ABSTRACT
It is no simple matter to move away from tradition—more certainly so when the tradition is seen as psychodynamically and economicially functional. No childrearing arrangement has ever proven to be so massive, effective, and inexpensive as that comprised of a loving mother, providing father, and healthy child. To argue, as have founders of the kibbutz, that caring for a single child is prohibitively expensive or precludes the emancipation of women may be enough to carry the day but hardly settles the issue. To advance the "educators know best" position of Strumilin and other Soviet proponents of group care is also not enough. Nagging questions remain: What are the consequences for the child, the continued role of the family, and the relative positions of males and females in society?
In short, as Kardiner says issues related to the mere existence of group care as a normal phenomenon raise questions fundamental to the structure and functioning of a society. We should not be surprised, therefore, that group care is castigated yet accepted, or strongly opposed, or introduced blatantly as a new and better (revolutionary) approach to childrearing, or, barring all the above, disguised. By denigrating group care (it is for the sick, the helpless, the failures), or by accepting its utility for special groups (it is for the elite), the familial primacy is left secure. If the family is to be attacked (e.g., early postrevolutionary U.S.S.R. or early kibbutzim), group care can be legitimized by a frontal attack on familial capability. If neither 116 of these routes is suitable, then group care may be marketed as a familial derivative, even partaking of its terminology. Legitimizing group care is no simple matter, particularly in a society with strong familistic foundations.
