Catalina Siles: "Having more children is a social good that transcends the value-based positions that this government or any other may have"

Catalina Siles holds a degree in history, a master's in History, and a doctorate in Sociology from the Catholic University of Chile. Since March of this year, she has been an advisor in the cabinet of Minister María Jesús Wulf, of Social Development. And her mandate is one: to work on the "Chile Renace" plan, which seeks to generate public policies that halt the decline in the birth rate and bring it closer to the replacement rate. Today, Chile has one of the lowest rates in the world —0.99 children per woman— and in a debate that mixes economics, quality of life, and value orientations, Siles sets out what she considers the fundamental variables of this crisis. She does the same in the book "Donde nace el mundo. Familia y natalidad en tiempos de desarraigo" ("Where the World Is Born. Family and Birth Rates in Times of Uprooting"), to be published in December under the imprint of the Center for Studies of Society. What are the causes of this sharp decline in the birth rate in Chile in recent years? Multiple factors combine here which, moreover, are not unique to Chile but are part of a global phenomenon, and which have to do with economic constraints, with increasingly difficult access to housing. With difficulties balancing family and work, with few support networks for caregiving. With a postponement of family decisions as well, from pairing up and then, eventually, the arrival of the first or more children. Community and family support networks increasingly weakened — this large family that had been an important pillar in Chile's history is increasingly diminished, and that makes child-rearing feel ever more lonely. Are the causes mostly material and economic? It's hard to measure. There are material causes, but there is a very important weight — I would even dare say more relevant — of a significant cultural change in Chile and in the world in recent decades. Having children until recently was like an unavoidable chapter of adult life, and today it is being strongly questioned. It competes with other life projects, other alternatives, especially for women who for a time did not have them and now have opened up for them, which seem incompatible with having children for the same reasons I mentioned before: balancing work and family, support in caregiving, the demands of co-responsibility. But the value or meaning that children had in those life projects has also diminished, in the expectations we want not only for ourselves but for our children. Those changes, which are sometimes deeper and harder to face, have played an important role. More important than the material or tangible factors that are raised? It's difficult for me to assign proportions, maybe 50-50, because there is a lot of variation by territory and group. There are countries that have very important security systems, caregiving systems, quality education, and that nevertheless also have a persistent decline, which shows the importance of the cultural factor. That suggests that cultural changes are more weighty than we think. They have to do with the diversification of life projects, the lesser value of children, the answer to the question about the meaning of life, the loss of a sense of transcendence, not only religious but at a deeper level. Secularization has influenced this, and life trajectories are much more loaded toward individualism. Community projects have lost relevance in those life projects, which are more oriented toward autonomy, freedom, and where, of course, dependence often appears as a threat to life and personal freedom. Do you attribute any factor to feminism in this phenomenon of cultural change in relation to motherhood and children? Feminism is a very diverse current, but the relationship between feminism and motherhood has been very complex, especially since the second wave with Simone de Beauvoir, where perhaps the feminism most critical of motherhood or of how it had been lived until then has acquired predominance. There is a critique that women's submission or their confinement to the domestic sphere is associated with motherhood, which is true, let's say, and that therefore, to open paths for women in the public sphere, in some way one had to renounce it. And that has undoubtedly influenced this cultural change. However, within feminism itself there is also what Mary Harrington calls the care feminism, which says: the problem is not motherhood itself, but how it has been understood by patriarchal systems. What we have to do is revalue it and show that it is not a path incompatible with other things, that women can contribute to the public and labor world, and that does not mean having to renounce motherhood and, above all, show that a well-supported motherhood can be a space of satisfaction and fulfillment. And from the point of view of the State, what can and cannot it do? Can it put forward a revalued vision of motherhood? One has to be very clear about that, what the limits of State action are in this and of public policies... Starting from the premise that a government always has a vision... In any case, and this government has a positive vision toward the importance of the family, the presence of boys and girls as a human and social good, the importance of new generations for the continuity of our communities. But we also know that the valuing of having children, of this making sense, is not something that can be managed by decree or at the legislative level. While the State has an important role, what is required here is the will of individuals, of families, of companies so that in their organization the family is valued and not seen as an impediment to work. Of educational institutions, of all social actors, also of how we transmit positively, and not only as a cost, having children. Does that imply somehow sharing the cost of having children between the family and the State? Do you see a more active role for the State on this issue? Yes, I mean, when we talk about co-responsibility we talk about social co-responsibility: that families are the first responsible for their children, but that what fathers and mothers do is for the benefit of all. It is not only a private good, but a social good which, as a matter of justice, corresponds that they be supported, and the State wants to contribute to that. One would think that a government like that of José Antonio Kast would want to keep the State as far as possible from what is the private sphere of individuals... Right, but it depends on how we think of this State action, always from a fundamental premise that has been present in right-wing governments, which is subsidiarity: letting the family do what only it can do well, not substituting for it in those areas, but leveraging it in those aspects where it may be weaker. Always respecting the freedom of individuals and of the family and its educational and child-rearing project. What family are we talking about? In Chile there are many family realities and, fundamentally, the support that the State has to give to this family will depend on that reality and on the concrete needs of each one of them. However, one can also think about how to strengthen family ties, knowing that the well-being of both children and adults in those communities will be better to the extent that there are solid and stable ties, that there is co-responsibility between fathers and mothers, and that one can support and promote that. That there is also a better bond between generations, which has been a fundamental part of the Chilean idiosyncrasy. Are we talking about putting value on the figure of the traditional family? What we sometimes think of as the traditional family has been quite untraditional in the history of Chile. This family understood as marriage, with children, was an experience in Chile that lasted a few decades. That family, while it had certain positive aspects — perhaps the presence of both parents, formal unions that can facilitate the stability of ties — also in its internal dynamics had other problems. Sometimes a very strict division of gender roles, often, above all, to the detriment of women. Sometimes very hierarchical, vertical structures, a weak daily presence of the father. So for me it is not about going back, but about looking forward and looking at the evidence that exists about which family configurations best favor the well-being of both children and adults. And there one can indeed see that there are solid ties that persist over time, a family resilience that makes it possible to face difficulties. How to make this a national issue and not be pigeonholed as something of values? Here there is a very transversal agreement on the relevance this has for the future, even for the present of the country. The consequences at the structural level, what it will imply for economic growth, for the labor market, for the social security system, pensions, health, the implications that aging has for care systems is something that should concern us all. And we are already starting to see the consequences. But for me, actually, what worries me most and I think should concern us all is the narrowing or reduction of ties and their weakening. Fewer families, increasingly atomized, more isolated, is something that has daily consequences for people's lives, in multiple affective spheres, of care, of support. The family is a space of welcome for people in all their dimensions that no other institution — neither the market, nor the State, nor even other organizers of civil society — can fulfill. At the same time, a country without children is a sadder country, less humanized, a less cohesive country, with less perspective of future. The experience of many people today is life without children. And that also has implications, even for democratic politics in the future, in how we make decisions. So, having more children, having new generations, is a social good that transcends the value positions this government or another may have. What foreign experiences are you taking as an example? There is no country that has managed to reverse the fertility rate to the level of generational replacement, which is 2.1, but there are countries that have at least managed to stop the downward trend, which is what we hope for, and perhaps over time to raise a few points in the global fertility rate. Countries like France, the Nordic countries, have managed to stop it and raise a few points, a bit closer to the replacement rate, around 1.5. The problem is that these are very different realities. France has achieved this through significant social spending that is difficult to sustain over time, and we see the crisis that this has generated. In a country with the economy that Chile has, which still fails to rebound, it is difficult to aspire to a system like that. I think the fundamental conclusion, more than particular measures, is that what is needed here is long-term, sustained action over time in different areas, which are the axes we are working on: the cost of child-rearing, housing, caregiving, work-family balance, even couple formation, which is also a global phenomenon. And in addition we want to add this last axis, which is perhaps much more challenging, more difficult to do and to act on, especially for the State, which has to do with social and cultural norms and how we can propose a more positive discourse about family life, about having children. But is the State the one called to do that? The State is not the main actor, but I believe it can. The State always sends messages in one way or another, of valuing certain things, of where it wants to steer the country. A while ago I read a news item in Mongolia about the meaning that the status of motherhood had, which is something that has been lost. There the government began to award medals of honor in recognition of this status. And sometimes that can have more relevance than one thinks. The Golden Wedding Anniversary Bonus, well, perhaps it does not have a very significant implication, but they are symbolic messages. Many of these public policy proposals have not only practical consequences, but symbolic consequences of the message one wants to send to society. The right usually approaches this issue from a values prism. The left, rather a material one. Are there points of convergence? I think there are many more areas of agreement than one thinks. Because when one says strengthen couple ties, what does that translate into? It is not only, for example, promoting marriage. It can range from reforming the marital property regime, modernizing certain institutions so that they are also more desirable for people. One could also think of public policies where there is greater scope for action for churches, considering that the evidence shows that religious groups still have more children than those who are not. There is a super broad scope for action in which I believe we can have many agreements on which one could act, but above all also make a call that this is not only a responsibility, but that the action of companies, of schools, of universities, of neighborhood communities, of extended families is required to support. And that this will be like a joint effort, that is, we will build the village together to generate this change. How does this connect with the cultural battle of the right, pushed by sectors close to Kast? We have tried not to get into that and, above all, not to frame this concern within the cultural battle. The very composition of the commission speaks to that; a pro-birth caucus was also formed within Congress. The different universities or study centers that have engaged with these issues show that it is an issue that transcends those frameworks. Some are concerned about the country's economic future, others about families, others are very concerned about the consequences it can have on loneliness, others on aging. The different actors are approaching this issue from different points of view, with different emphases and concerns, but there is a very transversal view of the importance this has, and not only at the national level, but at the global level. This is a concern for the UN, for OECD countries. What are the risks if this is not reversed? The other side of the coin is population aging and what this will imply for the country, say, an increasingly aged population in terms of health spending, which will rise exponentially, pension spending, the PGU will mean several points of GDP. Also the closure of an entire sphere related to childhood, such as schools. An increasingly reduced labor market that also has to sustain this entire social protection system. Less youth also generally implies less innovation. A progressive institutionalization of care, which, while it can be very positive, will never replace personal family care. It can even affect security in strategic terms, in the sovereignty of countries.