Changing meanings of family in personal relationships

Abstract

Personal relationships are today less dependent on marriage and blood ties, with commitments going far beyond the nuclear co-resident family to include kin, non-kin and ex-kin. The aim of this article is to examine the meanings of family bonds by exploring the changing boundaries between kinship ties and a wider array of affinities, in a Southern European country with a specific pathway (Portugal). The authors begin by analysing the ties which individuals consider as ‘family’ within their personal networks and describe the main types of family configurations. They then examine the determinants of including non-kin as ‘family’ and excluding kin from the family network. Findings reveal the salience of kinship ties, as well as greater fluidity in the social construction of family bonds, in particular through friendship. Structural, life stage and family variables are shaping factors, but relational effects, linked to the quality of the tie, are of particular importance.

Friendship, Gender and Sexual Experience: Retrospective Narratives about the Formation of a Sexual Self during Youth

“…Changes were also accelerated in the processes of individualisation, with a rising number of individuals, namely working-age women, living alone, and a higher level of educational, professional and residential mobility among the younger generations (Machado & Costa 1998;Almeida 2013). In this context of late, though accelerated, individualisation, Portugal constitutes a relevant case in which to observe the pluralisation of personal and intimate life today: due to its diversity of lifestyles, diversification of the number of sexual and conjugal partners across the life-course, or diversity of sexual trajectories and intimate configurations (Author 2011;2014). Its relevance also stems from a contradictory profile that articulates pluralisation and diversity along with an ideological commitment to more traditional family values characterised by strong intergenerational obligations, though unequally distributed and based on residential autonomy (Wall & Gouveia 2014).…”

What Is a Friend? An Exploratory Typology of the Meanings of Friendship

“…For instance, Fischer [1] analysed data from a cross-sectional study of 1050 adults living in northern California in 1977. His respondents revealed an impressive set of relations (19,417), which Fischer unpacks into friends (the most common category, suggesting an undifferentiated use by north-Americans), relatives and other associates. "Friend" seemed to be a residual label, applied to everyone to whom no more specific title was available, oriented to people of the same age and, in terms of contents of relations, oriented to sociability, to the "ones in which people visited, went out together, discussed shared past times, participated in an organization together" ( [1], p. 306).…”

“…The relevance of this particular empirical context is linked to this country's specific path, characterized by a late, though quite abrupt, entrance into late modernity, with very rapid changes regarding certain social indicators (such as rise in education levels), as well as values (including those related to gender roles, family and personal life). It is also a country much characterised by contradictory practices and values regarding personal and private life, in particular: on the one hand, the persistence of "an explicit ideological commitment to the family", with strong intergenerational obligations, though unequally distributed and based on values of residential autonomy [19]; and on the other hand, a dual earner model within couples, shaped by greater gender equality, as well as rapid changes towards family diversity in terms of practices (divorce, post-divorce families, same-sex families). Processes of individualization have likewise shown growing expression (e.g., rising number of individuals, namely of working-age women living alone; higher educational, professional and residential mobility among the younger generations) [20,21], alongside the pluralisation of personal and intimate life (e.g., diversity of lifestyles, diversification of the number of sexual and conjugal partners across the life-course, diversity of family configurations) [22].…”

“…Except for support (non-significant differences), women tend to choose, more than men, (co)presence as major meaning of friendship (28% against 23%, χ 2 = 3.44, p < 0.05), as well as trust (20% against 14%, χ 2 = 6.71, p < 0.01). However, age has a greater effect on the perceptions of a good friend: there is a significant difference between the youngest of the sample (18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24) and the oldest (65 and more), with the younger systematically identifying, more than the older, a good friend as someone who is always present, who provides unconditional support and whom one can trust one's life (p < 0.001).…”

“…Belonging to the other three clusters is harder to predict, at least with the available variables in the model. Membership to cluster 2 (Trust-Oriented) is only weakly explained by age, the probability of sharing this kind of representation of friendship being lower among the cohort 35-44 (when compared to [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. Membership to Cluster 3 (Self-Oriented) is partially explained by education.…”