Abstract
How can we simultaneously capture the diversity of family forms without imposing pre-defined restrictions on the meanings of family? Modern family structures are characterized primarily by the diversity of forms across settings–a feature that beguiles standard comparisons relying only on biology or legal household arrangements. Here, we explore using formal network models for roles to characterize families. We build on old models from structural anthropology that expand from simple terminologically based kinship models to fully induced role system models based on shared time use. While this approach requires new data and new thinking, it holds promise as a flexible way to capture the diversity of natural family practices across an arbitrarily wide variety of contexts.
Probably the only way to give an account of the practical coherence of practices and works is to construct generative models which reproduce in their own terms the logic from which that coherence is generated. (Bourdieu 1990, p. 92) Mother is a verb, not a noun.-Proverb
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
While we do formally have “maternal grandmother” or “uncle on my father’s side” the former is rarely used in everyday family and the latter, used more commonly, highlights the very lack of an everyday term.
- 2.
Western kinship does not readily distinguish maternal from paternal biological or social inheritances, yet maternal rights are automatic while paternal rights require legal intervention via marriage or non-marital custody arrangements.
- 3.
“us” being researchers: This is a much more vexing problem for researchers than practitioners. It is trivial for children to name the relations of their kin. Researchers see confusion where children see clarity because the researcher is looking for a universal frame to cover all settings; while the child cares only for the consistency of his or her own local system. In a modern context, multiple local contexts might be quite distinct from each other, which is the central break from traditional structural anthropology which has been criticized for its insistence on one dominant frame.
- 4.
Here we are focusing on the *logic* of a one-child policy—how it changes the underlying set of formal kin ties. In practice, the policy has never been fully enforced so the results on-the-ground are unlikely to be as clear.
- 5.
We conceptualize the genetic tie as asymmetric because children are a product of their parents’ genetics.
- 6.
In-law relations are possible but reduce to relationship to the head when all role-dyads are enumerated. For example, if a householder lives with a spouse and parent-in-law, the role set contains {spouse, parent-child, parent-in-law-child-in-law} and if a householder lives with a spouse and parent the role set contains {spouse, parent-child, parent-in-law-child-in-law}.
- 7.
Gender and child differences are statistically significant at conventional levels and remain significant when all variables are added to the model. The age contrast between 65 + and middle-age are significant. In addition to the variables on the figure, we control for the number of social actions the respondent reported overall and the number of people the respondent reported interacting with overall.
- 8.
Age and children differences are statistically significant at conventional levels. However, age drops from significance when the presence of children is added to the model.
References
Bearman, P. (1997). Generalized exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 102(5), 1383–1415.
Bengson, V. L. (2001). Beyond the nuclear family: The increasing importance of multigenerational bonds. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(1), 1–16.
Billari, F., Kohler, H. P., Andersson, G., & Lundstrom, H. (2007). Approaching the limit: Long-term trends in late and very late fertility. Population and Development Review, 33(1), 149–70.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Breiger, R. L. (1974). The duality of persons and groups. Social Forces, 53(2), 181–190.
Brain, R. (1972). Bangwa kinship and marriage. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bumpass, L., & Lu, H. H. (2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for children’s family contexts in the United States. Population Studies, 54(1), 29–41.
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1940). The Nuer: A description of the modes of livelihood and political institutions of a Nilotic people. New York: Oxford University Press.
Feld, S. (1981). The focused organization of social ties. American Journal of Sociology, 86(5), 1015–1035.
Guzzo, K. B. (2009). Paternity establishment for men’s nonmarital births. Population Research and Policy Review, 28(6), 853–872.
Lesthaeghe, R. J., & Neidert, L. (2006). The second demographic transition in the United States: Exception or textbook example? Population and Development Review, 32(4), 669–698.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1969). Elementary structures of kinship. Boston: Beacon Press.
Linton, R. (1936). The study of man. New York: Appleton-Century-Croft.
Malinowski, B. (1932). Argonauts of the Western Pacific. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Nadel, S. F. (1957). The theory of social structure. London: Cohen & West.
Oksanen, J., Blanchet, G., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., Minchin, P. R., O’Hara, R. B., Simpson, G. L., Solymos, P., Stevens, M. H. H., & Wagner, H. (2012). vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.0-5. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan.
Paolisso, M., & Hames, R. (2010). Time diary versus instantaneous sampling: A comparison of two behavioral research methods. Field Methods, 22(4), 1–13.
Read, D. (2007). Kinship theory: A paradigm shift. Ethnology, 46(4), 329–364.
Scanzoni, J., & Marsiglio, J. (1991). Wider families as primary relationships. Marriage & Family Review, 17(1–2), 117–134.
Smith, T. W., Marsden, P. V., & Hout, M. (2011). General Social Survey, 1972–2010. Storrs, CT: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut/Ann Arbor MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.
Stack, C. B., & Burton, L. M. (1993). Kinscripts. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 24(2), 157–170.
Stewart, S. D. (2007). Brave new stepfamilies: Diverse paths towards stepfamily living. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Swartz, T. T. (2009). Intergenerational family relations in adulthood: Patterns, variations, and implications in the contemporary United States. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 191–212.
Thomson, C. (2005). Making parents: The ontological choreography of reproductive technologies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
White, H. (1963). An anatomy of kinship: Mathematical models for structures of cumulated roles. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
White, H. C., Boorman, S. A., & Breiger, R. L. (1976). Social structure from multiple networks I. American Journal of Sociology, 81, 730–780.
White, D. R., & Jorion, P. (1992). Representing and computing kinship: A new approach. Current Anthropology, 33(4), 454–463.
Widmer, E. D., & La Farga, L.-A. (2000). Family networks: A sociometric method to study relationships in families. Field Methods, 12(2), 108–128.
Author’s Note
Thanks to members of the social structure working group, especially Jeffrey Smith, and participants at the Symposium on Family Issues for comments, and to the Boone Fellowship to Gauthier for time supporting this work.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gauthier, R., Moody, J. (2014). Anatomies of Kinship: Preliminary Network Models for Change and Diversity in the Formal Structure of American Families. In: McHale, S., Amato, P., Booth, A. (eds) Emerging Methods in Family Research. National Symposium on Family Issues, vol 4. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01562-0_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01562-0_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-01561-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-01562-0
eBook Packages: Behavioral ScienceBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)