Reactionism, Reform Or Revolution

Summary

1. INTRODUCTION

As a novice tutor in 1970, with little idea of how the Oxford system worked, John Eekelaar approached me to join him in teaching family law, which was new on the syllabus. When I say ‘approached’, my recollection is that he required me, quite commandingly, to take this on, and provided me with a students’ reading list, which remained my bible for many years. Fleetingly I resisted, believing that women were pigeonholed into family law, but fortunately I decided to teach what I enjoyed, and that was the start of my career teaching the subject. I will always be grateful to John for mapping it out. Over the years, our views on financial provision on divorce diverged, no doubt to the enrichment of the students that we taught. More recently, I have noticed a convergence. In his response to the Law Commission Consultation Paper on the matter, John espoused the notion of compensation, that the recipient should be under a duty to mitigate the loss, and that there should be an automatic limit on the duration of support. He also told the Law Commission that, ‘I believe it is no longer feasible to see marriage as an instrument for providing insurance for the period after the marriage ends.’ There could be no more authoritative call for reform of financial provision law on divorce.

2. REACTIONISM

Nevertheless, there has been no statutory reform of the law of financial provision for half a century. Every start on that path is energetically opposed by what I call the forces of reaction. They are peopled by barristers, and some solicitors, operating at the high end of divorces of couples with assets; and they include academics whose perspective is outdated.

My own views on reform are as ideological as anyone’s. They have been described as ‘neo-liberal’, not a philosophy I have ever taken an interest in. If that means that ordinary economic forces should apply to women’s involvement in the workplace, then that seems to me to be a good thing. To rule out automatically the requirement and ability of any divorced woman, with or without children, ever to keep herself again is as insulting and self-fulfilling an approach as the reported automatic low expectations of ethnic minority schoolchildren.