Acta8 (2of3)
Acta8 (2of3)
Acta8 (2of3)
One of the major problems that today worries the Church and religious
communities is the crisis of the family, which has important consequences
for society and its institutions.
As we know, the family is a domestic church. It is, equally, the cell of
society. Cicero defined the family as ‘the beginning of the city and almost
the nursery of the state’ (‘principium urbis et quasi seminarium rei publicae’)
and St. Thomas Aquinas observed that the family and society arise ‘ex ipsa
natura rei’, from the very nature of man.
The social doctrine of the Church, indeed, centres around a recognition
of man as a person taken in all his dimensions, a recognition from which
emerges the principle of the ‘subjectivity of society’.
How is it that this principle, even more than being not applied, is actu-
ally denied by contemporary society? A scientific analysis of the consumer
society in which we live allows us to understand the causes of this phenom-
enon, which has had repercussions not only for man and society but also for
the environment itself, creating the ecological problem at a world level.
Consumerism, which is an idea that underlies contemporary society,
has broken down the dimensions of man. As a result, such dimensions have
not been seen in a unitary way. In other words, man is seen in terms of his
separate dimensions, of stagnant compartments. There are sociologists
who have observed this separation and have argued that the family has
ceased to be the cell of society and has become reduced to being merely a
cell of the individual. The social functions that were previously performed
by the family, or in some way were linked to the family, have in large meas-
ure been absorbed by the state and separated from the family itself.
86 PIER LUIGI ZAMPETTI
1
For these questions and others addressed in this paper, see P.L. Zampetti, La
sovranià della famiglia e lo Stato delle autonomie. Un nuovo modello di sviluppo (Rusconi,
Milan, 2nd. edn. 1997).
88 PIER LUIGI ZAMPETTI
divorce and then abortion can be traced back to the process of secularisa-
tion produced by the consumerist approach.
The crisis that afflicts the contemporary family is thus a consequence of:
1. the transformation of society into consumer society;
2. the manipulation of the family effected by consumer society itself.
This manipulation has as its goal the expansion of consumption regardless
of quality of life.
The family in consumer society thus marks the end of the family/unit of
consumption tandem, an end that coincides with the power of society to
absorb the family through the extension of the structures of consumer soci-
ety to the family fabric.
It is interesting at a scientific level to analyse the socio-economic path
that was followed to achieve this result. We must go back and analyse the
way in which the United States of America overcame the depression of the
1930s, which could have meant the end of the whole capitalist system,
thereby fulfilling the prediction of Marx, who had posited its collapse.
A reduction in consumption and a contemporaneous stagnation in pro-
duction were registered at that time.
Now, it was the reduction of consumption caused by the family which
marked the move from pre-consumerist capitalism to consumerist capital-
ism, thereby demonstrating clearly that the family cannot be reduced, as
some sociologists would have it, to being the cell of the individual. The
social and economic dimensions of the family were exploited and artifi-
cially transformed. In order to avoid this, the socio-economic dimensions
of the family should be guaranteed and promoted in their naturalness.
The consumption and savings of the family in their naturalness must
equally be connected with investments in a form that has still to be estab-
lished. For example, through their allocation to pension funds or severance
pay funds. This would allow families to influence the very system of the
production of goods.
The family and the economy are interdependent because the dimensions
of man are interdependent.
The taking away of choices about consumption from the family by the
structures of society would not have taken place if the decisions about
investments had not first been taken away, albeit within the limits allowed
by capital formation on the part of families themselves.
Precisely when analysing the family and its structures, we realise that
the economy and ethics are deeply connected. The ethics of capitalism are
connected to a certain extent with the ethics of family virtues.
90 PIER LUIGI ZAMPETTI
2
On this point I refer the reader to my recently published volume: Partecipazione e
Democrazia completa. La nuova vera via, chapter VIII: ‘La trasformazione del capitalis-
mo e la valorizzazione dell’uomo e della società’.
92 PIER LUIGI ZAMPETTI
3
I would like to observe that in his Encyclical Laborem exercens, John Paul II speaks
about Christ as a ‘man of work’ and this allows us to see ‘work as a participation in the
work of the Creator’ (see nn. 25-26).
A NEW MODEL FOR THE ROLE OF THE FAMILY IN THE STATE 93
ily and the state? This is a problem that is still open and which should
therefore be carefully analysed. We need to identify the concept of ‘people’,
which is of fundamental importance in understanding democracy as gov-
ernment by the people.
And here the role of the family and the role of the state, or to be more
precise the role of the family within the context of the state, is manifested
in all its breadth. I will say even more. In this context, the dignity of the
family-subject, which is at the basis of the whole community, is emerging
in all its majesty and dignity. A phenomenon of most welcome importance
is thus encountered which allows a real understanding of the concept of
‘people’, which hitherto has been understood in a reductive way as being a
people of individuals and not a people of men-persons.
It thus has an ephemeral life: it manifests itself only at times of voting.
I am referring here to what Jean Jacques Rousseau argued in his social con-
tract before the French Revolution exploded. ‘The English people’, he
argued, ‘believe that they are free because they vote. In reality, they are free
only when they vote, after this they are more slaves than before’.
The reductive notion of ‘people’ has thus become a reductive notion of
man. He is considered in an abstract way, as an individual. In this approach
his social nature is neglected. Man understood as an individual is a man,
who is I would say reduced by 50%, almost cut in half. This cut impedes
him from becoming a man in the real sense of the term. This individualis-
tic philosophical approach has allowed an exploitation of the family and
thus its proletarianisation.
We must take a necessary step in order to understand the reforms of the
family and the state that should be promoted. The people of families must
be put in a position where it can build a new community-subject around
the family, which I call an organised community.
From this point of view, I think that I can interpret the concepts expressed
by the Pope in his Letter to Families. In this letter there are two important
statements that should be taken into consideration with reference to the sub-
ject I am addressing in this paper. The first concerns the subjectivity of the
family and thus the very subjectivity of the state as well as that of international
communities and organisations. The second concerns the sovereignty of the
family, that is to say its effectiveness, its sharing in the exercise of power.
These two statements support each other, just as the being of man sup-
ports the action of man. ‘Operari sequitur esse’. One is dealing here with a
people not as an abstraction but as a concrete reality. A Spanish scholar,
Pedro Juan Viladrich (Jus canonico XXXIV, n. 68, p. 437), says that the sec-
A NEW MODEL FOR THE ROLE OF THE FAMILY IN THE STATE 95
ond statement of the Pope is a time bomb which will radically change the
social order. And in truth the people of families determines the birth and
the development of the new concept of participatory democracy which
directly involves the formation and the organisation of society; it is differ-
ent from representative democracy which involves the formation and the
organisation of the state.
The introduction of this new democracy reduces the tasks of the state,
which for that matter it is today no longer able to perform, as the crisis of
the welfare state demonstrates. From this point of view, the reform of the
welfare state becomes the reform of the state ‘tout court’ and allows a move
from the welfare state to the welfare society, whose fulcrum is specifically
the families and the organisations that lead back to it.
This new social organisation, which brings together social subjects, is
the structure of a society animated by the values of man as a person.
With participatory society, which then becomes an organised commu-
nity, the rights of the family acquire connotations that are new and differ-
ent. The rights of parents, for example, can no longer be considered only in
relation to the state but first and foremost must be seen in a cultural frame
that centres around the subjectivity of the family and the subjectivity of
society. This is a family that precedes the state and which the state must
serve and not be served by. A state understood in these terms is a state that
promotes and defends the autonomy of social subjects beginning with the
natural and primary subject of the family, whereas in the contemporary sit-
uation it is the family that revolves, as we said at the beginning of this
paper, at least in large measure, around the state.
But let us now see how the family subject is to be placed in the partici-
patory society that becomes transformed into an organised community.
Participatory democracy is the instrument that allows us to achieve this
result. It is a democracy that begins from the base and finds its point of
departure in the family understood as the cell of society and in the munic-
ipality, which is understood as the cell of the state. It is from the union of
these two cells, I would say from their fertilisation, that the trunk of the
new society and the new state is born.
Such fertilisation marks the beginning of a new and fruitful process
that is destined to change human history itself.
The sovereignty of the family in this perspective needs a state that is dif-
ferent from the contemporary state, what I call the state of autonomies.
We should now make clear what we understand by a state of
autonomies. I would observe, first of all, that we are dealing here with a
96 PIER LUIGI ZAMPETTI
4
On this point I refer the reader to my volume: La sovranità della famiglia e lo Stato
delle autonomie, chapter XI: ‘Lo Stato partecipativo e il federalismo. Sussidiarietà e
solidarietà’.
A NEW MODEL FOR THE ROLE OF THE FAMILY IN THE STATE 97
In any case, the aim is to allow the integration of the local communities
with the territorial institutions. And it is specifically from an analysis of
such relationships (of integration) that a new concept of sovereignty is born
which allows us to understand the concept of the sovereignty of the family
in all its importance and breadth.
The point should be well understood: the sovereignty of the family is
not in the least an alternative to the sovereignty of the state, but it is an
essential element in its transformation.
We are thus face to face with two new concepts of sovereignty, accord-
ing to whether one sees man as an individual or as a person, and as a
result, with two different concepts of the people as a set of individuals
seen in atomistic terms or as a community of persons integrated into soci-
ety, to which the concept of the people of families is connected.
Certainly, we should understand what is being proposed here. The
family is not to be identified with society but is to be seen as its axis.
Equally, we can say that the territorial local authority, the commune, is
not the state but a constituent element of the state.
The concept of sovereignty, therefore, is a complex concept because
both society and the state from this point of view are complex. Once the
connection has been established, the concept of sovereignty must be
extended to both.
The election of representatives is only a stage in the process of the for-
mation of the will of the state, and thus of its sovereignty. It is no longer
enough to declare that sovereignty belongs to the people quoad titulum
from the moment that the people delegate the exercise of power to their
representatives. This was the approach of Enlightenment individualism,
which excluded sharing in the exercise of power after the election of rep-
resentatives.
The social subjects are thus participants in the process of the forma-
tion of the popular will because they are organised around the concept of
the family-institution, which thus becomes the driving motor of popular
sovereignty.
Sovereignty is thus to be understood as an arrangement of the powers
of the state into which society is inserted. The state of autonomies specif-
ically performs these functions. We can now understand the reasons why
the two central pillars of the state are the family and the commune. This
is the deep meaning of the sovereignty of the family.
To defend and promote the autonomy of the family in relation to the
structures of the state means to unite the concept of autonomy with the
98 PIER LUIGI ZAMPETTI
Family and society; society and the state. These are the key constituent
elements of the new conception of the state that envisages integration
through the principle of the subsidiarity of the family and of society with-
in the state. Subsidiarity does not in the least mean subordination – the
principle of subsidiarity solicits help provided by the state to communities
so that they can be autonomous and thereby develop all their potential,
which, otherwise, would become dispersed.
There must be, in other words, a reciprocal co-operation between the
subjectivity of society and the subjectivity of the state in order to allow the
state to work at all levels.
In this paper I have confined myself to outlining principles without
identifying the different stages linked to concrete data and problems. These
principles must be placed in historical reality in order to direct them to
ends that match the ends and the needs of man as a person.
We have now reached the point in this paper where it is possible to draw a
conclusion from the analysis that has been made. Two different models of
development have been compared and contrasted which have two different
ways of understanding man, freedom, society, the economy, democracy, nature
and the environment, the state and international relations. These two models
express two cultures that are totally different. And in truth the consumerist
model of development begins with the structures of society and the state and
then comes to man. The second model, in different fashion, begins with man
in the unity of his dimensions to come to the structures of society and the
structures of the state. Consumer society and the welfare state use man.
Participatory society and the state of autonomies are at the service of man.
Statism has been of determining importance in the creation of a culture
that has been rooting itself in the culture in which we live. Without statism,
consumerism would not have existed, and consumerism has managed to
penetrate the formation of the inner motivations of man. Socio-economic
and political structures have influenced the consciousness of men.
Hedonistic materialism, which is the philosophy of consumer society, is the
result of this slow process.
This is a philosophy that expresses the way of thinking and of acting of
men who are manipulated by the structures of society, which, indeed, man-
age to impose themselves within men and at times to take the place –
through the sophisticated instruments that advertising can count on – of
the very choices of men.
Permissiveness is a consequence but not the cause of this process. The
same may be said of secularisation (which in this perspective I identify
100 PIER LUIGI ZAMPETTI
with secularism), which has marked the collapse of all values because it has
impeded man from being a truly free subject and responsible for his own
behaviour. He is a man who is a prisoner of the system, who indeed has
frozen many inner resources, since his motivational and decision-making
iter has been deformed.
I would like to refer to an important article in the Italian Constitution,
namely article 2, which constitutionalised the concept of the human person
and his relations with the state by recognising the spiritual nature of man,
and, in the same way, his social nature. On the recognition of the spiritual
nature of man, which is expressly enunciated in the actual formulation of
this article, depends the priority of the family over the state; on the recogni-
tion of the social nature of man depends the recognition of social subjects.
The statism of the welfare state has overturned the contents and the
dynamics of this article. It is the state that is now higher than man, there-
by allowing the system of production to infiltrate the sacred realm of his
conscience and to promote a materialistic approach to life, which is exact-
ly the opposite to the contents and goals of this article 2.
Without statism, the culture of hedonistic materialism, which has fatal-
ly afflicted the family and broken down the structures of society, would not
have been born and would not have been formed.
With the outer walls of the welfare state breached, the doors of the
prison (which are invisible because they are internal) in which man has
been shut up, are gradually opening. This is a real and authentic process of
the liberation of man, to whom should be restored the integrity of a con-
science which has been subjected to the snares of manipulation and dis-
tortion. This is a distortion which certainly does not take man’s responsi-
bility away from him, even though he is influenced or conditioned by the
structures of the society in which we live.
Just as the consumerist model of development marked the beginning
of the decline of man, so the personalist model of development marks the
beginning of the recovery of values by man and society, beginning with
the family.
The new model of development is born precisely after it has dismantled,
piece by piece, the welfare model of development. It is the culture of man
as a person that will give a new countenance to the family and society, and
in different ways, which perhaps we are still not able to imagine.
Today, it is certainly the case that we are far from the results that the
proposed model seeks to achieve. But in my opinion this is not the prob-
lem. When one begins from certain premises, one cannot but reach certain
A NEW MODEL FOR THE ROLE OF THE FAMILY IN THE STATE 101
conclusions. As, indeed, for that matter has happened in an inverted way in
the case of consumer society. When that society was born, the results that
we now encounter, after the various subsequent stages that have taken
place, were unimaginable.
In any case, I have to emphasise that participatory society is the only
society that is an alternative to consumer society. The scientific analysis
that I have carried out in my various areas of research demonstrates this
with great clarity. It has allowed me to establish:
1. why the welfare state can no longer be kept going;
2. why we must begin from the family and not from the state in order
to create a new model of development;
3. why there cannot be a sovereignty of the people without the key sup-
port of the family and a society which is arranged around the family;
4. why we can reach the unity of capital and labour through the family
and an organised community;
5. why work centred around the structure of the family has motivations,
objectives and ends which are completely different from the work of a man
who is seen in atomistic terms, that is to say detached from the social fabric.
When the family is the subject of development, the full integration
between the family and society takes place. Through this integration a phe-
nomenon takes place that seems contradictory but in reality is not so at all.
On the one hand, society frees itself from the state; on the other hand, it
strengthens it.
The welfare state is weak because it is an infrastructure of the system
of production. When I speak about the strengthening of the state I am cer-
tainly not referring to the representative state; I am referring, instead, to the
participatory state. Because this state is at the service of man it is able to
promote the allocation of its energies (which in large part have been frozen)
so as to vivify and enrich the whole of the fabric of society.
In this cultural perspective, the importance of the fundamental role of
the family – the real and authentic animator of economic, social and
political institutions – emerges in its entirety. It is from the family, under-
stood in these terms, that there springs a participatory model of society
which has at its base, and is vivified by, the values of the human person.
Professor Zampetti’s paper on “A New Role for the Family in the State”,
when considered together with President Malinvaud’s overview of the social
teaching of the Church on the topic of Inter-Generational Solidarity, brings
out the close relationships among all four projects undertaken thus far by
the Pontifical Academy. For globalization has been accompanied by the dis-
ruption everywhere of age-old patterns of work and family organization,
while the weakening of inter-generational solidarity has jeopardized the
health both of national economies and the world’s democratic experiments.
In each of our four areas of concern, a major challenge for the social sci-
ences (and for politics) is to become more attentive to the long-term costs
and implications of decisions and behaviors that offer short-term advan-
tages or attractions. Catholic social thought does, in fact, take a long view of
social problems, but culturally entrenched habits of present-mindedness are
difficult to overcome. As Tocqueville warned long ago, conditions in modern
secular societies foster a “brutish indifference to the future, an attitude all
too well suited to certain propensities in human nature”.1 Noting that reli-
gions foster enduring accomplishments by promoting habits of behaving
with a view toward the long run, he predicted that in times of religious skep-
ticism men would be more inclined to “give themselves over to the satisfac-
tion of their least desires without delay”. The present would grow so large in
their minds that it would hide the future from their view. In republics where
secularism and skepticism prevailed, he wrote, the “great business” of states-
men and philosophers would be to demonstrate to their fellow citizens that
it is both necessary and possible to conceive and execute long-term under-
1
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Mansfield and Winthrop eds.
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 521.
A NEW ROLE FOR THE FAMILY IN THE STATE 103
takings: they would have to “apply themselves to giving back to men this
taste for the future which neither religion nor social conditions any longer
inspire”; and must teach citizens “that wealth, renown, and power are the
rewards of work; that great successes come when they have been long
desired, and that nothing of lasting value is achieved without trouble”.
No one can accuse Professor Zampetti of present-mindedness: his
visionary paper calls for nothing less than a fundamental transformation of
the relations among families, the state, and the economy. It is as though he
has taken us to a mountain top from which, looking backward along the
path we have traveled up to now, we see a landscape scarred by earthquakes
– social upheavals that have destroyed many of our familiar landmarks. On
the other side of the mountain, however, he offers a view of where we might
go – a view, so to speak, of a promised land with a “new role for the fami-
ly” in a new type of state with a new sort of economy.
In these comments on Professor Zampetti’s vision, I will begin at the
bottom of the mountain, where twenty-first century men and women move
among the ruins of many traditional signposts, gathering strength and
seeking guidance for an arduous journey toward what we hope will be a civ-
ilization of life and love. First, I will briefly second his view of the gravity of
the situation in which we find ourselves. Next, I will consider certain dilem-
mas that arise when one tries to imagine how his vision of a better arrange-
ment might be brought to life. And finally, I will offer some observations on
the more “ecological” way of thinking about persons, family, civil society,
and the state that Malinvaud and Zampetti recommend.
2
According to the authors of The Federalist Papers, democratic self-government
requires a higher degree of virtue in the citizenry than any other form of government,
Federalist No. 55 (Madison).
104 MARY ANN GLENDON
3
Or indeed the prospects for any strong, healthy polity. Consider the following pas-
sage from a popular history of Rome: “Augustus could not conceive a strong Rome with-
out the character, courage and political ability that had marked the old Roman, above all,
the old aristocracy. The decay of the ancient faith among the upper classes had washed
away the supernatural supports of marriage, fidelity and parentage; the passage from farm
to city had made children less of an asset and more of a liability and a toy; women wished
to be sexually rather than maternally beautiful; in general the desire for individual free-
dom seemed to be running counter to the needs of the race... A large number of native-
stock Romans avoided parenthood altogether, preferring prostitutes or concubines even to
a varied succession of wives. Of those who married, a majority appear to have limited their
families by abortion, infanticide, coitus interruptus, and contraception”. Will Durant,
Caesar and Christ (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1944), 222.
4
The literature is vast. For useful surveys, see Marie-Thérèse Meulders-Klein, La
personne, la famille, le droit: trois décennies de mutations en occident (Brussels: Bruylant,
1999), and James Q. Wilson, The Marriage Problem (New York: Harper Collins, 2002).
For discussion of the changing relationships among family, state and employment as
determinants of status and economic security, see M. Glendon, The New Family and the
New Property (Toronto: Butterworths, 1981).
A NEW ROLE FOR THE FAMILY IN THE STATE 105
Faced with this state of affairs, many have called for a renewed sense of
solidarity among the generations. But it is not easy to imagine how that
might be fostered. Many of the developments that produced changes in
family behavior – and in ideas about family life – seem practically irre-
versible. Many of the developments that have weakened family ties, more-
over, are widely believed to represent advances for individuals and society.
Consider the following instances of attenuation of inter-generational
bonds:
– Fathers and children. With the rise in divorce and births to single
women, an unprecedented proportion of children are now being raised in
fatherless homes. What will be the effect on the social environment of
increasing numbers of children coming to child-bearing age with little idea
of what a father does, what it means to be a “good family man”, or how men
and women can surmount the difficulties that arise in any marriage?
– Mothers and children. Reacting in part to the increasing unreliability
of marriage as a support institution, women are having fewer children, and
many are maintaining at least a foothold in the labor force even when their
children are very young. (That strategy, however, still does not protect
mothers and children very effectively against what I call the four deadly Ds:
divorce, disrespect for nonmarket work, disadvantages in the workplace for
anyone who takes time out for family responsibilities, and the destitution
that afflicts so many female-headed families).
– Parental role in the education of children. With the modern state’s vir-
tual monopoly on schooling, the family has lost much of its ability to trans-
mit values. Its powerful competitors – the government schools and the
entertainment industry – often promote values that undermine the values
of the family, especially religious and moral teachings.
– Inter-generational solidarity with weak and dependent family mem-
bers. With the acceptance of abortion as a woman’s right has emerged a
mentality that treats inconvenient or defective unborn children as dispos-
able. How will men and women raised with that mentality deal with their
elderly parents when those parents become inconvenient, incapacitated,
and expensive? Ironically, just as we have begun to congratulate ourselves
on having reached the point where our societies are more attentive to the
needs of their weakest and most vulnerable members, we begin to see how
fragile that achievement has become.
106 MARY ANN GLENDON
5
L. MacFarquhar, “The Bench Burner”, The New Yorker, December 10, 2001, 78.
6
Many scientists claim that these developments are both imminent and inevitable.
E.g., Gregory Stock, Redesigning Humans: Our Inevitable Genetic Future (Boston:
Houghton, Mifflin, 2002) (“As scientists rapidly improve their ability to identify and
manipulate genes, people will want to protect their future children from diseases, help
them live longer, and even influence their looks and their abilities. Neither governments
nor religious groups will be able to stop the coming trend of choosing an embryo’s genes”).
A NEW ROLE FOR THE FAMILY IN THE STATE 107
The causes of these developments are much disputed, but that they are
affecting the bonds among generations is undeniable. To list the factors
that are usually implicated is to realize that Zampetti’s call for the state to
“defend the human environment” poses enormous difficulties: geographic
mobility, the separation of home and business, the rise and decay of great
cities, the atrophy of local government, the loss of the unpaid work of
women in the home and the voluntary sector, individualism, con-
sumerism, divorce, the contraceptive mentality, and (in some places)
shortages of marriageable males. As suggested above, many of the threats
to family stability are unintended consequences of goods and freedoms
that modern men and women prize.
Zampetti has placed before us an attractive vision of a society where the
dignity of the human person is the highest value; a society where the fami-
ly has priority over the state; a society where all legitimate types of work are
respected; a society where families, local communities and the mediating
structures enjoy an appropriate autonomy – in short, a society that would
be a showcase for the personalist vision of subsidiarity and solidarity that
is embodied in Catholic Social Thought.
But how could such a society be brought into being? Zampetti deplores
that many roles that formerly belonged to the family have now been
assumed by the state. He notes that the state is less and less capable of ful-
filling the roles it has assumed, but at the same time the family has lost
much of its capacity to care for its own members. Hence a major dilemma:
It seems that we would need a certain kind of family to have better social
and political organizations, but we would need a certain kind of social and
political organization to have this kind of family. Good institutions set the
conditions for good habits to take root, but good institutions depend on
good habits and attitudes. How and where to begin?
Finally, it should be said that perhaps the greatest challenge for a more
ecological approach to the topic of inter-generational solidarity arises from
a conflict of solidarities: how does solidarity with future generations fit
with our responsibility to those among us who are most in need right now?
A NEW ROLE FOR THE FAMILY IN THE STATE 109
understanding we have of ourselves and our destiny in the world (51). True,
formation has suffered with the impairment of the value-transmitting
capacities of families and the mediating structures of civil society. But even
that downward cycle could be reversed. At least that was what Tocqueville
thought, when he speculated that if statesmen and philosophers in times of
irreligion could habituate citizens to think of the future, they “would bring
them little by little and without their noticing it toward religious beliefs”.
INTERGENERATIONAL SOLIDARITY
WITHIN THE FAMILY
DUTY OF PARENTS TO TEENAGERS
AND YOUNG ADULTS
MINA M. RAMIREZ
ronment since risks of isolation, neglect, poverty, and even abuse are mul-
tiplied; 4) national welfare states have set up many educational, social and
health schemes for children, but at the same time it has become even more
apparent that collective welfare arrangements, besides not being able to
substitute the family, quite often do not work properly in favor of better
exchanges between generations; in other words, social welfare systems
have shown themselves as lacking a real orientation to the links between
generations”. He then concludes that “children and younger generations
appear as victims of adults and older generations under many social, eco-
nomic and cultural respects”.
Based on Prof. Villacorta’s synthesis of empirical studies in Asia, I
believe with him, that Prof. Donati’s paper has been written within the
socio-cultural context of countries of the North. Thus, I would think that
the nature of “generative issues” in countries of the South will understand-
ably be different yet very much connected with those of the North.
In my desire as an elder to contribute my share in this duty of making
the youth understand “Intergenerational Issues” in our country, I devised a
questionnaire that could lead to the heightening and a deepening of con-
sciousness with regard to this issue. As a phenomenologist, I consider
research, together with two other components of learning – namely: edu-
cation and action – as integral components of a transformational process
both for the researcher and the subjects of research. Research in this sense
is participatory, educational, and action-oriented. The assumption of this
process is a sociological principle, “when people see things as real, they are
real in their consequences” (W.I. Thomas). Indeed, the course of human
events is the way people think about them. Another experiential insight: A
new way of seeing leads to a new way of feeling, doing, acting and being.
This is, I believe, the process of personal transformation and collectively
undertaken leads to social transformation.
The instrument I devised wishes to gauge people’s observation of and
eventually a consciousness for the need of intergenerational solidarity. It is
confronting people with the phenomenon in order that the subjects of the
research with the help of a research-facilitator will reflect on their answers
and contribute to a plan and/or program of action. For the purpose of this
meeting, I administered the questionnaire to subjects within the sphere of
my work environment and Prof. Villacorta’s in the hope that I answer to the
challenge of Prof. Donati, “to have a careful look at what is happening
between and within generations in the different countries taking into
account the relations between families and governments”.
DUTY OF PARENTS TO TEENAGERS AND YOUNG ADULTS 115
Another set of statements such as: “Time and money of the family
are devoted more to the care of the elderly” (#5) as well as the state-
ment, “Families are biased for the education and care more of chil-
dren rather than of the elderly”(#6) are both negative for IS.
However these statements are balanced with the following positive
statements for IS – “There is a spirit of solidarity among family
members in the care of the elderly”(#18) and “There is a spirit of sol-
idarity among family members in the upbringing of children” (#19).
Thus there is a set of statements dealing with situation of the family and
with family solidarity horizontally, i.e. family members helping each other
(Statements # 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39) and
vertically across generations (Statements # 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 17,
22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 30, 38, 40, 41, 48, 49) There are statements which refer
to relationship of families and external environments. An external environ-
ment created by the State and by NGOs that give support to the family or
help to resolve crises in the family promotes IS (Statements # 3, 11, 12, 14,
15, 29, 37, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 50).
The Subjects/Participants/Co-researchers: There are four samples to
which the facilitator-researcher could get back to in order to validate with
them the findings of the study: A) Sample 1: Filipino Adults (FA). These are
35 full-time faculty, staff and personnel of the Asian Social Institute, a social
science graduate school for transformative praxis towards justice, peace
and integrity of creation. B) Sample 2: Non-Filipino Adult Asians (NFAA).
They are adult non-Filipino Asian graduate students numbering 23 from
Vietnam, Myanmar, Indonesia, East Timor and Japan. C) Sample C: Urban
and Rurban Lower Income Youth (URLIY), 37 in number. They are mem-
bers (young people from a squatter and a fisher-folk community) of a youth
movement. Sample D: These are Urban High Income Youth (UHIY) num-
bering 30 college students of three prestigious universities – Ateneo de
Manila University, De La Salle University, and University of the Philippines.
The Treatment of Data. The set of statements is a scale for Intergenerational
Solidarity (IS). A response to each item is scored numerically in descending (4,
3, 2, 1) or ascending order (1, 2, 3, 4) depending on whether or not it is a neg-
ative or a positive statement for IS. Thus, the summation of scores vertically
(of responses of all respondents) for each item represents to what extent the
item is considered favorably or unfavorably by all respondents responding to
that item. The higher the score for each item, the more positive the respondents
are for IS. The higher the score of the Group Mean, the more positive for IS
(Tables 1-4 appearing in pages II-IX at the end of this volume).
DUTY OF PARENTS TO TEENAGERS AND YOUNG ADULTS 117
The Results
1. In a scale from 1-4, the Group Means per Sample as a rough estimate of
IS are as follows:
Sample A: Filipino Adults (FA) 2.61
Sample B: Non-Filipino Adult Asians (NFAA) 2.67
Sample C: Urban/Rurban Low-Income Youth (URLIY) 2.60
Sample D: Urban High Income Youth 2.43
Item #2: Parents now practice family planning (FA, NFAA, URLIY, UHIY)
Item #49: The indigenous/popular/traditional culture promote values for
intergenerational solidarity (FA, ANA, URLIY, except for UHIY)
Item #24: Youth have respect for their grandparents (FA, NFAA, URLIY,
UHIY)
Item #13: Adults care for the safety and survival of the children (FA, NFAA,
URLIY, UHIY)
Item #18: There is a spirit of solidarity among family members in the
upbringing of children (FA, NFAA, URLIY, UHIY)
Item # 19: There is a spirit of solidarity among family members in the care
of the elderly (FA, NFAA, URLIY, UHIY)
Item #17: Grandparents have a significant role in the family especially with
regard to the youth’s upbringing (FA, URLIY, UHIY, except for
NFAA)
Item #44: Young adults who help support their families are not hindered
from getting established in their status in life (AF, URLIY, UHIY)
118 MINA M. RAMIREZ
Item # 36: Working youth help support the family especially in the education
of younger brothers and sisters (FA, NFAA, URLIY and UHIY)
Item # 29: There are agencies in the country that take care of youth in cri-
sis (Only FA)
Item # 38: Parents do not abort fetus of unwanted pregnancies (FA and UHIY)
Item #22: Many grandparents facilitate the communication gap between
parents and children (FA, NFAA, URLIY except for UHIY)
Item #40: Poor parents do not encourage their children to be child prosti-
tutes (Only NFAA)
Item #1: Families want to have children (NFAA, URLIY, UHIY except for FA)
Item #25: There is solidarity in the extended family in our country (NFAA
and UHIY)
Item #30: Young people do not become temporary orphans because their
parents are working abroad (NFAA only)
Item #16: Youth are given the opportunities by their families to exercise
their creativity (NFAA and URLIY)
Item #33: Family members do not compete for the kind of TV programs
they like to enjoy (Only NFAA)
Item #35: Family celebrations are appreciated by the young (Only NFAA)
Item #46: Social security systems are adequate for the many needs of the
Family in different stages of the life cycle (URLIY)
Item #5: Time and money of the family are devoted more to the care of the
elderly (Only UHIY)
Item #9: Youth teach their parents Information Technology (Only UHIY)
The foregoing items have been identified by taking 25% of the items of
the highest score items (13 items for each sample)
3. The items that garnered the lowest scores (Table 6, p.135) are the following:
Item # 3: High cost of living does not make it difficult to bring up children
(FA, NFAA, URLIY, UHIY)
Item #21: Majority of the families have the provision for their crisis needs.
(FA, NFAA, URLIY, UHIY)
Item #4: Education and care for children do not make up most of family
expenses (FA, NFAA, URLIY, UHIY)
Item #34: Families are together in prayer (FA. NFAA, URLIY, UHIY)
Item #15: Many good laws for the welfare of the youth are implemented
(FA, NFAA, URLIY, UHIY)
DUTY OF PARENTS TO TEENAGERS AND YOUNG ADULTS 119
Item #26: There are not many solo parents in the country (FA, URLIY,
UHIY except for NFAA)
Item #48: Young adults who help support the family are not hindered from
getting established in their status in life (FA, URLIY, UHIY
except for NFAA)
Item #31: Families are together at meals (FA, NFAA, URLIY, and UHIY)
Item #50: The prevailing economic monetized economy destroys relation-
ships (FA, NFAA)
Item #30: Young people are not temporary orphans (NFAA and URLIY)
Item #37: There is a low market demand among youth and children for
commercial products (FA, NFAA)
Item #27: Many young people do not suffer verbal abuse from their parents
(FA and URLIY)
Item #33: Family members do not compete for the kind of TV programs
they like to enjoy (AF and URLIY)
Item #41: Propertied parents do not sue their children on inheritance
claims (Only FA)
Item #46: Social security systems are adequate for the many needs of the
family in different stages of the life cycle (Only NFAA)
Item #42: Families trust their governments to take care of the common
good (Only NFAA)
Item #12: The standard of schools for the great majority of youth is satis-
factory (Only NFAA)
Item #6: Families are not biased for the education and care more of chil-
dren rather than of the elderly (Only NFAA)
Item #20: Many young people do not come from broken homes (NFAA and
URLIY)
Item #28: Many young people do not suffer from physical violence (Only
URLIY)
Item #49: The indigenous/traditional popular culture promote values for
intergenerational solidarity (Only UHIY)
Item #37: There is not a high market demand among youth and children
for commercial products (Only UHIY)
Item #50: The prevailing economic monetized economy does not destroy
relationships (Only UHIY)
Item #8: Young people think that their parents understand them (Only UHIY)
The foregoing items have been identified by taking 25% of the items
with the lowest scores.
120 MINA M. RAMIREZ
There is some basis in saying that based on the observations of the par-
ticipants in this research study, intergenerational solidarity is to some
extent still being promoted by the popular/traditional/indigenous culture.
Indicators of this thesis are the observations that youth have respect for
grandparents who still play a significant role in the upbringing of children
and also help in facilitating the communication gap between parents and
children. Adults care for the safety and survival of the children. There is a
spirit of solidarity among family members in the care both of the elderly
and children. Working youth help support their families especially in the
education of younger brothers and sisters. Understandably, it is also the
UHIY who scored highest in the observation that children teach their par-
ents information technology.
While there is the observation that families do family planning, the par-
ents are still committed to having children and do not easily abort fetus of
unwanted pregnancies.
It is also significant that while Urban High Income Youth (UHIY)
observes the practice of family and intergenerational solidarity like in all
the other samples, there is the observation on their part that “indigenous/tra-
ditional popular culture does not promote values for intergenerational sol-
idarity”. It is also this item that garnered for this sample one of the lowest
scores. Are these high income youth alienated from an understanding of
their cultural rootedness? This is something to clarify with them when the
finding is fed back to them.
While the Filipinos increase by 1.7 million annually and the average
family size is still 6, they seem to be aware of family planning as a practice
(in fact, it is the item that scored the highest in all samples). Or is it more
aware of the need for family planning since they know that this is a gov-
ernment program which is disseminated in schools and through media.
The Non-Filipino Asian Adults (NFAA) have the highest group mean in
intergenerational solidarity scale. However, there is less differentiation in
the item scores. Among Filipinos, items dealing with family solidarity (hor-
izontal and vertical) attain high scores.
The item that Filipinos trust their government is not one of the highest
scorers in any of the samples and also not in the items with the lowest
scores. This may mean Filipinos’ ambivalence towards government.
There is only one of the items dealing with the relation between the
family and the external environment that obtained a high score – “There
DUTY OF PARENTS TO TEENAGERS AND YOUNG ADULTS 121
are agencies in the country that take care of youth in crisis”. Although this
was only cited by Filipino Adults (FA). Understandably, quite a number of
the participants in this sample, involved in some social and community
work, are more aware of the agencies that help people in times of crisis.
The participants of all samples seem to indicate that there are not too
many striking observations of the participants regarding the support given
by the external society to intergenerational solidarity.
It is recommended that the findings of this survey be fed back to those
who participated in the study as has been the intention of the research-facil-
itator for a deeper consciousness of the need of elders to be aware of inter-
national solidarity and equity for an action plan towards a sustainable future.
For lack of time, I have not been able to examine critically other aspects
revealed by the study.
REFERENCES
George Allo (1975). “An Alternative Research Model for the Study of
Values” Appendix 3 in Denis Goulet: The Cruel Choice: New York,
Athenum.
William Braud & Rosemary Anderson (1998). Transpersonal Research
Methods for the Social Science: Honoring Human Experience. London-
New Delhi, Sage Publications.
Fernando Maximus P. (1997). Understanding Filipino Adolescents: Ten Case
Studies (Doctoral Dissertation: University of the Philippines, Quezon City).
Martindale, Don (1981). The Nature and Types of Sociological Theory.
Symbolic Interactionism. W.I. Thomas, pages 325-329. Houghton
Mifflin Company, Boston, Dallas, Geneva, Illinois, Hopewell New Jersey,
Palo Alto, London.
Medina, Belen T. (1991). The Filipino Family: A Text with Selected
Readings. Quezon City, University of the Philippines.
Medina, Belen T. (1996). The Filipino Family: Emerging Structures and
Arrangements. Quezon City, University of the Philippines.
Mendez, Pa Policarpio (1975). The Filipino Family in the Rural and Urban
Orientation: Two Case Studies in Culture and Education, Manila:
Centro Escolar University Research and Development Center.
Porio, Emma (1978). The Filipino Family Community and Nation. Quezon
City, Institute of the Philippine Culture.
122 MINA M. RAMIREZ
Porio, Emma N.D. The Filipino Family, Community and Nation: The same
yesterday, today and tomorrow. Quezon City, Ateneo de Manila
University Press.
Ramirez, Mina M. (1966). The Phenomenology of the Filipino Family. MA
Thesis: Asian Social Institute, Malate, Manila.
Ramirez, Mina M. (1993). Understanding the Philippine Social Realities
Through the Filipino Family: A Phenomenological Approach. Manila,
Asian Social Institute.
Ramirez, Mina M. (1993). Dominant and Popular Cultural Systems in the
Philippines in Reflections on Culture. Asian Social Institute, Malate
Manila. Occasional Monograph 2.
Ramirez, Mina M. (1993). The Filipino Worldview and Values. Asian Social
Institute, Malate, Manila. Occasional Monograph 4.
Ramirez, Mina M. (1996). Monetary Culture and the Challenges of Equality.
Asian Social Institute, Malate, Manila. Occasional Monograph 8.
Santos, Salud (1965). The Social Configuration of the Filipino Family. MA
Thesis, Asian Social Institute, Malate, Manila.
Skilimowski, Henryk (1994). The Participatory Mind: A New Theory of
Knowledge of the Universe. Arkana Penguin Books, London, England.
Timasheff, Nicolas S. (1962). The Sociology of Luigi Sturzo. Hellicon Press.
Baltimore, Maryland, Dublin.
Philippine Sociological Review. January-December, Vol. 45, Nos. 1-4.
DUTY OF PARENTS TO TEENAGERS AND YOUNG ADULTS 123
APPENDIX 1
A.
1. Nationality: __________________________
2. Religion: ____________________________
3. Age: _________________________________
4. Occupation: __________________________
5. Educational Attainment: ________________________
6. Sex: 6.1 ___/ Female 6.2 ____/ Male
7. Civil Status: 7.1 ___/ Single 7.2 ____/ Married
7.3_____/ Living with Spouse 7.5 Separated
7.6 ____/ Widow/Widower
B.
SD MD MA SA
Statement (LDP) (KDP) (KP) (LP)
11. Young people are protected by the State. (Ang mga bata
ay pinoprotektahan ng Bansa/ng gobyerno).
13. Adults do not care about the safety and survival of the
children. (Ang mga nakakatanda ay walang pakialam sa
kaligtasan at kapanatagan ng mga kabataan).
15. Many good laws for the welfare of the youth are not
being implemented. (Maraming magagandang batas para sa
kapakanan ng mga kabataan ay hindi naisasakatuparan).
46. Social security systems are adequate for the many needs
of the family in different stages of the life-cycle. (Ang SSS ay
nakatutugon sa mga iba’t ibang antas ng pangangailangan ng
pamilya).
Thank You!!!
Mraming salamat!!!
DUTY OF PARENTS TO TEENAGERS AND YOUNG ADULTS 129
APPENDIX 2
Scoring SD MD MA SA
Statement Per
Item (LDP) (KDP) (KP) (LP)
15. Many good laws for the welfare of the youth are
not being implemented. (Maramang magagandang
– 4 3 2 1
batas para sa kapakanan ng mga kabataan ay hindi nai-
sasakatuparan).
WILFRIDO VILLACORTA
Introduction
Margaret Mead (1970) also wrote about generational roles and rela-
tionships that vary by culture. In postfigurative cultures, children are
socialised by their forebears so that the former behave in accordance with
the mores and values of the latter. Mead contrasts this pattern found in tra-
ditional societies, with that which is found in cofigurative cultures, where
social changes render the experience of the young as significantly different
from those of the older generation. This situation, which exists in most
industrial societies, results in a break from the individual’s link with the
past (Hutter, 1988:393-395). The reduction in the elders’ authority gener-
ates tension and conflict within the family.
In different societies, there are varying modes of transition from child-
hood to adolescent adulthood. Ruth Benedict (1973) found that there is less
continuity in the development of age roles in industrial societies like the
United States. More traditional societies employ the small-adult conception
of the adolescent, where there is less dichotomization of values desired for
a child, on the one hand, and those desired for an adult, on the other.
These societies provide more support to individuals as they progress from
one life stage to the next. This framework applies more to the East Asian
approach to intergenerational continuity and equity.
Vietnam and Laos from 1975 to the present. A military junta reigns in
Myanmar, while a unique form of socialist government with theocratic
and millenialist elements controls North Korea. Brunei is a monarchy
headed by a sultan.
The new democracies in the region are Indonesia, Taiwan, South Korea
and Thailand, while the older democracies established after World War II
are the Philippines (interrupted by the Marcos dictatorship from 1972-
1986) and Japan. Singapore and Malaysia have elective parliaments with
ruling parties that have dominated the political system for the past 37
years. The entrenchment of these ruling parties have made strongman rule
possible in these two countries, which have an encompassing Internal
Security Act often used to stifle dissent.
The market economies in East Asia are Japan, the Philippines, South
Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia and Thailand. The “markets
in transition” are China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar. Socialist
countries prefer to call themselves “social market economies”. North Korea
remains an autarkic economy.
Regardless of religious and ideological traditions, as well as political
and economic systems, filial piety dominates generational relationships in
all East Asian countries. Responsible for sustaining and reinforcing respect
for parental authority are indigenous customs which are rooted in their
pre-industrial past. Despite the fact that Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and
Singapore have attained a high level of capitalist development, they have
maintained their Confucian beliefs and practices.
In Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar and Cambodia, respect for
authority is likewise deep rooted in their cultures. Their folklore, temple
teachings and popular literature are filled with moral lessons derived from
obedience to parents and respect for elders and the king. In the Malay
countries – Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia and the Philippines, the sultans
and village chieftains epitomize the paternalism that pervades Malay cul-
ture. Islam – and in the case of the majority in the Philippines, Christianity
– has institutionalized filial piety in these countries.
Kyu Taik Sung (1998) wrote that the peoples of East Asia regard fam-
ilies as “systems of responsibilities”. Foremost is the tradition of filial
piety, which involves the obligation of adult children “to respect and care
for the elderly with affection, responsibility and gratitude”.
DUTIES OF CHILDREN TOWARDS THE ELDERLY 139
Sung provides six major categories: respect for the parent, filial respon-
sibility, harmonization of the family, repayment of debts to the parent,
affection to the parent, and sacrifice for the parent. Respecting parents
requires bringing no dishonor to parents and family, and “taking care of
parents with good food, soft clothes, a warm room, comfort and peace”.
Disrespectful behavior is reprehensible and severely criticized, and “the
mere material support of one’s parents without the expression of reverence,
respect and spiritual consolation can not even be called filial piety”. He
quotes Confucius who admonished, “Filial piety today is taken to mean
providing nourishment for parents, but even dogs and horses are provided
with nourishment. If it is not done with reverence for parents, what’s the
difference between people and animals?”.
In turn, filial responsibility requires that one pay attention to one’s own
health and relieve parents of this anxiety, in the same manner that parents
were most concerned about the health of their children. Sung refers to the
reminder of Confucius: “While his parents are alive, the son may not go abroad
to a distance. If he goes abroad, he must have a fixed place to which he goes”.
Section 1: The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the
nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively
promote its total development.
Section 3: The State shall defend: 1) The right of spouses to found a family in
accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of
responsible parenthood; 2) The right of children to assistance,
including proper care and nutrition, and special protection from all
forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions
prejudicial to their development; 3) The right of the family to a fam-
ily living wage and income; and 4) The right of families or family
associations to participate in the planning and implementation of
policies and programs that affect them.
Section 4: The family has the duty to care for its elderly members but the State
may also do so through just programs of social security.
142 WILFRIDO VILLACORTA
While filial piety remains a dominant feature of family life in East Asia,
new tensions are visible in countries that are afflicted by mass poverty.
Three-generation homes create inevitable problems in cramped dwellings.
In countries like the Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand which have large
numbers of overseas workers, traditional generational roles are under-
mined by the long absence of one or both of the parents. Likewise, families
that have settled in countries like the United States, Canada and Australia
are experiencing severe cultural dislocation, particularly in family values
and relationships (see Chan, 1997; Shanas, 1997).
Furthermore, rapid technological and social changes in the modern
world have proven to cause tensions in the relationship between parents and
children. In middle-class families, there emerges a reversal of roles when as
a result of increased use of electronic gadgets, the young sometimes play the
role of teachers of their parents. While this is a development that is initially
welcomed by parents and children alike, the widespread use of the Internet
and mobile phones escalates the individualization of adolescents and is seen
by elders as another barrier to intergenerational communication.
Greater access to educational opportunities for women has generated
more consciousness of gender rights. Their emancipated consciousness
usually poses problems in their relations with their husbands and in-laws,
who expect the traditional submissive behavior. In newly established
democracies, peoples who are not used to free expression are suddenly
exposed to egalitarian ideals.
There are fears that a new approach to filial piety could arise, in which
the youth may now have the right to reason out with their elders as to the
wisdom of required behavior – whether it contributes to the mutual bene-
fit of child and parent. With increased independence of children, will eld-
ers be still effective in handing down desired moral and social values? Will
respect from them no longer be assumed, but will, from now on, have to be
earned and justified?
Even the practice of giving will now have to be subject to intergenera-
tional negotiation where conditions are laid before agreeing to help the
other party. Does this pragmatic exchange erode intergenerational solidari-
ty or is it time that rationality be provided the age-old concept of filial piety?
