HEIDBRINK--CLARK

Apparently I never actually posted the blog comment I wrote earlier this week, so here it is (belated):

Lauren Heidbrink’s article Recasting the Agency of Unaccompanied Youth brings up many important issues about illegal migrant children and how our immigration laws affect them. She notes that “contemporary United States immigration law still frames immigrant children as objects, recognizing the identity of a child only inasmuch as that child is a derivative of the actions, legal status, and presence of his or her parent(s)” (2). This is a very interesting concept that does not make a whole lot of sense to me, especially considering how “grown up” many of these migrant children are. In her study of Mario’s journey to (and in) America, it is especially easy to recognize how much these young children are actually treated much like adults in our government system. The detainees are treated very much like prisoners, wearing standard-issue fluorescent colored sweats to be better identified and flimsy black flip flops so they are not able to run very fast down the gravel road if they actually are able to escape. This back and fourth between a child and an adult is very confusing… shouldn’t they just stick to one idea or the other?

Good luck!

Good luck with the papers and the rest of your finals period! I find Harry Potter an excellent reducer of stress so if anyone needs to borrow one of the books for an emergency Potter read, please let me know! : )

Has been lovely having class with you this semester!

Danielle

Heidbrink-Duerr

I thought the way Heidbrink illustrated how “unaccompanied youth,” such as Mario, are shaping the social and political landscape was very interesting. Laws, jobs, and policy have been spawned as a result of the presence of unaccompanied immigrant children in this country. Their decision to illegally immigrate has been a social and political force. She presents a new way of analyzing youth and culture, rather than looking at the way youth works against social structures, as in delinquency, or the way they are influenced by these structures, such as consumerism, Heibrink chooses to look at the way these structures are actually shaped by the existence of the immigrant children. Mario’s status as an “unaccompanied alien child” makes him an “impossible subject who cannot exist in juridical accounts of personhood due to his illegal presence in the United States and his paradoxical position as an alone but dependent minor” (p.3) his migrant illegality is “simultaneously a social reality and a legal impossibility-a subject barred from citizen ship and without rights.” (p.3)

Heidbrink - Fuller

Heidbrink brings up a lot of important issues about children who give up their kinship ties in order to gain legal status in the States, thus legally severing kinship ties. However, it would be interesting to see if these kinship ties are sometimes “unofficially” reconnected. How do the kin who are severed see the family member who chose to cut the ties? Is all communication actually cut off, or do these lines stay open despite legal titles?

Another point I found interesting was that the role of children – traditionally a very dependent group on their parent and confined to a household, Heidbrink depicts how children’s roles are becoming very dynamic and more involved in the social sphere that was once reserved for adults. “[T]hese historical reforms marked a shift in allegiance that remains with us today – a child’s ‘highest duty was no longer obedience to parents, but preparation for citizenship’” (p2). How does this affect the household structure? Does it strain kinship ties in some cases? We saw that Mario did not believe in testifying against his family, despite negligent history. In the States, however, it seems like a very different perspective is taken, advocated through the media and social institutions put in place.

Heidbrink- Wharton

Reading Mario's story made me wonder how awful the average immigrant child's situation must be to drive him to sever his ties of kinship and apply for Special Immigrant Juvenile status. Mario was abused by his step-father and gang members in his community, but remained unwilling to legally sever his kinship ties in exchange for US citizenship. From my perspective, this decision makes sense, as for a child (or any citizen) it seems that it would be quite daunting to find oneself alone, detained in a foreign country, with no real understanding of what one's future will hold. In this situation, to then legally end the only connection that one has to any sort of familial network, seems like an impossible choice to make.
It is a shame that such an intelligent person as Mario fell victim to gang violence, and that seemingly the rest of the community did little to protect him, even though he was a valued worker and student. To better understand Mario's situation, I would like more information on his relationships with his mother and siblings, employers, and teachers. I would also like to know more about his distant uncle in the United States. It seems very possible that the situation Mario would face in the United States would be no better than the one which he is attempting to flee from. What factors, then, are considered most when immigrant children are deciding to leave their homes? For example, was Mario's mother encouraging him to migrate so that he could raise money for the family, or because she was truly concerned for his wellbeing in the home community? The factors going into the decision-making process for a migrant child leaving the home could shed some light on whether the child should be considered a dependent or an independent.
On a different trajectory, it seems as if through Special Immigrant Juvenile status the state replaces the family network, that the United States government should provide a significant amount of support to a child under this status. If a child is willing to give up the only kinship network he has, what he is receiving in exchange should at least help him gain access to food, shelter, and education in the United States. In other words, it should offer him with possibilities that his forfeited network did not. Therefore, I wonder- what is a child under Special Immigrant Juvenile status's life really like? Does achieving this status justify forfeiting the bonds to one's family?

