text:
Hostname: page-component-7ccbd9845f-l8x48 Total loading time: 0.723 Render date: 2023-01-30T18:20:25.208Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true
>Journal of Social Policy
>Conceptualising state-market-family relationships in...
Journal of Social Policy
The conceptual goodness of defamilization
Three challenges to the conceptual goodness of defamilization
Summary and outlook
Conceptualising state-market-family relationships in comparative research: a conceptual goodness view on defamilization
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 September 2020
HANNAH ZAGEL [Opens in a new window] and
HENNING LOHMANN
HANNAH ZAGEL
Humboldt-University of Berlinhannah.zagel@hu-berlin.de
University of Hamburghenning.lohmann@uni-hamburg.de
Save PDF (0.19 mb) View PDF[Opens in a new window]
This study evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of defamilization as a concept for analysing state-market-family relationships in comparative perspective. A paradox has emerged around defamilization in the last decade; its use in empirical large-N research has grown markedly despite mounting criticism in theoretical discussions. Applying criteria of conceptual goodness, we find that the popularity of the concept is based on its high degree of parsimony, theoretical utility and field utility, but that there are problems with the resonance, coherence and differentiation of the concept. We argue that defamilization is most coherent and has greatest utility if the concept's roots in welfare state theory are fully acknowledged. In our view, this means that defamilization is best understood a) alongside the separate concept of familization, b) as a multidimensional concept in terms of economic and social dependencies in family relationships, and c) as a means of addressing both gender and intergenerational dependencies. Although suitable for operationalization in empirical research, the concept hence imposes high demands regarding the required data and possible analyses.
Defamilizationfamily policycomparative researchconceptual goodnessfamily dependencies
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 50 , Issue 4 , October 2021 , pp. 852 - 870
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press
The state-market-family nexus, which is at the heart of welfare state theories, has been conceptualized in many different ways. This is crucial, because sound concepts are needed to draw conclusions in comparative social policy analysis. Where the aim is to generalize to a large number of countries on issues such as how states reduce family dependencies, comparative concepts need to be relatively broad while still being sufficiently differentiated. Patterns of state-market-family relationships across Europe have been analysed through the lens of male breadwinner/dual worker models (Lewis, Reference Lewis1992; Pascall and Lewis, Reference Pascall and Lewis2004) or the concept of individualization in policy (Daly, Reference Daly2011; Frericks et al., Reference Frericks, Höppner and Och2016). The concept of defamilizationFootnote 1 (originally Lister, Reference Lister, Baldwin and Falkingham1994; McLaughlin and Glendinning, Reference McLaughlin, Glendinning, Hantrais and Mangen1994) has been particularly widely applied in the last decade. It is increasingly being used in large-N comparisons that describe country variation in institutional settings or that aim to explain the outcomes of work-family policies.
Yet, this more widespread use of the concept in the empirical literature has, in our view, been accompanied by an increased uncertainty about the properties of defamilization and hence about what the empirical studies are comparing. The small but growing number of theoretical studies discussing defamilization have tended to take a critical stance towards it and to suggest alternative concepts. In this paper, we address a key question arising from this paradox of increasing popularity in empirical research despite overwhelming theoretical scepticism and ask: how good a concept is defamilization? Drawing on the literature on concept formation (Collier and Mahon, Reference Collier and Mahon1993; Gerring, Reference Gerring1999; Goertz, Reference Goertz2006; Sartori, Reference Sartori1991, Reference Sartori, Collier and Gerring2009), we evaluate the conceptual goodness of defamilization, examine how the concept has been interpreted and applied, and propose a systematic approach to using it.
A review of the empirical literature featuring defamilization reveals the concept's popularity, but also indicates diverging interpretations. Defamilization is often used to conceptualize differences in how countries address intergenerational relationships (Dykstra, Reference Dykstra2018; Saraceno and Keck, Reference Saraceno and Keck2010) and support women's employment (Bambra, Reference Bambra2007; Chau et al., Reference Chau, Yu, Foster and Lau2017; Cho, Reference Cho2014; Foster et al., Reference Foster, Chau and Yu2017; Zagel and Van Winkle, Reference Zagel and Van Winkle2020). Increasingly, the concept is being used to study other outcomes as well, such as work intensity and happiness (de Hoon et al., Reference de Hoon, Lam and Keizer2016), material deprivation (Israel and Spannagel, Reference Israel and Spannagel2018) and gender equality in long term care (Eggers et al., Reference Eggers, Grages, Pfau-Effinger and Och2018). There is also a smaller but growing number of studies that discuss defamilization in theoretical terms. Renewed theoretical interest in the concept has particularly grown in the past decade. One reason for this is the concept's attractiveness; researchers have highlighted and praised it for the multiple perspectives on state-family relationships it combines (Kurowska, Reference Kurowska2018; Leitner and Lessenich, Reference Leitner, Lessenich, Clasen and Siegel2007) and its multidimensionality (Hammer and Österle, Reference Hammer and Österle2003; Leitner and Lessenich, Reference Leitner, Lessenich, Clasen and Siegel2007; Lohmann and Zagel, Reference Lohmann and Zagel2016; Saraceno and Keck, Reference Saraceno and Keck2010). Yet, others have criticized it for the same attributes and formulated new concepts so that defamilization is replaced (Saxonberg, Reference Saxonberg2013) or complemented (Kröger, Reference Kröger2011; Kurowska, Reference Kurowska2018; Mathieu, Reference Mathieu2016).Footnote 2
Defamilization is closely related to other concepts in comparative family policy analysis such as familization, individualization, familialism and individualism and, like defamilization, there is no uniform understanding of these concepts either. Instead, the terms are frequently used to mean different things. For example, while familization is often assumed to be the opposite of defamilization, many authors have pointed out that it is in fact a complementary concept that refers to the degree of state support for care within the family (Leitner, Reference Leitner2003; Lohmann and Zagel, Reference Lohmann and Zagel2016; Eggers et al., Reference Eggers, Grages, Pfau-Effinger and Och2018). The concept of individualization shifts the focus from family relationships to individuals and asks how much the state supports individual independence (Daly, Reference Daly2011). By contrast, in the concept of familialism, the welfare state regime is the conceptual unit and not the country. Familialism supposes a perspective of categorical rather than gradual differences between countries as members of types or regimes (Leitner, Reference Leitner2003; Saraceno, Reference Saraceno1994). Different ideas about familialism exist in academic and public discussions, but here, familialism concerns differences in how welfare states rely on the family as a welfare provider. Variations in familialism can be conceptualized as outcomes of different degrees of defamilization and familization.
In this paper, we take the paradox of the increased use of defamilization in large-N empirical studies despite growing theoretical criticism as a starting point for investigating its consistency and clarity as a concept. This is necessary, because when defamilization is not used arbitrarily it can serve as a valuable concept for understanding how welfare states shape state-family and family-market relations. From the wider literature on concepts in comparative research, we chose Gerring's (Reference Gerring1999) approach to evaluate conceptual goodness, because it acknowledges that concept formation is not simply about the application of strict rules and highlights the notion of trade-offs between different criteria. The approach provides a comprehensive list of criteria of conceptual goodness, allows for meticulous scrutiny and can reveal flaws and ambiguities in concepts. For defamilization, a concept that has grown in popularity despite not being extensively assessed when first proposed, such scrutiny is needed and promises to improve its conceptual consistency and clarity. We consider all the criteria but only examine the most pertinent ones to the case of defamilization in the in-depth discussion. We proceed in three steps. First, we briefly introduce all of Gerring's eight criteria of conceptual goodness and give a compact overview of how defamilization performs as a concept by revisiting its roots. Second, we zoom in on the criteria that are arguably most contentious for defamilization in three separate subsections: resonance, coherence and differentiation. Here, we further trace the concept's application in the empirical and theoretical literature. Finally, we summarize our insights by proposing a definition of defamilization that overcomes some of the identified problems. We conclude by discussing avenues for future research.
Criteria of conceptual goodness
Any meaningful comparison presupposes sound concepts, because they define what is compared. An unclear concept makes it difficult to draw any comparative conclusions at all (Clasen, Reference Clasen2013). When research concerns empirical phenomena, its results depend crucially on terms and definitions (Gerring, Reference Gerring1999; Sartori, Reference Sartori1991). Within theoretical debates in a given discipline, conceptual clarity is paramount for advancing the field. An ill-defined concept may be used arbitrarily, and misconceptions are likely to emerge in theoretical discussions (Podsakoff et al., Reference Podsakoff, MacKenzie and Podsakoff2016). Further, a lack of clarity can prompt confusion as to the purpose of the empirical study in question; likewise, it can create measurement problems and impede a meaningful interpretation of the results (Collier and Gerring, Reference Collier and Gerring2009).
The literature on concept formation builds on the observation that a lack of conceptual clarity is ubiquitous in the social sciences and identifies the need for systematic frameworks to assess existing concepts and form new ones. There are several prominent concept formation frameworks that are relatively strict and rely on fixed sets of rules. Gerring (Reference Gerring1999) has proposed a different approach, which is based on the idea that concepts are always the result of trade-offs between different alternatives. The framework is systematic but refrains from formulating static rules. It consists of eight criteria of conceptual goodness, which can be used to evaluate and appraise concepts: familiarity, resonance, parsimony, coherence, differentiation, depth, theoretical utility and field utility. In this framework, assessing and formulating concepts means mediating between these eight criteria rather than applying them as rules (Gerring, Reference Gerring1999: 368). While all of the criteria describe a good concept, some are more central than others. Previous discussions in the concept formation and comparative social policy literatures suggest that coherence and differentiation are key quality criteria for concepts and are thus more important than, for example, familiarity and utility, which are somewhat subjective criteria. Our in-depth analysis in the following section focuses on the criteria with the most apparent conceptual trade-offs in relation to defamilization, which also include coherence and differentiation. We will consider the weighting of the criteria in our evaluation.
How good a concept is defamilization?
When assessing the concept of defamilization, it is important to note that it was introduced and defined in two different publications in the same year by different authors (Lister, Reference Lister, Baldwin and Falkingham1994; McLaughlin and Glendinning, Reference McLaughlin, Glendinning, Hantrais and Mangen1994). Although the respective authors chose slightly different terms, in both cases the concept was introduced with the same aim in mind: to add a gender-sensitive concept to the comparative welfare state literature that could complement the key concept of decommodification, which centred on the male worker. Lister (Reference Lister, Baldwin and Falkingham1994: 37) defined 'defamilialisation' as 'the degree to which individual adults can uphold a socially acceptable standard of living, independently of family relationships, either through paid work or through the social security system'. McLaughlin and Glendinning stated that '[D]e-familization is constituted by those provisions and practices which vary the extent to which wellbeing is dependent on "our" relation to the (patriarchal) family' (Reference McLaughlin, Glendinning, Hantrais and Mangen1994: 65). The following appraisal of defamilization in light of Gerring's (Reference Gerring1999) criteria will show that this dual concept formation was consequential for the concept's clarity and consistency. We will also address the semantic differences.
Turning to the first of Gerring's (Reference Gerring1999) criteria, familiarity requires the concept in question to be consistent with established meanings of the described phenomenon; its definition has to incorporate features that are commonly subsumed in the concept and the term should align with common sense language. When defamilization emerged in 1994, it was a neologism and thus by definition unfamiliar. Nevertheless, it combined two theoretical references that had a high degree of familiarity. First, it referred to one of the most popular concepts of comparative welfare state research at the time, decommodification (Esping-Andersen, Reference Esping-Andersen1990); and second, it included the family, one of the three components of the prominent 'welfare triangle' (state, market, family). Both of its definitions likewise drew on familiar vocabulary in the (comparative) mainstream and gendered welfare state research of the time. The concept was intended to describe how paid work (in the market) or the social security system (the state) would enable a 'socially acceptable standard of living' (Lister) or 'wellbeing' (McLaughlin and Glendinning) independent of the (patriarchal) family.
The second criterion, resonance, requires a concept to 'click' with the reader, to 'sound right' in the context in which it is used. On this criterion, defamilization has arguably performed less well. Several commentators have expressed irritation at the combination of the negatively loaded prefix 'de-' with the word family. Does defamilization mean that the state should reduce family bonds? And more generally, is there a normative implication of defamilization? The concept arguably reflects a trade-off between familiarity and resonance, which will be addressed in the discussion below.
The third criterion, the degree of parsimony, which refers to a term's length and its definition, is sufficiently high in the case of defamilization. Its definition is succinctly summarized as 'the degree of support of individuals' independence from family relationships' (Lohmann and Zagel, Reference Lohmann and Zagel2016: 49).
The fourth criterion, coherence, concerns the internal consistency of the concept's characteristics and attributes. Gerring (Reference Gerring1999) argues that this can be considered the most important criterion, because it distinguishes a good concept from a term that describes a coincidental clustering of phenomena. Arguably, because defamilization is a multidimensional concept and refers to various categories of policy beneficiaries, the attributes subsumed under it may be arbitrarily selected. Does defamilization describe state support for reducing both women's dependence on male breadwinners and children's dependence on their parents? And what is the logical connection between the reduction of these different types of dependencies? Defamilization has recently been criticized for its lack of coherence, and researchers have debated whether the concept should be complemented or replaced (Kröger, Reference Kröger2011; Kurowska, Reference Kurowska2018; Mathieu, Reference Mathieu2016; Saxonberg, Reference Saxonberg2013). There is an arguable trade-off between the concept's coherence and its depth in representing the range of state-family relationships. This will also be discussed in more detail in Section 3.
The fifth criterion, differentiation, means that a concept should be clearly bounded and distinguishable from other related concepts and should be operationalizable. Defamilization only partially fulfils this, because the concept overlaps with others which evolved in the gendered welfare state literature around the same time, most notably the concepts of the capacity to form and maintain a household (Orloff, Reference Orloff1993), personal autonomy (O'Connor, Reference O'Connor1993) and the male breadwinner model (Lewis, Reference Lewis1992). In addition, when it comes to the newer concepts that are meant to replace (Saxonberg, Reference Saxonberg2013) or complement (Kröger, Reference Kröger2011; Kurowska, Reference Kurowska2018; Mathieu, Reference Mathieu2016) defamilization, the dividing lines are not clear. All of the concepts refer to differences in how states regulate the gendered dependencies between couples or within families but all emphasize different aspects of this definition. Considering these boundary issues and acknowledging that 'differentiation is a problem' (Gerring, Reference Gerring1999: 379), we discuss the differentiation of defamilization in more detail below.
According to Gerring (Reference Gerring1999), a concept acquires, depth, the sixth criterion, by subsuming a range of shared characteristics underneath it. As indicated above, the concept of defamilization is a good example of how this criterion may conflict with some of the other criteria, such as coherence and differentiation. Overall, defamilization is relatively deep, as it covers a broad range of state policies towards the family and pertains to a longstanding discussion of the development of welfare states.
The seventh criterion, theoretical utility, reflects the need for concepts to be useful for specialist discussions of phenomena in a given discipline. Concepts are the building blocks of theories and classify the phenomena of interest to provide a cluster of categories that map the universe under study. Defamilization fulfils the criterion of theoretical utility. Rooted in welfare state theory, it is a key concept for conceptualizing the relationships between market, state and family. It is applicable to a wide range of different sociological and political science research questions in comparative welfare state research.
Field utility, the eighth criterion, is also emphasized by Sartori (Reference Sartori, Collier and Gerring2009) and requires the concept to take its own position without unsettling the field by overlapping with other concepts. Defamilization fulfils this criterion by filling the conceptual space around the relationship between the state and the family in the field. As shown by its widespread application in empirical studies, defamilization arguably provides better field utility than similar concepts such as the capacity to form and maintain a household (Orloff, Reference Orloff1993) and personal autonomy (O'Connor, Reference O'Connor1993), which are less linked to family relationships. Furthermore, the evolution of the discourse around the term – which went from being almost exclusively used within the feminist literature to a more general use – shows its impact within the comparative welfare state literature.
Building on the idea of mediating between the eight criteria of conceptual goodness underlying Gerrings's framework, this section discusses defamilization in light of the three criteria with notable trade-offs: resonance, coherence and differentiation.
Resonance: defamilization does not sound right
There are two problems with defamilization in terms of the criterion of resonance, both related to the semantics of the term. First, the two initial definitions of the concept built on different root terms: 'familial' and 'family'. Second, defamilization combines the negatively loaded prefix de- with the positively connoted term family, which prompts cognitive irritation. The use of the prefix is a reference to the popular concept of decommodification. Hence, defamilization's unfortunate construction with a negative prefix can be seen as a trade-off with the familiarity criterion.
Root terms
On the first problem of resonance, the different root terms of defamilization, the literature has been surprisingly silent. Although some note the different ways of writing (Leitner and Lessenich, Reference Leitner, Lessenich, Clasen and Siegel2007: 244), most authors use the terms interchangeably, going as far as to adjust the term to fit their own preferred way of writing (e.g. Leitner, Reference Leitner2003; Lohmann and Zagel, Reference Lohmann and Zagel2016; Saraceno and Keck, Reference Saraceno and Keck2010; Saxonberg, Reference Saxonberg2013).Footnote 3 This practice warrants comment, and not just because it raises concerns about citation customs. We will consider whether the different terms convey different meanings and whether either of the two terms resonates more clearly with the attributes it should possess.
The present paper cannot hope to undertake a linguistic analysis of the root terms family and familial with a view to uncovering their diverging meanings, nor to inquire into the initial considerations of the authors of the two concepts. Both undertakings go beyond what we can achieve and may also overstate the intentions of the scholars who first introduced the concepts. Instead, our evaluation is based on a review of the uses of the different terms in subsequent research. A search of academic literature databases shows that defamilization and defamilialization are used interchangeably with no discernible difference in the attributes to which they refer. When examining studies using either of the terms, we noted that they typically investigate the degrees to which states reduce family dependencies. Although Lister's (Reference Lister, Baldwin and Falkingham1994) definition of defamilialization originally focused on economic dependencies, and it was this that Esping-Andersen (Reference Esping-Andersen1999) picked up on, we equally find studies focusing on care relationships using defamilialization as a term (Eggers et al., Reference Eggers, Grages, Pfau-Effinger and Och2018; Leitner, Reference Leitner2003). Thus, the different terms used do not translate into substantial differences in meaning but rather seem to reflect preferences and path dependencies in wording.
The negative prefix
Regarding the second resonance-related problem, some have wondered whether the combination of the negative prefix 'de-' with the term family implies that state policies should somehow 'reduce' family. This notion is almost as old as the term itself. As Sainsbury (Reference Sainsbury1996: 75) noted: 'The term "defamilialization" has two unfortunate consequences. As a parallel to decommodification it perpetuates a clumsy vocabulary. More importantly, the term conjures up associations of weakening or abolishing the family; but what is at stake is remaking the patterns of family relationships and bestowing social rights upon family members'. Despite her objections, Sainsbury uses the term and concept throughout her book; others have followed. The term was fully incorporated into social science terminology when Esping-Andersen (Reference Esping-Andersen1999) made 'defamilialization' a cornerstone of his typology of welfare regimes – despite assessing it as 'yet another admittedly awkward word' (p. 45). Two decades on, replacing an established concept seems neither feasible nor advisable.
There is no question about McLaughlin and Glendinning's (Reference McLaughlin, Glendinning, Hantrais and Mangen1994) original intentions when formulating the term, as they explicitly stated that defamilization 'is not about whether or not people live in something recognizable as a family, or whether people have enduring emotional and material relationships with other "family" members', but about 'the terms and conditions under which people engage in families' (McLaughlin and Glendinning, Reference McLaughlin, Glendinning, Hantrais and Mangen1994: 65). Likewise, Saraceno (Reference Saraceno1997) emphasizes that defamilization 'does not imply a breaking of family bonds' (p.94). Esping-Andersen (Reference Esping-Andersen1999), too, asserts that defamilization 'does not imply "anti-family"; on the contrary it refers to the degree to which households' welfare and caring responsibilities are relaxed' (Esping-Andersen, Reference Esping-Andersen1999: 51). With its focus on 'independence from the family', defamilization parallels decommodification in focusing on 'independence from the market'. In both concepts, independence is understood in gradual rather than categorical terms and the reference point is total dependence rather than total independence. Just as decommodification does not describe how states abolish the market but conceptualizes the degree to which states enable individuals to be relatively independent of the market, defamilization describes state support for relative independence from the family. Consequently, authors like Leitner (Reference Leitner2003) have put familialism – i.e. a type of society where families are the key providers of welfare – in the centre of the debate on defamilization. In this view, all societies are familialistic, but they differ gradually in how much independence from the family they provide.
The 'anti-family' reading of defamilization not only refers to its analytical substance but also suggests a normative interpretation of the concept. In particular, feminist scholarship using the concept of defamilization is thought to imply that there is something desirable in abolishing the family as an institution. Of course, feminism is not a singular, coherent perspective in social theoretical thinking. Indeed, from a feminist perspective, which aims to unravel power relationships in the nuclear family and empower women, state support for reducing family dependencies would be desirable. On the other hand, the economic individualization of women has been widely criticized in feminist research (Lewis and Giullari, Reference Lewis and Giullari2005; Ostner, Reference Ostner2010). Extensive defamilization could hence also be seen critically with a feminist lens on the grounds that it replaces family dependencies with state dependencies or dependence on the market. Moreover, as indicated above, defamilization is about more than economic dependencies in heterosexual couple relationships. For example, defamilization also describes state support to reduce both adult children's duty to care for their elderly parents and parents' obligations to provide financially for their adult children (Saraceno and Keck, Reference Saraceno and Keck2010). The concept hence does not seem to readily serve any one political agenda. Rather, the concept was introduced as a theoretical instrument that can be used to understand the complex state-market-family relationships that feminist research unpacked.
Coherence: Who is defamilized and in what respect?
There is a trade-off between coherence and conceptual depth in the case of defamilization. Although its meaning as 'state support to reduce family dependencies' may seem intuitive, defamilization combines numerous facets that 'generate several senses' (Gerring, Reference Gerring1999: 374). The concept comprises state provision of policies to reduce gender and intergenerational dependencies in economic and social relationships. Its multidimensionality – it includes policies that support economic independence and reduce social or care dependencies – requires careful consideration. And this is complicated, because the concept also addresses dependencies between different types of family members: parents and children, mothers and fathers, and grandparents and grandchildren.
Research using the concept of defamilization has mainly focused on mothers' economic independence from a male breadwinner, which is arguably inseparable from their children's dependence on them for care. Defamilization is used to describe policies that reduce women's economic dependence by supporting their participation in the labour market. To operationalize defamilization, empirical studies have used indicators of parental leave policies (Bambra, Reference Bambra2007; de Hoon et al., Reference de Hoon, Lam and Keizer2016; Leitner, Reference Leitner2003; Lohmann and Zagel, Reference Lohmann and Zagel2016) and of childcare policies (Chau et al., Reference Chau, Yu, Foster and Lau2017; Cho, Reference Cho2014; de Hoon et al., Reference de Hoon, Lam and Keizer2016; Israel and Spannagel, Reference Israel and Spannagel2018; Leitner, Reference Leitner2003; Lohmann and Zagel, Reference Lohmann and Zagel2016). Childcare policies likewise address care relationships, but this is a rare focus in the empirical literature (for discussions of this gap see Kröger, Reference Kröger2011; Mathieu, Reference Mathieu2016).
Defamilization of social or care dependencies has been further conceptualized in terms of older parents' relationships with their adult children (Kurowska, Reference Kurowska2018; Saraceno and Keck, Reference Saraceno and Keck2010). Care provision to older people relieves adult children of their care responsibilities and supports their parents in maintaining independence. To measure defamilization in terms of intergenerational dependencies, studies have used indicators of state support for elder care (Cho, Reference Cho2014; Leitner, Reference Leitner2003; Lohmann and Zagel, Reference Lohmann and Zagel2016; Saraceno and Keck, Reference Saraceno and Keck2010). Defamilization in terms of intergenerational care dependencies particularly requires researchers to consider care-giver and care-receiver perspectives (Leitner and Lessenich, Reference Leitner, Lessenich, Clasen and Siegel2007).
As shown by this short review, defamilization's coherence as a concept may diminish when its different facets are spelled out. Scholars' focus on one of the subdimensions (social/economic) or on one of the types of relationships (gender/intergenerational) may highlight differences rather than similarities. Arguably, conceptual coherence is more problematic when we follow the definition provided by McLaughlin and Glendinning (Reference McLaughlin, Glendinning, Hantrais and Mangen1994) compared to Lister's (Reference Lister, Baldwin and Falkingham1994) version. This is because Lister explicitly defines defamilization in terms of the economic dependencies of women on men and leaves the care aspect aside. Nevertheless, scholars have criticized the concept of defamilization for its lack of coherence. While few have suggested getting rid of the concept altogether (Saxonberg, Reference Saxonberg2013), some have considered adding specifications to differentiate the different dimensions of defamilization, such as social defamilization (Leitner and Lessenich, Reference Leitner, Lessenich, Clasen and Siegel2007) or care defamilization (Michoń, Reference Michoń2015). Others have proposed limiting defamilization to Lister's definition (economic dependencies in gender relationships) or complementing it with other concepts that cover the care dimension (Kröger, Reference Kröger2011; Mathieu, Reference Mathieu2016).
There is a further issue: namely, how defamilization is achieved – exclusively through state support or via market processes? In our view, this is not a major source of incoherence, because, particularly in the more recent literature, authors have implicitly or explicitly interpreted defamilization as being about state support or state mediation (see Kurowska, Reference Kurowska2018: 46; Lohmann and Zagel, Reference Lohmann and Zagel2016: 52; Saraceno and Keck, Reference Saraceno and Keck2010: 677). However, most notably, Esping-Andersen has indicated that 'De-familialization through Markets' (Reference Esping-Andersen1999: 63ff.) is an alternative. The main question he addresses in this respect is how the tax-benefit system affects opportunity costs and the cost of childcare. We interpret this less as a question of 'state vs. market' but rather as 'welfare through the tax system vs. welfare through cash benefits and in-kind provisions'. Both types of measures can be regarded as defamilization when it is defined as state support to reduce family dependencies.
Differentiation: drawing boundaries
Another reason why the conceptual goodness of defamilization may be limited is because it overlaps with other concepts and hence lacks differentiation. If the definitions of alternative concepts clearly described phenomena other than defamilization, then we could describe defamilization as a differentiated concept. Defamilization, as a medium range concept, overlaps with concepts at a higher and a lower level. Daly's (Reference Daly2011: 7) preference for the wider, more general concept of individualization over defamilization is justified by the idea that a higher degree of defamilization means treating people as individuals rather than as family members. Treating people as individuals is a core element of individualization. However, without any further mention of the family, individualization does not refer solely to independence from the family (Beck-Gernsheim, Reference Beck-Gernsheim2002) but describes a more general feature of modern societies (Beck, Reference Beck1986).
Defamilization likewise lacks differentiation from narrower concepts when these overlap with subdimensions of defamilization. Some scholars have proposed new concepts as complements to defamilization, like dedomestication (Kröger, Reference Kröger2011) or demotherization (Mathieu, Reference Mathieu2016). These terms have been coined in response to defamilization. Any overlaps and differences are explicitly laid out. This is less the case with the concept of degenderization (Saxonberg, Reference Saxonberg2013). It starts off from the misleading notion that defamilization primarily aims 'to eliminate gender roles' (p. 32). From this viewpoint, it is difficult to see where the two concepts overlap, particularly as the concept of degenderization shares attributes of the economic and gender subdimensions of defamilization while ignoring others.
Other concepts have evolved in parallel to defamilization within the feminist literature (Zagel and Lohmann, Reference Zagel, Lohmann, Nieuwenhuis and van Lanckerforthcoming). This work has criticized Esping-Andersen's (Reference Esping-Andersen1990) focus on male paid work and decommodification as one of the main characteristics of welfare states. For example, the concept of the capacity to form and maintain one's own household (Orloff, Reference Orloff1993), which is similar to economic defamilization, describes state support for economic independence; the same applies to the concept of personal autonomy (O'Connor, Reference O'Connor1993). In favour of the defamilization concept, it may be argued that these two overlapping concepts focus less on family relationships. In particular, the concept of personal autonomy is much broader than defamilization as it includes autonomy over other life domains, such as reproductive or bodily autonomy (O'Connor, Reference O'Connor1993). The male breadwinner model concept, defined by Lewis (Reference Lewis1992), which also clearly describes gendered economic dependencies, likewise overlaps with defamilization, but this is conceived as a household-level concept.
Looking at the empirical comparative literature on state support for families that has emerged since the relevant concepts were introduced in the early, 1990s, defamilization is more frequently applied than the concepts by Orloff and O'Connor. This could be due to defamilization's aptness for operationalization as a quantitative indicator. Furthermore, despite the problems discussed above, the term 'defamilization' is highly recognizable, it resonates and it refers clearly to the family. For example, it is unclear how family policy alone could achieve wider personal autonomy beyond merely reducing family dependencies. The widely used male breadwinner model concept shares less overlap with defamilization due to its emphasis on the couple level.
A differentiation problem is also evident when it comes to the relationship between defamilization and familization. As mentioned in the introduction, familization was initially perceived as the opposite of defamilization. In more recent years, it has come to be understood as a complementary concept describing the degree to which states support care performed by family members and hence foster a model with high family dependencies (Leitner, Reference Leitner2003; Lohmann and Zagel, Reference Lohmann and Zagel2016; Eggers et al., Reference Eggers, Grages, Pfau-Effinger and Och2018). In contrast, familialism is often used to denote types of welfare states that are characterized by a specific combination of attributes on defined subdimensions. Leitner (Reference Leitner2003) has distinguished between the following four care regimes, which feature a specific combination of high or low familization and defamilization: explicit familialism, implicit famililialism, optional familialism and de-familialism. In other cases, it has not always been clear how the subdimensions relate to defamilization. An example of this are Saraceno's and Keck's (Reference Saraceno and Keck2010) three intergenerational policy regimes: familialism by default, supported familialism and de-familization. Esping-Andersen's (Reference Esping-Andersen1999) use of familialism and defamilialization is inconsistent. To some extent, he interprets both terms as opposites on a continuum, but apparently also regards familialism as a type. Drawing on studies by Saraceno and Keck (Reference Saraceno and Keck2010) and Leitner (Reference Leitner2003), Lohmann and Zagel (Reference Lohmann and Zagel2016) have suggested viewing defamilization and familization as the (measurable) policy dimensions and familialism/individualism as ideal-typical country-level aggregate outcomes.
(Re-)defining defamilization
The previous sections demonstrated that defamilization is a successful concept in terms of its application and reception in the literature, but that it also has some severe problems that have generated discontent with and misunderstandings of the concept. In this section, we identify features that define defamilization as a central concept for analyzing the state-market-family nexus; we opt not to add another definition of the concept or to propose a new one to replace it.
Defamilization and familization: two aspects of the state-market-family nexus
First, we suggest following the initial definitions. We define defamilization as the degree of support for individuals' independence from family relationships, where family relationships entail gender and intergenerational relations characterized by imbalances in the distribution of social and economic resources and thereby create dependencies. Hence, defamilization describes one particular aspect of state-family relations. Focusing on this aspect not only increases the coherence of the concept but also allows for clearer differentiation from other concepts. As mentioned above, the boundaries of the concepts that have evolved from the literature on defamilization are not always clear cut. In our view, defamilization works best in tandem with a concept of familization, which describes the degree to which states increase social and economic dependencies between family members (based on Leitner, Reference Leitner2003). As such, defamilization and familization should be understood as two separate concepts, which pertain to different welfare state attributes. Policy measures that relate to both concepts may be implemented in various combinations across welfare states. For example, a country with a high degree of defamilization, reflected in good access to affordable childcare provision, good access to institutional care for older people and short, well-paid parental leave, may at the same time have high familization in that it provides generous child benefits and child tax credits; by contrast, another country with a similar level of defamilization might only provide very limited family allowances.
In line with previous interpretations, we think it is important to emphasize that defamilization is a multidimensional concept. For instance, Leitner and Lessenich (Reference Leitner, Lessenich, Clasen and Siegel2007: 252f.) have argued convincingly against adopting a narrow perspective that focuses solely on care-givers or on the commodification of (female) labour. But multidimensionality only results in more coherent concepts if the subdimensions are laid out clearly. We followed Leitner and Lessenich's proposal and analytically distinguished between reducing social and economic dependencies. Conceptualized this way, defamilization allows for the analysis of a wide range of complex social and economic relationships. Social and economic dependencies are strongly interrelated with family relationships, and these are difficult to disentangle empirically. Therefore, it seems more sensible to address both within the concept of defamilization than to propose separate concepts for each subdimension. For example, children depend socially and economically on their parents as long as they do not earn their own income. Ideas about the 'generational contract' imply that the dependency relationship shifts when adult children have their own income and their parents transition into retirement. Empirically, however, a net downward flow from older parents to their adult children has commonly been noted (Albertini et al., Reference Albertini, Kohli and Vogel2007). Spouses are economically dependent on each other, with their respective incomes strengthening the autonomy of each. Social dependence between spouses can also be an issue, if one spouse requires care due to sickness or old age.
Where the state provides policies that relieve dependence on one of the dimensions, dependencies in the other dimension may shift or remain unchanged (Leitner and Lessenich, Reference Leitner, Lessenich, Clasen and Siegel2007). For example, access to affordable childcare can relieve parents' care dependencies and support their ability to participate in paid work and reduce economic dependencies. Using the two concepts of familization and defamilization, researchers can conceptualize and empirically map different degrees of state intervention on the two dimensions of social and economic dependencies within and between countries.
Gender and intergenerational relationships
As previously noted, defamilization is deeply rooted in feminist theorizing and is hence commonly seen as relating to the degree to which the state reduces gender dependencies. In other words, the emphasis has often been on policies that support the independence of women from men. This gender-focused perspective, which tends to be normatively charged, still bears on the concept, although the term defamilization does not necessarily imply it. If we take the definition of 'support of individuals' independence from family relationships' seriously, however, the concept must include intergenerational relationships and same-sex couple relationships too (Saraceno and Keck, Reference Saraceno and Keck2010). As mentioned above, these relationships encompass parents-child relationships, as well as grandparent-grandchild ones. Explicitly acknowledging the different forms of relationships and intended beneficiaries of policies adds to the coherence of the underlying general concept. In this line of argument, Leitner and Lessenich (Reference Leitner, Lessenich, Clasen and Siegel2007) have emphasized the rarely discussed perspectives of the care-giver and of the care-receiver that is inherent to the concept. They argue that the care-giver perspective is reductionist and stress that, from a policy point of view, the perspectives can be conflicting. While this is an important point to note in the context of conceptualizing care relationships, it is less central for describing the degree of support for reducing dependencies between care-giver and care-receiver.