Philippe Plitaud (1999) asserts that the idea of solidarity does include
the idea of exchange, which is essential for the preservation of the family
and the maintenance of harmony within it. He writes that “although soli-
DUTIES OF CHILDREN TOWARDS THE ELDERLY 143
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Porio, Emma, Frank Lynch and Mary Hollnsteiner. 1978. The Filipino
Family, Community and Nation. Institute of Philippine Culture, Ateneo
de Manila University.
Rajulton, Fernando. (n.d.). Social and Family Cohesion across Generations.
Retrieved March 17, 2002, from The University of Western Ontario
Website: http://www.sscl.uwo.ca/sociology/ftsc/Rajulton1.html
_________________ and Zenaida Ravanera R. 2001. Intergenerational
Support and Family Cohesion. Retrieved April 5, 2002, from The
University of Western Ontario Website: http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/
sociology/popstudies/dp/dp01-11.pdf
Report of the Civil Society Society Consultation for the Second World Assembly
on Ageing. 2001. Retrieved March 17, 2002, from United Nations
Website: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/ageing/waa/chiangmairep1.htm
Salaff, Janet. (2000). Balanced Relations or Patriarchy? Daughters and Sons in
the Modern Chinese Family. A Paper delivered at “Conference on Families
in the Global Age: New Challenges Facing Japan and Southeast Asia”.
Center for Advanced Studies, National University of Singapore. October
14-16, 2000. Retrieved March 26, 2002, from University of Toronto Website:
http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~salaff/Chinese_families_property.pdf
Shanas, Ethel. 1997. “The Family and the Elderly”. In The Family
Experience: A Reader in Cultural Diversity. Ed. by Mark Hutter. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon. 353-360.
Social Research Center. 1989. The Elderly in the Philippines. Manila: Social
Research Center, University of Santo Tomas.
Sung, Kyu-taik. 1998. Filial Piety: The Traditional Ideal of Parent Care in East
Asia. Retrieved March 17, 2002, from American Society on Aging
Website: http://www.asaging.org/networks/forsa/a&s-101.html
146 WILFRIDO VILLACORTA
APPENDIX A
Northeast Asia:
Southeast Asia:
* Source: Statistics Division, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for
Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), 2000.
DUTIES OF CHILDREN TOWARDS THE ELDERLY 147
APPENDIX B
Religion/
Countries Political System Economic System Philosophy/
Ideology
Northeast Asia:
Confucianism/
Japan Parliamentary Democracy Market Economy Buddhism/Shinto
Confucianism/
North Korea Socialist Regime Autarky
Buddhism/Socialism
Confucianism/
South Korea Presidential Democracy Market Economy Buddhism/Christianity
Confucianism/
Taiwan Presidential Democracy Market Economy
Buddhism
Southeast Asia:
Islam/Buddhism/
Malaysia Parliamentary Authoritarianism Market Economy Confucianism/Hinduism/
Christianity
Buddhism/Confucianism/
Singapore Parliamentary Authoritarianism Market Economy
Islam/Christianity
Buddhism/
Vietnam Socialist Regime Socialist Market Economy
Confucianism/Socialism
PART V
INTERGENERATIONAL EQUITY
EQUITÀ FRA LE GENERAZIONI:
UNA NUOVA NORMA SOCIALE
PIERPAOLO DONATI
1.3. Le tesi che vorrei sostenere in questa sede sono sintetizzabili nelle
seguenti proposizioni (statements).
I concetti di EG attualmente utilizzati nel dibattito internazionale defi-
niscono la generazione come pura e semplice coorte demografica (un
aggregato statistico di individui secondo l’età) e quindi non fanno riferi-
mento ad alcun oggetto-soggetto sociologico.
154 PIERPAOLO DONATI
2.1. Il dibattito sull’EG si è sviluppato negli ultimi due decenni con riferi-
mento a due maggiori contesti di applicazione: il contesto della crisi
ambientale e il contesto della crisi del welfare state. Nel primo caso l’EG è
EQUITÀ FRA LE GENERAZIONI: UNA NUOVA NORMA SOCIALE 155
2.3. (II) Il paradigma della crisi delle intitolazioni sociali (entitlement crisis)
2.4. Per quanto rilevanti siano i problemi dell’equità generazionale con rife-
rimento ai beni ambientali (environmental goods) e agli entitlements di wel-
fare, non c’è dubbio che limitare il discorso a questi ambiti restringa in
modo eccessivo il problema dell’EG. Possiamo sintetizzare i limiti degli
attuali paradigmi dominanti relativi all’EG nei seguenti punti.
i) Restrizioni sui beni. I due paradigmi (I e II) dell’EG lasciano da parte
moltissimi beni, a cominciare dai beni culturali, intesi non solo e non tanto
come opere d’arte (le quali possono essere fatte entrare nella categoria dei
beni ambientali), ma in quanto modelli di valore legati alle identità cultu-
rali e alle regole di vita. In particolare, il discorso sull’EG trascura comple-
tamente i beni relazionali primari e secondari che sono l’oggetto proprio di
scambio fra generazioni.
ii) Restrizioni sugli attori. I due paradigmi (I e II) dell’EG lasciano da parte
gli attori sociali diversi dallo stato e dal mercato. Sembra che le generazioni
di cui si parla non abbiano né famiglia, né parentela, né reti informali, né reti
associative, né scambi diretti fra di loro. Di fatto, tutte queste sfere non ven-
gono considerate come attori e ambiti, effettivi o potenziali, di EG.
iii) Restrizioni sul soggetto a cui imputare l’equità. I due paradigmi (I e
II) dell’EG considerano l’equità come un criterio morale di condotta indivi-
duale oppure come criterio di funzionamento dei meccanismi allocativi
EQUITÀ FRA LE GENERAZIONI: UNA NUOVA NORMA SOCIALE 159
delle istituzioni. Essi ignorano che l’equità riguarda non solo gli individui e
le istituzioni, ma anche (e più propriamente) le relazioni sociali come tali. A
ben vedere, infatti, il problema della giustizia è un problema relazionale
perché inerisce alle relazioni sociali, prima ancora che agli individui e alle
istituzioni qua talis. Esso riguarda tutte le relazioni sociali, particolari e
generalizzate, e non solo alcune di esse. Questa mancanza di chiarezza nel
vedere che l’equità è primariamente una norma delle relazioni sociali, porta
a soluzioni di individualismo oppure di collettivismo metodologico. Con la
conseguenza, ad esempio, che risulta spesso oscuro perché certi problemi
di EG siano “privatizzati” (cioè considerati pertinenti a non meglio defini-
te “sfere private”) e altri problemi siano “collettivizzati” (cioè imputati a
meccanismi del sistema politico-amministrativo). In questo gioco, la fami-
glia perde i suoi diritti di cittadinanza come attore dell’EG (Donati 2000b).
I tre tipi di restrizioni sopra detti sono correlate al modo di concepire le
generazioni e l’equità. Vediamo brevemente questi ulteriori limiti.
iv) Restrizioni nel modo di intendere le generazioni. I due paradigmi (I e
II) dell’EG utilizzano un concetto di generazione che è strumentale, impli-
cito e indiretto (Donati 1997). Nel paradigma (I) la generazione è solo un
segno di referenza per ragionare sullo sfruttamento delle risorse ambienta-
li. Nel paradigma (II) la generazione è semplicemente un’etichetta (label)
per il destinatario di entitlements in base al criterio dell’età. Le generazioni
sono aggregati di individui definiti per rapporto all’economia e alla politi-
ca. La loro identità (e la loro forza) è quella dei produttori-consumatori e
degli elettori. In entrambi i casi i problemi sono definiti in un contesto eco-
nomico e politico. In entrambi i casi il concetto di generazione (e, in paral-
lelo, quello di equità) maschera altri problemi: preoccupazioni di spartizio-
ne di benefici fra categorie con forza economico-politica diversa e preoc-
cupazioni per la conservazione delle risorse ambientali.
v) Restrizioni nel modo di intendere l’equità. Si nota che il concetto di
equità equivale nella maggior parte degli autori (J. Rawls, J. Le Grand e
altri) a quello di uguaglianza di opportunità individuali nel godere dei bene-
fici dati dal welfare state o nell’accesso a certe risorse ambientali. Esso ha
un carattere marcatamente individualistico e utilitaristico (Videla 2001). La
maggior parte delle teorie dell’equità sono state elaborate con riferimento a
individui e non a soggetti sociali quali sono le generazioni. Per quanto
alcune delle considerazioni valide per gli individui possano essere estese
anche a soggetti sociali come le generazioni, l’impianto individualistico si
dimostra poco adatto a gestire i problemi presenti nel caso delle relazioni
intergenerazionali. Il quadro di riferimento comune è utilitaristico in quan-
160 PIERPAOLO DONATI
1
Per ragioni di spazio non mi è qui possibile esporre in modo ampio il senso e le
giustificazioni di questa affermazione, che rimando ad altra sede.
EQUITÀ FRA LE GENERAZIONI: UNA NUOVA NORMA SOCIALE 161
gran parte delle restrizioni e delle distorsioni degli attuali paradigmi domi-
nanti dell’EG si riassumono nella concezione lib/lab. Pertanto, il nostro
compito è quello di esaminare più da vicino in che cosa consista precisa-
mente la concezione che ho chiamato lib/lab, e poi vedere se i paradigmi
lib/lab possano avere delle alternative praticabili.
(II) Paradigma
Pari opportunità nell’accesso ai diritti Generazione come coorte
degli
sociali demografica
entitlements
2
In tutto il presente testo, le lettere A,G,I,L si riferiscono allo schema AGIL nella
mia riformulazione relazionale (P. Donati, Teoria relazionale della società, Angeli, Milano,
1991, cap. 4). Tuttavia il lettore che non è familiare con tale teoria può ugualmente com-
prendere il senso del discorso, ignorando gli aspetti tecnici dello schema.
164 PIERPAOLO DONATI
Non è qui possibile entrare nei dettagli. Posso solo osservare che nes-
suno di questi principi può valere come criterio-guida nei problemi di equi-
tà fra le generazioni. Un criterio distributivo unico non può mai corrispon-
dere alla varietà dei beni sociali e delle generazioni coinvolte.
Abbandonato il sogno di un criterio unico di equità universale, i filoso-
fi sociali si sono cimentati in una miriade di altre teorie (per un ampio
panorama, si vedano Le Grand 1991, Young 1994, Kolm 1996). Queste teo-
rie si dividono in teorie del processo e teorie del risultato. Esse sono eti-
chettabili come: i) teorie utilitariste (J.C. Harsanyi), ii) le teorie dell’equità
come vantaggio reciproco (J.F. Nash, R.B. Braithwaite), iii) le teorie con-
trattualiste (J. Rawls), iv) le teorie “risorsiste” (B. Barry). Tutte queste teo-
rie danno indicazioni vaghe, e in ultima istanza non risolutive. In generale
esse formulano “teoremi di indecidibilità” circa le possibili soluzioni ai pro-
blemi dell’EG (si veda Piancastelli 2000: 18-63).
Questi esiti debbono essere correlati alle caratteristiche strutturali delle
teorie suddette.
(i) In primo luogo, esse si collocano quasi tutte all’interno di una pro-
spettiva hobbesiana (in senso lato). La giustizia viene pensata come l’insie-
me delle regole che esprimono il patto hobbesiano tra gli individui e lo
stato: gli individui, contemporanei e auto-interessati, rendendosi conto che
il conflitto è svantaggioso per tutti, decidono di cooperare e definiscono,
attraverso una negoziazione razionale, le norme che dovrebbero regolare
questa cooperazione in maniera tale che le parti che sono contrattualmen-
te più forti non prevarichino oltre certi limiti sulle parti più deboli; lo stato
opera da garante ponendo limiti di controllo e ridistribuzione sociale
(dimensione lab) alla cooperazione fra individui liberi sul mercato (dimen-
sione lib).
(ii) In secondo luogo, queste teorie tentano di mantenere un criterio
proporzionalista di equità, tradotto nel concetto di un’uguale proporzione
di opportunità (pari chances di vita, di accesso alle risorse naturali e socia-
li, ecc.).
Entrambe queste caratteristiche sono forse applicabili agli individui
visti come agenti del mercato e come singoli cittadini di fronte allo Stato,
ma non sono applicabili alle generazioni in quanto relazioni sociali.
Applicate al caso delle generazioni, tutte queste teorie della giustizia incon-
trano fallimenti, aporie e paradossi.
In sostanza, le concezioni contemporanee sono tutte alla ricerca di un
concetto fondamentale o onnicomprensivo di equità, da applicare ai vari
contesti. In generale, il concetto cui si fa appello ha un carattere essenzial-
EQUITÀ FRA LE GENERAZIONI: UNA NUOVA NORMA SOCIALE 167
3
Con questa impostazione io voglio sottolineare il fatto che gli individui si trovano
ad agire in un contesto sociale di valori e di regole che non hanno fatto loro, e, seppure
possano modificarlo, ne sono condizionati e debbono tenere comunque conto di come
lo modificano se vogliono produrre certi effetti e non altri, specie quelli indesiderati.
EQUITÀ FRA LE GENERAZIONI: UNA NUOVA NORMA SOCIALE 169
4
In termini sociologici, elaborare una normatività sociale richiede una definizione
della situazione (G), la sua valutazione in termini di orientamenti di valore (L), la defi-
nizione delle relative aspettative (I) e degli strumenti (A) con cui poter realizzare la
nuova norma, nell’intera società e in ciascuna sua sfera.
170 PIERPAOLO DONATI
deve appropriarsi dei compiti delle altre sfere; b2) ogni sfera deve essere
sussidiaria ai compiti delle altre sfere.
L’inquadramento relazionale ha due vantaggi. Primo, mostra le differen-
ze e le connessioni fra le dimensioni sostantive e quelle procedurali dell’EG.
Infatti (sempre con riferimento alla fig. 2), le dimensioni sostanziali dell’e-
quità fra le generazioni si situano sull’asse che lega i valori della dignità
umana (valori ultimi e motivazioni primarie dell’agire sociale) con la politi-
cità dei diritti sociali delle generazioni (asse L-G). Le dimensioni formali del-
l’equità si collocano lungo l’asse adattativo-regolativo (A-I), cioè sono ine-
renti ai mezzi e alle regole procedurali degli scambi fra generazioni.
Secondo, l’inquadramento relazionale nonché chiarifica le differenze
fra equità e solidarietà fra le generazioni L’equità non è la solidarietà, per-
ché equità vuol dire “trattare giustamente” (fairness) nel riconoscere esi-
genze, obbligazioni, diritti e doveri morali di una generazione in rapporto
alle altre, mentre la solidarietà implica una motivazione altruistica e può
andare oltre i criteri della giustizia distributiva o di altro genere. La solida-
rietà è il motore dell’equità. La solidarietà si esercita come prima mossa
(primum movens) del dono e poi continua come ridistribuzione (compen-
satoria). L’equità ha bisogno della solidarietà come motore dell’agire socia-
le, ma l’equità consiste in relazioni di giustizia, non di beneficenza. Il dono
è ciò che motiva, e in particolare ispira l’esigenza di una ridistribuzione sul-
l’intero arco delle generazioni che si prendono in considerazione. Ma l’a-
zione concreta deve poi essere condotta secondo criteri di efficienza e cor-
rettezza procedurale.
Se non ci fosse l’equità, la solidarietà verrebbe ridotta a filantropia.
Detto in altri termini, l’equità fra le generazioni è lo strumento necessario
per sostenere e rafforzare una solidarietà non assistenzialistica fra le gene-
razioni. Il frutto migliore di questo interscambio fra solidarietà ed equità è
la pace sociale fra le generazioni.
La solidarietà fra generazioni è quindi dono reciproco come sussidia-
rietà alle funzioni svolte da ogni generazione (cioè da ciascun tipo di rela-
zioni fra le generazioni) nella famiglia, nel mercato, nelle associazioni,
nello stato. Come dice J. Pieper (1968: 38-39), la giustizia esiste fra le parti,
ma prima viene l’amore. Nel quadro utilitarista tutto ciò non ha senso, né
è concepibile (Videla 2001).
EQUITÀ FRA LE GENERAZIONI: UNA NUOVA NORMA SOCIALE 175
G
Nello stato
o sistema politico-amministrativo
(= ridistribuzione, per via di
diritti sociali, intesi anche
come compensazioni)
A I
Nel mercato Nel terzo settore
(= merito ovvero (= scambio sociale di
scambio di reciprocità, senza
equivalenti monetari) equivalenti monetari)
L
Nella famiglia e reti primarie
(= puro bisogno, ovvero
solidarietà come dono)
4.2. Per andare oltre l’assetto lib/lab, e superare le sue insufficienze e dis-
torsioni, occorre integrare i concetti di generazione, equità sociale ed equi-
tà nelle relazioni fra le generazioni includendo le dimensioni che vanno
oltre l’uguaglianza proporzionale del trattamento e oltre il calcolo dei van-
taggi e delle opportunità.
Il concetto lib/lab di EG è solo una parte del problema e delle sue pos-
sibili soluzioni, e certo non è quella più importante. Lo si vede chiaramen-
te quando si consideri il fatto che il concetto lib/lab di EG è un concetto
privo di “generatività”, è impotente, debole, fiacco. Nella versione di J.
Rawls (1971) (che è certamente l’esponente più emblematico del lib/lab), il
principio dell’EG assume la veste di un “principio di risparmio” (savings
principle), nel senso che – per dirla con Wissenburg (2000) “it is simply
rational for goal-maximizing individuals to seek the mutual benefit of a
savings principle”.
Al contrario, l’approccio relazionale sostiene che abbiamo bisogno di
una EG concepita in senso generativo, cioè come norma capace di genera-
re un’equità configurata come gioco a somma maggiore di zero, e non solo
come conservazione/preservazione delle risorse per i posteri (come pensa-
no gli autori che seguono Rawls, tra cui Wissenburg).
176 PIERPAOLO DONATI
5.1. Dietrich Bonhoeffer afferma che “the ultimate test for a moral person is
how the coming generation will live”. Possiamo accettare questo test, ma a
condizione che esso non sia utilizzato in chiave puramente strumentale per
mascherare altri problemi, diversi da quelle delle relazioni generazionali,
per esempio per determinare il grado di sfruttamento delle risorse naturali
o per decidere sull’ammontare di popolazione sostenibile o per combattere
le disuguaglianze sociali e la povertà. Tutti questi problemi sono della mas-
sima importanza, ma non vanno confusi fra loro. Né possiamo accettare il
test dell’EG come imperativo del solo individuo preso a sé. Infatti, l’equità
non è primariamente un criterio di condotta dell’individuo, ma una norma
sociale che si forma nell’arena pubblica dove è in gioco il bene comune
attraverso gli scambi fra gli attori sociali.
Che gli individui possano essere agenti morali dipende in primo luogo
da come vengono configurate le relazioni sociali fra le generazioni, cioè dai
codici culturali (valori ultimi e le regole sociali) che essi incorporano, per-
ché gli individui qua talis non possono compiere un’opera di giustizia che
li eccede.
Vista sotto questa luce, la norma sociale dell’EG è nuova per motivi (a)
di contesto, (b) di forma e (c) di contenuto.
