Families in Transition:
Ethnic Case Studies
Dr. Jane Granskog
California State University, Bakersfield
Self, Family and Community: Positive
Dependency
sociological interdependence - self
defined in relationship to family,
community, ancestors, spirits
cyclical continuous flow between each
essential for health and harmony
Self oriented toward personal
interaction
Positive Dependency Flows
Follow own wishes but within a
context limiting boundaries of Self
Control limiting boundaries of Self
instilled by space & sound - respect
& obedience toward elders
Dependency within the Family
Families are viewed as interlocking life units
in which the well-being of one is inherent in
well-being of others
Roles modify as persons move from one
stage to another but not outside group
Bonding with trust is based on demands of
custom v.s. a measure of the individual
performance of given individual
Dependency within the Family
Lateral extended kin - horizontal basis that
carries brunt of dependency flow
Tension diluted by stretching discipline lines
Importance of respect mechanism
Emphasis on mutuality, reciprocity - setting
things right in family disputes through faceto-face encounters (Hawaiian, 'ohana'
practice)
Dependency within the Community
emphasis on sharing, support
between all groups/subunits within
community - reciprocity
emphasis on exchange of services
(time & energy)
importance of “doing” for others involvement, commitment
Types of Independence
Opposing dependency - supremacy of self
outside of flow, emphasis on self first and
foremost (sociological independence Independence Complex)
Positive dependency - freedom to make
choices within a cooperative framework
(caring about others)
Factors Influencing the Nature of
Dependency Flow
Length of time (history) that you've had with
someone - continuity, commonality
Nature of the "kinship" bond (biological vs
non-biological and significance of the
difference)
Nature of the interaction and intensity of the
bond (e.g., life & death situation - wartime
buddies)
Factors Influencing the Nature of
Dependency Flow
Location - distance limits the type &
frequency of interaction (being able to call
upon them), limits involvement
Common interests - ties are with people
with whom you share important parts of
your life - work, school, leisure activities,
etc.
Factors Influencing the Nature of
Dependency Flow
Personal background/history - personality
traits, coming from a disengaged vs
enmeshed family; significance of "poisonous
pedagogy" - disfunctional traits carried from
childhood
Gender and Ethnic Background - differences
in socialization patterns of females v.s. males
and how they are expressed within the sociocultural context
Positive Dependency Features
Commitment (“amae”) - presume on
each other’s convenience, call on in
time of need
Involvement - engaged in daily
activities
Bonding - established history, being a
part of one’s life
Obligation - there to help each other
out
Positive Dependency Features
Reciprocity - doing for one another
Trust - being able to count on one
another, a known quantity
Continuity - sense of
community/”family” that extends
over time
Kinship Exercise
Frequency of interaction -- how often do you
communicate with them, what is the nature
of the communication?
What areas of life do you share with different
members?
 economic - support each other
social - get together at family reunions,
spend week-end in shared activities, etc.
religious - go to church together, etc.
Kinship Exercise
Role obligations and/or responsibilities -what have you done for them recently & what
have they done for you?, when you get into
trouble, who are you most likely to call upon?
Note any patterns in the nature of your
interaction with kin -- do you interact with
some more than others and if so why? Is it
because they live close by, share common
interests and values, and/or because they are
relatives?
Changing Family Dynamics
 1950’s“ traditional family” (focus on structure as
economic unit of production & consumption breadwinner/homemaker) no longer dominant by
1990’s - greater acceptance of plurality of forms
 Significance of “second shift” - changing role of
males & females within home, impact of
“downsizing”, conflicting demands work/home
(40% of labor force, nonstandard work
schedules), increased economic stress on middle
class families
Ethnic Families in America
 Significance of “primordial attachments’- belonging to
a given ethnic group with a unique cultural heritage
 Changing perspective of “Americanization”,
assimilation -renewed ethnic consciousness
 Focus of identity and solidarity lies in family’s ability to
socialize members into ethnic culture
Features of Ethnic Families
Emphasis on family activities - eating "ethnic"
foods
Structure of the family - traditionally typically
large extended families, patriarchal ideal,
father-headed, mother-centered; strong
family orientation; trend to smaller more
nuclear families, increasing impact of
socialization by outside institutions
Features of Ethnic Families -2
Ideology - emphasis on trust within
group/family loyalty to kin first; emphasis on
honor of the family
Cohesion/integration - traditional unity as the
primary social & economic unit, emphasis on
supportive family rituals; presently less likely
to operate as such
Limited Geographic mobility -- place oriented
to a considerable degree
Focus of Articles in Ethnic Families
Historical background of immigration
patterns
Demographic characteristics (rates of
marriage, divorce, intermarriage)
Structure of the family (distribution of
status, authority, responsibility within
nuclear family) & extended kin networks
Focus of Articles in Ethnic Families
Cultural values - achievement, style of life,
educational & occupational aspirations;
reflected in socialization patterns
Characteristics at different stages of the
family life cycle - form of
acculturation/assimilation taking place
Overview of Immigrant Family in U.S.
18th cen. Mercantilism, great transformation
to large scale capitalist enterprises w/ rise of
proletariats in 19th cen. (push factors);
opportunities in U.S. (pull factors)
Immigration waves: 1) 1832-82 (old); 2)
1882-1930 (new - Irish, Germans); 3)”great
lull” 1925-’65; 4) 1965 on - Asians, Indians,
Pacific Islders., circular & transmodern
migration patterns
Black American Family
Importance of a holistic approach to studying
African American families in context
Four cultural traits distinguishing Black
Americans from other immigrants:
Are from countries with very different norms &
values
Are from many different tribes & cultures
First came without women
Came in bondage
Black American Family
Major problems with most studies of black
family life in past, focus on low income
groups, presumed to fit various stereotypes
by social scientists (few studies until 1970’s) two major perspectives:
Pathological, disorganization perspective
Strength-resiliency perspective
Black American Family Perspectives
Pathological view goes back to slavery period
- supported by both pro- & anti-slavery
groups (either not capable of stable family life
or such was not possible under conditions of
slavery), views family as deviant/maladaptive
 ignores variability in family types & existence
of free black families
Black American Family Perspectives
Frazier - 1930’s - concerned with assimilation
of blacks in America - viewed “moral
disorganization” of black families as
impediment to assimilation, failure to keep
sexual urges under control;
1965 Moynihan, re-affirmed, view of
matrifocal families as disfunctional, associated
w/ culture of poverty.
Black American Family Perspectives
Strength resiliency perspective emerges in
1968 w/ Billingsley; focus on adaptive
mechanisms of family to meet conflicting
demands placed on it; strong role of women
Major strengths - strong kinship bonds,
strong work orientation, adaptability of family
roles, high achievement & religious
orientation
Black American Family
 Stack - focus on strategies used in black networks to
survive in poor urban environments; domestic networks;
focuses on reciprocal exchange & mutual aid among kin
& non-kin (not always as effective as stated)
 Staples: majority of Black families have nuclear model
(1972 - 2/3 w/ husband & wife);
 significant variables: education, work, income
Modern Black American Family
1960-’70-’80 decline in fertility rate (birth rate
of college-educated black women lower than
white counterparts); increase in out of
wedlock births, co-habiting couples;
Distinction of family vs non family households
- diversity in composition (nuclear, extended
& augmented family households
130% increase in female headed households
(discrimination, urban living, poverty); 45%
unemployment rate of black men
Modern Black American Family
Black kinship network more extensive &
cohesive than among Anglos, take in relatives
more readily, rely on kin more
Role relations - egalitarian, husbands involved in
decision making; high value of children
Economic problems major factor in marital
conflict, imbalanced sex ratio, increase in
interracial dating & marriage
Native Americans
Significant variation among diverse cultures
ranging from hunter gatherers to agricultural
states; described primarily by anthropologists in
terms of 10-12 cultural areas
Major impact of contact - disease (1/2+ of
Indian languages extinct), policy of
extermination (vs incorporation characterized by
Spanish territories)
Native Americans vs Europeans
Contrasts
 Indian marriages public, customary, contract between
kin groups VS European marriages - private legal
contract between individuals
 Indians tolerant of & expressed diversity of marriage
forms (polygamy, monogamy etc) & descent systems
VS Europeans - monogamy, nuclear family, bilateral
inheritance only
Native Americans vs Europeans Contrasts
Indians - significant variation in level of social
organization & kin terminology systems VS
Europeans - not significant
Attitudes re: kinship: European failure to
understand different kin structures especially
of matrilineal groups lead to breakdown of kin
systems
Acculturation of Native Americans
forced acculturation to Anglo-European
practices via missionary efforts (e.g., “proper”
marriage); education (B.I.A., boarding schools);
racist federal policies - force individual land
holding (loss of land), economic conditions on
reservations, inducements to relocate to urban
areas; intermarriages - Indian women marrying
non-status whites, lost traditional rights
Modern Native American Families
are approximately 300 federally recognized
tribes + another 100 non-recognized tribes
(east, California)
despite forced acculturation + influence of
American popular culture on N. American
youth, & 500 years of ethnocide, significant
differences in family practices & values remain
Modern Native American Families
key values - cooperation, balance , harmony,
kinship, respect -interrelation of all life, P.D.N.
up to early ‘60’s, dominant view based on early
anthro studies - extended family seen as norm;
families classified by degree of acculturation
do not have definitive, current research to
document changes in Native American family life
Modern Native American Families
problems with classification of “extended family
networks”, what constitutes extended - Red
Horse’s typology; Native American families are
more firmly based on interdependence (e.g.,
child rearing, ego identity)
types based on degree of assimilation - reflected
in degree of intermarriage (white father,
grandfather, husband, +school teachers, clergy)
Modern Native American Families
Miller’s typology based on degree to which have
Indian/White values & behaviors - traditional
(Indian values); transitional (adapts to white
means & ends); bicultural (Indian values + adapt
to whites); marginal (anomic in both worlds)
bicultural considered to be most well-adjusted
greater availability & proximity of kin, effect on
support networks
Modern Native American Families
ways in which researchers define & measure
family extension critical
measures - household composition, residential
propinquity
best measure - effective or functioning support
network based on interaction & proximity of
residence
Native American Socio-demographics
fastest growing, youngest population (1.4 million
+ 6.7 million partial descent); median age lower
than general population
more women of childbearing age, more are also
adolescents
23% all Native Am. families, female headed; over
1/4th live in povery; high rates of unemployment
Native American Sociodemographics
intermariage increased 20% ‘70 to ‘80; 50%,
married to another race
socialization - less acculturated, higher self
esteem, acculturation--destructive effect
gender differences: women, concern w/ kinfolk,
family, marriage, sex; men, employment, money,
success, material matters; men’s roles more
changed than women
Gay and Lesbian Families
 Major shift from 1960s-’70s to late 1980s significant upsurge in # of children w/ 1 or 2
gay/lesbian parent; 1989 Denmark legalized gay
marriage, 2001 Netherlands gave full legal rights to
same-sex marriages; on-going controversy in U.S.
 Impact of sexual revolution, alternative
reproductive technologies, continued discrimination
& backlash re: “The Family” (DOMA-1996);
redefining family in social vs. biological terms;
 Legitimizing same-sex marriages significant impact
recognizing plurality of diverse vibrant family forms
(2001 Gallup poll--opposition dropped to 52%)
Diversity Among Latino Families
Historical view - biased perspectives, focus on
one family form vs. diverse forms present,
tendency to see as “traditional”, disorganized
and dysfunctiona;
Impact of economic restructuring &
immigration on global basis; 4 factors - new
technologies (computer chip), global
interdependence, flight of capital, &
dominance of info. & service sectors; new
demands for immigrant labor
Mexican-American Family
Significance of impact of history of
colonization by Spain & conflict with U.S. on
demographics of Mexican Americans
Key events: Mexican-American War (1846’48); 1880-1930 & Bracero Program (1942’64) -- significant increase due to need for
labor
Mexican-American Family
 pop. of Mexican origin tripled from 4.5million in
‘70 to 13.5 million in 1990; presently 60%+ of
total Hispanic population (2/3 native born);
 majority (86%) in Arizona, California, Colorado,
New Mexico, & Texas
Highly heterogeneous population with variable
family structures depending on region,
education, time of migration, social class, etc.;
marked by low family income, high labor force
participation -- largest average household size of
all Latino groups
Mexican-American Family
traits of Mexican Americans thought to
affect/reflect family patterns - person oriented vs
goal oriented (emphasis on interpersonal
relations); less materialistic & competitive than
Anglos, material goods, a means to an end
stereotypes of traditional family involve
positive/negative interpretations of structural
features
Traditional Mexican-American Family
Features
 Familism (la familia) - key role of family to all
members, major support in attaining all goals; warm,
nurturing, stable structure
 Male dominance - machismo - stereotypes-aggression, sexual prowess; real machismo emphasis on honor of family, courage, generosity,
respect for others including role of wife & children;
marianismo (matrifocality)
Traditional Mexican-American Family
Sex & age grading - females submissive to
males, young to elders - stereotypes overlook
functions of each within extended peasant
family; respect for elders, role of eldest son,
authority over sisters & younger children
Features of traditional family were a response
to needs for survival; importance of familism
remains strong despite other changes
Modern Mexican-American Family
Primarily located in cities (85%) in SW
Young median age, slightly more males than
females; among hispanics, lowest median
income except for Puerto Rican families; blue
collar jobs predominant
significantly larger than other ethnic families;
lowest level of education (median school
years); disproportionate number low S.E.S
Cuban American Family - Immigration
Long term immigration patterns between
Cuba & Florida; key turning point 1/1/59 with
advent of Castro
By 1986, U.S. Cuban population = 1 million
Six stages of immigration between 1959-80 commercial flights, airlifts, fewer by small
boats & rafts
Cuban American Family
Because of key economic role of women,
traditional patriarchal structure of family
disrupted; now more egalitarian in role relations
Key feature - Biculturalism & bilingualism Cubans, significant impact on host culture - 3
stages: acculturation, retention of original Cuban
culture, syncretism (all within family unit); also a
source of tension between parents & children
Puerto Rican American Family
 Immigration of working class linked to politicaleconomic relation between two countries with major
immigration after WWII, especially in 1950’s with
industrialization efforts in P.R.
 Source of cheap labor in services agriculture &
garment industry; most between ages 15-39.
 Majority in urban areas, New York; migration marked
by ebb & flow, marked return migration
Puerto Rican American Family
 modified extended family predominant with emphasis
on family interdependence, needing others for support
(P.D.N.)
 emphasis on compadrazgo, hijos de crianza
 machismo & marianismo (mother role key)
 respeto - generalized deference to superiors; emphasis
on personalismo - face to face, informal, personal
relations
Puerto Rican American Family
High number of poor, female headed
households, blue collar, service jobs; out-group
marriage patterns (‘49-’69) indicate rapid
assimilation
Four types of familial household structures:
modified extended family; nuclear family;
blended nuclear (Fa/Mo/So/Da/Step children);
single parent families - typology overlooks
blending of forms
Puerto Rican American Family
Modified extended family primary support
system, 1st & 2nd generations
Emphasis on familism, interdependence, family
unity (obligation for assistance)
Respeto related to age/sex hierarchy - status
increases with age (elder parents)
Strict dichotomy between genders (ideology of
male dominance prevails)
Zapotec Peasants
agricultural village in Oaxaca, Mexico; pop.
~1,250 in late ‘60’s; patrilocal, ext. family, ideal
3 central values representing good:
 humility (we are all equally poor, attend to
others, obedience to authority);
 trust (character, taking people at word);
 respect (manipulating social hierarchy to
benefit one, granting favors)
Zapotec Peasants
 evil - institutionalized envy - opposite of that which is
good - always making invidious comparisons; mark of
disharmony, witchcraft
 categories of kin - “insiders” (close to me) vs
“outsiders” (people who mean nothing, or may be
something to me); is an endogamous village, thus a
matter of manipulating kin ties
 deviant person is one with defective kin ties;
Zapotec Peasant Ideology
 community ideology re: sexual behavior - only between
married individuals, are punished for extramarital
affairs; incest, abhorrent to community, punished by
authorities.
 reality - only person without extramarital affairs is the
deviant; no clear notion of adultery; gossip about
sexual affairs constant, but one who informs is viewed
as most deviant; incest occurs often; no real
punishment for adultery
Zapotec Peasants
major ritual & religious symbols of society
built upon association with “insiders”
 compadrazgo ties extend to 4 generations;
everyone related thru blood & marriage
strategy to follow - keep number of insider
ties to minimum needed to maximize security
The Korean-American Family - History
pioneer immigration to Hawaii 1903-05
(uneducated, unskilled laborers);
 Korean war brides, 1950's - intermarriage
with servicemen, higher divorce rates
 main immigration after 1965 Immigration Act
(3rd largest after Mexicans & Filipinos, key
emphasis on family unity - increased numbers
of kin brought over), educated professionals
& technicians
The Korean-American Family
traditional family - patriarchal, strong
influence of Confucianism (respect for &
obedience to parents & elders, filial
piety/ancestor worship);
 married women did not work, subordinate
to husband’s authority
 education viewed as the main avenue for
social mobility
New Korean Immigrants
primarily West Coast (30% in California) - in
large urban areas - Los Angeles, New York,
Chicago
larger families (live with parents until
marriage), lower divorce rate than Americans
(higher than in Korea)
high female labor-force participation rate mostly in small businesses --grocery stores,
green groceries, fast food services (unable to
find jobs to match status in Korea);
New Korean Immigrants
double day for women; continued traditional
socialization for boys & girls
strengthened conjugal ties, focus on family
(positive dependency); strong extended kin
ties
primary area of inter-group conflict - white
suppliers, black ghetto residents
The Chinese-American Family
In the U.S., significant numbers for 130+
years; largest Asian group in U.S.
little research on Chinese-American family,
no typical family
major features - stable family unit (low
divorce & illegitimacy); close ties between
generations; economic self-sufficiency
The Chinese-American Family
traditional family - patriarchal, patrilocal,
patrilineal - father & eldest son primary
authority; ancestor worship, filial piety
(significance of tzu); concept of "face"
Acculturation - lessening of above, also
reflected in the increase in interracial
marriages among young
Chinese Immigration Patterns
"Mutilated"/"split" family (1850-1920) primarily men (Chinese Exclusion Act, 1882,
1888 Scott Act)
Small producer family (1920-43) - second
generation Chinese population
(discrimination of 1924 Immigration Act citizens with chinese ancestry not allowed to
send for wives & families)
Chinese Immigration Patterns
Normalization of Chinese family (1943-65) 1945 War Brides Act, 1948 Displaced Persons
Act
Ghetto & professional Chinese family (1965present) - ghetto - dual worker family, new
immigrants in Chinatown (segregation work &
family life); professional - middle-class, whitecollar, suburbs, more modern & cosmopolitan
- "semiextended" family points to continued
importance of kin ties
Male Dominance in Peasant Families
Four Features of Peasant Society
Clearcut ideology of male dominance - does
not necessarily reflect the reality of the
peasant situation particularly with respect to
the role women play.
A preference toward males in inheritance
rules and residence patterns.
Male Dominance in Peasant Families
Predominance of males in prestigious
productive activities, namely agriculture,
which does NOT necessarily indicate who
controls or makes the most decisions
regarding the allocation of products
Social segregation of the sexes with an
emphasis on male authority within the
household
Presence of Complementary Roles in
the Peasant Family
Women are primarily associated with the
domestic domain, which is of central
importance in peasant society (source of
female power)
Peasants are relatively powerless in their
relationship to the larger society of which
they are a part, and face-to-face interaction is
significant within the community.