Rather than requiring each study using defamilization to be about all of the relationships, researchers should be clear about the limits of the particular approach adopted (see e.g. Daly, Reference Daly2020 on the lack of a child-perspective), while acknowledging that defamilization is about more than supporting women's employment. The abstract notion of 'state support to reduce family dependencies' may then be operationalized with a focus on selected family relationships. Table 1 provides examples of various defamilizing policies categorized by dependency dimension and type of relationship. The list is incomplete and serves to illustrate the different kinds of policy measures. For example, pension credits granted for periods when individuals (mostly women) interrupted their employment to take care of children or other related persons reduce the caring person's dependence on their spouse. Education stipends, on the other hand, reduce economic dependencies between parents and their children. Social dependencies between spouses decline when they have access to care services for sick or older people, and social dependencies between parents and children diminish when parents can avail of childcare services.
Table 1. Policies reducing social and economic dependencies in gender and intergenerational relationships
Defamilization is an increasingly popular concept in comparative research on state-market-family relationships and it has been widely used in empirical and theoretical studies since its formation over twenty-five years ago (Lister, Reference Lister, Baldwin and Falkingham1994; McLaughlin and Glendinning, Reference McLaughlin, Glendinning, Hantrais and Mangen1994). Many scholars have seen great merit in the concept when describing differences in state support to relieve family dependencies across countries. Others have raised concerns about the concept's clarity and proposed new or complementary concepts. Using Gerring's (Reference Gerring1999) criteria of conceptual goodness, we revisited the strengths and the weaknesses of defamilization.
The analysis showed that the concept is a highly parsimonious term, whose association with established meanings invokes familiarity among scholars in the research field. When it was coined, defamilization filled a theoretical gap in the comparative welfare state literature, which had lacked a concept to complement decommodification (Esping-Andersen, Reference Esping-Andersen1990) as this was developed with the male worker in mind. Both theoretical utility and field utility are high, as the concept addresses theoretical arguments from existing theorizing and contributes a new angle. The relationships between state, market and the family are neatly addressed by defamilization, and it enables more accurate descriptions of country differences by including gender and intergenerational relationships.
The assessment has shown that studies describing differences in the degree of defamilization have meant different things, and that the unsystematic use of the concept has hampered its further elaboration. We argued that its theoretical and field utility are greatest if its roots in welfare state theory are fully acknowledged. In our view, this means that the concept should be a) understood separately from or in tandem with the concept of familization, b) defined and conceptualized in multidimensional terms as relating to state support to reduce economic and social dependencies between family members, and c) acknowledged as addressing both gender and intergenerational dependencies.
The conclusions of our review of defamilization based on the criteria of conceptual goodness have several implications for future empirical research. First, and most generally, careful concept specification is an essential component of any comparative study. The dispute around the term 'defamilization' is a case where the lack of scrutiny has led to discontent and controversy among researchers. While discussions about conflicting ideas concerning a concept may help to sharpen definitions, such discussions can be unproductive if misunderstandings dominate. In recent years, a number of valuable works have aimed to overcome ambiguities in the early definitions of defamilization. Further research should build on these rather than perpetuating old misunderstandings. Second, if defamilization is understood as a multidimensional concept – covering the interlinked aspects of social and economic independence as well as gender and intergenerational relationships – researchers need to clearly state which of these subdimensions they focus on. Third, an operationalization of the concept is still impeded by a lack of data. If there is no other option but to use weak measures of defamilization and its subdimensions, any deficiencies should be carefully explained. At the same time, efforts should be undertaken to increase the availability of valid and reliable data, as is the case for other concepts. We suggest highlighting the particular shortcomings rather than obfuscating them. Only with such openness will we be able to overcome limitations in data availability for certain indicators, countries or time periods.
1 The terms defamilization and defamilialization were introduced synchronically. The differences in terminology will be discussed below. In this article, we have opted to use the shorter term 'defamilization' throughout the article unless we were discussing the differences or citing a source using the other term. We proceed in the same manner with related terms such as familism or familization (instead of familialism or familialization).
2 A search in the Web of Science publication database supports the view that defamilization has proliferated in recent years. For the last five years (2016–2020) we found 55 articles with defamilization or spelling variants of this term in the title, the abstract or as keyword, 52 with breadwinner model and far fewer with earner model, earner-carer model or degenderization. A comparison with occurrences of decommodification helps to put these numbers into perspective. Not surprisingly there are more articles with reference to decommodification, but only about double as many (98 articles). During the period 1990 to 2015, we found 59 mentions of defamilization, 116 entries referring to breadwinner models and 182 mentions of decommodification.
3 We also follow this approach in this article in order to increase readability. See introduction.
Albertini, M., Kohli, M. and Vogel, C. (2007), 'Intergenerational transfers of time and money in European families: common patterns — different regimes?', Journal of European Social Policy, 17 (4), 319–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bambra, C. (2007), 'Defamilisation and welfare state regimes: a cluster analysis', International Journal of Social Welfare, 16 (4), 326–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, U. (1986), Risikogesellschaft: Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002), Reinventing the Family: In Search of New Lifestyles, Malden Mass.: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Chau, R., Yu, S., Foster, L. and Lau, M. (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
Cho, E. Y.-N. (2014), 'Defamilization typology re-examined: Re-measuring the economic independence of women in welfare states', Journal of European Social Policy, 24 (5), 442–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clasen, J. (2013), 'Defining comparative social policy', in A Handbook of Comparative Social Policy, Second Edition, Edward Elgar Publishing, accessed 14 April 2020 at https://www.elgaronline.com/view/edcoll/9781849803663/9781849803663.00012.xml.Google Scholar
Collier, D. and Gerring, J. (eds.) (2009), Concepts and Method in Social Science: The Tradition of Giovanni Sartori, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Collier, D. and Mahon, J. E. (1993), 'Conceptual "Stretching" Revisited: Adapting Categories in Comparative Analysis', The American Political Science Review, 87 (4), 845–55.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: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 18 (1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daly, M. (2020), 'Children and their Rights and Entitlements in EU Welfare States', Journal of Social Policy, 1–18.Google Scholar
de Hoon, S., Lam, J. and Keizer, R. (2016), 'Examining the Relation between Part-Time Work and Happiness in Dual-Earner Couples from a Life Course Perspective: Incorporating Individual, Couple and Country Characteristics', LCC Working Paper, The University of Queensland.Google Scholar
Dykstra, P. A. (2018), 'Cross-national Differences in Intergenerational Family Relations: The Influence of Public Policy Arrangements', Innovation in Aging, 2 (1), accessed at https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igx032.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eggers, T., Grages, C., Pfau-Effinger, B. and Och, R. (2018), 'Re-conceptualising the relationship between de-familialisation and familialisation and the implications for gender equality – the case of long-term care policies for older people', Ageing & Society, 1–27.Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990), The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (1999), Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies, Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, L., Chau, R. and Yu, S. (2017), 'The impact of defamilisation measures on gender and pensions: a comparison between the UK and seven other European countries', Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, 25 (3), accessed at https://doi.org/10.1332/175982717X14999284090397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frericks, P., Höppner, J. and Och, R. (2016), 'Institutional Individualisation? The Family in European Social Security Institutions', Journal of Social Policy, 45 (4), 747–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerring, J. (1999), 'What Makes a Concept Good? A Criterial Framework for Understanding Concept Formation in the Social Sciences', Polity, 31 (3), 357–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goertz, G. (2006), Social Science Concepts: A User's Guide, Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammer, E. and Österle, A. (2003), 'Welfare State Policy and Informal Long-Term Care Giving in Austria: Old Gender Divisions and New Stratification Processes Among Women', Journal of Social Policy, 32 (1), 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Israel, S. and Spannagel, D. (2018), 'Material deprivation in the EU: A multi-level analysis on the influence of decommodification and defamilisation policies', Acta Sociologica, 62 (2), 152–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kröger, 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 & 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
Leitner, S. and Lessenich, S. (2007), '(In-)dependence As Dependent Variable: Conceptualizing and Measuring "De-familization"', in Clasen, J. and Siegel, N. (eds), Investigating Welfare State Change : The 'dependent Variable Problem' in Comparative Analysis, Cheltenham UK; Northampton MA Edward Elgar, pp. 244–60.Google Scholar
Lewis, J. (1992), 'Gender and the Development of Welfare Regimes', Journal of European Social Policy, 2 (3), 159–73.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 to the Beveridge Model, New York; London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 31–44.Google 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
Mathieu, S. (2016), 'From the Defamilialization to the "Demotherization" of Care Work', Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 23 (4), 576–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, E. and Glendinning, C. (1994), 'Paying for Care in Europe: Is There A Feminist Approach?', in Hantrais, L. and Mangen, S. (eds), Family Policy and the Welfare of Women, vol. 3, Loughborough, pp. 52–69.Google Scholar
Michoń, P. (2015), 'Waiting for the incentives to work: comparative analysis of the parental leave policies in the Visegrad countries', Community, Work & Family, 18 (2), 182–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Connor, J. S. (1993), 'Gender, Class and Citizenship in the Comparative Analysis of Welfare State Regimes: Theoretical and Methodological Issues', The British Journal of Sociology, 44 (3), 501–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orloff, A. (1993), 'Gender and the Social Rights of Citizenship: The Comparative Analysis of State Policies and Gender Relations', American Sociological Review, 58 (3), 501–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostner, I. (2010), 'Farewell to the Family As We Know It: Family Policy Change in Germany', German Policy Studies, 6 (1), 211–44.Google Scholar
Pascall, G. and Lewis, J. (2004), 'Emerging Gender Regimes and Policies for Gender Equality in a Wider Europe', Journal of Social Policy, 33 (3), 373–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B. and Podsakoff, N. P. (2016), 'Recommendations for Creating Better Concept Definitions in the Organizational, Behavioral, and Social Sciences', Organizational Research Methods, 19 (2), 159–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sainsbury, D. (1996), Gender, Equality, and Welfare States, Cambridge [England]; New York NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saraceno, C. (1994), 'The Ambivalent Familism of the Italian Welfare State', Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 1 (1), 60–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saraceno, C. (1997), 'Family Change, Family Policies and the Restructuring of Welfare', in Family, Market and Community, Paris: OECD Publishing, pp. 81–100.Google Scholar
Saraceno, C. and Keck, W. (2010), 'Can We Identify Intergenerational Policy Regimes in Europe?', European Societies, 12 (5), 675–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sartori, G. (1991), 'Comparing and Miscomparing', Journal of Theoretical Politics, 3 (3), 243–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sartori, G. (2009), 'Guidelines for concept analysis', in Collier, D. and Gerring, J. (eds), Concepts and Method in Social Science: The Tradition of Giovanni Sartori, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Saxonberg, S. (2013), 'From Defamilialization to Degenderization: Toward a New Welfare Typology', Social Policy & Administration, 47 (1), 26–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zagel, H. and Lohmann, H. (forthcoming), Conceptual approaches in comparative family policy research', in Nieuwenhuis, R. and van Lancker, W. (eds), Handbook on Family Policy, Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Zagel, H. and Van Winkle, Z. (2020), 'Women's Family and Employment Life Courses Across Twentieth-Century Europe: The Role of Policies and Norms', Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, accessed at https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxz056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
View in content
You have Access Open access
Finch, Naomi 2021. Inclusive citizenship and degenderization: A comparison of state support in 22 European countries. Social Policy & Administration, Vol. 55, Issue. 7, p. 1224.
Yerkes, Mara A. Remery, Chantal André, Stéfanie Salin, Milla Hakovirta, Mia and van Gerven, Minna 2022. Unequal but balanced: Highly educated mothers' perceptions of work–life balance during the COVID-19 lockdown in Finland and the Netherlands. Journal of European Social Policy, Vol. 32, Issue. 4, p. 376.
Zagel, Hannah 2022. Handbuch Familiensoziologie. p. 1.
HANNAH ZAGEL (a1) and HENNING LOHMANN (a2)


2. Material: clear acrylic sheet.
3. Size: can be customized as your request.
4. Color: clear,black,white,lucite black,lucite purple,yellow color avaliable.
5. Logo & sign:	silkscreen printing,sticker,laser engraved.
9. Sample-leading time:	5 business days.
10. Delivery time: 15-20 business days after the acrylic makeup organizer sample confirmed.
12. Payment Terms: By T/T or Western Union:40% paid in advance with the 60% balance paid before delivery.


text:
Home FNB Mart About Us Contact Us Feedback Search Subscribe Advertise Ratecard
You can get e-magazine links on WhatsApp. Click here
Subway displaces McDonald's as largest restaurant chain
Monday, 14 March, 2011, 08 : 00 AM [IST]
Subway has surpassed McDonald's to become the largest restaurant chain on the planet and is now spread out more globally than McDonald's. The sandwich chain surpassed the world's largest hamburger chain in terms of number of stores in the US in 2002 and now it has taken the global lead. According to information released by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) last month, Subway has a total of 33,749 restaurants around the world, compared to McDonald's 32,737.
The number of Subway restaurants is expected to increase, since the company plans to establish other branches in strategic locations around the world. One of these locations is in China, since the company views this country as one of the greatest consumer markets on the globe right now. The expansion was also brought about by growing unemployment in the US. As a result, Subway has targeted overseas markets in order to ensure that the company's welfare is preserved. Since the demand for sandwiches in the US is quite limited, Subway still continues to look for other locations where they can set up additional chains.
Subway is entirely franchisee-owned. That has been part of its success. That has been part of its success, says Tony Pace, chief marketing officer of Subway's Franchisee Advertising Fund Trust, the franchisees organisation under the company's umbrella.
Its smaller format stores cost less to open and operate than other chain restaurants. The company's emphasis on cost-control marketing and advertising has also helped grow the brand. Subway, like many restaurant chains, is making a major push in international markets.
This page allows you to send the current page to your friend.
Your Friends Email ID:
* Name :
F&B Projects
"With no shows, pandemic resulted in business loss of Rs 1,25,000 cr"
Past News...
FNB NEWS SPECIALS
Packaged wheat flour market growth 19% CAGR; may reach Rs 7500 cr: Ikon
Bartending 'interesting accident', states aspiring mathematician Lal
Home | About Us | Contact Us | Feedback | Disclaimer
Copyright © Food And Beverage News. All rights reserved.
Designed & Maintained by Saffron Media Pvt Ltd

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


D-Log: We're Not Done... Hush Again!
Uncovering more talent. Give it up to Loui, my nephew!
Tala was mesmerized watching the video. When I told her it's Loui her cousin, she said, "I like him. He's my favorite singer!" She watched it again and again and again!
Mamma mia! I went to the same school! I didn't know it still exists. Loui and shatha are talented fellas.
Well! , good job loui and wish you too an auspicious future..
Thanks Hanna and Solieman for share, but as Akram said, couldn't you make it a little longer!!, we really like it.
Thanks, guys! I was amazed myself to know he sings so well; I had no idea! I'm sure he appreciates your feedback. I'm trying to get more of him and will share it as well.
Tripoline, yep, it is the same school--a small world indeed!


text:
Q: converting a list data to xml format using c# mvc I get my data retrieved in this way
var parentData = dataContext.Fetch<MakerCheckerViewModel>
(PetaPoco.Sql.Builder.Append
  ("SELECT MakerCheckerId
  ,ModelName
  ,mkCk.CheckerStatusId
  ,chkSt.CheckerStatusName
  FROM MakerChecker as mkCk
  JOIN CheckerStatus as chkSt ON
mkCk.CheckerStatusId=chkSt.CheckerStatusId")
).ToList();

I need to convert it into json. I referred these links How to convert JSON to XML or XML to JSON? but using this it can convert only the string data but not the list types.
Also I cannot do it inside Linq as done here convert list to xml in c# as I have the bunch data which will be increasing more in future so I need something like this
    var parentDataJson = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(parentData);

which is done to convert to json. So similar functionality would be there for xml data too. Please help!!

A: This will return a string of XML.
public string CreateXml(MyObject myObject)
{
    var xmlDoc = new XmlDocument();

    var xmlSerializer = new XmlSerializer(myObject.GetType());

    using (var xmlStream = new MemoryStream())
    {
        xmlSerializer.Serialize(xmlStream, myObject);
        xmlStream.Position = 0;
        xmlDoc.Load(xmlStream);
        return xmlDoc.InnerXml;
    }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Q: Inserting last inserted ID into foreign key field with Express, NodeJS, MySQL When a contact form is submitted, by the database design I was provided with, the customer e-mail and name should go into customerinfo table, while their message goes into questionrecord table. The foreign key in questionrecord table references the CustomerID in customerinfo table, which is an Auto-incrementing Primary key. In this post , I found that the last inserted ID can be retrieved on the results variable and I found it viable to be inserted as the foreign key value for the row to be inserted in questionrecord.
I then wrote the code below in hopes of inserting to customerinfo table first, then retrieve the last inserted id and insert it as the foreign key to the new questionrecord record.
But it leads to the error Error [ERR_HTTP_HEADERS_SENT]: Cannot set headers after they are sent to the client.
I assume I cannot call query() twice in the same Express route? How can I perform something similar?
I had thought of redirecting the post request to another route which handles inserting into questionrecord table separately but I have no way to send the value of the last inserted ID along with the redirect.
app.post('/inquiryPost', (req, res) => {
    let newCustomer = {CustomerEmail: req.body.inqEmail, CustomerName: req.body.fullName};

    let sql = 'INSERT INTO customerinfo SET ?';
    let lastInsertId;
    console.log(newCustomer)
    con.query(sql, newCustomer, (err, result) => {
        if (!err) {
            lastInsertID = result.insertId;
        } else {
            res.send("failed to insert into customerinfo table");
        }
    })

    let newQuestion = {CustomerID: lastInsertId, CustomerConcern: req.body.contactMsg};
    let sql2 = 'INSERT INTO questionrecord SET ?';
    con.query(sql2, newQuestion, (err, result) => {
        if (!err) {
            res.sendFile("../SE-Metro-Q/contact.html")
        } else {
            res.send("failed to insert into customerinfo table");
        }
    })

});


text:
Postedby Staff Writer
Performing as part of Melbourne's Poppyseed festival in 2017, Ruby Johnston and Benjamin Nichol's Breadcrumbs is a parodic amalgamation of fairy tale tropes loosely inspired by Hansel and Gretel, peppered with contemporary Melbourne references. It's a humorous and uncomfortable exploration of the ways in which domestic violence silently and insidiously becomes part of the norm. From gaslighting to verbal and physical abuse, the duo explores the role that gender constructs play in creating power imbalances and disempowering the vulnerable.
It's an interesting vessel in which to unravel social conventions and expectations. The navigation of gender roles is exaggerated by the use of fairy tale tropes; masculine and feminine ideals are scrutinised through the absurd, provocative lenses of the two-dimensional and unrealistic stereotypes of princes and princesses. They prod and poke at the nature of happy endings as aspirational but unachievable.
In an interesting and arguably unnecessary move, Johnston and Nichol divide their audience into two, performing between two sets of tiered seating. At times, their concerted effort to ensure they perform to both sides of the audience is conspicuous; Johnston sings to one side of the audience, pauses, then turns and sings to the other side.
The set consists of a Perspex box in the centre of the stage and Perspex panelling on two sides of the stage, which is later lifted to function as the exterior of a house. After a somewhat crude deus ex machina, the box becomes Gretel's 'glass coffin' as she sleeps for 100 years in a nod to both Snow White and Sleeping Beauty as the story moves to its second half.
Launched into the present in this Perspex time capsule, Nichol transforms from Gretel's young, dim-witted brother Hansel to her corona-with-lime-drinking love interest in the fairy tale. This is an interesting decision given that Johnston and Nichol have given the audience a significant amount of time to establish Nichol in the role of Gretel's brother, and we now need to shake this perception to accept him as this new character alongside new romantic dynamics. Nichol successfully steps into this new role, however there's unfortunately (or fortunately, in light of Nichols' first character) zero chemistry between the two. If this lack of chemistry is commentary on the unrealistic nature of fairy tales in rushing into relationships, it's tenuous at best.
Beyond fairy tale tropes, Breadcrumbs plays with various contemporary stereotypes including the basement-dwelling neckbeard via the narrator, uncovered when Gretel speaks directly to her omniscient, generically masculine and now sexist narrator. Toxicity can lurk in anyone, they seem to suggest, but are they distracting from their own message here by humanising the perpetrator? Furthermore, flipping the roles of the victim and the abuser late in the performance, are they risking undermining the validity of the victim's experience by suggesting that they may be at fault, justifying the abuser's actions?
Johnston and Nichols shine a light on the insidiousness of domestic violence and the damaging nature of gender constructs in this accessible and provocative black comedy. Catch them until December 2nd at Meat Market's The Stables in North Melbourne.
Fore more info, click here.
SARAY ILUMINADO


Space scientists at NASA have an eye on asteroid 2012 DA14. Why? The 45-meter-wide space rock is expected to come extremely close to Earth next year--on Feb. 15 to be exact--and just might take out a satellite in the process.
The asteroid will pass by satellites in geostationary orbit about 35,800 kilometers (22,245 miles) above the equator, reportedly putting a communications satellite at risk of being hit.
"That's very unlikely, but we can't rule it out," Paul Chodas, a planetary astronomer at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, told National Geographic. "The orbit for 2012 DA14 is currently very Earthlike, which means it will be very close to Earth on a regular basis."
But other than the small possibility of smashing a satellite, the asteroid poses no serious threat. It has a tiny 0.033 percent--or 1 in 3,030--chance of Earth impact, according to data on NASA's website.
The space rock should, however, offer some cool skywatching. Good binoculars or a telescope are needed to view the flyby since the asteroid will appear faint to the naked eye.
"Next year it will be nice to watch through a pair of binoculars, but there is nothing to worry about," Dr. Gerhard Drolshagen, a near-Earth object observer from the European Space Agency's Space Situational Awareness office, told the Press Association. "In future times the possibility of a collision cannot be completely excluded. It is highly unlikely, but the chance is greater than zero."
The asteroid was discovered by the La Sagra observatory in Spain, and isn't the only rock on NASA's radar. In observing asteroid activity, researchers recently identified about 4,700 near Earth that are "potentially hazardous" if they strike our planet.


The PhiTOP is an elegant scientific, mathematical, artistic and aesthetically pleasing object that brings joy to the eye, hand and mind. It levels up executive toys and makes a perfect gift.
The PhiTOP is a 21st century dynamical object with a unique mathematical shape. It is in the broadest sense a "philosophical toy." It can be spun like a top – which it is. But its distinguished pedigree comes from applying the Golden Ratio to an ellipse.
The PhiTOP was designed for the delight of people of all ages from 5 to 105. Creating surprise when spun as it stands upright, it also produces a marvelous optical illusion as it slows down - a soothing sound and a miniature light show.
Sitting quietly on a desk, the PhiTOP can be enjoyed as an elegant and sensual sculpture or as a tactile aid to meditation and relaxation. It makes for an exceptional executive gift. But it also captures the imagination of young children.


text:
Mosetene,  pleme američkih Indijanaca porodice Mosetenan u sjevernoj Boliviji nastanjeno duž rijeke Beni i istočno od nje. Porodica Mosetenan dobila je ime po plemenu Mosetene. Oni su narod svijetle puti, sjedilačko stanovništvo koje se bavi obradom zemlje. Žive po kolibama od trske. Na sebi nose briljantno obojene bezrukavne duge tunike. Kanua nemaju nego se služe splavima. Luk i strijela glavno su im oružje.

-Porodica Mosetenan sastoji se od dva plemena, to su Chimane i Mosetén ili Mosetene koji sebe zovu Mintyi'in 'ljudi', svoj jezik nazivaju tsinsi' mik, 'naš jezik' ili khäei'si' mik. Od drugih plemena i naroda  (prema Metrauxu) Mosetene su nazivani raznim imenima: Rache, Amo, Chumpa, Cunana, Aparoño i Magdaleno. Prema svojoj lokaciji, odnosno rijekama na kojoj žive, jedni Moseteni se nazivaju Muchanes a drugi Tucupi. Chimané, drugo pleme, i Moseteni, jedni druge nazivaju imenom Chhaetidye', u slobodnom prijevodu 'oni koji nam sliče' ili 'slična osoba'.

Indijanci Chimane nazivani su i imenima Chimanisa, Chumano, Chimani i Nawazi-moñtji (prema Metrauxu, 1942.)

Jezik moseten ima dva dijalekta: Santa Ana Moseten: govori se u selima Santa Ana, Inicua, Muchanes,i drugim manjim okolnim naseljima. Covendo Moseten govori se u Covendu i okolnim selima. Chimane se govori u velikom području bazena Amazone, oko grada San Borja. Moseteni su inače svi bilingualni, govore moseten i španjolski. Prema jezikoslovacu Swadeshu (1963.) Moseteni su srodni grupama Chon (Ona i Tehuelche) iz južne Argentine i Čilea. Suarez (1969. i 1973.) širi ovu teoriju i na Yuracare, jedno drugo bolivijsko pleme. Ide se i dalje, pa se sve ove grupe povezuje s govornicima Pano i Tacana jezika.  Područje ove mega-'nat-porodice' prostire se u zapadnom Brazilu, susjednom Peruu i Boliviji i na jugu preko Argentine do Ognjene Zemlje (Tierra del Fuego).

Brojno stanje Mosetena iz Covenda, što se tiće govornika je 600, a onih iz Santa Ane 150-200. Chimane su kao 'govornici' daleko brojniji, oko 4,000. Prema neslužbenim pokazateljima, brojno stanje govornika ovih domorodačkih jezika daleko je brojnije. Brojnim stanjem 'govornika' domorodačkih jezika često se spekulira kod grupa koje su bilingualne, naročito u španjolskom ili portugalskom. Bilingualnost uglavnom znači početak hispanizacije. 'Joshua Project' u svom popisu stanovništva uopće ne spominje Mosetene, oni svi govore španjolski pa su ih izgleda uvrstili u Bolivijce. Prema istom izvoru Chimana ima preko 7,000.

Izvori

Mosetenan
Bolivijski Indijanci
Macro-Panoan jezici
Indijanska plemena

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Vught är en kommun i provinsen Noord-Brabant i Nederländerna. Kommunens totala area är 34,46 km² (där 0,96 km² är vatten) och invånarantalet är 25 788 invånare (1 februari 2012).

Externa länkar

 Officiell webbplats

Orter i Noord-Brabant


text:
Long May She Reign: Ellen Emerson White
Exodus: Julie Bertagna
Book: Exodus
Author: Julie Bertagna (blog)
Originally published in Scotland, Julie Bertagna's young adult fiction title Exodus was shortlisted for the Whitbread Prize, and won the Lancashire Children's Book of the Year Award and a Friends of the Earth Eco Prize. It is being published in the U.S. by Walker Books in April of 2008. But I didn't request a copy because it was award-winning. I requested a copy because I can't resist Dystopian fiction. And this title lived up to my expectations, keeping me up reading late into the night.
Exodus is set in the year 2100, on an earth that is almost entirely overtaken by ocean after the melting of the polar ice caps. I was a bit concerned, after reading an author's introductory note about global warming, that the book would be too message-y. But I'm pleased to report that Julie Bertagna, while conveying a vivid and cautionary picture of the possible fate of the world, keeps character and story at the forefront of Exodus.
Exodus is told from the viewpoint of fifteen-year-old Mara Bell, who lives in a small community on the island of Wing, in a northern sea. Each year, the ocean encroaches further on their land. As the story begins, the villagers face the fact that their island will soon be lost to the seas. Prowling "the Weave" (the tattered remnants of the world wide web) with a computer gaming device, Mara learns of a one-time plan to build tall, study cities on piers rising out of the oceans. She finds one that she believes is located within sailing distance, and, risking everything, encourages her family and friends to set out for a new life.
Things don't go quite as expected, however, and Mara finds herself living in two very different communities, one perched precariously on the skeleton of the old world, and another that soars high above it.
The first community, one where a few people live a hand-to-mouth existence among the detritus of the old world, is called the Netherworld. Here Mara finds little touches of a past that she never knew about. I personally found this aspect of the story to be filled with hidden treasure, as I, the reader, tried to figure out what Mara was seeing with her inexperienced eyes. For example:
"At last she finds him up on the curving ruin of the building that tops the Treenesters' island. She spies his grubby face peeking out through a large red and yellow plastic sign that's lopsidedly propped upon the building's crumbling balcony; a bright yellow M, like a twin golden archway. Was this once the sign of some special, sacred place?" (Page 136, ARC)
OK, that one is a bit obvious, but it made me smile. The Netherworld portion of the book reminded me a bit of John Christopher's Tripods series, also set in a futuristic world where common items from our world have deteriorated into artifacts. It's amazing, and I'd hope improbable, how far people have falled in only 100 years, and how little they know of the world from before.
The new world city, New Mungo, by contrast, is more like something out of Scott Westerfeld's Uglies series, glossy and fast-paced and high tech. The contrast between the Netherworld and New Mungo is jarring. Bertagna has built completely different worlds into the same book, and uses Mara's transition between them to sharpen the contrast.
In addition to the cautionary message about global warming, Exodus also explores gender roles. Mara is a young feminist, wondering about the roles of men and women in history. As she talks with a female friend, one who has big dreams, but is also caring for a baby, Mara reflects:
"As Boomielaw trails off into thought, Mara remembers what bothered her as she walked through the vast halls of the university, looking at the portraits of the golden names. There were no dreamswomen. Apart from the odd mythical figure or queen, not one of the golden names had belonged to a woman. All of the great dreamers had been men.
Now Mara sees how it could have happened. The women might have dreamed just as hard - as hard as Broomielaw does now - but their dreams had become all tangled up with the knit of ordinary life, with meal-making and babycare and nest-building." (page 169, ARC)
Exodus has a lot to offer: a strong female main character, interesting settings, twisting plot, and big-picture questions. The writing style is unusual, sometimes poetic, but also filled with short sentences, and sometimes spare on articles like "an" and "the". It's as though the book was written by someone who loves stories, but who hasn't much time to spare for words, because there's important work to be done. This completely works with the story, and left me feeling like I might just possibly have actually traveled 100 years into the future while I was immersed in the book.
Overall, I was so intrigued by Exodus that I just might have to order the sequel, Zenith, from the UK. I recommend it for teens, and for anyone interested in Dystopian and futuristic fiction. Fans of the movie The Day After Tomorrow will definitely enjoy it (though Exodus offers much more in the way of plot and character). I don't recommend it for younger kids, however, unless their parents read it first. The ideas about the crumbling of our entire society are pretty overwhelming. There are also allusions (though in a very veiled manner) to sex, and there is some violence and death. I think it's a solidly YA title, and that adults will find it compelling, too.
Publisher: Walker Books for Young Readers
Source of Book: ARC from the publisher. All quotes are from ARC, and may not represent the final printed title.
Other Blog Reviews: Great Books Reviewed, The Poor Player
Posted at 03:47 PM in Dystopia / Post-Apocalypse, Newsletter, Reviews, Young Adult | Permalink | Comments (6)