(a) Ragioni di contesto. L’EG non riguarda più soltanto la famiglia-
parentela e neppure lo stato sociale, come in passato, ma investe tutte le
sfere di relazione, incluso il mercato, gli apparati di socializzazione, le
comunità più piccole e più grandi, fino alla scala della globalizzazione.
Particolarmente delicato diventa il bilanciamento fra relazioni (e istituzio-
ni) private e relazioni (istituzioni) pubbliche, nel senso che è finito il vec-
chio equilibrio basato sull’idea che sia compito del potere pubblico impor-
re criteri di equità ai privati, per controllare la distribuzione complessiva
delle opportunità. I criteri dell’EG diventano un compito per tutte le sfere,
pubbliche e private, dove il potere pubblico non deve assorbire in sé i cri-
teri equitativi, ma operare al servizio dell’EG nelle sfere private.
(b) Ragioni di forma. L’EG non è più una norma di uguaglianza in senso
moderno (cioè come uniformità o standardizzazione), ma una norma di
reciprocità sociale generalizzata, che opera sia nei gruppi primari sia nelle
macro-istituzioni societarie. Essa si allarga dal campo delle relazioni inter-
personali al campo delle relazioni sistemiche. La forma nuova dell’EG con-
siste nel fatto che essa si presenta come una regola di giustizia mutua che
viene trasferita ai rapporti con le generazioni immediatamente successive
178 PIERPAOLO DONATI
5.2. Dal punto di vista della teoria relazionale, i problemi di giustizia socia-
le possono essere distinti in quattro grandi contesti o sfere relazionali, che
180 PIERPAOLO DONATI
5
Nella formulazione relazionale, l’equità ha quattro dimensioni, che possono esse-
re così definite in prima approssimazione: equità commutativa è quella dello scambio
di beni e servizi fra privati secondo misure di equivalenza (corrisponde alla A, cioè alla
dimensione economica in senso analitico della giustizia); equità ridistributiva è quella
attuata a fini di solidarietà da un potere centrale che tassa le singole unità per poi rida-
re ai meno favoriti secondo criteri di compensazione (corrisponde alla G, cioè alla
dimensione politica in senso analitico della giustizia); equità distributiva è quella uni-
laterale di un soggetto che assegna ciò che è dovuto ad un altro o più altri in due modi,
in accordo con criteri di reciprocità (quando si tratta di una formazione sociale asso-
ciativa) (corrisponde alla I, cioè alla dimensione sociale in senso analitico della giusti-
zia) e secondo criteri di mero riconoscimento di bisogni o diritti naturali (quando si trat-
ta di una comunità) (corrisponde alla L, cioè alla dimensione valoriale in senso anali-
tico della giustizia).
EQUITÀ FRA LE GENERAZIONI: UNA NUOVA NORMA SOCIALE 181
della dignità umana6 e dei connessi diritti naturali umani, in accordo con la
regola del “da ciascuno secondo le sue capacità e a ciascuno secondo il suo
bisogno”, e quindi secondo l’etica del dono; qui si trovano i beni relazionali pri-
mari, cioè frutto di una condivisione che sorge non per mera associazione ma
per via di un agire comunitario, e i problemi di giustizia relativi a questo spe-
cifico contesto (come definire i bisogni meritevoli di riconoscimento in quan-
to corrispondenti a diritti umani fondamentali) (O’Neill 1994).
G
politica
area degli giustizia
interessi ridistributiva
(beni pubblici)
A I
mercato associativa
giustizia giustizia
commutativa regolativa
relativa ad di reciprocità
un sistema di prezzi (beni relazionali
(beni privati) collettivi)
L
comunità primarie
(e reti informali) area delle
giustizia distributiva identità
di riconoscimento
(beni relazionali primari)
Legenda:
Asse A-I = asse dell’adattamento [giustizia secondo modalità adattative: in A è
commutativa, in I è regolativa]
Asse L-G = asse della legittimazione [giustizia secondo modalità distributive: in G per
ridistribuzione, in L per riconoscimento]
Area A-G = area degli interessi
Area I-L = area delle identità
Fig. 3. Le sfere e dimensioni fondamentali della giustizia come realtà complessa secondo
l’approccio relazionale.
6
Identificata in una società “almeno decente”, secondo la definizione di Margalit (1996).
182 PIERPAOLO DONATI
7
Le mediazioni sono impossibili perché prive di un meta-codice simbolico (come
ad esempio quello di AGIL).
EQUITÀ FRA LE GENERAZIONI: UNA NUOVA NORMA SOCIALE 183
5.3. Che cosa fare per sostenere in pratica l’EG? Di fronte al quadro appe-
na tratteggiato, ci si può chiedere quale possa e debba essere una nuova
filosofia pratica, di politica e di interventi sociali, per perseguire l’EG.
Nella prospettiva relazionale, il problema dell’equità riguarda cioè che
sta fra le generazioni (nell’espressione inter-generazionale), e dunque è un
problema di giustizia delle relazioni, nelle relazioni e attraverso le relazio-
ni generative (Donati 2000a). Si tratta di seguire due criteri-guida e di trar-
ne le conseguenze operative.
I due criteri-guida sono: primo, riconoscere e promuovere una plurali-
tà di criteri equitativi differenziati per sfere che li realizzano; secondo, valo-
rizzare in maniera promozionale (cioè: con sinergie e giochi a somma mag-
giore di zero) le reti di scambio fra tutti gli ambiti e dentro ogni sfera socia-
le in modo tale da sviluppare, e non solo ridistribuire, i beni (relazionali) da
trasmettere e allocare fra le generazioni secondo criteri equitativi.
Le applicazioni operative possono essere brevemente delineate come segue.
Nel mercato. Le imprese potrebbero favorire contratti di solidarietà fra
generazioni, anche per riferimento alle generazioni interne alle famiglie,
soprattutto nelle piccole imprese (per esempio con meno di dieci addetti).
Le banche potrebbero adottare criteri di prestito e di investimento finan-
ziario nei confronti dei giovani (studenti e lavoratori) rinunciando a privi-
legiare semplicemente chi dà maggiori garanzie in termini di patrimonio o
reddito personale, cioè adulti e anziani, qualora vi fosse una “terza parte”
in grado di sostenere i rischi; lo stesso si può dire per i prestiti che riguar-
dano la casa o servizi sociali, sanitari, previdenziali, e così via. In altri ter-
mini, gli attori di mercato potrebbero apprendere norme di condotta che
siano capaci di collocare le proprie garanzie nelle relazioni inter-generazio-
nali piuttosto che negli assets individuali.
G) Nello stato. Il sistema politico ridistributivo dovrebbe abbandonare il
suo carattere marcatamente assistenzialistico e di pura intitolazione a benefi-
ci passivizzanti, per assumere il volto di una ridistribuzione intelligente che
184 PIERPAOLO DONATI
za. L’esperimento dei vouchers (in tante modalità diverse) nei servizi domi-
ciliari per bambini e anziani, ad esempio, è già oggi una felice esperienza
di organizzazioni familiari che, tramite fondazioni e cooperative, si asso-
ciano per migliorare le relazioni fra generazioni mantenendo gli anziani in
famiglia o in abitazioni prossime alla famiglia.
L) Nella famiglia e nelle reti informali. Le famiglie, nonostante siano i
primi operatori del ricambio generazionale, sono ambienti particolarmen-
te ‘opachi’ a riflettere su come spendono o investono le proprie risorse in
chiave generazionale. Spesso i consumi familiari sono privi di un minimo
di progettualità; i risparmi e gli investimenti vengono fatti sulla base di
impulsi che non hanno criteri di EG. Occorre una riflessione culturale sulle
regole allocative delle risorse fra le generazioni (compresenti e future) così
come vengono praticate dalle famiglie. Grande importanza potrebbero
avere i fondi previdenziali affidati alla gestione diretta delle famiglie, che
potranno investire la previdenza individuale sulle generazioni della stessa
famiglia. Il ruolo delle reti familiari e informali per uscire dal welfare assi-
stenziale è oggi sempre più riconosciuto, ma manca ancora una lettura
generazionale del modo in cui tali reti funzionano.
Per concludere. Affinché l’EG possa diventare una norma sociale diffu-
sa, circolante in tutta la società, è importante che tutti gli attori si vedano
reciprocamente, cioè relazionalmente e riflessivamente.
La famiglia dovrebbe specificare il proprio compito come luogo del dono
che crea fiducia e scambio di reciprocità fra le generazioni, differenziando e
integrandosi con quanto viene fatto dallo stato, dal mercato e dal privato
sociale. Il privato sociale dovrebbe adottare al proprio interno dei criteri di
EG che siano in sinergia con il contributo delle famiglie, dello stato e del mer-
cato. Il mercato dovrebbe aprirsi ad una visione generazionale delle sue atti-
vità economiche, senza isolare la ricerca del profitto e dell’utilità dal poten-
ziamento delle relazioni di reciprocità fra generazioni. Lo Stato dovrebbe
adottare un criterio di EG nella propria funzione ridistributiva, e inoltre
intervenire perché ciascun attore si attivi per rimediare ai propri difetti allor-
ché si constata che persegue l’EG in modo difettoso o fallimentare.
In questo quadro, il problema dell’equità sociale fra le generazioni
diventa un compito che può essere adeguatamente affrontato solo in una
visione relazionale dei criteri e dei mezzi per realizzarlo. Non si tratta di
sminuire il ruolo dello stato, ma di specializzarlo nei suoi criteri e inter-
venti, rendendo il sistema politico-amministrativo sussidiario alle iniziati-
ve che cercano di realizzare l’EG attraverso un maggiore sviluppo di inizia-
tive specifiche per ciascuna sfera della società civile.
186 PIERPAOLO DONATI
BIBLIOGRAFIA