents (room for the father also)

It has been commonly believed that the mother of an infant is automatically considered to be the principal attachment figure. Bowlby argues that this is not necessarily the case. He points out that while it is,

… usual for a child’s natural mother to be his principal attachment figure … it is evident that whom a child selects as his principal attachment figure and to how many other figures he becomes attached, turn, in large part, on who cares for him and on the composition of the household in which he is living (1969:305).

Furthermore Bowlby challenges an exclusively biologically determined conceptualisation of the attachment figure and focuses on the quality of the attachment provided. He notes that,

Some mothers who were available all day were not responsive to or sociable with their infants, whereas some fathers who were not frequently available interacted strongly with them. In such families (Schaeffer and Emerson found) a child tended to become more intensely attached to father than to mother (Bowlby 1969:315).

The significance of the primary attachment figure is further developed by Biller (1993:11) who noted that infants who are well fathered ‘show approximately equal attachment to both parents’, and these children are more socially adaptable and cognitively advanced.

Bowlby reports on research that includes the impact on children of different combinations of secure/insecure attachment to either one, or both parents and concludes that;

Children with a secure relationship to both parents were most confident and most competent; children who had a secure relationship to neither were least so; and those with a secure relationship to one parent but not the other came in between (Bowlby 1997:10).

Move 3: The impact of father-child bonding on the father – establishing a link to child security/development Garbarino (1999:52) emphasizes the significance of the father. He states that ‘attachment is one of the crucial building blocks in the process of emotional development’ and that when these bonds are not secured children have trouble learning the basics of ‘empathy, sympathy and caring’. Furthermore children who grow up without a father ‘are at risk for low school achievement, low involvement in the labour force, early childbearing, and delinquency’ (Cabrera & Peters 2000:298) and are twice as likely to be incarcerated (Cabrera and Peters 2000, Garbarino 1999, Popenoe 1996).

Studies on father child bonding indicate that fathers who have opportunities and the will to form strong relationships with their infant children can experience an increased level of personal and emotional growth.

Fathers also spoke of other rewards of being a father of an infant: increased self esteem: a new dimension to life, new pleasures, powerful sensations of protectiveness, the discovery of a spontaneous fun loving side within themselves and a sense of purpose, meaning and fulfillment (Russell et al. 1999:6).

This increase in personal and emotional growth for fathers is mirrored in the benefits for the child. Biller (1993:4) notes that ‘effective fathering increases the child’s chances of developing a positive body image, self esteem, moral strength, and intellectual and social competence’.

Move 4: Concluding statement highlighting the significance of this section. These studies demonstrate the significance to the child of having a secure relationship with both mother and father. It appears that attuned, responsive fathers matter to the development of children (and their mothers) and furthermore that growing up without one may increase the levels of developmental risk to a child.

2.2 Fatherhood - The Changing Role

Research into the changing role of fathers has generated a variety of definitions in order to describe a range of diverse fathering styles such as; ‘participant fathers’ (Rotundo 1997), ‘involved fathers’ (Russell et al. 1999) and ‘authoritative fathers’ (Amato 1998).

Russell distinguishes participant fathers from traditional fathers. Participant fathers are those that have equal responsibility for childcare with mothers. These fathers believe that, ‘mothers and fathers should have equal responsibility and that they are both as capable of caring for their children’ (Russell 1983:48).

Russell (1983:48) defines the ‘traditional father’ as one who see himself primarily as the breadwinner and

His participation is usually manifested in his availability and involvement in play. Although he will somewhat reluctantly “help out” with childcare tasks when there is pressure to do so, he sees child care as being the primary responsibility of mothers.

Russell does not take into account that the above identification of the childcare role as the primary responsibility of women is a dimension of a gendered division of labour which has, in the past, excluded women from the workforce and relegated them to the unpaid labour of raising the next generation of workers necessary for the capitalist economy. Furthermore, such economic structures reinforce patriarchal dominance (Reiger 1991) and become sources of internalised oppression that can lead to the continuance of oppressive power relations with women and children.

2.3 Feminist Theory – Gendered Roles

Although the fight against male supremacy began in previous decades (Thompson 2001) the changing role of men within the context of the family has been, along with economic changes, shaped by the 1960’s Women’s Liberation Movement.

The benefit of studying feminist debates in the context of this research is that it provides a platform from which to critically view the social construction of the family and the gendered roles performed within it (Reiger 1991). In particular it provides critiques of the dominant, traditional role of fathers and the patriarchal institutions shaped and reinforced by capitalism in whose interest it is that these structures continue. Thompson (2001:21) argues that ‘feminism is a thoroughgoing critique of male domination wherever it is found and however it is manifested’.

Freedman (2001:1), who is concerned with ‘women’s inferior position in society and with discrimination encountered by women because of their sex’, provides the link to my research when she argues that,

… for centuries, biological difference has been the starting point for the creation of different social roles for women and men. Not only was women’s biological capacity for childbirth and breastfeeding and their generally lesser physical strength seen as determining their social role in the home ... but it was also claimed that these biological differences made them unfit to participate in the public sphere (Freedman 2001:12).

Thus, notions of biological difference can lead to gendered parenting roles with men seen as dominant over women and children. Patriarchy at its most oppressive gives men ownership and total control of the women and children in their family (Levison 1989).

Some Feminist writers theorise that dominant male relationships originate within families and are then replicated in wider society (Benjamin 1988; Chodorow in Rosaldo and Lamphere 1993). Benjamin (1988:8) notes that ‘the structure of domination can be traced … from the earliest awareness of the differences between mother and father to the global images of male and female in the culture.’ Furthermore, Chodorow argues that childhood experiences of gendered roles are appropriated, internalised and maintained to become a permanent part of a child’s personality. This has explanatory power in describing how oppressive power structures can be internalised and reproduced. (Chodorow in Rosaldo and Lamphere 1995:45)

Reiger (1991:55) argues that, while there are increasing examples of ‘role reversal’ families and that there has been a ‘good deal of satisfaction expressed about the involvement of fathers with their children’ these families are still in the minority. Furthermore, she argues that men who do participate in non-standard family roles (i.e. participant fathers) face the risk of social isolation and that amongst this pressure ‘norms’ of parenting have not changed greatly. ‘Breadwinning and disciplinary responsibility are still very much part of the expectations of being a father, and day to day care and affection are seen primarily as the mothers responsibility’ (Reiger 1991:55).

It would appear, based on the above arguments, that the impacts of patriarchy still pervade the social construction of the institution of the family. The emergence in the literature of ‘participant fathers’ appear as shards of light fracturing the fortified wall of patriarchal dominance and are suggestive of points of social change.

2.4 Fatherhood and its Complexities – ‘Real Men Cuddle Babies’ (Bryson 1999:211)

Activities we could use • an anticipate main points • match against paragraphs Valerie Bryson (1999:210) poses the question, ‘what is a nice man to do?’ in regards to the changing expectations of men’s role in today’s family. Disarming in its simplicity, this query may assist us in uncovering some of the real dilemmas within the contested context of fatherhood and gender relations that exist for both men and women (fathers and mothers) in contemporary society.

Pease (2002:78) states that ‘intimacy with children is in conflict with traditional forms of masculinity’. Many men experience some level of emotional vulnerability when they engage in intimate interactions with their children. Further Pease (2002 78) argues ‘these experiences are no doubt intensified by the lack of training men receive in nurturing’

It is argued that men resist intimacy in all areas of their social arrangements; with their partners, (Rowan in Pease 2002) with other men, (Garfinkel, Maas & Naridi in Pease 2002) and within the workplace and their social lives. In order to maintain levels of personal, cultural and structural power, men must be able to guard against their own emotional investment in the consequences of their decisions and must be blinkered to the potential pain their actions have for others (Sattel in Pease 2000). Patriarchal values dictate that ‘it is “soft” [for men] to be upset and vulnerable and it is a sign of weakness to be seen this way’ (Seidler 185:1991).

There are dilemmas for men over their traditional role as breadwinner versus new expectations of them as nurturers and being emotionally available to their children. Bryson (1999:213) identifies the difficulty of a ‘middle way’ between ‘guilt’ and 'self-righteousness’ and ‘providing support for women (when caring for their children) and taking over from them.’

Changing expectations among women and in some cases an increased desire amongst men to become more involved fathers is meeting resistance from dominant patriarchal structures that still identify women as the primary care givers and men as the providers.

In her 1993 study on men’s changing commitments to family and work, Kathleen Gerson devotes a chapter to the ‘dilemmas of involved fatherhood.’

As they looked for commitments beyond the workplace and became involved with women who desired and expected help in child rearing, involved fathers found unexpected pleasure in parenting. Spending time with their children became just as important to them as contributing money. Becoming an involved father, however, meant trading some historically male advantages for the chance to ease some historically male burdens. (Gerson 1993:215)

Men struggle to pioneer new ways between the conflicting tensions of the pleasure of attuned, responsive parenting with the increased levels of intimacy that this implies and the retention of male privilege associated with emotional distance and the role of disciplinarian and sole breadwinner reinforced by cultural stereotypes and economic capitalism.

2.5 Fathers in other cultures

Activity: Identify purpose and sections (click start and end of the two themes)

The purpose of examining the practices of fatherhood in another culture is twofold. Firstly, it is to identify the significance that cultural factors play in the amount and type of interaction fathers have with their children. Secondly, it is to provide evidence that ‘fatherhood’ is not a ‘natural’ but a socially constructed phenomenon and is therefore subject to change. Hewlett argues that by:

… looking outside of our own culture, we come to better understand how our own culture affects how we feel what is right or wrong. We begin to evaluate our own cultural assumptions about the role of fathers and, why paternal involvement is highly desirable (Hewlett 2000:60-61).

Hewlett reports that within Aka traditional culture fathers participate in more infant care giving than those in any other known society.

Forty seven percent of the father’s time [is spent] within arm’s reach of their infants, they may hold their child close to their bodies for up to two daylight hours and often comfort the baby at night, singing softly. Aka babies seek out their fathers … and, more like a western mother, the father takes his cues from his baby (Monasso 2001:8).

Hewlett (2000:63) identifies a variety of factors in Aka society that contribute to the attuned, responsive fathering of Aka men. These include ‘high fertility, no warfare, a non-violent ideology, flexible gender roles, male-female cooperative net hunting and valuing both male and female children.’

Their respective environments and culture shape both Aka and Western fathers. Monasso (2001:9) observes that while the ‘Aka culture and environment produce fathers who are heavily involved in the care of their children; Western cultures and environments commonly produce the opposite;’ that is, distant, disciplinarian and provider (Reiger 1991) contrasted with the attuned responsiveness of the Aka.

By studying other cultures we are able to gain a view of the practices of western fathers that appear ‘normal, or ‘natural’ to us and therefore beyond challenge. For example, Biddulph (1997:14-15) discusses the importance of being ‘demonstrative’ with our boys, ‘hugging, holding, and play tickling and wrestling games’. While these activities may improve contact between fathers and children and be a corrective for the absent or distant father they reinforce the ‘play’ dimension of traditional models of fathering.

The study of the Aka Pygmies found that Aka children are ‘very attached to their fathers, despite the fact that Aka fathers do not engage in rough and tumble play.’ Instead, it appears that Aka infants form an attachment to their fathers characterized by attuned, responsive, nurturance and reinforced by ‘regular communication, and being held frequently’ (Hewlett 2000:63).

2.6 Working-Class Fathers – Oppression and Resistance

The relevance of a discussion of structural oppression to this research is that it provides a framework for exploring why male blue-collar workers (working class) may be disadvantaged in their opportunities to experience the pleasure of participant parenting.

Mullaly (2002:27) defines oppression as, ‘the domination of subordinate groups in society by a powerful (politically, economically, socially and culturally) group. Furthermore, he argues the Marxian point that oppressed people serve as a ready supply of labour to carry out menial and dangerous jobs in society and that ‘oppression carries out certain social or political functions for the dominant group ensuring that society reproduces itself and maintains the same dominant-subordinate relationships’ (Mullaly 2002:29). Manifestations of oppression can be observed in male domination over women through patriarchal social structures, marginalisation of coloured people due to racist beliefs, and the subordination of working class people by a wealthy minority shaped by capitalist economic values (Thompson 1993, Mullaly 2002).

It is a contradiction that while working class men often identify manual work as reinforcing their feelings of masculinity (Pease 2002) (and therefore their dominance as a male within a patriarchal society) the pressure of production targets, being directed by foremen and supervisors and having to put up with constant noise and dirt are common experiences for such workers (Connell in Pease 2002). Such work challenges men’s experiences of seeing themselves as dominant.

The above discussion on the changing role of fathers seemed to indicate that some men are beginning to resist at the point where the personal becomes political, that is their own fatherhood. Foucault (in Mullaly 2002:21) suggests that every exercise of power is contested and that resistance itself is an act of countervailing power.’

Gray and Stanton (2002:8) in their research into Family Friendly Policies draw our attention to the critical theory question ‘who is doing what to whom and in whose interests is it?’ They note that,

…there have been a number of studies which have investigated the benefits to employers of introducing a range of family-friendly work arrangements, however most of these studies have focussed on the benefits of retaining highly trained, highly skilled employees. It is hard to know the extent to which there are immediate benefits to employers for introducing family-friendly work arrangements for lower skilled employees (Gray and Stanton 2002:8).

There are a few points worth noting here. Firstly, studies into Family Friendly Work Policies (FFP’s) are focussed on the benefits to employers for whom, under economic capitalism, profit is the prime value. Secondly, if you are unskilled and less trained (working class) you are of less value (easily replaced) to employers and therefore there is little benefit to employers of FFP. Lastly, to paraphrase Marx (1954:293), he who controls the means of production exercises the power to control the relationship between men and their children. The above suggests that workers can be dehumanised and treated like machines from which one requires maximum efficiency only to be replaced when it/he becomes inefficient.

Studies such as those completed by the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) (2002) and Russell (1999, 2000, 2003) have provided analysis into the benefits of FFP’s and the impacts such policies can have for both the employer and fathers and mothers alike. However such research fails to consider the impact that oppressive organisational structures (such as dominant/subordinate employer/employee relations) and modern economic reforms, characterised by individualism, inequality and competitive capitalism, have on both maintaining patriarchal norms and impeding the potential development of blue-collar fathers participating more fully in the care of their children.

Russell (2003) makes statistical references to the higher number of weekly hours worked by managers over unskilled workers and outlines the impact such pressures place on these fathers, without giving recognition to impediments faced by working class employees such as those identified by Seidler (1991:112);

The conditions of modern capitalist production encourage working-class men increasingly to discount their experience at work, especially where it means being ordered around and subordinate all day. Often men feel they are ‘doing it for the family and kids’, otherwise they would not work in the place.

Such dissatisfaction within workplace roles and the fact that many ‘working-class men are still forced to work in order to simply survive and get enough money to live on’ (Seidler 1991:111) contrast starkly with the privileges of choice afforded wealthier classes who at least have opportunities to ‘reduce working hours, increase flexibility [or] change to a less demanding job’ (Russell and Hwang (2003:34).

These different perceptions of working roles are supported by Cohen (1993:19) who noted that working-class men’s,

…status as husbands and especially as fathers frequently led them to take or keep the jobs they were in. They became “locked into” their jobs because the responsibilities of parenthood made occupational change difficult.

This analysis supports the notion that working-class men, by the nature of their occupations, are likely to find it more difficult to redefine their role in relation to the care of their children.

2.7 Fathers and the Family Friendly Workplace

The notion of the ‘family friendly workplace’ has gained exposure within the development of Australian Industrial Relations policy (DEWR 2003).

The role of the Work and Family Unit in the federal Department of Employment and Workplace Relations is to promote the implementation of family-friendly working arrangements, and to increase awareness of the opportunities available to include work and family provisions in workplace agreements (Earle 2002:15).

One of the difficulties in equitable distribution of FFP’s is the lack of formalised industrial relations legislation. Earle (2002:13) notes that,

While informal agreements, company policy or management practices may suit an organization in the short-term, there are good reasons to include family-friendly practices in formal agreements.

One of these ‘good reasons’ is that, for employees a more formal approach can promote awareness of and access to family-friendly policies (Earle 2002:13).

While there were a variety of definitions sourced for FFP’s (Bittman and Pixley 1997, Russell and Bowman 2000, AIFS 2002, Russell and Hwang 2003 and Thornthwaite 2002,) the following provided by Edgar appears the most representative.

Access to employment opportunities and earn an adequate income while at the same time looking after the caring responsibilities of family life (Edgar in Russell and Bowman, 2000:5).

