Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Family Continuity and Change pp 165–186Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Rebuilding the Family: Continuity and Change in Family Membership and Relationship Closeness in Post-Separation Situations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Palgrave Macmillan Studies in Family and Intimate Life ((PSFL))

Abstract

Family relationships are expected to entail emotional closeness and to offer love, care, and support to those belonging to a family (e.g., Becker and Charles 2006; Paajanen 2008; Ribbens McCarthy et al. 2003, 2012). These expectations are not dependent on the family structure because they survive family breakdown and are revived in repartnering. People living in stepfamilies also hold ‘strongly to family as a unit involving togetherness and commitment, […] dependable and long lasting’ (Ribbens McCarthy et al. 2003: 130). Expectations towards family relationships are derived from the hegemonic cultural imaginary of the family as something forever nurturing and protective and constituted through myth, ritual, and image rather than as a constellation of lived relationships involving self-interested, competitive, and divisive behaviour (Gillis 1996).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Of those living alone, two women and three men had children who were already adults and three men had nonresident children who visited regularly.

  2. 2.

    There was one stepfamily with only her and three with only his children; one with his and shared; eight with her and his; and three stepfamilies with her, his, and shared children.

  3. 3.

    Information about the individuals included: age, education and occupation, place of birth, and residence; and about the relationship between the interviewee and the person mentioned: duration, context and place of first encounter, who had introduced this person to the interviewee, the nature of relationship (as an open question), its felt closeness (on a scale from 1–7 – 1 indicating very close and 7 not close at all), the frequency and the primary means of contact, as well as the context and time of the last encounter.