Heidbrink--Wilson

I think it's a little presumptive to argue that the court deliberately sought "to protect and provide for this inherently vulnerable population" as its main motivation for enacting the reforms (1). I'm sure that that's the public front for the campaign but the measure would only have been politically feasible if the emphasis was on the expected gains in tax revenue from a new group of tax payers (and yes, most children wouldn't earn enough to be required to file taxes, but it's the principle of securing the loyalty of a new pool of payers, not to mention the gains from those who could actually pay taxes--baby-sitting money nearly became taxable income a few years ago, to give some idea of the government's propensity for inventing new ways to gain revenue). Diminishing the rights of parents who are not overtly abusing children is a hard sell to some legislators, though the reforms could make parents less likely to force a child into a factory due to the lack of incentive. However, I'm not sure how effective the reforms would be as a deterrent for parents to take advantage of children because a parent who could pressure a child into factory work is just as likely to pressure a child into giving up her income even if the law grants the child ownership of earnings. Child workers will remain an issue because if a household relies on a child's income, the child would probably find a way to provide if committed to the family--the reform could just encourage illegitimate forms of work or work that takes place after hours. And I do admit that the state does have a vested interest in a healthy population, and not purely for pecuniary reasons. A healthy, thriving population will not only produce more but be more likely to engage in civic activity i.e. voting, civil service, etc. The child remains a subject, however--just of a different parent, more furtive in her intentions.

I digress--was intending to discuss unaccompanied children but got caught up in the policy implications and some presumptions of my own. I was particularly struck by the image of Mario being dressed in a manner that would elicit sympathy from the court (13). Being told that the only way to get through important channels is to act a certain, if not insincere way, could be a blow to agency--a challenge to know oneself enough to be able to emerge without lasting effects or permanent changes. The court is a theatre in this way, just as effective as a film or West End production at setting a stage, calling upon a specific cast, remaking the participants, and presenting a message to an audience. The child who can recognise the falsity of a situation or when he is being manipulated already regains some of his agency.

(Sorry Lauren--I'm citing you! It's only a class-wide circulation, however! ^__^ )

Heidbrink - Bao

After reading this weeks's paper on youth and law, I find myself intrigued by the idea of agency and children. The idea that these illegral child migrants have to "play a part" in order to gain a certain level of accpetance into a country can clearly have its benefits and its downsides. The benefits, of course, would be entrance into America, but the downsides seem to have a much deeper pyschological imapact. Especially if we are looking at family and networks, these children are being forced to give up their identities as individuals within these units. How, then, do they begin to conceptualize the rest of the world? What kind of "culture" is formed by these children who are now dependents of the state? Is their "family" the state board and the shelter that they reside in? This raises further questions about the way in which they envision themselves as belonging (or perhaps not belonging) to the new society in which they live and how they imagine their futures. To what degree to they have autonomy over their lives or are they forever dependent on the state to dictate their actions and the boundaries by which they must live?

Nastacio-Heidbrink

In "Recasting the Agency of Unaccompanied Youth", Lauren Heidbrink discusses the idea of kinship ties and how illegal children are often put in the position where they have to chose between their family and the state. For example, she uses Mario as an example. It is interesting to note that although Mario's dad abused him, when he was captured as an illegal alien he refused to tell the court about it. He said, "I just can't say those bad things about my family to a room of people. You do not do that. They are my family." Even though his dad abused him, he still felt a sense of loyalty and connection towards his family. It was also interesting to note that although laws in the United States do not regard children as property, immigration laws are still framing children as objects. The identity of the child is only depended not their legal status and their parents actions. This seems as if it would make it difficult for these children to know who to stay loyal to: their family or the state. Why should children have to be in the position to have to choose?

Heidbrink_Marcus

Two issues in Heibrink’s article struck me as particularly important for our discussions of kinship, household, and vulnerability. The first is the legal state of aconsanguinity imposed by the Special Immigrant Juvenile visa, by which migrant children, to become sole wards of the state, must sever all kinship ties with parents and siblings, and cannot petition for relatives to immigrate to the US. This stipulation is based on the purported abuse and abandonment of the child by his family, which as Heidbrink says of the migrant she interviewed, “was not only emotionally inaccurate but also undermined his personal and financial commitment to his mother and siblings.” The emotional self-compromise of such a law is deeply reprehensible, and what is more, negates what for most people is the whole purpose of migration—to remit funds to families and communities back home. In this sense, I would be very interested to learn more about the impact of SIJ on the financial commitment of migrants to their families- are there any restrictions on remittances, contact, or visits to home communities? To what extent does SIJ impose a practical, if also symbolic, “cutting of the network?”

A second point to draw from the reading is the important role children can play in household support, management, and decision-making. Heidbrink urges greater attention to and recognition of the agency of children in shaping their life-worlds and everyday interactions. In light of the very phenomenon by which migrant children can become the primary sources of financial support for their families, we must consider 1) how children in any context can play crucial and active roles in household dynamics, and 2) how household dynamics, such as powers of decision making and relative autonomy, may change when children become primary earners. Overall, we must question the assumption of children as merely receivers of care, and consider how they may both provide care as well as shape what that care consists of.

cliggett: Lize-Anne

What first struck me about this article were the questions posed at the outset, asking why immigrants make such a hefty sacrifice of themselves in order to send remmitances back home. Coming from a background where this practice is a given, I have never questioned why it happens, because has been made fairly obvious to me. Firstly, the community you come from played a large part in getting you into this new community, where you have more of an opportunity to be upwardly mobile. It is therefore a means of thanking them and showing that their contribution was not in vain and that you, as the immigrant worker, are taking advantage of the opportunity given to you. Also, I found it interesting that Cliggett says the remittances are often meager and unsubstantial to the family, however in an environment where even food is not guaranteed, sending anything that is even of small value is in fact substantial. However the situation in Zambia is quite different, as Cliggett notes.
These are questions I would have made assumptions for, however asking them is important because it enables one to question how remittances foster and maintain kinship ties and are important to ask.
I found Cliggetts methodology interesting, in that she focused on particular event and studied it in-depth. I found this to be particularly enlightening. Through this kind of study we see the temporality that is central to this remittance-giving for the function of maintaining homeland ties. Cliggett's example of the man who tried to return to his community after years without contacting them and was not easily invited back in despite his return with an abundance of gifts highlights this temporality. Perhaps there is value in sending these gifts over time, so that the reciever understands that they have not been forgotten and that the person who has moved away is still very much part of a network that they can depend on. In the years that this man lost contact with community members, they could not ask him for anything and thus he essentially became dead-weight within this network. Perhaps it is a matter not only of establishing that you are part of the persons network and should they need you, you will be willing to provide but also establishing that you are a dependable point within that network that will not disappear over time.

Cliggett - Bao

Sorry for the late response - I was unable to access the readings until today.

I thought the article made a good point about expanding the base of knowledge : "Building on our base of knowledge with more detailed understandings of the variety of ways in which migrants maintain links...will faciliate our ability to make policy recommendations..." (Cliggett, 37). This directly connects with our discussions last week regarding the demographic data and our guest speaker's work on PEPFAR policy. In order to make policy changes that can bring about positive change, we need to understand first the population with which we are working with. If this means that we need to change the lens through which we see them, then we should work harder to encourage interdisciplinary research and collaboration. I think the article does a good job of articulating the limitation of viewing the Zambian remittance system from just an economic perspective. We discussed this in the Anthropology of Money course last semester - the idea that while the economic motivations are an important aspect of daily life, it is not necessarily the only aspect that is worth considering. I think that the readings are encouraging us to try and change our standard approach to how we view families and households, so that we might learn more about them. In essence, opening our minds by changing our perception of how things work.

I had several questions while reading the Cliggett article that were in direct response to some of the statements she made. The first was regarding the physical boundaries of separation - how far is considered "far"? Is it beyond the collection of homes, beyond the territory, or simply the difference between rural and urban? What about those who live in a completely different country? I am trying to understand if there is a clear line between those who are considered "inside" the family versus those "outside", and if there can be a physical line associated with it. I also had a question regarding the frequency of remittances and gifts; if a gift only has be to small, then why is it that some people choose not to give gifts more often? Or why is it that some people choose not to give gifts at all, and then return? Who dictates the inclusion or exclusion of these separated members? I find this very interesting to consider, because I am used to associating gifts with people important to me. The more important I feel they are, the "better" gift I may give them. I recently read in an article that there was a trend in the United States of younger family members neglecting to give their siblings or parents gifts during the holidays because they assumed they would understand that the feelings or connection would be there. However, the recipients (or rather, lack thereof) felt more hurt by this lack of consideration and felt that the bonds had weakened. In essence, they would have preferred a gift, no matter the price, as a sign of their connection. I guess this is similar to Cliggett's idea of the symbolism in the remittances, rather than the actual economic value. Are there other similarities in our society to the Zambian remittance practices?

Cligett-Duerr

When migrants from Asia and South America and most of Africa leave their rural villages they remain tied to “home” by sending back “remittances” that are meant to sustain or improve the lives of their relatives living in their natal villages. Zambian migrants are tied to their sending community differently. These migrants do not support their relatives still in the village; rather Zambian migrants maintain a relationship with their rural village by periodically visiting and bringing or sending small gifts. The gifts are not meant to support the receiver but are expressions of the desire to remain connected. A dress, some sugar, small amounts of cash for tobacco, a plate are the types of gifts that would be common in Zambian exchanges with home. This form of gift giving reminds me of the trinkets and food items that we would bring home from a vacation for our family members to let them know we remembered them on our trip. The gift of “small amounts of cash” to buy something special is reminiscent of a Grandmother giving a child money to “buy a treat” or a relative giving a college student cash to “buy a beer.” While not meant to sustain, these type gifts express the desire to please and to be connected to the person receiving the gift. Cliggett mentions that perhaps the seemingly small investment in the remittance is due to the small amount of excess cash available to Zambian migrants in comparison to other migrant groups. But she also points to examples of Zambian migrants who are experience economic prosperity yet still do not provide financial assistance to their sending community. Perhaps this is just of case of being self centered or inconsiderate. The Zambian way of connecting with their relatives at home does not seem that different from the way we do it here in the United States. It is a matter of choice, some folks stay very connected with their families even though they live far away, sending them cards and presents for special occasions, paying them periodic visits, while others loose touch with their families and do not care to stay connected. Granted we have greater mobility and alternative was of “staying in touch” via technology. Some Zambian migrants keep the ties with the village open because they want the option of returning, especially in their old age. Upon their return they want to be sure their relatives remember them and do not say, “We don’t know him.” This reminds me of what we call the “long lost relative,” not a well-appreciated family member or necessarily a welcome sight. Feelings about family members who are seldom seen are tempered by the exchanges we have had with them in the past.

Cligett- Wharton

"Remitting the Gift" raised various questions in my mind as to the relationship between the migrant and his or her natal family. The article is looking at migrant gifting in order to "understand the core of investing in social relations through remitting practices,"(35). However, in the Introduction, it is revealed that most migrants in Africa do not have surplus income (36); that being said, what then inspires migration from one's natal family? In other regions of the world, such as South and Central America, West Africa, and Asia, families often operate as a "corporate social unit," (36), sending out migrant laborers to bolster the economic well-being of the home community. If migrants in Zambia are only able to send back "small gifts" to maintain kin ties (36), then what motivates migrant individuals to leave the home community in the first place?
In the "Migration Studies and the Role of Remittances" section, it says "Often, the Zambian literature documents an absence of remitting all together," (37), again- what does this statement say about the relationship between migrants and natal families in Zambia? Does the dominant condition of poverty (39) in this region of Africa prevent the Zambian family from operating as a "corporate social unit" (36) and impinge upon the relationships between migrant and natal family? Throughout the article, gift remitting is described as a necessary process for "establishing mutual recognition" (37) between the migrant and communities at home, but if remitting is frequently absent, how important is this mutual recognition in the overall culture of Zambia? Once people leave home, are they usually inclined to return? The dynamic between the migrant and natal family is clearly unique in Zambia; the lack of documentation on remitting practices leads me to question how much of a bond usually remains between an individual and his or her family once they leave the home.
However, in the "Ethnographic Insight from Zambia" section, the relationship between some migrants and sending communities is described as an interdependency that is critical for the survival of both the migrant and the sending community (39). In such cases of interdependency, how is the decision of which individual will leave the natal family or home community made? Does leaving the family correspond to any particular age? Is there any sort of ceremony involved in leaving the home community? And what social networks exist in terms of pointing the migrant individual in the right direction to find work?

CLIGGETT--CLARK

The article on remittances in Zambia was very interesting, especially in how unique their gift-giving practices are. After first reading the abstract I found myself wondering why they even bothered sometimes with sending such little gifts back to their families—as opposed to the traditional large gift or sum of money. However, when Cliggett first mentioned the concept of “the gift” it all started to come together. I’m sure it is a very culturally based thing, but it certainly makes sense that “gift exchange establishes a valued form of mutual recognition between donor and recipient that supercedes the material value of the gift itself” (38). However, I was still a bit unclear about how this really works. Would a large gift (say, a 10 on a 1-10 scale) given at one point in time truly be the same to a family from a kinship-linking angle as ten different, smaller gifts? Or would ten separate “things” or thoughts of gifts mean more in the long run? Obviously for the Zambians this is the case, but I am curious as to which aspects of a culture would make that so? Would poorer cultures value smaller gifts more? Does it have to do with the pre-established kinship relationship—perhaps for those with an already strong relationship, a smaller gift would mean more as opposed to a large sum meaning more in the midst of a weak relationship.

Cliggett- Wilson

David hit on something about which I'd also wondered: "if the emotional and the material are so closely linked, what happens to bonds of kinship when there simply are no resources for migrants to remit to their kin?...must there be some element of sacrifice and donation?"

The point of a remittance is the have "an impact," to be meaningful and symbolic of the exchange of trust or loyalty, or of tribute or sacrifice (37). If there are no resources available, even for material goods "however small they may be" as Cliggett discusses, there are still options available: 1) wait until enough has been generated to pay a proper remittance (like saving up to provide a dowry, though dowries and remittances are not the same thing), 2) dig into one's own stores (the food off the table for the week if no extra food is available, or the clothes in the closet or tobacco from one's own supply), 3) scale back the original idea and provide what's affordable at the time, or 4) find a substitute for a material good altogether, either in services rendered or another alternative (38). One must determine if it is more important to have something by a certain time or if it is more important to have something of a particular quality or quantity. My understanding is that the remittance is symbolic of the sacrifice one is willing to make on behalf of the other, so if a case can be made about the meaning of the remittance, it should be accepted. It's just a matter of determining how much in debt one is willing to go.

Along these lines, we could find a potential similarity in the biblical story of the poor woman's tribute being worth more than the costly gifts/larger donations of the rich men. The woman was sacrificing more, giving up more of her future relative to the rich men (that money could have been used for something else, thus limits her future opportunities), and so was providing the more meaningful tribute. In regards to David's last question, "Is there something distinctly Gwembe about them," the answer would be perhaps not. Giving to a church as part of a religion is different than an exchange involved in kinship relations, but there remains something similar in the promotion of community living--investing in a shared future. Also, the bigger the investment, the greater the return if the investment's a good one!

Last note: Christmas gifts, appreciation day gifts to teachers or employees, wedding shower gifts, birthday cards--remittances of some form or something much simpler?

Cliggett- Nastacio

In Remitting the Gift, Lisa Cliggett focuses on gift exchange and how it is necessary in order to understand Zambian families and the idea that they give money to their families despite their poverty status. When I first read about the idea of 'remitting' I associated it with heads of households who come to America to work and then send money back to their dependent families. However, Cliggett says that this is not the case. Instead these Zambian remittances only offer 'periodic luxuries' and not a form of substantial support. However it seems as if this might make families dependent on foreign economic help even if it is only periodic. Remittances offer a sort of mutual recognition between migrants, relatives and friends. It is more of a way to reinforce social networks. In one example, Mr. Mulenga stopped visiting his homeland and then wanted to retire there. However when he arrived with gifts he was told, "all these cothes are nothing--what we want is your soul" This brings up the question of even if he had kept visiting and sending gifts periodically, would he still be considered a part of his homeland even though he didn't physically live there?

Cliglett - Fuller

Last week, we saw examples of “non-resident household heads” in the articles and the film, Yesterday. This idea of non-resident household members intrigued me, and I was interested to see this represented in Cliglett’s article. Cliglett provides examples of household members who leave their rural hometowns for the city; in areas besides Zambia, these migrants provide substantial support for their original households, thus maintaining some importance in the household. In the Zambian case, however, I was interested by the idea that the able bodied household member who leaves doesn’t provide as much for their original household, and that they are not so much a non-resident household member but more of an outsider who must somehow maintain his spot in the household for future purposes through remittances (Cliglett 38). The Zambian migrant must show his loyalty to his hometown, or risk losing the stability of having a hometown to go to. Which leads to the question, how does this idea of maintaining social networks and loyalty to one’s household contribute to the structure of households with “migrant” members, particularly in cultures more similar to ours? Family and social network have proved to be of incredible importance to the family throughout our readings. However, in the case of these migrants, it seems like some choose to cut off their social network from home. What new networks are created, and how, out of the context of family and kin?

Cliggett_Marcus

Cliggett’s paper is highly valuable for understanding how networks of support among kin can be understood beyond an exclusively economic framework, but rather the symbolic currency of aid. The “gift remittances” given by Zambian migrant workers to their natal households lend substance and continuity to ties that lack everyday presence. They also act as an investment in the future, in that those who fail to provide these gift remittances may find their kin unwilling to incorporate them back into natal kin and community groups. Gift remittances are thus exchanges of assurances- from migrant workers, of sustained devotion, and from sender communities, of future belonging. So if material support cannot be understood without accounting for the symbolic and emotional, we can also say that emotional bonds of love and caring can be dependent on the material.

Cliggett open up room for a number of question I think are worth exploring: if the emotional and the material are so closely linked, what happens to bonds of kinship when there simply are no resources for migrants to remit to their kin? Do emotional ties atrophy without material exchange of goods of even low “absolute” value? Would pure communication itself (letters?) be inadequate? Or must there be some element of sacrifice and donation?

Cliggett attests that “gift-remittances” in Zamia represent an anomaly in the wider (particularly African) literature on migration. I would like to know more about why this is so—what is particular about Zambia?

Along these lines, it seems important to consider indigenous concepts of exchange within kinship that predate and inform these rather idiosyncratic “gift-remittances”—where do these practices and ideas come from? Is there something distinctly Gwembe about them?

Reynolds_Marcus

Reynolds paper suggests some important directions in the study of family, household, and health—her emphasis on the need to recognize diverse forms of relatedness that models of “biological citizenship” tend to overlook is particularly salutary.

I am always interested in contemporary studies of “classic” ethnographic groups, as with the Zulu here, not simply as an update on “how they live now,” but more importantly at the possibility for current anthropologists to utilize and reanimate older accounts, categories, and analyses –studies that are often written-off as stale, overdetermined, and irrelevant (as can be the unfortunate case with work on kinship) can in fact be deeply significant for understanding the contemporary reconfigurations of social life.

Reynolds’s example of the boy who could name 49 kin members by the exact kinship terminology described in classic studies of the Zulu illustrates this point well. I would be very interested to extend Reynolds analysis even further, to account not only for the maintenance of kinship terminology for particular relatives, but also how certain of those categories are extended and take on additional meanings for new kinds of caregivers previously of peripheral or unmarked importance, such as extended kin or non-kin. For instance, if a young orphan’s brother’s wife who becomes the primary caregiver continues to be referred to as “new wife,” and never takes on a term of perhaps closer denotation (“mother” or “sister,” let’s say), what does that mean about the relative importance of lineal/”biological” reckonings of kinship versus the affinal/processural? Flux or stasis of terminological markers can inform our understandings of how the substance of kinship responds to and is shaped by the economic and epidemiological upheavals at hand.

Her point that non-resident kin are not necessarily absent from and inactive within kinship and household dynamics is an important one which we have repeatedly encountered in this course, not least in the context of Census presuppositions of who counts as part of the household. It reminds me of a case I brought up earlier in the semester of Filipino migrant workers to the UK who carry on life-long “remote parenting” relationships with their children via skype. You can read more about this here: http://blogs.nyu.edu/projects/materialworld/2009/02/parenting_by_phone_and_interne.html#comments

Hosegood-Duerr

The paper presented by Lindsey Reynolds gave very interesting insights into the kinship relations among the modern Zulu in her study group. It would seem that a strong family structure still exists even though so many families have lost members to HIV/Aids. The small sample of children who are cited in the paper come across as very connected to kin in spite of their “vulnerability” or orphan status. Both readings seem to show that when one family member dies another family member slides into the role of caregiver of the orphaned child. And when the “new” caregiver dies the family re-groups again. My question here is “what happens to the family/child when there are not enough healthy family members to take care of the sick and the children?” It would seem at the rate of death from HIV/Aids and other causes mentioned in the Hosegood study that a point will be reached when the pensioners pass away where there will be few family members left in hard hit families to care for the orphaned children as well as the adult children who are alive but sick. I am also wondering how many of the orphaned children are HIV positive themselves and what are their chances of survival into adulthood. While this was not a concern of the papers I cannot help but wonder if there is any slow down of the spread of HIV/Aids in rural South Africa. 

One of the implications of the kinship research seems to be that the best ways to assist vulnerable children is to somehow support the family network of which they are a part. The children in Reynolds study on an average named eleven family members as being “relatives that were important to them in their lives.” When a child is connected to various relatives who serve as family, this kin group seems to be the network that needs the greatest support in any policy making decisions regarding the welfare of the orphaned and vulnerable children. 

Reading the Hosegood study gave me a view of sickness and death as the norm for the study families. Studying the impact of HIV/Aids on a household and watching and even participating in the bereavement process must be extremely painful for the researchers. I do not think it is possible to remain detached in this type of study.

Hosegood - Fuller

In studying families and households so far, the importance of networks has been stressed. It seems that these networks are far more important for more impoverished areas, where reliance on the community is expected, in a sense. Interestingly, when these families need it the most, their network connections seem to disintegrate – one event leads to the next, and when the individuals need more care, their networks refrain from providing because of the social stigma and etcetera of multiple deaths in a household. “Over time, with each new episode of illness and death, respondents felt increasingly isolated and stigmatized by relatives and neighbors” (1252). With these ideas of “bewitchment” (1254) that individuals occasionally impose upon those infected with HIV, how does it affect the ill’s family (extended and immediate) within a community and network? Does the family in these cases distance this individual, or is the family stigmatized along with the ill individual? I was surprised with how dramatically AIDS managed to tear apart networks – though this was expected to some extent, the measure to which it seems to occur is shocking.

Hosegood - Bao

I found the Hosegood article an excellent source for explaining some of the problems with the way we practice medicine and the way health policy is structured. This also ties in with international aid both in terms of funding and in terms of public awareness. There seems to be a tendency to look at individuals as their disease, as opposed to individuals whose lives must somehow incorporate their ailment. The Reynolds article discussed the issue regarding the move away from kinship and towards an identity based upon biomedical citizenship, which in some ways can and hould be seen as a strategical political move. As she points out, "They are painted as the victim, the recipient of suppor, or the surrogate for someone else's claims to biological citizenship" (Reynolds 2009). By classifying children in this manner, it becomes difficult to understand what "belonging" entails, and how this fits into kinship and household. Both articles serve as good examples as to why we need to focus on a more holistic view of people and their networks in order to understand the true effect a disease has on their mind and body. By doing this, we may learn more about families and their abilities to cope, transform, and continue on despite various challenges.

Hosegood- Wharton

The Hosegood source described a type of society and a type of household that we have yet to discuss. The article uses terminology such as "stretched households" and "non-resident household members," these are dynamics that add a new dimension to our studies of family and household. Never have we really considered how a household could also represent a network by being composed of individuals who lived outside of the actual dwelling, but provided funding and support to the nodal family unit. The article goes so far as to claim that in the KwaZulu Natal area, "28% of household heads are nonresident," (1250). What does this say about the household itself? How does the lack of physical presence of the head of a household impact the household's organization?

It is clear from reading this article that HIV and AIDS have a significant impact upon many individuals, families, households, and networks in KwaZulu Natal. However, the publication discusses the impact of these illnesses and associated complications upon the household after its formation, which leads me to wonder how the fears and stigmas associated with this illness impact individuals and couples forming a household for the first time? In the various case studies, there were no obvious representations of married couples (as they would have been represented by the double-strike on a family tree diagram). How does such a high prevalence of HIV and AIDS impact the social relationships between men and women in KwaZulu Natal? Is there a lack of trust or fear of loving another individual associated with such a high death rate? Is the contraction of HIV or AIDS throughout the course of one's life expected in this area of South Africa? Is the relationship between HIV and AIDS and intercourse fully understood? Overall, how does the prevalence of serious and frequently fatal illnesses that are passed by sexual contact impact relationships between men and women and the formation of new families in the KwaZulu Natal region?

Housegood--Danielle W.

One of the most telling statements from the article by Hosegood et al was the following: "in no society do households exist in isolation" (1250). This could refer to the more abstract outside or institutional influences that are reflected in the behaviour of households, but I'd like to consider it in the context of networks. The article describes the impact of HIV on households and their networks: the presence and resulting fear of such a seemingly ceaseless, indiscriminate killer plays a huge role in shaping network exchanges--suspicions, doubts, anger, loss, etc lead to changes in economic behaviour and familial ties. As the article points out, "inter-personal and inter-household relationships are not necessarily supportive and may become marred by conflict, disappointment and suspicion, and weakened by distance, differing priorities and changing circumstances" (1250). The loss of a group or of an entire generation deeply unsettles affected communities, raising many questions like who will take care of children or house in the absence of the prior holders. It also begs the question of the importance of networks--is it possible to temper the effects on one's own community of a grievous event that occurs elsewhere? How vulnerable does a household make itself when engaging in a network?

Housegood--Clark

The impact that HIV/AIDS has on an individual is very obvious and devastating. However, I have admittedly never given thought to the impact it has on the household, which could potentially be even more profound than on the individual person. Especially when multiple AIDS deaths affect a single household, there is bound to be something to learn from the tragic situation. Housegood, et al state, “When we first met the households their daily lives were dominated by efforts to cope with the direct and indirect effects of having a sick member with symptoms indicative of AIDS” (1251). She also mentions “The population is highly mobile; approximately 40% of male and 35% of female adult household members reside outside the area but return periodically and maintain social relationships with households” (1250). Under normal, stable circumstances, multiple AIDS illnesses are so hard to bear. What kind of impact does the fact that the population is very mobile have on the households in this context, besides the fact that it makes life overall more hectic?

Hosegood-Nastacio

In Hosegood's study "Revealing the Full Extent of Households' Experiences of HIV and AIDS in rural South Africa" it is interesting to note how HIV and AIDS has such a huge impact on the definition of a family. A household is usually composed of three generations who live with each other due to the fact that a high population is constantly dying of AIDS, leaving their immediate family without support. It seems as if the household in rural South Africa is a network for care. It is almost an obligation in the society to take in any family members whose parents have died from AIDS. It is also interesting to note the role that the idea of witchcraft plays within their society. Many people believed that they had been infected because of witchcraft by someone out of the family. It would be interesting to see why they believed it was witchcraft. Was it because people didn't understand the science behind the disease and just needed to place the blame on something? Also it seems from the given statistics that more females died of AIDS than men (73% female vs 61% male) so would that imply that the men were more likely to be the heads of the household caring for the sick? Or were they more likely to not be involved and therefore stayed healthier?

Strathern_ Marcus

Strathern’s article does a great service in “demystifying” the Euro-American folk notion of kinship as, on the one hand, endlessly ramifiable (the idea that everyone is ultimately biologically related, sharing the same substance), and on the other hand, based on the sharp division between the internally continuous and externally discontinuous – nature and culture, society and technology, the human and the nonhuman (what Strathern calls merographic connections). Strathern demonstrates how the Melanesian relatedness is heterogeneously constituted by the exchange and consumption of ‘nonhuman’ objects part and parcel with the exchange and ‘consumption’ of humans, and draws a parallel with the role of property in Euro-American kinship as that which distinguishes close kin (‘owners’) from those who do not belong. Property plays the crucial role of “cutting the network--” delimiting who is ‘real’ kin; thus rather than being exclusively ‘natural’ or ‘biological’ relatedness can be said to be configured through hybrid forms, at the interaction of the social and material. Thus the role of pigs and shells in Melanesia is much more closely related to the role of authorship title in a scientific paper or lollipops differentially doled out by a grandmother to ‘biological’ and ‘step-‘ grandchildren (Strathern note 20, from Simpson 1994).

I find this distinction of ‘active’ kin from the endless mass of ‘biological’ kin highly resonant with my experience of trying to understand kinship among the now-bilteral Nanai of Russia. For the first segment of my research I attempted to conduct a thorough genealogical survey of my informants to map out kinship ties in a village where people often claimed that ‘everyone is related.’ Yet what I found was that if kinship is everywhere, then it is nowhere- that is, if Nanai villagers configured themselves as widely genealogically related, this by no means translated into wide actualized social and economic ties. So as an example, for one family, out of perhaps 20 households with kin, only 2 others could be considered part of active kin networks of routine social contact and economic assistance. And indeed, nonhuman/material substances, such as monetary loans and food gifts (fish, wild meat) were crucial in constituting and delimiting ties of kinship.