Hostname: page-component-6587cd75c8-gglxz Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-04-23T19:36:13.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Defamilisation, Familisation, and LGBTQ+ Studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2023

Sam Yu Open the ORCID record for Sam Yu [Opens in a new window]  and
Iris Lo Open the ORCID record for Iris Lo [Opens in a new window]
Sam Yu*
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Social Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Iris Lo
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Social Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Hong Kong
*
Corresponding author: Sam Yu; Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article highlights the interconnection between Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ+) research and social policy research, and argues that a greater focus on the welfare needs of gender and sexual minority people can advance the defamilisation and familisation literature. While defamilisation and familisation studies have gained significant attention for examining whether individuals, especially women, have adequate opportunities to balance their work and caregiving responsibilities, most of them pay insufficient attention to the challenges faced by LGBTQ+ individuals in organising their caring and working life. This article addresses this research gap by undertaking three analytical tasks. Firstly, it explores the defamilisation and familisation risks faced by LGBTQ+ individuals. Secondly, it presents a ‘queer life mix framework’ to inform the selection of suitable welfare models to guide governments in tackling these risks. Thirdly, it demonstrates how the ideas of the queer life mix framework can be put into practice.

Keywords

LGBTQ+defamilisationfamilisationwelfare modelqueer life mix framework
Type
Themed Section on Defamilisation, Familisation, and Debates on Same-Sex Marriage in Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 23 , Issue 2: THEMED SECTION: Defamilisation, Familisation, and Debates on Same-Sex Marriage in Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan , April 2024 , pp. 419 - 432
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Annesley, C. (2007) ‘Women’s political agency and welfare reform: engendering the adult worker model’, Parliamentary Affairs, 60, 3, 452–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayoub, P. M. and Bauman, L. (2019) ‘Migration and queer mobilisations: how migration facilitates cross-border LGBTQ activism’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 45, 15, 2758–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bambra, C. (2007) ‘Defamilisation and welfare state regimes: a cluster analysis’, International Journal of Social Welfare, 16, 4, 326–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beam, M. (2018) ‘What’s love got to do with it? Queer politics and the “love pivot”’, in DeFilippis, J. N., Yarbrough, M. W. and Jones, A. (eds.), Queer Activism: After Marriage Equality, London: Routledge, 53–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlant, L. and Warner, M. (1998) ‘Sex in public’, Critical Inquiry, 24, 2, 547–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, S. S. (2004) ‘Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) elders’, Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 9, 4, 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cahill, S., South, K. and Spade, J. (2000) Outing Age: Public Policy Issues Affecting Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Elders, New York: The Policy Institute of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.Google Scholar
Chau, C. M. R. and Yu, W. K. S. (2019) ‘Familization risks, defamilization risks and older women’, Journal of Women and Aging, 33, 3, 312–327.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chau, R. C. M., Yu, S.W. K., Foster, L. and Lau, M. K. W. (2017) ‘Defamilisation measures and women’s labour force participation–a comparative study of twelve countries’, Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy, 33, 1, 73–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chau, R. C. M. and Yu, S. W. K. (2013) ‘Defamilisation of twenty-two countries: its implications for the study of East Asian welfare regime’, Social Policy and Society, 12, 3, 355–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chau, R. C. M. and Yu, S. W. K. (2022) Women, Welfare and Productivism in East Asia and Europe, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Ciccia, R. and Bleijenbergh, I. (2014) ‘After the male breadwinner model? Childcare services and the division of labor in European countries’, Social Politics, 21, 1, 50–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ciccia, R. and Verloo, M. (2012) ‘Parental leave regulations and the persistence of the male breadwinner model: using fuzzy-set ideal type analysis to assess gender equality in an enlarged Europe’, Journal of European Social Policy, 22, 5, 507–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, V. and Finlay, S. J. (2004) ‘“For better or worse?’\” Lesbian and gay marriage’, Feminism and Psychology, 14, 1, 17–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daly, M. (2011) ‘What adult worker model? A critical look at recent social policy reform in Europe from a gender and family perspective’, Social Politics, 18, 1, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duggan, L. (2002) ‘The new homonormativity: the sexual politics of neoliberalism’, in Castronova, R. and Nelson, D. D. (eds.), Materializing Democracy: Toward a Revitalized Cultural Politics, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 175–94.Google Scholar
