Brothers and Sisters: Sibling Relationships Across the Life Course [1st ed.] 9783030559847, 9783030559854

Citation preview

Brothers and Sisters Sibling Relationships Across the Life Course Edited by Ann Buchanan · Anna Rotkirch

Brothers and Sisters

Ann Buchanan · Anna Rotkirch Editors

Brothers and Sisters Sibling Relationships Across the Life Course

Editors Ann Buchanan Department of Social Policy and Intervention University of Oxford Oxford, UK

Anna Rotkirch Helsinki, Finland

ISBN 978-3-030-55984-7 ISBN 978-3-030-55985-4 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55985-4 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover credit: © Erickson Stock/Alamy Stock Photo This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Contents

Part I Introduction 1

The Role of Brothers and Sisters in Changing Times Ann Buchanan and Anna Rotkirch

3

Part II Continuity and Change in Sibling Relations 2

3

4

Brothers and Sisters Across the Life Course: Eleven Factors Shaping Relationship Quality in Adult Siblings Antti O. Tanskanen and Mirkka Danielsbacka

25

Brothers and Sisters: A Social and Demographic Perspective John Clifford Haskey

41

Brothers and Sisters: Themes in Myths, Legends and Histories from Europe and the New World Ann Buchanan

69

v

vi

5

6

CONTENTS

Siblings in M¯aori Myth, Culture and Present-Day Society Judith A. Davey and Chris Cunningham

87

Brothers and Sisters, Husbands and Wives: Love, Power, and Being an In-Law Suad Joseph

105

Part III 7

8

9

10

11

Sibling Relationships in Adolescence

Sibling Relationships in Adolescence Across Cultures: Predictors, Transitions, and Support Avidan Milevsky

125

Sibling Support: The Reports of Israeli Adolescents in Residential Care Shalhevet Attar-Schwartz

141

One Father, Many Mothers: Sibling Relationships in Polygamous Families Alean Al-Krenawi

153

Sibling Relationships Across Families Created Through Assisted Reproduction Vasanti Jadva

171

Brothers and Sisters in China: No Longer the One-Child Family Bin-Bin Chen and Jo-Pei Tan

185

CONTENTS

Part IV 12

13

14

Relationships in Adult Life

Adult Sibling Relationships in the United States: Mostly Close, Occasionally Contentious, and Caring for Ageing Parents Michael E. Woolley and Geoffrey L. Greif Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Siblings Dawn M. Szymanski and Angela N. Hilton Sibling Support in Transnational Families: The Impact of Migration and Mobility on Sibling Relationships of Support Over Time and Distance Loretta Baldassar and Rosa Brandhorst

15

Social Support When a Sibling Has a Disability John Kramer, Ariella Meltzer, and Kate Strohm

16

Sibling Relationships Across Generations in Rwanda: Continuity and Change Through Conflict and Development Kirsten Pontalti

17

Brothers Who Kill: Murders of Sisters for the Sake of Family Honour in Pakistan Sadiq Bhanbhro

Part V 18

vii

205

223

239

257

277

297

Sibling Relationships in Old Age

Siblings Caring for Their Parents Across Europe: Gender in Cross-National Perspective Natalia Sarkisian and Naomi Gerstel

315

viii

CONTENTS

19

Linking Up Again: Views of Barnardo’s Elders on Being Separated from Their Siblings and How They Reconnected in Old Age Ann Buchanan

20

“We Are Close Enough”: Closeness and Support from Siblings Among Divorced and Widowed Seniors in Singapore Leng Leng Thang, Emily Zee Kee Lim, Dionysia Jia Ying Kang, and Wei Loong Lim

Part VI 21

357

Conclusion

To What Extent Can We Rely on Support from Our Brothers and Sisters at Different Stages in Our Life Span? Ann Buchanan

Index

337

379

409

Notes on Contributors

Alean Al-Krenawi is Professor in the Spitzer Department of Social Work, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, former President of Achva Academic College; former Dean of the School of Social Work, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada and Chair of the Department of Social Work and Director of the Centre for Bedouin Studies and Development at Ben-Gurion University, Israel. Shalhevet Attar-Schwartz is Professor at the School of Social Work and Social Welfare, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel. Her research focuses on the welfare and well-being of children and youth. She is particularly interested in subjects relating to intergenerational relationships and child well-being, children’s outcomes in various family structures, and children’s adjustment and social support in out-of-home settings. Loretta Baldassar is Professor in the Discipline Group of Anthropology and Sociology at The University of Western Australia and Director of the UWA Social Care and Social Ageing Living Lab. She has published extensively on migration, with a particular focus on families and caregiving. She is co-Chief Investigator on two Australian Research Council funded Discovery Projects: Ageing and New Media and Mobile Transitions: Understanding the Effects of Transnational Mobility on Youth Transitions. Sadiq Bhanbhro is Senior Research Fellow and Doctoral Researcher at Sheffield Hallam University, UK. He is a trained social anthropologist, ix

x

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

public health professional and an experienced interdisciplinary researcher. He primarily focuses on exploring and understanding the notion of honour and its relationships with honour crimes and honour killings in South Asia and the UK. Bin-Bin Chen is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at Fudan University, Shanghai, China. His research areas are child development and evolutionary psychology. Specific topics include parenting behaviours, parent–child attachment and peer relations. Rosa Brandhorst is a Researcher at the Centre on Migration, Citizenship and Development at the Faculty of Sociology of the University of Bielefeld, Germany. Her main research areas include sociology of family, migration and social transformation, with a particular focus on transnational families, transnational ageing and transnational social support. Ann Buchanan is Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate at the Department of Social Policy and Interventions, University of Oxford, UK. For twenty years she directed the Centre for Research into Parenting and Children at Oxford. She was awarded an MBE in 2012 for her services to social science. This is the fourth book in which she has collaborated with Anna Rotkirch. Chris Cunningham Director, Professor at the Research Centre for M¯aori Health and Development, Massey University, Wellington, New Zealand. He is the Principal Investigator for its two main research programmes: Te Pumanawa Hauora (M¯aori Health) and Best Outcomes for M¯aori: Te Hoe Nuku Roa (M¯aori Households Longitudinal Study). Mirkka Danielsbacka is an Assistant Professor of sociology at the University of Turku, Finland. Her research focuses on family ties, welfare state development, evolutionary theory and war history. Judith A. Davey is Senior Associate in the Institute for Governance and Policy Studies at the Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Her research interests are intergenerational issues and the implications of population ageing. Naomi Gerstel is Distinguished University Professor and professor of sociology emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA. Her research, including her book Unequal Time (with Dan Clawson),

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

xi

examines inequalities in families, caregiving, work hours and higher education. Geoffrey L. Greif is Professor, University of Maryland School of Social Work, USA. He is the author and co-author of numerous books, articles, and chapters on relationships. He has won multiple awards for teaching and was recently inducted as a Fellow in the American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare. John Clifford Haskey is a Statistician/Demographer who, as a Government Statistician, published analyses on a wide variety of subjects in family demography. Currently an Associate Research Fellow at the University of Oxford, UK, he pursues similar interests, and has also published statistical studies on aspects of family law. Angela N. Hilton is an Assistant Professor of Psychology in the Department of Behavioural Sciences at Maryville College in Tennessee, USA. She is also a licensed psychologist who has specialized in counselling and training with both undergraduate and graduate students. Vasanti Jadva is a Principal Research Associate and an Affiliated Lecturer at the Department of Psychology at the University of Cambridge, UK. Her research examines the psychological well-being of parents and children in families created by IVF, egg donation, sperm donation and surrogacy. Suad Joseph is Distinguished Research Professor, University of California, Davis, USA. She has authored over 100 articles and edited or co-edited 10 books. She is General Editor of the Encyclopedia of Women and Islamic Cultures, she founded the Arab Families Working Group, the Association for Middle East Women’s Studies, and has been awarded numerous prizes. Dionysia Jia Ying Kang is currently pursuing M.A. in Gender Studies in University of Turku, Finland, and working on the theme of ageing and postcolonialism. She graduated with a B.A. Cum laude in Sociology from The State University of New York at Buffalo. John Kramer is a Clinical Assistant Professor in the Department of Occupational Therapy at the University of Florida, USA. Dr. Kramer’s work focuses on Knowledge Translation and Ageing family caregivers of people with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. John co-founded

xii

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

the Sibling Leadership Network, Massachusetts Sibling Support Network (MSSN) and Supporting Illinois Brothers and Sisters and has two brothers with disabilities himself. Emily Zee Kee Lim graduated with B.S. in psychology from the National University of Singapore. She is currently pursuing her Ph.D. in Gerontology from University of Massachusetts Boston, USA, with research focus on ageing and friendship. Wei Loong Lim graduated with M.Phil. in social and developmental psychology from the University of Cambridge and is currently pursuing M.Sc. in evidence-based health care at the University of Oxford. He is principal research executive and manager at the Research and Development Department of Fei Yue Community Services, a social service agency in Singapore that serves the vulnerable populations such as the seniors, youths-at-risks, children with special needs and disadvantaged communities. Ariella Meltzer is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Social Impact, UNSW Sydney, Australia. Dr. Meltzer’s research is about disability and relationships, including focuses on families, siblings, peer support and policy and practice that supports relational connections. Avidan Milevsky is an Associate Professor of Psychology in the Department of Behavioural Sciences at Ariel University in Israel and a psychotherapist in the US and Israel. He specializes in complex individual and family difficulties at the intersection of clinical and developmental psychology. Kirsten Pontalti co-leads Proteknon Group, Rwanda, an international consulting group and foundation that advances solutions for the care, well-being and protection of young people and caregivers facing adversity. She holds a doctorate from the University of Oxford Department in International Development. She is also a researcher and policy advisor on issues related to children, youth and social change in low-income, conflict-affected contexts. Anna Rotkirch is Research Professor and Director of the Population Research Institute, Väestöliitto, Helsinki, Finland. As a sociologist she has specialized in comparative research on families in Europe. Current research interests include fertility, grandparenting and friendship.

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

xiii

As noted, she has collaborated with Ann Buchanan in co-editing four books on family relations. Natalia Sarkisian is Associate Professor of Sociology at Boston College, USA. Her research, including the book Nuclear Family Values, Extended Family Lives (with Naomi Gerstel), examines variation in kin and community ties by gender, race/ethnicity, class and marital status. Kate Strohm is the founder/Director of Siblings Australia (established in 1999). Kate’s book, Siblings: Brothers and Sisters of Children with Disability (2014, revised edition, Wakefield Press), has been published widely. Dawn M. Szymanski is a Professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Tennessee, USA. She is a fellow of the American Psychological Association and Editor of Psychology of Women Quarterly. She has published more than 95 journal articles/book chapters on multicultural feminist and LGBTQ issues. Jo-Pei Tan is a Senior Lecturer at the Department of Social Work and Social Care, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK. She was awarded her DPhil in evidence-based social interventions by the University of Oxford, where she worked with Professor Buchanan on the ESRC National Study of Grandparenting. Antti O. Tanskanen is a professor of sociology at the University of Turku, Finland. His main research topics include family relations, intergenerational transmissions, fertility, health and well-being. Leng Leng Thang is sociocultural Anthropologist with research interest on ageing, intergenerational relationships, family and gender in Asia. She is currently Associate Professor and head of Department of Japanese Studies and Co-Director of Next Age Institute in National University of Singapore. Michael E. Woolley is Associate Professor, University of Maryland School of Social Work, USA. He is a Fellow in the Society of Social Work and Research and has published two books and dozens of articles and chapters on family relationships, educational issues for at-risk students and clinical practice with children and families.

List of Figures

Fig. 3.1

Fig. 3.2 Fig. 3.3 Fig. 3.4 Fig. 3.5

Fig. 3.6

Initial show card (col B) listing different kinds of relative and final order (col C) of relatives from the question: Which relatives form part of the family?, 1999, Great Britain (Source Living Kin) Percentage profile of number of siblings of respondents, 2017, England (Source ELSA) Average number of siblings, brothers, sisters and associated measures by age of respondent Sex of eldest living sibling, by sex and age of respondent, 1999 Great Britain (Source Living Kin) Average age difference (years) between respondent’s and eldest living sibling’s ages, by age of respondent and number of older siblings, 1999, Great Britain (Source Living Kin) Composition of childhood families of respondents by numbers of brothers and sisters*, estimated by year in which respondent was aged 10, cumulative percentages. 1999, Great Britain (Source Living Kin *incl. the respondent as brother/sister)

49 51 53 55

56

58

xv

xvi

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 3.7

Fig. 3.8

Fig. 3.9

Fig. 3.10

Fig. 11.1 Fig. 12.1

a. Percentage profile of frequency of seeing or contacting eldest brother/sister by age and sex of respondent, 1999, Great Britain (Source Living Kin). b. Percentage of respondents seeing/contacting their eldest sibling at least once a week by sex of eldest sibling and sex, age and marital status of respondent, 1999, Great Britain (Source Living Kin) Average number of children/other family members with whom the respondent has a close relationship, by sex and partnership status, 2017, England (Source ELSA) Average number of living brothers and sisters reported by men and women respondents age 50 and over, by country, 2015 (Source SHARE) Percentage of all first-mentioned significant persons, confidantes, in respondent’s network of relationships, who were brothers or sisters, by sex of respondent and country, respondents aged 50 and over, and with at least one brother or sister A developmental contextual model of sibling relationships Path model of influence of parenting practices on adult siblings care of ageing parents (Note Standardized coefficients reported. * = p < .05, ** = p < .01)

60

61

63

64 195

217

List of Tables

Table 3.1 Table Table Table Table Table

8.1 12.1 12.2 18.1 18.2

Table 20.1 Table 20.2

Number of births per hundred women by age 45, by year of birth of mother, England and Wales Adolescents’ perception of sibling support Correlation table of study variables Coefficients of path model latent variable indicators Proportion of adult children providing care by gender Models of caregiving to ageing parents. Results of multilevel logistic regression (odds ratios) Demographic characteristics of the respondents (N = 100) Respondents’ top 3 preferred sources of support based on types of support needed

46 147 215 216 323 325 360 366

xvii

PART I

Introduction

CHAPTER 1

The Role of Brothers and Sisters in Changing Times Ann Buchanan and Anna Rotkirch

Clara Luz Zuniga Ortega is reputed to have written: ‘To the outside world we all grow old. But not to brothers and sisters. We know each other as we always were. We know each other’s hearts. We share private family jokes. We remember family feuds and secrets, family griefs and joys. We live outside the touch of time’ (Ortega, source unknown). This much used quote epitomizes the central theme of this book. For better or worse, brothers and sisters can be our longest enduring relationship, and the earliest memories of our siblings stay with us over our life course.

This first chapter sets the scene and raises the questions. With increases in wealth, health and longevity and decreases in fertility in most of the

A. Buchanan (B) Dept Social Policy and intervention, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK e-mail: [email protected] A. Rotkirch Väestöliitto, Finland e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2021 A. Buchanan and A. Rotkirch (eds.), Brothers and Sisters, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55985-4_1

3

4

A. BUCHANAN AND A. ROTKIRCH

world’s countries, today’s adults will live with fewer siblings than previous generations, but will live with them for a longer time, and inherit more from previous generations. The big question is, in a fast-changing world, with smaller families, more diverse types of family, and in different regions of the world, to what extent do siblings support each other over the life course? To what extent can we rely on support from our siblings in adolescence, midlife and, in particular, in old age? Three themes permeate the chapters: first, we focus on relations beyond childhood and school years. This perspective does not exclude the undeniable importance of early years; rather, it investigates the many factors shaping sibling dynamics in adulthood and old age, including early years and family background. The dynamics of sibling attachment and competition have universal traits, yet they can also vary greatly by age, family constellation, cultural and ecological factors, and of course individual sibling characteristics. Second, we focus on factors shaping social support provision between siblings. Such factors can be on an individual, dyadic, family, socioeconomic and cultural, or at religious levels. Of special importance are factors associated with sibling conflict and competition, which can detract from support, and how these dynamics can feed into social policy principles and social work. Third, we focus on change in family life, such as the spread of international migration, artificial reproduction technologies and LBGTQ identities in the family sphere, and how these impact on sibling relations. The research predominantly presents results from the global North but includes a wide range of studies from the UK, US, Australia, Finland, Israel, Europe, Singapore, New Zealand, Arabia, Rwanda, Pakistan and China. Distinguished international scholars, from several disciplines, including Sociology, Demography, International Development, Gender Studies, Social Policy, Psychology, Anthropology and Social Work, were invited to answer the key question above.

Why Is a Study of Sibling Relationships Across the Life Course of Interest? Although families in the developed world are becoming smaller, most people have at least one brother or sister. ONS data (2017) shows that 60% of married families had more than one child, and 55% of lone parents had three or more children. In the US, eighty-two percent of children under age 18 in 2015 lived with at least one sibling (Buist et al. 2013). In

1

THE ROLE OF BROTHERS AND SISTERS …

5

2010, McHale et al. (2012) noted that almost 40% of young people under 18 in the US were living with one sibling, about 25% with two and over 15% with three or more siblings. In the US, Asian youths had marginally fewer siblings than white or African American young people. Divorce, remarriage and families with multi-partners mean that 10% of households include step or adoptive siblings (McHale et al. 2012). Elsewhere in the world, larger families are associated with life in poorer regions. In 2017, African women have 4.5 children on average, while in Asia the figure is 2.1 children, in Latin America 2.0, North America 1.9 and Europe 1.6. The global average is for women to have 2.5 children (United Nations 2017). Across the world, of course, other children may have siblings living apart following family adversity, parental breakdown or death of a parent. Who Is a Sibling? One of the key challenges in bringing this volume on Brothers and Sisters together, is to define who is a sibling? In this book, the definition of a brother/sister is someone who is a first-degree sibling relation, through genetic relatedness, kinship (e.g. adoption), or co-residence in childhood, that is, someone who has been brought up as a brother or sister in the family as a child. We also distinguish between full, half and stepsiblings. Across history, as we will see in Chapter 4, a wide range of family connections have been called ‘siblings’. In folk lore and medieval times, for example, there are so-called ‘fictive siblings’ who come to live with the family who may have no genetic relationship to each other and milk siblings, those who have shared a wet-nurse. There is also the tradition of sworn-brothers; as well as monks and nuns who call each other ‘brother and ‘sister’. Other cultures such as the Maori (see Chapter 5) have their own definitions, and may include a range of connected and unconnected family members. But perhaps more dramatic are the ‘new siblings’ as featured in this book, for example, surrogate siblings (see Chapter 10), some of whom have been brought up by the birth mother and others brought up in a surrogate family. What Is Social Support? There are many definitions of social support found in the literature. Although different terminology is used in many of them, the definitions possess common characteristics. All the definitions imply some type of

6

A. BUCHANAN AND A. ROTKIRCH

positive interaction, or helpful behaviour, provided to a person in need of support (Hupcey 1998). People provide support for a variety of reasons. They include feelings of social obligation and empathy, and selfish reasons, such as being able to ask for assistance for themselves in the future. Broadly speaking, there are four main types of support: First, Emotional/ Psychological support which offers empathy, concern, affection. Second, there is Instrumental support in the provision of financial assistance, material goods, or services. Third, there is Informational support in the provision of guidance, and useful information, and finally, there is Companionship support in the sense of shared social activities (Wills 1991; Uchino 2004). All types of social support will be considered in this book.

What Do We Know Already? Despite their ubiquity, research on siblings, particularly after childhood, has received far less attention than other relationships in children’s lives. Although siblings are building blocks of family structure and key players in family dynamics, their role has been relatively neglected by family scholars and by those who study close relationships (McHale et al. 2012). McHale notes that in a search of sociological and psychological abstracts between 1990 and 2011 she found 741 citations on sibling relations, as against 33,990 citations for parent or parenting. Although parent–child relationships have dominated much research, children may spend more time interacting with their siblings than they do with their parents (Buist et al. 2013). Theoretically, sibling relations over the life course are often explained by attachment theory (Bowlby 1979; Cicirelli 1995). Lifespan attachment theory implies that the child’s early attachments to the mother and/or primary caretaker not only continue through the adult years, but are the basis for the attachment with siblings through the life course. Characteristics of sibling relationships feature both positive characteristics, such as warmth, intimacy and support, as well as negative features, such as intense conflict, aggression, hostility, jealously and rivalry (McHale et al. 2012). Siblings may have different roles in the lives of their brothers and sisters; they may act as support providers, act as role models and influence each other through everyday interactions (McHale et al. 2012).

1

THE ROLE OF BROTHERS AND SISTERS …

7

Research on Siblings in the Early Years Broadly speaking, since the 1950’s there have been six strands of research into sibling relations of relevance to this book. Much of the early literature on sibling relations has concentrated in the early years. This has had a focus on the child’s early development and the influence of siblings on sibling’s socio-emotional development. There were a number of studies by Dunn and her colleagues on developmental issues in the early years; in particular, on shared and non-shared environments and the development of theory of mind (Dunn and Plomin 1990). A major study coming out of this period is The Cambridge Sibling Study (Dunn et al. 1994). In a study of 40 families, they found considerable continuity of siblings’ positive and negative behaviours over a seven/eight-year span, culminating age 11. In general, there was closeness in the face of adverse life events (difficulties in school, maternal ill health, accidents). In another study at that period, Jenkins and Smith (1990) found that having a close relationship with a sibling was protective in the face of parental disharmony. Because of the large body of research in the early years, this volume, while not underplaying the importance of this work, focuses on relationships from adolescence through old age. Research on Later Childhood and Adolescence The second strand moves into studying supportive relationships in later childhood and adolescence. Cicirelli (1995) notes that the knowledge of sibling relationships in middle childhood and adolescence is more limited than that of the early years. Buhrmeister (1992) and Buhrmeister and Furman (1990) explored the qualities of warmth, closeness, status, power and conflict in late childhood and adolescence. Overall, rivalry and conflict peaked in early adolescence but dropped off by late adolescence as young people spent more time with their peers. There is also Milevsky’s work (see Chapter 7) in identifying factors associated with sibling support. For example, in a study of 305 emerging adults (116 men and 189 women) between the ages of 19 and 33, he found individuals receiving high sibling support scored significantly lower on loneliness and depression, and significantly higher on self-esteem and life satisfaction, than those under low sibling support conditions. Furthermore, the findings illustrated that sibling relations and the influence of sibling support on well-being were uniform across gender (Milevsky 2005).

8

A. BUCHANAN AND A. ROTKIRCH

Sibling Support in the Mid-Years Greif and Woolley in their (2016) book, Adult Sibling Relationships note that the relationships siblings may have had in childhood, may be very different from those that evolve in adulthood. Although there may be affection, there is also ambiguity and ambivalence. Adult sibling relationships can be very fraught and uncertain although the loyalty and connection remain. Greif and Woolley’s in-depth case studies of more than 260 siblings over the age of forty illustrates how the emotional terrain of adult sibling relations about the past or present, can lead to miscommunication and estrangement. Overcoming the past can be particularly important for siblings who must cooperate to care for ageing parents or give immediate emotional or financial support to other siblings or family members. In Chapter 12, Woolley and Greif explore these ideas further. Sibling Support in Old Age The fourth strand considers sibling relationships in old age. Milevsky (2005) notes that in adulthood and old age, the sibling bond will be influenced by the relationships between brothers and sisters in childhood (Connidis 1989). Spitze and Trent (2018) found that the nature of individual sibling relationships remained relatively stable in the face of life events. Van Volkkom (2006), found that many brothers and sisters see their sibling as a primary source of help in later life especially where they have been widowed and/or have no children. Eriksen and Gerstel (2002) add that the vast majority of adults provide a wide range of care to their siblings on a yearly, even monthly basis, but sibling care work depended on family context. Having a living parent facilitated caregiving among siblings, whereas greater family size forces adults to act judiciously about what and to whom they give help. In Chapter 18 Sarkisian and Gerstel use the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE), a dataset of 27 countries in Europe, to examine gender differences in care of older parents among siblings, and the extent to which cross-national variation in the gender gap among siblings is explained by differences in parents’ or adult children’s characteristics, including their needs, resources and responsibilities.

1

THE ROLE OF BROTHERS AND SISTERS …

9

Research Over the Life Course The fifth strand is where researchers explore the relationships of brothers and sisters across the life course. Lamb and Sutton-Smith’s book includes a chapter by Ross and Milgram (1982). In a small qualitative study of siblings aged between 22 and 93, he demonstrated that positive or negative dynamics started in childhood were not limited to that period but could influence the relationships in later life. In Ciccirelli’s (1995) book, his general thesis is that siblings influence one another’s characteristics, cognitive and personal-social behaviour, development and ageing, and adjustment and external social context over the life span from childhood to old age. His findings from survey studies show that for most older individuals, siblings- maintained contact until very late in life (Cicirelli 1995). In a sample of 300 older people, 85% of the middle-aged adults and 78% of those over 60, and 2.2% of those over 80 said they had at least one living sibling. White and Riedman (1992) examined sibling contact in 7700 respondents where they had at least one living full sibling. Contact was greater between pairs of sisters rather than pairs of brothers or mixedgender siblings. Living close (within a 300-mile radius) was, as might be expected, important. Respondents with higher income and education had more contact with their siblings. White and Riedman (1992) also explored ethnic differences and found that African-American respondents saw their siblings significantly more often than did non-Hispanic white, or Mexican-Americans, stepsisters and half siblings also remained in contact but this was less frequent than for full siblings. Affectional closeness in childhood was key to later contact. Research on the Impact of Culture A final strand of research focuses on cross-cultural perspectives of sibling relationships. Cicirelli (1995) says ‘examining sibling relationships across cultures leads to an appreciation of the importance of siblings to human family life. Siblings’ lives are closely intertwined in many nonindustrialized societies ‘with carefully defined duties and responsibilities’ (Cicirelli 1995, page 69). Weisner writing in Lamb and Sutton-Smith (1982) notes that the tasks and family responsibilities differ dramatically from those of urban and industrial societies. Such children spend most of the time cared for, not by their parents, but by their older brothers and sisters. Siblings have obligations to each other that are

10

A. BUCHANAN AND A. ROTKIRCH

binding throughout life but at the same time there are emotional tensions, conflicts and ambivalence to these shared responsibilities at every stage. Cicirelli (1995) contrasts sibling relationships in Western industrialized societies such as the US, Canada, UK Western Europe and Australia with non-industrialized agrarian or pastoral societies found in the remote villages of Asia, Oceania, Africa and Central and South America. In industrialized societies children have fewer brothers and sisters, often with greater age spacing between each sibling. Older siblings generally receive more parental time, energy and attention, and they may assume voluntarily a position of leadership in the family as adults. In non-industrialized societies cultural norms establish certain roles for older siblings. Younger siblings are taught to respect older siblings and to obey them as they would a parent. Although inheritance custom varies, the older brother or sister is often charged with distributing family wealth to other siblings. A major difference between industrialized and non-industrialized societies is that older siblings are often delegated the responsibilities for caring for their younger brothers and sisters. Making marriage arrangements for siblings and sorting out the economics of such marriages is a widespread feature of non-industrialized societies. In some cultures, such as India, brothers and sisters will depend on each other to negotiate marital arrangements. Brothers may delay their own marriages until they are able to pay the dowry or bride-price for their sisters (Cicirelli 1995). In adult life in industrialized societies, brothers and sisters live independently but there some expectation that they may stay in touch, but this usually depends on the closeness achieved in childhood. In nonindustrialized societies the relationships between sister and brother is a focus of much social and cultural life. But with modernization, immigration and the impact of social media, there is some weakening of cultural norms and a shift in non-industrialized societies to move towards the norms of Western Societies. Cicirelli (1995) concludes that the major difference between his two groups may be that in non-industrialized societies there are greater family obligations to siblings than in industrialized societies.

How Are Families Changing? While knowledge on sibling relations across the life course has been growing, there have been huge changes since the 1980s in modern

1

THE ROLE OF BROTHERS AND SISTERS …

11

family life. Statisticians today across the world struggle to measure what is happening in societies (see Haskey Chapter 3). In the past a picture of a nation’s family life could be seen by examining marriage, birth and death rates and the age when these events occurred. Today life is more complex. Decline in Marriage Rates In the past decades, for example, in almost all OECD countries, marriage rates have fallen (OECD Family Database 2019). Across the OECD, declining marriage rates have been accompanied by increases in the average age of those getting married (OECD Family Database 2019). This does not necessarily mean that people are delaying coupling. Cohabitation, or living together, has become an important form of long-term partnership in postponing and frequently replacing marriage. Declining rates of marriage have also been accompanied by increases in rates of divorce. (OECD Family Database 2019). In addition, in England and Wales, there have been increasing number of civil partnerships and marriages of same-sex couples since this was allowed in 2013 (ONS 2019). Decline in Fertility Rates Accompanying this is a remarkable decline in fertility rates, and the number of children born per woman in most of the developed world. This means there are smaller families and fewer brothers and sisters. The possible reasons for this were examined in-depth in Buchanan and Rotkirch (2013). In 1950, for example, women, globally, were having an average of 4.7 children in their lifetime. By last year, the fertility rate all but halved to 2.4 children per woman. These figures, however, mask huge variation between nations. The fertility rate in Niger, West Africa, is 7.1, but in the Mediterranean island of Cyprus women are having one child, on average. In the UK, the rate is 1.7, similar to most Western European countries (The Lancet 2018). Today many children are born outside marriage. The proportion of these children has increased in almost all OECD countries in recent decades. In 1970, most OECD countries saw less than 10% of children born outside of marriage. By 2016, this OECD-30 average had grown to 39.7% (OECD 2018).

12

A. BUCHANAN AND A. ROTKIRCH

Changing Types of Family An important change which is likely to impact on family size, is where children are born by methods not available in the past. It is estimated that more than eight million babies have been born in the world by IVF since the world’s first in 1978 (Science Daily 2018). Although the numbers of children born by surrogacy (see Chapter 10) are still small, in the UK alone, the number of parental orders made following a surrogate birth has tripled from 121 in 2011 to 368 in 2018. The true number of surrogacy arrangements may be even higher (BBC News 2019). Other children move across the world. Of the 27,5891 adoptions in the US 2018 over 4000 were intercountry adoptions (US Department of State 2018). What all this means is that although many families today are smaller, relationships within families today are more diverse and there is an increase in step, half, and adopted siblings. Growth in Older Population Alongside the decline in the birth rates, the proportion of the world’s older population has increased dramatically. It is estimated that between 2015 and 2050, the proportion of the world’s population over 60 years will nearly double from 12 to 22%. In addition, by 2020, the number of people aged 60 years and older will outnumber children younger than 5 years. In 2050, 80% of older people will be living in low- and middleincome countries. Overall, the pace of population ageing is much faster than in the past. All countries face major challenges to see the positive opportunities that an increased number of older people may bring, as well as challenges to ensure that their health and social systems are ready for this demographic shift (WHO 2018). While declining fertility and increasing longevity are the key drivers of population ageing, globally international migration has also contributed to changing population age structures in some countries and regions. In countries that are experiencing large immigration flows, international migration can slow the ageing process, at least temporarily, since migrants tend to be in the young working ages. However, migrants who remain in the country eventually will age into the older population (United Nations 2017).

1

THE ROLE OF BROTHERS AND SISTERS …

13

What Obligations Do We Have to Our Family? In most societies of this world, the moral responsibility for the support of older people unable to sustain themselves or to receive sustenance from an equivalent source has lain with the younger generations in their families, especially their adult children. This responsibility has been encapsulated in norms of ‘filial obligation’, enshrined in societies’ moral or religious codes—be they Indigenous, Judeo-Christian, Confucian, Islamic, Buddhist or otherwise (Aboderin 2005). Indeed, this has, over the years, underscored the thinking of politicians and policymakers, as they have sought to draw a line between the responsibilities of the state to care, and those of the family. Today, in many Western societies, with the advent of the provision of state social care for some older people, the focus may have shifted the family willingness to provide family care for older relations. Indications are that families have become less ready to provide such help to their aged kin, and the demand or need for increased formal, societal old age care provision has risen (Grundy 1995; Bengtson et al. 2003). Finch (1987) suggests that, on one hand, there are normative rules which operate within a particular society and which get applied in appropriate situations. But there may, on the other hand, be specific agreements which operate between family members and are arrived at by a process of negotiation (Finch 1987). In the UK, there is a norm that adult children should be responsible for the care of their parents in old age if that becomes necessary. But this is expressed at a general level. There may be considerable negotiation between siblings how they will fulfil their responsibilities. ‘The proper thing to do’, when it comes to family caring, may be to help only those who have helped you, and this may not involve helping brothers and sisters in old age. Across cultures, Rossi and Rossi (1990) suggests that there are culturally defined rights and duties that specify the ways in which kin are expected to behave. The stronger the feelings of obligation to provide support to another family member, the more likely that they will provide help in case of need (Liefbroer and Mulder 2007). The extent to which people feel an obligation to support family members not only varies between cultures, but also within cultures, and may depend on such factors as gender, stage in life course, family position, socio-economic position (Liefbroer and Mulder 2007) and the time

14

A. BUCHANAN AND A. ROTKIRCH

they have lived in another society. Overall, women have stronger feelings of obligation than men and, indeed, undertake more of the caring. Liefbroer and Mulder (2007) report from their study in the Netherlands, that much less consensus exists with regard to the actual type of obligation. Obligation to support frail parents in old age and obligations to support adult children by providing financial aid or childcare, were felt by only a minority of respondents. This seems to reflect a conclusion by Finch (1987) who suggested that obligations are not just moral norms but also negotiated commitments. The obligation to support adult siblings in need may be lower still down the hierarchy. What Are the Legal Obligations? As noted, family obligations to support family members, have, over the years, and across the world, been the backbone of government and social policies. The question is: to what extent are these moral obligations enframed in legal statutes? When it comes to parents, in Singapore, for example, children have an unambiguous legal duty to support their parents (Singapore Legal Advice 2019), and in China children are required to visit their old-age parents periodically (BBC 2013) to check if they are all right. In the US, currently, thirty states as well as Puerto Rico have passed Filial (due from a son or daughter) Responsibility Laws. These filial support laws require adult children to support their parents financially if they are not able to take care of themselves or to cover unpaid medical bills, such as assisted living costs. This also includes food, clothing, shelter, and health care/medical needs of the parent. In the US, as of 2012, twenty-nine states had such laws on the books, and a few states required the potential support of grandparents or even siblings (Pearson 2013). However, in all but two of the twenty-nine states, it has become rare for the courts to address the question of filial support, and research in twentyseven states reveals no officially reported appellate decisions affirming an award of filial support against adult children during the last thirty or more years (Pearson 2013). In other jurisdictions such as Ukraine, Pearson (2013) demonstrates that when the statute is invoked, the courts will impose liability on the adult child to care for, or financially support a parent in need (Pearson 2013). In Germany, persons who are related in a ‘direct line’ (grandparents, parents, children, grandchildren) are required to support each

1

THE ROLE OF BROTHERS AND SISTERS …

15

other, this includes children with impoverished parents (de:Elternunt erhalt, support to parents ). In France, close relatives (such as children, parents and spouses) are required to support each other in case of need (fr:obligation alimentaire, duty to support). As to legal rights of siblings, generally speaking in the UK and US, brothers and sisters have no specific rights. But there are four areas where concerns have been expressed. When it comes to who a child will live with following parental divorce, most legislatures would decide in what is in the ‘best interests’ of the child (e.g. in England and Wales: Children Act 1989). Research indicates that in most cases the ‘best interests’ are best served by keeping siblings together. Jenkins (1992) suggests that siblings may be actually drawn closer together, but argues the effects of parental separation and divorce are associated with the quality of the sibling relationship prior to the event. According to Kempton, Armistead, Wierson and Forehand (1991), children with siblings may adjust better to parental divorce than children without siblings. Jacobs and Sillars (2012) found that across most accounts, children found comfort from the mere presence of a sibling and in knowing they were not going through this experience alone (Jacobs and Sillars 2012). Given this, most legislatures would be reluctant to separate siblings, unless there were specific reasons relating to the ‘best interests’ of the specific child. Siblings would generally not be separated if this was only to satisfy the wish of the parents. The second area is: should siblings have contact or visitation rights to see each other when separated by public care and/or adoption? This issue is discussed in more depth in Chapter 19. In the UK, under the Human Rights Act of 1998, public authorities have a duty to respect ’family life’ specified in Article 8 of ECHR. The existence of ‘family life’ depends on ‘the real existence in practice of close personal ties’ and includes a sibling relationship. In the US, there are currently no federal laws that grant siblings inherent visitation rights. The visiting sibling must have the legal permission of the parents to visit with their siblings or they are in violation of the law. A third area, where siblings may be involved, although there is no specific legal requirement, is where children cannot live with their parents. Here in the UK, there has been considerable movement in recent years to encourage ‘kinship’ carers, whereby children stay with their wider family, or those they know, rather than go to stranger foster placements. It’s estimated that around half of kinship carers are grandparents, but many other

16

A. BUCHANAN AND A. ROTKIRCH

relatives including older siblings, aunts, uncles, as well as family friends and neighbours can also be kinship carers (Grandparents Plus 2019). Some of these kinship carers simply have an informal arrangement with parents; others may become carers as a result of a court order when the child(ren) can no longer live with their parent. The final area of concern is over inheritance when parents die. Although many families share out inheritance amicably, for some, this involves bitter disputes. Succession law affects all families at an emotionally vulnerable time and estate distributions are a frequent source of conflict. Under a will, parents can bequeath property on their death as they see fit (Conway 2016). While children are regarded as the ‘natural’ recipients of parental assets and the majority of wills reflect this and modern distributive patterns favour equal treatment, some wills favour a particular sibling. Feelings from childhood may colour how they respond to what they see as an unfair will. Conway (2016) quotes the psychiatrist and author Bar-Levav: “Inheritance disputes are not so much about money. People fight over the love they feel they did not receive” (Conway 2016).

The Key Questions Asked in This Volume? First, how do the universal tendencies of sibling attachment and support, as well as competition and conflict, play out across the life course? Second, how does support provision and cultural valorization of sibling relations vary in different societies across the globe? Third, what are the new trends in support and conflict at various ages of the life course in a less usual family situation? Finally, how does sibling support interact with social policies? The book’s contributors have all been invited and many are leading scholars in their area. Many chapters are based on original research published for the first time. After this introductory chapter, the book is structured into four main parts. The lead chapter in each part acts as an introduction to the chapters that follow. Part I considers ‘Continuity and Change in sibling relations’. First, there is an overview of largely European research by Tanskanen and Danielsbacka on siblings who help, when and how? This is followed by

1

THE ROLE OF BROTHERS AND SISTERS …

17

a chapter by Haskey, who explores social and demographic perspectives on siblings in Europe today. Buchanan then continues with a chapter on themes in myths, legends and histories in Europe and the US. In contrast, the next chapter, by Davey and Cunningham considers siblings in Maori myth, culture and present-day society. The final chapter for this part concludes with a chapter by Suad Joseph on traditions and change in brother–sister relationships in Arab families. Part II, considers ‘Sibling relationships in adolescence’. It begins with an overview chapter by Milevsky considering predictors, transitions and support in sibling relations across cultures. Attar-Schwartz follows with her original research on sibling support between Israeli adolescents in residential care. Also, from Israel, the next chapter by Al-Krenawi compares the relationships between brothers and sisters from polygynous and monogamous families. Jadva follows with her chapter based on original research on sibling relationships created through assisted reproduction/surrogacy, and finally Chen and Tan take us to China to show how families are adjusting to the possibility of having siblings, post the partial ending of the One-Child Policy. The final chapter in this part is by Pontalti who has been working with brothers and sisters in the post-conflict Rwanda. Part III continues by exploring ‘Sibling relationship in adult life’. The first overview chapter by Woolley and Greif, includes a review of prior research on adult sibling relationships. An important chapter follows by Szymanski and Hilton on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender and Queer sibling relations. Baldassar and Brandhorst then show us how Siblings support each other in transnational families and Kramer et al. consider the research and practice on support where a sibling has a disability. Pontalti continues by describing the dramatic change in sibling relationships following the conflict in Rwanda. The final chapter in this part is by Bhanbhro on brothers who kill. He summarizes his original research on murder of sisters for the sake of family honour. Part IV follows with chapters on ‘Sibling relationship in old age’. Sarkisan and Gerstel open with a paper based on European SHARE data on siblings caring for their parents in Europe. Buchanan follows with a chapter on elders, aged 70, 80 and 90 who were brought up in Barnardo’s care in the UK, on how they reconnected with family members in old age. Thang et al. from Singapore, continue within original research showing how divorced and widowed seniors in Singapore linked up with their siblings for support.

18

A. BUCHANAN AND A. ROTKIRCH

The conclusion in Chapter 21 summarizes the findings from the book and answers, as far as possible, the key questions outlined earlier.

References Aboderin, I. (2005). ‘Conditionality’ and ‘limits’ of filial obligation. Working Paper WP205 Oxford Institute of Ageing. BBC. (2013). New China law says children ‘must visit parents’. https://www. bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-23124345. Accessed April 19, 2020. BBC News. (2019). Why the world needs rules for selling babies. https://www. bbc.co.uk/news/health-47826356. Accessed April 19, 2020. Bengtson, V. L., Lowenstein, A., Putney, N. M., & Gans, D. (2003). Global aging and the challenge to families. In V. L. Bengtson & A. Lowenstein, (Eds.), Global aging and challenges to families (pp. 1–24). New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Bowlby, J. (1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. London: Tavistock. Buchanan, A., & Rotkirch, A. (2013). Fertility rates and population decline: No time for children? London: Palgrave Macmillan. Buhrmeister, D. (1992). The developmental courses of sibling and peer relationships. In F. Boer & J. Dunn (Eds.), Children’s sibling relationships: Developmental and clinical issues. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Buhremeister, D., & Furman, W. (1990). Perceptions of sibling relationships during middle childhood and adolescence. Child Development, 61(5), 1387– 1398. Buist, K., Dekovic, M., & Prinzie, P. (2013). Sibling relationship quality and psychopathology of children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(1), 97–106. Cicirelli, V. (1995). Sibling relationships across the life span. New York and London: Plenum Press. Connidis, I. A. (1989). Contact between siblings in later life. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 14, 429–442. Conway, H. (2016). Where there’s a will…: Law and emotion in sibling inheritance disputes. In H. Conway & J. S. (Eds.), The emotional dynamics of law and legal discourse (pp. 35–57). Oxford: Hart Publishing, Oxford. Dunn, J., & Plomin. R. (1990). Separate lives. Why are siblings so different? New York: Basic Books, Family & Relationships. Dunn, J., Slomkowski, C., Beardall, C., & Rende, R. (1994). Adjustment in middle childhood and early adolescence: Links with earlier and contemporary sibling relationships. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35(3), 491– 504.

1

THE ROLE OF BROTHERS AND SISTERS …

19

Eriksen, S., & Gerstel, N. (2002). A labor or love or labor itself: Care work among adult brothers and sister. Journal of Family Issues, 23(7), 836–856. Finch, J. (1987). Family Obligations and the Life Course. In A. Bryman, B. Bytheway, P. Allatt, & T. Keil. (Eds.), Rethinking the life course. London: MacMillan. Grandparents Plus. (2019). What is kinship care? https://www.grandparentsplus. org.uk/what-is-kinship-care. Accessed April 19, 2020. Greif, G. L., & Woolley, M. E. (2016). Adult sibling relationships. New York: Columbia University Press. Grundy, E. (1995). Demographic influences on the future of family care. In I. Allen & E. Perkins (Eds.), The future of family care for older people (pp. 1–18). London: HMSO. Hupcey, J. (1998). Clarifying the social support theory-research linkage. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 27 (6), 1103–1332. Jacobs, K., & Sillars, A. (2012). Sibling support during post-divorce adjustment: An idiographic analysis of support forms, functions, and relationship types. Journal of Family Communication, 12(2), 167–187. Jenkins, J. (1992). Sibling relationships in disharmonious homes: Potential difficulties and protective effects. In F. Boer & J. Dunn (Eds.), Children’s sibling relationships: Developmental and clinical issues (pp. 125–138). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Jenkins, J., & Smith, M. (1990). Factors protecting children living in disharmonious homes: Maternal reports. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 29(1), 60–69. Kempton, T., Armistead, L., Wierson, M., & Forehand, R. (1991). Presence of a sibling as a potential buffer following parental divorce: An examination of young adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 20(4), 434–438. Lamb, M., & Sutton-Smith, B. (1982). Sibling relationships: Their nature and significance across the life span. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Liefbroer, A. C., & Mulder, C. H. (2007). Family obligations. In P. A. Dykstra, M. Kalmijn, T. C. M. Knijn, A. E. Komter, A. C. Liefbroer, & C. H. Mulder, Family solidarity in the Netherlands (pp. 123–146). Amsterdam: Dutch University Press. McHale, S., Updegraff, S., & Whiteman, S. (2012). Sibling relationships and influences in childhood and adolescence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 74(5), 913–930. Milevsky, A. (2005). Compensatory patterns of sibling support in emerging adulthood: Variations in loneliness, self-esteem, depression and life satisfaction Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(6), 743–755.

20

A. BUCHANAN AND A. ROTKIRCH

OECD Family Database. (2018). Share of births outside marriage. OECD Family Database. http://www.oecd.org/els/family/database.htm. Accessed April 19, 2020. OECD Family Database. (2019). Marriage and divorce rates in the OECD. https://www.oecd.org›els›family›SF_3_1_Marriage_and_divorce_rates. Office for National Statistics. (2017). Families with dependent children by family type and number of dependent children 2017. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peo plepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/bulletins/ familiesandhouseholds/2017. Accessed April 19, 2020. Office for National Statistics. (2019). Civil partnerships in England and Wales: 2019. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdea thsandmarriages/marriagecohabitationandcivilpartnerships/bulletins/civilp artnershipsinenglandandwales/2019#civil-partnership-formations. Accessed October 8, 2020. Pearson, K. (2013). Filial support laws in the modern era: Domestic and international comparison of enforcement practices for laws requiring adult children to support indigent parents (January 23, 2013). Elder Law Journal. Penn State Law Research Paper. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abs tract=2079753. Accessed April 19, 2020. Ross, H., & Milgram, J. (1982). Important variables in adult sibling relationships: A qualitative study. In M. Lamb & B. Sutton-Smith (Eds.), Sibling relationships: Their nature and significance across the life span. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Rossi, A., & Rossi, P. (1990). Normative obligations and parent-child help obligations across the life course. In K. Pillemer & K. McCartney (Eds.), Parent-child relations throughout life. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Science Daily. (2018). More than 8 million babies born from IVF since the world’s first in 1978 ScienceDaily, 3 July 2018. www.sciencedaily.com/rel eases/2018/07/180703084127.htm. Accessed April 19, 2020. Singapore Legal Advice. (2019). Maintenance of parents: Your child’s obligations. https://singaporelegaladvice.com/law-articles/maintenance-of-parents-childobligations-how-to-file/. Accessed April 19, 2020. Spitze, G., & Trent K. (2018). Changes in individual sibling relationships in response to life events. Journal of Family Issues. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0192513X16653431. The Lancet. (2018). Population and fertility by age and sex for 195 countries and territories, 1950– 2017: A systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2017 . 392: 1995–2051. Uchino, B. (2004). Social support and physical health: Understanding the health consequences of relationships. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. pp. 16–17.

1

THE ROLE OF BROTHERS AND SISTERS …

21

United Nations. (2017). World population highlights, population ageing 2017 . https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ageing-and-health. US Department of State. (2018). Annual report on intercountry adoptions. https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/NEWadoptionassets/pdfs/Tab%201% 20Annual%20Report%20on%20Intercountry%20Adoptions.pdf. Accessed April 20, 2020. Van Volkkom, M. (2006). Sibling relationship in middle and older adulthood. Marriage and Family Review, 40(2–3), 151–170. White, L., & Riedman, A. (1992). Ties among adult siblings. Social Forces, 71, 85–102. Wills, T. A. (1991). Social support and interpersonal relationships. Prosocial Behavior, Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 265–289. World Health Orgnasiation. (2018). Ageing and Health. https://www.who.int/ news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ageing-and-health.

PART II

Continuity and Change in Sibling Relations

CHAPTER 2

Brothers and Sisters Across the Life Course: Eleven Factors Shaping Relationship Quality in Adult Siblings Antti O. Tanskanen and Mirkka Danielsbacka

Sibling relationships are unique family ties in humans, not least because they are the longest-lasting social bonds in our species (Cicirelli 1995). Sibling relationships are also ambivalent by nature, meaning that they include both altruistic help and emotional closeness as well as conflicts and quarrels. Conflicts between siblings are more common in early and late childhood when the competition over parental time, attention and resources is the highest, whereas in adulthood siblings more often provide support and safety nets for one another (Pollet and Hoben 2011). In the present chapter, we consider the relationships among adult siblings and thus it is relevant to pay most attention to the more affirmative sides of siblinghood such as social and emotional support. With that said, however, the other side of the coin cannot be totally ignored because conflicts and quarrels do not necessarily end when siblings grow up but

A. O. Tanskanen (B) · M. Danielsbacka Department of Social Research, University of Turku, Turku, Finland e-mail: [email protected] Population Research Institute, Väestöliitto, Helsinki, Finland © The Author(s) 2021 A. Buchanan and A. Rotkirch (eds.), Brothers and Sisters, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55985-4_2

25

26

A. O. TANSKANEN AND M. DANIELSBACKA

rather are present also among adult sisters and brothers (Tanskanen et al. 2016). Hence, conflicts tend to be a natural part of sibling ties, potentially having a strong influence on relationship closeness (Salmon and Hehman 2014). In addition, relationships with siblings in adulthood usually stem from relationships with siblings in childhood, and thus childhood conditions are an important issue to consider when exploring sibling relationships across the life course. In social science studies, the intragenerational ties between siblings have often been considered using life course and family solidarity models (e.g. Voorpostel and Bliezner 2008; White 2001). Using these perspectives, family scientists have investigated how socio-economic characteristics (e.g. educational level) and family structure factors (e.g. number of siblings and age difference) shape sibling relationships. Although these models have only limited capacity to formulate hypotheses that can be empirically tested, studies that have utilized life course and solidarity models have provided important information about several factors associated with intragenerational solidarity. Recently, the need and opportunity structures model, which is an extension of the solidarity model, has been used to explain why kin support is unequally distributed across family members (Szydlik 2016). Although until now the need and opportunity structures model has been mostly used in studies investigating social ties between adult children and older parents, for the most part the same principles are also valid when one studies sibling relationships. The basic idea in this model is that when a person needs more support (e.g. because of financial difficulty or health problems), he or she also receives more help from kin, and when a person has more opportunities to provide support (e.g. because of better financial conditions or improved health), he or she also provides more support for relatives. Factors indicating need and opportunity structures are often the same as those that have also been emphasized in life course and solidarity models. Relationship quality with siblings can be approached from the viewpoint of evolutionary theory. The four most important evolutionary theories considering factors associated with sibling relationship quality are inclusive fitness theory (Hamilton 1964), parental investment theory (Trivers 1972), parent–offspring conflict theory (Trivers 1974) and incest aversion or the Westermarck effect (Westermarck 1921). Inclusive fitness theory (Hamilton 1964) states that individuals can increase their fitness indirectly by investing time, support and resources in close relatives with whom they share common genes. According to this theory, ‘all else

2

BROTHERS AND SISTERS ACROSS THE LIFE COURSE: ELEVEN …

27

being equal’, individuals are predicted to provide more support for their more closely related relatives compared to more distantly related relatives or non-relatives. Parental investment theory (Trivers 1972) argues that by investing in their descendants, parents can increase their inclusive fitness (i.e. the likelihood that their genes spread into future generations). Parental investment theory also acknowledges the differences between genders: because of pregnancy and lactation, females have a greater obligatory investment in their descendants than men do, and because of paternity uncertainty males tend to invest less in their descendants compared to females. This biased parental investment has been shown to shape family ties (Salmon and Shackelford 2011) and could be the main reason why women rather than men tend to be kin keepers, that is, the ones who maintain contact with relatives (Bracke et al. 2008). According to parent-offspring conflict theory (Trivers 1974), siblings have tendencies to compete with each other over limited parental resources, and several factors, such as a disadvantaged financial condition, decreased age difference between siblings and unequal parental treatment, can intensify sibling rivalry (Salmon and Hehman 2014). Lastly, the Westermarck effect can explain how an individual recognizes his or her siblings. According to this effect, physical proximity during early childhood provides an important cue for kinship and thus regulates individuals’ behaviour towards siblings in later life (Westermarck 1921).

Factors Predicting Sibling Relationship Quality In prior studies, intragenerational solidarity between siblings has been considered in relation to several factors, including contact frequency, practical help and emotional support (e.g. Steinbach and Hank 2018; Voorpstel and Bliezner 2008). The intragenerational solidarity model can provide a useful tool for family scientists because it shows the multidimensional nature of sibling relationships. That said, however, it is important to note that different factors of relationship quality also tend to correlate with one another (Tanskanen et al. 2016). For instance, those who have more contact and are emotionally closer to siblings are also likely to provide more support for them. Although we review studies on adult sibling relationships here, several factors regarding family arrangements in childhood and adolescence are acknowledged because the foundation for sibling ties is often created during the early years. In the sections that follow, we will introduce 11 key factors associated with sibling relationship quality.

28

A. O. TANSKANEN AND M. DANIELSBACKA

Gender According to evolutionary anthropologists, humans are cooperative breeders, meaning that several other people in addition to the children’s biological mothers tend to be involved in childrearing (Hrdy 1999, 2009). They often include the children’s older siblings; in particular, older sisters can provide significant support for their mothers and thus reduce the cost of childbearing (Sear and Mace 2008). When it comes to relationships between adult siblings, gender is one of the most studied variables among family scholars. Based on prior studies, clear gender differences in sibling ties exist in the way that sister–sister sibling pairs have closer relationships with each other and provide more support for one another compared to mixed-gender sibling pairs or brother–brother pairs (e.g. Kersting and Feldhaus 2016; Voorpostel et al. 2007). Genderbased differences in sibling relationships have been found in different countries, such as Germany, the Netherlands and Finland, and also with different relationship quality factors, namely contact frequency, emotional closeness and practical help (Pollet 2007; Steinbach and Hank 2018; Tanskanen and Danielsbacka 2014). On the other hand, sister–sister pairs also have more conflicts than other gender constellations, at least when conflicts are indicated by milder disputes and disagreements rather than severe quarrels (e.g. Tanskanen et al. 2016). Genetic Relatedness Inclusive fitness theory (Hamilton 1964) predicts that when the degree of genetic relatedness increases, the support between siblings should also increase. As full siblings share on average 50% of the same genes and half siblings share 25%, one could predict that full siblings relationships are closer to one another than half siblings relationships. Using large-scale and population-based survey data from the Netherlands and Finland, two prior studies tested whether full siblings report more contact and more emotional support towards each other compared with maternal and paternal half siblings (Pollet 2007; Tanskanen and Danielsbacka 2014). Both studies separated maternal and paternal half siblings from each other because childhood proximity is likely to shape sibling ties; when the childhood coresidence duration increases, the relationship quality between adult siblings also tends to improve (Tanskanen and

2

BROTHERS AND SISTERS ACROSS THE LIFE COURSE: ELEVEN …

29

Danielsbacka 2019). In contemporary Western societies, children typically stay with their mothers if their parents separate, meaning that maternal half siblings have normally grown up in the same household, while paternal half siblings have not. It was found that both Dutch and Finnish adults had more interaction with full siblings than maternal or paternal half siblings (Pollet 2007; Tanskanen and Danielsbacka 2014). In addition, a recent study from Germany detected that full siblings have more contact and report more emotional closeness than half siblings (Steinbach and Hank 2018). Moreover, the German study compared full—siblings to step-siblings (who share 0% of the same genes) and detected better relationships among full siblings. The role of genetic relatedness has also been investigated using twin data because these data can provide unique information on sibling ties. Monozygotic (MZ) twins share 100% of the same genes with each other, while dizygotic (DZ) twins share approximately 50% of the same genes, meaning that they are related to each other to a similar extent compared to any other full siblings. Using survey data from Germany, Neyer (2002) investigated different aspects of relationship quality among older twins. It was detected that MZ twins reported more contact, social support and emotional closeness towards one another compared to DZ twins. Moreover, according to retrospective interviews, it was found that the contact frequency and emotional closeness followed a U-shaped curve, which implies that these two factors decreased after early adulthood and returned to a higher level again during old age. This age effect was similar among both MZ and DZ twins, although compared to DZ twins, MZ twins reported better relationship quality in all ages. In addition, a study conducted in Finland found that compared to DZ twins, MZ twins have more frequent contact (Rose et al. 1990). Lastly, based on evidence from the US, MZ twins engage in more cooperation, provide more support (Segal and Hershberger 1999), and experience more mutual trust (McGuire et al. 2010) than DZ twins. Sibship Size Prior studies have consistently indicated that the number of siblings is associated with individuals’ educational outcomes in that when the number of siblings increases, the educational attainments tend to decrease (e.g. Coleman 1988; Tanskanen et al. 2016; CCR). As parental resources are always finite, when there are more children in the household, the

30

A. O. TANSKANEN AND M. DANIELSBACKA

parents’ opportunity to allocate time and other resources per child is lower compared to households with fewer children (Downey 1995, 2001). Sibship size could also shape the relationship quality among adult siblings. The number of siblings may matter simply because the more siblings one has, the less one can invest time or other resources in each of them. A two-generational study from Finland found support for the dilution effect; the more siblings younger and older adults have, the less contact they reported per sibling (Tanskanen and Danielsbacka 2014). Similarly, a Dutch study found that an increased number of siblings is associated with decreased contact frequency (Poortman and Voorpostel 2009) and, based on a German study, decreased emotional closeness (Kersting and Feldhaus 2016). Some other studies have not, however, found a correlation between sibship size and contact frequency or emotional closeness (Pollet 2007; Steinbach and Hank 2018). Lastly, a German study detected that when the number of siblings increased, conflicts decreased (Steinbach and Hank 2018), but neither another German study (Kersting and Feldhaus 2016) nor a Dutch study (Poortman and Voorpostel 2009) found a similar effect. Hence, one can conclude that prior studies about the association between sibship size and relationship quality have provided mixed results. Birth Order Since the late 1800s, the impact of birth order on personality and intelligence has attracted attention among scientists and laypeople (Damian and Roberts 2015a, b). During recent decades, there has also been growing interest in whether birth order influences family relationships. According to the neglected middleborn hypothesis, firstborn and lastborn children should report closer family ties than middleborns, but prior studies have provided mixed results. Using non-representative data on US college students, a set of studies have indeed indicated that middleborns are less family-oriented than other birth orders (Salmon 1999, 2003; Salmon and Daly 1998). In contrast, two later studies that used large-scale and population-based data from the Netherlands found no support for the neglected middleborn hypothesis, although it was found that compared with laterborns, firstborns reported more frequent contact and better sibling relationship quality (Pollet and Nettle 2007, 2009). A large-scale and population-based study from Germany subsequently detected that firstborns reported more contact with siblings than laterborns, but a

2

BROTHERS AND SISTERS ACROSS THE LIFE COURSE: ELEVEN …

31

similar effect was not found in the case of emotional closeness (Steinbach and Hank 2018). Finally, a two-generational and nationally representative study from Finland found no support for birth order differences in sibling contact either among younger or older adults (Tanskanen and Danielsbacka 2014). Age Difference Age difference between siblings is an important family structure factor that may shape sibling ties. During childhood and adolescence, a smaller age difference is associated with intensified sibling rivalry because when siblings are of the same age, they will compete over similar parental resources (Salmon and Hehman 2014; Tanskanen et al. 2016). In addition, during childhood, a small age difference may have detrimental effects on child outcomes, including health problems, delayed development and educational failures (Pollet and Hoben 2011). Although sibling rivalry is most severe during childhood when parental resources matter the most, it may also exist among adult siblings. According to a twogenerational study from Finland, 50% of older and 67% of younger adults report that they have had conflicts with their siblings (Tanskanen et al. 2016). Whereas during childhood a small age difference between siblings often has negative consequences, in adulthood such a difference could be favourable for sibling relationships. A large age difference between siblings decreases the probability of shared childhood experiences, which in turn could result in less emotional closeness between siblings in adulthood. In line with this argument, findings from the Netherlands indicated that an increased age difference is associated with decreased contact frequency among adult siblings (Pollet 2007). However, according to a two-generational Finnish study, age difference did not correlate with sibling contacts either among younger or older adults (Tanskanen and Danielsbacka 2014). Socio-Economic Position The need and opportunity structures model predicts that when individuals have more opportunities to provide support for kin, the amount of help will also increase (Szydlik 2016). Based on opportunity structures, one can predict that an improved socio-economic position is associated with

32

A. O. TANSKANEN AND M. DANIELSBACKA

increased opportunities to provide support for siblings. Sibling studies testing the predictions derived from the need and opportunity structures model have been rare, although some studies considering sibling ties have controlled for educational level. Based on a Dutch study, individuals with a higher level of education have more contact with siblings compared to individuals with a lower level of education (Pollet 2007). A Finnish study found that among older adults a high educational level was associated with increased contact with siblings, but this effect was absent among younger adults (Tanskanen and Danielsbacka 2014). Lastly, a German study on younger adults found no significant differences in sibling ties according to educational level (Steinbach and Hank 2018). When it comes to need structures, one can assume that when the socio-economic position is lower, there is also more need for support from siblings. Based on a study from the Netherlands, lower educated individuals did not receive more support from siblings compared to their higher educated counterparts (Voorpostel et al. 2008). Among older and younger Finns, the financial situation of siblings was not correlated with contact frequency, emotional closeness or practical help (Tanskanen and Rotkirch 2018). These findings provided no support for the predictions derived from the need structures model. Geographical Proximity When individuals live nearby, they also have more opportunities for contact and mutual support than when they live far away. Hence, it is no surprise that one of the most robust findings in studies of kin relationships is that when geographical distance increases, interaction between individuals decreases. For instance, using large-scale survey data from Germany, a recent study found that geographical proximity was associated with relationship quality among full- and half siblings (Steinbach and Hank 2018). Similar results have also been found in studies using data from the Netherlands (Pollet 2007) and Finland (Tanskanen and Danielsbacka 2014). Based on findings from the US, long geographical distance tends to reduce interaction between siblings regardless of the degree of relatedness (White and Riedmann 1992a, b). That said, however, a study based on data on German and Dutch university students detected that when the residential distance between kin increased, individuals were more willing to travel to meet genetically closer relatives than more distant relatives

2

BROTHERS AND SISTERS ACROSS THE LIFE COURSE: ELEVEN …

33

(Pollet et al. 2013). This finding indicates that geographical proximity may shape sibling ties according to degree of relatedness. Childhood Coresidence Duration According to the inclusive fitness perspective, individuals have a natural tendency to prefer their close relatives over more distant relatives or non-relatives (Hamilton 1964). To preferentially favour close relatives over other individuals, people should, however, firstly recognize to whom they are related. As genes do not directly detect other genes, people should use different cues, which help to assess whether they are genetically related to another individual. Evolutionary scholars have argued that childhood coresidence duration is one of the key kin detection cues among human siblings because living in the same household during early childhood serves as a valid cue of actual relatedness (Lieberman et al. 2007; Westermarck 1921). Based on this perspective, childhood coresidence can be predicted to regulate adult sibling ties in that those who have lived with their siblings during childhood also have closer relationships with them in adulthood compared to those who have not co-resided with siblings in childhood. Prior studies have provided support for this prediction. For instance, a study based on non-representative data on US college students detected that childhood coresidence is a strong predictor of sibling support (Bressan et al. 2009). Moreover, analyzing cross-cultural but nonrepresentative data from Argentina, Belgium, California, Dominica and Hawaii, another study found that when coresidence duration increased, individuals’ willingness to provide support for their siblings also increased (Sznycer et al. 2016). Lastly, using a population-based survey from Germany, it was found that increased childhood coresidence duration is associated with increased contact frequency and emotional closeness with siblings among younger and middle-aged adults (Tanskanen and Danielsbacka 2019). Maternal Perinatal Association In addition to childhood coresidence duration, maternal perinatal association (i.e. an individual sees his or her mother taking care of a newborn baby) could be an important kin detection mechanism (Lieberman et al. 2007). Maternal perinatal association tends to be a valid cue for kin recognition because a woman who nurtures and breastfeeds a newborn infant is

34

A. O. TANSKANEN AND M. DANIELSBACKA

most probably this infant’s biological mother. As maternal perinatal association helps to detect a biological mother and infant, individuals can also use it as a cue for sibling recognition; if an individual’s mother nurtures and breastfeeds a newborn baby, this baby is most likely that individual’s sibling. Although maternal perinatal association could be the single most important kin detection cue in human siblings, it can only be used by older siblings, meaning that younger sibling should use other kin recognition cues, such as coresidence duration during childhood (Lieberman and Billingsley 2016). To date, only a small number of studies have tested whether maternal perinatal association correlates with improved relationship quality among adult siblings. Using a non-representative sample of US college students, it was found that maternal perinatal association correlates with both improved willingness to provide costly help and actual support directed towards sibling (Lieberman et al. 2007). This study was subsequently replicated with similar results using non-representative samples gathered from Argentina, Belgium, California, Dominica and Hawaii (Sznycer et al. 2016). Moreover, both aforementioned studies found that maternal perinatal association is a more valid cue for sibling detection than childhood coresidence durations (Lieberman et al. 2007; Sznycer et al. 2016). Lastly, based on the US study, maternal perinatal association corresponds to 14 years of coresidence duration (Lieberman et al. 2007). Unequal Parental Treatment By the age of three, children begin to be sensitive to disparities in parental treatment between them and their siblings, start to actively monitor the relationships between their siblings and their parents, and to notice whether parental treatment is unequally distributed across siblings (Dunn and Munn 1985). Unequal parental treatment may have several negative consequences for children. For example, differential parental treatment has been found to be associated with increased behavioural problems (Coldwell et al. 2008; Reiss et al. 1995). Moreover, there is some evidence indicating that unfair parental treatment experienced in childhood may even increase delinquency in adolescence (Scholte et al. 2007). Lastly, unequal parental treatment tends to be associated with sibling relationship quality in childhood and adolescence (Brody et al. 1992a, b).

2

BROTHERS AND SISTERS ACROSS THE LIFE COURSE: ELEVEN …

35

In addition, unequal parental treatment experienced in childhood may remain in an individual’s mind for a long time and have an influence on sibling relationship quality in adulthood. Based on a sample of over one thousand middle-aged adults from Germany, it was found that when parents had treated their descendants equally, sibling relationship quality was also better, while unequal parental treatment was associated with poorer relationship quality (Boll et al. 2003). Similarly, using a large-scale sample of younger and middle-aged adults from Finland, it was found that perceived unequal parental treatment shapes relationship quality in siblings (Tanskanen and Danielsbacka 2014). Based on the Finnish study, the perceived unequal parental treatment also mediates the effect of relatedness in sibling ties. When differential parental treatment was taken into account, the difference between full- and maternal half siblings disappeared in that there was no significant difference in emotional closeness between these two groups. Parenthood Status Studies considering intergenerational relationships have indicated that the presence of a third-generation is associated with improved relationship quality between adult children and parents (Danielsbacka et al. 2015; Fischer 1983), although it is not clear whether this association is causal (Tanskanen 2017). The inclusive fitness perspective states that the existence of siblings’ children increases the shared reproductive interests between siblings, which may also encourage individuals to provide support for their siblings with dependent children (Hughes 1988). However, studies investigating whether parenthood status shapes sibling ties are scarce. Using cross-sectional data on younger and middle-aged adults from Finland, it was investigated whether parenthood status is associated with relationship quality in siblings (Tanskanen and Danielsbacka 2017). Relationship quality was indicated by three factors, namely contact frequency, emotional closeness and degree of conflict. It was detected that women with children had more contact with sisters with children compared with childless women with childless sisters. Men with children with childless sisters had more contact than childless men with childless sisters. However, childless men with brothers with children had less contact than childless men with childless brothers. These findings indicate that the existence of a child may improve matrilineal kin ties more than patrilineal

36

A. O. TANSKANEN AND M. DANIELSBACKA

ones. This finding is also in line with intergenerational studies, which have considered relationship quality between adult children and parents (Danielsbacka et al. 2015; Fischer 1983).

Discussion This chapter highlighted 11 factors predicting relationship quality among adult siblings, namely gender, genetic relatedness, sibship size, birth order, age difference, socio-economic position, geographical proximity, childhood coresidence duration, maternal perinatal association, parental unequal treatment and parenthood status. Although different factors predicting sibling relationship quality have been presented as separate items above, many of them may overlap. For instance, the birth order effect found in some studies indicating that firstborn individuals report closer sibling ties compared to laterborn individuals may sometimes be due to maternal perinatal association instead of birth order. In addition, the finding that paternal half siblings have a disadvantaged position compared to full- and maternal half siblings is most probably based on the childhood coresidence duration: full- and maternal half siblings typically share a childhood home, while paternal half siblings usually do not. Hence, it is important to create research set-ups that facilitate consideration of the factors that really produce the effect. Obviously, high-quality data including several key factors predicting sibling relationship quality is needed in order to do this. Adult sibling relationships are ambivalent, including both mutual support and conflicts. Interestingly, the same factors that tend to increase contact, emotional closeness and help are also often associated with conflict and quarrels. Accumulating evidence indicates that altruistic and emotionally close sibling ties may not be less conflict-prone in comparison (Salmon and Hehman 2015). That said, however, the relative importance of support and conflict varies by age in that the number of conflicts tends to decrease over the life course, and adult siblings typically provide an important resource for one another (Pollet and Hoben 2011). Overall, sibling ties remain strong in adulthood and are related to several key factors, many of which have their roots in early childhood and adolescence.

2

BROTHERS AND SISTERS ACROSS THE LIFE COURSE: ELEVEN …

37

References Boll, T., Ferring, D., & Filipp, S. H. (2003). Perceived parental differential treatment in middle adulthood: Curvilinear relations with individuals’ experienced relationship quality to sibling and parents. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 472–487. Bracke, P., Christiaens, W., & Wauterickx, N. (2008). The pivotal role of women in informal care. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 1348–1378. Bressan, P., Colarelli, S. M., & Cavalieri, M. B. (2009). Biologically costly altruism depends on emotional closeness among step but not half or full sibling. Evolutionary Psychology, 7(1), 147470490900700116. Brody, G. H., Stoneman, Z., & McCoy, J. K. (1992a). Associations of maternal and paternal direct and differential behaviour with sibling relationships: Contemporaneous and longitudinal analyses. Child Development, 63, 82–92. Brody, G. H., Stoneman, Z., & McCoy, J. K. (1992b). Parental differential treatment of siblings and sibling differences in negative emotionality. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 643–651. Cicirelli, V. G. (1995). Sibling relationships across the life span. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Coldwell J., Pike A., & Dunn, J. (2008). Maternal differential treatment and child adjustment: A multi-informant approach. Social Development, 17, 596– 612. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120. Damian, R. I., & Roberts, B. W. (2015a). Settling the debate on birth order and personality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(46), 14119–14120. Damian, R. I., & Roberts, B. W. (2015b). The associations of birth order with personality and intelligence in a representative sample of US high school students. Journal of Research in Personality, 58, 96–105. Danielsbacka, M., Tanskanen, A. O., & Rotkirch, A. (2015). The impact of genetic relatedness and emotional closeness on intergenerational relations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77, 889–907. Downey, D. B. (1995). When bigger is not better: Family size, parental resources, and children’s educational performance. American Sociological Review, 60, 746–761. Downey, D. B. (2001). Number of siblings and intellectual development: The resource dilution explanation. American Psychologist, 56, 497–504. Dunn, J., & Munn, P. (1985). Becoming a family member: Family conflict and the development of social understanding in the second year. Child Development, 56, 764–774. Fischer, R. L. (1983). Mothers and mothers-in-law. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 187–192.

38

A. O. TANSKANEN AND M. DANIELSBACKA

Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour I and II. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 1–52. Hrdy, S. B. (1999). Mother nature: A history of mothers, infants, and natural selection. New York: Pantheon Books. Hrdy, S. B. (2009). Mothers and others: The evolutionary origins of mutual understanding. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. Hughes, A. L. (1988). Evolution and human kinship. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Kersting, L., & Feldhaus, M. (2016). Die Qualität von Geschwisterbeziehungen im jungen und mittleren Erwachsenenalter in Abhängigkeit des Verwandtschaftsstatus (The quality of sibling relationships in early and middle adulthood depending on sibling type). Zeitschrift für Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation, 36, 382–401. Lieberman, D., & Billingsley, J. (2016). Current issues in sibling detection. Current Opinion in Psychology, 7, 57–60. Lieberman, D., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2007). The architecture of human kin detection. Nature, 445, 727–731. McGuire, S., Segal, N. L., Whitlow, B., Gill, P., & Clausen, J. (2010). Sibling trust and trustworthiness. In K. Rotenberg (Ed.), Interpersonal trust during childhood and adolescence (pp. 133–154). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Neyer, F. J. (2002). Twin relationships in old age: A development perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Relationships, 19, 155–177. Pollet, T. V. (2007). Genetic relatedness and sibling relationship characteristics in a modern society. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 176–185. Pollet, T. V., & Hoben, A. D. (2011). An evolutionary perspective on siblings: Rivals and resources. In C. Salmon & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), The Oxford handbook on evolutionary family psychology (pp. 128–148). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Pollet, T. V., & Nettle, D. (2007). Birth order and face-to-face contact with a sibling: Firstborns have more contact than laterborns. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1796–1806. Pollet, T. V., & Nettle, D. (2009). Birth order and adult family relationships: Firstborns have better sibling relationships than laterborns. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26(8), 1029–1046. Pollet, T. V., Roberts, S. G., & Dunbar, R. I. (2013). Going that extra mile: Individuals travel further to maintain face-to-face contact with highly related kin than with less related kin. PloS One, 8(1), e53929. Poortman, A.-R., & Voorpostel, M. (2009). Parental divorce and sibling relationships: A research note. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 74–91. Reiss, D., Hetherington, M., Plomin, R., Howe, G. W., Simmens, S. J., Henderson, S. H., … Law, T. (1995). Genetic questions for environmental

2

BROTHERS AND SISTERS ACROSS THE LIFE COURSE: ELEVEN …

39

studies: Differential parenting and psychopathology in adolescence. Archives of General Psychiatry, 52, 925–936. Rose, R. J., Kaprio, J., Williams, C. J., Viken, R., & Obremski, K. (1990). Social contact and sibling similarity: Facts, issues, and red herrings. Behavior Genetics, 20, 763–778. Salmon, C. A. (1999). On the impact of sex and birth order on contact with kin. Human Nature, 10, 183–197. Salmon, C. A. (2003). Birth order and relationships: Family, friends, and sexual partners. Human Nature, 14, 73–88. Salmon, C. A., & Daly, M. (1998). Birth order and familial sentiment: Middleborns are different. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 299–312. Salmon, C. A., & Hehman, J. A. (2014). The evolutionary psychology of sibling conflict and siblicide. In T. K. Shackelford & R. D. Hansen (Eds.), The evolution of violence (pp. 137–157). New York: Springer. Salmon, C., & Hehman, J. (2015). Evolutionary perspectives on the nature of sibling conflict: The impact of sex, relatedness, and coresidence. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 1(2), 123–129. Salmon, C., & Shackelford, T. K. (Eds.). (2011). The Oxford handbook of evolutionary family psychology. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press. Scholte, R. H. J., Engels, R. C. M. E., de Kemp, R. A. T., Harakeh, Z., & Overbeek, G. (2007). Differential parental treatment, sibling relationships, and delinquency in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 661– 671. Sear, R., & Mace, R. (2008). Who keeps children alive? A review of the effects of kin on child survival. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 1–18. Segal, N. L., & Hershberger, S. L. (1999). Cooperation and competition between twins: Findings from a prisoner’s dilemma game. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 29–51. Steinbach, A., & Hank, K. (2018). Full-, half-, and step-sibling relations in young and middle adulthood. Journal of Family Issues, 39(9), 2639–2658. Sznycer, D., De Smet, D., Billingsley, J., & Lieberman, D. (2016). Coresidence duration and cues of maternal investment regulate sibling altruism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(2), 159–177. Szydlik, M. (2016). Sharing lives: Adult children and parents. London: Routledge. Tanskanen, A. O. (2017). Intergenerational relations before and after offspring arrive: A within-person investigation. Social Science Research, 67, 138–146. Tanskanen, A. O., & Danielsbacka, M. (2014). Genetic relatedness predicts contact frequencies with siblings, nieces and nephews: Results from the generational transmissions in Finland surveys. Personality and Individual Differences, 69, 5–11.

40

A. O. TANSKANEN AND M. DANIELSBACKA

Tanskanen, A. O., & Danielsbacka, M. (2017). Parenthood status and relationship quality between siblings. Journal of Family Studies, 23, 1–12. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2017.1374203. Tanskanen, A. O., & Danielsbacka, M. (2019). Relationship quality among half siblings: The role of childhood co-residence. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 5(1), 13–21. Tanskanen, A. O., Danielsbacka, M., Jokela, M., David-Barrett, T., & Rotkirch, A. (2016). Diluted competition? Conflicts between full- and half-siblings in two adult generations. Frontiers in Sociology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc. 2016.00006. Tanskanen, A. O., & Rotkirch, A. (2018). Sibling similarity and relationship quality in Finland. Acta Sociologica, 61, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/000 1699318777042. Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp. 52–97). Chicago, IL: Aldine. Trivers, R. L. (1974). Parent-offspring conflict. American Zoologist, 14, 249– 264. Voorpostel, M., & Blieszner, R. (2008). Intergenerational solidarity and support between adult siblings. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 157–167. Voorpostel, M., van der Lippe, T., Dykstra, P. A., & Flap, H. (2007). Similar or different? The importance of similarities and differences for support between siblings. Journal of Family Issues, 28, 1026–1053. Westermarck, E. A. (1921). The history of human marriage. London: MacMillan. White, L. (2001). Sibling relationships over the life course: A panel analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 555–568. White, L. K., & Riedmann, A. (1992a). Ties among adult siblings. Social Forces, 71, 85–102. White, L. K., & Riedmann, A. (1992b). When the Brady bunch grows up: Step/half- and full sibling relationships in adulthood. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 197–208.

