family, it appears, is to defend natural, voluntary patterns ofndependency that are unrelated to, but threatened by, thenstate. At a deeper level, “social biology” reveals the family asnnatural, innate, and biologically derived—an institution thatncan generate powerful emotional and economic forces thatndefy the social engineers. Indeed, the family still survivesntoday because of that power: through its ability to block thenegalitarian goals of government by passing on to children theninequalities of class, taste, and culture; and through its powernof reproduction, the family’s trump card over the ambitionsnof princes and ambitious bureaucrats whose numbers arengrowing out of all proportion to the nation’s birthrate.nAssaults on the new welfare state—both the relativelyntimid moves of the Reagan administration and the morenhearty efiForts of the Thatcher government—also take onnthe quality of “pro-family” acts: efforts that wouldnreprivatize the relations between state and family, men andnwomen, parents and children.nThe other side, certainly, understands what is at stake.nTake this report on a 1983 rally protesting a proposednbudget cut in British Columbia; “An extraordinary range ofnindividual women and representatives of women’s groupsnconverged on . . . the Budget meeting room. . . . Publicnsector unionists, teachers, lesbian rights activists, long-timengeneral-issue feminists, church women, artists, writers, leftwingersnof gaudily-varied stripes, day care activists, rape crisisnworkers, students, librarians, old women — all came to arguenand act.”nThat’s a fairly good contemporary list of society’s enemies,nall of whom are making good livings out of the state’snwar on the family. It’s also a good indicator of how thenpolitics of the family has merged with the politics of thenwelfare state.nHARD LIVING ON EASY STREET by Dan D.n McMurrynWith the falling leaves and falling temperatures, hordesnof newspeople looking for the hungry and homelessndescended on the missions and the shelters. Now collectivelyncalled Street People, Streetniks (my term) became then”darlings of the press”; every day, in every paper, we arenbrought up to date about them. USA Today for example,nrecently featured a run-down of their problems, including anphoto and a quotation from a “representative” of thenhomeless from each state — subjective photo journalism andnhuman-interest stories were substituted for objective investigation.nAs a teacher, I could not critically discuss the topic withnmy students, lacking reliable data, reliably collected. As ansocial investigator, once again I hit the road — or better said,nthe street.nEasy Street? There were at last count 41 meals servednevery day to Streetniks in Nashville. If they care to, they cannspend all day eating. All you do is line up and eat. Nonquestions asked. No one who wants a warm place to stay isnturned away. Easy living? Here is a list of things I got, saw,nreceived, or are advertised as available free for the asking:nfood, snacks, food to go, clothing, shelter, towels, blankets,nsoap, personal items, gloves, ski caps, razors, aspirin, coldntablets, Band-Aids, eyeglasses, medical care, prescriptionsnfilled regardless of issuing doctor, emergency medicine,nstitches. X-rays, crutches, false teeth, dental care, alcoholismntreatment, sermons, sing-alongs, friendship, companionship,nopportunities for exercise, walking and strolling, Christmasncarols, writing materials, pens, envelopes, stamps, Christmasncards, fruit cake, daily newspapers, magazines, diapers,nsanitary napkins, baby food, neck braces. Ace bandages, etc.nHard living? In a single week, two street people werenstabbed to death within four blocks of each other. Onenstabbing occurred in the chapel of the Mission, in the cornernDan McMurry is associate professor of sociology atnMiddle Tennessee State University.nnnAUGUST 1388 / ISn