Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T08:26:52.484Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Filial Obligations and Kin Support for Elderly People

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 November 2008

Janet Finch  and
Jennifer Mason
Janet Finch
Affiliation:
Department of Social Administration, University of Lancaster, U.K.
Jennifer Mason
Affiliation:
Department of Social Administration, University of Lancaster, U.K.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article explores the nature of obligation and responsibility within kin groups, focusing particularly upon how far these underscore the assistance which may be offered by children to their elderly parents. Both quantitative and qualitative data, drawn from a study of family obligations in the north-west of England, are discussed. The authors argue that relationships between parents and children are founded on a sense of obligation up to a point, but assent for this is not universal and such obligations are seen as having definite limits. To understand how obligations operate in practice, it is necessary to focus upon the way in which support for elderly parents is a matter for negotiation in families, and to examine the principles which are incorporated into such negotiations.

Type
Research Article
Information
Ageing & Society , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , June 1990 , pp. 151 - 175
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

1 For example, Ungerson, C., Policy is Personal. Tavistock, London, 1987Google Scholar; Lewis, J. and Meredith, B.Daughters Who Care. Routledge, London, 1988.Google Scholar

2 Morgan, D. H. J., Social Theory and the Family. RKP, London, 1975.Google Scholar

3 Bott, E., The Family and Social Network. Tavistock, London, 1957;Google ScholarYoung, M. and Willmott, P., Family and Kinship in East London. Routledge, London, 1957;Google ScholarWillmot, P. and Young, M., Family and Class in a London Suburb. Routledge, London, 1960;Google ScholarBell, C., Middle Class Families. RKP, London, 1968CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Firth, R., Hubert, J. and Forge, A.Families and their Relatives. RKP, London, 1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Townsend, P.The Family Life of Old People. RKP, London, 1957.Google Scholar

5 Firth, et al. op. cit.;Google ScholarAllan, G., Kinship, responsibility and care for elderly people. Ageing and Society, 8 (1988), 249–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Firth, et al. op. cit.;Google ScholarWenger, G. C., The Supportive Network. Allen and Unwin, London, 1984Google Scholar; Qureshi, H. and Simons, K., ‘Resources within families: caring for elderly people’, in Brannen, J. and Wilson, G. (eds), Give and Take in Families. Allen and Unwin, London, 1987.Google Scholar

7 Graham, H., ‘Caring: a labour of love’, in Finch, J. and Groves, D. (eds), A Labour of Love: Women, Work and Caring. RKP, London, 1983;Google ScholarCornwell, J., Hard Earned Lives. Tavistock, London, 1984Google Scholar Ungerson op. cit.

8 The two-stage research design, which was fairly complex and reflected the conceptual framework within which we were working. We are not discussing this here, but have written about it elsewhere: Finch, J. ‘Family obligations and the life course’, in Bryman, A. et al. (eds), Rethinking the Life Cycle. Macmillan, London, 1987;Google ScholarFinch, J. and Mason, J., ‘Decision-taking in the fieldwork process’, in Burgess, R. G. (ed), Reflections of Field Experience. JAI Press, London, 1990.Google Scholar

9 For discussion see: Finch, J., The vignette technique in survey research. Sociology, 21, 1 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 This and other attitude statements in our survey were taken from another study, in Scotland in 1982, directed by Patrick West. Patterns of response to this question were similar on both surveys: (See West, P., the family, the welfare state and community care: political rhetoric and public attitudes. Journal of Social Policy, 13, 4, (1984) 417–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar There were some differences among our survey population in answering the attitude statement about filial obligations. Notably, older people were more divided in their views than younger people. In the 18–29 age group, 65% supported the principle of filial obligations.

11 Finch, J., Family Obligations and Social Change. Polity, Cambridge, 1989.Google Scholar

12 The procedure for selecting interviewees at this second stage was complex, and we have not provided details in this paper. It is discussed in Finch, and Mason, , op. cit. 1990.Google Scholar

13 Our policy on maintaining confidentiality is as follows. All interviewees are referred to by pseudonymns, which we invited them to choose themselves. In some instances certain details of people's circumstances, which might make them recognisable, have been changed as a further guarantee of anonymity.

14 Qureshi, H., ‘Responses to dependency: reciprocity, affect and power in family relationships’, in Phillipson, C. et al. (eds), Dependency and Interdependence in Old Age. Croom Helm, London, 1986;Google Scholar see also Qureshi, and Simons, , op. cit. 1987.Google Scholar

15 Ungerson, , op. cit. 1987.Google Scholar

16 We see the same phenomenon in our survey data and are exploring this point elsewhere. See Finch, J. and Mason, J., Family Responsibilities in Britain. Unwin Hyman, London, forthcoming.Google Scholar

17 See Finch, and Mason, , op. cit. 1990.Google Scholar