Advertisement

Gender and Care in Transnational Families: Empowerment, Change, and Tradition

  • Lise Widding Isaksen
  • Elzbieta Czapka
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Macmillan Studies in Family and Intimate Life book series (PSFL)

Abstract

In Norway, the majority population has generally accepted and internalized gender egalitarian values. Public childcare is universal and for parents plays an important role in work-family balance. The male-breadwinner model has become a contested family model. Local care and welfare regimes aim to integrate women and migrants into the labour market and children into local communities. For migrant mothers who come from European contexts dominated by the Catholic Church and gender conservative family values, developing new care strategies in Norway can cause social tensions, transnational challenges as well as individual empowerment. This chapter discusses how local gender regimes and public-care arrangements in Norway influence Polish and Italian mothers’ migration experiences.

References

  1. Aarseth, H. 2010. Moderne spydspisser eller de siste asketer? Den likestilte utdanningsmiddelklassen i dagens Norge. Nytt Norsk Tidsskrift 27 (1–2): 33–45. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  2. Ali, W., and E. Czapka. 2016. Friluftsliv og innvandrere. En undersøkelse av holdninger og erfaringer blant innvandrerfamilier i Oslo. Nasjonal kompetanse-enhet for migrasjons- og minoritetshelse (NAKMI), Oslo.Google Scholar
  3. Atlas of European Values. 2008. http://www.atlasofeuropeanvalues.eu/new/. 1 May 2017.
  4. Baldassar, L., and L. Merla. 2014. Transnational Families, Migration, and the Circulations of Care. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 2: 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bryceson, D.F., and U. Vuorela. 2002. Transnational Families in the Twenty First Century. In The Transnational Family: New European Frontiers and Global Networks, ed. D. Bryceson and U. Vuorela, 3–30. New York: Berg.Google Scholar
  7. CSO. 2013 [2014]. Education in 2013/2014 School Year, 2014. Warsaw: Central Statistical Office.Google Scholar
  8. ———. 2014 [2015]. Social Assistance, Child and Family Services in 2014, 2015. Warsaw: Central Statistical Office.Google Scholar
  9. De Tona, C. 2011. Mothering Contradictory Diasporas. Negotiation of Traditional Motherhood Roles Among Italian Migrant Women in Ireland. In Intimacy and Italian Migration. Gender and Domestic Lives in a Mobile World, ed. L. Baldassar and D.R. Gabaccia (2011), 101–111. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Djuve, A.B., and H.C. Pettersen. 1998. Må de være ute om vinteren? Fem etniske grupper om barnehager i Oslo. FAFO rapport 12, Oslo.Google Scholar
  11. Emmenegger, P. 2010. Catholicism, Job Security Regulations and Female Employment: A Micro-level Analysis of Esping-Andersen’s Social Catholicism Thesis. Social Policy & Administration 44 (1): 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9515.2009.00698.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Erdal, M.B. 2015. Changing Temporal Perspectives on Polish Migration: Implications for Migrants’ Interpretative Frames and the Creation and Contents of Social Remittances. Conference Paper, RGS-IBG conference, Exeter, September 1–4.Google Scholar
  13. Farstad, G.R., and K. Stefansen. 2008. Småbarnsforeldres omsorgsprosjekter. Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning (Journal for Social Research) 49 (3): 343–372. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  14. Gibbs, G. 2007. Analyzing Qualitative Data. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guribye, E. 2016. Two Waves, Two Contexts: On the Changing Conditions for Social Networking Among Polish Migrants in Norway. In Transnational Family Lives: ‘Doing Family’ Between Poland and Norway, ed. K. Slany, E. Guribye, P. Pustulka, and M. Slusarzcyk. Bern: Peter Lang Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. Heinen, J., and M. Wator. 2006. Child Care in Poland Before, During and After the Transition: Still a Women’s Business. Social Politics 12 (2): 189–216. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hohnerlein, E.M. 2009. The Paradox of Public Preschools in a Familist Welfare Regime: The Italian Case. In Child Care and Preschool Development in Europe, ed. Schweive and Willekens. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Isaksen, L.W. ed. 2010. Transnational Care. The Social Dimensions of International Nurse Recruitment. In Global Care Work. Gender and Migration in Nordic Societies, 137–158. Lund: Nordic Academic Press.Google Scholar
  19. ———. 2012. Transnational Spaces of Care: Migrant Nurses in Norway. Social Politics 19: 58–77. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leira, A., and A.L. Ellingsæter. 2006. Politicising Parenthood in Scandinavia. Bristol: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  21. Pustulka, P. 2016. Ethnic, Gender and Class Identities of Polish Migrant Mothers: Intersecting Maternal Narratives with Transnationalism and Integration. Social Identities 22 (1): 44–61. Journal for the Study of Race, Nation and Culture. New York: Taylor and Frances.Google Scholar
  22. Rondinelli, C., A. Aassve, and F.C. Billari. 2010. Women’s Wages and Childbearing Decisions: Evidence from Italy. Demographic Research 22 (19): 549–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Santero A., and M. Naldini. 2016. Migrant Families in Italy: Gendered Reconciliation Processes Between Social Reproduction and Paid Work. Paper to Third ISA Forum of Sociology, Vienna, July 10–14, 2016.Google Scholar
  24. Saraceno, C. 2015. Trends and Tensions Within the Italian Family. In The Oxford Handbook of Italian Politics, ed. E. Jones and G. Pasquino. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Sikorska, M. 2014. Changes in the Area of Family Life in Poland. In Family and Social Change in Socialist and Post-Socialist Societies, ed. Z. Rajkai, 122–163. Boston: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Souralova, A. 2015. New Perspectives on Mutual Dependency in Care-Giving, Ashgate.Google Scholar
  27. SSB. 2015. Statistisk Sentralbyrå, Oslo.Google Scholar
  28. ———. 2016. Statistisk Sentralbyrå, Oslo.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lise Widding Isaksen
    • 1
  • Elzbieta Czapka
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of BergenBergenNorway
  2. 2.Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied SciencesOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations