Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-26T00:32:41.217Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Family Secrets: Law and Understandings of Openness in Everyday Relationships

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2009

CAROL SMART
CAROL SMART*
Affiliation:
Co-Director, The Morgan Centre for the Study of Relationships and Personal Life, School of Social Sciences, University of Manchester, Arthur Lewis Building, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Uncovering old or historical family secrets has become an enjoyable pastime yet in contemporary families the keeping of secrets, especially those relating to reproduction and paternity, is seen increasingly as undesirable. This article explores these issues and the growing tendency for family law and policy to favour exposing genetic truths – seeing this form of scientific veracity as crucial to child welfare and equality. The article explores the changing contexts of family secrets (using data drawn from the Mass Observation Archive) and seeks to locate these secrets in their cultural and historical context. An argument against imposing a simple solution (in the form of genetic truth) onto complex relationships is pursued.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 38 , Issue 4 , October 2009 , pp. 551 - 567
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bell, D. and Bennett, B. (2001), ‘Genetic secrets and the family’, Medical Law Review, 9: 130–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carsten, J. (2000), ‘“Knowing where you've come from”: Ruptures and continuities of time and kinship in narratives of adoption’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 6: 687–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carsten, J. (2004), After Kinship, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davidoff, L., Doolittle, M., Fink, J. and Holden, K. (1999), The Family Story: Blood, Contract and Intimacy, 1830–1960, London: Longman.Google Scholar
Eekelaar, J. (2006), Family Law and Personal Life, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Finch, J. and Mason, J. (1993), Negotiating Family Responsibilities, London: Tavistock/Routledge.Google Scholar
Finch, J. and Mason, J. (2000), Passing On: Kinship and Inheritance in England, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fortin, J. (1994), ‘Re F: “The gooseberry bush approach”’, The Modern Law Review, 57: 2, 296–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, M. (1979), The History of Sexuality, Volume 1, London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Freeman, T. and Richards, M. (2006), ‘DNA testing and kinship: paternity, genealogy and the search for the “truth” of our genetic origins’, in Ebtehaj, F., Lindley, B. and Richards, M. (eds.), Kin Matters, Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Furedi, F. (2004), Therapy Culture: Cultivating Vulnerability in an Uncertain Age, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1992), The Transformation of Intimacy, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Gill, D. (1977), Illegitimacy, Sexuality and the Status of Women, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gillis, J. (2004), ‘Gathering together’, in Etzioni, A. and Bloom, J. (eds.), We Are What We Celebrate, New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Goudsblom, J. and Mennell, S. (eds.) (1998), The Norbert Elias Reader, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hazleden, R. (2004), ‘The pathology of love in contemporary relationship manuals’, The Sociological Review, 52: 2, 201–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jamieson, L. (1998), Intimacy: Personal Relationships in Modern Societies, Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Jamieson, L. (1999), ‘Intimacy transformed? A critical look at the “pure relationship”’, Sociology, 33: 3, 477–94.Google Scholar
Konrad, M. (2005), Nameless Relations, Oxford: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
Laslett, P. (1977), Family Life and Illicit Love in Earlier Generations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marteau, T. and Richards, M. (eds.) (1996), The Troubled Helix, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaren, A. (1978), Birth Control in Nineteenth Century England, London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Miller, D. (ed.) (2001), Home Possessions, Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Richards, M. (1996), ‘Families, kinship and genetics’, in Marteau, T. and Richards, M. (eds.), The Troubled Helix, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Richards, M. (2006), ‘Genes, genealogies and paternity: making babies in the twenty-first century’, in Spencer, J. R. and du Bois-Pedain, A. (eds.), Freedom and Responsibility in Reproductive Choice, Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Rose, N. (1991), Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sauer, R. (1978), ‘Infanticide and abortion in nineteenth-century Britain’, Population Studies, 32: 1, 81–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Savage, M. (2007), ‘Changing social class identities in post-war Britain: perspectives from Mass Observation’, Sociological Research Online, 12: 3, http://www.socresonline.org.uk/12/3/6.html.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, A. (2006), ‘The contingency of the “genetic link”, in constructions of kinship and inheritance – an anthropological perspective’, in Spencer, J. R. and du Bois-Pedain, A. (eds.), Freedom and Responsibility in Reproductive Choice, Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Sheridan, D., Street, B. and Bloome, D. (2000), Writing Ourselves: Mass-Observation and Literacy Practices, New Jersey: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
Smart, C. (1992), ‘Disruptive bodies and unruly sex: the regulation of reproduction and sexuality in the nineteenth century’, in Smart, C. (ed.), Regulating Motherhood: Historical Essays on Marriage, Motherhood and Sexuality, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Smart, C. (2007), Personal Life, Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Smart, C., Neale, B. and Wade, A. (2001), The Changing Experience of Childhood: Families and Divorce, Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Smith, C. and Logan, J. (2004), After Adoption: Direct Contact and Relationships, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Spencer, L. and Pahl, R. (2006), Rethinking Friendship: Hidden Solidarities Today, Woodstock: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Spensky, M. (1992), ‘Producers of legitimacy: homes for unmarried mothers in the 1950s’, in Smart, C. (ed.), Regulating Motherhood: Historical Essays on Marriage, Motherhood and Sexuality, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Turney, L. (2005), ‘Paternity secrets: why women don't tell’, Journal of Family Studies, 11: 2, 227–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warnock Committee (1984), Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology, Cmnd 9314, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Weeks, J., Heaphy, B. and Donovan, C. (2001), Same Sex Intimacies: Families of Choice and Other Life Experiments, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Weston, K. (1997), Families We Choose: Lesbians, Gays, Kinship, second edition, New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar