Separate family and community realities? An urban-rural comparison of the association between family life satisfaction and community satisfaction

Abstract

Classical and contemporary statements about family and community suggest mutually reinforcing connections between these two life domains. However, in their search for greater niche building, scholars have largely overlooked such links because of their adherence to speci c traditions. This article considers the public-private sphere debate, a tradition associated primarily with family studies. This tradition holds that individuals experience life as discrete social spheres. Using this tradition as a framework for critique, this study examines individuals' association with family and community via an empirical test of family life satisfaction and community satisfaction. Particular attention is also given to urban and rural differences and similarities in family life and community. Data were drawn from a nationally representative sample of adults from the USA. The multivariate analysis revealed a reciprocal relationship between family life satisfaction and community satisfaction. Findings are discussed in light of the public-private sphere debate and urban and rural realities. RÉ SUMÉ Les énoncés classiques et contemporaines sur la famille et la communauté suggèrent des rapports qui se renforcent mutuellement entre ces deux domaines de la vie. Pourtant, dans leur recherche de se faire une place dans le monde universitaire, les spécialistes ont en grande partie ignoré de telles liaisons à cause de leur adhésion aux traditions spéci ques. Cet article considère le débat entre les sphères publiques et privées, une tradition associée principalement aux études de familles. Cette tradition soutient que les individus font l'expérience de la vie comme sphères sociales discrètes. En employant cette tradition comme structure pour la critique, cette étude examine l'association des individus avec la famille et la communauté par une épreuve empirique de la satisfaction de la vie familiale et de la satisfaction de vie communitaire. Cette recherche tient compte aussi des différences et des ressemblances urbaines et rurales dans la vie familiale et communautaire, et elle se base sur des données d'un échantillon nationalement représentatif d'adultes des Etats-Unis. L'analyse multivariate a révélé un rapport réciproque entre la satisfaction de la vie familiale et la satisfaction de la vie communautaire. Les

Imagining the Good Place: Public Services and Family Strategies in Rural Ecuador

“…Further, by looking across scales and dimensions we strove to reach that “awkward scale” of articulating the particularity of the local within larger forces (Comaroff and Comaroff ). We also rely on our almost 40‐year relationships to help us situate our narrators and their family strategies within both their local context and the larger rural territorial dynamics at play (Ospina Peralta and Hollenstein ; Toth, Brown, and Xu ). By elevating the voices of individuals, embedded in family and community networks, we are able to “see” residents in these peripheral communities and understand how they negotiate within and between the scales in which they live.…”

Globally Embedded Community: Satisfaction and Attachment in Vance, Alabama

“…The mean value, 22.36 years, was substituted for the four missing values. Presumably those who have spent more years in the community would grow more satisfied with and attached to it (Brown, 1993;Goudy, 1990;Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974;Sampson, 1988;Stinner, Van Loon, Chung, & Byun, 1990;Toth et al 2002). residents would desire greater mobility and therefore be less satisfied with and attached to the community.…”

“…Female was coded 1; male 0. t women are expected to be more attached to and satisfied with the community than men (Brown, 1993, England & Albrecht, 1984Marans & Rodgers, 1975;Rank & Voss, 1982;Rodgers, 1980;Toth et al, 2002).…”

“…residents would desire greater mobility and therefore be less satisfied with and attached to the community. Age is one of the variables associated with the systemic model of community attachment (Brown, 1993;England & Albrecht, 1984;Rank & Voss, 1982;Toth et al 2002).…”

“…These control variables include: year (Bengston & Allen, 1993;Toth, Brown & Xu, 2002), kind of place in which the respondent grew up (Brown, 2003;Hummon, 1990;Salamon, 2003;Sampson, 1988), where lived at age 16 (General Social Survey 1972-2006Toth et al, 2002), income (Beggs, Huribert & Haines, 1996;Toth et al, 2002), how many years lived in the community (Brown, 1993;Goudy, 1990;Chung, & Byun;Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974;Stinner, Van Loon, Sampson, 1988;Toth et al, 2002), age (Brown, 1993;England & Albrecht, 1984;Rank & Voss, 1982;Toth et al, 2002), percent of life lived in the community (Theodori, 2004), own or rent (Bach & Smith, 1977;Brown, 1993, Henretta, 1979Gerson, Stueve, & Fischer, 1977), sex (Brown, 1993;England & Albrecht, 1984;Marans & Rodgers, 1975;Rank & Voss, 1982;Rodgers, 1980;Toth et al, 2002;), and age squared (Beggs et al, 1996).…”