Presence of Complementary Roles in
the Peasant Family
 Ergo, informal relationships and forms of
power are as significant as formal authorized
relations and forms of power (this serves as a
second basis of female power)
Males have greater access to jural and other
formal rights and are occupied with activities
overtly considered to be important. (This is
the basis of the ideology of male dominance.)
Peasant Family Structure
Men and women are equally dependent on
each other in important ways. (Source of the
balance of power between the sexes.).
In summary, the first two components above,
provide the basis for feminine power; the third
insures the presence of an ideology of male
dominance; and the fourth, maintenance of a
balance of power between the sexes
(complementarity) which is achieved by acting
out the "myth" of male dominance.
Vietnamese American Family
Approximately 600,000 currently in U.S.,
more than 1 million have fled to the West
Traditional society/culture - 4 classes:
scholars (most respected); peasant farmers;
craftsmen; businessmen
village next in importance after family as a
positive dependency network
patriarchal family, center of individual’s life
History of Immigration - Four Waves
Educated - end of the war, April ‘75, more
educated, successful adaptation
Boat people - ‘78-’79 - ethnic chinese
vietnamese business people
Escapees - via Thailand, Malaysia, walked
across Laos etc.
Orderly departees emigrated in “79 after Viet.
govt. allowed them to join relatives abroad
Traditional Vietnamese Extended
Family - Ho
Truong Toc - head of family, oldest male,
responsible for care of ancestors
Mother - no power, privileges, obey father,
husband, eldest son; only area of equality,
property & debts; had rights only as a
mother, obeyed & respected by children
Piety for parents, most significant moral
obligation
Traditional Socialization & Marriage
sex segregation in socialization, fa-son; mo-da;
mother blamed for child’s misconduct
siblings, age-hierarchy significant; share all
within family
boys, formal schooling, not for girls
boys - may marry at 16 (usually later), girls,
13; arranged by family; emphasis on children;
patrilocal residence; taboo to marry foreigners
Vietnamese Family in America
U.S. - Texas & especially California (highest
number of SE Asian refugees)
significant values - care for family members,
family first before individual, self-sufficiency
based on family;
compared with other Asian Americans, have
highest percentage of extended families
(55%)
Vietnamese Family in America
four family patterns - nuclear family;
incomplete extended family; broken family
(father or mother, some children, rest in
Vietnam or dead); one person family
young population; only Asian group with high
percentage of female-headed households
Vietnamese Family in America
Changes - more freedom/independence by
young; father less absolute control;
women, significantly higher fertility than other
Asian Americans (fewer kids w/ more
education);
Conflicts: Vietnamese vs American identity
(“marginal man”), parents & children; role
conflict between husband/wife; less respect for
aged
Japanese American Family
Difficulties attached to stereotypes persist
because are localized to California & Hawaii,
& because little research done until recently
Significant immigration after 1890 - young
male agricultural workers (discrimination
similar to Chinese)
Japanese Americans
Issei - immigrants (1st generation, restrictive
rules); Nisei (2nd generation - American born,
1910-45); Sansei (3rd generation)
Issei - membership by situation - identity w/
group for social support, loyalty; society seen
as a large family; group control of behavior
Japanese Americans - Issei
importance of ie, traditional household residence important, arranged marriages,
patriarchal, emphasis on eldest son
rank & status determined by age, sex, and
period of service (seniority) - significance of
enryo (restraint/reserve)
Japanese American Family
influence of Japanese culture decreases w/
each generation, 1/3rd Jap. women &
increasing number of males marry out (5%
Issei,15% Nisei, 50%+ Sansei);
 relatively slow acculturation due to
descrimination
Japanese American Family Values
emphasis on duties & responsibilities - filial
piety (family unity);
socialization via dependence on group, avoid
direct confrontation, “losing face”;
enryo - showing restraint, awareness of
hierarchial status
 amae - need to be loved/cherished, depend
on & presume another’s benevolence