| HOME | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
a Research Department, National Pensions Fund for Social Security, Paris, France
Correspondence: Claudine Attias-Donfut, PhD, Directeur des recherches sur le vieillissement, 49 rue Mirabeau, 75016 Paris, France. E-mail: claudine.attias-donfut{at}cnav.fr.
Following Durkheim 1975
, the family can be defined as an institution that articulates gender and generational differences (Thery 1996). The profound transformation that took place within the family between 1965 and 1975 has affected gender and generational relations in every domain—economic, social, biological, and demographic. It is particularly interesting to analyze these transformations from the general perspective of age integration, which is at the center of this program. All research on the family appearing at the end of the 20th century emphasizes the changing family calendar that is linked to new types of conjugal relationships. There is a steady and continual decline in the number of marriages, an increase in divorces, a delay in procreation, and a fall in fertility rates. The parental role is changing, and educational models are becoming less rigid. The child becomes a mirror of "us," an expression of love between couples. The "moral family" is now finished, and in its place we have the "relational family" (de Singly, 1996). The new qualities of parent/child relationships are characterized by autonomy of the generations, giving rise to a later departure of young people from the parental home (Galland 1997). These trends apply to all modern societies, as research undertaken in different European countries (Gullestad and Segalen 1997) and the United States clearly shows.
In analyzing these structural changes, Riley and Riley 1993 foresee the emergence of a new kinship form, a "latent matrix of relationships?" This new form is characterized by less pronounced cleavages between ages and generations. "Instead, the boundaries of kin networks have widened to encompass many diverse relationships, including several degrees of step-kin and in-laws, and also adopted and other surrogate ‘relatives’ chosen from outside the family" (Riley and Riley 1996, p. 259).
In this contribution, I will examine the process of age integration in the context of a more classic kinship structure, that of the "expanded" three-generational family type of kinship. This analysis relies upon original research of intergenerational solidarity between three generations of the same family. This research began in 1992 with a survey of families, which included at least three adult members of different generations not living in the same household. The anchor for this survey was a "pivotal" generation person, born between 1939 and 1943, who had at least one adult child and one parent alive (not living necessarily in the same household). This methodology allowed the same comprehensive set of questions to be put to a pivotal generation member and to his/her parent and adult child (Attias-Donfut 1995).
Each of the three generations in this research represents a relatively homogenous age grouping, clearly differentiated in respect to historical background and current stage of the life course. Young people have entered the world of work (jobs for some, further education for others); most of the pivotal generation are active in the labor force, and members of the eldest generation have been in retirement for some time and are at risk of experiencing disability. Because these family generations are at the same time "historical" and "welfare" generations (cohorts), they are particularly suited to an analysis of the interface between private and public spheres, and of social change interacting with family relations.
Empirical results demonstrate the importance of financial gifts made by the pivotal and older generations. Analyzing responses from three generations of the same family makes possible a more precise measurement of different forms of support. The data show that 33% of the grandparents (the older generation) give money to their adult children, and 30% give money to their grandchildren (the younger generation). In total, almost one in two older people (49%) give money to either their adult children or grandchildren. As far as the pivotal generation is concerned, 64% of the households provide financial help to their children, and 9% give financial help to their parents. In contrast to these downward financial transfers, services are widely exchanged between generations, both downward and upward. For example, 89% of pivots provide at least one domestic service to their parents, and 49% of the older generation members offer time assistance to their children (Attias-Donfut 1995). Home sharing is another way to redistribute resources. In addition to financial transfers, individuals can also provide support by having either their children or their parents live with them. Home sharing sometimes expresses the desire of both generations to live in the same household (where there are close ties and good relationships). But this pattern has become less frequent as the norm for "intimacy at a distance" has prevailed (Rosenmayr and Kockeis 1963). Because home sharing occurs at the expense of privacy of both coresident generations, it seems to most often be a result of economic necessity. Economic links across generations through help with housing is highly important, because this type of support can be of great benefit to poorer households who can not afford to redistribute money.
Private transfers, whether financial or in kind, as well as shared living arrangements, result in an overall reduction of intergenerational inequalities because the different kinds of support are mainly given to needy family members. Private transfers have redistributive effects and therefore contribute to reduce inequalities that are age-related (Attias-Donfut and Wolff 2000).
In the area of lifestyles and values, there is also a reduction of generational differences through social and cultural exchanges within families, as shown by the following results from the three-generational study. From one generation to another, as can be expected, we observe marked differences in values and behavior. As we move from the oldest to the youngest generation, relations between couples become more egalitarian, there is a more equitable division of household tasks, the practice of religion diminishes, and education patterns are less authoritarian. These examples, among others, confirm well-known trends. Comparing answers of different generations in the same family reveals a strong intergenerational transmission of behavior and values. Modern attitudes are transmitted, but so also (to a much lesser degree) are traditional attitudes. Because changes across generations only occur for some linages, we can identify through whom and by what means changes are introduced. Among the complexity of factors and influences at play, one factor appears especially significant: the influence of intergenerational social mobility. A change in behavior from one generation to the next is more marked in families where there is ascending social mobility. This phenomenon is certainly not limited to the domain of education, but also can be found using other indicators of social mobility. A change in social status facilitates or brings about the adoption of new values and new behavior. This shows how the capacity of societies to change and the speed of this change are linked to the degree of openness of social classes. Another phenomenon has to be taken into account: the influence of children upon their parents, or "reversed socialization" (Allerbeck, Jennings, and Rosenmayr 1979). This takes place today all the more so because the colongevity of generations prolongs the length of time in which exchanges and influences take place, and increases proximity between generations. The age difference between parents and children symbolically contracts when the life span increases.
We are especially interested here in the diffusion of social change from the youngest adults to the oldest, and the factors associated with these influences. Social mobility does not only benefit those who climb the social ladder, but also their parents. Several mechanisms can be seen to be at work. Social mobility is often the result of parental investment, which implies an initial good relationship between parents and children. The upward mobility of children increases the distance from their parents, not only in relation to standards of living but also in lifestyles and outlook upon the world (Gaulejac 1987). From this process, two scenarios can be drawn. There is either a weakening of the generational ties or, on the contrary, the debt toward their parents is strongly felt and children repay it by sharing the gains of their upward social mobility. They are able to do so through economic help. But they can also exert a cultural influence upon their parents, leading them to change their values and behavior. This can be brought about by the prestige that accompanies the children's elevated social position and the pride that this inspires in the parents.
The results of our research support these hypotheses. The "rebound" effects of upward social mobility by children to their parents can be clearly seen for the most part in a rise in the standard of living and social capital of the latter. In order to examine the effect of this upon value systems and behavior, the pivotal generation was asked to identify domains in which their children had influenced them. A minority of parents reported a strong influence was exerted upon them in the area of fundamental issues such as religion, politics, social problems, or education. This group of parents had children who experienced a higher degree of social mobility than the average. Among them, mothers are overrepresented. Among other parents, a majority reported some form of influence, although it was weaker than for the former group of parents and more linked to such formal aspects of lifestyle as dress appearance, house decoration, food, leisure activities, and style of education. Mothers in this category are again more receptive than fathers to their children's influence (women appear as the main actors of social change).
Social mobility is certainly not the only factor affecting ascending transfers, even though its influence is important. Affective proximity and the quality of relationships facilitate these reciprocal transmissions. The confrontation between generations that have different values creates zones of influence in family life. New ideas are tested and there is a move toward their relative acceptance. This confrontation mediates change. Thus, the changes introduced by the young slowly win over the other generations and extend outward socially through the mediation of the family.
The increase in life expectancy and its effect of prolonging the duration of exchanges between the generations brings about the increasing probability of reciprocal influences between the generations. The new models of relations that are more egalitarian allow these exchanges of influences to occur. In this way, the different types of exchange between the generations, whether they be economic or cultural, can contribute to a reduction (without actually eradicating) the differences between the generations, thereby adding to the process of age integration in society.
 |
References |
|---|
 TOP References |
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  H.-C. Hsu, C.-Y. Lew-Ting, and S.-C. Wu Age, Period, and Cohort Effects on the Attitude Toward Supporting Parents in Taiwan Gerontologist, December 1, 2001; 41(6): 742 - 750. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|---|
