CAMILO GARCIA
WHAT DO WE MEAN BY EXTENDED FAMILY? A CLOSER LOOK AT HISPANIC M U L T I G E N E R A T I O N A L FAMILIES1
ABSTRACT. This study examined an entire residential block of a predominantly Hispanic neighborhood in Southern California. The investigation focused on a comparison of the frequency of extended and nonextended families using structural (household residents) and functional criteria (interaction and exchange) and the reasons nuclear families did not have their grandparents in those household units. Of 48 households, 8 units contained other elements besides the nuclear family. Of these eight, only five units contained the grandparents. Using functional criteria, however, all were extended family households. A low number of multigenerational families based on the structural criterion may not reflect preference, but merely the physical limitation imposed by the number of children. The larger the size of the family, the higher the incidence of nuclear families because it is impossible for the grandparents to be in all their children's households. Unless variables that affect the availability of kin for an extended family, such as rate of fertility or housing availability, are controlled, the assumption that frequency of multigenerational family households reflects cultural or economic choices may be inaccurate. Key Words: Hispanics, households, elderly, family Social gerontologists are increasingly showing the value of kin (Bengston, Rosenthal and Burton 1990) either because these are a source of social support for elderly adults (Chappell 1991; Connidis and Davies 1990), or because elderly people themselves provide support for younger people (Chappell and Havens 1985; Morgan, Schuster and Butler 1991), or even because intergenerational solidarity may have an impact on the psychological well being of the elderly (Markides and Krause 1985). Since the 1940s, the high frequency of households in which the grandparents were not present has been considered a threat to the welfare of elderly adults (Parsons 1942). Hispanic extended families became a specific source of debate among scholars (see Applewhite 1988: 8). The debate has focused either on the decreased frequency of multigenerational households, or on questions regarding the solidarity of these families. After a century of anthropological debates on the family and household concepts (see Netting, Wilk and Arnold 1984), the conceptual difficulties posed by the understanding of domestic organization remain, this time dealing with American society. Sotomayor and Applewhite (1988: 124) suggest that "Differences in opinion regarding the status or prevalence of extended families among Hispanics are certainly related to issues of definition and a dearth of systematic research that can allow generalizations." Similarly, Bengston etal. (1990: 280) reviewed the literature on families and aging and concluded that among the major issues that deserve attention are conceptual development and Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology 8: 137-146, 1993. 9 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
13 8
CAMILOGARCIA
measurement sophistication. Admitting that a good understanding of domestic organization requires the study of social rules, as well as the limitations that the individuals confront in their decisions, this study aimed at a clarification of some definitional issues of the extended family household in light of empirical findings.
The Problem of Definition After the 1960s, family researchers showed that notable interaction occurred among generations even when they did not share the same residence (Litwak 1965; Shanas, Townsend, Wedderburn, Friis, Miljoj and Strhouwer 1968). Litwak coined the term "modified extended family" to describe this phenomenon. This has led to multiple meanings in the definition of the extended family in current research. The most typical aspects that are stressed in different studies are either the structural or the functional characteristics of the family. Structurally, the concept of extended family is applied once a nuclear family incorporates other kin members into the residential group. Although this may seem like a simple event, in practice the structural extension of the nuclear families may lead to a variety of complex events. This complexity represents a challenge because at times it prevents accuracy of definition, and it may even promote misleading interpretations, as can be observed in the following analysis. Figure 1 illustrates how a complex set of family forms may emerge once we add other kin elements to the nuclear family. In this figure, A represents the simplest structure that adds another member to the nuclear family. In some cases researchers require this member to be related kin, but this is not always the case. The second type of structure is represented here by B. This form includes two kin-related nuclear families. Most of the time there is a horizontal relationship. These types of extended families are also identified as joint families. The third type, C, is formed by members of three generations (vertical lines): grandparents, parents, and children. This is the most relevant form for social gerontologists because it is the one that incorporates the elderly. In the literature, all these forms seem to be treated as equivalent. The ambiguity inherent in the structural concept of the extended family is further complicated when the functional criteria are added. Functional criteria, in turn, vary depending on whether families exchange resources or if they simply interact on a regular basis, regardless of physical closeness. Thus, the concept of extended family becomes equivocal due to these major sources of meaning: the structural and functional as represented by criteria of exchange or interaction. The concept of family as it has been used in the U.S. Census deserves special attention. As shown in Table I, the census has shifted from one to another defining characteristic of household and family classifications. In 1910, the definition of a family was simply based on the fact that people were living together. A major shift in the definition of family and household took place in the 1950 census. In that year the family was defined by the social relationship of its members. At the end of this century, the Census Bureau is still struggling for
139
HISPANIC EXTENDED FAMILY
A
(3
/x
/x__~:o I
................................ I: ................................... FI
Ax-O
T
o ...........................
/
..........
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
~..~_
. . . . . . . . . . .
Male
.............................
0
/ . . . . . . . . . . .
0
~
B
-
_I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.....
Female
Fig. 1. Multiple meanings of the concept of extended family. A illustrates the case of any additional member; B illustrates the horizontal extensions, and C illustrates the multigenerational family. a conceptual formulation that accurately defines the housing and living arrangements of the respondents (Brownrigg 1991). The use of different definitions has led to different results in research on the prevalence of Hispanic extended families. Historically, there was a massive migration of rural Mexican Americans to the cities from the 1950s to 1970s. It was expected that the extended family structure would be modified due to urban conditions. Even more, it was predicted that eventually the Hispanic households would conform to the Anglo American pattern. Moore and Pachon (1974) supported this prediction, noting few multigenerational households in two major cities with large Hispanic populations. In this case, extended family was restricted to multigenerational families who were coresident. However, a different criterion and, therefore, different conclusions were proposed in subsequent studies. Using survey data from a predominantly Hispanic population in Southern California, Keefe (1980: 89) defined the extended family from an interactional and exchange perspective as "a localized kin group consisting of a number of related households whose members interact together frequently and exchange mutual aid". Keefe examined interaction at two levels, with primary and secondary kin. She found that Mexican adult recent immigrants, in general, did not have their primary kin with them. The younger did because they only migrate with their parents and siblings. In time this interactional network is expanded. Thus, in time extended families grow in size instead of decreasing.
140
CAMILOGARCIA TABLE I Census definitions for residential and family units used in this century
Census
Primary unit
Criteria
Defining characteristic
1910
Dwelling houses
Place to sleep
Physical
Family
Living together even if not kin related
Physical closeness
1920
Place of abode Where persons said to belong
Belonginess
1940
Household
One set of cooking facilities
Cooking facilities
1950
Household
One per dwelling unit
Family
Two or more related by blood
Could contain families or not Kin relations
1960
Household
One head of household
Leadership
1970
Household
Having complete kitchen
Complete cooking facilities
1980
Housing unit
Lived, ate and had separate access
Family
Consists of a householder and related people living in same household
Own cooking facilities not required. Head not required Relationship by birth, marriage, or adoption
Housing unit
Lives and sleeps
1990
Time
Source for columns 2 and 3: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1989. 200 Years of U.S. Census Taking: Population and housing questions, 1790-1990. Departing from her interactional definition, she concluded that there is no evidence to state that the Mexican American extended family pattern gradually conforms to the Anglo American pattern (Keefe 1980: 103). A decrease in prevalence of extended family households has been interpreted as a measure of the acculturation of ethnic groups to White American culture (Keefe 1980). Keefe's contention was supported indirectly by Tienda and Angel (1982). They explored the reasons for greater prevalence of extended households among Hispanics, Blacks, and Whites using the concept of the extended family household as "those containing at least one other relative of the head, secondary family member, or secondary individual, either adults or children" (1980: 153). Notice that in this case the definition includes a nuclear family plus any additional member sharing the same residential unit. These authors found high prevalence of extended families among Hispanics and Blacks. Furthermore, they attributed this prevalence to economic as well as to cultural reasons. Again, the assumption of cultural preference was implicit. Finally, a clear contrast of findings is observed in two of the most recent studies. In a study based on fieldwork among families in Tucson, using the interactional definition, Velez-Ibanez (1988: 35) reported a high prevalence of
HISPANICEXTENDEDFAMILY
141
extended families among Mexican Americans. However, in a recent study of 1,086 Latino heads of households in California (Hurtado, Hayes-Bautista, Valdez and Hernandez 1992: 16), the authors reported that "the proportion of nuclear families living with extended kin falls from the first generation (26%) to the second and third generations (12% and 9% respectively)". However, in the same study, it was reported that when these respondents were asked about their preference to live close to their kin, this preference did not significantly change across the three generations. Thus, lower frequencies do not mean change of preferences. Leaving aside the conflicting definitions of these studies, an additional problem may arise if we simply interpret the changes in frequencies as resulting from cultural differences. This may imply that every nuclear family has an equal potential of becoming an extended family household and, therefore, that most families exercise choice in becoming a multigenerational family. The actual availability of relatives seems to be an ignored variable. Recent studies (Anderson and Allen 1984; Uhlenberg and Cooney I991) although not strictly related to the extended family issue, have demonstrated that this is a variable that leads to significant differences in living arrangements (Anderson and Allen 1984) or in the well being of the elderly individuals (Uhlenberg and Cooney 1991). In sum, the nonnuclear families phenomenon is more complex than the simple addition of nonnuclear elements. The purpose of the present study was twofold. One was to assess empirically the definitions of extended family. This was done by comparing the results generated by structural and functional (exchange and interaction) criteria. The other was to identify whether the frequency of one or another type of multigenerational family was a matter of choice for the residents. METHOD Data was collected on an entire residential block in 1987. This block is located in a predominantly Hispanic neighborhood in Southern California. This block was selected by the Census Bureau as one that typically represented the Hispanic population because of its location, and because of its highly predominant Hispanic residents. The sample included a total of 48 residential units. Interviews were conducted in 1987. This was done house to house in order to identify the number of residents claimed by the respondents. Additional data collected consisted of their number of residents, the nature of their relationship, their length of stay in the household unit, age, sex, and ethnicity. In addition to the interviews, a single researcher did participant observation for a continuous period of 6 months, and another 6 months on an irregular basis. It was possible to identify all actual residents of this area and to assess the nature of the structural and functional characteristics of their kinship ties, Fieldwork consisted of direct observations all day and participation in residents' regular activities. These included shopping, visiting, participation in
142
CAMILOGARCIA
parties, eating, and special celebrations. These observations allowed a more accurate record of exchange and interaction activities taking place in the community, as well as an identification of the actual residents of the block. The investigation comparing the frequency of extended and non-extended families was conducted as follows. After identifying the household units based on a structural criterion (household residents), the concept of extended family based on interaction was applied whenever families notably interacted on a daily basis with other families, within or outside the block. The concept of extended family based on exchange was applied whenever the family members exchanged monetary and nonmonetary resources with other household units within or outside the block. Once the nuclear families were identified, the reasons for not having their grandparents in those household units were investigated so as to find to what extent their family structure reflected their preferences. RESULTS Table II shows the frequency of nuclear and extended families using the three different criteria. Forty household units were nuclear. Only eight units contained other elements besides the nuclear family. Of these eight, only five units contained the grandparents. TABLE II Frequency of types of families in one block of a Hispanic neighborhood Criteria Type
Households
Exchange
Interaction
Nuclear
40
48
48
Non-nuclear Vertical Horizontal (Joint) Both
8 5 3 0
Using the criteria of interaction and exchange, however, all families were found to be consistently interacting and exchanging resources with other kin. Interactions among families are socially prescribed and self-initiated. For example, following the developmental religious cycle, families interact for baptisms, confirmation, first communion, marriage, and funeral rituals of each of the family members. In addition to religious events, secular rituals include birthday parties for each of the family members, coming of age for fifteen year old girls, and farewell parties. In all these celebrations the party giver is obligated to provide all food and elements for the ritual. In general, it is considered a shame for the host to accept or to request from the guests any material elements for the
HISPANICEXTENDEDFAMILY
143
ritual. Hosts may accept wrapped gifts which they should not open in front of the giver or other guests. From the outsider's view, all these intense giving activities place the recipients in continuous obligation to reciprocate. The more intense the celebration, the more the attendants become obligated to reciprocate to maintain the balance. The interaction is a continuous process in which there is no place for nuclear families to act in isolation. Each of the religious and secular events is a call to activate all kin ties. Thus, all 48 families were defined as extended based on these patterns of intense and frequent interactions. In examining the reasons stated by the nuclear families for not having the grandparents residing with them, it was found that 8 of the 40 nuclear families had grandparents living either in one of the five multigenerational families already identified in that block or in other multigenerational families outside the area. In fact, several nuclear families were related to multigenerational interactional units, forming clusters of families. The multigenerational units were the residence of the grandparents, which were surrounded by a set of nuclear families in separate residences (see Figure 2). All the remaining 32 families claimed that their grandparents were living with their other relatives. None of them reported that the grandparents lived alone.
Fig. 2. Typical multigenerational family surrounded by a set of nuclear families.
Furthermore, a comparison of these clusters of families (Figure 3) revealed that the larger the number of children the grandparents had, the larger the number of nuclear families. It is physically impossible for the grandpare,'ts to live in all of
144
CAMILOGARCIA
I
9
r
m
9
I
9
Fig. 3. Clusters of families illustrating that the larger the number of children the larger the number of nuclear families.
their children's households. For example, the number of possibilities of a threegenerational extended family is different for parents with 10 adult children (B) than it is for those with only 2 (A). Assuming that we count all 10 adult child households in the first case, the rate of three generational extended family households will be 1 out of 10. In the second case, 1 out of the 2 adult child families could be extended family households. A comparison of the two counts will not reflect the preference because in both cases the grandparents actually live in extended family households. Furthermore, when counting all of these hypothetical families as one group, only 2 out of 12 will be three generational extended family households. Quantification alone is not a good indicator of the actual choices for living arrangements and no indication whatever of extended family interaction and exchange patterns. CONCLUSIONS Studies related to the frequency of the extended family should be evaluated for criteria defining "family". Litwak's (1965) and Shanas et al.'s (1968) early work showed that actual interaction takes place among members of nuclear families. However, neither an actual comparison of the two criteria (specifically among Mexican Americans), nor the differences they produce in outcomes seem to have been reported in the literature. In this study, the results of this comparison revealed two major findings. One is that the prevalence of the extended family depends on the criterion used to define it. There was a lower incidence of
HISPANICEXTENDEDFAMILY
145
extended families, especially of the multigenerational type, using the structural criteria (households), than there was using functional criteria (exchange, interaction). Using functional criteria, all families were extended. A true comparison of the different studies that claim a higher or lower incidence of extended families among particular ethnic groups can only be valid if a particular definition has been used consistently. The second finding is that a low number of multigenerational families may not reflect preference but merely the physical limitation imposed by the number of adult children. The larger the size of the family, the higher the prevalence of nuclear families because it is impossible for the grandparents to live in all of their children's households. Conversely, a larger proportion of three generation extended families may be observed when the number of children is lower. Unless particular variables that affect the availability of kin for an extended family are controlled, such as rate of fertility or housing availability (Krivo and Mutchler 1986; Mutchler and Krivo 1989), the assumption that frequency of extended families reflects cultural or economic choices may be inaccurate. Future gerontologic research should focus more on with whom the grandparents live, rather than simple frequency of multigenerational or nuclear families. This is crucial in the interpretation of the frequency of three generation extended Mexican American families due to the high fertility rate in Mexican American families. However, it is advisable that all sociodemographic research use a context-based, cross-culturally referenced perspective when investigating familial organization types. NOTE An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Annual Scientific Meeting of the Gerontological Society of America, San Francisco, CA, December, 1991. Although partial support for a portion of the data collection was provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, the content of this article is my sole responsibility. Also, this research was supported, in part, by training grant AG00030 from the National Institute on Aging. I also want to acknowledge the intellectual contributions and cogent comments of Kaveh Ehsani M.A. and the valuable support of Nicole Sault Ph.D. I am grateful to Martha Storandt Ph.D. for her insightful comments and assistance in the preparation of the manuscript. REFERENCES Anderson, Kristine and Walter Allen 1984 Correlates of Extended Household Structure. Phylon 2: 154--157. Applewhite, S., ed. 1988 Hispanic Elderly in Transition: Theory Research, Policy and Practice. New York: Greenwood Press. Applewhite, S. and M. Sotomayor 1988 The Hispanic Elderly and the Extended Multigenerational Family. In Applewhite, S., ed. The Hispanic Elderly and the Extended Multigenerational Family. New York: Greenwood Press. Bengston, V., C. Rosenthal, C. and L. Burton 1990 Families and Aging. In Binstock, R. and L. George. Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences (Third Ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
146
CAMILOGARCIA
Brownrigg, L. 1991 Rosters and Trends: Census Definitions of Households. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the Society for Applied Anthropology. Chappell, N.L., and B. Havens 1985 Who Helps the Elderly Person? A Discussion of Informal and Formal Care. In Peterson, W.A. and J. Quadagno, eds. Social Bonds in Later Life. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Chappell, N.L. 1991 Living Arrangements and Sources of Caregiving. Journals of Gerontology: Social Sciences 46: s l-s8. Christenson, B.A. and A. Hermalin 1992 A Demographic Decomposition of Elderly Living Arrangements with a Mexican Example. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology 6(3): 331-348. Connidis, I.A., and L. Davies 1990 Confidants and Companions in Later Life: The Place of Family and Friends. Journals of Gerontology: Social Sciences 45: s 141-s 149. Hurtado, A., D. Hayes-Bautista, R. Burciaga Valdez, and A.C. Hernandez 1992 Redefining California: Latino Social Engagement in a Multicultural Society. Los Angeles: UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center. Keefe, Susan Emley 1980 Acculturation and the Extended Family among Urban Mexican Americans. In Padilla, A. ed. Acculturation: Theory, Models and Some New Findings. Westview Press. Krivo, L.J., and J.E. Mutchler 1986 Housing Constraints and Household Complexity in Metropolitan America: Black and Spanish Origin Minorities. Urban Affairs Quarterly 21: 389-409. Litwak, E. 1965 Extended Kin Relations in an Industrial Democratic Society. In E. Shanas and G. Strieb, eds. Social Structure and the Family Generational Relations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Maldonado, D. 1975 The Chicano Aged. Social Work 20: 213-216. Markides, Kyriakos and Krause Neal 1985 Intergenerational Solidarity and Psychological Well Being Among Older Mexican Americans: A Three Generation Study. Journal of Gerontology 40: 390-392. Moore, J. and H. Pachon 1976 (3rd ed.) Mexican Americans. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Morgan, D.L., Tonya L. Schuster, and Edgar W. Butler 1991 Role Reversals in the Exchange of Social Support. Journals of Gerontology: Social Sciences 46: $278-$287. Mutchler, J.E., and L. Kl"ivo 1989 Availability and Affordability: Household Adaptation to a Housing Squeeze. Social Forces 61(2): 508-531. Netting, Robert, Wilk Richard, and E. Arnould 1984 Households: Comparative and Historical Studies of the Domestic Group. Berkeley: University of California Press. Parsons, T. 1942 Age and Sex in the Social Structure of the United States. American Sociological Review 7:604-616. Tienda, Marta, and R. Angel 1982 Headship and Household Composition among Blacks, Hispanics, and Other Whites. Social Forces 61: 508-531. Shanas, E., P. Townsend, D. Wedderbum, H. Friis, P. Miljoj, and J. Strhouwer 1968 Old People in Three Industrial Societies. New York, Atherton Press. Uhlenberg, Peter, and Cooney, T.M. 1991 Family Size and Mother Child Relations in Later Life. The Gerontologist 30: 618-625. Velez-Ibanez, C.G. 1988. Networks of Exchange Among Mexicans in the U.S. and Mexico: Local Level Mediating Responses to National and International Transformations. Urban Anthropology 17: 27-51.
Psychology Department Washington University St. Louis, MO 63130, U.S.A.
WHAT DO WE MEAN BY EXTENDED FAMILY? A CLOSER LOOK AT HISPANIC M U L T I G E N E R A T I O N A L FAMILIES1
ABSTRACT. This study examined an entire residential block of a predominantly Hispanic neighborhood in Southern California. The investigation focused on a comparison of the frequency of extended and nonextended families using structural (household residents) and functional criteria (interaction and exchange) and the reasons nuclear families did not have their grandparents in those household units. Of 48 households, 8 units contained other elements besides the nuclear family. Of these eight, only five units contained the grandparents. Using functional criteria, however, all were extended family households. A low number of multigenerational families based on the structural criterion may not reflect preference, but merely the physical limitation imposed by the number of children. The larger the size of the family, the higher the incidence of nuclear families because it is impossible for the grandparents to be in all their children's households. Unless variables that affect the availability of kin for an extended family, such as rate of fertility or housing availability, are controlled, the assumption that frequency of multigenerational family households reflects cultural or economic choices may be inaccurate. Key Words: Hispanics, households, elderly, family Social gerontologists are increasingly showing the value of kin (Bengston, Rosenthal and Burton 1990) either because these are a source of social support for elderly adults (Chappell 1991; Connidis and Davies 1990), or because elderly people themselves provide support for younger people (Chappell and Havens 1985; Morgan, Schuster and Butler 1991), or even because intergenerational solidarity may have an impact on the psychological well being of the elderly (Markides and Krause 1985). Since the 1940s, the high frequency of households in which the grandparents were not present has been considered a threat to the welfare of elderly adults (Parsons 1942). Hispanic extended families became a specific source of debate among scholars (see Applewhite 1988: 8). The debate has focused either on the decreased frequency of multigenerational households, or on questions regarding the solidarity of these families. After a century of anthropological debates on the family and household concepts (see Netting, Wilk and Arnold 1984), the conceptual difficulties posed by the understanding of domestic organization remain, this time dealing with American society. Sotomayor and Applewhite (1988: 124) suggest that "Differences in opinion regarding the status or prevalence of extended families among Hispanics are certainly related to issues of definition and a dearth of systematic research that can allow generalizations." Similarly, Bengston etal. (1990: 280) reviewed the literature on families and aging and concluded that among the major issues that deserve attention are conceptual development and Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology 8: 137-146, 1993. 9 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
13 8
CAMILOGARCIA
measurement sophistication. Admitting that a good understanding of domestic organization requires the study of social rules, as well as the limitations that the individuals confront in their decisions, this study aimed at a clarification of some definitional issues of the extended family household in light of empirical findings.
The Problem of Definition After the 1960s, family researchers showed that notable interaction occurred among generations even when they did not share the same residence (Litwak 1965; Shanas, Townsend, Wedderburn, Friis, Miljoj and Strhouwer 1968). Litwak coined the term "modified extended family" to describe this phenomenon. This has led to multiple meanings in the definition of the extended family in current research. The most typical aspects that are stressed in different studies are either the structural or the functional characteristics of the family. Structurally, the concept of extended family is applied once a nuclear family incorporates other kin members into the residential group. Although this may seem like a simple event, in practice the structural extension of the nuclear families may lead to a variety of complex events. This complexity represents a challenge because at times it prevents accuracy of definition, and it may even promote misleading interpretations, as can be observed in the following analysis. Figure 1 illustrates how a complex set of family forms may emerge once we add other kin elements to the nuclear family. In this figure, A represents the simplest structure that adds another member to the nuclear family. In some cases researchers require this member to be related kin, but this is not always the case. The second type of structure is represented here by B. This form includes two kin-related nuclear families. Most of the time there is a horizontal relationship. These types of extended families are also identified as joint families. The third type, C, is formed by members of three generations (vertical lines): grandparents, parents, and children. This is the most relevant form for social gerontologists because it is the one that incorporates the elderly. In the literature, all these forms seem to be treated as equivalent. The ambiguity inherent in the structural concept of the extended family is further complicated when the functional criteria are added. Functional criteria, in turn, vary depending on whether families exchange resources or if they simply interact on a regular basis, regardless of physical closeness. Thus, the concept of extended family becomes equivocal due to these major sources of meaning: the structural and functional as represented by criteria of exchange or interaction. The concept of family as it has been used in the U.S. Census deserves special attention. As shown in Table I, the census has shifted from one to another defining characteristic of household and family classifications. In 1910, the definition of a family was simply based on the fact that people were living together. A major shift in the definition of family and household took place in the 1950 census. In that year the family was defined by the social relationship of its members. At the end of this century, the Census Bureau is still struggling for
139
HISPANIC EXTENDED FAMILY
A
(3
/x
/x__~:o I
................................ I: ................................... FI
Ax-O
T
o ...........................
/
..........
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
~..~_
. . . . . . . . . . .
Male
.............................
0
/ . . . . . . . . . . .
0
~
B
-
_I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.....