text:
The real problem with Iranian oil - By Ellen R. Wald
……… Now that the nuclear agreement (JCPOA) has effectively ended the sanctions, Iran faces a significant challenge of reconstructing its oil industry, from exploration and production to transportation infrastructure to refining capacity. All of this takes cash, of which Iran has little. The bottom line is Iran needs foreign investment, which is in direct conflict with Iran's Islamic revolutionary ideology.
The battle over foreign investment in Iranian oil is now playing out and a power struggle between Iran's two competing government apparatuses: The democratically elected President, Hassan Rouhani, who wants to attract foreign investment, and the autocratic Supreme Jurisprudent, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose revolutionary ideology diametrically opposes all foreign investment.
Iran's oil ministry, under the direction of Rouhani, prepared a new type of foreign oil contract designed to entice foreign investment. Previously Iran had only offered "buy back" style contracts to foreign companies and investors. In the "buy back" system, foreigners could invest in oil exploration and production in Iran, but once production began, the NIOC would take over and buy back the rights for a predetermined price. The new contracts, called Integrated Petroleum Contracts (IPCs) resemble joint ventures or production sharing agreements with 20- to 25-year durations (double that of traditional "buy back" contracts). These IPCs would allow for foreign companies and investors to realize more revenue from their investments over a longer period of time before returning control to Iran.
News of these potentially lucrative deals drew the interest Rouhani was hoping for. Iran planned to unveil these contracts at a November 2015 conference in Tehran, but instead of the information investors needed, attendees were presented with old data about Iran's oil fields and only brief overviews of the contracts. The key issues investors wanted to discuss, like arbitration, crude lifting, and accountancy rules had not even been worked out by the Iranian government.
Iran rescheduled the contract unveiling for late January 2016 in London, but canceled. Although the government blamed it on visa trouble, the real problem was revealed in Iran's parliamentary election in February as the conservative clerical establishment made a public stand against Rouhani's plans. These clerics openly took issue with the planned foreign oil contacts preferred by Rouhani and his allies, claiming they were too generous towards the foreigners. Meanwhile, officials in the oil ministry, representing Rouhani's position, insisted that the only way to rehabilitate the economy is through the oil industry, and the only way to rehabilitate the oil industry is through foreign investment, and the only way to entice foreign investment is with significant financial incentives.
When we in the West consider Iran, we think about nuclear weapons, women's rights, and terrorism, but this issue of foreign oil investment is central to the political future of the Islamic Republic of Iran. If Iran's economy fails to recover, the clerics will blame Rouhani. Iran's constitution severely limits the powers granted to the democratically elected president, but the economy happens to be one area where the president, rather than the autocratic Supreme Jurisprudent, can exercise control. Except Rouhani's economic control is limited, when his plans contravene the revolution. If Rouhani succeeds, it could be a harbinger of liberalized economic policy. If Khamenei succeeds, it could mean the continued economic isolation of Iran despite the intentions of the world.
Ellen R. Wald, Ph.D. is an energy historian. She is currently working on a book about Western involvement in the post-war Mid-East energy industry. She teaches Middle East history at Jacksonville University. She can be reached at ellenrwald@gmail.com. Her website is www.ellenrwald.com
Full text at: The real problem with Iranian oil | Futures Magazine
Labels: Government, Mentoring, Politics
Mamet: When People Stop Arguing
How Unelected Bureaucrats Became 'Liberty's Nemesi...
CAP – Study 8 – Institutions – Family – Family Hie...
AT LAST, AMERICA FIRST! - by PATRICK J. BUCHANAN
Public university admits to burying study finding ...
"Some thoughts on Thomas Jefferson Education for h...
Left-Secularism Is Taking Over the West - by Patri...
What is a conservative and what is conservatism? -...
How much does the average state employee cost taxp...
Point-and-Shriek, or Why SJWs are SJWs - posted b...
Capitalism and the Minimum Wage: "I Got Mine, Scre...
The Moral Foundations of the Modern Social Order -...
Distrust Yourself before You Distrust the Candidat...
Climate Alarmism and the Muzzling of Independent S...
Call it Fascism - By Mike Konrad (The best article...
A Liberal Magazine Just Spilled the Beans about K-...
How To Pick The Best Preschool Environment For You...
The death of liberalism - Comments by Vox Day on a...
News flash: American manufacturing is not thriving...
When Money Fails - by Gary North
2016—The Road Ahead - by By Obie Usategui
'Big Governments' Immigration Game' game its own c...
What Women Really Want Is The Patriarchy - By Nic...
The End is Not Near, It has Begun - By Jack Perry
Syria or Colorado - Vox Day comments on article b...
The Entire Status Quo Is a Fraud - Charles Hugh Smith
Notes on the free trade debate by Vox Day
Why Aren't We Talking About a Four-Candidate Race ...
Christian Action Project – Notes and asides - #5 -...
The intrinsic unreliability of science - by Willia...
The Hidden Power In Trusting Your Gut Instincts - ...
The difference between Cruz and Trump - By Greg Ri...
Borders, Culture, and Decentralization - By Bionic...
Fear and Loathing at the Trump Rally - by Gavin Mc...
Aborting the Working Class - by David Cole
Dance to the Panama Papers 'Limited Hangout' Leak ...
Triffin's Paradox Revisited: Crunch-Time for the U...
Scientistry and sciensophy - with comments by Vox...
The Panama Papers: This Is the Consequence of Cent...
It's Time for a Moratorium on Chinese Investment -...
THE BOOMER RETIREMENT MEME IS A BIG LIE - The Burn...
VW Says: Thank You Sir! May I have Another? - by E...
The Future of Money - by Charles Hugh Smith
Critics complain Trump's deportation plan would co...
The People are Right: It's Time to Balance Trade -...
WHAT TRUMP HAS WROUGHT - Pat Buchanan: Candidate u...
Higher Education Is Morally and Financially Bankru...
The Remarkable Investing Power of 'Creative Destru...
TO UNDERSTAND IMMIGRATION, STUDY WESTERN CIVILIZAT...
CAP – Study 6 – Kingdom of God – Confidence and Le...
Exposing the Myths You've Always Believed about Th...
A Jewish case for white nationalism - by Mytheos ...
Killing Knowledge in K-12 - By Bruce Deitrick Price
The West's War on Jihad Begins at Home - By Raymon...


text:
KALIKA PURANA ENGLISH PDF
25.03.2019 21.12.2020 admin Career
Sanskrit The Kalika Purana 10th century is a Hindu religious text, considered as one of the 18 Upapuranas. The extant text contains 98 chapters with over stanzas and is the only work of the genre dedicated to the worship of the goddess Kali in her manifold forms such as Girija, Devi, Bhadrakali, and Mahamaya. This text describes in detail the rivers and mountains at Kamarupa tirtha and mentions the Kamakhya temple. It glorifies the goddess Kamakhya, or Kamakshi and details the ritual procedures required for worshiping her. However, the main purpose of the text seems to be an attempt to close the gap between mainstream religious practice and the "forbidden" tantric methods, like use of the panchamakara meat, wine, fish, parched grain and sexual intercourse in a ritual context. The work belongs, therefore, to the goddess-oriented Shakta branch of Hinduism.
Author: Menris Jujas
Country: Chad
Uploader: Shanos
Sanskrit The Kalika Purana 10th century is a Hindu religious text, considered as one of the 18 Upapuranas. The extant text contains 98 chapters with over stanzas and is the only work of the genre dedicated to the worship of the goddess Kali in her manifold forms such as Girija, Devi, Bhadrakali, and Mahamaya.
This text describes in detail the rivers and mountains at Kamarupa tirtha and mentions the Kamakhya temple. It glorifies the goddess Kamakhya, or Kamakshi and details the ritual procedures required for worshiping her. However, the main purpose of the text seems to be an attempt to close the gap between mainstream religious practice and the "forbidden" tantric methods, like use of the panchamakara meat, wine, fish, parched grain and sexual intercourse in a ritual context.
The work belongs, therefore, to the goddess-oriented Shakta branch of Hinduism. Most probably it was composed in Kamarupa modern Assam. It is an important work which has been quoted as an authority by the comparatively late Nibandha digests of the smritis writers from all over India, especially regarding Shakti worship.
This Upapurana contains gratuitous material which refers to events and conditions of the remote past. It is also one of the rare Hindu texts that actually mentions the word "Hindu".
E13003 DATASHEET PDF
Ask a question Introduction 1. Both of them are described as the two commandments of God sruti. Manu, while declaring two more in addition to these two as the direct sources of dharma assigns the Vedas the first place, which is to be regarded as superior to all others. Smrti in the widest acceptance of the term "includes the six vedangas, the sutras, both srauta and grhya, the law books of Manu and others, the itihasa; i. Ramayana, the puranas, and the nitisastras," As the puranas come under smrti they are next only to the Vedas in their authority to dharma. The puranas are also regarded as the soul of the Vedas. Historically speaking all the puranas are of later origin, i.
DESCARGAR MANUAL URGENTE PARA RADIALISTAS APASIONADOS PDF
KALIKA PURAN ENGLISH PDF
It exists in many versions, variously organized in 90 to 93 chapters. The surviving versions of the text are unusual in that they start abruptly and follow a format not found in either the major or minor Purana -genre mythical texts of Hinduism. It also describes in detail the rivers and mountains at Kamarupa tirtha and mentions the Brahmaputra River and the Kamakhya Temple. The text states that a human sacrifice may be performed to please the goddess, but only with the consent of prince before a war or cases of imminent danger. The text also states that anyone who is physically handicapped, related to a Brahmin, or "is not willing to die" through the sacrifice is unfit for the ritual. The text describes the rituals associated with a bali, or a rice-paste substitute for enemies prior to a war, but does not describe how the sacrifice was actually done. Most probably it was composed in or near medieval Kamarupa modern Assam.
DIAGRAMME DE FLUX MERISE PDF
ANATOMIA DEL ANILLO DE WALDEYER PDF
CRONICAS MARCIANAS PDF
LENZE 8300 PDF
CHAICHIAN DEMICHEV PDF
ELECTROPHYSIOLOGIE CARDIAQUE COURS PDF


Let them eat cake (first)!
Backwards design, designing educational curricula by setting goals before choosing instructional methods and forms of assessment, is a widely accepted approach to course development. In this talk we introduce a course design approach inspired by backwards design, where students are exposed to results and findings of a data analysis first and then learn about the building blocks of the methods and techniques used to arrive at these results. We present this approach in the context of an introductory data science course that focuses on exploratory data analysis, modeling, and effective communication, while requiring reproducibility and collaboration. The talk is organized in three parts (visualization, data acquisition, and modeling) and features examples of in class activities, details of the course curriculum, and sample student work.