From Pronatalism to Salvaging Relationships

Abstract

This article studies how Väestöliitto (the Finnish Population and Family Welfare League), a non-governmental expert organization specialized in family policy, framed marriage as a social ideal and, respectively, divorce as a social problem, and how this framing developed during 1951–1988. In the 1940s and 1950s, Väestöliitto was a conservative actor; i.e. it sought to preserve existing family, gender, and matrimonial norms. Its focus was on pre-emptive action aiming at addressing the underlying reasons behind marriage dissolution. Through family education, Väestöliitto sought to solidify its familial and matrimonial ideals on the level of individuals as well as on a broader societal level. However, in the 1960s and 1970s, as the surrounding society saw the emergence of structural change and modernized values and policies, the normative ideas of Väestöliitto remained largely unchanged. Väestöliitto was thus not merely conservative, but falling behind its time. Only in the 1980s was it influenced by the modern society, at which point it drastically reframed marriage and divorce: marriage and family were no longer perceived as a partially public (state/society) matter, but, rather, divorce was understood as a private issue of individuals.

Keywords:

• marriage
• divorce
• family education
• expertise
• knowledge production
• social problems
• Finland

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. Melby et al., The Nordic Model; Melby et al., ‘The Nordic Model’; Melby et al., ‘What is Nordic’.

2. Melby et al., ‘The Nordic Model’, 651–61; Melby et al., ‘What is Nordic’, 147–64.

3. Pylkkänen, Vaihtoehto avioliitolle.

4. Nätkin, Kamppailu suomalaisesta äitiydestä.

5. Hietala, ‘Eugenics and Reform’.

6. Yli-Opas, Avioliiton teologia Englannin kirkossa ja Suomen evankelis-luterilaisessa kirkossa vuosina 1963–2006.

7. Spector and Kitsuse, Constructing Social Problems.

8. Benford and Snow, ‘Framing Processes and Social Movements’, 611–39.

9. Hietala, ‘Eugenics and Reform’, 159–81; Melby et al., ‘What is Nordic’, 147–56; Melby et al., ‘The Nordic Model’, 651–7.

10. Melby et al., ‘The Nordic Model’, 653–7; Melby et al., ‘What is Nordic’, 156; Pylkkänen, Vaihtoehto avioliitolle – seksuaalisuudesta yhteistalouden sääntelyyn, 48–65.

11. Michel, ‘Moving Targets’, 122–4, 127–31.

12. On eugenic practices, racial hygiene, and social hygiene in Finland and the Nordic countries, see, for example, Hietala, ‘From Race Hygiene to Sterilization’; Hietala, ‘Eugenics and Reform’; Broberg and Roll-Hansen, Eugenics and the Welfare State, 16–54; Steinby, Sjuttiofem år för folkhälsan, 3–28.

13. Marriage Act 234/1929, 10–12§.

14. See note 2.

15. Pylkkänen, Vaihtoehto avioliitolle, 57–9; Melby et al., ‘The Nordic Model’, 654.

16. Marriage Act 234/1929, 76a§.

17. Ibid., 70–79§.

18. Ibid.

19. Government Bill 90/1974.

20. Asland, ‘De Castbergske barnelover 100 år’, 1–8; Picot, ‘Transforming Child Welfare’, 693–5.

21. Amendment to the Marriage Act 681/1948.

22. Committee Report 1972: A 21; Committee Report 1976:29; Committee Report 1983:20.

23. Amendment to the Marriage Act 411/1987.

24. When I speak of ‘Väestöliitto’ hereinafter, I refer to its main representatives, i.e. its executive manager and board. This article thus reflects the official or majority views of Väestöliitto. In general, the actors in Väestöliitto formed a rather uniform front, and the association did not have a distinguishable opposition. There were, however, some discordant notes within Väestöliitto. Minority perspectives were raised primarily within the political Left and the newer generations, who did not as whole-heartedly embrace the maternalist and bourgeois general discourse in Väestöliitto. For an analysis on this theme, see Nätkin, Kamppailu suomalaisesta äitiydestä, 121–2.

25. Michel, ‘Moving Targets’, 122–4, 131–3.

26. Bergenheim, ‘Establishment of the Family Federation’.

27. Ibid.

28. Pylkkänen, Vaihtoehto avioliitolle – seksuaalisuudesta yhteistalouden sääntelyyn, 59.

29. Official Statistics of Finland, Vital Statistics in Finland in the Years 1941–1955, 8–19.

30. AoV, Väestöliitto, Action Plan 1952, 3; AoV, Väestöliitto, Action Plan 1953, 4.

31. AoV, Väestöliitto, Minutes dated 2 December 1953 (board meeting).

32. AoV, Väestöliitto, Minutes dated 2 December 1953 (board meeting). Appendix 6: Letter to the Ministry of Justice.

33. See note 27.

34. Committee Report 1958:10.

35. AoV, Väestöliitto, Minutes dated 10 February 1954 (board meeting). Appendix 7: Terveydenhoitolehti, Avioliitto ja koti, pp. 31–34.

36. The Church’s marriage counselling for returning soldiers during 1944–1946 is discussed by Antti Malinen in this issue as well.

37. Helén, Äidin elämän politiikka, 240.

38. Ibid., 237–50.

39. Michel, ‘Moving Targets’, 122–4, 133–5.

40. Pylkkänen, Vaihtoehto avioliitolle – seksuaalisuudesta yhteistalouden sääntelyyn, 111–12; Korppi-Tommola, ‘Naisliikkeen ja naishistorian vuorovaikutus’, 18; Mickwitz, ‘Yhdistys 9 ja sukupuoliroolikeskustelu’, 25–55.

41. Paavonen, ‘Talouden kehitys ja talouspolitiikka’, 10–20.

42. Bacchi, Women, Policy and Politics, 112–15.

43. AoV, Väestöliitto, Minutes dated 29 November 1972 (autumn meeting). Appendix 4: Jouko Hulkko’s presentation on the current family policy outlook.

44. AoV, Väestöliitto, Action Plan 1973.

45. AoV, Väestöliitto, Minutes dated 29 November 1972 (autumn meeting). Appendix 4: Jouko Hulkko’s presentation on the current family policy outlook; AoV, Väestöliitto, Action Plan 1971.

46. AoV, Väestöliitto, Minutes dated 12 September 1979 (board meeting). Appendix: PM from the board’s day meeting 12.9.1979; AoV, Väestöliitto, Annual Report 1980; AoV, Väestöliitto, Annual Report 1981.

47. AoV, Väestöliitto, Minutes dated 12 September 1979 (board meeting). Appendix: PM from the board’s day meeting 12.9.1979

48. Väestöliitto, Avioero 1981.

49. AoV, Väestöliitto, Minutes dated 24 November 1971 (autumn meeting).

50. Elovainio, Mikä särkee avioliiton?, 46–52.

51. Lindgren and Pulkkinen, Avioerot 1950–1981 avioliittokohorteittain.

52. Lindgren, Avioero ja ikä.

53. Ibid., 4.

54. Ibid., 23.

55. Ibid., 24.

56. Committee Report 1972: A 21, 48.

57. AoV, Väestöliitto, Minutes dated 13 June 1977 (board meeting). Appendix 5: Statement to the Ministry of Justice on the Committee Report II of the Marriage Act Committee.

58. See note 27.

59. Committee Report 1983:20.

60. AoV, Väestöliitto, Minute dated 2 November 1983 (board meeting). Appendix 1: Statement to the Ministry of Justice on the Committee Report of the Marriage Committee. Draft.

61. AoV, Väestöliitto, Annual Report 1987, 20–1.

62. Nätkin, Kamppailu suomalaisesta äitiydestä, 142–3.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Society of Swedish Literature in Finland and the Finnish Cultural Foundation.

Notes on contributors

Sophy Bergenheim

Sophy Bergenheim is a doctoral candidate in political history at the University of Helsinki. In her dissertation, she studies how Finnish non-governmental expert organizations have utilized their expertise and participated in setting social policy agendas in the 1940s–1960s; in other words, she analyses how the organizations have used expertise as a political tool. Address: P.O. Box 54, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland. [email: [email protected]]