Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T22:00:39.221Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Liminality and Low-Income Aging Families by Choice: Meanings of Family and Support*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 October 2014

Susan McDaniel  and
Amber Gazso
Susan McDaniel
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, University of Lethbridge
Amber Gazso
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, York University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Through the lens of individualization, aging families demonstrate changes both in family composition and in meanings of family and support. So, also, do low-income families that – in order to survive – choose flexible, sometimes novel, social-support relations, including kin and non-kin: these are aging families by choice. Applying the concept of liminality (transitional states of being) created through individualization, we explored the experiences of close relations in low-income families consisting of aging kin and non-kin members. Qualitative interviews with respondents representing two or three generations of aging families of choice illustrated how these families perceive the meanings of family and social support. We find that reciprocity is less vital to relationships of older with younger members in familial networks than may be expected. Liminality contours meanings and exchanges in low-income aging families of choice such that no matter how tenuous relations may be, they provide a sense of belonging and meaning.

Résumé

Le vieillissement, à travers la lentille de l'individualisation, démontre des changements, tant dans la composition de la famille et le sens de la famille et du soutien. Les familles à faible revenu qui – pour survivre – aussi choisissent parfois de nouvelles relations flexibles de soutien social, y compris les parents et non-parents : celles sont les familles vieillissantes par choix. En appliquant le concept de liminalité (états transitoires de l’être), créé par l’individualisation, nous avons exploré les expériences de liens étroits dans les familles à faible revenu constitutées de parents et membres non-parents vieillissants. Des entretiens qualitatifs avec des répondants représentant deux ou trois générations de familles vieillissantes par choix ont montré comment ces familles perçoivent les sens de la famille et du soutien social. Nous trouvons que la reciprocité est moins essentielle aux rapports entre les plus vieux et les plus jeunes dans les réseaux familiaux que l’on pourrait s’attendre. La liminalité façonne les sens et les échanges dans les familles vieillissantes à faible revenu par choix, de sorte que n’importe la façon dont les relations soient-elles ténues, elles procurent un sentiment d’appartenance et de la signification.

Keywords

agingfamilies by choiceliminalitylow incomesocial supportsvieillissmentfamilles par choixliminalitéà faible revenusoutiens sociaux
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement , Volume 33 , Issue 4: Special Issue on Aging Families , December 2014 , pp. 400 - 412
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association on Gerontology 2014 

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.)

Footnotes

*

This research was supported by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Standard Research Grant, No. 410-2008-1996.We gratefully acknowledge the time and energy with which respondents volunteered to be interviewed for this study. We also thank Katherine Osterlund, Amal Hanna, and Jackie Boyce for their valuable research assistance in data collection and analysis. The article also benefitted from comments offered at the symposium on Aging Families at the University of Victoria, June 2013. Further, we thank the editors of the Canadian Journal on Aging and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments which significantly improved the article.

References

Anderson, K. (2001). A recognition of being: Reconstructing native womanhood. Toronto, ON: Sumach Press.Google Scholar
Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). Reinventing the family: In search of new lifestyles. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (1995). The normal chaos of love. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2001). Individualization. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
Beck, U., Giddens, A., & Lash, S. (1994). Reflexive modernization: Politics, tradition and aesthetics in modern social order. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Bezanson, K. (2006). Gender, the state, and social reproduction: Household insecurity in neo-liberal times. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campaign 2000. (2012). Needed: A federal action plan to eradicate child and family poverty in Canada. Family Service Toronto. Retrieved 12 April 2013 fromhttp://www.campaign2000.ca/reportCards/national/C2000ReportCardNov2012.pdf.Google Scholar
Cooke, M., & Gazso, A. (2009). Taking a life course perspective on social assistance use in Canada: A different approach. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 34(2), 349–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Currie, C. L., Wild, T. C., Schopflocher, D. P., Laing, L., & Veugelers, P. (2013). Ilicit and prescription drug problems among urban Aboriginal adults in Canada: The role of traditional culture in protection and resilience. Social Science and Medicine, 88, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edin, K., & Lein, L. (1997). Making ends meet: How single mothers survive welfare and low-wage work. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Elder, G. H. Jr. (1994). Time, human agency, and social change: Perspectives on the life course. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57(1), 4–15.Google Scholar
Gazso, A. & McDaniel, S. A. (2014). Families by choice and the management of low income through social supports. Journal of Family Issues, forthcoming (accepted 24-01-13).Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1992). The transformation of intimacy: Sexuality, love & eroticism in modern societies. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Higgs, P., & Giellard, C. (2010). Generationing conflict, consumption and the ageing welfare state in the United Kingdom. Ageing and Society, 30(8), 1439–1451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lash, S. (2001). Forward by Scott Lash: Individualization in a non-linear mode. In Beck, U. & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (Eds.), Individualization (pp. vii–xiii). London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
McDaniel, S. A. (1996). Towards a synthesis of feminist and demographic perspectives on fertility. The Sociological Quarterly, 37(1), 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDaniel, S. A. (2001). ‘Born at the right time’: Gendered generations and webs of entitlement and responsibility. The Canadian Journal of Sociology, 26(2), 193–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDaniel, S. A., & Bernard, P. (2011). Life course as a policy lens: Challenges and opportunities. Canadian Public Policy, 37(Supplement), S1–S13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDaniel, S. A., Gazso, A., & Um, S. (2013). Generationing relations in challenging times: Americans and Canadians in mid-life in the Great Recession. Current Sociology, 61(3), 301–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morissette, R., & Picot, G. (2005). Low paid work and economically vulnerable families over the last few decades. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada. Catalogue no. 11F0019MIE - No. 248.Google Scholar
Morse, J. M., & Richards, L. (2002). Read me first for a user’s guide to qualitative methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Muraco, A. (2006). Intentional families: Fictive kin ties between cross-gender, different sexual orientation friends. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 1313–1325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Council of Welfare. (2006). Poverty profile, 2002 and 2003. National Council of Welfare. Retrieved 22 November 2008 fromhttp://www.ncwcnbes.net/documents/researchpublications/ResearchProjects/PovertyProfile/2002-03Report_Summer2006/ReportENG.pdf.Google Scholar
Nelson, M. K. (2006). Single mothers “Do” family. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 781–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Offer, S. (2012 ). The burden of reciprocity: Processes of exclusion and withdrawal from personal networks among low-income families. Current Sociology, 60(6), 788–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Organization for Economic and Cooperative Development. (2011). Growing income inequality in OECD countries: What drives it and how can policy tackle it? Organization for Economic and Cooperative Development. Retrieved 20 July 2013 fromhttp://www.oecd.org/els/soc/47723414.pdf.Google Scholar
Pahl, R., Spencer, L. (2004). Personal communities: Not simply families of ‘fate’ or ‘choice.’ Current Sociology, 62(2), 199–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pernille, D., Holstein, B., Lund, R., Modvig, J., & Avlund, K. (1999). Social relations: Network, support, and relational Strain. Social Science & Medicine, 48(5), 661–673.Google Scholar
Picot, G., & Myles, J. (2005). Income inequality and low income in Canada: An international perspective. Analytical Paper Series. Statistics Canada. Retrieved 12 April 2013. fromhttp://publications.gc.ca/Collection/Statcan/11F0019MIE/11F0019MIE2005240.pdf.Google Scholar
Ribbens McCarthy, J., Edwards, R., & Gillies, V. (2003). Making families: Moral tales of parenting and step-parenting. Durham, U.K.: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
Roseneil, S., & Budgeon, S. (2004). Cultures of intimacy and care beyond ‘the family’: Personal life and social change in the early 21st century. Current Sociology, 52(2), 135–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmeeckle, M., Giarrusso, R., Feng, D., & Bengtson, V. L. (2006). What makes someone family? Adult children’s perceptions of current and former stepparents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 595–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, J. & Alwin, D. (1998). Retrospective versus prospective measurement of life histories in longitudinal research. In Giele, J.Z. and Elder, G. H. Jr. (Eds.). Methods of life course research (pp. 98–127). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Smart, C., & Shipman, B. (2004). Visions in monochrome: Families, marriage, and the Individualization thesis. British Journal of Sociology, 55, 491–509.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stacey, J. (1990). Brave new families: Stories of domestic upheaval in late 29th century America. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Stacey, J. (2011). Unhitched: Love, marriage, and family values from West Hollywood to Western China. New York, NY: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Stack, C.B. (1974). All our kin: Strategies for survival in a Black community. New York, NY: Harper Torchbooks, Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Statistics Canada. (2007a). 2006 Census: Families, marital status, households and dwelling characteristics. The Daily. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada. Retrieved 11 May 2011 fromhttp://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/070912/dq070912a-eng.htm.Google Scholar
Statistics Canada. (2007b). Family portrait: Continuity and change in Canadian families and households in 2006: Findings, by A. Milan, M. Vézina, & C.Wells. Retrieved 25 September 2007 fromhttp://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/analysis/famhouse/index.cfm.Google Scholar
Statistics Canada. (2010). Women in Canada: Economic well-being. The Daily. Ottawa, ON: Author. Retrieved 12 April 2013 fromhttp://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/101216/dq101216c-eng.htm.Google Scholar
Statistics Canada. (2011a). Age and sex structure: Canada, provinces and territories, 2010, by Ann Milan, The Demographic Situation in Canada. Catalogue No. 91-209-X. Retrieved 6 December 2013 fromhttp://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-209-x/2011001/article/11511-eng.pdf.Google Scholar
Statistics Canada. (2011b). Women in Canada: A gender-based statistical report. Ottawa, ON: Author. Retrieved 26 April 2013 fromhttp://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-503-x/2010001/article/11441-eng.htm#a7.Google Scholar
Statistics Canada. (2012). Portrait of families and living arrangements in Canada. Families, households, and marital status: 2011 Census of Population. Ottawa, ON: Author. Retrieved 15 February 2013 fromhttp://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/98-312-x/98-312-x2011001-eng.pdf.Google Scholar
Statistics Canada. (2013). Income of Canadians, 2011. The Daily June 27, 2013. Ottawa, ON: Author. Retrieved 27 June 2013 fromhttp://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/130627/dq130627c-eng.htm.Google Scholar
Tang, T. N., Oatley, K., & Toner, B. B. (2007). Impact of life events and difficulties on the mental health of Chinese immigrant women. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 9, 281–290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tastsoglu, E., & Preston, V. (2005). Gender, immigration and labour market integration: Where we are and what we still need to know. Atlantis, 30, 46–59.Google Scholar
Turner, V. (1969). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. Chicago, IL: Aldine.Google Scholar
Weeks, J., Heaphy, B., & Donovan, C. (2001). Same-sex intimacies: Families of choice and other life experiments. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Yalnizyan, A. (2007). The rich and the rest of us: The changing face of Canada’s growing gap. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Retrieved 20 July 2013 fromhttp://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National_Office_Pubs/2007/The_Rich_and_the_Rest_of_Us.pdf.Google Scholar
Yalnizyan, A. (2010). The rise of Canada’s richest 1%. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Retrieved 1 March 2013 fromhttp://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National%20Office/2010/12/Richest%201%20Percent.pdf.Google Scholar
Yarnal, C. M. (2006). The Red Hat Society®: Exploring the role of play, liminality, and communitas in older women’s lives. Journal of Women and Aging, 18, 51–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar