Blog Entry 14 - 5/04/07

Networks of Interdependence in an Age of Independence

1. What kind of clash between beliefs and practices does Hansen describe? How is it related to the ideology of SNAF? What role do structures of work and school play in creating this clash?

Karen Hansen highlights a clash between the belief in the independent nuclear family and the reality of complex networks of interdependence that are woven by families in order to allow for children to receive care while parents are at work. The Standard North American Family is assumed to be an immediate family unit headed by a breadwinning dad and a full-time care-giving mom. The actual state of affairs is that more than half of American households with young children have two working parents.

Hansen’s research challenged the assumption that nuclear families raise children independently and set out to reveal the process by which families creatively construct and sustain care networks outside formal institutions such as schools and day-care centers. The rigid structures in the arenas of work and school tend to heighten the problem. It is the built-in inflexibility that creates the clash between a belief in family privacy, individualism and self-sufficiency versus the development of interdependence, a rational solution for childcare when both parents work outside the home.

The American workplace continues to operate in a manner that assumes workers are independent wage earners who are in a position to fully dedicate their time and attention to their jobs. It seems to me ill-advised for businesses to continue to ignore the economic shift in the U.S. In the long run it is inevitable that all will suffer—companies and workers alike.

At present, employed mothers must rely on a “patchwork of care-givers” in which a number of different people are called upon to ensure that children have supervision at all times. According to Hansen, networks for the most part influence people’s lives positively. In contrast to earlier qualitative studies that found networks to be associated predominantly with poor, working-class and immigrant groups, it was discovered through large scale, quantitative studies that the middle class is more likely to have networks than the working class and poor. Apparently their greater economic and educational resources favor their participation.

Hansen studied (mainly) white parents of different social classes in order to study characteristics of networking across class lines. She opted to study four families’ networks, the center of which is the “anchor.” Her approach was to interview connected individuals in a parent’s network in order to fully analyze its structure from different points of view.

Interestingly, the anchors generally solicited help from people who had compatible child-rearing values. The network arrangements consisted of a range of strategies for child-care that are class-linked.

Hansen proved through her case studies that white families in the U.S. (with dually employed parents) are not nuclear in practice and that it is a myth that the SNAF is a self-sufficient, independent unit. With the norm gravitating toward two parents being employed rather than one, the only way for parents to be assured of child-care coverage is to utilize creative networks of interdependence.

As many businesses and government irresponsibly refuse to address the economic shift in our society, parents use their own economic and intellectual resources to invent solutions.

2. According to Sarkisian, Gerena, and Gerstel, what are the ethnic differences in extended family integration? What accounts for these differences?

The Sarkisian, Gerena, and Gerstel study set out to get a more accurate picture of ethnic differences in extended family integration than was achieved by previous studies. To do so, the researchers focused more broadly and included in the study three major components rather than one alone. In addition, within the category of “Latino,” two sub-ethnicities were studied separately (Mexicans and Puerto Ricans), so that they could be compared to each other as well as to the category of “White.”

In a review of the literature, the researchers noted apparent inconsistencies in the conclusions of previous researchers regarding ethnic differences in extended family integration as well as their explanations for such differences. It was their intention to clarify the conflicts of interpretations.

Sarkisian et al. chose to address the debate of superintegration vs. disintegration by examining the differences in extended family integration between Latinos and Whites. They had expectations that both structural and cultural factors determine family integration. To evaluate which factors and to what extent certain factors account for these differences, they looked into SES, nuclear family characteristics, and culture. In order to assess cultural factors, they utilized measures of gender ideology, familism, and religious involvement. For SES, they took into account income, wealth, education, public assistance, and employment.

In addition to the above factors, they explored more subtle factors that could affect one’s understanding of ethnic differences in family integration, such as respondents’ age, health, extended family composition, and degree of assimilation.

It was found that SES variables best explained the ethnic differences in family integration. Higher incomes correlated to less co-residence, and since Latinos generally had lower incomes than Whites, they were more likely to co-reside with kin. Analysis of the age component showed that co-residence decreases with increase in age. Not surprisingly, more education is linked with higher income, and therefore is associated with less incidence of living with or near kin. Structure, or social class position, and need seem to matter more than culture.

The Sarkisian et al. study supported the hypothesis that Latino families are more integrated than White families, but confirmed that Latinos give less financial help and more instrumental and child-care help. Their analysis proved the importance of individualizing Latino groups and comparing them with one another before attempting to compare them as a single category to Whites.

Finally, the researchers discuss the importance of their study in terms of the implications for government policies. They note that “policies that do not take extended kin obligations into account might neglect Latinos even more than Whites.”

The research group chose an area of study that previously presented with many conflicting conclusions. The research showed thoughtful planning, expert organization and careful collection of data. The study not only provides valuable insights into family integration, but suggests areas worthy of further research.