Erdley, S. D., Anklam, D. D. and Reardon, C. C. (2014) ‘Breaking barriers and building bridges: understanding the pervasive needs of older LGBT adults and the value of social work in health care’, Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 57, 2–4, 362–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eskridge, W. N. (2002) ‘Some effects of identity-based social movements on constitutional law in the twentieth century’, Michigan Law Review, 100, 8, 2062–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, London: Polity.Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (1999) Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evertsson, M., Jaspers, E. and Moberg, Y. (2020) ‘Parentalization in same-sex couples: family formation and leave rights in five northern European countries’, in Nieuwenhuis, R. and Lancker, W. (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Family Policy, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 397–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, E., Pascall, G. and Warren, T. (2009) ‘Work–family policies, participation, and practices: fathers and childcare in Europe’, Community, Work and Family, 12, 3, 313–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, N. (1994) ‘After the family wage: gender equity and the welfare state’, Political Theory, 22, 4, 591–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gash, A. and Raiskin, J. (2018) ‘Parenting without protection: how legal status ambiguity affects lesbian and gay parenthood’, Law and Social Inquiry, 43, 1, 82–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2009) ‘Lesbian parents and their families: complexity and intersectionality from a feminist perspective’, in Lloyd, S. A., Few, A. L. and Allen, K. R. (eds.), Handbook of Feminist Family Studies, California: Sage Publications, 108–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonalons-Pons, P. and Gangl, M. (2021) ‘Marriage and masculinity: male-breadwinner culture, unemployment, and separation risk in 29 countries’, American Sociological Review, 86, 3, 465–502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayman, B., Wilkes, L., Jackson, D. and Halcomb, E. (2013) ‘De novo lesbian families: legitimizing the other mother’, Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 9, 3, 273–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horne, S. G., Johnson, T., Yel, N., Maroney, M. R. and McGinley, M. (2022) ‘Unequal rights between LGBTQ parents living in the US: the association of minority stress to relationship satisfaction and parental stress’, Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 11, 2, 141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Human Rights Campaign (2023) ‘Marriage Equality Around the World’, https://www.hrc.org/resources/marriage-equality-around-the-world [accessed 16.08.2023].Google Scholar
Israel, S. and Spannagel, D. (2019) ‘Material deprivation in the EU: a multi-level analysis on the influence of decommodification and familization policies’, Acta Sociologica, 62, 2, 152–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffreys, E. and Wang, P. (2018) ‘Pathways to legalizing same-sex marriage in China and Taiwan: globalization and “Chinese Values”’, in Winter, B., Forest, M. and Sénac, R. (eds.), Global Perspectives on Same-Sex Marriage: A Neo-institutional Approachs, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 197–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffreys, S. (2004) ‘IV. The need to abolish marriage’, Feminism and Psychology, 14, 2, 327–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keck, W. and Saraceno, C. (2012) ‘Multilinks database on intergenerational policy indicators’, Journal of Contextual Economics–Schmollers Jahrbuch, 132, 3, 453–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kilkey, M. and Merla, L. (2014) ‘Situating transnational families’ care-giving arrangements: the role of institutional contexts’, Global Networks, 14, 2, 210–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroger, T. (2011) ‘Defamilisation, dedomestication and care policy: comparing childcare service provisions of welfare states’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 31, 7/8, 424–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurowska, A. (2018) ‘(De)familialization and (de)genderization – competing or complementary perspectives in comparative policy analysis?’, Social Policy and Administration, 52, 1, 29–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leitner, S. (2003) ‘Varieties of familialism: the caring function of the family in comparative perspective’, European Societies, 5, 4, 353–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, J. (2001) ‘The decline of the male breadwinner model: implications for work and care’, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society, 8, 2, 152–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, J. (2006) ‘Work/family reconciliation, equal opportunities and social policies: the interpretation of policy trajectories at the EU level and the meaning of gender equality’, Journal of European Public Policy, 13, 3, 420–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, J. and Giullari, S. (2005) ‘The adult worker model family, gender equality and care: the search for new policy principles and the possibilities and problems of a capabilities approach’, Economy and Society, 34, 1, 76–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lister, R. (1994) ‘“She has other duties”: women, citizenship and social security’, in Baldwin, S. and Falkingham, J. (eds.), Social Security and Social Change: New Challenges, Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 31–44.Google Scholar
