This year's Spring Festival, were you urged to marry and have children by the seven aunts and eight aunts?
Behind the social troubles of young people during the New Year's Holiday, low fertility rates have become a common phenomenon in many countries around the world. At present, in 203 countries and regions in the world, more than 80 countries and regions have a total fertility rate below the replacement level of 2.1, developed countries in Europe and the United States are generally at low fertility levels or ultra-low fertility levels, and Germany, Italy, Russia and other countries have already experienced negative population growth. In east Asian cultural circles, South Korea experienced negative population growth in 2021, and Japan's birth population in 2020 hit a 100-year low.
Does the declining fertility rate mean that more and more modern people are more reluctant to have children? This issue focuses on the reality of low fertility in developed countries in Europe and the United States, while reviewing the solutions of these countries in coping with the dilemma of birth rates. The author believes that the low fertility dilemma in European and American countries is closely related to the transformation of women's roles in modern society. Women entering the workforce are taking on too many childcare responsibilities, and appropriate government intervention can help ease the burden on women and have a positive effect on fertility.
Written by | Wang Jiayin
01
"Priceless" children:
Low fertility reality
In modern society, why do people still have children?
In the public and private spaces where we live, there are children everywhere, on the road by the parents in their hands, in the arms, in the playground specially set up in the children's exclusive facilities and projects, on public transportation wearing school uniforms, twittering into a pile. Slogans like "Everything for the children, everything for the children" can still be seen in educational facilities. It has become difficult for modern people to treat children as part of economic development, and the employment of child labor is prohibited by law and morally condemned. But children and their guardians often lead to discussions about how children should be raised, how children should appear in public spaces, and how social resources should be used. Tracing the social significance of children in history, sociologists have also found that after the Industrial Revolution, entering the modern society,—— almost when the economic benefits of children disappeared, the emotional benefits of children and the role of children's situation as moral and ethical benchmarks became more prominent. If children once had the possibility of supplementing the family labor force and bringing economic benefits, with the process of modernization, children have become more and more "priceless".
"Pricing Priceless Children", by Viviana Zelider, Peppermint Experimental | East China Normal University Press, January 2018.
As children become more expensive, the pace of childbearing seems to have slowed down: most developed countries, as well as some developing countries, have now entered low or very low fertility rates. This is also often the focus of social attention, although this change is in line with sociological and demographic experience:
With the process of industrialization and modernization, demography has observed that the birth rate and fertility rate of a region will gradually decline. The first population transition theory was put forward by the demography community, that is, after two stages of high mortality and high birth rate, low birth rate and high mortality rate, the society will eventually shift to a double-low model of low mortality and low birth rate.
Traditional experience generally holds that the total fertility rate (TFR: total fertility rate) = 2.1, that is, assuming that the average number of children in the group of women of childbearing age is 2.1, it can guarantee population iteration. After the millennium, low birth rates and low fertility rates are no longer unique to developed countries, and many developing countries have achieved low or very low fertility rates (TFR below 2.1 or even 1.3).
Here it is necessary to make a simple distinction between the birth rate and the fertility rate: the birth rate refers to the ratio of the average number of newborns in a given year to a thousand people, which is a real reference. The total fertility rate (TFR) is a hypothesis: the specific measurement needs to be grouped by age, which can be simply understood as estimating the average number of children in childbearing age (15-45 years old) in a lifetime at a certain point in time. The advantage of the total fertility rate is that it is more time-sensitive, does not need to wait until the end of the childbearing age of women to be counted, and can observe changes in fertility trends in a timely manner.
Does low fertility mean that people are more reluctant to have children? Not necessarily. It is not that people do not want to have children, but in the face of the complex realities of society and individual families, the birth plans that people can actually complete are often different from what individuals hope.
In research over the past few decades, scholars have found that most people still express fertility intention, but often people are more willing to have children than they actually have. The comparison of the two can also reflect the impact of social reality on the trajectory of an individual's life. Even before the advent of modern contraception, people still had some planning and control over fertility. In times of socio-economic downturn, even families with food and clothing will carefully control the number of newborns. Taking the family as a unit, taking heterosexual marriage relationships as an example, for more detailed observation, the situation may be more complicated: for example, the differences between wives and husbands in terms of overall fertility intentions and gender orientation of newborns.