Female
Fig. 1. Multiple meanings of the concept of extended family. A illustrates the case of any additional member; B illustrates the horizontal extensions, and C illustrates the multigenerational family. a conceptual formulation that accurately defines the housing and living arrangements of the respondents (Brownrigg 1991). The use of different definitions has led to different results in research on the prevalence of Hispanic extended families. Historically, there was a massive migration of rural Mexican Americans to the cities from the 1950s to 1970s. It was expected that the extended family structure would be modified due to urban conditions. Even more, it was predicted that eventually the Hispanic households would conform to the Anglo American pattern. Moore and Pachon (1974) supported this prediction, noting few multigenerational households in two major cities with large Hispanic populations. In this case, extended family was restricted to multigenerational families who were coresident. However, a different criterion and, therefore, different conclusions were proposed in subsequent studies. Using survey data from a predominantly Hispanic population in Southern California, Keefe (1980: 89) defined the extended family from an interactional and exchange perspective as "a localized kin group consisting of a number of related households whose members interact together frequently and exchange mutual aid". Keefe examined interaction at two levels, with primary and secondary kin. She found that Mexican adult recent immigrants, in general, did not have their primary kin with them. The younger did because they only migrate with their parents and siblings. In time this interactional network is expanded. Thus, in time extended families grow in size instead of decreasing.
140
CAMILOGARCIA TABLE I Census definitions for residential and family units used in this century
Census
Primary unit
Criteria
Defining characteristic
1910
Dwelling houses
Place to sleep
Physical
Family
Living together even if not kin related
Physical closeness
1920
Place of abode Where persons said to belong
Belonginess
1940
Household
One set of cooking facilities
Cooking facilities
1950
Household
One per dwelling unit
Family
Two or more related by blood
Could contain families or not Kin relations
1960
Household
One head of household
Leadership
1970
Household
Having complete kitchen
Complete cooking facilities
1980
Housing unit
Lived, ate and had separate access
Family
Consists of a householder and related people living in same household
Own cooking facilities not required. Head not required Relationship by birth, marriage, or adoption
Housing unit
Lives and sleeps
1990
Time
Source for columns 2 and 3: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1989. 200 Years of U.S. Census Taking: Population and housing questions, 1790-1990. Departing from her interactional definition, she concluded that there is no evidence to state that the Mexican American extended family pattern gradually conforms to the Anglo American pattern (Keefe 1980: 103). A decrease in prevalence of extended family households has been interpreted as a measure of the acculturation of ethnic groups to White American culture (Keefe 1980). Keefe's contention was supported indirectly by Tienda and Angel (1982). They explored the reasons for greater prevalence of extended households among Hispanics, Blacks, and Whites using the concept of the extended family household as "those containing at least one other relative of the head, secondary family member, or secondary individual, either adults or children" (1980: 153). Notice that in this case the definition includes a nuclear family plus any additional member sharing the same residential unit. These authors found high prevalence of extended families among Hispanics and Blacks. Furthermore, they attributed this prevalence to economic as well as to cultural reasons. Again, the assumption of cultural preference was implicit. Finally, a clear contrast of findings is observed in two of the most recent studies. In a study based on fieldwork among families in Tucson, using the interactional definition, Velez-Ibanez (1988: 35) reported a high prevalence of
HISPANICEXTENDEDFAMILY
141
extended families among Mexican Americans. However, in a recent study of 1,086 Latino heads of households in California (Hurtado, Hayes-Bautista, Valdez and Hernandez 1992: 16), the authors reported that "the proportion of nuclear families living with extended kin falls from the first generation (26%) to the second and third generations (12% and 9% respectively)". However, in the same study, it was reported that when these respondents were asked about their preference to live close to their kin, this preference did not significantly change across the three generations. Thus, lower frequencies do not mean change of preferences. Leaving aside the conflicting definitions of these studies, an additional problem may arise if we simply interpret the changes in frequencies as resulting from cultural differences. This may imply that every nuclear family has an equal potential of becoming an extended family household and, therefore, that most families exercise choice in becoming a multigenerational family. The actual availability of relatives seems to be an ignored variable. Recent studies (Anderson and Allen 1984; Uhlenberg and Cooney I991) although not strictly related to the extended family issue, have demonstrated that this is a variable that leads to significant differences in living arrangements (Anderson and Allen 1984) or in the well being of the elderly individuals (Uhlenberg and Cooney 1991). In sum, the nonnuclear families phenomenon is more complex than the simple addition of nonnuclear elements. The purpose of the present study was twofold. One was to assess empirically the definitions of extended family. This was done by comparing the results generated by structural and functional (exchange and interaction) criteria. The other was to identify whether the frequency of one or another type of multigenerational family was a matter of choice for the residents. METHOD Data was collected on an entire residential block in 1987. This block is located in a predominantly Hispanic neighborhood in Southern California. This block was selected by the Census Bureau as one that typically represented the Hispanic population because of its location, and because of its highly predominant Hispanic residents. The sample included a total of 48 residential units. Interviews were conducted in 1987. This was done house to house in order to identify the number of residents claimed by the respondents. Additional data collected consisted of their number of residents, the nature of their relationship, their length of stay in the household unit, age, sex, and ethnicity. In addition to the interviews, a single researcher did participant observation for a continuous period of 6 months, and another 6 months on an irregular basis. It was possible to identify all actual residents of this area and to assess the nature of the structural and functional characteristics of their kinship ties, Fieldwork consisted of direct observations all day and participation in residents' regular activities. These included shopping, visiting, participation in
142
CAMILOGARCIA
parties, eating, and special celebrations. These observations allowed a more accurate record of exchange and interaction activities taking place in the community, as well as an identification of the actual residents of the block. The investigation comparing the frequency of extended and non-extended families was conducted as follows. After identifying the household units based on a structural criterion (household residents), the concept of extended family based on interaction was applied whenever families notably interacted on a daily basis with other families, within or outside the block. The concept of extended family based on exchange was applied whenever the family members exchanged monetary and nonmonetary resources with other household units within or outside the block. Once the nuclear families were identified, the reasons for not having their grandparents in those household units were investigated so as to find to what extent their family structure reflected their preferences. RESULTS Table II shows the frequency of nuclear and extended families using the three different criteria. Forty household units were nuclear. Only eight units contained other elements besides the nuclear family. Of these eight, only five units contained the grandparents. TABLE II Frequency of types of families in one block of a Hispanic neighborhood Criteria Type
Households
Exchange
Interaction
Nuclear
40
48
48
Non-nuclear Vertical Horizontal (Joint) Both
8 5 3 0
Using the criteria of interaction and exchange, however, all families were found to be consistently interacting and exchanging resources with other kin. Interactions among families are socially prescribed and self-initiated. For example, following the developmental religious cycle, families interact for baptisms, confirmation, first communion, marriage, and funeral rituals of each of the family members. In addition to religious events, secular rituals include birthday parties for each of the family members, coming of age for fifteen year old girls, and farewell parties. In all these celebrations the party giver is obligated to provide all food and elements for the ritual. In general, it is considered a shame for the host to accept or to request from the guests any material elements for the
HISPANICEXTENDEDFAMILY
143
ritual. Hosts may accept wrapped gifts which they should not open in front of the giver or other guests. From the outsider's view, all these intense giving activities place the recipients in continuous obligation to reciprocate. The more intense the celebration, the more the attendants become obligated to reciprocate to maintain the balance. The interaction is a continuous process in which there is no place for nuclear families to act in isolation. Each of the religious and secular events is a call to activate all kin ties. Thus, all 48 families were defined as extended based on these patterns of intense and frequent interactions. In examining the reasons stated by the nuclear families for not having the grandparents residing with them, it was found that 8 of the 40 nuclear families had grandparents living either in one of the five multigenerational families already identified in that block or in other multigenerational families outside the area. In fact, several nuclear families were related to multigenerational interactional units, forming clusters of families. The multigenerational units were the residence of the grandparents, which were surrounded by a set of nuclear families in separate residences (see Figure 2). All the remaining 32 families claimed that their grandparents were living with their other relatives. None of them reported that the grandparents lived alone.
Fig. 2. Typical multigenerational family surrounded by a set of nuclear families.
Furthermore, a comparison of these clusters of families (Figure 3) revealed that the larger the number of children the grandparents had, the larger the number of nuclear families. It is physically impossible for the grandpare,'ts to live in all of
144
CAMILOGARCIA
I
9
r
m
9
I
9
Fig. 3. Clusters of families illustrating that the larger the number of children the larger the number of nuclear families.
their children's households. For example, the number of possibilities of a threegenerational extended family is different for parents with 10 adult children (B) than it is for those with only 2 (A). Assuming that we count all 10 adult child households in the first case, the rate of three generational extended family households will be 1 out of 10. In the second case, 1 out of the 2 adult child families could be extended family households. A comparison of the two counts will not reflect the preference because in both cases the grandparents actually live in extended family households. Furthermore, when counting all of these hypothetical families as one group, only 2 out of 12 will be three generational extended family households. Quantification alone is not a good indicator of the actual choices for living arrangements and no indication whatever of extended family interaction and exchange patterns. CONCLUSIONS Studies related to the frequency of the extended family should be evaluated for criteria defining "family". Litwak's (1965) and Shanas et al.'s (1968) early work showed that actual interaction takes place among members of nuclear families. However, neither an actual comparison of the two criteria (specifically among Mexican Americans), nor the differences they produce in outcomes seem to have been reported in the literature. In this study, the results of this comparison revealed two major findings. One is that the prevalence of the extended family depends on the criterion used to define it. There was a lower incidence of
