Transnational Families in Lithuania: Multi-dimensionality and Reorganization of Relationships

  • Irena Juozeliūnienė
  • Irma Budginaitė
  • Indrė Bielevičiūtė
Part of the Palgrave Macmillan Studies in Family and Intimate Life book series (PSFL)


This chapter examines the ways in which the experience of migration re-defines and re-organizes the relationships of transnational families in Lithuania. It employs four of C. Smart’s concepts to analyze personal life—‘imaginary’, ‘embeddedness’, ‘memory’, and ‘relationality’, and its primary source is a mixed method research study carried out between 2012 and 2015 that was financed by the Research Council of Lithuania. The authors draw on the relational perspective, and focus on how transnational family relations exist in one’s imagination, how the ‘embeddedness’ within family and kinship networks governs the ways transnational support and family memory communication is maintained, and, how living across borders may influence the renegotiation of role-specific commitments and reshape the identities of family members.



The authors would like to thank the Lithuanian Research Council for funding the project ‘Emigration and family: challenges, family resources, ways of overcoming hardships’ (2012–2015), which was financed under the national research programme ‘The State and Nation: Heritage and Identity’. They are grateful for Vilnius University project team members: Danutė Tureikytė, Laima Žilinskienė, Saulius Novikas, Rūta Butėnaitė, also master student Ieva Šimoliūnienė and those families who participated in the project research studies.


  1. Assmann, J., and J. Czaplicka. 1995. Collective Memory and Cultural Identity. New German Critique 65, Cultural History/Cultural Studies (Spring–Summer): 125–133.Google Scholar
  2. Baldassar, L., and L. Merla, eds. 2014. Transnational Families, Migration and the Circulation of Care: Understanding Mobility and Absence in Family Life. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Brahic, B. 2015. European Bi-national Couples and Their Pre-existing Families: ‘Doing Family’ Across Borders and Cultures. In Family Change in Times of the De-bordering of Europe and Global Mobility: Resources, Processes and Practices, ed. I. Juozeliūnienė and J. Seymour, 321–339. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.Google Scholar
  5. Bryceson, D., and U. Vuorela. 2002. The Transnational Family: New European Frontiers and Global Networks. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  6. Finch, J. 1989. Family Obligations and Social Change. London: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  7. Finch, J., and J. Mason. 1993. Negotiating Family Responsibilities. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goffman, E. 1974/1986. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Juozeliūnienė, I. 2014. Žemėlapių metodai vaizdu grįstame tyrime [Mapping Methods in Image-Based Research]. Vilnius: Vilnius University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Juozeliūnienė, I., and J. Seymour, eds. 2015. Family Change in Times of the De-bordering of Europe and Global Mobility: Resources, Processes and Practices. Vilnius: Vilnius University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Kilkey, M., and L. Merla. 2014. Situating Transnational Families’ Care-Giving Arrangements: The Role of Institutional Contexts. Global Networks 14 (2): 210–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Levin, I. 1993. Family as Mapped Realities. Journal of Family Issues 14 (1): 82–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Levin, I., and J. Trost. 1992. Understanding the Concept of Family. Family Relations 41 (3): 348–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Milardo, R.M., and B. Wellman. 1992. Comparative Methods for Delineating Social Networks. In Understanding Research in Personal Relationships, ed. W. Dragon and S. Duck, 247–253. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  15. Misztal, B. 2003. Theories of Social Remembering. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Nauck, B., and O.A. Becker. 2013. Institutional Regulations and the Kinship Solidarity of Women – Results from 13 Areas in Asia, Africa, Europe, and North America. European Sociological Review 29: 580–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Parrenas, R.S. 2005. Children of Global Migration: Transnational Families and Gendered Woes. Standford: Standford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Seymour, J., and J. Walsh. 2013. Displaying Families, Migrant Families and Community Connectedness: The Application of an Emerging Concept in Family Life. Journal of Comparative Family Studies 44 (6): 689–698.Google Scholar
  19. Silverstein, M., et al. 1997. Intergenerational Solidarity and the Structure of Adult Child—Parent Relationships in American Families. American Journal of Sociology 103 (2): 429–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Smart, C. 2007. Personal Life. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  21. ———. 2011. Relationality and Socio-cultural Theories of Family Life. In Families and Kinship in Contemporary Europe. Rules and Practices of Relatedness, ed. R. Jallinoja and E.D. Widmer, 13–28. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Spencer, L., and R. Pahl. 2006. Rethinking Friendship: Hidden Solidarities Today. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Trommsdorff, G., and B. Nauck. 2001. VOC—Main Study: Field Work Info. Konstanz: University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
  24. Turner, R.H. 1978. The Role and the Person. American Journal of Sociology 84 (1): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Irena Juozeliūnienė
    • 1
  • Irma Budginaitė
    • 1
  • Indrė Bielevičiūtė
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SociologyVilnius UniversityVilniusLithuania

Personalised recommendations