This difference between willingness and reality also reflects the complex motivations behind fertility decisions. Admittedly, children are considered pure, innocent, and innocent, along with the perception that the act of crossing the door of life should be "selfless" and worthy of praise. In fact, when people enter the fertility track, the reasons for this may be more complex. Whether it is "selfish" or not, perhaps should not be considered in the first place.
Empirical research shows that expectant parents not only look forward to newborns, but also expect newborns to manifest and consolidate marital relationships, intergenerational relationships, connections with friends and communities, and complete social expectations. The experience of childbearing can itself be a process of building social identity and mobilizing social resources.
Some scholars also asked, in modern society, why do people still have children? From the perspective of economic and personal development alone, childbearing is more or less a thankless task. In the United States in 2013, only one child was raised until the age of 18, and the average cost was $245,000. But looking around the world today, the new generation is really separated from the support of the original family, and the time to settle down is getting late: once a 16-year-old teenager may be able to go out and run, and it is possible to support the family; today's people who do so are often considered to be forced by the situation and sympathetic. The importance of education and university diplomas for personal career development and family building is self-evident today. Today, even when legally adults are 18 years old, most young people still rely on their parents to complete higher education, start a family, and raise children. People may still hold the idea that having a child can help the elderly, leaving aside the unreliability and unpredictability of this expectation, in addition to the direct economic investment in the development of children, fertility is actually likely to reduce or slow down the accumulation of personal wealth and pension expectations.
However, the cost and difficulty of childbirth are not limited to the loss of money, whether it is embryos or teeth and teeth, toddlers, they lack the ability to survive independently. There is no point in putting a million pounds next to a newborn, who can't make their own formula, change diapers, or see a doctor. As dependents, children are required to have an additional adult to provide care services, and the younger the child, the more dependent they are on the care provided by outside adults. At the same time, this is becoming increasingly demanding for the caregivers of children, especially mothers. If children are deemed to enjoy a high density of care services, receive a good moral and cultural education, maintain a healthy body and lifestyle, etc., then mothers are often identified as the primary and main responsible persons of the child.
The work of the nurturer is no longer easy, and when women enter the workplace, the relationship between work and the role of mother is even more cemented.
Stills from Home on the Ramp.
02
Motherhood Myth Trap:
The fantasy of "balance" of the career family
The pitfalls of the motherhood myth pervade both real and fictional works. In this narrative, "Mom is Superman": As new life comes into the world, the women in the family are running on the track to become super mothers. From pregnancy preparation to childbirth to parenting, she is a self-taught doctor, nurse, teacher and commander: she must pay attention to her own food and clothing, but also pay attention to and arrange what the child is doing, what to do, and what to do. From the advantages and disadvantages of breastfeeding, the choice of public or private kindergartens, to how much money to save for the future education of children, children bumping and unhappy, grades fluctuating, etc., mothers are called to the front line.
Women have been providing labor even before entering the formal labor market – but it is often unpaid and ignored as a result. Continuing the Marxist tradition, we can see that women perform all kinds of labor in the family and the community, not only in the upbringing of children, the future labor force, but also in maintaining the functioning of the family and the community – their work behind the scenes, which is the basis of social reproduction – when the male labour force returns home, their work can be suspended, while the women work endlessly.
The process of modernization and urbanization has given women the opportunity to enter the labor market, and the increase in women's labor force participation rate has brought many benefits to better protect the rights and interests of women and children and promote economic development. Especially in the capitalist market, the labor force is gender-neutral, and women's contribution to the formal economy and the labor market is an indispensable part of economic development. But at the same time, in the two hinges of the capitalist economic system and patriarchal society, working women are not thrown into the trap of "how to balance work and family": the problem itself presupposes that women should also provide domestic work in addition to social labor – women bear a double burden. On the one hand, she must participate in the formal labor market of society, have a job, get a salary ticket, earn money to support the family, otherwise, in the capitalist system, the unnetized labor force is difficult to be recognized; on the other hand, she must work two jobs a day, and the patriarchal society wants her to return home to take a second shift, playing the role of a wife who pays for her husband, a mother who sacrifices for her children, and an omnipotent caregiver for the family.