[Feature: Changing Families and Child-rearing] Kota Toma: Rethinking Familialism through Social Care

2024/03/05

Among the various issues surrounding the family, child abuse is perhaps one of the most socially prominent in recent years. The number of abuse consultations handled by child guidance centers has increased nearly 200-fold over the past 30 years, from 1,101 cases in fiscal 1990 to 219,170 cases (preliminary figure) in fiscal 2022. It would be a mistake to view this increase in consultations as meaning that "the number of abusive parents has increased" or that "children are in a more dangerous situation than ever before." This is because the scope of acts included in the recorded "abuse" is not static and has been expanding year by year (e.g., domestic violence in the presence of a child). Therefore, the increase in the number of abuse consultations should be seen as an expression of society becoming extremely sensitive to the phenomenon of child abuse. In other words, precisely because society has become more focused on child abuse, things that were previously overlooked (e.g., a child crying in the house next door in the middle of the night) are now being reported to child guidance centers, which is thought to be driving up the number of cases handled.*1

Along with the growing social attention to child abuse, there are various discussions regarding the nature of social care. Social care is defined as "the social upbringing and protection of children who have no guardians or for whom it is inappropriate to be cared for by their guardians under public responsibility, as well as providing support to families facing significant difficulties in child-rearing."*2 In the past, social care was literally a system for rescuing "children without parents," but in response to the aforementioned rise in concern over child abuse, it has increasingly taken on the character of a "system for rescuing abused children" in recent years.*3

Social care, which is the act of caring for children on behalf of their guardians, might at first glance seem like a mismatch for this special feature on the nature of the family. However, from the perspective of family sociology, social care holds significant implications for thinking about the family. In this short essay, I will consider the problems of familialism in Japanese society through the lens of social care. Familialism here refers to a "social structure that assigns the primary obligation for welfare to the family and normalizes such assignment as 'good.'"

The reason social care is important in considering the family is that it is positioned as a "non-family performing familial functions." Figure 1 is by Hiroyuki Kubota*4, who analytically diagrammed the functions that have traditionally been considered "performed by the family." Kubota lists three functions traditionally seen as "belonging to the family": care for dependents (C), communal living (L), and intimate relationships including sexuality between adults (I), and organizes the spheres in which these are carried out as shown in this diagram. Furthermore, he suggests that by analyzing scenes where these functions emerge across the boundaries of family and non-family, rather than starting from a bundle of these functions, it becomes possible to consider the big question of "What is a family?" As shown in this figure, Kubota defines the "traditional family" as a group where the three spheres overlap and which is based on blood relations and legal marriage. This can be said to be almost synonymous with the modern family composed of a "heterosexual couple and their biological children." Hereafter, this article will also refer to such groups as families.

Whether in institutional care or family-based care, children receive care from foster parents or facility staff under communal living. And in foster families or couple-based facilities, it is common for intimate relationships, including sexuality, to exist between the adults who are the carers. In this way, functions that have been considered "belonging to the family" are being fulfilled in social care as well, but on the other hand, the current situation in Japanese society is that the tendency to view social care as "being a family" is not very strong, except among the parties involved. This is why social care is positioned as a "non-family performing familial functions."

One implication of focusing on social care as a "non-family performing familial functions" is that it can clearly illuminate the issue of norms surrounding the family. As will be discussed later, even when discussing the nature of social care, which is generally regarded as non-family, family norms are sometimes strongly mobilized. The fact that family norms are mobilized even for non-families is itself evidence of the strength of familialism in Japanese society, but the specific problems resulting from such norms cannot be fully clarified by looking at the family alone.

So far, I have shown the positioning and implications of social care as a "non-family performing familial functions." Next, let us examine how family norms are mobilized in discussions surrounding social care.

Regarding social care in post-war Japan, it has been repeatedly argued that the environment should be brought closer to that of a "home" (hereafter referred to as the "familiarization of social care"). Specifically, these arguments have discussed increasing the proportion of family-based care within social care as a whole and downsizing the operational forms of institutional care.

The background to the aim of "familiarization of social care" is the goal of guaranteeing the rights of each child receiving social care by responding individually to their needs. In post-war Japan, one of the consistent criticisms directed at institutional care is that it cannot sufficiently guarantee the "individuality of care." Such criticisms have pointed out the difficulty of building stable relationships with specific caregivers and the necessity of treating multiple children through uniform support programs as limitations of institutional care. To overcome these limitations, it has been argued that operational forms should be made smaller, like a "home." Furthermore, the international trend of growing interest in children's rights has also significantly influenced the argument for the "familiarization of social care."

When the "familiarization of social care" is argued, it can be said that what is envisioned by the word "home" is the care of children in the modern family. As per Note 2, the argument for the "familiarization of social care" consists of two pillars: improving the ratio of family-based care and downsizing institutional care. Summarizing the common characteristics of foster families and family homes (which fall under family-based care) and small-group care (cited as an example of downsizing facilities), the "home" referred to there is a way of "caring for a small number of children with a small number of adults." This type of care is precisely what was established after the advent of the modern family.*5 In other words, the core of the argument for the "familiarization of social care" is to use care in the modern family as a model and aim to bring social care closer to it.

While the fact that improvements in the upbringing environment for children receiving social care are being aimed for and actively discussed is not something to be criticized, there are several problems with the argument for the "familiarization of social care." Due to space constraints, I would like to limit my points to two.*6 The first problem is that the argument for the "familiarization of social care" is often made based on an incorrect perception of the current situation. Among the arguments advocating for the familiarization of social care, many speak as if the low rate of foster care placement is the only problem, stating things like "Japan remains the poorest country for foster care from an international perspective.*7" However, this perception is not accurate. As Yasuhiro Kamimura has clarified, when looking at the ratio to the total population under 20, the number of children living not only in foster care but also in facilities is actually small in Japan compared to other countries. Therefore, the real issue to be addressed is not that "there are no people willing to become foster parents," but that "social care as a whole, including facilities and foster parents, is impoverished.*8"

The other problem is that by modeling care on the family without sufficient evidence, there is a danger of unfairly disparaging the children receiving social care and the carers who support them. Although the "familiarization of social care" has been argued for a long time, the significance of growing up in a "family-like environment" has not actually been asserted with sufficient evidence. To empirically support the claim that "it is desirable to grow up in a family-like environment," it would be necessary to conduct surveys on the current livelihoods, physical and mental health, and well-being of those from family-based care and those from institutional care, and to compare and examine the results. However, to the best of my knowledge, such attempts have not been carried out systematically. Furthermore, if we follow the principle of "individuality"—that care should be provided according to the needs of each child—then studies using past case records should be conducted to determine what kind of environment (family or facility; if a facility, small-scale or large-scale, etc.) is appropriate for caring for children with what kind of needs. But such efforts have not particularly been made either. In light of this current situation, one cannot help but evaluate the argument for the "familiarization of social care" as being developed without sufficient evidence, under the normative assumption that "care by the family is desirable" and "the family is an ideal care environment." Idealizing family care without sufficient evidence in this way risks disparaging care in social care as "something not ideal" or "second-rate," and could lead to a discriminatory gaze that treats the children growing up there as "deviant beings."

So far, I have pointed out the problems inherent in uncritically modeling family care, using the "familiarization of social care" as an example. However, the fact that modeling or idealizing care in the family results in problems is not actually limited to social care. Familialism can also result in problems for care within the family. The groundless normative assumption that "the family is an ideal care environment" easily slides into the assumption that "if it's a family, they should be able to handle the care," leading to viewing families that cannot sufficiently handle care as deviant beings. In addition, Japanese social welfare is based on an "application-based system" where services are not provided unless the parties involved apply for them. Under such a structure, those who have internalized the norms that absoluteize family care may fail to apply for support out of fear of being seen as deviant, potentially resulting in a situation where they cannot be connected to support.

Let me give one example. In the "3rd Survey on Life and Mutual Support" conducted by the National Institute of Population and Social Security Research in 2022, people with children under 18 were asked if they "know about children's cafeterias/community cafeterias," and those who answered "yes" were further asked about their actual usage experience using a three-point scale: "have used," "have not used," and "no need to use." The results are surprising. Among the 2,146 people who knew about children's cafeterias/community cafeterias, the percentage of those who answered "have used" was 3.3%, while 69.1% answered "have not used" and 26.7% answered "no need to use."*9 Looking at the results plainly, nearly 70% of those who know about children's cafeterias/community cafeterias "have not used" them, even though it is not the case that they have "no need to use" them. Of course, there are likely various reasons for "not having used" them, but doesn't this also reflect, to no small extent, the aspect of suppressing the receipt of support due to the internalization of the family norms mentioned above? If such suppression of support receipt due to the internalization of norms causes further difficulties for the family in the future, it is an ironic situation that should be called the "complication of the family brought about by familialism."

To solve the problem, it is necessary to promote the de-familialization of care. The de-familialization of care here includes two interrelated meanings. One is the meaning of moving the burden and responsibility of guaranteeing survival away from the family and sharing it fairly across society as a whole. This is synonymous with what was proposed by Esping-Andersen.*10 The other is the meaning of not setting the family as a condition for providing social security or social welfare. If the family or home is set as a condition for social welfare or social security, it is impossible to avoid the risk of unfairly excluding specific groups from that framework or unfairly imposing something on groups deemed to be within the framework. Regardless of whether one belongs to a family or not, we should further explore ways to provide universal support to individuals with any kind of needs and those who care for them.*11

*2 Children and Families Agency website. Social care roughly consists of two types: family-based care such as foster parents and family homes, and institutional care such as children's homes and emotional disturbance institutions for children.

*6 For a more detailed discussion, please refer to the following books and articles by the author. Kota Toma, 2017b, "Sociology of Alternative Care," Koyo Shobo; Kota Toma, 2023, "Familialism in Policies Concerning Children," Contemporary Social Pathology 38: 21-34.

*9 National Institute of Population and Social Security Research, 2023, "2022 Basic Survey on Social Security and Population Issues: Summary of Results of the Survey on Life and Mutual Support" (Summary of Results of the Survey on Life and Mutual Support).