HISPANICEXTENDEDFAMILY
145
extended families, especially of the multigenerational type, using the structural criteria (households), than there was using functional criteria (exchange, interaction). Using functional criteria, all families were extended. A true comparison of the different studies that claim a higher or lower incidence of extended families among particular ethnic groups can only be valid if a particular definition has been used consistently. The second finding is that a low number of multigenerational families may not reflect preference but merely the physical limitation imposed by the number of adult children. The larger the size of the family, the higher the prevalence of nuclear families because it is impossible for the grandparents to live in all of their children's households. Conversely, a larger proportion of three generation extended families may be observed when the number of children is lower. Unless particular variables that affect the availability of kin for an extended family are controlled, such as rate of fertility or housing availability (Krivo and Mutchler 1986; Mutchler and Krivo 1989), the assumption that frequency of extended families reflects cultural or economic choices may be inaccurate. Future gerontologic research should focus more on with whom the grandparents live, rather than simple frequency of multigenerational or nuclear families. This is crucial in the interpretation of the frequency of three generation extended Mexican American families due to the high fertility rate in Mexican American families. However, it is advisable that all sociodemographic research use a context-based, cross-culturally referenced perspective when investigating familial organization types. NOTE An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Annual Scientific Meeting of the Gerontological Society of America, San Francisco, CA, December, 1991. Although partial support for a portion of the data collection was provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, the content of this article is my sole responsibility. Also, this research was supported, in part, by training grant AG00030 from the National Institute on Aging. I also want to acknowledge the intellectual contributions and cogent comments of Kaveh Ehsani M.A. and the valuable support of Nicole Sault Ph.D. I am grateful to Martha Storandt Ph.D. for her insightful comments and assistance in the preparation of the manuscript. REFERENCES Anderson, Kristine and Walter Allen 1984 Correlates of Extended Household Structure. Phylon 2: 154--157. Applewhite, S., ed. 1988 Hispanic Elderly in Transition: Theory Research, Policy and Practice. New York: Greenwood Press. Applewhite, S. and M. Sotomayor 1988 The Hispanic Elderly and the Extended Multigenerational Family. In Applewhite, S., ed. The Hispanic Elderly and the Extended Multigenerational Family. New York: Greenwood Press. Bengston, V., C. Rosenthal, C. and L. Burton 1990 Families and Aging. In Binstock, R. and L. George. Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences (Third Ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
146
CAMILOGARCIA
Brownrigg, L. 1991 Rosters and Trends: Census Definitions of Households. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the Society for Applied Anthropology. Chappell, N.L., and B. Havens 1985 Who Helps the Elderly Person? A Discussion of Informal and Formal Care. In Peterson, W.A. and J. Quadagno, eds. Social Bonds in Later Life. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Chappell, N.L. 1991 Living Arrangements and Sources of Caregiving. Journals of Gerontology: Social Sciences 46: s l-s8. Christenson, B.A. and A. Hermalin 1992 A Demographic Decomposition of Elderly Living Arrangements with a Mexican Example. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology 6(3): 331-348. Connidis, I.A., and L. Davies 1990 Confidants and Companions in Later Life: The Place of Family and Friends. Journals of Gerontology: Social Sciences 45: s 141-s 149. Hurtado, A., D. Hayes-Bautista, R. Burciaga Valdez, and A.C. Hernandez 1992 Redefining California: Latino Social Engagement in a Multicultural Society. Los Angeles: UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center. Keefe, Susan Emley 1980 Acculturation and the Extended Family among Urban Mexican Americans. In Padilla, A. ed. Acculturation: Theory, Models and Some New Findings. Westview Press. Krivo, L.J., and J.E. Mutchler 1986 Housing Constraints and Household Complexity in Metropolitan America: Black and Spanish Origin Minorities. Urban Affairs Quarterly 21: 389-409. Litwak, E. 1965 Extended Kin Relations in an Industrial Democratic Society. In E. Shanas and G. Strieb, eds. Social Structure and the Family Generational Relations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Maldonado, D. 1975 The Chicano Aged. Social Work 20: 213-216. Markides, Kyriakos and Krause Neal 1985 Intergenerational Solidarity and Psychological Well Being Among Older Mexican Americans: A Three Generation Study. Journal of Gerontology 40: 390-392. Moore, J. and H. Pachon 1976 (3rd ed.) Mexican Americans. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Morgan, D.L., Tonya L. Schuster, and Edgar W. Butler 1991 Role Reversals in the Exchange of Social Support. Journals of Gerontology: Social Sciences 46: $278-$287. Mutchler, J.E., and L. Kl"ivo 1989 Availability and Affordability: Household Adaptation to a Housing Squeeze. Social Forces 61(2): 508-531. Netting, Robert, Wilk Richard, and E. Arnould 1984 Households: Comparative and Historical Studies of the Domestic Group. Berkeley: University of California Press. Parsons, T. 1942 Age and Sex in the Social Structure of the United States. American Sociological Review 7:604-616. Tienda, Marta, and R. Angel 1982 Headship and Household Composition among Blacks, Hispanics, and Other Whites. Social Forces 61: 508-531. Shanas, E., P. Townsend, D. Wedderbum, H. Friis, P. Miljoj, and J. Strhouwer 1968 Old People in Three Industrial Societies. New York, Atherton Press. Uhlenberg, Peter, and Cooney, T.M. 1991 Family Size and Mother Child Relations in Later Life. The Gerontologist 30: 618-625. Velez-Ibanez, C.G. 1988. Networks of Exchange Among Mexicans in the U.S. and Mexico: Local Level Mediating Responses to National and International Transformations. Urban Anthropology 17: 27-51.
Psychology Department Washington University St. Louis, MO 63130, U.S.A.