Lo, I. P. Y. (2023) ‘Dialectical family imaginaries: navigating relational selfhood and becoming a parent through assisted reproduction in China’, Sociology, 57, 3, 642–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lo, I. P. Y., Chau, R. C. M. and Yu, S. W. K. (2022a) ‘Adult worker model typologies: examining work-family policies in fifteen European countries’, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19, 22, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lo, I. P. Y., Liu, E. H. and Yu, S. W. K. (2022b) ‘Family and work lives of lesbians in China: implications for the adult worker model’, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19, 11, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohmann, H. and Zagel, H. (2016) ‘Family policy in comparative perspective: the concepts and measurement of familization and defamilization’, Journal of European Social Policy, 26, 1, 48–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, E. and Glendinning, C. (1994) ‘Principles and practice of social security payments for care’, International Social Security Review, 47, 3–4, 137–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mishra, R. (1986) ‘Social policy and the discipline of social administration’, Social Policy and Administration, 20, 1, 28–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nair, A. (2010) Lessons in Forgetting, New Delhi: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Nyberg, A. (2002) ‘Gender, (de) commodification, economic (in) dependence and autonomous households: the case of Sweden’, Critical Social Policy, 22, 1, 72–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peel, E. and Harding, R. (2008) ‘Editorial introduction: recognizing and celebrating same-sex relationships: beyond the normative debate’, Sexualities, 11, 6, 659–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, M. and Barrientos, A. (2011) ‘An audit of the welfare modelling business’, Social Policy and Administration, 45, 1, 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubery, J. (2015) ‘Regulating for gender equality: a policy framework to support the universal caregiver vision’, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society, 22, 4, 513–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saraceno, C. (2015) ‘A critical look to the social investment approach from a gender perspective’, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society, 22, 2, 257–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneebaum, A. and Badgett, M. L. (2019) ‘Poverty in US lesbian and gay couple households’, Feminist Economics, 25, 1, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidman, S. (1994) ‘Queer-ing sociology, sociologizing queer theory: an introduction’, Sociological Theory, 12, 2, 166–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tang, D. T. S., Khor, D. and Chen, Y. C. (2020) ‘Legal recognition of same-sex partnerships: a comparative study of Hong Kong, Taiwan and Japan’, The Sociological Review, 68, 1, 192–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titmuss, R. M. (1974) Social Policy, London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Wong, E., Jou, J, Raub, A., and Heymann, J. (2020) ‘Comparing the availability of paid parental leave for same-sex and different-sex couples in 34 OECD countries’, Journal of Social Policy, 49, 3, 525–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, S. W. K. (2018) ‘The contributions of welfare typologies to international social work practices’, Asian Social Work and Policy Review, 12, 2, 66–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, S. W. K., Chau, C. M. and Lee, K. M. (2015) ‘Using defamilisation typologies to study the Confucian welfare regime’, Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy, 31, 1, 74–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, S. W. K., Chau, R. C. M. and Kühner, S. (2019) ‘Defamilisation and familisation risks, adult worker models, and pro-employment/decommodification measures for women: the case of Hong Kong’, Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy, 35, 2, 194–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, S. W. K., Chau, R. C. M. and Lo, I. P. Y. (2023) ‘Developing a ‘defamilisation framework’ to examine the strategies for promoting the adult worker model and women’s welfare in eight European countries’, International Social Work, https://doi.org/10.1177/00208728231165638 Google Scholar
Yu, S. W. K., Liu, E. H. and Lo, I. P. Y. (2018) ‘The difficulties faced by lalas in China in securing defamilisation and familisation’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 38, 11/12, 1086–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, S. W. K., Lo, I. P. Y. and Chau, R. C. M. (2021a) ‘Government strategies for supporting the adult worker model in European countries: mixed implications for defamilisation’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 41, 9/10, 979–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, S. W. K., Lo, I. P. Y. and Chau, R. C. M. (2021b) ‘The policy measures used by the Hong Kong government to respond to the adult worker model and the male-breadwinner model’, in Kan, M. Y. and Blair, S. L. (eds.), Chinese Families: Tradition, Modernisation, and Change (Contemporary Perspectives in Family Research, Volume 16), Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited, 175–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar