Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Central Michigan University]On: 19 December 2014, At: 23:23Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
Marriage & Family ReviewPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wmfr20
The Influence of Kin on theTransition to ParenthoodLucy Rose Fischer PhD aa Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, St. OlafCollege, Northfield, MN, 55057Published online: 26 Oct 2008.
To cite this article: Lucy Rose Fischer PhD (1988) The Influence of Kin on the Transitionto Parenthood, Marriage & Family Review, 12:3-4, 201-219, DOI: 10.1300/J002v12n03_11
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J002v12n03_11
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressedin this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content shouldnot be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cen
tral
Mic
higa
n U
nive
rsity
] at
23:
23 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
The InBuence of Kin on the Transition $0 Parenthood Lucy Rose Fischer
Most of the research literature on the transition to parenthood has little to say about nonhousehold kin. Families are studied as if they exist within household boundaries. In fact, however, the birth of a child is a family event which affects and is affected by family mem- bers who not only do not share a common residence with the new parents and their child but who even may live thousands of miles away.
One of the first acts of a new parent after the umbilical cord is cut is to share the "news" -usually first with the parents on both sides (the new grandparents) and then with other kin and close friends. Thus, the newly born child, within a hour or so after his or her birth, has been incorporated into a network of kin. In many cul- tures, within the child's first month of life, there is some form of ritual that brings together the chiId7s kin-for example, a christen- ing, a brit milah, or a naming ceremony. These rituals create a social identity for the infant, who is given a ''name" and whose arrival is thus officially and symbolically announced to family and community. Relatives sometimes travel considerable distances to participate in such rituals. These ceremonies are marker-events not just for the child and hislher parents- but also for other kin. The birth of a child creates new role relationships for a whole set of family members who become grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc.
The inattention granted to the study of kinship by family socioIo-
Lucy Rose Fischer, PhD, is Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, St. Olaf College, Northfield, MN 55057.
O 1988 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 20 I
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cen
tral
Mic
higa
n U
nive
rsity
] at
23:
23 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
gists might Iead us to believe that l ies ~ ~ i t g ? kin1 are mercky sym- bolic- that is, that kin have little real influerlce on parents :irrtl chil- dren. But it appears tktrif this Is not so. Iiesearch of? gra.i~dpa~.er?hnocS has documented that there s fen are strong ernolionaf "rcs h!,-r.;h:ecn grandparents and grandchildren (cf. Robertson, 19%; Hagcsrad, 1985). Moreover, personal accounts of fmiIy l i f e sugg.t.:;t "rat many individuals grow up with strong aftachmeilts to m c . 1 involve-- ment with grandpnre~es and other kin, There is ce~nsidt.i.alill-: ,vari- ability in relationships with kin, of course. Some grrtndparc:nts ;inQ
some grandchildren barely know one anc%i~c-r. 111 confrast, :ic:,xrac . I . grandparents rear their grandctiildren as i f they were rncrr owrl chi;-
dren. Families vary in the importance that tkcy piace cti~ klizship, Hndividuajls also give sciectivd attention to certain kin.. Thus, for example, a child may select a ""fvori!a: aunt" from a nc~+vctrk of relatives. Factors such as gender and geographical i:lislaraci: appear to be predictive of suck selective attention: Grandcl.~iidrm tend to have closer ties with maternal grandmothers than vviih their otf:er grandparents (Willmort and Young, 1960; Kaharaa and Kahasla, 1971; Hoffman, 4979-80). Relatives who are geographically proxi- mate are more likely to be familiar than distanr kin jK.falskys 19683,
I have done three sttidies or, interge~eralional relationships and the transition to parenthood, Bnc project examined i?ow relariosa- ships between adult daughters and their mothers change whei.~ daughters become mothers thernseives. 'This study Is clisc~assed in Linked Lives: Addl &t&altg/llc~s -sad their h4cffhei:~ a izd .in tatfler pa- pers (Fischer, 2986; 1981; 1983b; 1"38Jc), f4 second seuc?y? lasing some of the same instruments and therefore paralleliilg rhe .Erst, focused on mcns' relationships with their ~noehsrs, father arld other kin (Fischer, 1983a). These first two projects were Esqc.-,+ r a ~ ~ ~ r o i l C~OSS-
sectional and retrospective research designs, Tllc w~other-tlaughtcr study, for example, cornpared dimensioals <sf mother-daughter rela- tionships where the daughter was naarried with an ofclcsn. child around two years old; married hut childless; and singk., The daugit- ters and mothers also were asked lo reflect on changes in tlacdr rela-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cen
tral
Mic
higa
n U
nive
rsity
] at
23:
23 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
Lucy Rose Fischer 203
tionships over the years. Similarly, the second project, on married men and their relatives, entailed interviews with a sample of mar- ried men who had been married about three years; the sample was divided into those with and those without children. The third project concerned '"ole conceptions" of grandparenthood from the paired perspectives of young mothers and grandmothers. That project was based on interviews with mothers and grandmothers about grandpa- rental interactions with the particular grandchild (Fischer and Silverman, 1982).
This chapter will draw on findings from my research and from other studies and will suggest conceptual frameworks for further research. The chapter begins with a discussion of how variability in kinship structure affects the transition to parenthood. Next, the two recipients of influence from kin will be discussed separately: the chiidren and the parents. Finally, there will be an analysis of the limitations of influence by kin. This is largely a concept-paper and is intended to stimulate future research agendas about the influence of kin on the socialization of parents and the development of chil- dren.
KINSHIP: THEMES AND VARIMdLdW
Families vary along a number of dimensions: size, spacing (or birth order), geographical dispersion, emotional cioseness, etc. Re- search on family structure is made difficult by the enormous range of this variability. For example, family scholars who have at- tempted to study birth order as a variable lmve noted the complexity of such research (cf. Schvaneveldte and Ihinger, 1979). Most birth order research comparcc: first-borns with Iirtrr-horns (for instance, in studies of achievement). FIowever, the pL>cition of first-borns can vary markedly by such k1ctor5 as gcnder, gender of later-born sib- lings, spacing between siblings, a114 "mily size. Compare, for in- stance, the family positions of thc foli %wing first-born sons: (a) the older of two sons where there are four years between the sons; (b) the oldest in a family of eight who is one year older than the next sibling, a daughter; and (c) an only son. All of these are first-borns; and yet their family structures and their specific positions are strik- ingly different. These three illustrations reflect a small portion of
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cen
tral
Mic
higa
n U
nive
rsity
] at
23:
23 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
the variability among first-borns. There is even more variability among later-borns.
If there is so much complexity in depicting househoid-nuclear- family structure, a discussion of variability in kinship structure is even more complicated. Kinship structure consists of cornkinaeions and permueations of individuals and households. Any particular set of kin are defined around one individual (or "ego") - so that when a child is born, she sharcs that set of kin only with unmarried sik- lings. As the child ages, kin are gained and Lost as she moves up the generatioaaf gradiant, Thus, kinship structure varies not only from one individual to another, but even for the same individual over the life course.
Severail variables in kinship structure are likely to be particularly important in influencing both the new parents and eke dtweloping child: (a) size and dispersion (geographic location) of ""aknowl- edged" kin; (b) age differences between generations; and (c) attach- ments to maternal versus paternal kin.
Kinship exists not simply as a mattcr of ""hood" ties but through a process of social acknowledgement - that is, people are kin be- cause we recognize them as such. When we talk about the size and geographical dispersion of a set of kin, the refcrencc, then, is to the set of acknowledged kin-those people whom we count as an inter- act with as kin. For heuristic purposes, we can dichotomize both of these variables, as shown in the r'ollowing fable:
Dispersion:
Size: Concen rm led Di.spe~sed
Small Kin Neltuork I. "Limited" 11. ""lsolaecd" La~ge Kin Mework 111. ""InsuBae~d~~ IV. "'Scparated9'
The combination of these two dichotomous variables creates four "typesg3-01. concepfual categories, What is suggested by the names in the four cells are the ways that these combinations affcce the transition to parenthood.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cen
tral
Mic
higa
n U
nive
rsity
] at
23:
23 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
Lucy Rose Fiscker. 205
Type I: Limited. When new parents have a small set of kin who live nearby, they may or may not be involved with those kin, but in any case their options for interactions with kin are limited by the small numbers of individuals available.
Type 11: Isolated. When new parents have a small set of kin who are geographically dispersed, their interactions with kin are far more limited than in the first type of kinship system, New parents in this type of kinship setting are essentially "isolated99 from their kin and their close ties need to come from non-kin.
Type 111: insulat'ed. When new parents have a Iarge set of kin by whom they are surrounded - that is, there are lots of kin nearby - they are likely to be ''insuiated" by their kinship set. In effect, their ties with kin will place so many demands on their time, that (unless they break these ties) they will tend to find themselves preoccupied by interactions with kin and having limited time to develop other ties.
Type IT/;. Sepnrated. When new parents have a large set of kin from whom they are geographically separated, they will need to find substifutes for kin (like Type II families) but their symbolic universe will nonetheless incorporate their distant kin.
The most striking contrast is between Type I1 ('cI~olated") and Type III ("l[nsulated9'). For new parents with ""iollated" kinship structures, there are no kin around to help with childcare, to ask advice from, to celebrate with, etc, For the child, there is no one (that is, no one - aside k)rn parcats - readily familiar to the child) to whom the child is ai~tomatically attached by birth, no one who will necessarily be part of the child's universe indefinitely, no one who has an irrcvocablc stake in that child. In contrast, new parents with "insulatcd" kinship structures begin the process of childrearing in a verj diffcrent kind of social environment. New parents who live neaI niany kin have large numbers of potential helpers - their parents, in-laws, siblings, aunt, uncIes, cousins, etc. In family celebrations (holidays or special events), kin are likely to be invited first-with friends being given a "'place at the table" only when there happens to be room. The new child is born into this universe of kin and grows up surrounded by layer upon layer of relatives.
It might be argued, of course, that small, geographically dis- persed families can he emotionally close with individuals can live
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cen
tral
Mic
higa
n U
nive
rsity
] at
23:
23 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
206 T&$NS17l#,VS TO PARENTHOOD
near farge numbers of kin and yet rarely see them. Even so, the size and dispersion of the kinship setting constitute an important dinxn- sion of the social environment in which a chiid is rcarcd. Families with 6'iso8atcd'7 kinship structures simply do not have the oppo1f1,1- nity to be influenced by kin that potentially exists for young fan- ifies who are "hirzsulated" ky a Barge network of kin.
The preceding section discussed Ilorizontai dimensictns of kin- ship- that is, size and dispersion. Much of efle iiteratuic on Ameri- can "kkishiip" actually is limited to vertical, or intcrg~ncrational, relationships. An important dimension of inlemgenerarionai ties is the age gap between generations. StaeisticaiIy, the narrower tflc age difference;, the longer the overlapping lives across generations (cf, Hagestacl, 1985; Burton and Bengtson, 1985). Lct us Iook at ~ w o hypothetical examples: $11 Lineage I, every generation has a trenage mother who is fifteen at the birth of her first child, Xn Lineage HI, in each generation women postpone first childbirth unt i l age thirtyg/. The following table shows the age of one individual at various fam- ily transitions:
Li~lerige Li~t~ogc I t'B
Birth of first child 14 30 Birth of first grandchild 30 60 Birth of first grcatgrancSchiId 4.5 90 Birth of first greatgreatgrandchifd 60 4 243 Birth of first greatgreatgreat-grand-
child 75 158
The Lineage II woman has a good chance to live to become a grand- mother and a much snlaller chance to be a greatgrandrnother and be part of a four-generation family. In contrast, in a family with teen-. age mothers, the generations are much closer logether so that sur- vival into a six-generation family is quite Iiltely and it is even possi- ble to become part of a seven-generation family.
The child of a close-gap lineage would be much more likely than the child of a large-gap lineage not only to have grandparents artd greatgrandparents at birth but also to have a large portion of their
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cen
tral
Mic
higa
n U
nive
rsity
] at
23:
23 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
Lucy Rose Fiscfie~ 207
lives overlapping with grandparents, greatgrandparents, grand- aunts and grand-uncles, etc. Of course, there are other factors be- sides age at first birth that affect age differences between genera- tions-such as birth order and longevity. The oldest child of an oldest child is more likely than a youngest sibling to spend a large portion of their lives with grandparents. Moreover, the lengthening life expectancy that has occurred recently also increases the overlap between generations.
The age gap between generations is a factor which affects but is nonetheless distinct from the size of the kinship group. Obviously, more overlap tends to lead to a larger network of kin. But vertical ties also may be particularly important. Most research on American kinship suggests that the closest "kin" are (for young adult chil- dren) parents and (for immature children) grandparents (Troll, Miller and Atchley, 1979). Thus, the most likely kin to influence new parents and young children are the parcnts/grandparents.
The implications of spacing between generations are complex. There are some advantages for children in close-gap lineages. Not only do relatively close-gap grandparents and grandchildren share overlapping lives, but also some research suggests that younger grandparents (for example, those who are 45-55) may have more energy and be more involved in their grandchildren's lives than are grandparents who enter this role when they are much older-such as in their 60s (cf. Ncugarten and Weinstein, 1964; Johnson, 1985). Moreover, there is less of a historical or cohort gap for grandparents and grandchildren who are closer in age. On the other hand, grand- parents who arc retired are likely to have more time to devote to grandparenting than "middle-aged" grandparents who tend to be pressed by competi~ig tlcmands for their time. It is also clear that a very close generatior~~l pattern, which results from teenage parent- ing (often replicated across generations), is usually seen 2s prob- lematic (cf. Burton anti Bcngtson, 1985).
Most studies of kinship in American and British societies have shown a tendency toward stronger ties with maternal than with pa- ternal kin. For the most part, the explanation for the maternal bias relates to gender rolcs in families. Women tcnd to be in charge of
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cen
tral
Mic
higa
n U
nive
rsity
] at
23:
23 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
"family business" -so that family roles are more %ikcly to bririg together mothers and daughters than molhers and sons (Willmolt and Young, 1960; Magesead, 1985). Several studies have founc:l, in fact, that women often maintaiw contact not only with their own kind', but also with their husbands' relatives (Adams, 1968 FiscRer, 1983a, 1983t7, 1956). Vdorsnen, since they are the grime caretalaers for their children, tend to be '"gatekeepers" who largely determine their relatives' access to their children. Moreover, another gender- related factor is that, because men tend to he somewhat older than their wives, their kin also are older and may be nalore fikcly io be deceased at an earlier stage in the child" lifee.
But despite a tendency toward greater involver-nent with maternal kin, families vary considcrabBy in terms of heir interactions with and attachments to ""hr" kin versus ""his7' They may live near to one side, both sides or neifher side. 'Their relationships may be closer or more strained with one set of iheir relatives. Thcre m2.y be competition between grandparents on both sides-and/or the young parents may perceive a competition.
My research indicates that both married daughters and n~arrieci sons have more contact with their parents once 'If.ley have chiIcErert, Both sons and daughters with childre11 talk about their need for face-to-face visits with their parents-at least for the purpose of developing rc%a!ionships with the children. P%otvever, patcrnaf grandparents arc less likely to ""drop in" far informal visiting in thc homes of their children than are maternal grandparents (Fischer, X983a).
These findings suggest [hat new parents who 1' rve near tcr mater- nal kin are likely to be more involved with relatives than those who live near paternal relatives only. An issue that needs furtilcm: study is how new parents balance thcir attachments to the &\io sides of kin. My research indicates that ~narried daughters with chilclrcn who iivc near to theif. husbands' Earnily but distant from their OWII families are concerned aborlt issucs of "equity." These drzughtcr:; talk of wanting to ensure that their parcilts have access lo t!lcir children and say they want to give "equal time" to their own rnothcrs, Fcsr ex- ampie, one daughter/daugheer-in-iaw, .ivho Iives down iiic load from her mother-~n-law and 90 miles away from her morher, com- mented: "I want him [the child] to have as muck cxposurc la my mother as he does to Tom's mother. She rcrlris to come over here a
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cen
tral
Mic
higa
n U
nive
rsity
] at
23:
23 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
Lucy Rose F'isclter. 209
lot." (Fischer, 1983b:191) Of course, this daughter could not, liter- ally, give ''equal" access; her children saw their paternal grandpar- ents frequently and their maternal grandparents infrequently. What these daughters wanted to ensure, nonetheless, was that their chil- dren would be also-if not equally-attached to their maternal grandparents. And this required effort and mediation.
Although most studies of grandparents have noted that the par- ents are in a mediatory position, there has been Little research on how parents mediate between their children and their other relatives (including grandparents), Do parents use special names for favorite relatives? Do parents actually monitor the amount of time that is spent with the two sides of kin? Are sons, as well as daughters, concerned about giving "equal time" to their own families or ori- entation? In order to begin to understand the dynamic nature of relationships with kin, we need both in-depth, qualitative research to examine the nature of negotiations with kin and more quantita- tively designed research so that we can see how variability in kin- ship structure affects these interactions.
In discussing the influence of kin on the transition to parenthood, we need to make a distinction between 'two recipients of influence: the children and the parents. Kin potentially affect the developing child in three distinct ways: (1) as audience; (2) through influence; and (3) in terms of thc allocation of resources.
In my interviews with ;\:full daughters and their mothers, I often heard statements whiuii illustrated the ""audience" function of kin. For example, one yourig mother, who livcil b r from hcr patents, talked about the importance of sustaining Fdce-to-face conract be- tween her parents and her child: "" would like them to see her. I would like to show her off and have then1 sec how she's grown and everything." A grandmother, in another family, described her grandparenting role by noting that it's ''fun to see them growing . . . you show pictures . . . and everybody had to Iook at the picture whether they wanted to or not . . ." (Fischer, 1986, p. 142).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cen
tral
Mic
higa
n U
nive
rsity
] at
23:
23 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
Even if certain sociologists are right when they argue that grand- parents often are largely symbolic fig~ares? *the "audience" function provided by grandparents and other kin is important in itl;elf. As audience for the child's emerging sense of self, relatives can dem- onstrate in concrete ways that the child is important and is the center of a universe of people. Through praise, actention, special names of affection, and (in some families-an endless stream of) photo- graphs or snapshots of the child, the grandparents and other rela- tives buttress the child's ego. If a child at a certain age believes himself or herself to be the ""center of the universe," surely this belief often is reinforced nee just by parents, but even more explic- irly by other doting relatives.
Of course, not a11 developing children are surrounded by lovirlg relatives, And that is just khere researcfi quesiions arise: To what extent do the number and nature of ties with relatives affect a child's self-esteem? Under what circumstances can positive and warm ties with aunts, grandparents or other relatives compensate for lack of nurturance from parents? In what ways do children "'need" kin (or substitute kin) to serve as an auclienct' for their ""prformances" as children?
Much has been said, and ref~~ted, ahout the so-called "&oiarcd" nuclear famify (cf, Sussman and Burchinal, 1962). Despile the fact that children, particularly white, middle-class chiidren, rarely live in the same household with relatives (other thatn parents and sib- lings), most children have at least some measur-c of contact with kin and many have close ties with their grandparents and othcr rela- tives. Kin provide two general ltinds of influence on chl'd a1 Ken: (1) they are often involved directly or indirccrly in ckildreari~~g and (2) they can serve as additional role modcls of adult behavior.
Findings from my research and other studies show thse some grandparents, particularly grandmothers, give advice to parents, serve as co-discipliners with parents, provide direct care on short- term bases, and give advice directly to children (cf. Fischer, 1982, 1983a9 1986; Cherlin and Furstenberg, 1985). Alti~ough thcrc i s less evidence in the research literature about other k in , if is iiltcly
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cen
tral
Mic
higa
n U
nive
rsity
] at
23:
23 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
Lucy Rose Ftscher 211
thae other relatives "influence" children in similar ways. Advice, disciplining and direct care ail can be construed as "influence9' in the sense that these behaviors affect, and are intended to affect, the child's actions and situation. Grandmothers and other relatives of- ten give advice (and are asked for advice) on such issues as toilet- training, feeding, and health care. I t must happen occasionally, to give an extreme example, that a grandmother's expertise averts di- saster-for instance by telling a new mother that formula in a bottle needs to be lukewarm rather than scalding hot. More commonly perhaps, the influence of relatives may be subtle. The child who has an aunt or grandparent who believes in "health foods" is probably more likely than other childrcn to be given and be knowledgeable about certain kinds of diets,
In addition to directly influencing behavior through advice and contact, relatives also serve as ""role models" for growing children. Relatives can be models in a generic sense- that: is, as people whom children may want to emulate. In my interviews with young adult daughters, H asked if there were anyone whom, as children and adolescents, they wanted to be like. A numbcr of the daughters mentioned relatives - such as aunts or rancles - whom they admired either for their personal qualities or their achievements.
Relatives also provide family role modeis. Thus, relatives, or other adults, may provide children with additional images of how "mothcrs" and "fathers" arc supposed to act in families. Children who have a considerable amotjni of contact with their relatives may have ar, opportunity to see other failztly systems from the inside. For example, they may stay overnight in their relatives9 homes and watch the customs that are taken for granted inside those families. Of course, the samc type of exposure to orher fiimily cultures can and does occur with friends. But contact with relatives may lie on the borderline between family and friend, if i s likely that children are more often exposed to "backstage" behavior among kin than friends. "Backstage" behavior refers to a concept from Goffman's (1959) dramaturgy framework- thae is, that certain kinds of behav- ior arc reserved for thosc who know us well, like our families, and who see us when we arc behind the scenes and setting the stage for a
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cen
tral
Mic
higa
n U
nive
rsity
] at
23:
23 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
performance given to outsiders. When kin get together, some of the participants have grown up together, have lived in the same house- hold at some time, andlor have a sensc of familiarity with one an- olPler. For cxample, a mother and aunt who are sistcrs may tcase or fighe with one another-as ""family," Because of the scrlse of fa- miliarity that often pervades the world of kin, children who are involved with their kin may be witnesses to the insidel-interactions of a multiple family household.
Margaret Mead, in her autobiographical book BEncBer~y kP"nter, describes the great inRuence that her gra~tdmother and other rela- rives had on her devefopment. She connmented thar she had several models of "strong women" in her family. Mcad's background may be unusuat, hut even so it is likely that many people grow up with relatives who are important and influential in their Iivcs.
In my research on mothers and daughters, I fo~ound that daugk~eers, in various idiosyncratic ways, seemed to replicate their mctt1iers9 mothering style. Often the daughters would describe negative quali- ties that they had pickced up, Owe daughter, for instance, said: ""1'16 hear myself saying, for example, as I was Eaever allowed to get dirty as a child and Christine will come and i will say, " O h iook at you, you're so dirty.' And I feel like a parrot9' (Fischer: 1936, pp. 89- 90). To whai extent do individuals who are cared for by other reba- tives, in addition to their parents, also pick up parenting siyIes from these other role models'? One type of research design that might be useful would be to compare the "mothering7' styles of two groups of women: one group that had grown up csscntially isolated from kin and another thar had bee8 cared for by other relatives in addition to their mothers. Do people who are reared by muEtiple "mother- ing" figures have greater range and Bcxibiliy in their own mother- ing styles?
A final and important way {hat kin potellliafSy have an impact on the developing child concerns the distribution of money, goids and services. Many studies have shown that kin are invoIved irz net- works of exchanges (cf. Sussnmnan and Burchinal, 1952; K9ill el al., 8970). Documenting exactly what and how nlitch is exchanged
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cen
tral
Mic
higa
n U
nive
rsity
] at
23:
23 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
Lucy Rose Fischer 213
among kin, however, has proved to be a difficult task-in part, perhaps, because no one quite keeps track of what passes back and forth among their relatives. Ht is clear that a child who has a wealthy grandparent or rich aunt may somcrimcs (bur not necessarily) bene- fit from that relative's largesse.
In my interviews with young married women and men, I was struck by the lack of economic or material dependence on parents. A few had received substantial gifts or loans (most commonly- help with a mortgage or in the purchase of a major piece of furni- ture, like a dining room or bedroom set). Most had received small gifts-a living room lamp or chair that was no longer needed in someone's home (given by the relative rather than sold) or a gift of food. But most of the adult daughters and sons that I interviewed stated that they expected to be financially independent and that, in any case, their parents could not afford to help them in any substan- tial way.
Actually, the impact of kin on the allocation of resources vis-ri- vis the developing child might be either positive or negative - that is, through kin resources might be concentrated around the child or deflected from the child (or both-with different relatives, or at different times). Thus, grandparents and other relatives (possibly those who are at the peak of their life earnings) may help to enrich the child's financial and material environment. And/or needy rela- tives may siphon off resources-money, goods, or services (time and labor). The point is-in order to assess the material environ- ment of the developing child, we need to understand the widcr fam- ily setting rather than just the econon~ic position of the household- family.
NEW PMEiVIf'S AND THEIR WEMTnZS
Relatives may help to socialize f rst-time parents into their new roles in two ways: First, relatives nlay help to mute, or soften, the responsibility of parenting. Second, and more speculatively, it is possible that relatives-most particularly the mother of a new mother-may help to facilitate "bonding" with the child.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cen
tral
Mic
higa
n U
nive
rsity
] at
23:
23 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
214 TR.4iiSITICdr"dS TO PARENTHOOD
Being a parent is an awesome responsibiliw- Pa.renthcxd - par- ticularly motherhood- is an irrevocable rolc: Yoit cannot "di- vorce" your children and no one who has living children really can be called a "post-parent7' (cf. Rossi, 4968; Hagesrad, I0S:I; Fis- cher, 1986). The young mothers and grandmothers whom f i~ten- viewed spoke of the immense change that comes with parenthood. Their portrayals suggested that motherhood is an "all-coilsunning role" -in two senses. First, mothers are required to be experts in the special needs and behaviors of their own children (Fisclr~er, f 986); and, second, nllothcrs aImost always take "psychic responsi- bility" for their children -that is, ensure that they are cared for all the time - by ehemseIves or someone else, whose services they have arranged for (sf. Boulton, 1983),
When daughters become mothers they often find thenlselvcs with a new need for their mothers.
ilt is not only during the emotionally charged pc7:,ipartum period that daughters need their mothers' help. The birth of a child brings rising costs and a drop in income, since most riew mothers drop out of the labor force at lease temporarily, At the same time, the "worlr" of motherim~g entails continuous 2nd often heavy responsibilities. Daughters with children are mtrcll more likely both to need and to receive help from their moth- ers than are married dar2ghter.s wifkour children. 'This doe:$ no[ mean that all or most daughters are given a Iot oh help by their mothers. To the contrary, not all daughters rcceive baby-sit- ting or other kinds of help, only one daughter relied on her mother as a fulltime baby-sitter. But at least for some of the daughters, both living near to and iar from their molhcns, rhere were occasional opportunities to go ""hn~c"-to become a daughter again, letting their mothers provide a temporary rcs- pite from the responsibilities of adulthood. (Fischer, 1986, p, 81 -2)
The older generation of mothers (the grandmothers) expressed a keen awareness that new parents need help now aild then with the work of parenting. Many of the mothers of the adult. daughters fold
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cen
tral
Mic
higa
n U
nive
rsity
] at
23:
23 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
Lucy Rose Fisclter 215
of services they provided when the daughters came home after childbirth and they said explicitly that they wanted to help their daughters - not just do things for the new baby. Many of the moth- ers brought food, did laundry, helped with the cleaning, ctc. - all to lessen the burden in the first few weeks of parenthood. There was great variability in how much the mothers/grandmothers helped subsequently. Some of the mothers more or less took over childcare when their daughters (or daughters-in-law) were around; others told their adult children that they were "finished" with childrearing and insisted that they would do virtually no babysitting. Other relatives also helped - particularly the sisters of the new parents. Some of the young mothers in my interviews talked wistf~~lly about the help they wished for but did not receive. What became clear in my research is that, while the new parents generally have the great weight of re- sponsibility for their children, actively involved grandparents and other relatives can help to ease the transition to parental responsibil- ity.
Several psychologists have talked about new mothers, in the postpartum period, wanting to be "mothered" by their own moth- ers (Bibring et al., 1959; Deutsch, 1944; keifer, 1980). A number of the daughter/mothers whom I interviewed recalled a similar feel- ing-wanting their mother? to come and "take are" of them (Fis- cher, 1956). It is this observation that leads to an hypothesis about how the presence or absence of daughters' mothers may affect the socialization of new mothers-that is, the maternal grandmother may facilitate bonding between mother and child. If this hypothesis is correct it would be through an interesting process of emotional transmission: The mothering of the adult daughter would reinforce her position as "objecr" of maternal love and help her to identi@ with her child, who is, in turn, the "object" of her mothering- attachment. Thus, when daughters become mothers they understand simultaneously what it is to be both the subject (the mother) and the object (the one who is mothered). In support of this hypothesis is the finding that daughters, when they become mothers, tend to de- velop a new identification with and understanding of their mothers
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cen
tral
Mic
higa
n U
nive
rsity
] at
23:
23 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
as motilers- that is, they come to understand the rok yttsitiorls of both mother and child (Fischer, 1381; 1986).