References

  • Allan, G., G. Crow, and S. Hawker. 2011. Stepfamilies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Arránz Becker, O., N.L. Salzburger, and B. Nauck. 2013. What Narrows the Stepgap? Closeness Between Parents and Adult (Step)Children in Germany. Journal of Marriage and Family 75: 1130–1148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baxter, L.A., M. Mazanec, J. Nicholson, G. Pittman, K. Smith, and L. West. 1997. Everyday Loyalties and Betrayals in Personal Relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 14(5): 655–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, B., and N. Charles. 2006. Layered Meanings: The Construction of ‘the Family’ in the Interview. Community, Work and Family 9(2): 101–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S.P., M.G. Everett, and L.C. Freeman. 2002. UCINET 6 for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Lexington, KY: Analytic Technologies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boss, P., and J. Greenberg. 1984. Family Boundary Ambiguity: A New Variable in Family Stress Theory. Family Process 23: 535–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boszormenyi-Nagy, I., and G. Spark. 1973. Invisible Loyalties: Reciprocity in Intergenerational Family Therapy. Cambridge: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite, D., L. Olson, T. Golish, C. Soukup, and P. Turman. 2001. Becoming a Family’: Developmental Processes Represented in Blended Family Discourse. Journal of Applied Communication Research 29(3): 221–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, C. 2008. Resident Parent–Child Relationships in Stepfamilies. In The International Handbook of Stepfamilies: Policy and Practice in Legal, Research, and Clinical Environments, ed. J. Pryor, 208–230. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castrén, A.-M. 2008. Post-divorce Family Configurations. In Beyond the Nuclear Family: Families in a Configurational Perspective, ed. E. Widmer, and R. Jallinoja, 233–254. Bern: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castrén, A.-M., and K. Ketokivi. 2015. Studying the Complex Dynamics of Family Relationships: A Figurational Approach. Sociological Research Online 20(1): 3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castrén, A.-M., and M. Lonkila. 2004. Friendship in Finland and Russia from a Micro Perspective. In Between Sociology and History. Essays on Microhistory, Collective Action, and Nation-building, ed. A.-M. Castrén, M. Lonkila, and M. Peltonen, 162–174. Helsinki: SKS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castrén, A.-M., and E.D. Widmer. 2015. Insiders and Outsiders in Stepfamilies: Perspectives of Adults and Children in Family Interviews. Current Sociology 63(1): 35–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Church, E. 1999. Who Are the People in Your Family? Stepmothers’ Diverse Notions on Kinship. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 31: 83–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delongis, A., and M. Preece. 2002. Emotional and Relational Consequences of Coping in Stepfamilies. Marriage and Family Review 34(1–2): 115–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doherty, W. 1999. Divided Loyalties. Networker, 32–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elias, N. 1978 [1970]. What Is Sociology? London: Hutchinson.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1994 [1939]. The Civilizing Process. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elias, N., and E. Dunning. 1966. Dynamics of Sport Groups with Special Reference to Football. British Journal of Sociology 17(4): 388–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emirbayer, M., and J. Goodwin. 1994. Network Analysis, Culture, and the Problem of Agency. American Journal of Sociology 99(6): 1411–1454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, G. 1993. Loyalty. An Essay on the Morality of Relationships. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furstenberg, F., and G. Spanier. 1987. Recycling the Family. Remarriage After Divorce. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillis, J.R. 1996. A World of Their Own Making. Myth, Ritual, and the Quest for Family Values. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, J., and R. Thompson. 2009. Gaining Perspective on Choice and Fate: Revisiting Critical Moments. European Societies 11(3): 431–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ihinger-Tallman, M. 1988. Research on stepfamilies. Annual Review of Sociology 14: 25–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Illouz, E. 2008. Saving the Modern Soul. Therapy, Emotions and the Culture of Self-help. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson, L. 2005. Boundaries of Intimacy. In Families in Society: Boundaries and Relationships, ed. L. McKie, and S. Cunningham-Burley, 189–206. Bristol: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ketokivi, K. 2012. The Intimate Couple, Family and the Relational Organization of Close Relationships. Sociology 46: 473–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsson Sjöberg, K. 2000. Barndom i länkade familjesystem. Om samhörighet och åtskillnad. Örebro: Örebro Universitet.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maksimainen, J. 2010. Parisuhde ja ero. University of Helsinki, Department of Social Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moran-Ellis, J., V.D. Alexander, A. Cronin, M. Dickinson, J. Fielding, J. Sleney, and H. Thomas. 2006. Triangulation and Integration: Processes, Claims and Implications. Qualitative Research 6(1): 45–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nugent, C. 2010. Children’s Surnames, Moral Dilemmas: Accounting for the Predominance of Fathers’ Surnames for Children. Gender & Society 24(4): 499–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paajanen, P. 2008. Mikä on minun perheeni? Perhebarometri 2007. Väestöntutkimuslaitos, Katsauksia E30/2007. Helsinki.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ribbens McCarthy, J., R. Edwards, and V. Gillies. 2003. Making Families. Moral Tales of Parenting and Step-parenting. Durham: Sociology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ribbens McCarthy, J., M. Doolittle, and S.D. Sclater. 2012. Understanding Family Meanings. Bristol: Polity Press and the Open University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roseneil, S., and S. Budgeon. 2004. Cultures of Intimacy and Care Beyond ‘the Family’: Personal Life and Social Change in the Early 21st Century. Current Sociology 52(2): 135–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, B. 1998. Changing Families. An Ethnographic Approach to Divorce and Separation. Oxford: Berg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart, C., B. Neale, and A. Wade. 2001. The Changing Experience of Childhood: Families and Divorce. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, S. 2005. Boundary Ambiguity in Stepfamilies. Journal of Family Issues 26: 1002–1029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Widdershoven, G. 1993. The Story of Life: Hermeneutic Perspectives on the Relationship Between Narrative and Life History. The Narrative Study of Lives 1: 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Widmer, E. D., A.-M. Castrén, R. Jallinoja and K. Ketokivi. 2008. Introduction. In Beyond the Nuclear Family: Families in a Configurational Perspective, ed. E. Widmer, and R. Jallinoja, 1-10. Bern: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Widmer, E. D. 2010. Family Configurations: A Structural Approach to Family Diversity. Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author of the chapter is grateful to Kaisa Ketokivi for her helpful comments on the previous version of this manuscript, and to the Academy of Finland (Project 1204041) and the University of Helsinki (Project 490070) for funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Sciences, University of Eastern Finland in Kuopio, Kuopio, Finland

    Anna-Maija Castrén

Authors
  1. Anna-Maija Castrén
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Mykolas Romeris University , Vilnius, Lithuania

    Vida Česnuitytė

  2. Federal Institute for Population Research, Wiesbaden, Germany

    Detlev Lück

  3. University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

    Eric D. Widmer

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Castrén, AM. (2017). Rebuilding the Family: Continuity and Change in Family Membership and Relationship Closeness in Post-Separation Situations. In: Česnuitytė, V., Lück, D., D. Widmer, E. (eds) Family Continuity and Change. Palgrave Macmillan Studies in Family and Intimate Life. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59028-2_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59028-2_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-59027-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-59028-2

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation