Family Solidarity
Given rising divorce rates, it comes as no surprise that people
are decreasingly happy with their marriages. . . . Given too, that
pleasure in family life is the most important contribution to
happiness and life satisfaction, here lies a major explanation of
America’s current and rising sorrow.
(Robert Lane 2000: 108)
The worst tyrants among human beings . . . are jealous husbands
. . ., resentful wives, [and] possessive parents . . . [in] a
scene of hatred.
(Peter Laslett 1971: 4)
In most Western countries children and the bonds between generations
are still an important source of support for older generations, but concern
for the continuity of this support is broadly felt. Over the past two
centuries drastic changes have occurred in the nature and extent of family
solidarity. Whereas in the absence of social security and institutions
of social welfare kin served as the most essential resource for economic
assistance and security, a gradual weakening of interdependence among
kin has occurred over time. In the past commitment to the survival and
economic well-being of the family took priority over individual needs.
Also anthropological studies suggest that “kinship dues” were traditionally
the main source of kinship support (Sahlins 1972). The instrumental
orientation toward family has gradually been replaced by a more individualistic
and affective orientation and a greater emphasis on individual
needs and personal happiness (Hareven 1995). This development has
raised a concern with the vitality of family bonds and intergenerational
solidarity. Demographic changes have significantly added to this concern
(Bengtson 2001).Never before have elderly people lived so long, and never
before has the younger generation been so small in number compared
with the older generations. Also the larger variation in family structure is
supposed to cause a decline in traditional family patterns and values. International
studies about cultural and other values show that the increase
of individualization is accompanied by a lower level of identification and
loyalty with the family (Inglehart 1977; Popenoe 1988).
In addition to demographic developments changes in the life course
may have an impact on family solidarity. Recent research conducted in
the Netherlands shows that the phase of childhood and adolescence has
become longer in that societal responsibility is postponed (Liefbroer and
Dykstra 2000). In adulthood the period in which one participates in paid
labor has become shorter. In the Netherlands the percentage of working
people aged between fifty-five and sixty-four has decreased from 35% in
1975 to 28.7%in1998 (Sociale en culturele verkenningen 1999). The phase of
old age has become prolonged because of the increased longevity. On the
one hand, an increasing number of old people will be in need of care and
support at a time when the availability of women in particular to provide
these has diminished. On the other hand, an increasing number of still
vigorous old people will be available to provide support to the younger
generation. Both of these developments may affect family solidarity.
Family solidarity is also influenced by the wider social context of the
welfare state and its level of social security and caring arrangements.
Since their introductionWestern welfare regimes incorporate an implicit
social contract between generations that is based on intergenerational as
well as intragenerational transfers of resources through the mediums of
taxation and social expenditure (Bengtson and Achenbaum 1993;Walker
1996; WRR 1999). Public pension provision and the provision of social
and health care are the core of this social contract. A similar but informal
social contract specifying caring obligations and relationships exists
within the family. In both the welfare-state social contract and the implied
contract of generations within the family the idea of reciprocity is
quintessential. The welfare state has institutionalized the expectation of
reciprocity in its system of inter- and intragenerational transfers. Similarly,
Bengtson, Rosenthal, and Burton (1990) argue that the contract of
generations existingwithin the family “calls for the parents to invest a major
portion of their resources throughout their adult years in the rearing
of children; in old age, the care giving is expected to be reversed.”Walker
(1996) points to the many ways this microsocial contract between family
members interactswith the macrosocial one. The economic restructuring
of Western welfare states occurring since the 1970s may have profound
implications for generational relations within families, particularly when
coupled with the increase in life expectancy.ManyWestern welfare states
have faced cuts in social expenditure, thereby putting a higher burden
on families to provide informal care. Inversely, the gender-based caring
relationship within families is in transition, which may be consequential
for welfare-state social policy. The reduction of women’s availability as
caregivers is a new reality that has to be taken into account in social policy.
This chapter dealswith family solidarity, conceived as solidaritywithin
the network of family and near relatives, the informal solidarity contract
existing between family members.Precisely because the family is regarded
as the breeding ground for Durkheim’s mechanical solidarity, it is interesting
to examine whether there are concrete indications that family solidarity
is declining. First, the theme is positioned within the context of the
scientific and societal debate about generations and their interrelationships.
Then some theoretical dimensions of intergenerational solidarity
are discussed, followed by an overview of empirical research results on
concrete intergenerational solidarity in the formof (beliefs about) caring
for the elderly by the younger generation. In the final section, a distinction
is made between two dimensions of intergenerational relations, the first
at the macrolevel of welfare state provisions related to family care, and
the second at the microlevel of informal care within the family itself. An
interesting question is how both levels interact with one another.
The Relationship between Generations
Relationships between generations have traditionally been a source of
great solidarity as well as fierce conflicts. Throughout history members
of the younger generation have detested the older generation because
of their old-fashioned ideas and beliefs, their rigid attitudes, and their
inability to keep pace with the times. The aged, in turn, were faced with a
growing emotional distance from the younger generation. Mutual prejudice
has always flourished. Contemporary youths do not like reading
books anymore, are only interested in watching television or playing
computer games, do not feel like making any effort whatsoever, and are
materialistic and egocentric. And, in reverse, aged people have had the
better opportunities, impede the mobility of the young on the labor market
by keeping the better jobs, and reach such elevated ages that they
(will) cause an enormous rise of costs in the health care system. These
commonsense notions certainly do not offer a satisfying answer to the
question whether a serious “generation problem” exists today, as Karl
Mannheim termed it in 1928 and, if it does, what its manifestations are.
An important preliminary question is what is exactly considered a
generation. Does this concept merely indicate a macrosociological, demographic
category based on the year of one’s birth? Or is a generation
a historical concept, referring to a certain group of people of about the
same age, who define themselves as being the founders of new values or
the promoters of cultural, political, and social changes, like the Vietnam
generation or the baby boomers (Bengtson 1993)? Different views on this
matter exist in the scientific literature. Becker (1992), for instance, conceives
of a generation as an age cohort occupying a particular position
in history and showing similarities at the individual level (life course,
values, behavior) as well as the structural level (magnitude, composition,
culture, and organization of the generation). When a cohort substitutes
for a former one, this substitution process is assumed to be accompanied
by a change in values, culture, and life opportunities (Inglehart 1977).
The cohort conception of generations has not only been criticized for being
static but has an additional disadvantage, which has been termed the
“fallacy of cohort-centrism” (White Riley 1992, quoted in Bengtson and
Achenbaum 1993): the tendency to assume that all members of one cohort
will age in the same way. This assumption precludes the recognition of
big differences that may exist within the same cohort, as a consequence
not only of differing individual reactions to the aging process but also of
the structural influences of, for instance, social class, gender, or ethnicity.
Atotally different generation concept has been developedby the founding
father of the generation theory, Karl Mannheim (1950 [1928]), who
does not so much conceive of agener ation as abir th cohort but rather as
ag roup of contemporaries who share the feeling of belonging to ac ertain
generation. This feeling arises as a consequence of shared experiences of
particular social and historical events that have been formative for the
course of their lives. A birth cohort, therefore, does not necessarily coincide
with a generation: rather than age determining a generation, it is the
shared conscience.Abirth cohortmay be at the roots of a generation, but a
generation inMannheim’s sense is primarily characterized by a common
mutual identification, based on a shared fate that differs fundamentally
from that of other generations. This is amuch more social-psychological
and dynamic view of generations than the statistical and static cohort
conception.
For this chapter a mixture of both generation concepts is relevant.
Not only age cohorts but also the experience of belonging to a certain
generation is important for our theme. One may have grandchildren but
at the same time feel “in the midst of life” and be active, for instance,
by having a job. A woman may be a grandparent but also be sportive,
socially active, and have a circle of friends. Although she belongs to the
cohort of the third generation, she feels and behaves as if she were young
and is, in that sense, comparable with the members of younger generations.
The structure of generations has fundamentally changed during
the second half of the twentieth century.More generations have become
involved in families.Whereas in former times a family was composed of
at most two or three generations due to the shorter life expectancy, nowadays
it is not exceptional that four generations are in good health and
are contributing somehow to family life. We do not know exactly what
the implications of these changes for family solidarity are, but the situation
has certainly become different from the one that prevailed during
the largest part of the twentieth century when the nuclear family was the
main family unit. Everything revolved around father, mother, and the
children and, whether you liked it or not, you were dependent on them
for your physical and social survival. Even though the nuclear family is
still an important anchor and social unit for many people, its importance
seems to be diminishing in favor of multigenerational bonds (Bengtson
2001).
Traditionally, the exchange of money, goods, and services has been
an important aspect of familial solidarity, in particular as expressed in
solidarity between generations. For centuries families have played an important
economic role in the lives of individual citizens. Until the era of
industrialization the family was the most important unit of production;
individual survival dependedoneconomic cooperationwithin the family.
Today economic exchange between family members is no longer a vital
precondition for individual survival. Nevertheless, people’s well-being
still depends largely on the exchange of goods and services with other
persons. A substantial part of that exchange continues to occur within
the family, among and between generations. In the past two decades, the
family is believed to have lost its significance as “a haven in a heartless
world” (Lasch 1977). As ac onsequence of ava riety of factors, including
women’s increased participation in the labor market, their greater
economic independence, the liberalization of norms and values, and the
increased divorce rate, the family may have lost its former cohesion and
original significance. Is there any empirical support for these beliefs?
Family Solidarity:Empir ical Research
Dimensions of Family Solidarity
The classical sociologists have left their traces in the literature on intergenerational
solidarity. TЁonnies’s distinction between Gemeinschaft and
Gesellschaft (1987) and Durkheim’s theory about mechanical and organic
solidarity (1964a [1893]) are based on two elements that have influenced
theoretical ideas about intergenerational solidarity: on the one hand, the
internalized normative obligations toward the group (mechanical solidarity,
Gemeinschaft) and, on the other, the functional interdependency
of and consensus among group members about the rules of exchange
(organic solidarity, Gesellschaft ; Roberts, Richards, and Bengtson 1991).
The first conceptualizations of family solidarity originated in social
psychology. In the 1950s social psychologists started to research group dynamics
in the laboratory, especially the characteristics of internal group
cohesion. The contribution of Homans (1950), for instance, focused on
those elements of human interaction presumed to be determinants of
group solidarity. He distinguished between “interaction” or the degree
of mutual connectedness of the actions of group members (Durkheim’s
functional dependency), “extendedness” of group activities, degree of
mutual affection, and norms concerning group membership and activities.
The greater the interaction,mutual affection, and shared norms and
commitment to the group, the more cohesion the groupwould show.Another
social psychologist,Heider (1958), added the degree of resemblance
among group members to the factors listed by Homans. In addition to
having frequent contact, also shared interests and norms contribute to
group cohesion.
These contributions are reflected in the work of the contemporary
American family sociologist Bengtson. In a recent article (2001) he
summarizes the solidarity model developed by him and his colleagues
(Bengtson and Mangen 1988; Bengtson and Roberts 1991; Roberts
et al. 1991). The model consists of six dimensions of intergenerational
solidarity: affectual solidarity (how people feel about their relationships),
associational solidarity (type and frequency of contact), consensual
solidarity (agreement in opinions and values), functional solidarity
(assistance), normative solidarity (expectations regarding family obligations,
familistic values), and structural solidarity (opportunity structure
for interaction, geographical proximity). Using longitudinal data,
Bengtson and his colleagues have been able to chart the course of intergenerational
solidarity over time. Between 1971 and 1997 they found
remarkably stable patterns of affectual solidarity in theUnited States: high
levels of emotional bonding across generations have remained intact over
the years, according to Bengtson.
Bengtson’s typology of solidarity dimensions has given rise to extensive
empirical research. One of the questions posed by researchers concerns
the relationship between the dimensions of solidarity. Despite the
original hopes of detecting one underlying construct of solidarity, only
associational, functional, and structural solidarity showsubstantial intercorrelation,
and these dimensions, in turn, prove unrelated to affectional
solidarity. In the absence of a theoretical model specifying the causal relationships
between the concept of family solidarity and its indicators, each
dimension has been studied separately. In their overview of empirical research
Roberts et al. (1991) mention, among others, the following results.
Normative intergenerational solidarity has been found to be stronger
when parental income is lower. Affectional solidarity is related to age and
gender and is stronger among members of older generations and women
(mothers and daughters). Associational solidarity has also been found
to be higher among women, probably reflecting their “kinkeeping” role.
Among divorced parents, as well as among people living in an urban
setting and those with higher education, associational solidarity seems
to be lower. Probably because functional solidarity or the exchange of
help and care is relatively easy to study empirically, studies assessing the
conditions under which assistance flows both up and down generational
lines in the family are abundant (Cheal 1983;Mangen et al. 1988; Roberts
et al. 1991). Functional solidarity appears to be positively correlated with
higher income and education and with marital status.
There are several problems connected to Bengtson’s typology. For instance,
some of the dimensions, in particular associational and functional
solidarity, seem to be partly overlapping; helping a family member necessarily
means having contact and seeing him or her. Second, no attempt is
made to develop a theoretical model inwhich the causal relationships between
the dimensions and the putative construct of family solidarity are
specified. In Bengtson’s view family solidarity seems to be the sum of the
dimensions, which implies a certain level of internal consistency between
them. Empirical research has not confirmed this, though.Moreover, the
nature of the causal relationships between the dimensions themselves
is not clear. Geographical proximity (structural solidarity) is clearly a
constraining (or enabling) factor where associational and functional solidarity
are concerned and, in that sense, is at a different causal level. A
third problem is that none of the dimensions has been studied in any
depth, so that no progress is made to arrive at a better theoretical understanding
of the complex and multifaceted concept of family solidarity.
A study done by the American sociologists Alice and Peter Rossi (1990),
however, has attempted to investigate these aspects of family solidarity in
greater detail.