Inreraceions with lcin are to a largc exlclat voluntary. Therefore, the extent of involvement is far more a matter of choice than is the commitment of parents to their immalrrme children. There is a quasi- theory about ""pessnre" from grandparents lo have children; my research indicated that this quasi-theory is exaggerated. fn my mot-her-daughter study,
None of the mothers tried to exert positive, direct, and specific influence on their daughters concerriing having cI~ildrcn. A few of thc noth hers, and only a few, talked a lirelc with their children about having children in general . . . 'Two mothers and a few fathers joked about having grandchildren . . . But more than three-quarters of the mothers said absolutely noth- ing to their daughters that could he conhtrued as influence , . . (Fischcr, 1984, p. 72)
If influence on daughters is minimal, there is filcely to be even Iess attempted influence on sons - concerning such assues as the numbcr or timing of children. Grandparents generally are not obligated, ci- ther legally or normatively, to provide care for their grandchiIdren. If grandparents, and other kin, are suppoked to have the " fun with- out the responsibi%ity," this is also a good indicator c3f the lirnita- [ions around their rights in terms of influencing the new parents or the child: The limited stake (responsibility) entails restricted rights in t-ernms of influence and involvement.
One of the characteristics of retationships with kin is a sense of caution-particularly for in-law refationships, Jn my research, I have found mothers-in-law placing emphasis on what they do ??el do-that is, specifically, that they do not interfere. One rnother-in- Law, for example, said that she has tried to slake her relationship "'friendly . . . but not overhearing, inquisitive or possessive," An- other said: '7 don't want her to feel because she livcs close fhat I, am going to bother her all the time." Another cornrncntcrl: "". .. 1 try not to pry info any of their affairs." Another, referring to advicc
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cen
tral
Mic
higa
n U
nive
rsity
] at
23:
23 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
Lucy Rose Fisdier 21 7
about children, remarked: "I'm careful how I say things to my daughter-in-law because I know the reputation of a mother-in-law7' (Fischer, 1986, pp. 134, 149).
In two separate research projects, where % had data from two generations, I found that daughters-in-law (especially those with children) and their mothers-in-law often perceive their relationships very differently: The mothers-in-law see themselves as having been asked for advice while the daughters-in-law say that their mothers- in-law give them unsolicited advice. Moreover, the daughters-in- law tend to impute much more conflict and strain to those relation- ships than do the mothers-in-law (Fischer, 1986).
Ties with kin, directly or indirectly, involve in-law relationships, since it is largely through marriages that kinship networks are ex- panded. The constraints that are placed on in-law bonds are sugges- tive of the limitations that are placed on influence by kin. Relatives, by definition in this culture, are people who may be invited as guests into the household. They have more of a "right" to be in- cluded in family events than others - in the sense that invitations do not necessarily require prompt reciprocity. Nonetheless, in most families, the extended kin are not involved in day-to-day childcare.
The recent literature on family violence has noted the difficulty of getting data on the actual incidence of various forms of abuse- because these problems occur "bchind closed doors" (cf. Strauss et al., 1980). Kin have an interestin? position vis-2-vis those c c ~ l o ~ e d doors." In one sense, they are l~kely to be uninvolved-as are neighbors and friends. They are not around when the day-to-day interactions occur bctween parents and children; they are not likely to be direct witnesses to abuse. But, in another sense, they are far more involved than neighbors or others. Bccause they are kin, they have a stake-often an emotional stake - in the children. Kin also are more likely than strangers to be perpetrators of child abuse.
Research on kin and thcir influence i n new parents and children may help to provide answers for questions about human develop- ment. For example, studies have shown that there is a high correla- tion between being an abused child and growing up to be an abusivc parent or spouse; howcver, there is not a one-to-one correlation. If the nature of kinship relationships were examined and included in these equations, possibly the correlations would be considerably
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cen
tral
Mic
higa
n U
nive
rsity
] at
23:
23 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
stronger. In a similar way, the correlation between educational/oc- cupational attainments of adult children anti the attainmcnls of II~cir parents might bc furthcr spccificd if the achievements (:lnd in f lu - ence) of other sclati'v~s were included in the rcscarcll cluchrionh.
I am no! arguing that ties with kin deleri-n~ne dcvefopmcntal out- comes for either children c;r their P ~ T C P I ~ S , WIlat J arn saying is that the invo~vcmene of kin is one factor-potentially an i~nportanr fac- tor- that ought to he considered. The emphasis of fai~.lily scscarch on nuclear-family-houscho1ds has ubscurcd an inlportant rrctiircc of variability in fanaily behavior and life cuursc developmcne.
REFERENCES
/%darns, D. (1 968). k'it~.~/lip it1 ~n urhcln serritlg. C'tlicago: Marl:hzin Fuhiishing Co.
Bibring, G., Dwyer, T., Huntington, D., and Valcnsrein, A. (10.59). C'c?lisicier- ations o f the psychologic;~l processes i n preg:?ilncy. 7'112 F'.r>?d~oa!~crIy!i<: ,S/ii(1):
ofthe Chiid, 1.7, 113-21. Boulton, M. G. (1983). 011 Deirrg a rnod l e~ '4 .SIZ~((V of ~ i ~ ~ i l t c - i ~ l still7 p>.e-~~.hool
c!ril(lrt.rl, London: Tavistock Publications. Burton, L. and Berlgtsor~, V. (1985). Black gr;lntlrno:tiers: Issuet; of' tinling arid
conlinui[y of roles, i n V. Bengtson ;tnd J. Rohcrisoil, etis. Beverly Hills: Sage Publicatinns, 61-77.