Within this discussion there has been only limited reference to what might be described as ‘father friendly policies’, or those that provide adequate opportunity for fathers to engage in participant parental behaviours. This minimal discussion on father friendly provisions within the work/family sphere becomes even more apparent when viewed against the level of debate that has occurred on issues such as maternity leave, child care arrangements, and job sharing, those typically described as ‘women’s issues’ (Cohen 1993:20) rather than ‘fatherhood’ or ‘family’ issues. The danger associated with the uneven nature of the policy direction is that traditional gender roles within families such as the mother as ‘child carer’ and the father as ‘financial provider’ could be reinforced, not deconstructed (Grace 2003). Could use this as an activity to improve writing. Give additional information motes from sources (plus extraneous ones) – rank/select points - order points within paragraph (could develop a point map of the paragraph - write own paragraph and compare with model (provide commentary on model. While research into work life balance is readily available studies into the workplace and the needs of fathers is less available. This topic gains some discussion in broader writings such as ‘Father’s and Families’, (Biller 1993), ‘A Man’s World? Changing Men’s Practices in a Globalized World’ (Pease et al. 2001) The Impact of Workplace Practices on Father Involvement (Russell and Hwang 2003) and the OECD Review of Family Friendly policies (FACS & DEWR 2002).

Since 1983 Graeme Russell has been a researcher and advocate for the development of father friendly work practices. Russell’s work has notably been complemented by the research completed through the AIFS, a summary of which may be found in the Autumn 2002 publication of ‘Family Matters’ magazine.

Much of the work completed by Russell and the AIFS is directed towards the benefits of father friendly work practices at a white collar and executive level (Gray and Stanton 2002, Russell 1998). Very little research has been directed towards the potential benefits to and rights of low skilled ‘factory floor’ employees working in all male work places.

It is here that I believe that I have identified a gap in the research and it is through my analysis of the experiences of working-class fathers and the impediments that exist in allowing them to become more attuned and responsive as fathers that I believe I can contribute to the current fatherhood discussion.

2.8 Research Question

• What might be the personal, cultural and structural barriers faced by working class fathers in fully experiencing emotional engagement and responsive caring of their infant children?

Sub questions

• What structural impediments are there to workers accessing ‘family friendly’ policies within the workplace? • To what degree do blue collar male dominated workplaces reinforce traditional patriarchal roles? • What are the internalised impediments to the changing role of fatherhood?

Activity:

What do you think you would need to do in order to substantiate this as a research question? How do you • Establish that this is a valid question • Relevant question • There is a gap in the literature
There could be activities such as • select the ‘arguments’ you would need to include from a list • put the arguments into a logical order • identify arguments that are irrelevant

Things to do • Talk with Marty about 2.2 Feminist theory – Gender roles Is this well developed or is there a gap/weakeness in the line of argument?
-----------------------
Should we comment on this paragrpgh? It seems to be incomplete and relevance unclear.

Generalisation to wider society, culture, and perpetuation through children.

Despite +ve , changes, this is still dominant culture

Patriarchy a major barrier
Some signs of change – hope.

Intimacy - masculinity

…†¤¥¦²³´µÒÓ♂Breadwinner vs nurturer

The basic dilemma – involved father -pleasure vs resistance

♀expectations♂desire for more involved fathers vs dominant patrairchal structures.

1. cultural factors →interaction of fathers
2. fatherhood socially constructed

Definition

Maintain current subordinate-dominant relationship

Expressions:
♂ domination of ♀
Subordination of working class

Reasons

Discussion of Family Friendly Policies

Contradiction in perceptions for WC♂ Masculinity and patriarchal dominance in family – oppressed in the workplace

Examines difference in pressures on manager to WC fathers

AIFS research shows benefits to mothers and fathers of FTPs in general but doesn’t consider oppression preventing WC fathers involvement in child care.

Establish acceptance of FTP principle with IR policy

Accepted definition of FTP

Grammar issue; should we tweak it?

This section seems to lack coherence or development.Check with Jeremy and Marty if we want to use this.

Point: danger of uneven policy direction
- perpetuation of traditional roles cf deconstruction

Establish that little research/knowledge about fathers work and family involvement for blue collar workers.

Could/should the link be made between participant fathers and work life balance?
Is this point made explicit enough?

Draws conclusion – Hence - the author can, with justification established, investigate this question.

Father friendly work for white collar workers but little for blue collar workers.