Increased geographical mobility, improved medical treatment, and prolonged life expectancy have changed the way of life for older persons and their next of kin. This chapter discusses intergenerational care, mainly from the next of kin’s point of view, when an older family member and the next of kin live far from each other. The study is based on my—the author’s—autoethnographic account of the experience after my father suffered a stroke a few years ago. Inspired by Ellis et al. (2011, p. 392), who stated that autoethnography may ‘analyse personal experience in order to understand cultural experience’, I use my father’s and my own experiences to analyse how geographical distance and serious illness impact intergenerational care and kinship. While I argue that intergenerational care across geographical distance creates certain vulnerabilities, this specific situation also enables and enacts kinship relations. The study focused on practical support, emotional relations, and communication technologies, and their limitations when illness hits and life changes. It also adds to our understanding of aging, illness, and care across vast geographical distances. I claim that the autoethnographic approach accommodates the subjectivity, emotions and first-hand experiences between the older person and the next of kin. This geography of intergenerational care provides new knowledge about an experience, influencing the later years, for an increasing number of individuals and service-providing municipalities, especially in regions marked by outmigration and high youth mobility.
Autoethnography Stroke Geographical distance Intergenerational care Next of kin Mobility Men Lonely Digital divide Face-to- face Health
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Thanks to Dr Sharon Rosemand, Dr. Adam Perry and Kathy Fitzpatrick for their comments on an early draft and thanks for comments from the editors.
Assmuth, L. (2013). Asymmetries of gender and generation on a post-Soviet borderland. In J. L. Bacas & W. Kavanagh (Eds.), Border encounters. Proximity and asymmetry at Europe’s frontiers (pp. 142–163). Oxford: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
Assmuth, L., & Lulle, A. (2013). Families on the move in Europe: children’s perspectives. Siirtolaisuus—Migration, 3, 3–10.Google Scholar
Baldassar, L., & Merla, L. (Eds.). (2013). Transnational families, migration and the circulation of care: Understanding mobility and absence in family life. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bengtson, V. L. (2001). Beyond the nuclear family: The increasing importance of multigenerational bonds. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connidis, I. A. (2010). Family ties and aging. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.Google Scholar
Davies, C. S., & Ellis, C. (2008). Emergent methods in autoethnographic research. Autoethnographic narratives and the multiethnographic turn. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 283–302). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Drotbohm, H., & Alber, E. (2015). Introduction. In E. Alber & H. Drotbohm (Eds.), Anthropological perspectives on care. Work, kinship, and the life-course (pp. 2–21). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Ellis, C. (1996). Maternal Connections. In C. Ellis & A. Bochner (Eds.), Composing ethnography: Alternative forms of qualitative writing (pp. 240–243). Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
Raschick, R., & Ingersoll-Dayton, B. (2004). The costs and rewards of caregiving among aging spouses and adult children. Family Relations, 53(3), 317–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, C., Martin-Matthews, A., & Keefe, J. (2007). Care management and care provision for older relatives amongst employed informal care-givers. Ageing and Society, 27(5), 755–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar