Michèle Barrett and Mary McIntosh argue in The Anti-Social Family that while everyone deserves "love, kinship, and nice things to eat," the (mid-20th Century Western [British] concept of the) family is not necessarily the ideal way to obtain them. In four parts, they argue that the more a society depends on the family to provide these things, the weaker the society becomes at providing these things for all in an equitable way.
First published in 1982, the argument -- at times -- feels as modern and controversial as any contemporary leftist writing: "Marx and Engels may have called . . . for the abolition of the family, but socialists have long regarded this as a flight of utopian fancy." They acknowledge from the start that the book concentrates on a white, hetero-normative understanding of family and that this decision is both purposeful and yet lacking.
The next two parts are about defining this concept of family. They describe both how it only exists as a construct (i.e. the idea of the family as a natural phenomenon) and how that construct fails many -- especially those oppressed by it through unequal cultural and political means by the ideology of famialism -- namely women and children.
The third section is devoted to analysis of then-contemporary philosophy on family. This is in reference to Jacques Donzelot's "The Policing of Families" and Christopher Lasch's critique of it, but also references Freud and Focault. Having never read any of the texts I found this section difficult, but I appreciated the authors' style of critique -- naming both what they saw as flawed and what they felt should be praised despite those flaws.
The final section on strategies for change might be what most readers are eager to get to. In summation, they are that we should work toward any change that gives people choice in their living arrangements but that we should also be striving toward collectivism and away from individualism.
With that in mind, the personal politics they prescribe are thus:
1. Encourage variety. The authors take care here to list some alternative family structures that will likely not end familialism outright (like open marriages and women's separatism) but remind the reader that while it may be easy to dream up alternatives to the family, "it is even easier to ridicule other people's dreams."
2. Avoid oppressive relationships. Here they name what it seemed to me they were orbiting the whole book. "We believe socialists and feminists should not get married themselves and should not attend or support the marriages of any who can be convinced of our critique of family," (They make an exception for paper marriages as immigration loopholes.) Married myself, I still appreciated the point that "nobody, man, child, invalid, or woman needs a long-term 'house-wife' or has a right to one." After all, exploitative unpaid labor by any other name is still just that.
3. Beware of domesticity. They argue against making the home and the child-rearing life the sources of your deepest satisfaction. Homes should have private spaces for all occupants (including children who might be considered occupants with "full-membership rights.") If dad has an office, mom deserves one too (before devoting an empty room to the idea of future guests). Fight the idea that public spaces are simply places you shop for commodities to bring back to your private space. And what would a leftist book be without a hint to attend public meetings?
They list some things they think you should fight for, e.g. good wages for women and young people, much more robust social security, better housing for all, and parents' rights -- by which they mean not simply the limited choice to raise your child in a way that benefits the state (by producing a mild-mannered worker) but more that all parents should have the same choices for raising their child that the wealthy do.
There are as many great points in this book as there are less strong, outdated arguments by the nature of this book being 40 years old. The post-script, written in 1991, can be perhaps be summarized as "oops, we forgot about racism." But if we critique this book in the way they show how to critique interesting yet problematic texts, I think we will find much to appreciate even as we acknowledge what is missing or no longer relevant.
