Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T16:00:14.264Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Baby-boomers and the ‘denaturalisation’ of care-giving in Quebec

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2011

NANCY GUBERMAN ,
JEAN-PIERRE LAVOIE  and
IGNACE OLAZABAL
NANCY GUBERMAN*
Affiliation:
School of Social Work, University of Quebec in Montreal, and Centre for Research and Expertise in Social Gerontology, Quebec, Canada.
JEAN-PIERRE LAVOIE
Affiliation:
Centre for Research and Expertise in Social Gerontology and School of Social Work, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
IGNACE OLAZABAL
Affiliation:
Centre for Research and Expertise in Social Gerontology and School of Social Work, University of Quebec in Montreal, Canada.
*
Address for correspondence: Nancy Guberman, Social Work, University of Quebec in Montreal – C.P. 8888, Succ., Centreville, Montreal, Quebec H3C3P8, Canada. E-mail: guberman.nancy@uqam.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The North American post-war generation, known as the baby-boomers, has challenged traditional family relations and the sexual division of labour. How do these challenges play out in the face of frail, ill or disabled family members? A study undertaken in Montreal, Quebec, with baby-boomer care-givers aimed to raise understanding of the realities of this group. We met with 40 care-givers for a one and a half-hour qualitative interview to discuss their identification with their social generation, their relationship to care-giving, their values regarding care-giving, and the reality of the care-giving they offer. The findings indicate that women, in particular, no longer identify themselves mainly in terms of family. For most, care-giving is not their only or even their dominant identity. They are actively trying to maintain multiple identities: worker, wife, mother, friend and social activist, alongside that of care-giver. They are also participating in the very North American process of individualisation, leading to what we call the ‘denaturalisation’ of care-giving. Notably, the women we met with call themselves ‘care-givers’ and not simply wives, daughters or mothers, denoting that the work of care-giving no longer falls within the realm of ‘normal’ family responsibilities. These care-givers thus set limits to their caring commitments and have high expectations as to services and public support, while still adhering to norms of family responsibility for care-giving.

Keywords

care-giversbaby-boomersintergenerational relationsidentities
Type
Articles
Information
Ageing & Society , Volume 31 , Issue 7: Rethinking Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Intergenerational Family Relations Research , October 2011 , pp. 1141 - 1158
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Archbold, P. G. 1982. An analysis of parent caring by women. Home Health Care Services Quarterly, 3, 2, 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, U. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Sage, New Delhi.Google Scholar
Benoit, F. and Chauveau, P. 1986. Acceptation globale. Ta Volvo contre mon B.S. [Global Acceptance. Your Volvo for My Welfare Cheque]. Boréal, Montréal.Google Scholar
Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. 1992. La construction sociale de la réalité [The Social Construction of Reality]. Meridiens Klincksieck, Paris.Google Scholar
Caradec, V. 2004. Vieillir après la retraite. Approche sociologique du vieillissement, Paris, Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Cleary, M., Freeman, A. and Walter, G. 2006. Carer participation in mental health service delivery. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 15, 189–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clément, S. and Lavoie, J. P. 2001. L'interface formel-informel au confluent de rationalités divergentes [The interface between the formal and informal sectors: at the confluence of divergent rationalities]. In Henrard, J. C. and Firbank, O. (eds), Personnes âgées dépendantes en France et au Québec. Qualité de vie, pratiques et politiques [Dependent Older People in France and Quebec. Quality of Life, Practices and Policies]. INSERM, Paris, 97–119.Google Scholar
Corbin, J. M. and Strauss, A. 1988. Unending Work and Care: Managing Chronic Illness at Home. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Dandurand, R. B. and Kempeneers, M. 2002. Pour une analyse comparative et contextuelle de la politique familiale au Québec [For a comparative and contextualized analysis of family policy in Quebec]. Recherches sociographiques, 43, 1, 49–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dandurand, R. B. and Ouellette, F.-R. 1992. Entre autonomie et solidarité. Parenté et soutien dans la vie de jeunes familles montréalaises [Between Autonomy and Solidarity. Parents and Support in the Lives of Young Families in Montreal]. Institut Québécois de Recherche sur la Culture, Québec City.Google Scholar
DeVault, M. 1991. Feeding the Family: The Social Organization of Caring as Gendered Work. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Dufour, S., Fortin, D. and Hamel, J. 1993. Sociologie d'un conflit de générations: les ‘babyboomers’ et les ‘babybusters’ [The sociology of generational conflict: the baby-boomers and baby-busters]. Revue internationale d'études canadiennes (hors série, hiver) 8, 9–22.Google Scholar
Dumont, F. 1986. Âges, générations, société de la jeunesse [Ages, generations and youth society]. In Dumont, F. (ed.), Une société des jeunes? [A Society of Young People?], Institut Québécois de Recherche sur la Culture, Québec, 15–28.Google Scholar
Finch, J. 1989. Family Obligations and Social Change. Polity Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Fine, M. 2005. Individualization, risk and the body. Journal of Sociology, 41, 3, 247–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, B. and Tronto, J. 1990. Toward a feminist theory of caring. In Abel, E. and Nelson, M. (eds), Circles of Care. Work and Identity in Women's Lives. State University of New York Press, Albany, 35–62.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. 1991. Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.Google Scholar
Gilligan, C. 1987. Moral orientation and moral development. In Feder Kittay, E. and Meyers, D. T. (eds), Women and Moral Theory. Rowman and Littlefield, New Jersey, 19–36.Google Scholar
Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine de Gruyter, New York.Google Scholar
Graham, H. 1983. Caring: a labour of love. In Finch, J. and Groves, D. (eds), A Labour of Love: Women, Work and Caring. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 13–31.Google Scholar
Grand'Maison, J. and Lefebvre, S. 1993. Une génération bouc émissaire: enquête sur les baby-boomers [A Scapegoat Generation: An Investigation of Babyboomers]. Fide, Montréal.Google Scholar
Guberman, N., Lavoie, J.-P., Fournier, M., Grenier, L., Gagnon, E., Vézina, A. and Belleau, H. 2006. Families' values and practices with regard to responsibility for the frail elderly: implications for aging policy. Journal of Aging and Social Policy, 18, 3/4, 59–78.Google Scholar
Guberman, N., Maheu, P. and Maillé, C. 1993. Et si l'amour ne suffisait pas … Femmes, familles et adultes dépendants [And if Love Were Not Enough … Women, Families and Adult Dependants]. Les Éditions du remue-ménage, Montréal.Google Scholar
Hirschmann, N. J. 1996. Toward a Feminist Theory of Freedom. Political Theory, 24, 1, 46–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooyman, N. and Gonyea, J. 1995. Feminist Perspectives on Family Care: Toward Gender Justice. Family Caregiver Application Series, Sage, Newbury Park, California.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeambar, D. and Remy, J. 2006. Nos enfants nous haïront [Our Children Will Hate Us]. Seuil, Paris.Google Scholar
Kellerhals, J., Coenen-Huther, J., von Allmen, M. and Hagmann, H. 1994. Proximité affective et entraide entre générations: la ‘génération-pivot' et ses pères et mères [Emotional closeness and mutual help between generations: the pivotal generation and its mothers and fathers]. Gérontologie et Société, 68, 98–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingsmill, S. and Schlesinger, B. 1998. The family squeeze: surviving the sandwich generation. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Künemund, H. C. 2006. Changing welfare states and the ‘sandwich generation’: increasing burden for the next generation? International Journal of Ageing and Later Life, 1, 2, 11–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavoie, J. P. 2000. Familles et soutien aux parents âgés dépendants [Families and Support to Dependent Older Parents]. Harmattan, Paris.Google Scholar
Lavoie, J. P., Guberman, N., Bickerstaff, J., Blein, L. and Olazabal, I. 2009. Des aidantes du baby-boom revendicatrices et professionnels coincés. Les enjeux d'une reconnaissance [Demanding baby-boom caregivers and cornered professionals. The question of recognition]. In Olazabal, I. (ed.), Que sont les baby-boomers devenus. Aspects sociaux d'une génération vieillissante [What's Become of the Baby-boomers? Social Aspects of an Aging Generation]. Éditions Nota bene, Québec, 207–28.Google Scholar
Lavoie, J.-P., Grand, A., Guberman, N. and Andrieu, S. 2005. L'État face aux familles: substitution, soutien ou responsabilisation? Les cas français et québécois [The State's relation to families: substitution, support or transferred responsibility? The examples of France and Quebec]. In Clément, S. and Lavoie, J. P. (eds), Prendre soin d'un proche âgé – Les enseignements de la France et du Québec [Caring for a relative – Teachings from France and Quebec]. Érès, toulouse, 21–83.Google Scholar
Le Breton, D. 1990. Anthropologie du corps et modernité [Anthropology of the Body and Modernity]. Presses universitaires de France, Paris.Google Scholar
Loomis, L. S. and Booth, A. 1995. Multigenerational caregiving and well-being: the myth of the sandwich generation. Journal of Family Issues, 16, 2, 131–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luna, I., de Ardon, E. T., Mi Lin, Y., Cromwell, S. L., Phillips, L. R. and Russell, C. K. 1996. The relevance of familism in cross-cultural studies of family caregiving. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 18, 3, 267–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mackenzie, C. and Stoljar, N. 2000. Introduction: Autonomy refigured. In Mackenzie, C. and Stoljar, N. (eds), Relational Autonomy Feminist Perspectives on Autonomy, Agency and the Social Self. Oxford University Press, New York, 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martineau, R. 1990. La chasse à l'éléphant [The Elephant Hunt]. Boréal, Montréal.Google Scholar
Mayer, R., Ouellet, F., Saint-Jacques, M. C. and Turcotte, D. 2000. Méthodes de recherche en intervention sociale [Research Methods for Social Intervention]. Gaëtan Morin Éditeur, Boucherville, Canada.Google Scholar
O'Connor, D. 2007. Self-identifying as a caregiver: exploring the positioning process. Journal of Aging Studies, 21, 2, 165–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olazabal, I. 2009. Introduction générale. In Olazabal, I. (ed.), Que sont les baby-boomers devenus? Aspects sociaux d'une génération vieillissante [What's Become of the Baby-boomers? Social Aspects of an Aging Generation]. Éditions Nota bene, Québec, 17–48.Google Scholar
Olazabal, I. and Desplanques, A.-C. 2008. La grandparentalité chez les enfants du baby-boom au Québec. Une nouvelle logique des rapports intergénérationnels [Grandparenthood among children of the baby-boom in Quebec. A new logic of intergenerational relations.]. Éthique publique, 10, 2, 148–57.Google Scholar
Pearlin, L. I., Mullan, J. T., Semple, S. J. and Skaff, M. M. 1990. Caregiving and the stress process: an overview of concepts and their measures. The Gerontologist, 30, 5, 583–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perez-Cahill, D. 1998. The Impact of Multiple Caregiving Roles on Well-being: A Longitudinal Study of Middle-aged Adults. Paper AAI9909202, Electronic Doctoral Dissertations for University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Available online at http://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations/AAI9909202 [Accessed 1 September 2010].Google Scholar
Poutignat, P. and Streiff-Fénart, J. 1995. Théories de l'ethnicité [Theories of Ethnicity]. Presses universitaires de France, Paris.Google Scholar
Ricard, F. 1992. La génération lyrique. Essai sur la vie et l'œuvre des premiers-nés du baby boom [The Lyric Generation. Essay of the Life and Work of the Early Baby-boomers]. Boréal, Montréal.Google Scholar
Rocher, G. 1973. Le Québec en mutation [The Mutation of Quebec]. Hurtubise HMH, Montréal.Google Scholar
Sevenhuijsen, S. 2000. Caring in the third way: the relation between obligation, responsibility and care in Third way discourse. Critical Social Policy, 20, 1, 5–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skaff, M. M. and Pearlin, L. I. 1992. Caregiving: role engulfment and the loss of self. The Gerontologist, 32, 5, 656–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steinhorn, L. 2006. The Greater Generation: In Defence of the Baby Boom Legacy. Saint Martin's, New York.Google Scholar
Strauss, A. 1987. Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, C., Morris, S. and Harman, J. 2002. Companions through cancer: the care given by informal carers in cancer contexts. Social Science and Medicine, 54, 4, 529–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Traustadottir, R. 2000. Disability reform and women's caring work. In Harrington Meyer, M. (ed.), Care Work: Gender, Labour and the Welfare State. Routledge, New York, 249–69.Google Scholar
Vigarello, G. 1993. Le gouvernement du corps [Governments of the Body.]. Seuil, Paris.Google Scholar
Zarit, S. H. 1991. Interventions with frail elders and their families: are they effective and why? In Stephens, M. A. P., Crowther, J. H., Hobfoll, S. E. and Tannenbaum, D. L. (eds), Stress and Coping in Later-life Families. Hemisphere, New York, 241–66.Google Scholar