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?