Advertisement

Parenting from a Distance: The Shifting Topology of Care in the Net Era

  • Carlotta Monini
Chapter
Part of the International Perspectives on Migration book series (IPMI, volume 15)

Abstract

As largely assessed by the emergent studies on polymedia environment, ICT consumption among migrants and their relatives left-behind represent an essential feature in the current transnational family patterns. Especially in mother-child relations, ICT-mediated interactions endorse significant mothering practices within a deterritorialized framework and attenuate emotional discontinuities typically framed in transnational mother-child dyad. The study builds on the ethnographic field of female care migration from Eastern Europe and particularly addresses the polarized family arrangement of migrant mothers leaving their children behind to settle in Italy as live-in domestic workers. The empirical research highlights that ICT ubiquitous regimes allow live-in domestic workers to temporarily be on the sideline of the live-in care arrangement and reorient care practices towards their utmost significant ones in their homeland. Analysis draw attention on the ubiquitous connected-presences that domestic migrants manage to perform and cast a light on the development of ordinary ITC-mediated routines as a means to provide emotional support and monitor children left-behind. By putting an emphasis on family practices across a distance, migrant mothers assess in many ways that the relation between proximity and distance in mothering has become more complex, challenging the normative conceptualization of care and familyhood as exclusively relying on proximate and face-to-face care scenarios.

References

  1. Anderson, B. (2000). Doing the dirtywork? The global politics of domestic labour. London/New York: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  2. Baldassar, L. (2008). Missing kin and longing to be together: Emotions and the construction of co-presence in transnational relationships. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 29(3), 247–266.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07256860802169196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baldassar, L. (2010). Ce sentiment de culpabilité. Recherches Sociologiques et Anthropologiques, 41(1), 15–37.  https://doi.org/10.4000/rsa.185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baldassar, L. (2016). De-monizing distance in mobile family lives: Co-presences, care circulation and polymedia as vibrant matter. Global Network, 16(2), 145–163.  https://doi.org/10.1111/glob.12109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baldassar, L., & Merla, L. (2014). Transnational families, migration and the circulation of care. Understanding mobility and absence in family life. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Bessin, M. (2014). Présences sociales: une approche phénoménologique des temporalités sexuées du care. Temporalités, 20(2).  https://doi.org/10.4000/temporalites.294.
  7. Boccagni, P. (2012). Practising motherhood at a distance: Retention and loss in Ecuadorian transnational families. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 38(2), 261–277.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2012.646421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boccagni, P. (2017). Mobility and the search for home: Mapping domestic space in migrants’ everyday life. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  9. Boccagni, P., & Brighenti, A. (2017). Immigrants and home in the making: Thresholds of domesticity, commonality and publicness. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 32(1), 1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-015-9487-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown, T. M. (2011). Raising Brooklyn: Nannies, childcare and Caribbeans creating community. New York: University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Brown, R. (2016). Multiple modes of care: Internet, solidarity and the formation of migrant caregiver network in Israel. Global Networks, 16(2), 237–256.  https://doi.org/10.1111/glob.12112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Degrave, F., & Merla, L. (2016). Defamilialization of whom ? Re-thinking defamilialization in the light of global care chains and the transnational circulation of care. In M. Kilkey & E. Palenga-Mollenbeck (Eds.), Family life in an age of migration and mobility (pp. 287–311). London: Palgrave McMillan.Google Scholar
  13. Diminescu, D. (2009). Le migrant dans un système global de mobilités. In G. Cortes & L. Faret (Eds.), Les circulations transnationales (pp. 211–224). Paris: Ermand Collin.Google Scholar
  14. Donnan, H., Hurd, M., & Leutloff-Grandits, C. (2017). Migrating borders and moving times: Temporality and the crossing of borders in Europe. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and danger: An analysis of the concepts of pollution and taboo. London: Routledge & K. Paul.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Finch, J., & Mason, J. (1993). Negotiating family responsibilities. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fondazione, M. (2010). Quali Badanti per quale migrazione? Studi e ricerche sull’economia e migrazione. Milano: Ediesse.Google Scholar
  18. Franklin, M. I. (2004). Postcolonial politics, the internet and everyday life: Pacific traversals online. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fresnoza-Flot, A. (2009). Migration status and transnational mothering: The case of Filipino migrants in France. Global Networks, 9(2), 252–270.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0374.2009.00253.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gambino, F. (2003). Migranti nella tempesta: avvistamenti per l’inizio del nuovo millennio. Verona: Obre Corte.Google Scholar
  21. Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums. Chicago: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  22. Guichard-Claudic, Y. (2006). Homme en mer, femme à terre. Petits arrangements avec la dissymétrie. Cahiers du Genre, 41(2), 23–47.  https://doi.org/10.3917/cdge.041.0023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. (2017). At home in inner-city immigrant community gardens. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 32(1), 13–28.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-015-9491-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hondagneu-Sotelo, P., & Avila, E. (1997). I’m Here, but I’m there: The meaning of Latina transnational motherhood. Gender and Society, 11(5), 548–571.  https://doi.org/10.1177/089124397011005003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Huang, S., Thang, L., & Toyota, M. (2012). Transnational mobilities for care: Rethinking the dynamics of care in Asia. Global Networks, 12(2), 129–134.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0374.2012.00343.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kilkey, M., & Merla, L. (2013). Transnational families’ care-giving arrangements: Towards a situated transnationalism. Global Networks, 14(2), 210–229.  https://doi.org/10.1111/glob.12034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kofman, E. (2008). Genre, migrations, reproduction sociale et Welfare state. Un état des discussions. Les cahiers du CEDREF, 16(1), 101–124. http://journals.openedition.org/cedref/579.Google Scholar
  28. Liebelt, C. (2013). Caring for the “holy land”: Filipina domestic workers in Israel. New York: Berghahn.Google Scholar
  29. Madianou, M. (2012). Migration and the accentuated ambivalence of motherhood: The role of ICTs in Filipino transnational families. Global Networks, 12(3), 277–295.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0374.2012.00352.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Madianou, M., & Miller, D. (2012). Migration and the new media: Transnational families and polymedia. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Merla, L. (2015). Salvadoran migrants in Australia: An analysis of transnational families’ capability to care across borders. International Migration, 53(6), 153–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morgan, D. (2013). Rethinking family practices. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  33. Morokvasic, M. (2004). Settled in mobility: Engendering post-wall migration in Europe. Feminist Review, 77(1), 7–25.  https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.fr.9400154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mozere, L. (2005). Domestiques philippines entrepreneures d’elles-mêmes sur un marché mondial de la domesticité. Le Portique. Archives des Carnets du Genre. http://journals.openedition.org/leportique/711.
  35. Nare, L. (2011). The moral economy of domestic and care labour: Migrant workers in Naples, Italy. Sociology, 45(3), 396–412.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038511399626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nare, L. (2013). The ethics of transnational market Familism: Inequalities and hierarchies in the Italian elderly care. Ethics and Social Welfare, 7(2), 184–197.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17496535.2013.779008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nedelcu, M., & Wyss, M. (2016). “Doing family” through ICT-mediated ordinary co-presence: Transnational communication practices of Romanian migrants in Switzerland. Global Networks, 16(2), 202–218.  https://doi.org/10.1111/glob.12110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Paperman, P. (2013). Care et sentiments. Paris: PUF.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Parreñas, R. (2001). Servants of globalization: Migration and domestic work. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Parreñas, R. (2005). Children of global migration: Transnational families and gendered woes. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Pasquinelli, S., & Rusmini, G. (2013). Badare non basta. Attori, progetti, politiche. Roma: Ediesse.Google Scholar
  42. Quesnel, A., & del Rey, A. (2005). La construcción de una economía familiar de archipiélago. Movilidad y recomposición de las relaciones intergeneracionales en el medio rural mexicano. Estudios demográficos y urbanos, 20(59), 197–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ramos, E. (2002). Rester enfant, devenir adulte. La cohabitation des étudiants chez leurs parents. Paris: Harmattan.Google Scholar
  44. Ramos, E. (2006). L’ambiguïté du « parent-ami » dans les relations parents/enfant au Brésil: contrôle et protection. Recherches familiales, 3(1), 127–136.  https://doi.org/10.3917/rf.003.0127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sarti, R. (2004). Noi abbiamo visto tante città, abbiamo un’altra cultura. Servizio domestico, migrazioni e identità di genere in Italia: uno sguardo di lungo periodo. Polis, 18(1), 17–46.Google Scholar
  46. Sayad, A. (1999). La double absence: des illusions de l’émigré aux souffrances de l’immigré. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  47. Schier, M. (2016). Everyday practices of living in multiple places and Mobilities: Transnational, transregional and intra-communal multi-local families. In M. Kilkey & E. Palenga-Mollembeck (Eds.), Family life in an age of migration and mobility (pp. 43–69). London: Palgrave McMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Scrinzi, F. (2004). Ma culture danslaquelle elle travaille. Les migrantes dans les services domestiques en Italie et en France. Les cahiers du CEDREF, 12(1), 137–162. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/cedref/554.Google Scholar
  49. Solari, C. (2014). ‘Prostitutes’ and ‘defectors’: How the Ukrainian state constructs women emigrants to Italy and the USA. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 40(11), 1817–1835.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2014.897600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tarrius, A. (2002). La Mondialisation par le bas. Les nouveaux nomades des économies souterraines. Paris: Balland.Google Scholar
  51. Torre, A. R., Boccagni, P., & Piperno, F. (2009). Migrazione come questione sociale. Mutamento sociale, politiche e rappresentazioni in Ecuador, Romania e Ucraina, CeSPI Working Paper n.57. http://www.cespi.it/WP/WP%2057%20rapporto%20welfare.pdf
  52. Urry, J. (2004). Connections. Society and Space, 22(1), 27–37.  https://doi.org/10.1068/d322t.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlotta Monini
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.École des Hautes Études en Sciences SocialesParisFrance
  2. 2.University of ÉvoraLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations