 |
|
FROM
PARALLEL TO DUAL CAREERS: DIPLOMATIC SPOUSES IN THE EUROPEAN CONTEXT - Annabel Hendry
|
|
|
CHANGING ATTITUDES OF SPOUSES
Changing Attitudes Of Spouses
In many of the spouses associations in Europe there is on-going debate as to
where the lines should be drawn between choice and duty and between voluntary versus paid
work. It needs stressing that there is still a wide spectrum of opinion, and in the case
of the British Service, this can be illustrated through two quotes. The first is from a
speech given by the Chairman during a seminar which the BDSA held with the Administration
on Role, Recognition and Recompense for Spouses in 1995 where she said "It is a case
of the role is dead, long live the role! We face a difficult contradiction. We do not want
this role and yet we perform it. We even say that we choose to do it and then, of course,
as we do it, it comes to be expected." The second is from a reply to one of the
questionnaires in our survey. In answer to the question of which measures she felt could
be taken to improve her contentment with her role as a spouse of a Foreign Service
officer, a woman aged 31 and married to a Second Secretary replied "the whole problem
as I see it is that I dont see this as my role; my role is too connected with my own
sense of identity, i.e. my life, career and children. The fact that my husband happens to
be a diplomat is his business and I go abroad not because of his job or because of any
transferred sense of role as his wife but simply because I choose to spend my life with
him and not with the DS." It could be added that her view was not by any means the
most extreme; one spouse, to the question "which duties as a diplomatic spouse do you
think deserve pay or recompense?" replied "just being married to a
diplomat!"
Amidst all these different views, two trends can be detected. First, spouses feel
uncertain about their role and its future and morale is often low. This clearly emerged
from the comments made by the spouses who responded both to the BDSA survey this year and
to the one undertaken by the Austrians, that morale is generally low. The study undertaken
by the Austrians revealed that morale tended to be far lower amongst junior officers and
their spouses. Although in the British case this does not seem to be the case, there was
the impression, shared by the Austrians, that more effort needs to be made to involve and
reflect the views of younger spouses and those married to junior officers. The responses
to the BDSA survey revealed a tremendous division of opinion over whether the supporting
role of the spouse will continue into the 21st century: 53% believed it would; 41% thought
not and 6% did not know.
Second, although at present, in most European countries, the majority of spouses do
continue to accompany their spouses to post and to "opt in" whilst at post,
there is a growing sense that greater recognition and some form of remuneration is due,
particularly in the case of the work undertaken by Heads of Mission spouses. In the BDSA
survey, the overwhelming majority - 81.5% - believed that spouses should be recompensed
for duties associated with the role. Those who replied negatively frequently gave the
time-honoured reason for this: that it would remove the element of choice. The respondents
to the Swiss survey also raised the question of remuneration, even though this was not
directly asked. In the Austrian case, 60% of the respondents expressed disappointment at
the lack of recognition they received from their Ministry - this was particularly true of
those over 50 and those married to more senior officers.
Debates around this question are by
no means new, and can be dated back a good twenty years. One of the problems which emerged
during the turbulent debates of the late 70s in several Foreign Services was precisely
that of what did wives owe their Services and vice versa? In the case of the British
Service, the whole situation ended up with rather a head on clash - with a movement in the
Diplomatic Service Wives Association saying that, quite simply, wives owed the Service
nothing. The British administration (along with others, including the US and the
Australian) responded with the suave, but not very helpful, statement, that of course
wives owed their Services nothing, but any contribution they might choose to make would be
most welcome. Thus, the firm ground of obligation gave way to the more shifting one of
choice - a shift which did not please all spouses, for it left some feeling undervalued.
Twenty years on, in the case of the British Service, the position remains more or less the
same. Today the official line is that "the spouse is not expected to do anything in
support of the officer but that anything the spouse does on a voluntary basis is greatly
appreciated by the Service." To many, this position appears to be derogatory,
condescending and untrue. Indeed, there is a certain disingenuousness to this position -
as long as it can be said that it is the spouses choice to contribute; however great
that contribution might be, it can then be freed of any contractual taint and the issue of
pay can be ducked.
So, what might be the future for diplomatic spouses and how are Services taking into
account the need to acknowledge the constraints that diplomacy as a way of life imposes on
the families of officers?
|