Family in Transition Ch 11

[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

Sotelo, 1994). In her study of undocumented Mexican immigrants, Hondagneu-Sotelo
(1994) demonstrated that gender shapes migration and immigration shapes gender rela-
tions. She found that family stage migration, in which husbands migrate first and wives
and children follow later, does not fit the household-strategy model. Often implied in
this model is the assumption that migration reflects the unanimous and rational collective
decision of all household members. However, as Hondagneu-Sotelo observed, gender
hierarchies determined when and under what circumstances migration occurred; that
is, men often decided spontaneously, independently, and unilaterally to migrate north
to seek employment. When Mexican couples were finally reunited in the United States,
they generally reconstructed more egalitarian gender relations. Variation in the form
of gender relations in the United States is partially explained by the circumstances sur-
rounding migration, such as the type and timing of migration, access to social networks,
and U.S. immigration policy.
FAMILY DYNAMICS ACROSS LATINO GROUPS
Familism
Collectivist family arrangements are thought to be a defining feature of the Latino popu-
lation. Presumably, a strong orientation and obligation to the family produces a kinship
structure that is qualitatively different from that of all other groups. Latino familism,
which is said to emphasize the family as opposed to the individual, is linked to many of
the pejorative images that have beset discussions of the Hispanic family ( Vega, 1990,
p. 1018). Although themes of Latino familism figure prominently in the social science
literature, this topic remains problematic owing to empirical limitations and conceptual
confusion.
C
Ch-11.indd 456 7/8/2008 12:35:33 PM
h
-
1
1
.
i
n
d
d
4
5
6
7
/
8
/
2
8
1
2
:
3
5
:
3
3
P
M
Chapter 11 " Dimensions of Diversity 457
Popular and social science writing contain repeated descriptions of what amounts
to a generic Latino kinship form. In reality, a Mexican-origin bias pervades the research
on this topic. Not only is there a lack of comparative research on extended kinship
structures among different national-origin groups, but there is little empirical evidence
for all but Mexican-origin families. For Mexican-origin groups, studies are plentiful (for
reviews, see Baca Zinn, 1983; Vega, 1990, 1995), although they have yielded inconsistent
evidence about the prevalence of familism, the forms it takes, and the kinds of supportive
relationships it serves.
Among the difficulties in assessing the evidence on extended family life are the
inconsistent uses of terms like familism and extended family system. Seeking to clarify the
multiple meanings of familism, Ramirez and Arce (1981) treated familism as a multidi-
mensional concept comprised of such distinct aspects as structure, behavior, norms and
attitudes, and social identity, each of which requires separate measurement and analysis.
They proposed that familism contains four key components: (1) demographic familism,
which involves such characteristics as family size; (2) structural familism, which mea-
sures the incidence of multigenerational (or extended) households; (3) normative fami-
lies, which taps the value that Mexican-origin people place on family unity and solidarity;
and (4) behavioral familism, which has to do with the level of interaction between family
and kin networks.
Changes in regional and local economies and the resulting dislocations of Latinos
have prompted questions about the ongoing viability of kinship networks. Analyzing
a national sample of minority families, Rochelle (1997) argued that extended kinship
networks are declining among Chicanos, Puerto Ricans, and African Americans. On
the other hand, a large body of research has documented various forms of network par-
ticipation by Latinos. For three decades, studies have found that kinship networks are
an important survival strategy in poor Mexican communities (Alvirez & Bean, 1976;
Hoppe & Heller, 1975; Velez-Iba�ez, 1996) and that these networks operate as a system
of cultural, emotional, and mental support (Keefe, 1984; Mindel, 1980; Ramirez, 1980),
as well as a system for coping with socioeconomic marginality (Angel & Tienda, 1982;
Lamphere et al., 1993).
Research has suggested, however, that kinship networks are not maintained for
socioeconomic reasons alone (Buriel & De Ment, 1997). Familistic orientation among
Mexican-origin adults has been associated with high levels of education and income
(Griffith & Villavicienco, 1985). Familism has been viewed as a form of social capital
that is linked with academic success among Mexican-heritage adolescents ( Valenzuela &
Dornbusch, 1994).
The research on the involvement of extended families in the migration and settle-
ment of Mexicans discussed earlier (Chavez, 1992; Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1994; Hondagneu-
Sotelo & Avila, 1997) is profoundly important. In contrast to the prevailing view that family
extension is an artifact of culture, this research helps one understand that the structural
flexibility of families is a social construction. Transnational families and their networks
of kin are extended in space, time, and across national borders. They are quintessential
adaptations alternative arrangements for solving problems associated with immigration.
Despite the conceptual and empirical ambiguities surrounding the topic of familism,
there is evidence that kinship networks are far from monolithic. Studies have revealed
C
Ch-11.indd 457 7/8/2008 12:35:33 PM
h
-
1
1
.
i
n
d
d
4
5
7
7
/
8
/
2
8
1
2
:
3
5
:
3
3
P
M
458 Part IV " Families in Society
that variations are rooted in distinctive social conditions, such as immigrant versus non-
immigrant status and generational status. Thus, even though immigrants use kin for
assistance, they have smaller social networks than do second-generation Mexican Ameri-
cans who have broader social networks consisting of multigenerational kin ( Vega, 1990).
Studies have shown that regardless of class, Mexican extended families in the United
States become stronger and more extensive with generational advancement, accultura-
tion, and socioeconomic mobility ( Velez-Iba�ez, 1996). Although an assimilationist per-
spective suggests that familism fades in succeeding generations, Velez-Iba�ez found that
highly elaborated second- and third-generation extended family networks are actively
maintained through frequent visits, ritual celebrations, and the exchange of goods and
services. These networks are differentiated by the functions they perform, depending on
the circumstances of the people involved.
Gender
Latino families are commonly viewed as settings of traditional patriarchy and as different
from other families because of machismo, the cult of masculinity. In the past two decades,
this cultural stereotype has been the impetus for corrective scholarship on Latino fami-
lies. The flourishing of Latina feminist thought has shifted the focus from the determin-
ism of culture to questions about how gender and power in families are connected with
other structures and institutions in society. Although male dominance remains a central
theme, it is understood as part of the ubiquitous social ordering of women and men. In
the context of other forms of difference, gender exerts a powerful influence on Latino [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

Archiwum