Kelley Walker wrote:
>
> >Christopher Rhoades Dÿkema:
> > > This seems as simplistic as most anarchist prescriptions. ...
>
> no more simplistic than the claim that the family can only be reactionary!
I didn't claim that. Instead, I put forward, for discussion, some thoughts as to how the current legal basis of the family could change as part of progressive struggle. Nothing inconsistent with your thoughts about Eggs Benedict etc. If you look at my somewhat concrete proposals, you'll see that I was suggesting ways to make it possible for the family to be less, rather than more subservient to corporate imperatives. I don't see either large or small institutions as inevitably progressive or reactionary. The problem is that the left has left family and social welfare policy to the right. I don't necessarily think that the legal reforms I outlined are absolutely complete. However, you'll notice that there is a central theme -- that it serves a conservative end for the family to be the legal default nurturer, and for the norm to involve the current legal link between institutions of childrearing and institutions that exist to regulate what are primarily affective relationships between adults. There was no put-down of anybody in this, except for conservative cultural ideologues.
I'm curious to know your response to the proposals themselves.
Christopher Rhoades Dÿkema