Cherlin, A. anti Furstenbcrg, F.F. (1985). "Styles ;!nri siriitegic?; of graniipiirent- ing," in V. Bengtson and J . Robertson, eds. Gr-~ t z~ l r r~~nr i i (~o ! i~ 13zvcrIy Ffills: Sage Publications, 97-I 16.
Dcutsch, Helerlc (1944). Tlzep.sycholo,g~ o f ~ t J o n i t , p l , Kew Yolk: Cirunc and S~ra i - ton.
Fischer, L.R. (1986). Linkeci ii\3e.s: /Irlult driugli~rr:~ c 7 / ! r l their i?tc)I i le.~. Ncsv York: Harper and Row.
Fischer, L.R. (1983a). Married men and their mothers, Jorir?~(z/ of c ' ~ l i i l i ) ( ~ ~ ( i f i ~ . ~ Fomiiy Srurlies, 14, 393-402.
Fischer, L.R. (1983) . I\/Iothcrs and mothers-in-law, .fo~tn10! oj'?Lf(zf~io,q(-. ( i f i d 111~' hnt i ly , 45, 187-102.
Fischer, L.R. (1983c). Tr:lnsition to &r:indmothci-lioocj, hrfzt-ncriiotral .f011171121 of Agitrg onrl Nriman Dt:~:c~iopnlnrf, 16, 07-71.:.
Fischer, L.R. (1981). Transitions in thc rnottlci-d:~uglt!~r rcin~ionship, Jotl~-t1nl ,%farriage ntzcl the F~~nliIy, 4.3, 61 3-22.
Fischer, L.R., and Silverman, J . (1081). Grandnloihcririg as 3 " t e i>uo~~~" role. paper presented at the annual rnee?ings of the Nation;tl Council clrr Fanlily Relations, Washington.
Goffrnan, E., ( 1959). Tile presetztntiotl ofseff it] elgc~?~!cij. l i f i , I\ieiv York: L)ou- bleclay .
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cen
tral
Mic
higa
n U
nive
rsity
] at
23:
23 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
Lucy Rose Fischer 219
Hagestad, G. 0. (1985). Continuity and connectedness, in V. Bengtson and J. Robertson, eds., Grandparenthood, Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 31-48.
Hagestad, 6.0. (1981). Problems and promises in the social psychology of in- tergenerational relations, in R. Fogel, E. Hatfield, S. Kiesler, and E. Shanas, eds., Aging: stobilip and change in the fanrily, New York: Academic Press, 11-46.
Hill, R., Foote, N., Aldous, J., Carlson, R., and MacDonald, R. (1970). Famify development in three generntions. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman.
Hoffman, E. (1979-80). Young adults' relations with their grandparents: An ex- ploratory study, Inter7tarionalJoumal of Agitlg and Huntnn DeveIopmen6, 10, 299-310.
Johnson, C. (1985). Grandparenting options in divorcing families: An anthropo- logical perspective, in V. Bengtson and J. Robertson, eds., Grandparenthood, Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 81-96.
Kahana, E. and Kahana, B. (1971). Theoretical and research perspective on grandparenthood, Aging and Nunlan Developmenl, 2, 261 -68.
Matsky, S. (1968). Pattenu of contacts with relatives, Washington, D.C.: Amer- ican Sociological Association.
Lifer, M. (1980). Psycl~ological eifects of motherhood: A study of first preg- nancy, New York: Praeger.
Mead, M. (1972). Blackberry Winter, New York: William Morrow 8r Co. Neugarten, B. L., and Weinstein, K. K. (1964). The changing American grand-
parent, Jounlnl of Marriage orid the Family, 26, 199-204. Robertson, J. (1976). Significance of grandparents: perceptions of young adult
grandchildren, The Gerontologist, 16, 137-40. Rossi, A. (1968). Transition to parenthood, Jortmal ofMnr~inge and the Family,
30, 26-39. Schvaneveldt, J. D., and Ihinger, M. (1979). Sibling relationships in the family,
in W. R. Burr, R. Hill, F. I. Nye, and I. Reiss, eds., Contemnpora~gt Theories Abortt the Family, I , New York: The Free Press, 453-67.
Strauss, M. A., Gelles, R., and Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in the Anzericatr family, New York: DoubledaylAnchor Press.
Sussman, M. B. and Burchinal, L. (1962). Kin family network: unheralded struc- ture i n current conceptualizations of family functioning, Mon-inge and Farnib Living, 24: 23 1-40.
Troll, L. E., Miller, S. J., and Atchley, R. C. (1079). Fanlilies in later life, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Willmott, P., and Young, M. (1969). Fanzil), and class in a London strburb, London: Routledge & Kegnn Paul.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cen
tral
Mic
higa
n U
nive
rsity
] at
23:
23 1
9 D
ecem
ber
2014
