Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T15:29:04.724Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Generational (dis)agreements – family support, national law and older immigrants in extended households

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2017

ANIKA LIVERSAGE Open the ORCID record for ANIKA LIVERSAGE [Opens in a new window]
ANIKA LIVERSAGE*
Affiliation:
VIVE – The Danish Centre of Applied Social Science, Copenhagen, Denmark.
*
Address for correspondence: Anika Liversage, VIVE – The Danish Centre of Applied Social Science, Herluf Trolles Gade 11, 1052 – Copenhagen K., Denmark E-mail: ani@vive.dk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As detailed knowledge on multigenerational migrant families is sparse, this paper draws on quantitative and qualitative data to investigate intergenerational co-residence for older Turkish immigrants in Denmark. Registry data show that 23 per cent of Turkish immigrants in the 65–74 years age group live in intergenerational households – a level halfway between levels in Denmark and Turkey. These extended households are predominantly of the ‘culturally ideal’ type – formed by sons, sons’ wives and often the couple's children. One in five extended households, however, includes unwed sons and hence do not provide access to the labour power of daughters-in-law. Many factors seem to contribute to the observed pattern, including variable meanings of intergenerational co-habitation, high levels of poverty and limited housing options for extended families. Interviews with older Turkish immigrants point to another contributing factor, namely men's difficulties finding wives willing to live with parents-in-law. The sons’ hardships in this regard can be tied to a Danish immigration regime that bars marriage migrants from entering into extended households. While Turkish women raised in Denmark do not face such legal restrictions, such young women may reject marriage proposals entailing in-law co-habitation. The study thus adds new nuances to our understanding of how the dynamics of age, gender and immigration experience may shape the ways in which older immigrants live in Europe today.

Keywords

older immigrantsintergenerational relationscohabitationcare in old ageTurkish immigrants
Type
Article
Information
Ageing & Society , Volume 39 , Issue 5 , May 2019 , pp. 899 - 923
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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

Abadan-Unat, N. 1986. Women in the Developing World – Evidence from Turkey. University of Denver Monograph Series, Denver, Colorado.Google Scholar
Akpinar, A. 2003. The honour/shame complex revisited: violence against women in the migration context. Women's Studies International Forum, 26, 5, 425–42.Google Scholar
Attias-Donfut, C. and Wolff, F. C. 2009. Le destin des enfants d'immigrés [The Fate of the Children of Immigrants]. Stock, Paris.Google Scholar
Aykan, H. and Wolf, D. A. 2002. Traditionality, modernity, and household composition: parent–child coresidence in contemporary Turkey. Research on Ageing, 22, 4, 395–421.Google Scholar
Aytac, I. A. 1998. Intergenerational living arrangements in Turkey. Journal of Cross-cultural Gerontology, 13, 3, 241–64.Google Scholar
Bastug, S. 2002. Household and family in contemporary Turkey: a historical perspective. In Liljeström, R. and Özdalga, E. (eds), Autonomy and Dependence in the Family. Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey, 99–116.Google Scholar
Baykara-Krumme, H. 2008. Immigrant Families in Germany: Intergenerational Solidarity in Later Life. Weissensee Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
Bengtson, V. L. and Allen, K. R. 1993. The life course perspective applied to families over time. In Bosse, P. G., Doherty, W. J., LaRossa, R., Schumm, W. R. and Steinmetz, S. K. (eds), Sourcebook of Family Theories and Methods: A Contextual Approach. Plenum Press, New York, 469–504.Google Scholar
Bertaux, D. 2003. The usefulness of life stories for a realist and meaningful sociology. In Humphrey, R., Miller, R. and Zdravomyslova, E. (eds), Biographical Research in Eastern Europe – Altered Lives and Broken Biographies. Ashgate, Aldershot, UK, 39–51.Google Scholar
Blaakilde, A. L. 2017. A multicultural nursing home in Denmark. ENIEC (European Network on Intercultural Elderly Care) Newsletter, January, No. 81, 11–14.Google Scholar
Burholt, V. and Dobbs, C. 2014. A support network typology for application in older populations with a preponderance of multigenerational households. Ageing & Society, 34, 7, 1142–69.Google Scholar
Celikaksoy-Mortensen, E. A. 2006. Marriage behaviour and labour market integration: the case of the children of guest worker immigrants in Denmark. PhD dissertation, Department of Economics, Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus, Denmark.Google Scholar
Elder, G. 1994. Time, human agency, and social change: perspective on the life course. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 1, 4–15.Google Scholar
Fisek, G. O. 1982. Psychopathology and the Turkish family: a family systems theory analysis. In Kagitcibasi, C. (ed.), Sex Roles, Family, and Community in Turkey. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana, 295–321.Google Scholar
Gardner, K. 2002. Age, Narrative and Migration: The Life Course and Life Histories of Bengali Elders in London. Berg, Oxford.Google Scholar
Glick, J. E. 1999. Economic support from and to extended kin: a comparison of Mexican Americans and Mexican immigrants. International Migration Review, 33, 3, 745–65.Google Scholar
Glick, J. E and Hook, J. V. 2011. Does a house divided stand? Kinship and the continuity of shared living arrangements. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73, 5, 1149–64.Google Scholar
Gurak, D. T. and Kritz, M. M. 2010. Elderly Asian and Hispanic foreign- and native-born living arrangements: accounting for differences. Research on Ageing, 32, 5, 567–94.Google Scholar
Guveli, A., Ganzeboom, H., Platt, L., Nauck, B., Baykara-Krumme, H., Eroglu, S., Bayrakdar, S., Keren Sozeri, E., Spierings, N. and Eroglu-Hawskworth, S. 2016. Intergenerational Consequences of Migration – Socio-economic, Family and Cultural Patterns of Stability and Change in Turkey and Europe. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK.Google Scholar
Hägestad, G. O. and Neugarten, B. L. 1985. Age and the life course. In Binstock, R. H. and Shanas, E. (eds), Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, 35–61.Google Scholar
Hochschild, A. R. 1998. The Second Shift: Working Parents and the Revolution at Home. Viking, New York.Google Scholar
Hsieh, H. F. and Shannon, S. E. 2005. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 9, 1277–88.Google Scholar
Jakobsen, V. and Pedersen, P. 2016. Poverty risk among older immigrants in a Scandinavia welfare state. IZA Discussion Paper 9944, Institute for the Study of Labor, Bonn, Germany.Google Scholar
Kandiyoti, D. 1988. Bargaining with patriarchy. Gender and Society, 2, 3, 274–90.Google Scholar
Karl, U., Ramos, A. C. and Kühn, B. 2016. Older migrants in Luxembourg – care preferences for old age between family and professional services. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 43, 2, 270–86.Google Scholar
Khvorostianov, N. and Remennick, L. 2015. Immigration and generational solidarity: elderly soviet immigrants and their adult children in Israel. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 13, 1, 34–50.Google Scholar
Kim, J. 2012. Remitting ‘filial co-habitation’: ‘actual’ and ‘virtual’ co-residence between Korean professional migrant adult children couples in Singapore and their elderly parents. Ageing & Society, 32, 8, 1337–59.Google Scholar
Kritz, M. M., Gurak, D. T. and Chen, L. 2000. Elderly immigrants: their composition and living arrangements. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 27, 1, 85–114.Google Scholar
Lan, P.-C. 2002. Subcontracting filial piety: elder care in ethnic Chinese immigrant families in California. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 7, 812–35.Google Scholar
Liversage, A. 2012 a. Gender, conflict and subordination within the household – Turkish migrant marriage and divorce in Denmark. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 38, 7, 1119–36.Google Scholar
Liversage, A. 2012b. Transnational families breaking up: divorce among Turkish immigrants in Denmark. In Charsley, K. (ed.), Transnational Marriage: New Perspectives from Europe and Beyond. Routledge, London, 146–60.Google Scholar
Liversage, A. 2013. Gendered struggles over residency rights when Turkish immigrant marriages break up. The Oñati Socio-Legal Series, 3, 6, 1070–90.Google Scholar
Liversage, A. 2017. Twice as many helpers: unpacking the connection between marriage migration and older labour immigrants’ access to family support. Migration Letters, 14, 1, 50–62.Google Scholar
Liversage, A. and Jakobsen, V. 2010. Sharing space – gendered patterns of extended household living among young Turkish marriage migrants in Denmark. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 41, 5, 693–715.Google Scholar
Liversage, A. and Jakobsen, V. 2016. Ældre fra Tyrkiet – hverdagsliv og vilkår [Older Individuals from Turkey – Everyday Life and Living Conditions]. Roskilde University Press, Roskilde, Denmark.Google Scholar
Liversage, A. and Mirdal, G. 2017. Growing old in exile – a longitudinal study of migrant women from Turkey. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 43, 2, 287–302.Google Scholar
Liversage, A. and Rytter, M. 2014. Ægteskab og migration: Konsekvenser af de danske familiesammenføringsregler 2002–2012 [Marriage and Migration: Consequences of the Danish Family Unification Rules 2002–2012]. Aarhus University Press, Aarhus, Denmark.Google Scholar
Lorenz-Meyer, D. and Grotheer, A. 2000. Reinventing the generational contract – anticipated care-giving responsibilities of younger Germans and Turkish migrants. In Arber, S. and Attias-Donfut, C. (eds), The Myth of Generational Conflict – The Family and State in Ageing Societies. Routledge, London, 190–208.Google Scholar
Mahler, S. and Pessar, P. R. 2001. Gendered geographies of power: analyzing gender across transnational spaces. Identities, 7, 4, 441–59.Google Scholar
Matthäi, I. 2004. Lebenssituation der älteren alleinstehenden Migrantinnen. Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend, Berlin.Google Scholar
Mattingly, C. and Garro, L. C. 2000. Narrative and the Cultural Construction of Illness and Healing. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
Mazzucato, V. and Schans, D. 2011. Transnational families and the well-being of children: conceptual and methodological challenges. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73, 4, 704–12.Google Scholar
McDonald, L. 2011. Theorising about aging, family and immigration. Ageing & Society, 31, 7, 1180–201.Google Scholar
Mirdal, G. 1984. Stress and distress in migration: problems and resources of Turkish women in Denmark. International Migration Review, 18, 4, 984–1003.Google Scholar
Mirdal, G. 2006. Stress and distress in migration: twenty years after. International Migration Review, 40, 2, 375–89.Google Scholar
Nauck, B. and Steinbach, A. 2009. Intergenerational relationships. RatSWD Working Paper Series 116, German Council for Social and Economic Data, Berlin.Google Scholar
Ng, C. F., Northcott, H. C. and Abu-Laban, S. M. 2007. Housing and living arrangements of South Asian immigrant seniors in Edmonton, Alberta. Canadian Journal on Ageing, 26, 3, 185–94.Google Scholar
Olson, E. 1982. Duofocal family structure and an alternative model of husband–wife relationship. In Kagitcibasi, C. (ed.), Sex Roles, Family and Community in Turkey, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana, 33–72.Google Scholar
Özbay, F. 1982. Women's education in rural Turkey. In Kagitcibasi, C. (ed.), Sex Roles, Family, and Community in Turkey. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana, 131–48.Google Scholar
Saka, Ö. and Varol, N. 2007. Institutional and community care for older people in Turkey. Eurohealth, 13, 3, 20–2.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. and Attias-Donfut, C. 2010. Intergenerational relationships of international migrants in developed nations: the United States and France. In Dannefer, D. and Phillipson, C. (eds), The Sage Handbook of Social Gerontology. Sage, London, 177–89.Google Scholar
Statistics Denmark 2016. Statistics on Immigrants and Their Descendants. Available online at https://www.dst.dk/da/Statistik/emner/indvandrere-og-efterkommere/indvandrere-og-efterkommere [Accessed 26 December 2016].Google Scholar
Tian, S. 2016. Living arrangements and intergenerational support among immigrant and Canadian-born seniors. PhD thesis, Department of Sociology, University of Toronto, Toronto.Google Scholar
Timmerman, C. 2008. Marriage in a ‘culture of migration’. Emirdag marrying into Flanders. European Review, 16, 4, 585–94.Google Scholar
Timur, S. 1978. Determinants of family structure in Turkey. In Allman, J. (ed.), Women's Status and Fertility in the Muslim World. Praeger Publishers, New York, 227–42.Google Scholar
Victor, C. and Zubair, M. 2016. Expectations of care and support in old age by Bangladeshi and Pakistani elders. In Karl, U. and Torres, S. (eds), Ageing in Context of Migration. Routledge, London, 108–11.Google Scholar
Yakali-Camoglu, D. 2007. Turkish family narratives: the relationship between mothers- and daughters-in-law. Journal of Family History, 32, 2, 161–78.Google Scholar
Yavuz, S. 2009. Family Formation and Household Types in Turkey. Workshop at the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, 5 May. Available online at http://www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/workshops/050509_paper09.pdf [Accessed 28 September 2015].Google Scholar
Yazici, B. 2012. The return to the family: welfare, state and politics of the family in Turkey. Anthropological Quarterly, 85, 1, 103–40.Google Scholar
Zubair, M. and Victor, C. R. 2015. Exploring gender, age, time and space in research with older Pakistani Muslims in the United Kingdom: formalised research ‘ethics’ and performances of the public/private divide in ‘the field’. Ageing & Society, 35, 5, 961–85.Google Scholar