The Blackwell Companion to Sociology (33 page)

styles. The partner with more power uses the masculine style of communication,

interrupting more, steering the conversation, and having more control over the

decision-making process regardless of sex or sexual orientation.

Research has also been able to examine communication styles of lesbian, gay,

and heterosexual couples and their different relationships to power. Heterosex-

ual and gay men differ because gay men often attempt to equalize power using

atypical gender/power responses. For instance, the more powerful man may use

tag questions or attempt to involve the less powerful partner in decision-making processes. Lesbians, on the other hand, highly value egalitarian partnerships,

and may often have conversations where neither partner enacts masculine

gender responses in an effort to maintain a balance of power (Kollock et al.,

1994).

Recently, research on communication has tried to predict the impact of com-

munication style on marital satisfaction and durability. John Gottman has con-

tributed substantially to the area of marital communication, specifically in

analyzing conflict styles as a predictor of marital longevity. Interestingly, Carrere and Gottman (1999) found that quick escalation and high levels of conflict did

not predict divorce. Instead, criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and sometimes

stonewalling (withdrawal) were better predictors. Additionally, Gottman has

found gendered differences in conflict resolution that predict success for marital couples. When husbands are able to accept wive's criticisms without defensiveness and work to de-escalate conflict, and when wives begin conflicts with less

negative affect, they have a greater likelihood of remaining married. Gottman

and his colleagues now claim to be able to predict divorces approximately 90

percent of the time by analyzing newly wed marital communication and its

gendered characteristics (Carrere and Gottman, 1999).

Marriage and Cohabitation

Marriage in the United States is a declining institution across all races and

classes. Fewer couples are marrying and at later ages and over half of marriages end in divorce. This decline in marriage, however, has been largely offset by the rising rate of cohabitation. In 1970, three-quarters of young adults under

twenty-five had been in a marriage-like union and in 1985, 69 percent had

Intimate Relationships

125

(Bumpass et al., 1991). The overall rate of union had not substantially declined, but the proportion that was cohabitation had increased dramatically.

Throughout the Western world there has been a dramatic increase in cohabita-

tion in the past thirty years. In Sweden, cohabitation has become a common

alternative to marriage. In the United States almost half of first-time married

couples have cohabitation experience, and of those remarrying, 60 percent

reported cohabitation experience (Bumpass et al., 1991). Cohabitation has

often been portrayed in the media as a college student phenomenon, but it is

most commonly found among the least educated. Additionally, 40 percent of

cohabiting couples have children in the household, further evidence that this is not strictly a phenomenon of college students.

Sociologists have found that cohabiting unions are more likely to dissolve, and

marriages subsequent to cohabitation are more likely to end in divorce ± surprising facts that have spurred additional sociological research, especially in com-

paring cohabitors with married couples. Blumstein and Schwartz (1983)

documented how couples, both married and cohabiting, negotiated money,

sex, and power. Brines and Joyner (1999) have further explored the differing

implications of equality and the division of labor on the likelihood of marital

and cohabiting relationship dissolution.

There have been many attempts to explain the high rate of dissolution in

cohabiting couples. Some believe that those who self-select into cohabitation are generally non-traditional people who are already prone to unstable marriages,

have higher expectations for marriage, and have a generally weaker commitment

to the institution of marriage (DeMaris and Rao, 1992). Others have documen-

ted that cohabitors are more tentative about their relationship than those who

choose to marry. Rindfuss and Vandenheuvel (1990) argue that dissolution rates

are high because cohabitation in the United States is unlike marriage and more

similar to being single. Cohabitors have rates more similar to singles in home

ownership, financial dependence on parents, and plans for children in the near

future (Rindfuss and Vandenheuvel, 1990). However, the data used for this study

excluded high school dropouts, the group most likely to cohabit, and may have

given a non-representative view of cohabitors. It seems that if 40 percent of

cohabitors have children in the household, cohabitation, rather than a version of being single, may be becoming a new family type and perhaps, in the future, will even become a predominant one. Rindfuss and Vandenheuvel posit that the rise

in cohabitation, just like that in non-marital childbearing, reflects the centrality of individualism in the United States and is an attempt to adopt the appealing

components of family life without impinging on individual freedom.

Brines and Joyner (1999) cite some evidence that cohabitation is not just a

trial marriage, but that cohabitors and married people seek very different

rewards from their relationships. By looking at each type of relationship as a

valid form rather than marriage as thè`conceptual ideal type,'' they are able to explore the different factors in relationship cohesion and dissolution. Primarily, they find that the division of labor, with husband as primary wage earner,

encourages marital cohesion, whereas for cohabitors equality in income and

hours worked is most important. Because of a lack of contractual obligation,

126

Raine Dozier and Pepper Schwartz

cohabitors find specialization in economic or domestic labor and joint invest-

ment in the relationship too risky. The principle of stability for cohabitors, then, is not joint investment, but equality in resources and power allowing for individualism and strengthening commitment in the cohabiting relationship.

Conclusion

Sociological research regarding intimacy has grown to include a variety of

households, such as egalitarian and traditional marriages, cohabitors, single

parent families, gay and lesbian couples and families, and step families. The

growing literature reflects the increasing segmentation of household styles and

diverse patterns of intimacy. Instead of focusing only on heterosexual, married, nuclear families with a traditional division of labor as an `ìdeal type,'' and

exploring other family and relationship forms as deviant, sociologists increas-

ingly examine varied forms of intimate relationships in order to understand and

explain more generalized topics such as power and gender.

In this chapter, we have discussed some of the major topics of inquiry in the

field of adult intimacy; but we have not given substantial attention to intimacy between children and parents. There is, however, a substantial amount of interest in the changing nature of parent±child relations and the relationship of these new patterns of intimacy to broader societal changes, such as changing family

forms.

While we do not have the space in this chapter to address all these important

topics, clearly large-scale social change, such as the rise in single parent families, alters the nature of the dynamics of intimacy in the family. The change in family structure also brings about societal challenges we have become all too familiar

with, such as the need for daycare and child support enforcement, and the

increasing number of unsupervised children. The relative poverty of single

parents, in both time and money, deeply affects relationships between parents

and children. However, these challenges are largely contextual; countries such as Sweden have a large number of single parents, yet do not face the same social

problems experienced by single parents in the United States. As social policy in the USA lags behind social behavior, family relationships are adversely affected.

Governmental policies have direct implications for the level and quality of

intimacy experienced in individual homes.

Increasingly, couples are no longer staying together out of economic or moral

necessity. They are marrying later and have a high divorce rate, and cohabitation has become an increasingly viable long-term option, especially for the previously married. These alterations in relationship patterns have also generated a change in family patterns, with children being raised in a variety of family forms by a variety of primary caretakers. Also increasingly, we see families of choice,

particularly among gays and lesbians, where kinship ties are created without

blood or formal legal ties (Weston, 1991). Voluntary kinship ties have grown

increasingly popular as they reflect the Western ideal of individualism by allowing people to acquire the advantages of family ties based entirely on choice.

Intimate Relationships

127

With the decline of joint economic dependence, relationship forms may take

precedence that foster emotional interdependence, such as egalitarian marriage

and voluntary kinship. This new interdependence ± based on intimacy, volun-

teerism, and love ± will, we maintain, facilitate family and kin cohesion, and

enhance the quality of all intimate relationships.

10

Immigrant Families and Their

Children: Adaptation and Identity

Formation

Carola SuaÂrez-Orozco

Introduction

Immigration involves over 130 million adults and children worldwide. In the

United States, one out of every five children is the child of an immigrant. In New York City schools today, 48 percent of all students come from immigrant-headed

households. This is not just an urban phenomenon ± schools across the country

are experiencing a large influx of children from immigrant families. It is increasingly clear that how these children adapt will be an important factor in remaking American society.

For many, migration results in substantial gains. This is particularly so

for those escaping political, religious, or ethnic persecution and for those

seeking reunification with their families. Whatever their motives, immigration

is considered worthwhile for many. Still, the gains of immigration come at

considerable costs, which could not have been anticipated at the moment of

departure.

The social and psychological costs of migration are profoundly felt by the

children of immigrants. These children experience a particular constellation of

changes and experiences that are likely to have an impact upon their develop-

ment and personalities. Yet, surprisingly, little research has focused on the

psychological experiences of immigrant children (Garcia-Coll and Magnuson,

1997). In this chapter, I summarize the current state of knowledge and my views

about immigrant youngsters' adaptation and identity formation.

Immigrant Families and Their Children

129

Stresses of Immigration

Immigration

Transitions of any kind are regarded by social scientists and mental health

professionals to be stressful (Schlossberg, 1984). Events such as moves, job

changes, and ruptures in relationships are known to be highly disruptive, often

triggering a variety of reactions, including anxiety, anger, depression, somatic complaints, and illness (Dohrenwend, 1986). By any measure, immigration is

one of the most stressful events a person can undergo. Immigration strips

individuals of many of their sustaining social relationships, as well as of the

roles which provide them with culturally scripted notions of how they fit into the world. Without a sense of competence, control, and belonging, they may feel

marginalized. These changes are highly disorienting and nearly inevitably lead to a keen sense of loss (Grinberg and Grinberg, 1989; Ainslie, 1998).

On the most dramatic end of the stress spectrum are the stresses that result

from experiencing or witnessing killing, rape, or torture. Recent arrivals originating from the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Indochina, Central America, and Haiti

often have experienced such trauma (Somach, 1995). Symptom clusters resulting

from such trauma (post traumatic stress disorder) include reoccurring nightmares, numbness, intense anxiety, irritability, outbursts of anger, difficulty concentrat-ing, and insomnia (Smajkic and Weane, 1995). In addition to the violence experi-

enced prior to migration (in the cases where families are fleeing war or civil

unrest), all too many immigrant children witness a disconcertingly high level of violence in their new neighborhood and school settings. Furthermore, the actual

border crossing is often a traumatic event for adults and children alike. Immi-

grants who experience trauma will often suffer recurring waves of these symp-

toms over a period of time; the severity of the symptoms will depend on the extent of the trauma and the psychological, social, and material resources available to the victims. These symptoms add significantly to the stresses of immigration.

A form of stress specific to immigration has been termed `àcculturation stress''

(Berry, 1998). This is the process whereby individuals learn and come to terms

with the new cultural ``rules of engagement.'' The individual's place of origin