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.

BOTT-O. Michael

While reading Bott i noticed that he used several different methodologies and field techniques to help him analyze his research. He spent time moving from household to household searching for answers of the particular families background by performing household Interviews. Something that I found particularly interesting was how Bott discussed economic ties among the members of a certain network. For instance, there are families who have much stronger ties to other relatives than they do with neighbors and friends. I feel that it also depends on the neighborhood you live in and the people you interact with. People of similar social class would be networking with others who do similar things and enjoy the same ideas or principles.

bott: Lize-Anne

I found the research methods presented in this study to be particularly refreshing. Wheras many times researchers will simply ennumerate the limitations of their methods, Bott and Robb took on an endeavor to formulate appropriate research methods. This type of study is, I believe, where a true understanding of the continuity of the family and family networks develops. My issue with all of our readings is that the sources that our authors use to make certain generalizations and deductions about families comes from sources that were not intended for any type of sociological type of study. This is important to consider when thinking about family networks, or any question of family. The census may reveal that certain groups of people that are not traditional family are living together, but it gives us little to go on in terms of studying the interactions of these groups and how far they extend.
The findings of Bott and Robb, and their decision to employ specific research methods and questions and interviews are fascinating because they open up the study to fluidity and nuances of studying the family unit. How does one effectively study the bounds of family? How far do networks stretch (if in fact one can think about the structure in this manner)? To answer these questions, very open-ended methodology would also have to be employed, and an acknowledgment of what the preconceived ideas of family are and where they originate from are necessary. Only then can we begin to fill in the information that is provided by mass surveys like the census.

Strathern- WHARTON

The concept of "networks" presented by Strathern seems slightly confusing. Strathern includes a quote from Latour stating, "the networking activity of interpretations that 'link in one continuous chain' representations, politics and the world of the scientific discovery creates mixed narratives. The theorist's interpretations are as much networks as any other combination of elements," (521). This quote makes me question how the concept of "network" is actually able to detail the true relationships and influences revolving around a certain event, cultural development, or family lineage. To me, it seems that Strathern is just clarifying how subjective the description of a network can be. Strathern claims "a network is an apt image for describing the way one can link or enumerate disparate entities without making assumptions about level or hierarchy," (522), but how can this be the case? When describing an extended relationship between many people and things, things and things, etc., how is it possible to give a valid interpretation of the relationships without questioning what came first, or who was the influential player at the time?
When describing a network, how can one be sure that his/her research and interpretation of the network is actually presenting a truthful description of said-network? Can a network ever be correctly defined, or is its definition dependent upon the subjective telling of the people involved and the subjective interpretation of anthropologists? Would two anthropologists describing or outlining a network ever come to the same conclusion or outline of the network? The whole concept of "network" seems more subjective than it is helpful to me.

Bott - Fuller

The idea of conducting research in such an organized fashion in the private setting surprised me. Families, as Bott explained, are very closed off and private, especially in urban settings where privacy has become standard, and where presenting a certain image to those outside of the family/household group is expected. I found interesting the idea of family members in these urban households, for the most part, individually networked with those outside of their household group, creating a thinly spread network not cohesive with the family. From the reading, it seemed to me that interfamilial relationships occur only with extended family, for the most part. How would non-kin household groups network, and under what circumstances? (Contextualized evidence seems to be the only reliable presentation of information in the cases presented.) I also found it interesting when Bott mentioned that the church and the family doctor were the few outside institutions in which the family completely networked with.

BOTT--CLARK

This week I was particularly interested in Bott’s second chapter on factors affecting social networks—particularly the fact that urban families tend to exhibit less family social cohesion than non-urban families. Bott notes, “The institutions and persons with which they are related are not linked up with one another to form an organized group. Although individual members of a family frequently belong to groups, the family as a whole does not” (pg. 98). I found this a bit counter-intuitive; in my head it would seem families living in urban environments would be more likely to have a strong familial network because of several factors, including the fact that things tend to be physically more compact in a city and therefore families presumably share less space and spend more time together. Also, on the opposite side of that argument, because cites are so vast with thousands or millions of people in them, it would make sense for a family to stick together. What are some possible reasons for this lack of family community in urban environments?

Bott - Wilson

The idea of indefinite family networks is an interesting one and one supported by what Bott describes as clearly-defined roles in a family--clear notions of who does what (36-7). Imagine this: there are very pronounced tasks within a household but no one available to be responsible for them, either because the family member is ill-equipped or non-existent. Who then is tasked with keeping the family going and how is the outsider incorporated into the unit? The network could grow to encompass the new member, who brings their talents and own network. In this image of the family, I am reminded of a description of a very effective social climber in the sixth Harry Potter book: "a great swollen spider, spinning a web around it, twitching a thread here and there to bring its large and juicy flies a little closer" (75). The flies are either new members or Bott's "final product," though I am unsure if the spider would be a specific member of the family, the head of the household for example, because all members are tasked with maintaining the family in some way and so all would be keen to bring in new talent or support.

All families exist in association with other families. The disturbing, the dysfunctional, the ordinary families: the contrast with each is what forms a partial-definition for a family of itself. When discussing the genealogies collected from the families interviewed in their study, Bott wrote that the genealogies "not only provided useful information for the analysis of kinship, but also gave the field worker an idea of the couple's feelings about their past and their place in society" (21). How does the family, limited by social labels and other boundaries, expand? Is periodicity a boundary?

Strathern - Bao

I think that the Marilyn Strathern article was helpful in the sense that it condenses some of the issues regarding relationships and networks while presenting the advantages and disadvantages of using these tools in conducting research. In particular, I was struck by the theory of hybridized networks, both within human kind as well as between humans and technology. It is by no means unexpected that technology has affected the way in which humans relate to each other, but it was interesting to see that technology can have a direct and immediate impact on relationships. One question that I had after finishing the reading was regarding family kinship ties and networks and how they are tied into technology. Do these networks expand in traditional ways by simply allowing for more people to be included within them or does technology help to cut down unnecessary networks by only maintaining those that are the most use (in essence, making "networking" more efficient"). If we were to consider the networks that are maintained, how many of them are based upon economic or monetary reasons versus those that are not (or do these even exist?)? And finally, does this give rise to a family that works together as a unit for similar goals or does this encourage separation and independence, both as a member of society as well as in the economic sphere? I'm not sure how easy or difficult it would be to answer these questions, but with all of them lies the underlying issue of how to end these relationships, and if networks are continually growing or if we can define a specific end for them.

Bott-Nastacio

I thought that the concept of doing empirical studies of ordinary families was really interesting. Who really knows what "ordinary" actually means? I think my family is normal and ordinary however, I know I have told my friends stories before and they think my family is crazy but to me thats normal. However, the way in which Bott has described "ordinary" simply means that the research team went to find them It was also interesting to note that there was a couple in the study who didn't want their neighbors to know because they thought that their neighbors might think that there was something wrong with them, even though they are considered an "ordinary" family. It seems as if family dynamics and connectedness comes from how different families deal with different situations and not just from a single variable.

Census--Wilson

Like Elizabeth, I went straight to the Seattle sources and lurked for the days leading up the census, which proved to be a wise thing as on Census Day there wasn't so much as a letter to the editor in the Editorial section of the Seattle Times about the census (and Seattlelites are usually very voracious writers of letters to the editor! Must be something about this Census that didn't drum up the liberal crazies!).

I especially liked an article from my local paper, the Issaquah Press. It is listed below. It basically brought up the question of management of the Census--who administers it and who ensures that all are counted, and accruately? The residents of Sammamish, a city that borders Issaquah, received forms that identified them as residents of either Issaquah or nearby Redmond. Though the article doesn't mention this, Sammamish was only incorporated as a city in 1999, while both Issaquah and Redmond are literally one hundred years older than Sammamish. Working out how to acknowledge residents of Sammamish at a national level is still being worked out--the article credits the problem to the US Postal Service. The article author writes that a census official had explained that "there is no way to double check that an individual house was included in the right place." Who decides "the right place" for a house? The residents who decide to incorporate as a city? Or the Office of Budget and Management at the federal level? Lots of implications for regulatory federalism...

Also, I was intrigued by a simple statement by a local census official, who explained that in response to the incorrect city, "residents [could] correct the form by simply scratching out the wrong city and writing in Sammamish." It brings to mind the method of collecting data--we sometimes forget that all of these famous surveys and ethnographies were done by real people and things could have been "scratched out," altered at some basic level that is indicative of a not-so-rigorous data collection process. Just made me smile a bit, the statement!

http://www.issaquahpress.com/2010/03/30/census-forms-sent-to-sammamish-have-wrong-cities/

Also, did anyone know that there's an English version of Good Housekeeping? Me neither. I didn't end up buying it as there wasn't much in it of interest, but food for thought. I look forward to sharing the joys of the Ladies' Home Journal on Tuesday!

(If there are any sparkers, sorry about the late reply!)

Census - Fuller

A couple of days before April 1^st – on March 30^th – I was looking at my home city’s newspaper, the Seattle Times, and was surprised to already see an article up about the upcoming census. The author described how they have to “process far more applicants than it will actually need for the jobs” because of the high number of applicants who won’t “pass a criminal background check”. He further describes the perception that families/census takers have of census workers – especially in light of current politics, where certain questions on the census are questioned. I have heard certain family friends complain about this as well, bringing into question what the government really needs to know about our population. Why are these census questions being questioned? What does the government need to know about our population, and why are households questioning this?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011475397_census30m.html

CENSUS--CLARK

I bought two papers on April 1—the Georgia version of the Florida Times-Union and the Waycross Journal Herald (I was at home for Easter weekend!). However, neither newspaper had even a single article about the census in it! That afternoon I drove to Atlanta to check out another law school, and while I didn’t buy one of their papers I did run into a big Census group in the middle of one of the squares in downtown. There were probably 30 or 40 different workers with different stations trying to remind people to fill out their census forms.

I explained that I was taking a course that had particular interest in the census, and they gave me a copy of all of their literature. They were passing out forms in six different languages explaining why the census is important and answers to frequently asked questions, as well as several reminder cards to put on their refrigerators, caps and t-shirts (for free) that say Census 2010, and of course copies of the census paper itself. Every time I passed this square there were hundreds of people around, and by encouraging people to fill them out as they were standing there I bet they were able to get a lot more people to do it than would otherwise.

Census- Nastacio

On April 1, 2010 I bought the Baltimore Sun and found out that the city census returns were currently at 45 percent. With only about 45% of households in Baltimore mailing back their census forms, this is the lowest total for any state jurisdiction. The city has tried just about every way possbile to persuade people to turn in their forms; even firefighters and emergency responders are being asked to encourage residents during calls to hand in their census forms. Workers in the state's Department of Human Resources are helping by working at one the city's eight centers to help people fill out questionnaires as well as leave voice mails messages in order to reach about 50,000 residents. However, those who are leading the city's census efforts are saying that they are pleased with Baltimore's standing because last year the city was at the body and now Baltimore is in the middle, even ahead of Philly.

However, according to the Census Bureau a new way of calculating will yield higher response rates. This is because the new rate will only include the percentage of forms mailed back by households who received questionnaires in order to account for the high number of foreclosed homes. Baltimore officials have identified three major groups to focus on improving response rates, including residents who are economically disadvantaged, single and move a lot, non-English speakers. That brings up the question of how they decide who to focus on and how they intend to make these three groups of people fill out and send in their census?

Census- WHARTON

On April 1st, I read an article in the New York Times called "Trying to Break Down the Census," by Fernanda Santos that discussed the issues associated with Census returns in New York City. By Wednesday, the rates of return in New York were at 32% in comparison to the National average of 52%. New York City rates of return were expected to be so low due to citizen's misunderstandings of who the Census was geared towards, language barriers, fears of how Census data would be used, and unorthodox living arrangements that abounded in certain areas of the city.

I found some of the information in this article particularly interesting for our family and household studies. For instance, the article touched on unorthodox living arrangements, such as a group of Mexican workers illegally sharing an apartment, that we have yet to discuss in class. The descriptions of illegal living situations in NYC made me question the rules of property ownership that are accepted across the United States. How is property ownership or rent looked at differently in a big city or a small town? How are the rules associated with owning or living in a home or apartment bent, broken or changed circumstantially in certain cities or areas, and for what reasons are illegal living situations allowed to occur?

Many people who had yet to return their Census form were concerned that the information would be passed along to other government agencies and used against them. Before reading this article, I was unaware that the Census bureau desired illegal immigrants to fill out the forms. If the purpose of the Census is to create better schools, hospitals, transportation, and services for citizens, in what ways will understanding the distribution of illegal immigrants help the government provide better services to tax-paying, legal citizens?

Overall, the article made me question the ability of the Census to truly impact the living situation of those who probably really need better services and changes in their neighborhoods. If the Census is not receiving data from recent immigrants living in lower class, inner city neighborhoods, than how will the living conditions for future generations of these people truly be bettered by Census efforts? And also, is the Census too specific? Do the questions not address the sometimes incredibly loose definitions of "household" that abound in poor, urban areas?

Bao - Census

I bought an issue of the Washington Post on April 1st and I was surprised to find that there was no article on the census. So I went online to the New York Times website and used the following articles to do my response (in case anyone would like to read them):
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/us/01dakota.html?pagewanted=1
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/us/01mississippi.html
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/us/31census.html

The first article described the high rate of response for a small town in North Dakota, where all of the 50 residents are anticipated to respond. Contrasting this with the population in the next article where in 2000, the census report counted one person for every 116 acres - a severely under-reported number. The challenge in the second case was to tackle the issues of education in a population that had high rates of poverty and illiteracy, as well as overcoming the fear of what the census was for. I found it interesting that in both articles, the attempt to spread information about the census seems to be equally as fervent, and yet it was clearly anticipated that the participation rate was going to be lower in the second article. I did wonder if there was anything misleading about the way in which the census was being publicized; the second article described a flyer which said "stand up and be counted," which is one of the basic requirements of the census. However, the third article brought up one of the issues that the Tea Party and other opponents of the census have had: that the Constitution only mandates a head count but that questions regarding family arrangements violate privacy. From the publicity in the second article, it makes it seem as though the census is purely a head count. But is it not true that the other questions asked are in some way irrelevant to the head count? So then should everyone be required to respond to these questions? From my own perspective, I understand that these counts are important not only to have an accurate number of people in our country, but also for future budgeting and demographic information. It seems unfortunate to me that there are people who refuse to respond because they are denying themselves a chance to be included in policies that have the potential of impacting their lives. On the other hand, I wonder if perhaps there is some way of estimating the number of people who don't participate in the census and if there is some way of making generalizations about that population? For instance, the second article assumed that the undercount of their county was due to illiteracy and poverty - can we learn anything else about these families such as their perception of the government? How they tend to live as families?

I also found an interesting magazine at the bookstore which had an article about the modern family and family values within a same-sex household. I will bring it to class on Tuesday in case we have time to discuss these magazines, since I thought it was particularly interesting.