This article was downloaded by: [University of Auckland Library] On: 05 December 2014, At: 11:35 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Biodemography and Social Biology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hsbi20

The differential evaluation of “large” and “small” families in rural Colombia: Implications for family planning a

Michael Micklin & Patrick J. H. Marnane

b

a

Population Study Center , Battelle Human Affairs Research Centers , Seattle, Washington b

Austin, Texas Published online: 23 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Michael Micklin & Patrick J. H. Marnane (1975) The differential evaluation of “large” and “small” families in rural Colombia: Implications for family planning, Biodemography and Social Biology, 22:1, 44-59, DOI: 10.1080/19485565.1975.9988146 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19485565.1975.9988146

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, 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, sublicensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly

Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 11:35 05 December 2014

forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Differential Evaluation of "Large" and "Small" Families in Rural Colombia: Implications for Family Planning

Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 11:35 05 December 2014

Michael Micklin and Patrick J. H. Marnane* Population Study Center, Battelle Human Affairs Research Centers, Seattle, Washington; and Austin, Texas

I t is generally agreed among students of social change that a major obstacle inhibiting social and economic improvement in the less developed nations of the world is the persistence of high fertility (Micklin, 1973; Revelle, 1971). Also clearly recognized is the importance of fertility norms and ideals for explaining variations in reproductive performance and family size (Davis and Blake, 1957; Freedman, 1963; Davis, 1967; Bogue, 1969, pp. 839-841). Nevertheless, conceptual, theoretical, and methodological problems still inhibit understanding of the mechanisms through which these norms and ideals are translated into actual family building activities (Häuser, 1967; Namboodiri, 1967; Hawthorn, 1968; Yaukey, 1969; Simmons, 1971, 1974; George, 1973). One such idea that has received relatively little attention is that of the quantitative and qualitative dimensions of the limits and range of normatively evaluated reproductive performance, their relationship to processes of sociodemographic change, and their effect on family-size preference. In this article * At the time this study was conducted, the authors were, respectively, Associate Professor and Instructor oF Sociology, Tulane University, New Orleans, La.

these concerns are explored using interview data collected in a rural Colombian community. With few exceptions (Blake, 1966,1967; De Jong, 1968, p. 75-82; Rainwater, 1965, pp. 118-138) prior studies of family-size norms have focused on mean or median values rather than on proportional distributions over the range of reported preferences. Furthermore, even those investigators who have examined the empirical distribution of these ideals have grouped their observations into a few categories, the net result being that upper and lower limits are not identified, let alone systematically explored. Within any population there exist extreme values of family-size preferences that reflect the socially acceptable range of reproductive performance. For example, conceptions of families that are "large," "small," "too large," and "too small" can be translated into quantitative estimates of this normatively acceptable range (Westoff and Potvin, 1967, pp. 135-139). Persons exceeding these limits, in either direction, should be subject to social sanction. These sanctions sometimes serve to keep fertility generally within the culturally acceptable range (cf. Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1971, pp.

44

Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 11:35 05 December 2014

Vol. 22, No. 1

"Large" and "Small" Families in Colombia

144-145, and Wagley, 1951). I t should be evident that the greater the difference between upper and lower "ideal" limits within a population, the greater will be the variation in reproductive performance and attempts to control that performance. Moreover, the higher the upper limit, the greater the probability of high fertility. Significantly, these limits vary almost independently of the central tendency measures of family-size norms. Analysis of the normative boundaries of acceptable family size may be carried further by considering their qualitative dimensions. For example, whatever the numerical value attached to the concept "large family," members of a population may evaluate it with positive or negative affect, or perhaps with indifference. And, whatever the evaluation expressed, it is important to know its existential basis. In other words, what is there about a "large family" that evokes a particular evaluation? Relatively few investigators have gone beyond the quantitative analysis of fertility ideals to assess these qualitative factors (but see Stycos, 1955; Rainwater, 1965; Simmons, 1971, 1974; and Hoffman and Hoffman, 1973). Additional questions emerge as one seeks to explain differences in these quantitative and qualitative dimensions of extreme family-size norms: How are they distributed among the various social groups and categories of a population? How are they influenced by processes of sociodemographic change? A number of studies have indicated that average familysize norms are, like levels of reproductive performance, lower among the "modernized" sectors of populations (Freedman, 1963; Mauldin, 1965), and one might expect extreme values to exhibit this same pattern. One heretofore unexplored aspect of the demographic transition is the question of whether there is a constriction of the socially acceptable range of family-size

45

preferences and/or a change of the existential bases for evaluating families of different sizes. The issues outlined above should have direct bearing on fertility control programs. On the one hand, relevant data could be of utility for determining the potential market for family planning services and, on the other hand, they could provide a basis for structuring educational propaganda and presenting incentives for fertility limitation. Before it can be argued that "large" or "small" families are becoming more prevalent or that they are subjectively desirable, knowledge must be available as to how people define these categories and of the criteria by which they are evaluated. The study reported here is a step in this direction. MATERIALS AND METHODS

All data analyzed in this paper were obtained from female residents of a rural town in the department of El Valle, Colombia. The town, a county seat with a population of about 2,500, is located on the edge of the fertile Cauca River Valley. Although almost all residents work either there or in the surrounding farm area, bus and auto travel to nearby cities is regular and easy. Most of the children living in the town were born there, but this is true for only about half the adults. A considerable turnover in population was experienced during the Violencia of the 195O's, although no great change in population size has occurred during the past thirty years, suggesting a continuing flow of out-migrants. As part of a larger study dealing with natality-related health care, 91 recently delivered and currently pregnant women were interviewed during the summer of 1970. This represents almost all such women who were then residing in the community. Interviews were conducted in Spanish, in the homes of the respondents,

Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 11:35 05 December 2014

46

Micklin and Marnane

Social Biology

by a specially trained team of university not to assist respondents in arriving at a particular number, although when the anstudents. Respondents range rather evenly over swer was "all God sends" or "all that the age groups 17-24, 25-31, and 32-48. come" the interviewer followed with the Characteristically, they are rural in origin probe, "How many would that be?" Most (87 per cent grew up in rural places) and women had relatively little trouble in prowere married at a young age (two-thirds viding discrete numbers for these estimates. before age 20). They typically have not Beyond determining the quantitative completed primary school (78 per cent) range of normative evaluations regarding and have husbands who are only slightly family size, this research was designed to better educated. Forty-seven per cent are elicit respondents' subjective evaluations of living in consensual union while S3 per "large" and "small" families. Thus, one cent are legally married. Median family in- question was phrased, "Some people think come is somewhat below 500 pesos per a large family brings many problems; month (U.S. $27.00). Four women are others think it is a blessing. What do you currently pregnant for the first time, 25 think? A second question stated, "Some have had two or three pregnancies, 28 have people think that a small family is a good experienced four to six pregnancies, and 34 idea; others don't. What do you think?" have been pregnant seven or more times. In addition, each respondent was asked, These figures include all cases of fetal "Why is it good (bad) to have a large wastage as well as live births. (small) family," thus providing an opportunity to indicate both positive and negaWhile there are obvious difficulties intive factors associated with having a family volved in attempting to generalize to a at each size extreme.1 For each of these larger population from data obtained from this rather special group of respondents, it questions the interviewer recorded the is probable that the range and variations respondent's verbatim reply. A third set of questions dealt with familyobserved are at least suggestive of those that might be found among other non1 One reader of this paper commented that these isolated rural women in Colombia. Altwo questions differ in that "brings problems" though not directly comparable in all versus "is a blessing" is not a mutually exclusive respects, a recently reported study (Sim- pair of responses, while "is a good idea" versus "is not a good idea" is mutually exclusive. mons, 1974) provides some relevant data Whether or not such a difference would influence for a sample of 1,712 Colombian women. response patterns is a reasonable question, but one the authors cannot answer. However, we are It will thus be possible to contrast our re- not at all convinced that the first pair of results with those from this more ambitious sponses is any less exclusive than the second. From a practical point of view, a condition that investigation and thus to determine the ex- "brings problems" will not generally be viewed, at the same time, as a "blessing," and vice versa. tent of agreement between the two. Moreover, there was a rationale underlying the Family-size boundaries are measured in differential wording of these two questions. We terms of four questions designed to elicit were trying to minimize the likelihood that a respondent's evaluation of "large family" would quantitative estimates of "large" and dictate her evaluation of "small family." We felt "small" families. Each woman was asked that if the two questions were worded exactly alike, e.g., "a good idea" versus "not a good idea," to give the number of children she thought conflicting or ambiguous evaluations of these two to constitute "a large family" and "a small family-size types would be unlikely to show up. In other words, the first response could potenfamily" and, in addition, the number of tially provide a cue to the second, assuming the children felt to be "too many" and "too respondent wished to appear consistent. We believe our decision to word the two questions diffew." Interviewers were explicitly instructed ferently reduced this possibility.

Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 11:35 05 December 2014

Vol. 22, No. 1

"Large" and "Small" Families in Colombia

47

size preferences. Three are considered in sistently greater than those for families this paper. First, the women were asked, with "too many" children, while "small" "If you were to start your family all over families are viewed as larger than those again today, how many children would you with "too few" children. Furthermore, older have?" A second question was, "What do respondents indicate higher norms with reyou think is the ideal number of children gard to "small" families as well as those for a family in the same economic condi- with "too many" children, and the mean tions as your present one?" Finally, respon- values shown are smallest for women with dents were asked, "If you were advising lower parity (although it should be reone of your own children about his own membered that the majority have probably family, how many children would you like not completed their childbearing). Higher him/her to have?" Once again, interviewers family income appears to be associated with were requested to allow respondents to an- lower values attributed to families with "too many" and "too few" children. Fiswer freely without any assistance. Two brief scales designed to measure nally, respondents exhibiting greater traditraditional-modern value orientations, "in- tionalism generally indicate higher values tegration with relatives" and "preference for all four categories of norms (Table 2). for urban life," are employed (Kahl, 1968, Further variation is seen when responpp. 18-44). Three other variables are dents' patterns of evaluation for "large" utilized as indicators of traditionalism- and "small" families are examined. These modernism as well. These include hus- women are almost equally divided regarding band's education, respondent's education, positive and negative evaluations of "large" and marital status, i.e., whether legally families, with approximately 46 per cent married or living in consensual union. I t saying that a "large" family is a blessing is assumed that higher education indicates while SO per cent feel that it brings probgreater modernity (Fawcett and Born- lems. A striking contrast is seen, however, stein, 1973, p. 125) and that legal marriage when one considers evaluations of "small" is more "modern" than consensual union families. Roughly three-quarters of these in the cultural context in which observa- respondents think small families are a good tions were made. idea while only IS per cent think they are not. Quite clearly then, according to these aggregate measures, the women surveyed RESULTS do not hold fixed and consistent ideas reFAMILY SIZE BOUNDARIES AND THEIR garding the evaluation of "large" and EVALUATION "small" families. Background characterisConsider first the upper and lower bound- tics have little influence on evaluations of aries used to circumscribe family-size "large" families, but a number of differnorms. These boundaries are the mean num- ences are related to indicators of traditionber of children perceived by respondents alism (Table 3). Traditional respondents to constitute a "large" family, a family are more likely to see "large" families as with "too many" children, a "small" family, a blessing, while those who exhibit modern and a family with "too few" children. Ta- characteristics more often think that ble 1 presents these data according to a "small" families are a good idea. variety of respondent background characThe reason respondents give for evaluatteristics. Results indicate, first, that the ing "large" and "small" families as good mean values for "large" families are con- and bad are of interest here (tables avail-

Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 11:35 05 December 2014

CO

TABLE 1 MEAN BOUNDARIES FOR PERCEPTION OF FAMILY-SIZE NORMS FOR TOTAL POPULATION AND BY SELECTED BACKGROUND No. OF CHILDREN m "LARGE" FAMILY BACKGROUND

CHARACTERISTICS

Totals* Age 17-24 25-31 32-48 Age at formation of union 14-17 18-19 20-37 Total no. of pregnancies 1-3 4-6 7-19 Total family incomet Less than 500 $500 or more No. of children in family of orientation 2-6 7-9 10+

No. OF CHILDREN "Too MANY"

î

No.

10.4

(3.8)

91

8.8

10.9 10.0 10.3

(3.9) (3.9) (3.7)

28 30 32

10.3 11.1 10.0

(4.0) (3.4) (4.0)

10.0 10.9 10.4

?

No. OF CHILDREN IN "SMALL" FAMILY

No.

r

(4.3)

89

3.2

(1.3)

90

7.1 9.1 9.9

(3.4) (4.0) (4.9)

26 30 32

2.9 2.9 3.4

(0.8) (1.3) (l.S)

33 26 31

7.9 10.6 7.8

(3.3) (5.3) (3.2)

32 25 31

2.8 3.4 3.4

(3.8) (4.3) (3.4)

29 28 34

7.0 9.1 10.0

(3.1) (4.4) (4.6)

29 28 34

9.8 11.7

(3.6) (3.5)

44 30

8.8 8.1

(3.8) (3.2)

10.1 10.4 10.9

(2.9) (4.2) (4.3)

35 26 30

9.0 7.9 9.2

(4.4) (3.0) (5.0)

J

CHARACTERISTICS No. or CHILDREN "Too FEW"

No.

Î

No.

2.5

(1.0)

87

28 30 31

2.4 2.7 2.5

(0.6) (1.3) (1.2)

27 30 30

(1.0) (1.1) (1.6)

33 25 31

2.6 2.4 2.6

(1.0) (1.0) (1.1)

32 25 29

2.7 3.3 3.4

(0.8) (1.4) (1.5)

29 28 33

2.3 2.7 2.6

(0.7) (1.2) (1.1)

29 25 33

43 29

3.2 3.2

(1.5) (0.2)

44 30

2.8 2.3

(1.2) (0.9)

43 29

34 25 30

3.1 3.3 3.2

(1.4) (1.3) (1.3)

35 26 29

2.5 2.5 2.6

(1.0) (0.9) (1.2)

35 25 27

J

* Numbers vary in this and subsequent tables because of nonresponse on the part of some respondents. t Calculated in Colombian pesos per month; at the time the interviews were conducted, one U.S. dollar was worth approximately 18.5 pesos.

m

9 «

M

Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 11:35 05 December 2014

s«

f TABLE 2

M

MEAN BOUNDARIES FOR PERCEPTION OP FAMILY-SIZE NORMS FOR TOTAL POPULATION AND BY SELECTED INDICATORS OF TRADITIONALISM

= No. OF CHILDREN IN "LARGE" FAMILY

NO. OF CHILDREN "TOO MANY"

N O . OF CHILDREN IN "SMALL" FAMILY

, INDICATORS

Totals Respondent's education S or more years 3-4 years Less than 3 years Husband's education S or more years 3-4 years Less than 3 years

X

s

No.

J5

N O . OF CHILDREN "TOO F E W "

2 ¿* (^

. X

s

No. —

X

s

No.

X

s

No. •

DJ

10.4

(3.8)

91

8.8

(4.3)

89

3.2

(1.3)

90

2.5

(1.0)

87

9.7 10.5 10.8

(3.9) (3.6) (4.2)

20 43 27

6.9 8.4 11.1

(2.6) (3.4) (S.5)

20 43 25

2.9 3.0 3.7

(0.8) (1.3) (l.S)

20 43 26

2.3 2.S 2.8

(0.7) (1.0) (1.3)

19 42 25

^ R ua B «L

10.8 9.7 10.4

(3.8) (4.3) (3.2)

29 22 25

8.9 8.7 9.6

(5.4) (3.4) (3.9)

29 22 23

2.8 3.6 3.5

(0.9) (1.4) (1.6)

28 22 25

2.4 2.8 2.7

(1.0) (1.1) (1.2)

27 21 24

w g S.

Marital status Consensual union Married

10.9 10.0

(4.3) (3.4)

43 48

9.2 8.4

(5.3) (3.1)

43 46

3.3 3.0

(1.5) (1.1)

42 48

2.7 2.4

„ (1.2) (0.8)

42 45

g*

Preference for urban life Low* High Integration with relatives

10.7 9.8

(3.8) (3.8)

65 26

9.2 7.5

(4.6) (3.3)

64 25

3.2 3.0

(1.4) (1.2)

64 26

2.6 2.4

„ (1.1) (0.9) .

61 26 ,,

d O, | Sf

10.6 9.9

(4.0) (3.1)

70 21

8.9 8.2

(4.4) (3.8)

69 20

3.3 2.1

(1.3) (1.1)

69 21

2.6 2.5

(1.0) 66 (1.1) 21

High* Low

* These categories indicate higher levels of traditionalism.

2

S

Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 11:35 05 December 2014

TABLE 3 OVERALL EVALUATION OF "LARGE" AND " S M A L L " FAMILIES BY SELECTED INDICATORS OP TRADITIONALISM "SMALL" FAMILIES

"LAKGE" FAMILIES "Ablessing"

Ambiguous

NO.

%

"No!

Totals

(39)

45

(8)

Respondent's education . S or more years 3-4 years Less than 3 years

(6) (21) (12)

30 54 44

(4) (1) (3)

Husband's education 5 or more years 3-4 years Less than 3 years

(11) (11) (9)

39 58 36

(23) (16)

INDICATORS

Marital status Consensual union Married Preference for urban life Low* High Integration with relatives High* Low

~%

"Bring problems"

"A good idea"

Ambiguous

No.

%

No.

%

No.

(40)

46

(66)

77

(6)

20 3 11

(10) (17) (12)

50 44 44

(17) (31) (17)

85 74 74

(1) (1) (4)

(5) (0) (3)

18 0 12

(12) ( 8) (13)

43 42 52

(23) (IS) (18)

82 71 75

58 34

(3) (5)

8 11

(14) (26)

35 55

(29) (37)

(29) (10)

47 40

(6) (2)

10 8

(27) (13)

44 52

(32) (7)

48 33

(6) (2)

9 10

(28) (12)

42 57

* These categories indicate higher levels of traditionalism.

"Not a good idea" No.

%

(14)

16

5 2 17

( 2) (10) ( 2)

10 24 9

(1) (0) (4)

4 0 17

(4) ( 6) ( 2)

14 29 8

71 82

(3) (3)

7 7

( 9) ( S)

22 11

(47) (19)

76 79

(3) (3)

5 12

(12) (2)

19 8

(52) (14)

79 70

(4) (2)

6 10

(10) (4)

15 20

%

I 3 CD

§ A

©

I sa I

Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 11:35 05 December 2014

Vol. 22, No. 1

"Large" and "Small" Families in Colombia

able from the authors). In many respects, the accounts provided by these women are similar to what Rainwater (1965, pp. 139— 1S8) calls "rationales for family size." With respect to the desirability of "large" and "small" families, health-related factors are relatively unimportant. Nearly a third of the respondents for whom data are available (iV = 82) feel that provision for the welfare of children is more problematic in larger families, e.g., children receive inadequate care and guidance at home and too little formal education in "large" families. Economic factors such as inadequate resources for family support and inability to acquire savings are cited by about 45 per cent of the women as arguments against "large" families. Family-related factors are seen as positive attributes of "large" families with about 81 per cent of the respondents expressing a general liking for children or beliefs that family harmony is increased, that children may provide companionship and help for their parents, or that they may add to the prestige of the family name. It should be noted that only 19 per cent of these women feel that there is nothing good about "large" families and 24 per cent feel that there is nothing bad about them. In any case, it is clear that the great majority of women do weigh the relative merits of having "large" families though the evaluations are not greatly imbalanced. With respect to the rationales given in evaluating "small" families, the general pattern of response shows that health factors are again seldom considered. Welfare of children and economic factors are seen overwhelmingly as positive attributes of the "small" family. The former category includes advantages in providing child care, education, • and other socialization activities for children. Such considerations account for about 62 per cent of the positively perceived attributes of "small" families.

51

Economic advantages are cited only about half as frequently and consist of statements to the effect that family income will go further, savings are possible, inheritance is less problematic, and that the family's general economic welfare is better than would be the case with a "large" family. Family-related rationales are given as both positive and negative aspects of the "small" family, but the ratio is about four to one in favor of the latter. Positive aspects refer primarily to greater harmony and happiness, while negative factors suggest less harmony and happiness, lower family prestige, and greater loneliness for the parents. While only two respondents indicate that there is nothing good about "small" families, slightly more than four-fifths say that there is nothing bad about them. Clearly, in contrast to the balanced feelings these women apparently have toward "large" families, their evaluation of "small" families is overwhelmingly positive. FAMILY-SIZE PREFERENCES

The data presented thus far suggest relatively flexible views regarding the acceptable range of reproductive behavior. Furthermore, as a group, these women appear to be somewhat ambivalent about the desirability of "large" families and generally in favor of "small" families even though they are rather consistent in their recognition of positive and negative aspects of these quite distinct (by their own definitions) family types. An interesting question may be raised as to where personal preferences fit in relation to these uncrystallized and sometimes inconsistent views regarding extreme values of family-size norms (cf. George, 1973, p. 363). Do they tend toward the "large" or "small" end of the continuum? Are values for family-size preferences affected by background characteristics and traditionalism in the same manner as are the more extreme limits considered earlier?

Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 11:35 05 December 2014

52

Micklin and Marnane

Several measures of family-size preferences are presented in Tables 4 and 5. Considering overall variations, it is evident that the ideal number of children respondents would advise their own children to have is consistently lower than their "subjective ideal" (i.e., the number of children the respondent would have if she could start over again) which is, in turn, consistently lower than the "objective ideal" (i.e., the number of children the respondent would suggest for. a family in similar economic circumstances). Table 4 indicates that family-size

Social Biology

ideals and a smaller family advised for their children. An increasing number of pregnancies is related to higher objective ideals. Women in higher income families show lower subjective and objective ideals as well as preferences for fewer children for their own offspring. Finally, the number of children in the respondent's family of orientation is inversely related to subjective ideals and directly related to objective ideals and to ideals for their children. Table S presents family-size preferences according to measures of traditionalism. The higher the respondent's level of edu-

TABLE 4 MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION VALTJES POR FAMILY-SIZE PREFERENCES BY SELECTED BACKGROUND CHARACTERETICS SUBJECTIVE IDEALS BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS

OBJECTIVE IDEALS

X

s

No.

3?

i

3.0

(1.2)

86

3.7

2.9 3.0 3.0

(1.0) (1.1) (1.4)

28 29 28

2.9 3.0 3.0

(1.1) (1.S) (1.0)

IDEALS r o s CHILDREN

No.

JC

s

No.

(1.4)

77

2.6

(0.9)

80

3.2 3.8 4.0

(1.3) (1.4) (l.S)

24 26 26

2.6 2.7 2.6

(0.7) (0.9) (0.9)

22 29 28

32 28 28

3.9 3.8 3.4

(1.6) (1.2) (1.3)

28 21 28

2.8 2.S 2.5

(0.8) (0.8) (0.9)

27 23 29

Totals Age 17-24 2S-31 32^8 Age at formation of union 14-17 18-19 20-37 Total no. of pregnancies 1-3 4-6 7-19 Total family income* Less than $500 $500 or more

3.0 3.0 3.0

(0.8) (1.2) (1.4)

28 2S 33

3.3 3.5 4.2

(1.2) (1.4) (1.5)

27 23 27

2.6 2.8 2.6

(0.7) (1.1) (0.8)

27 22 31

3.2 2.8

(1.4) (0.8)

40 30

3.9 3.5

(1.6) (1.2)

35 28

2.4 2.9

(0.8) (0.8)

38 28

No. of children in family of orientation 2-6 7-9 10+

3.2 3.1 2.6

(1.4) (1.0) (0.9)

34 23 29

3.5 3.4 4.0

(1.2) (1.4) (1.6)

28 22 27

2.6 2.6 2.7

(0.8) (0.9) (0.8)

33 22 25

* Calculated in Colombian pesos per month; at the time the interviews were conducted, one U.S. dollar was worth approximately 18.5 pesos.

preferences tend to vary according to respondent's background characteristics. Increasing age of respondent is associated with higher objective ideals. Respondents who were older when their present unions were formed tend toward lower objective

cation, the lower the objective ideals. Women with better educated husbands show lower subjective and objective ideals as well as lower ideals for their children. Those living in consensual unions indicate slightly lower subjective ideals and con-

Vol. 22, No. 1

53

"Large" and "Small" Families in Colombia TABLE S

MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION VALUES FOR FAMILY-SIZE PREFERENCES BY SELECTED MEASURES OF TRADITIONALISM SUBJECTIVE IDEALS

X

Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 11:35 05 December 2014

MEASURES OF TRADITIONALISM

Totals Respondent's education 5 or more years 3-4 years Less than 3 years Husband's education S or more years 3-4 years Less than 3 years Marital status Consensual union Married Preference for urban life Low* High Integration with relatives High* Low 1

OBJECTIVE IDEALS

IDEALS FOR CHILDREN

s

No.

X

No.

(1.4)

77

2.6

(0.9)

80

3.2 3.7 3.9

(1.0) (1.4) (1.6)

20 40 16

3.0

2.4 2.1

(0.8) (0.8) (0.9)

20 38 21

29 20 24

3.4 4.0 3.9

(1.2) (1.6) (1.6)

27 19 17

2.6 2.4 3.0

(0.7) (1.0) (0.9)

27 20 20

(1.1) (1.3)

43 43

3.9 3.4

(1.5) (1.3)

36 41

2.7 2.6

(0.8) (0.9)

38 42

3.0 3.0

(1.1) (1.4)

62 24

3.9 3.1

(1.4) (1.2)

54 23

2.8 2.3

(0.8) (0.8)

57 23

3.0 2.9

(1.2) (1.1)

66 20

3.6 3.8

(1.4) (1.4)

59 18

2.6 2.8

(0.8) (0.9)

60 20

5

No.

X

3.0

(1.2)

86

3.7

2.8 2.9 3.3

(0.8) (1.0) (1.7)

20 40 25

2.6 3.6 3.1

(0.8) (1.4) (1.2)

,

2.9 3.1

, , ,

These categories indicate higher levels of traditionalism.

siderably higher objective ideals. Further variations are evident according to value orientations, with those respondents who indicate higher preference for urban life showing lower objective ideals and lower ideals for their children. Women scoring lower on integration with relatives have slightly higher objective ideals and higher ideals for their children. It is evident that these respondents' family-size preferences approximate much more closely their concept of "small" than of "large" families. In fact, though their mean objective ideal exceeds by about half a child the norm for a "small" family, their mean subjective ideal is about two-tenths of a child less than this number, and the mean ideal they would advise for their children is fully half a child less. In no case, however, are these preferences less than the lower limit defined as "too few." It is also apparent that background factors and measures of traditionalism are

frequently, though not always consistently, related to these norms. EVALUATIONS, BOUNDARIES, AND PREFERENCES

Earlier in this discussion it was demonstrated that respondents varied somewhat in their evaluation of "large" and "small" families. It is reasonable to ask whether these global judgments regarding extremes in family-size norms exert an influence on the associated numerical values as well as the intermediate family-size preferences (cf. Simmons, 1971). Evidence regarding this question is presented in Tables 6 and 7. Overall evaluations of "large" and "small" families affect the numerical limits attributed to each only with respect to these extremes (Table 6). It is apparent that mean values for both indicators of "small" families are quite close regardless of overall evaluations of either "large" or "small" families. On the other hand, the lowest value for number of children that

54

Micklin and Marnane

Social Biology

TABLE 6 MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION VALUES OF L I M I T S FOR PERCEPTION OF FAMILY-SIZE NORMS BY OVERALL EVALUATION OF "LARGE" AND " S M A L L " FAMILIES* "LASGE" FAMILIES

Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 11:35 05 December 2014

FAMILY SIZE

"Bring problems"

"Ablessing"

No. of children in "large" family X 10.5 s (4.0) No 40 No^ of children "too many" X 8.0 s (3.1) No 39 No^of children in "small" family X 3.0 S (1.2) No 40 No^ of children "too few" X 2.7 í (1.2) No 38 •Respondents who gave ambiguous evaluations are excluded from

"SMALL" FAMILIES

"Not a good idea"

"A good idea"

9.8 (3.0) 39

11.1 (4.1) 14

10.6 (3.8) 66

9.3 (4.4) 39

9.2 (3.6) 14

3.2 (1.3) 39

3.2 (1.9) 14

3.1 (1.0) 65

2.4 (0.9) 38 this table.

2.7 (1.2) 14

2.5 (1.0) 62

'

8.7 " (4.6) 65

constitutes "too many" is obtained from "large" families are "a blessing." Values respondents who say "large" families for those who feel "large" families are "bring problems," -while the highest values problematic and that "small" families are are evident for those women who say "a good thing" are smallest, and differences "large" families are "a blessing" and between the two are minimal. Thus, it is "small" families are "a bad thing." Simi- evident that with respect to family-size larly, the highest mean value attributed to preferences, respondents' orientations to"large" families is given by respondents ward "large" and "small" families, espewho say "small" families are "a bad thing," cially the latter, are highly consequential although, perhaps unexpectedly, the lowest for their personal ideals and the counsel value for "large" families is indicated by they would provide their children as well. those women who say "large" families are "a blessing." Once again, greater inconDISCUSSION sistencies are encountered with respect to ideas regarding the upper limits of familyIn this section we discuss our overall size norms. findings and, where possible, contrast them In Table 7 the influence of family-size with the Colombian data presented by evaluations on family-size preferences is Simmons (1974). A clear pattern emerges considered. Not only do overall evaluations from data reflecting the rank order of mean make a difference, but these differences are values of family-type categories. The numconsistently as expected. That is to say, ber of children in a "large" family is highthose women who negatively evaluate est, followed by number of children "small" families have the highest mean considered "too many," number of children values on all three preference measures. in a "small" family, and number of children The next highest values observed appear in considered "too few," in that order. It is the case of those respondents who feel that encouraging to observe that our respon-

Vol. 22, No. 1

"Large" and "Small" Families in Colombia

55

TABLE 7 MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION VALUES FOR FAMILY-SIZE PREFERENCES BY OVERALL EVALUATION OF "LARGE" AND " S M A L L " FAMILIES* "LARGE" FAMILIES

Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 11:35 05 December 2014

PREÏEREHCES

Subjective ideal X * No Objective ideal X i No Ideal for children X S No

"SMALL" FAMILIES

"Bring problems"

"A blessing"

"Not a good idea"

"A good idea"

2.9 (0.9) 38

3.1 (1.S) 36

3.5 (1.6) 14

2.9 (1.0) 64

3.6 (1.4) 36

3.9 (1.S) 32

4.2 (1.3) 13

3.4 (1.4) 57

2.4 (0.8) 38

2.8 (0.8) 32

3.2 (0.7) 13

2.5 (0.8) 59

* Respondents who gave ambiguous evaluations are excluded from this table.

dents' mean values for a "large" family (10.4) and a "small" family (3.2) are precisely the same figures reported by Simmons (1974, p. 131, Table 3 ) . Furthermore, subjective ideals for family size approximate very closely what respondents consider to be "small" families and are, of course, more than "too few," considerably fewer than "too many," and even more dramatically fewer than what respondents consider "large" families. Again, Simmons' results are generally in agreement, although his single measure of family-size preference, the "best number of children for a woman to have," averages a child and a half higher than the "objective ideal" for our sample (5.2 vs. 3.7). These results imply a positive evaluation of socially defined "small" families among these rural women and this indication is indeed borne out by other evidence. While slightly less than one-half of the respondents see "large" families as desirable, they tend to think more consistently (75 per cent of the cases) that "small" families are generally a good idea. The corresponding figures from Simmons' data are 83 per cent and 95 per cent, respectively (1974,

p. 132, Table 4). Obviously there is overlap here indicating a degree of ambivalence, but still a generally more positive evaluation of smaller families persists. Given this ambivalence, and the consequent instability of response to be expected, it is not surprising that our figures are at variance with those reported by Simmons although the general pattern remains clear. Examination of the reasons cited for considering "large" and "small" families either desirable or undesirable indicates that rationales supporting "large" families are primarily family-related, including such factors as family prestige and family harmony. On the other hand, rationales related to the well-being and education of children as well as economic considerations militate against larger families, i.e., are reasons for favoring "small" families. These findings are again supported by Simmons' (1974, p . 132) results. In addition, with regard to the consideration of family-size ideals, in all cases the high-to-low order of mean values runs from the number desirable for others in the same economic circumstances as the respondent (objective ideal), followed by the subjec-

Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 11:35 05 December 2014

56

Micklin and Marnane

tive ideal, with the ideal for one's own children having the lowest value. Whereas definitional criteria, overall, show an inconclusive pattern, it is evident that mean values for number of children that are "too many" and number of children in a "small" family are depressed in the cases where "large" families are viewed negatively and "small" families are viewed positively. In accord with this pattern, it was determined that the ideals themselves are lower for those who view "large" families negatively and "small" families positively in all measured instances. This finding clearly implies that attitudes toward variable levels of family size affect the quantitative criteria by which they are defined as the projected ideal reproductive behavior. Confirming evidence is once again provided by Simmons (1974, p. 136, Table 7). With respect to traditional-modern value orientations, definitional means are depressed among the more modern categories of respondents in almost all instances. Moreover, "modern" women are more likely to view "large" families negatively and "small" families positively than are their more traditional counterparts. When considering links between bases for qualitative evaluation of "large" families, the traditional-modern differences are somewhat mixed, although there is a tendency for more modern persons to mention welfare of children and economic reasons more frequently and family reasons less frequently. Analysis of judgments regarding the advantages and disadvantages of "small" families does not permit clear differentiation between traditional and modern groups. Regarding both subjective and objective family-size ideals, it is apparent that more modern women tend to exhibit lower mean values than do traditional women, while the pattern is mixed with respect to the number of offspring they would advise for their

Social Biology

own children. It is interesting that examination of standard deviations indicates that the more modern respondents, those with lower family-size ideals, and those with lower quantitative criteria for various classes of families show less variation about the mean. Furthermore, it can be observed that ranges between categories of family size and categories of ideals tend to be more constricted for the moderns as well. This suggests that modern persons may better communicate their norms than traditional persons, which is perhaps to be expected where fatalistic acceptance of norms and "the lightness of what is" are associated with traditional orientations toward patterns of social conduct. Results regarding the positive and negative aspects of "large" and "small" families are in agreement with Stycos' Puerto Rican data (1955, pp. 158-181), as well as the more extensive information presented by Simmons (1974). While economic considerations in particular suggest the undesirability of "large" families, contradictory sentiments, focusing on contributions children make to family cohesion and family security, work in the opposite direction. The simultaneous existence of these conflicting evaluations probably works against the crystallization of an effective universalistic smaller family norm. The ambiguity in evaluations, although weighted in favor of "small" families, may well result from conflicting cultural influences. On the one hand, there is the traditional norm associated with rural life and Catholicism that emphasizes the value of "large" families while, on the other hand, women are influenced by a shared awareness of the economic and family responsibility difficulties involved in raising numerous children. These women are probably much like their poor and lower-middle-class counterparts in the United States who reflect the idea that numerous children are desirable, but

Vol. 22, No. 1

"Large" and "Small" Families in Colombia

one should not have more children than the family can support (Rainwater, 1965, p. ISO).

Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 11:35 05 December 2014

IMPLICATIONS

Stycos (1971, p. 8) has argued that "there is little doubt that there is at least a latent preference for a moderate size family rather than a small one [in Latin America]." These rural Colombian women show family-size preferences more closely approximating "small" families as defined by their own normative criteria. This suggests that, in a normative sense, "small" families are considered desirable; but the definition of "small," from their point of view, is still higher than demographers and family planners would view as moderate size. An important implication of this finding for fertility control programs is that planners who aim at bringing about a depression of fertility rates must emphasize the value of families of a specific size rather than of the "small" family as a generalized concept. If parents and potential parents in their observations and conversations with others determine that the implicit norm for "small" families is three or four or five children, then the motivation for limiting family size early in their reproductive life cycle is not going to be great. And if families do not seriously consider the utilization of reliable contraceptive methods until their reproductive performance far exceeds replacement, the goal of family planning programs, that is, reduction of population growth, becomes largely irrelevant to their means. If, in the face of increased longevity, the ideals of family size are not quantitatively decreased, then the planning of births by families can only lead to continued high rates of population growth. I t would appear from the data presented here that women, as they become more "modernized," do tend to see greater

57

advantages in smaller families. Still, their concept of what quantitatively defines a "small" family is far greater than required for replacement. Consequently, even if the cultural norm favors "small" families and family planning by couples is absolutely effective, the net result could be at best a small decline in overall rates of population growth. It is for such reasons that Davis (1967) argues that family planning programs as they currently exist are largely ineffective in achieving the goals of fertility control. It has been demonstrated in numerous KAP studies that there is a general desire to limit family size in almost all areas of the world, leading some optimists to conclude that norms have emerged which favor the use of effective contraceptive techniques in family planning (see Bogue, 1967). But family planning programs aimed at providing the assurance that couples will have "no more children than they want" or even "small" families, as observed in the present research, are hopelessly inadequate to the task of reducing growth rates. Policy must explicitly emphasize reducing quantitative norms to levels that are considerably lower than those which now obtain. Vagueness in population policy, as in all such statements, tends to subvert the goals of planning. SUMMARY

Quantitative and qualitative dimensions of family-size norms have been examined for a nearly complete enumeration of currently pregnant and recently delivered women residing in a rural Colombian town (N = 9l). Attention is focused on perceived numerical boundaries for families that are "large," "small," "too large," and "too small" as well as on evaluations of these normatively defined family units, and on family-size preferences. Variations are assessed in terms of selected respondent

Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 11:35 05 December 2014

58

Micklin and Marnane

background characteristics and measures of traditional-modern value orientations. Results indicate that quantitative norms are highest for "large" families, followed by the norms for families with "too many" children, those that are "small," and those with "too few" children, respectively. Smaller norms are indicated by younger women who have had fewer pregnancies, are of lower economic status, come from larger families of orientation, and hold more modem values. While "large" families are equally evaluated as a blessing and as problematic, "small" families are given positive evaluations by over three-quarters of the women interviewed. The quality of interpersonal relationships is seen as a positive aspect of "large" families and a negative aspect of "small" families, whereas economic and child welfare factors are viewed as negative aspects of "large" families and positive aspects of smaller ones. Family-size preferences are lowest when advice for respondents' children is considered, higher when the possibility of beginning one's own family again is contemplated, and highest when considering economic circumstances, and preferences are generally related to respondent characteristics in the same direction as were norms for familysize boundaries. Furthermore, positive eval-

Social Biology

uations of "large" families and negative evaluations of "small" families are consistently associated with larger boundary estimates and family-size preferences. Discussion concentrates on the ambiguities evident in these estimates and evaluations of family-size norms and their implications for family planning policy. Many of the findings reported here are highly consistent with comparable data pertaining to a much larger sample of rural Colombian women (Simmons, 1974), thus providing independent confirmation for these data. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Revised version of a paper presented at the 1972 meetings of the Southwestern Sociological Association. This research was supported by the Tulane University—Universidad del Valle International Center for Medical Research, Grant AI-10050 from the Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Public Health Service, and the Ford Foundation through a grant administered by the Middle American Research Institute of Tulane University. The revision was completed while the first author was affiliated with the MRC Social Psychiatry Unit, Institute of Psychiatry, London, supported by Research Grant MH 24677 from the Center for Epidemiologie Studies, National Institute of Mental Health, U.S. Public Health Service. For assistance in the collection and analysis of these data we thank Lida Victoria and John McCallum.

REFERENCES BLAKE, J. 1966. Ideal family size among white Americans: A quarter of a century's evidence. Demography 3:154-173. _____. 1967. Income and reproductive motivation. Pop. Stud. 21:185-206. BOGUE, D. J. 1967. The end of the population ex-

plosion. Publ. Interest 7:11-20. _____. 1969. Principles of demography. Wiley, New York. DAVIS, K. 1967. Population policy: Will current programs succeed? Science 158:730-739. DAVIS, K., and J. BLAKE. 1957. Social structure

and fertility: An analytic framework. Econ. Dev. Cult. Change 4:211-235. DE JONG, G. F. 1968. Appalachian fertility decline: A demographic and sociological analysis. Univ. Kentucky Press, Lexington.

FAWCETT, J. T., and

M. H. BORNSTEIN.

1973.

Modernization, individual modernity, and fertility, p. 106-131. In J. T. Fawcett (ed.), Psychological perspectives on population. Basic Books, New York. FREEDMAN, R. 1963. Norms for family size in underdeveloped areas. Proc. Roy. Soc. 159:220245. GEORGE, E. I. 1973. Research on measurement of family-size norms, p. 354-370. In J. T. Fawcett (ed.), Psychological perspectives on population. Basic Books, New York. HAUSER, P. M. 1967. Family planning and population programs: A book review article. Demography 4:397-414. HAWTHORN, G. 1968. The sociology of fertility. Collier-MacMillan, Ltd., London.

Vol. 22, No. 1

"Large" and "Small" Families in Colombia

REVELIE, R. (ed.). 1971. Rapid population growth: Consequences and policy implications. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore. SIMMONS, A. B. 1971. Protective testing for ideal family size, p. 339-359. In J. M. Stycos (ed.), Ideology, faith, and family planning in Latin America: Studies in public and private opinion on fertility control. McGraw-Hill, New York. . 1974. Ambivalence toward small families in rural Latin America. Soc. Biol. 21:127-143. STYCOS, J. M. 1955. Family and fertility in Puerto Rico. Columbia Univ. Press, New York. . 1971. Ideology, faith, and family planning in Latin America: Studies in public and NAMBOODIRI, K. 1967. On the problem on meaprivate opinion on fertility control. McGrawsuring the strength of the social norm concernHill, New York. ing family size in developing areas. Proc. Wld. Pop. Conf. II, p. 176. WAGLEY, C. 1951. Cultural influences on populaRAINWATER, L. 1965. Family design: Marital sextion: A comparison of two Tupi tribes. Rev. uality, family size, and contraception. Aldine, Museu Paulista 5:94-105. Chicago. WESTOFF, C. F., and R. H. POTVTN. 1967. College REICHEL-DOLMATOFF, G. 1971. Amazonian coswomen and fertility values. Princeton Univ. mos: The sexual and religious symbolism of Press, Princeton, N.J. the Tukano Indians. Univ. Chicago Press, Chi- YAUKEY, D. 1969. On theorizing about fertility. cago. Amer. Sociol. 4:100-104.

HOFFMAN, L. W., and M. L. HOFFMAN. 1973. The

value of children to parents, p. 19-76. In J. T. Fawcett (ed.), Psychological perspectives on population. Basic Books, New York. KAHL, J. A. 1968. The measurement of modernism: A study of values in Brazil and Mexico. Univ. Texas Press, Austin. MAULDIN, W. P. 1965. Fertility studies: Knowledge, attitude, and practice. Stud. Fam. Plan. 7:1-10. MICKLIN, M. (ed.). 1973. Population, environment, and social organization: Current issues in human ecology. Dryden, Hinsdale, Ill.

Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 11:35 05 December 2014

59