CHAPTER 3

Brothers and Sisters: A Social and Demographic Perspective John Clifford Haskey

All the brothers were valiant, and all the sisters were virtuous 1 Brother Sun..…Sister Moon 2

Introduction Whatever roles brothers and sisters choose, adopt or fulfil through expectations, their shared upbringing plays an important part in their relationship and mutual influence throughout their entire lives. Siblings hold a common family narrative for one another which can, at best, bond them together. This relationship can influence other relationships too, if only through contact with brothers’ and sisters’ friends, partners and spouses. 1 From the inscription on the tomb of the Duchess of Newcastle in Westminster Abbey, 1673. 2 From ‘The Canticle of the Sun’, St Francis, 1224. (Other entities also give the epithets ‘brother’ and ‘sister’).

J. C. Haskey (B) Department of Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2021 A. Buchanan and A. Rotkirch (eds.), Brothers and Sisters, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55985-4_3

41

42

J. C. HASKEY

In demographic analyses, brothers and sisters are rarely identified or considered as such; usually they are either implicitly recognised as dependent children in young families with two or more children, or, for older brothers and sisters, their fraternal/sororal relationship may not be distinguished at all, especially if they live in separate homes and families. At best these older siblings may be included in a broader, less precise category of “other relatives”. This lack of interest may stem from an unconscious hierarchy in ranking different relatives according to the degree to which they are regarded as quintessential family members. This tendency accompanies, and perhaps reflects, another which is that certain relationships are of greater interest than others, so that children are much more often viewed as their parents’ children rather than their siblings’ sibling. In family studies there has certainly been interest and emphasis on intergenerational differences, continuities, and exchanges. This concentration has probably been influenced by the advent of the “beanpole family” which contains many different generations within the extended family, but with few siblings in each generation. The “beanpole family” is the result of the historical improvement in longevity and the growth of smaller families, which in turn has diminished the relative numbers of brothers and sisters. There is possibly a more prosaic explanation; historically, it has proved practical, in analysing censuses and surveys, to group together household members who belong to nuclear families, Haskey (2010a). This grouping identifies family members by relation, traditionally, to the “head of family”, or a senior reference person, an individual father or mother, so that the defining key relationships have been parent and child, i.e. vertical, rather than horizontal, relationships. More recently, all pairs of relationships of household members have been recorded, a development which also allows easier analysis of co-residential extended families, Haskey (2010a). Incidentally, in the context of extended families, it has only been since the start of the Twentieth Century that “siblings” has referred specifically to brothers and sisters; formerly it meant “kin” in the widest sense (Old English, meaning “relative” or “kinsman”).

Analyses Involving Siblings and Types of Siblings Studies of siblings which might be considered purely demographic or solely analytic of this kind of kinship are comparatively few—notable exceptions are: Grundy et al. (1999), Murphy (2008), and Kolk (2017). One of the challenges to using existing survey data for a demographic

3

BROTHERS AND SISTERS …

43

analysis of siblings, is that adult brothers and sisters almost invariably live in different households, and censuses and surveys usually ask only about relationships between members of their own household; a difficulty which was well exemplified when investigating Living Apart Together relationships, Haskey (2005). Consequently, either special questions have to be included in general surveys (which is happening more frequently), or the entire survey, or part of it, has to be designed on this particular subject. Exceptionally, the first-mentioned study above used such a survey specifically to study kinship ties and contact between kin, including siblings, irrespective of residence patterns, Grundy et al. (1999). Most studies involving brothers and sisters tend to address specific questions on epidemiological, psychiatric, mental health, sexual, and genetic issues, and often involve control groups, and comparisons with parents’ characteristics, especially concerning the number and features of siblings. And “twin studies”, which quintessentially involve siblings as controls, allow the relative influences of environmental and genetic factors to be assessed. The wide range of studies on siblings includes ones on the effect of an additional sibling on adult fertility, Kolk (2015), and on the reduced risk of injury for children living with full siblings compared with half siblings, Tanskanen et al. (2016a). In addition, in terms of the emotional development of children, most of the research emphasis has concentrated on the parental relationship, rather than that with siblings. Siblings can be of three main types: full siblings in which both siblings share the same two biological parents; half-siblings in which the halfsiblings have only one biological parent in common; and step-siblings in which the step-siblings have neither of their biological parents in common. Adoptive siblings might also be added, in which one “sibling” is the adoptive child of the adopting adult who is the adoptive or biological parent of the other. Foster siblings could also be added. There are other situations too, the results of advances in medical technology and treatment in which non-traditional forms of maternity and paternity are now possible. In addition, because it is known that, for a small proportion of children, their putative father is not, as believed, their biological father, it follows that some siblings who are taken as full siblings are, in fact, half siblings. Most largescale surveys include direct questions on “siblings”, as in the most recent survey of the International Social Survey Programme (whose 2001 data were analysed in the 2008 study by Murphy). Other surveys ask the numbers of brothers and sisters. All these surveys implicitly require information on full siblings. Of course, surveys need not ask a

44

J. C. HASKEY

direct question on a respondent’s siblings, but can ask whether they share a biological mother and/or biological father, so enabling full- and halfsiblings to be distinguished through derived variables. One such survey is the Generational Transmissions in Finland survey which has been used to study conflicts between full- and half siblings, Tanskanen et al. (2016b). Quite apart from the sociological, epidemiological, and psychological aspects of sibling relationships, of which there is an extensive literature, a myriad of legal considerations arise concerning siblings, especially stepand adoptive siblings, and judgements are required on a wide variety of situations, including the guardianship, parental rights, contact and welfare of sibling children. However, a recent Nuffield Foundation Report on siblings and their contact with the law concluded that there is a lack of clarity on “legal siblinghood”, the result of the many different understandings of siblinghood, and the confounding application of adult-child relationship concepts of “attachment” and “parentification” to child-child relationships, Monk and Macvarish (2018). This chapter explores the available statistical data on siblings to discover their basic demographic characteristics: their numbers; ages; sexes; and positions within the family. It also examines survey data which allow an assessment of certain aspects of what might be termed the family integration of siblings: their frequency of contact; number of children and other family members with whom they have a close relationship; and the extent to which brothers and sisters play a role as first choice confidantes. The chapter therefore aims to paint a quantitative picture of siblings in Britain today.

Some Basic Demographic Considerations A demographic approach can provide an appreciation of the characteristics of siblings which are important factors in their relationship to each other and their wellbeing. It can also give an idea of the dynamics of the forming and ending of sibling relationships through births and deaths, as well as putting siblings into context as a part of the network of kin and the overall population. A picture of the basic characteristics follows, noting that a variety of factors influence, or are associated with, those characteristics.

3

BROTHERS AND SISTERS …

45

Births---And New Siblings When considering the subject of brothers and sisters, the obvious place to start is children born into families. The usual demographic approach is to calculate the eventual total number of children a woman will have had by the time she reaches the end of her child-bearing years, usually taken as age 45. A group of women, born in a given year, will have different numbers of children, and some will have none at all. Table 3.1 gives an example of the percentage profile of women who were born in 1965 in England and Wales, by the number of births they have had (Table 3.1). As these women recently passed the age of 45, it may be assumed they have completed their child-bearing. It may be seen that one fifth, 20 per cent, have remained childless, and 13 per cent have had one child only, etc. It may be appreciated that the women who have had 2 or more children are the ones, and only ones, whose families contained brothers or sisters, or both. From Table 3.1, 67 per cent of these women have had 2 or more children, and therefore two-thirds of these women have families containing siblings (67 = 38 + 19 + 10). The data in Table 3.1 can be viewed from the standpoint of the children. The total number of children born to this group of women was 191: (191 = 13 × 1 + 38 × 2 + 19 × 3 + 10 × 41/2), of which 178 were born to women whose families were to contain siblings: (178 = 38 × 2 + 19 × 3 + 10 × 41/2), So, 93 per cent of children born to these women have siblings: (93 = (100 × 178)/191). At first sight this proportion seems large compared with 67 per cent of women with 2 or more children. Both are correct in their own right—the difference reflects the different bases of the calculations; children in the first place, and women/families in the second. So, of all the children in the families of women born in 1965, only 7 per cent do not have one or more siblings. Of course, for women born in earlier years the proportions corresponding to 67 per cent and 93 per cent have varied; for example, for

3

4+

%

21 21 27 16 15 100 20 13 38 19 10 100

2

1920 1965

1

0

No of births

58 67

% of families with siblings

191 191

Total number of children

90 93

% of children with siblings

Number of births per hundred women by age 45, by year of birth of mother, England and Wales

Yr of birth mother

Table 3.1

46 J. C. HASKEY

3

BROTHERS AND SISTERS …

47

women born in 1920, also shown in Table 3.1, the corresponding proportions were 58 per cent and 90 per cent. The proportions are smaller, mostly because women born in 1920 were less likely than those born in 1965 to have 2 or more children. Coincidentally, the total number of births born to both groups of women is the same, 191; it is the different profiles of family sizes which makes the difference. Women born during or after the 1970s will not necessarily have finished their child-bearing, though estimating projections can be made.

Relative Numbers of Brothers and Sisters Considering the number of births in more detail, it has long been established in England and Wales and elsewhere that slightly more boys are born than girls, just over 5 per cent more, but as boys and young men have slightly larger death rates than their female counterparts, this excess number of males disappears among adults. And at the older ages, too, mortality of men exceeds that of women, resulting in there being more elderly women than elderly men, the more so the older the age. So, one might expect there to be slightly more brothers than sisters at the very youngest ages, approximately equal numbers for those older, up to the middle years of life, and decidedly more sisters than brothers at the oldest ages. Of course, in a two-sibling family consisting of an elderly brother and an elderly sister, if the brother dies first, the sister is not usually recorded in surveys as a former sister. Similarly, if the sister dies first, the brother is not usually recorded as a former brother. However, for a family of three or more siblings, when the first dies, the surviving two are usually recorded as siblings.

Data Sources This chapter uses three surveys: The Living Kin module of questions contained in the 1999 Omnibus Survey; the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing, ELSA (Wave 8, 2017); and the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe, SHARE (Wave 6, 2015). The first two surveys covered Great Britain or England, whereas SHARE included compatible survey data from 18, mostly European, countries. At the time of writing, the most recently available cross-sectional data have been used from the ELSA and SHARE surveys, which, because health and retirement are two of the key subjects in the study, posed questions to respondents aged 50

48

J. C. HASKEY

and over. In contrast, the Living Kin questions were addressed to those aged 16 and over. Each of the three surveys included one, or several, questions on siblings. The Living Kin questions include the number of brothers, and of sisters, the respondent had while growing up, and the number of living older brothers and sisters. Within some of the questions on the respondent’s family, step-siblings are distinguished from siblings. ELSA asks only the number of living brothers and sisters; whereas the SHARE country surveys include three questions on siblings; “Have you ever had any siblings?” and “How many (a) brothers and (b) sisters do you have who are still alive?” Use of the Living Kin module involved deriving age/sex/marital status specific weights to match the national population. Further details are given elsewhere Haskey (2010b). The age/sex profiles of the different countries’ populations participating in SHARE do not vary appreciably, except for the youngest two age groups, 50–54 and 55–59. However, for the combined population in their fifties, there is comparatively little variation. Consequently, age standardisation has not been performed, though the findings should be viewed as provisional.

The Extent to Which Siblings Are Regarded as Forming Part of a Family Within the Living Kin module of questions—which are addressed to those aged 16 and over—is one set which asks the respondent to imagine a man or woman with a large number of relatives and extended family. The respondent is then shown a card with a comprehensive list of 14 different kinds of possible family members, and asked to say which form part of the man’s or woman’s family. Included on the card are “grown up brothers/sisters” and “step-brothers/step-sisters”. (This show card list of relatives is shown in Fig. 3.1 in Column B.) The respondent is given the opportunity to name, in successive stages, up to 14 of the relatives listed on the card, i.e. some of them, or all of them. The respondent’s choices are recorded in order. The wording of the question deserves attention; by referring to “the family of a man or woman with many relatives”, it is clear that the question refers to an idealised complete family, rather than the respondent’s own—which might not include some kinds of relatives. The most important aspect of the question, however, is that it reveals the implicit hierarchy, or ranking, of the “degree” to which certain relatives

3 Col A

Col B

Col C

Spouse or partner

Children living at home Spouse or partner

Children living at home Children living away from home

Children living away from home

Parents who live elsewhere Grown up brothers and sisters

Parents who live elsewhere Grandparen ts and grandchildr en Nephews and nieces

Nephews and nieces

Col D

Parents living with him/her Uncles and aunts

Uncles and aunts

In-laws

Grandparen ts and grandchildr en Cousins

Cousins

Any other relatives Close friend who acts like family

49

Grown up brothers and sisters

Parents living with him/her

Stepbrothers and stepsisters In-laws

BROTHERS AND SISTERS …

Stepbrothers and stepsisters Any other relatives Close friend who acts like family

0

2

4

6

8

10

Fig. 3.1 Initial show card (col B) listing different kinds of relative and final order (col C) of relatives from the question: Which relatives form part of the family?, 1999, Great Britain (Source Living Kin)

belong to the family. Of interest is how the two different kinds of siblings are regarded. Some of the respondents selected all 14 possible relatives as belonging to a family, choosing a different relative at each of the 14 stages, while others selected fewer relatives, so taking fewer than the full 14 stages. Although respondents could choose any relative at any stage, it was apparent that most respondents used the list of relatives on the show card as a checklist, reviewing each kind of relative in turn and deciding whether or not they belonged to the hypothetical family.

50

J. C. HASKEY

This interpretation must be qualified, though, by the fact that some respondents evidently did not follow this pattern, with some respondents omitting or demoting relatives appearing higher up the show card list, and promoting or excluding others lower down the list. Indeed, overall, the respondents together made 32,428 relative choices which represented only 61 per cent of the total number of relative mentions they could have made, were each to have selected all 14 possible relatives (the average number was 8). Paradoxically, it is through respondents not using all the possible “votes” which provides a measure of the comparative order of “belonging” to a family—by the size of the final proportion of mentions of a given relative, over all stages, out of the total of all mentions of all relatives. Figure 3.1 indicates the final ordering of the different kinds of relative in Column C, based on this measure, with the most frequently mentioned relative, “children living at home” at the top, and the least frequently mentioned, “close family who acts like family” at the bottom. Furthermore, for each kind of possible family member, the size of the associated final proportion of total mentions is given, as a percentage, by the length of the bar histogram to the right of the given relative. In addition, between Columns B and C arrows indicate whether the relative concerned has gone up or down in position, compared with the original order given on the show card. Because siblings are of particular interest, the arrows and histogram bars for “grown up brothers and sisters” and “step-brothers and stepsisters” have been highlighted in black. It is evident that respondents voted heavily for grown up siblings, elevating them from 6th position on the show card to 3rd position in most frequent mentions, surpassed only by “children at home” (top position) and “spouse or partner” (second position). In contrast, “step-brothers and step-sisters”—which were immediately below “grown up brothers and sisters” in 7th position on the show card—fell 5 places to 12th position, to only just above “any other relatives”. The step-siblings accounted for 6.1 per cent of all relative mentions, and grown up siblings for 8.8 per cent of all mentions. Overall, if all the respondents had selected all 14 different kinds of relatives, each would have accounted for 7.1 per cent of all relative mentions. The percentage proportions for grown up siblings and step-siblings fall decisively on opposite sides of this benchmark. However, it should be recalled that the questions were asked about the family of a man or woman with many relatives, so that they would no doubt assume that

3

BROTHERS AND SISTERS …

51

both the grown up siblings and step-siblings would be living in their own homes. Were the step-siblings to be young children living in the parental home, there might not have been such a difference in the degree to which the two groups of siblings were regarded as belonging to the family. Coresidence may, or may not, play a part in attitudes to belonging to a family. More generally, the final cumulative proportions for grown up siblings and step-siblings tend to distinguish two separate groups: those of close relatives by blood or marriage; and those involving more distant, extended family members, usually living elsewhere, starting with aunts and uncles, then in-laws, cousins, etc.

The Profile of the Number of Siblings by Age of Respondent and Size of Respondent’s Household In the middle years of life, relatively few have lost a brother or sister— except perhaps during the Second World War—but as individuals age, mortality slowly, and then more quickly, begins to take its toll. As a result, as well as variations in past family sizes, the profile of the number of siblings individuals have has varied over time. Figure 3.2a gives a snapshot of the profile of the number of siblings respondents had in 2017, separately for each age group. For respondents in their early fifties, roughly (a) for each age group of respondent, persons 50

35

(b) for each number of persons in respondent's household, persons

45 30 40 0 sibs 35

0 sibs

25

1 sib

1 sib

30

20

25

2 sibs

2 sibs 15

20

3 sibs

3 sibs 15

10 4+ sibs

4+ sibs

10

5

5 0

0 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89

1 person

2 persons

3 persons

4+ persons

Fig. 3.2 Percentage profile of number of siblings of respondents, 2017, England (Source ELSA)

52

J. C. HASKEY

equal proportions had one, two and three siblings, about one quarter each. Relatively few, around 7 per cent, of respondents in their fifties had no brothers or sisters, consistent with the peak in births in 1964 which almost matched the post-War “baby boom”. At progressively older ages the proportion with no siblings rises rapidly to just under one half of those their late eighties. This pattern is counterbalanced by the slowly reducing proportions of those with two, three, and four or more siblings. However, it must be remembered that Fig. 3.2a shows a snapshot in the given year, 2017, not a longitudinal picture of the same group of respondents as they age. Inevitably, as they become older, respondents have fewer and fewer brothers and sisters. It follows that respondents experience a “countdown effect” in which the number of a respondent’s surviving siblings reduces successively, but not inevitably, to none. This tendency may be observed in the falling proportions with two, three and particularly four or more siblings, but the proportion with one sibling declines relatively slowly between those in their seventies and early eighties. Obviously, for the respondent to participate in the survey, no matter how old when interviewed, he or she had to have survived. The oldest respondents would therefore be most likely to be the youngest, or next to the youngest, in their family, which may explain the proportion having only one sibling declining only gently. The pattern of household residence of respondents with siblings shows some interesting variations as in Fig. 3.2b which refers to respondents aged 50 and over. Respondents who live in one-person households, i.e. the respondent lives by themselves, are most likely to have no siblings or just one, whereas the larger the household in which the respondent lives, the larger the number of siblings the respondent has. However, some or all of those siblings do not necessarily live with the respondent. It is likely that many respondents in their fifties live in families with their children— so mostly forming 3- and 4-person households—with the respondents’ brothers and sisters living elsewhere, whereas older respondents who have lost some or all of their siblings are more likely to live alone.

3

BROTHERS AND SISTERS …

53

The Average Number of Siblings The change in the profile of the number of siblings with increasing age is clearly reflected in the fall in the average number of living siblings. Figure 3.3a shows an average of around 2½ for those in their early fifties, but declining to about one for those in their mid-eighties.

3

(a) Average number of living siblings per respondent, proportion of respondents with no living siblings and 4 or more living siblings, and proportion of all the respondents and their siblings who were siblings, by age of respondent, 2017, England (Source: Elsa)

2.5 Ave no sibs 2 pptn resps with no sibs pptn resps with 4+ sibs pptn of all who were sibs

1.5 1 0.5 0 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90+

(b) Average number of brothers, sisters, siblings while growing up, and average number of older siblings, 1999, Great Britain (Source: Living Kin) 4

ave no sibs growing up

3.5 3

ave no brothers growing up ave no sisters growing up

2.5 2 1.5

ave no of older sibs

1 0.5 0 16-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65-74

75+

Fig. 3.3 Average number of siblings, brothers, sisters and associated measures by age of respondent

54

J. C. HASKEY

Although mortality plays an important part in the decline, it has been offset by older respondents having originally come from families with more brothers and sisters in the first place, as will be seen below. Figure 3.3a presents another measure—the proportion of all respondents and their siblings who are siblings. Some respondents do not have siblings, and are therefore not siblings themselves. Other respondents do, and are thereby siblings themselves, so that the total number of siblings includes the respondent. For respondents in their fifties, virtually all, 97 per cent, 0.97 on the graph, are siblings, but for those in their eighties, the proportion is smaller, between 75 and 85 per cent. Also, at these two ages, the proportions of respondents with four or more siblings are much smaller, around 20 per cent and 5 per cent, respectively.

The Number of Siblings While Growing up and Older Siblings A complementary picture to the average number of current siblings is obtained by considering the respondent’s childhood number of siblings— which can be assumed was minimally affected by loss of siblings through death; though infant mortality was higher for older generations. It is just possible that an older brother or sister, not living in the family home, might have been omitted. Figure 3.3b plots the average number of childhood siblings, and, instead of falling with older ages, it increases, at least for those aged over 55, which corresponds to respondents who were born before World War II. This average reflects the larger family sizes in earlier decades. Separate average numbers of childhood brothers and childhood sisters are shown in Fig. 3.3b, the former being slightly larger than the latter, consistent with slightly more boys being born than girls. The average number of older siblings in the childhood family is also shown, and, as expected, is around one half of the average number of siblings.

The Sex of the Oldest Sibling, by the Characteristics of the Respondent Slightly more boys are born than girls, and so one might expect brothers marginally to outnumber sisters, at least during the early childhood years. Figure 3.4 considers the oldest living sibling of the respondent,

3

60

men respondents

60

55

BROTHERS AND SISTERS …

women respondents

50

50

40

40 30 20 10

brother

30

brother

sister

20

sister

no living sib

0 16-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80 +

10

no living sib

0 16-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80 +

Fig. 3.4 Sex of eldest living sibling, by sex and age of respondent, 1999 Great Britain (Source Living Kin)

and whether that sibling is a brother or a sister. For both men and women respondents, slightly more have brothers than sisters as their oldest sibling, at least up to early adulthood. At older ages, respondents are more likely to have a sister as oldest sibling, reflecting the larger rates of mortality for men than women. For those in their thirties, forties and fifties, all but a small proportion of respondents had an oldest sibling, but for respondents of successively older ages, the proportion not having a sibling rises rapidly. This increase is faster for women than men respondents, reflecting women’s greater longevity and so more likely to outlive brothers. The proportion of brothers as oldest sibling starts to decline from an earlier age than that for oldest sisters also as a result of women’s greater longevity.

Difference in Age Between the Respondent and the Oldest Sibling It may be appreciated that the siblings in some families have a wide range of ages, whereas in others they are much closer. Furthermore, a comparatively large number of siblings tends to increase the scope for a larger variation in sibling ages, whereas a relatively small number of siblings tends to limit that possibility. Figure 3.5 presents the average age difference between the respondent and his or her oldest living sibling. Separate averages have been estimated for respondents according to the number of older siblings they have. Of course, the respondent is not necessarily the youngest of all the siblings; the respondent can be of any age relative to his or her siblings. It is reasonable to conclude that, in their fifties and early sixties, relatively few respondents have lost their eldest

56

J. C. HASKEY

12 10 8

0 older sibs

6 1 older sib

4 2

2 older sibs 0 16-34 -2

35-39

40-44

45-49

50-54

55-64

65-74

75+ 3+ older sibs

-4 -6

Fig. 3.5 Average age difference (years) between respondent’s and eldest living sibling’s ages, by age of respondent and number of older siblings, 1999, Great Britain (Source Living Kin)

sibling through death, although mortality begins to take its toll at subsequent ages. It is therefore not surprising that the average difference in ages between the respondent and their eldest sibling for those respondents having 1, 2 or 3 or more older siblings are each roughly constant, at least up to age about sixty. Also, as expected, the larger the number of older siblings the respondent has, the larger the average age difference with the eldest sibling. For increasingly older groups of respondents—those aged 65 and older—the average age difference with their eldest sibling becomes smaller, especially for respondents with three or more older siblings. The most likely explanation is that many such respondents have already lost one or more previous oldest siblings, and the next oldest sibling—closer in age to the respondent—has taken his or her place. This explanation is supported by the fact that the older respondents in Fig. 3.5, those aged 65 and older, were born into families before 1935, when families were

3

BROTHERS AND SISTERS …

57

composed of larger numbers of children—as will be seen immediately below. An interesting unexpected result emerged when averages were inadvertently calculated for respondents with no older siblings. These respondents would either have had no siblings at all (and no sibling age), or else only younger siblings. In the latter case, the next youngest sibling to the respondent would be the respondent’s oldest sibling, even though younger than the respondent. Consequently, the age difference would be negative, and so, too, the average age difference. A somewhat similar explanation is likely for the increased negative age difference for older respondents; a number of such respondents could originally have had a next youngest sibling who subsequently died, to be replaced by another sibling with a larger age difference to the respondent. Such a scenario is more likely the older the respondent.

Numbers of Brothers and Sisters of Respondent by the Estimated Respondent’s Year of Birth Because family sizes have changed over the years, so has the number of siblings. In addition, the more siblings there are in a family, the larger the number of possible combinations of brothers and sisters. The Living Kin module of questions asked the numbers of brothers and sisters the respondent “had while growing up”. To anchor the estimates to an appropriate year, an arbitrary assumption was made that the respondent was recalling his or her childhood family at the time when he or she was aged ten. The changing pattern of family composition may be seen from Fig. 3.6 which gives the percentage proportions which families with different numbers and combinations of brothers and sisters have formed of all families with children. If a respondent has brothers or sisters, he or she is a brother or sister too, and if the respondent has one sibling, it is a 2-sibling family, etc. (So it is impossible to have a one-sibling family.) Given that the childhood families of all respondents contained at least one child, the respondent, the percentage proportions are those expressed out of all families with children. Figure 3.6 essentially consists of cumulated bands, each of whose height is the percentage proportion for families with that combination of brothers and sisters. The bottom band refers to no siblings, as indicated in the bottom entry in the key, and successively higher bands refer

58

J. C. HASKEY

100

0+ bro & 4+sis 4+ bro & 0-3 sis 1 bro 3 sis

90 80

2 bro 2 sis

70

3 bro 1 sis 60

0 bro 3 sis

50

1 bro 2 sis

40

2 bro 1 sis 3 bro 0 sis

30 0 bro 2 sis 20

1 bro 1 sis 2 bro 0 sis

10

0 sibs

0 1920

1925

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

Fig. 3.6 Composition of childhood families of respondents by numbers of brothers and sisters*, estimated by year in which respondent was aged 10, cumulative percentages. 1999, Great Britain (Source Living Kin *incl. the respondent as brother/sister)

to brother/sister combinations as given by successively higher entries in the key. The very top band, immediately below the 100 per cent line (for which a key entry is not given) represents remaining large families. Certain groups of bands can usefully be considered together; in Fig. 3.6, the solid continuous lines, from light grey, dark grey, narrow black to thick black, mark the divisions between 0, 2, 3 and 4 and more siblings, respectively. The heights between these solid lines give the proportions of families with no siblings, 2 siblings, 3 siblings, 4 or more siblings, respectively. Measuring the “depths” down from the top 100 per cent horizontal line to these solid continuous lines gives the cumulative percentage proportion of families containing four or more siblings, 3 or more siblings, and 2 or more siblings. Caution is needed with results from the Living Kin module, but general patterns are probably valid. The percentage of families with no siblings, i.e. one-child families, the respondent only, is estimated from the height of the bottom band in Fig. 3.6, and seemingly peaked during the early 1950s, so that the respondents would have been born around, and just after, the Second World War. Although the percentage of one-child families subsequently fell, it was counterbalanced by the proportion of 3- and 4-sibling families

3

BROTHERS AND SISTERS …

59

which together grew from around one third in 1950 to almost one half of all families with children by 1970 (see the difference between the dark grey and the thick black continuous lines). After 1970, 2-sibling families increased, while the proportion of families with more than 4 siblings fell. Throughout the whole period, within two-sibling families, there were roughly equal proportions of 2 brothers and no sisters, and no brothers and 2 sisters, but twice that proportion for one brother and one sister (as might be expected). The most dramatic change over the 70-year period has undoubtedly been the considerable decline in large families; families with four or more siblings—the height above the thick black line to 100 per cent—accounted for around one half of all families with children in 1920, but only about one fifth in 1990.

Regular Contact with Eldest Brother/Sister Respondents in the Living Kin Survey were asked how frequently they saw, and how frequently they contacted, their eldest brother or sister. The answers to these two questions have been combined in Fig. 3.7a and b. For those aged under 40, roughly equal proportions of men, and to a lesser extent of women, saw or contacted their eldest sibling at least once a week, once a month, - or less frequently. For older respondents, the clear majority—over one half of men and almost one half of women—reported seeing or contacting their eldest sibling less frequently—less than once a month. Overall, women respondents reported seeing or contacting their eldest sibling slightly more frequently, either at least weekly or at least monthly, than men. Figure 3.7b considers the proportion of siblings who reported seeing or contacting their eldest sibling at least once per week. Overall, the proportions are largest for married and non-married women seeing or contacting a sister who was their eldest sibling, and smallest for married men and married women seeing or contacting a brother who was their eldest sibling. These results are consistent with findings presented below on patterns of confiding between brothers and sisters. It is also apparent that the proportion seeing or contacting so frequently is generally largest for respondents aged under 40, smallest for middle-aged respondents, and slightly larger again for respondents of pensionable age.

60

J. C. HASKEY

a 60

Men respondents

60

Women respondents

live with 50

50 see/contact min once/week

40 30

see/contact min once/month

20

see/contact less once/month

10 0

40 30 20 10 0

16-39

40-49

50-64

65+

16-39

40-49

50-64

65+

b 60

60

Brother is eldest sibling

50

Sister is eldest sibling

50

40

40 non-married men married men

30

30 20

20 non-married women married women

10

10 0

0 16-39

40-49

50-64

65+

16-39

40-49

50-64

65+

Fig. 3.7 a. Percentage profile of frequency of seeing or contacting eldest brother/sister by age and sex of respondent, 1999, Great Britain (Source Living Kin). b. Percentage of respondents seeing/contacting their eldest sibling at least once a week by sex of eldest sibling and sex, age and marital status of respondent, 1999, Great Britain (Source Living Kin)

Close Relationships with Children and Other Family Members---The Association with the Number of Siblings In the ELSA study, respondents aged 50 and over were asked about the number of children with whom they had a close relationship; the question was a general one, seemingly not just confined to respondent’s children, but covering all possible child acquaintances. Another related question

3

BROTHERS AND SISTERS …

61

asked the number of “other family members” with whom the respondent had a close relationship; these included, for example, siblings, parents, grandchildren, etc. Figure 3.8a gives the average number of children reported by each group of respondents according to whether they were married or unpartnered, and also by how many siblings they had (The “unpartnered” are those neither married nor cohabiting). Figure 3.8b gives the corresponding average numbers of “other family members”. For close relationships with children, there is little difference between the average numbers reported by married men and married women, and only a slight increase for both with increasing number of siblings of the respondent. This latter pattern might be expected, since siblings of the respondent would be likely to have children—nephews and nieces of the respondent whom they would know from birth. In contrast, there is a marked difference between unpartnered men and unpartnered women; the average number is smaller for the former than the latter, and the difference between them widens with increasing number of siblings. Possibly unpartnered men with larger numbers of brothers and sisters rely more heavily on them (as is suggested in Fig. 3.8b), or feel they are more appropriate for close relationships. From Fig. 3.8b, it may be seen that both married and unpartnered women report a larger number of close family members than their men counterparts. Furthermore, there is little difference in the average number of close family members between those who were married and those who were unpartnered for both men and women. Respondents with only one sibling appear to have the fewest number of other family members as being close, although a possible explanation might be that

2.3

(b) other family members

(a) children 4

2.2 3.5

2.1 2

men - married

1.9

men - unpartnered

1.8

women - married

1.7

women- unpartnered

3 2.5 2

1.6 1.5 0 sibs

1 sib

2 sibs

3 sibs

4+ sibs

1.5 0 sibs

1 sib

2 sibs

3 sibs

4+ sibs

Fig. 3.8 Average number of children/other family members with whom the respondent has a close relationship, by sex and partnership status, 2017, England (Source ELSA)

62

J. C. HASKEY

such respondents have a particularly strong attachment to their (sole) sibling, resulting in a reduced need for other close family relationships. The difference between men and women in the average number of close family members is widest for those with 1 or 2 siblings, but narrows with increasing number of siblings, such that with 4 or more siblings there is little difference. Possibly larger families offer sufficient close relationships equally for both men and women. It is interesting, and understandable, that the more siblings a respondent has, the larger the average number of close family members they have, if only because the other sibling, or siblings, are likely to be close family members. However, the presence of another sibling as reflected, for example, in a comparison between respondents with 1 and 2 siblings, does not increase the average by a full extra person. Possibly, for some respondents, other family members are closer than one or other sibling. Perhaps the more siblings a respondent has, the greater the chance that he or she is not close to all of them.

Brothers and Sisters of Respondents Living in European Countries The SHARE country surveys include 2 questions on siblings which were answered well: “How many brothers do you have who are still alive?” and “How many sisters do you have who are still alive?” (Fig. 3.9).3 Figure 3.93 plots the average numbers of brothers and sisters reported by men and women respondents aged 50 and over. Not surprisingly, all four averages are roughly the same, though the average numbers of sisters reported by women are generally slightly larger than the other averages, most likely the result of women living longer than men. Consistently, the average number of sisters reported by women exceeds that of brothers, and the same applies to the corresponding two averages reported by men. The difference between the average number of sisters and of brothers as reported by women is largest for Poland, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Estonia and Croatia—countries geographically very close to one another in Eastern Europe, with life expectancies generally of around 78 years. 3 Strictly, the data in Figs. 3.9 and 3.10 should have been plotted in histogram or equivalent form. They have been depicted in the form shown as it much more clearly shows the differences in averages/percentages for the different countries, as well as the differences by type of sibling combination for each country.

3

BROTHERS AND SISTERS …

63

2.2 2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6

man resp/ brothers woman resp/brothers man resp/sisters woman resp/sisters

Fig. 3.9 Average number of living brothers and sisters reported by men and women respondents age 50 and over, by country, 2015 (Source SHARE)

Possibly differentials in male and female life expectancy account for these findings, though differential response rates between the sexes might also influence the results. All four averages are particularly large for Israel, and to a lesser extent for Portugal, Spain and France. Different age structures and cultures in the different countries may account for some of the variation, as well as pro-natalist policies. Given that the Israeli respondents were aged 50 and over in 2015, they were born before 1965, so would include those who were part of the mass migration to Israel from 1948 through to the 1950s. Not only did the population double within a short period of time, but the high fertility rate of many of the newcomers led to continued population increase in the years ahead. The four averages are closest together for Switzerland, Austria, Luxembourg, Italy, Denmark, Sweden and Germany, and all about 1.2, which is similar to the corresponding average for all countries combined.

64

J. C. HASKEY

Confidantes---Roles Brothers and Sisters Play A question in SHARE was: “Who is the person with whom you most often, or often, discuss things that are important to you?” After identifying that “significant person”, the respondent was asked that person’s relationship to them. As well as a long list of relatives to choose from, which included brother and sister, other possible answers included: a friend; neighbour; ex-colleague; priest; and therapist. Attention will be concentrated on this first-mentioned significant person; in practice, up to seven “confidantes” could be nominated. Of interest is how frequently brothers and sisters were first mentioned in this role. Figure 3.103 plots, for the countries participating in the SHARE project, the percentage of first mentions of brothers or sisters out of all mentions of confidantes. Separate analyses were undertaken for men respondents and women respondents. For women respondents, two datasets were extracted; one of women who had at least one brother, and another for those who had at least one sister. Similarly, two corresponding datasets were extracted for men respondents. Using the appropriate dataset, the proportions of respondents whose first confidante was (a) 16 14 12 10 8 6

man resp/ brother man resp/ sister woman resp/ brother

4 2

woman resp/ sister

0

Fig. 3.10 Percentage of all first-mentioned significant persons, confidantes, in respondent’s network of relationships, who were brothers or sisters, by sex of respondent and country, respondents aged 50 and over, and with at least one brother or sister

3

BROTHERS AND SISTERS …

65

brother or (b) a sister could be found, knowing that each respondent from the dataset concerned actually did have at least one brother or sister. In all, therefore, four proportions were obtained for each country, as shown in Fig. 3.10. The most immediate conclusion from Fig. 3.10 is that sisters are very much more likely to confide in a sister than a brother, by a factor of at least four. The countries are ordered according to decreasing proportion of women respondents citing a sister as their first-mentioned confidante, and this order may be compared with that in Fig. 3.9 which ordered countries by the average number of sisters reported by women. The order, though not exactly the same, bears some similarity, and a correspondence might be expected with larger numbers of sisters increasing the likelihood that at least one would be a confidante of the respondent. In contrast to the large difference between the proportions of women confiding in sisters and in brothers, there is comparatively little difference between men confiding in sisters and men confiding in brothers. For most countries the proportion of men confiding in brothers is slightly larger than that of men confiding in sisters, so there may be a tendency to choose a confidante of the same sex, this tendency being slight for men, but pronounced for women. Israel is an exception in that men are apparently much more likely to confide in a brother than a sister. The previous graph, Fig. 3.9, seemingly indicated that the average number of brothers Israeli men have exceeds that of sisters, and, if true, one might expect the proportion of mentions of a brother as a confidante to correlate with the number of brothers. Interestingly, in Fig. 3.9, the average numbers of brothers and sisters reported by women Israelis are virtually identical, so possibly Israeli men (or Arab men who compose part of the Israeli population) may have underreported sisters. However, the ratio of the average number of brothers of Israeli men to the proportion of Israeli men having a brother as a first-mentioned confidante is very close to the all-country average. In contrast to the large proportion of Israeli men confiding in brothers, the proportion confiding in sisters is one of the lowest of all the countries, suggesting a cultural factor of a greater than usual segmentation of men’s and women’s roles, in an admittedly paternalistic society. It should also be recalled that the Israeli population contain the two very different cultures of the Jews and the Arabs which makes generalisations hazardous. Poland and Spain each have larger than average proportions of men respondents confiding in sisters; they are also the countries with the

66

J. C. HASKEY

largest difference between the proportions of men confiding in sisters and men confiding in brothers. Both countries are solidly Catholic, and possibly more matriarchal than others. The reverse situation, the proportion of men confiding in sisters being smaller than that of men confiding in brothers, applies in Estonia, Croatia and the Czech Republic, countries which are close neighbours.

Conclusions Brothers and sisters are ranked high in the order of belonging to a family, placing them firmly in the “nuclear family”. In contrast, step-brothers and step-sisters are not ranked so highly, being only just above in-laws, which, on reflection, could be considered appropriate as each step-child has effectively one in-law as a social, rather than a biological, parent. As such, step-siblings are regarded as members of “the extended family”. It is perhaps not accidental that terms expressing the degree to which one belongs to a family such as “close”, “near”, “distant”, “long lost”, etc. have an obvious literal connotation as well as a metaphorical one. While one can still be close emotionally to family members such as siblings, irrespective of distance, the actual distance apart or difficulties with accessibility, can act as an impedance to the desired frequency of contact. Brothers and sisters become independent as they reach adulthood, and their spouses’ or partners’ wishes over contacting and meeting up with siblings need to be taken into account. Consequently, there are both practical and emotional considerations in maintaining close relationships with brothers and sisters. With analyses of close family members and siblings in particular, women consistently report larger numbers of close relationships with family members than men, irrespective of the number of siblings they have. Also, women are more likely to be in contact with their eldest brother or sister more frequently than men. Similarly, in all 18 countries analysed, the proportion of first-mentioned confidantes of respondents who were brothers and sisters was largest for sisters confiding in sisters, and the smallest for sisters confiding in brothers, among all four possible pairs. It is evident that siblings play an important role in one another’s lives, and particularly so for sisters. The number of siblings has varied in different periods, almost entirely due to the variation in women’s fertility, which has, in turn, been influenced by the advent of birth control. Hence in the early 1900s it was

3

BROTHERS AND SISTERS …

67

common for families to contain four or more children, whereas in more recent times families are much more likely to have only one or two children. Thus, over the years, children have had different experiences of having brothers and sisters, with all the repercussions, such as fewer or more cousins, aunts and uncles, and in-laws. Perhaps without it being consciously recognised, the changing prevalence of siblings has altered our whole concept of family. More generally, the changing numbers of siblings per family is an important secondary effect of the (first) Demographic Transition in which pre-industrial countries have high birth and death rates, but, with development and industrialisation, both these rates come down to low levels. The transition therefore results in the average number of siblings per family declining, too. In some countries the fall in the birth rate involves it being below replacement level, with a further tendency towards a “bean pole” type of extended family mentioned earlier. Acknowledgements Thanks are due to the Department of Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford, which provided a range of facilities, and to the Bodleian Library for providing access to relevant publications. Any errors remain the responsibility of the author, and, similarly, any opinions expressed are those of the author alone. Thanks are also due to the following organisations which supplied the survey data analysed in this chapter: Office for National Statistics, Social Survey Division. (2001). ONS Omnibus Survey, January 1999. [data collection]. UK Data Service. SN: 4221, http://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN4221-1 (and also February 1999 Omnibus Survey data.) English Longitudinal Study of Ageing: Wave 7, 2015, reference: Marmot, M., Oldfield, Z., Clemens, S., Blake, M., Phelps, A., Nazroo, J., Steptoe, A., Rogers, N., Banks, J., Oskala, A. (2017). English Longitudinal Study of Ageing: Waves 0-7, 1998–2015. [data collection]. 27th Edition. UK Data Service. SN: 5050, http://doi.org/10.5255/ UKDA-SN-5050-14. SHARE Wave 6 (DOI, https://doi.org/10.6103/share. w6.700, see Börsch-Supan et al. (2013) for methodological details. The SHARE data collection was funded by the European Commission, DG Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion, the German Ministry of Education and Research, the Max Planck Society for the Advancement of Science, the U.S. National Institute on Aging, and from various national funding sources.

68

J. C. HASKEY

References Grundy, E., Murphy, M., & Shelton, N. (1999). Looking beyond the household: Intergenerational perspectives on living kin and contacts with kin in Great Britain. Population Trends, 97 , 19–27. Haskey, J. (2005). Living arrangements in contemporary Britain: Having a partner who usually lives elsewhere and living apart together (LAT). Population Trends, 122, 35–45. Haskey, J. (2010a). Measuring family and household variables. In: Bulmer, M. et al. (editors) Social measurement through social surveys—An applied approach. Farnham, Ashgate, 9–27. Haskey, J. (2010b). Intestacy and surviving kin: Law Commission research. Family Law, 40, 964–972. Kolk, M. (2015). The causal effect of an additional sibling on completed fertility: An estimation of intergenerational fertility correlations by looking at siblings of twins. Demographic Research, 32, 1409–1420. Kolk, M. (2017). A life-course analysis of geographical distance to siblings, parents, and grandparents in Sweden. Population, Space and Place, 23(3), e2020. Monk, D. & Macvarish, J. (2018). Siblings, contact and the law: An overlooked relationship. Nuffield Foundation. London: Birkbeck. Murphy, M. (2008). Variations in kinship networks across geographic and social space. Population and Development Review, 34(1), 19–49. Tanskanen, A.O., Danielsbacka, M., & Rotkirch, A. (2016a). More unintended injuries in half sibling than full sibling households in the UK. Finnish Yearbook of Population Research, (51), 177–182. Tanskanen, A.O., Danielsbacka, M., Jokela, M., David-Barratt, T., & Rotkirch, A. (2016b). Diluted competition? Conflicts between full- and half-siblings in two adult generations. Frontiers in Sociology (1), Article: 6.

CHAPTER 4

Brothers and Sisters: Themes in Myths, Legends and Histories from Europe and the New World Ann Buchanan

This book is about the support brothers and sisters currently give each other across the life course in different family contexts and different societies across the world. What then is the relevance of exploring themes in myths, legends and histories in the UK and the New World? In recent years, especially in the Western World, there have been massive changes in the family and the way it is ordered, but the roles siblings play today is coloured by the roles they played in the past (Buchanan and Rotkirch 2013). Across history, large families with numerous brothers and sisters were very common, indeed in many cases ‘the norm’. Despite this there has been very little interest among family historians in studying these relationships. As noted by Larrington (2015, page 1) ‘sibling studies are the poor neglected stepchild of the history of the Western family. Historians

A. Buchanan (B) Department Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2021 A. Buchanan and A. Rotkirch (eds.), Brothers and Sisters, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55985-4_4

69

70

A. BUCHANAN

have been more interested in vertical mother/child bonds than lateral ties and Oedipal acting-out of sons against fathers’. But siblings have always featured strongly in legends and folk history.

Brothers and Sisters in Folk Lore From the earliest times, brothers and sisters pervade folk tales, legends and myths. In Greek legends, there is the story of Antigone and how she attempted to reconcile her quarreling brothers. When they killed each other, Antigone out of love for her rejected brother buried him secretly, and as a result was condemned to death (Sophocles 2005). In the Old Testament, the warring brothers Cain and Abel, the ‘good’ son and the ‘bad’ son, illustrate well the more modern concept of sibling rivalry (The Bible, Genesis). Similarly, the twins Romulus and Remus having been reared by she-wolves, fought over who was to found the new city. Romulus overpowered and killed his twin brother and Rome honoured him by taking his name. In the popular fairy tale Cinderella, the spoilt and ugly step sisters met their come-uppance. It is Cinderella who marries the prince (Grimm and Grimm 2014). Such early stories illustrate oppositional characteristics: good and evil, light and dark, divine and profane. They serve as a metaphor, a way of thinking and talking about relatedness (Davidoff 2012) and the strong emotions engendered in families. They also illustrate more modern understandings about brother and sister relationships. Although Freud wrote little about sibling relationships, he recognized that brothers and sisters represented ‘an intimate friend and a hostile enemy who came together in a single individual’ (Freud 1953, page 485). Or as Dunn (1985) concludes: ‘the sibling relationship is an extraordinarily intense one: young brothers and sisters love and hate, play and fight, tease and mock each other with a devastating lack of inhibition’ (Dunn 1985, back cover). Over time, as we will see in subsequent chapters, it appears not much has changed.

Who Is a Brother and Who Is a Sister? Fictive Siblings The challenge in examining the sibling relationship in history is unpicking relationships. Medieval families in the UK, for example, were similar in many respects to the modern family with its diverse formation of half, step, full, adoptive and foster children. Half and step sibs were likely to be

4

BROTHERS AND SISTERS: THEMES IN MYTHS, LEGENDS …

71

the result of a father’s remarriage following a mother’s death rather than divorce. It was also very common for a child to go and live with another family, usually of equal status, from a very young age. This child was ‘fostered’ but might be considered a ‘fictive’ brother or sister. They could develop very strong bonds with their foster-parents and foster siblings who may or may not have been related (Larrington 2015). Medieval history is also full of tales about sworn-brothers who may have no genetic relationship to each other. The medieval tale of Amis and Amiloun tells of the sons of two barons. Born the same day, they are so similar that even their parents could not tell them apart. As young men they formalize their affection by becoming ‘sworn brothers’, but a woman crosses Amiloun’s path and he is punished for concealing a sexual relationship by developing leprosy. His sworn brother Amis, so strong is his bond, that he kills his own children so that he can bathe Amiloun in his children’s blood to cure Amiloun’s leprosy (Larrington 2015). Again, In Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, we meet Palamon and Arcite in the Knight’s Tale (Chaucer 2005). Plucked from a pile of dead bodies, these two Theban knights were imprisoned in a tower and became sworn-brothers. Once in prison, both men fell in love with Emily. The knights decide together that they must fight each other to the death with the winner having the love of Emily. Arcite won and Palamon was to be executed. However, before that could happen Arcite was thrown from his horse and killed. As Arcite was dying he bequeathed Emily to his sworn brother Palamon. These horrific medieval stories illustrate the very strong bonds between young men, who, although they had no genetic relationship, were referred to as ‘brothers’. In more recent times, there is the blood brother ceremony between two friends, known as a blood oath, where each person makes a small cut, usually on a finger, then the two cuts are pressed together and bound, the idea being that each person’s blood now flows in the other participant’s veins. Such ceremonies have been seen across the world. In the nineteenth century in Sub-Saharan Africa, the British colonial administrator Lord Lugard is famous for having become blood brothers with numerous African chiefs as part of his political policy while in Africa. A powerful blood brother of his was the Kikuyu chieftain Waiyaki Wa Hinga (Lugard 1893). Strong ‘fictive’ sisterly relationships were less common. But children who shared a wet nurse became ‘milk siblings’ and formed quasi-sibling bonds which was conducive to loyalty and life long-affection (Larrington 2015).

72

A. BUCHANAN

Moving from the dyad to the group, some relationships have long been seen as a quasi ‘brotherhood’ or ‘sisterhood’. Like family-based concepts, these were intended to emphasize loyalty, mutual dependence and equality. King Henry’s cry ‘we happy few, we band of brothers’ in Shakespeare’s Henry V, was purported to demonstrate the brotherly sharing of significant or traumatic events (Shakespeare (1996 edition), Henry V , in Act IV Scene iii 18–6). Similarly, men in monasteries and women in convents were ‘brothers’ or ‘sisters’. With women the term ‘Sister’ entered the British nursing profession. More recently, brothers and sisters were an important feature of the 1960s ‘flower children’, as well as those co-workers taking pride in their black heritage in the Civil Rights Movement (Davidoff 2012). However, as noted in chapter one, for the purposes of this book, the definition of a ‘brother’ or ‘sister’ is first degree siblings (full, half, step); those who have been adopted; and those who have lived together as a brother or sister in childhood.

Patriarchy and Gendered Roles Central to the role of brothers and sisters in the past has been patriarchy. The history of patriarchy and strict gendered roles goes back to ancient civilizations. Aristotle portrayed women as morally, intellectually and physically inferior to men. He saw women as the property of men and claimed that women’s role in society was to reproduce and to serve men in the household. Aristotle saw male domination of women as natural and virtuous. With the conquests of Alexander, the Great, who had been educated by Aristotle, the influence of patriarchy spread (Lerner 1987). Most of the ancient religions support patriarchy and restricted gender roles for women. Under Confucianism in Three Obediences and Four Virtues, a woman’s value is related to her loyalty and obedience. An obedient woman must obey her father before her marriage, her husband after marriage and her first son if widowed. A virtuous woman must also practice sexual propriety, modesty and hard work (Taylor 2005). In Hinduism, religious texts present diverse and conflicting views. On the one hand, many of the major divinities are women, but on the other hand under the Laws of Manu, women need to be under the protection of men: ‘Girls should be in the custody of their father when they are children, women must be under the custody of their husband when married and under

4

BROTHERS AND SISTERS: THEMES IN MYTHS, LEGENDS …

73

the custody of their son as widows. In no circumstances is she allowed to assert herself independently’ (Patwari 2011, Balye pitorvashay—5/151). The strong influence of patriarchy has also, until recent times in the Western World, governed the way brothers and sisters lead their lives (Davidoff 2012). In the UK in medieval times through to the Renaissance, among the well-born, how siblings behaved towards one and another was strongly influenced by gender as well as social class (Larrington 2015). Boys and girls were very aware of their allotted destinies from early childhood. Sisters, especially older sisters, were consistently presented as nurturing and caring for their brothers. Emotional warmth was considered normal between brothers and sisters. Davidoff (2012) suggests that despite the overriding value accorded to being male, many girls were actually dominant to their brothers in terms of age, size, experience and possibly temperament (Davidoff 2012). Girls who enjoyed domesticity and nurturing younger children would flourish. More challenging women, such as Kate in Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew, would be despised. Her mild-mannered sister Bianca was the model for womanhood. In addition, boys’ education was prioritised over that of their sisters. Until the nineteenth century, most sisters received little education other than that of relevance for their work in the home. In general, the history of women has focused on the silencing of their voices and lack of life chances when compared to their brothers (Davidoff 2012). There are of course, notable exceptions, abbesses such as St. Hilda of Whitby, and indeed England was ruled by a highly educated Queen Elizabeth I for nearly 50 years during the Renaissance. In peasant classes, in medieval times to the Renaissance, women may have led less restricted lives (Larrington 2015). But although they might have specific tasks in labouring in the field or helping in the home with their husband’s trade, norms of female and male behaviour in the countryside drew heavily upon the private subordination of wives to their husbands and lords. Middleton (1981) feels, however, a peasant woman’s life was, in fact, hemmed in by prohibition and restraint. In a strongly patriarchal society, single women had to submit to the male head of her household, who may have been their brother, while when married, she was subsumed under her husband’s identity. English peasant women generally could not hold lands for long, rarely learnt any craft occupation

74

A. BUCHANAN

and rarely advanced past the position of assistants, and could not become officials (Middleton 1981). Historians, however, without undermining the predominance of patriarchy in medieval through Victorian times, are now learning more about the creative contributions women made to family enterprise as well as to movements like the spread of Christianity and the Reformation, which suggest women’s roles may have been undervalued (Howarth 2020).

The Long Family With a few exceptions, until the end of the nineteenth-century unrestricted childbirth was the regime for most of the population. In the UK about a third of women who had been born around 1850s had at least seven live births. With large families, this meant most women had very little time for lives outside their family. About a quarter of all children were born to families of 10 or more (Davidoff 2012). This meant that most children lived in families with many siblings. Maternal, infant and child deaths, however, could decimate these families. Wolfgang Mozart, for example, came from a family of eight children but only he and his sister Maria Anna survived. As a result, he was very close to his one surviving sister. When children lived, these long families could cover a wide range of ages. A man with a dozen children could still have sons or daughters living with him into old age. Older siblings often acted as caretakers, educators and playmates for the younger children. When the older sister married, young sisters might be recruited into the new family to help care for their nephews and nieces (Davidoff 2012). The structure of families was further complicated by the high mortality of women who had so many children. The age difference between half siblings in such families could stretch to as much as 30 years. In addition, as we know today from reconstituted families as a result of divorce, bringing two families together can be problematic for relationships within the family (Buchanan and Ten Brinke 1997). This could be particularly difficult when the step mother brought her own family to the household, although this could reinforce the closeness between the original brothers and sisters. Cruel, proud and haughty, stepmothers had long been a feature of folk tales. The brothers Grimm in their original fairy tales reinforced the idea of the wicked stepmother with such tales as Hansel and Gretel, Cinderella, and Snow White and Rapunzel (Grimm and Grimm 2014).

4

BROTHERS AND SISTERS: THEMES IN MYTHS, LEGENDS …

75

In addition to the stepfamily in the nineteenth century in the UK, many of the children who belonged to the household might be pupils, apprentices or helpers. Jane Austen, for example, shared her home not only with her six brothers who were still at home but also with a parade of her father’s pupils (Worsley 2017). It is difficult to appreciate how crowded such households could become. Younger children would share bedrooms and often beds. As they grew older there were boys’ rooms and girls’ quarters. Those sharing rooms, be they full siblings or cousins/visitors, could become very close. Life in the long family was framed by where each child was in the family and by their gender. Younger children would inevitably receive less attention from their parents and were heavily dependent on their older siblings for love and nurture. Older sisters were expected to be surrogate mothers (Davidoff 2012). Primogeniture Roles in a family were not only governed by gender but also by the place in the family. Older sons, in particular had specific obligations. Primogeniture is the right, by law or custom, of the firstborn legitimate son to inherit his parent’s entire or main estate, in preference to shared inheritance among all or some children. The preference for males exists in most systems of primogeniture. Under primogeniture the son of a deceased older brother inherits before a living younger sister (Jamoussi 1991). The principle has applied in history to inheritance of real property (land) as well as inherited titles and offices, most notably monarchies, continuing until recently. Primogeniture, unlike the French Napoleonic code system where family resources are equally divided between siblings, was an important construct in preserving the resources of the English aristocratic family. When the elder son inherited all the property, the estate remained intact. Primogeniture did not necessarily lead to resentment on the part of the less-endowed siblings. It was when the elder brother failed to fulfil his obligations that caused unhappiness. Younger brothers expected to receive financial maintenance and other help in return for their deference to the older sibling. Sisters, whether married, unmarried or widowed, expected their eldest brother to help them with their affairs once their father died or when they hit hard times (Hemphill 2011).

76

A. BUCHANAN

Family Obligation Family obligation has been defined as the rights and duties that accompany kin roles (Karpel and Strauss 1983). It has been described as the glue that connects generations as well as the ‘oughts’ and ‘shoulds’ of individual family relationships. Across history and across cultures, obligation is a fundamental principle in family caregiving (Stein 1992). Family Obligation is a strong tenet in many religions. In the Old Testament, for example, the tenth commandment is: ‘honour thy father and mother’. (but not necessarily brothers and sisters) although in the New Testament there is a clearer message ‘whoever loves God must also love his brother. …. everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him’. (The Bible: 1 John 4:19–5:4). Presumably this includes sisters. Under the Confucian Code fathers should be kind to their children and sons should be obedient to their parents, and older brothers should love their younger siblings, and younger brothers should respect their older ones. Following this code, children were socialized to provide material and emotional support to each other from an early age (Confucius 2003). In the Hindu festival of Rakshabandhan sisters tie a protective thread around the right wrist of their brothers. Brothers give gifts and promise protection to their sisters. The word ‘Rakshabandhan’ means ‘tie of protection’ (The Conversation 2018). In the UK from the eighteenth to the twentieth century, obligations were prescribed. When the older children left home, the youngest girl might be expected to care for her parents. But boys were also expected to support their younger brothers and sisters. When Mary Lyttelton was dying after her twelfth child, she summoned her older sons and gave them each the responsibility for caring for a younger sibling (Davidoff 2012). Generally, especially following the death of the fathers, older brothers were also expected to support brothers in helping them find work, and to oversee their sisters’ well-being. When Thomas Huxley was struggling to establish himself as a scientist, the sudden death of his brother George meant Thomas felt obliged to give financial help to this widowed sister-in-law and her children (Davidoff 2012). Unmarried aunts became useful when there was shortage of caring persons, and uncles were helpful in getting boys into gainful activities. Novels by Jane Austen, such as Sense and Sensibility (Austen 1811) illustrate how important kin was in supporting families

4

BROTHERS AND SISTERS: THEMES IN MYTHS, LEGENDS …

77

who had been dis-possessed due to primogeniture or who had otherwise hit hard times. In more recent times Finch and Mason has shown that rights and duties of family obligation in the UK in the twentieth century onwards may be more limited: ‘ the proper thing to do’ is to support only those relatives who have supported you (Finch and Mason 1991). Preserving the Family Resources At the heart of patriarchy, primogeniture and family obligation was a social system that sought to preserve families’ resources (Davidoff 2012). In order to preserve family resources, the monogamous family was the central building block of society. A major task for older brothers as well as fathers was helping to preserve these resources (large or small) for the next generation. Central to this was the importance of blood links. Women’s roles and those of sisters were, until recent times, inextricably bound up with the policing of their sexuality. As Engels in 1884 forcibly puts it: ‘In order to secure the faithfulness of his wife, and hence the reliability of paternal lineage, the women are delivered absolutely into the power of the men; in killing his wife, the husband simply exercises his right ’ (Engels, Chapter 3. Page 19. Col 3). Although marital rape was legal, Engels was not actually advocating killing women. Much of the control of women’s fertility was related to preserving the blood line. A ‘bastard’ born out of wedlock threatened the blood line. Women had to be ‘protected’ so that they did not mate with unsuitable spouses and/or give birth to children out of wedlock. Brothers, in other societies, often played an important role in this policing as we will see in chapter (17). In this way family resources were maximized and were passed down through the generations. Hunt (2009), in interpreting Engel’s ideas, notes: ‘Bluntly, the modern family and all its failings were the product of private property’ (Hunt 2009, page 310). The men seized the reins, also in the house, the women were stripped of their dignity, enslaved, tools of mens’ lust and mere machines for the generation of children. (Engels 1902, Chapter 3, page 19, col 2)

Engels prophetically concluded that. ‘ The emancipation of women and their equality with men are impossible and remain so, as long as women are

78

A. BUCHANAN

excluded from social production and restricted to domestic labour’ (Engels 1902, Chapter IX, page 58, col 1). Although we might dispute that today women are released from domestic work, data from the World Bank shows that in 2018, around 40% of the world-wide labour force were women (World Bank 2018).

Other Threats from Sexuality (Incest) Although policing women’s sexuality was a key in protecting family resources, incest presented a further unspoken threat to the family. Large families with brothers and sisters growing up in close quarters suggested the potential for physical connections. Perhaps to prevent this, as children reached maturity, many were sent to live with relatives to avoid such close relationships (Davidoff 2012). While virtually every culture in recorded history has held sibling or parent–child couplings taboo, in ancient times in royal circles, brother/sister unions ensured that a king would only share his resources and power with people who are already his relatives. In centralized societies such as in ancient Egypt and Inca Peru, this meant limiting the mating circle to the immediate family. The Spanish Hapsburgs frequently married close relatives, but their dynasty ended with Charles II so riddled with health and development problems that he could not father a child (Hobbs 2010). In Britain until the late eighteenth-century, debate about the ‘natural attraction’ between family members including siblings was rife. But until the nineteenth century it was the Church that set the regulations about who could and could not marry and incest was officially defined as a sin Davidoff (2012). Although the intimacy between brother and sister could be allencompassing, it could never lead to recognized and legitimate reproduction. The dark side of sibling eroticism was described as ‘scented with a sterility redolent of death; a longing fired with existential dread and a desire of what one fears and a fear of what one desires ’ (Davidoff 2012, page 203). There was much talk in the nineteenth century among artists and writers about the erotic attraction of siblings (Johnson and Warren Sabean 2011), but facts are harder to find. Certainly, William Wordsworth was very close to his sister Dorothy, but whether their relationship went further is disputed (Davidoff 2012). Maybe Dorothy should join the ranks

4

BROTHERS AND SISTERS: THEMES IN MYTHS, LEGENDS …

79

of women like Mary of Magdala and Lucretia Borgia who have been slandered by history.

Relationships of Brothers and Sisters in the New World Once in America the early English colonists brought with them their ideas about the organization of the family. They sought to avoid the disorder of English family life by imposing a fierce structure and discipline. They possessed a firm idea of a ‘godly’ family in which the father was endowed with patriarchal authority as head of household. Family life was organized around the unquestioned principle of patriarchy, and it was the duty of wives, brothers, sisters and servants to submit to a father’s authority (Mintz and Kellogg 1988). In America, however, the early colonists came face to face with the native American family. Whereas the English system was patrilineal and this shaped patterns of authority, descent and inheritance, the Native American system was matrilineal. The matrilineal system furnished a political voice, connections between places, and importantly, protection from enemies. Their kinship networks helped to push political and economic agendas at both personal and national levels through wars, revolutions and change (Inman 2017). As new settlers arrived from Europe, most European American children grew up alongside several siblings. Although children were born about every two years, owing to the high infant mortality (some 30% of children died before the age of ten), most European American households only included three or four surviving children (Hemphill 2011). Native American and African American families were generally smaller than European American families. Later weaning and abstinence during nursing meant that children only came every three or four years and the death rate for young children was higher because of their vulnerability to European diseases (Hemphill 2011). African American families conceived more children than European families because they started childbearing in their teens, but the difficulties of achieving a stable family life and the harsh conditions of slavery paid a heavy toll on the number of children who survived. When it came to the roles of siblings of different genders, the widely accepted patriarchal stance of European Americans made them less concerned about reinforcing gender stereotypes when they were young.

80

A. BUCHANAN

Indian families in contrast appeared to stress gender differences from an early age (Axell 1981). European observers frequently remarked on the gender differentiated play of Indian brothers and sisters where brothers played out their roles as hunters or warriors and sisters as domestic workers from an early age. African American children at this age played out their shared roles of working as slaves in the tobacco fields (Hemphill 2011). For the English American families, as in the UK, the main route of inheritance for the wealthy was primogeniture. But this did not apply to the landless who generally disposed of their assets more equally between siblings, although daughters would receive less education and property than sons (Hemphill 2011). In general, the ties between siblings for those coming from the Old World remained strong in adulthood and middle age. These early English settlers were inclusive in using the terms ‘brother’ and ‘sister’ to encompass half, step siblings and sisters/brothers in law. Strong ties of affection and a sense of obligation meant these relatives were often close friends. Some adult siblings helped each other’s children. Distance did not necessarily disrupt relationships as many colonists maintained contacts with the Old World after emigrating. Passenger lists suggest that among the emigrants from both England and Germany were many brothers, some who would have been servants. But for many Europeans coming to the New World it was an adventure for both brothers and sisters (Hemphill 2011). Another custom that was transported from the Old World was the separation of siblings at puberty. The landless went into service or agricultural work, while children of the wealthy went to boarding schools. In crowded homes, parents may have been reacting to the possibilities of incest. Adolescent separation, however, did not preclude close relationships when they were adults (Hemphill 2011). Enslaved African American were also often parted from their brothers and sisters, although in these cases parents had little to say about where they went. The clear preference for buying and selling teenage slaves necessitated separation. These forced separations could be traumatic. Hemphill notes the case of the future African Methodist Episcopal church founder Absolom Jones who was just sixteen when he was wrenched from his family in 1792 (Hemphill 2011). Strong sibling ties were in keeping with West African traditions. Runaway advertisements for missing slaves suggest that some siblings ran away with, or to, siblings.

4

BROTHERS AND SISTERS: THEMES IN MYTHS, LEGENDS …

81

Strong sibling relationships were also a feature of Native Americans. Captivity narratives show that members of different Indian groups could also be fiercely devoted not only to siblings, but also to captive ‘fictive’ siblings. Mary Jemison, adopted in place of a deceased brother by Seneca Indians in 1750s, was doted upon by her Indian brothers and sisters and, when the European community tried to ransom her back, they refused to let her go (Seaver 2014). American sibling relations continued to evolve after the Civil War. Over the years the declining birth rate led to parents investing more in the children they had. From the twentieth century, the gradual extension of schooling from pre-school to high school and beyond caused siblings, from an early age, to go their separate ways each day. The emergence of new theories about parenting, for example Freud’s theories on sibling rivalry, questioned the way families operated. These changes were a world away from those that emerged following the American Revolution. Hemphill (2011, page 221), however, in her conclusions in Brothers and Sisters in American History, suggests that ‘over a period of 250 years, siblings helped each other meet the particular mix of challenges presented by their time and place and then they helped them accommodate to change’. Each of the different societies involved in the development of early America: American Indians, American Africans, and Europeans, used the sibling relationship to supply an important protection against the sharp edges of the country’s compromise between freedom and order.

Conclusions Looking across the legends, myths and histories of sibling relationships in Britain and the New World, a number of themes emerge. The question we need to ask is: do these themes have any relevance to how we understand sibling relationship today? The first theme is that although historical analysis is short on plotting sibling relationships, folk tales of brother/sister relationships abound. These legends and myths reflect the strong emotions seen in the sibling relationship today: love and obligation; a shared sense of identity, but fierce emotions particularly between brothers, of rivalry and even hatred. Today we are better versed in psychological knowledge about sibling relationships, and try to modify our parenting which is so often blamed, but the old truths remain. In recent years we have the example of the two Millibrand brothers who vied for leadership of the Labour party. As Freud

82

A. BUCHANAN

noted, a sibling remains ‘an intimate friend and a hostile enemy who came together in a single individual’ (Freud 1953, page 483). The second theme, less explicit than the first, is that relationships between sister and brothers are one of the most important bases of personal and social identity. Where siblings were brought up together, the sibling is the only person with the keys to their brother/sister’s unfettered, more fundamental self (Sandmaier 1994). Native American boys learnt their future roles and identities in the world by playing with bows and arrows. Sisters in European Americans households, as well as in British households, were socialized to know their roles, identities and status, by the connection, not only with their fathers, but also in relation to their brothers. In the West, women may be freer today to choose their future, but, as we will see, in many parts of the world, cultural expectations for males and females are often prescribed. The third major theme is that the task of the ‘monogamous’ family was to preserve the blood line, ensuring that paternity was certain and that property was only passed to legitimate children. Engels (1902) would argue that this is all about keeping property/resources within the family. This meant that while brothers in better off families went off to boarding school and led independent lives, sisters, until the late nineteenth century, received little education and remained closeted in the home, or closely chaperoned outside it. As they reached sexual maturity, there was considerable policing of their sexuality to ensure that no illicit relationships produced a child. Although in the Western World, relationships between men and women are more equitable today, patriarchy and the policing of women’ sexuality is still a strong feature in many societies as we will see in Chapter 6 in Arab families in Lebanon and more especially Chapter 17 on honour killings in Pakistan. Linked to this, but less spoken of, was the fear of incest, especially brother/sister sexual relations. With large families living together in tight accommodation, the possibility of brother/sister incest was always a worry, and indeed was one of the reasons for the separation of brothers and sisters in adolescence, but there have also been suspicions that close brother and sister relationships, such as those between William and Dorothy Wordsworth, may not have been entirely innocent. Incest is a live child abuse issue today. O’Keefe et al. (2014) in the USA using retrospective data entered anonymously by 1178 adult men in computerassisted self-interview, found that twenty-seven women were victims of sister–brother incest (SBI).

4

BROTHERS AND SISTERS: THEMES IN MYTHS, LEGENDS …

83

The fourth theme is that as English families emigrated to the New World, they brought with them their family system of patriarchy and primogeniture. Older brothers inherited family property, although there is evidence that some English American families did share resources more equitably (Hemphill 2011). Younger brothers had to make their own way in the world. Making a career in the professions was open to them but ensuring they made ‘good marriages’, that is marrying those with money or an inheritance, was an important strategy in preserving their standing in the world. Today, in the East, Marriage Markets are big business. It is estimated that, in October 2011, marriage markets in India involving the use of brokers was estimated to be a $250 billion (Indian Rupee) industry (Trivedi 2011). Balanced against the harshness of patriarchy and primogeniture there is the fifth theme; the sense of family obligation to help or give support to sisters and younger brothers and sisters especially those who had fallen upon hard times. But this was not necessarily a firm obligation. As Jane Austen illustrates in Sense and Sensibility ( 1811), when the sisters Elinor and Marianne become destitute after their father willed their family home, Norland Park, to their half-brother John with instructions that he should take care of his sisters, John is ‘dissuaded of his duty’ by his greedy wife, Fanny. Although family obligation remains strong in many Eastern religions in the UK, Mason and Finch suggest ‘that the proper thing to do’ in contemporary Britain is focused on those who have helped you (Finch and Mason 1991) The sixth theme is that brothers in the UK and early America, English brothers gained considerable benefit from their sisters. Many relied upon the support of their sisters and wider kin to make their way in the world. ‘But love was one thing, power another. While Aunt Marie or sister Aimee or cousin-mother Adele were fundamental figures in forging the success of the (kinship) system, the benefits and honors went largely to their brothers’ (Johnson and Warren Sabean 2011, page 212). Finally, a major finding illustrated by this rapid analysis of themes from legends, myths and histories, is that although there are constants in the relationships between brothers and sisters across place and time, this relationship has also the power to be different in different cultures. This is vividly illustrated in the New World where the patrilineal system of the old world came face to face with the matrilineal system of the

84

A. BUCHANAN

native American world. Also, cultural systems of brother/sister relationships have the power to adapt to new circumstances, as illustrated by the African American family under slavery. As we move into the twentieth and twentieth-first century, following chapters will illustrate these two ideas: similar yet different relationships between brother and sisters in different cultures, and adaptations to siblings’ relationships and the support they give each other in changing times.

References Austen, Jane. (1811). Sense and sensibility. London: Thomas Egerton. Axell, J. (1981). Indian people of Eastern America. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Buchanan, A. & Ten Brinke, J. (1997). The long-term effects for children from different parental backgrounds. https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/long-term-eff ects-children-different-parental-backgrounds. Accessed April 20, 2020. Buchanan, A., & Rotkirch, A. (2013). (Eds.). Fertility rates and population decline: No time for Children? London: Palgrave Macmillan. Chaucer, G. (2005). Canterbury Tales. Edited by Jill Mann. London: Penguin Books Confucius. (2003). The Analects. Translated by D. C. Lau. London: Penguin. Davidoff, L. (2012). Thicker than water: Siblings and their relations 1780–1920. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dunn, J. (1985). Sisters and brothers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Engels, F. (1902). The origin of the family, private property and the state. Translated by Ernest Untermann. Chicago, IL: Charles H, Kerr & Co. Finch, J., & Mason, J. (1991). Obligations of kinship in Contemporary Britain: Is there normative agreement? The British Journal of Sociology, 42(3), 345–367. Freud, S. (1953). On the interpretation of dreams. Complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud. London: The Hogarth Press. Grimm, J. & Grimm, W. (2014). The original folk and fairy tales of the brothers Grimm: The complete first edition. Translated and edited by Jack Zipes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Hemphill, C. Dallett. (2011). Siblings: Brothers and sisters in American history. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Hobbs, David. (2010). The risks and rewards of royal incest. National Geographic Magazine, 218(3), 60–61. Howarth, J. (2020). Personal communication from Emeritus History Fellow of St Hilda’s, University of Oxford, Oxford.

4

BROTHERS AND SISTERS: THEMES IN MYTHS, LEGENDS …

85

Hunt, T. (2009). The frock-coated Communist: The life and time of the original champagne socialist. London: Penguin. Inman, N. (2017.) Brothers and friends: Kinship in Early America. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Jamoussi, Z. (1991). Primogeniture and entail in England: A survey of the history and representations in literature. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Johnson, C. H., & Warren Sabean. (2011). Sibling relations and the transformations of European kinship, 1300–1900. Oxford: Berghahn Karpel, M. A., & Strauss, E. S. (1983). Family evaluation. New York, NY: Gardner Press. Larrington, C. (2015). Brothers and sisters in Medieval European literature. Rochester, NY. Boydell Press. Lerner, G. (1987). The creation of patriarchy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lugard, F. G. (1893). The rise of our East African empire, Vol 1: Early efforts in Nyasaland and Uganda (1968 reprint). Abingdon: Routledge. Middleton, C. (1981). Peasants, patriarchy and the feudal mode of production in England: 2 Feudal lords and the subordination of peasant women. Sociological Review, 29(1), 137–154. Mintz S., & Kellogg S. (1988). Social history of American family life: Domestic Revolutions. New York, NY: Free Press O’Keefe, S. L., Beard, K. W., Swindell, S., Stroebel, S. S., Griffee, K., & Young D. H. (2014). Sister-brother incest: Data from anonymous computer assisted self-interviews. Sex Addict & Compulsivity, 21(1), 1–38. Patwari, H. N. (2011). The status of women as depicted by Manu in the Manusmriti. http://nirmukta.com/2011/08/27/the-status-of-womenas-depicted-by-manu-in-the-manusmriti/. Accessed July 5, 2019. Sandmaier, M. (1994). Original kin. New York, NY: Dutton Seaver, J. (2014). A narrative of the life of Mrs. Mary Jemison. Charleston, SC: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Shakespeare, W. (1996). Henry V, in act iv scene iii. In The complete works of Shakespeare (pp. 18–6). London: Wordsworth Editions. Sophocles, (2005). Antigone. Translated by J. E. Thomas. Delaware: Prestwich House Inc. Stein, C. (1992). Ties that bind: Three studies of obligation in adult relationships with family. Journal of Personal and Social Relationships, 9(4), 525–547. Taylor, R. L. (2005). The illustrated encyclopedia of Confucianism: N-Z . New York, NY: The Rosen Publishing Group. The Conversation. (2018). Explaining Rakshabandan, a hindu festival that celebrates the brother and sister bond. http://theconversation.com/explainingrakshabandan-a-hindu-festival-that-celebrates-the-brother-sister-bond-81665. Accessed April 20, 2020.

86

A. BUCHANAN

Trivedi, Ira. (2011). The (new) business of marriage. Hindustan Times. Archived from the original on May 16, 2013. https://www.hindustantimes. com/india/the-new-business-of-marriage/story-EJBw7VhoGHTkC6v6Jz 9UtJ.html. Accessed April 20, 2020. World Bank. (2018). Labor force, female (% of total labor force). https://data. worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.TOTL.FE.ZS. Accessed July 3, 2019. Worsley, L. (2017) Jane Austen at home. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

CHAPTER 5

Siblings in M¯aori Myth, Culture and Present-Day Society Judith A. Davey and Chris Cunningham

Introduction Much of the literature on sibling relations originates from Western societies. Cicirelli (1995), for example, includes just one chapter on cross cultural relationships. Zukow (1989), in his edited volume on Sibling Interaction Across Cultures, is now more than thirty years old. In this time there have been massive changes in the family. It is interesting therefore, to consider a culture, with its own very strong cultural traditions, who are adapting to the modern world while holding on to customs and mores that have held their society together in the past.

1 According to 2018 estimates. European-descent population is 74%, Asian 11.8% and Pacific Island 7.4%.

J. A. Davey (B) Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand e-mail: [email protected] C. Cunningham Massey University, Wellington, New Zealand e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2021 A. Buchanan and A. Rotkirch (eds.), Brothers and Sisters, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55985-4_5

87

88

J. A. DAVEY AND C. CUNNINGHAM

M¯aori are the indigenous population of Aotearoa/New Zealand. They comprise an estimated 744,800 from a total population of 4,885,300— 14/9%.1 M¯aori society is organised on the basis of tribes (iwi), with sub-tribes (hap¯ u ) and customary extended families (whanau). Whanau is the key M¯aori social and cultural unit in traditional and contemporary M¯aori society (Walker 2006; Pihama and Penehira 2005). Membership of whanau entails obligations, including whanaungatanga (belonging and working together as kin), manaakitanga (showing respect, kindness and hospitality to others) and tautoko (providing support) (Tomlins-Jahnke and Durie 2008). Since the 1950s, large numbers of M¯aori have relocated from their tribal areas and moved from an agrarian to an industrialised urban society. In the process many have become separated from their tribal heritage and forced to change their lifestyles from the collective support of the whanau/extended family to the P¯ akeh¯ a -oriented nuclear family (Durie 1989). Co-residence of the generations in extended families is now less common and more than half of M¯aori households include non-M¯aori members. While basic traditions are still strong among many M¯aori, ways of doing things vary from family to family. As a result, some commentators have concluded that there is simply no one way to “be M¯aori” (Carter 1998; Durie 1995; Cunningham et al. 2005). The size of M¯aori families and hence of sibling groups has changed over time (Pool and Du Plessis 2011). M¯aori women on average gave birth to five to six children each in the nineteenth century and continued to have nearly seven children until the 1960s. This family size dropped to almost three births per woman in the late 1970s, and just over two from the 1990s. The total fertility rate for M¯aori in 2017 was 2.3, as against 1.8 for the European-descent population. So the M¯aori rate still slightly exceeds replacement level. M¯aori mothers are also on average younger than non-M¯aori mothers—the median age of child-bearing is 25.9 for M¯aori and 31.1 for the European-descent population. Hence the M¯aori population is younger and, in general, the shorter inter-generational period results in a greater number of living generations for many whanau.

¯ Brothers and Sisters in Maori Mythology M¯aori have a rich heritage of mythology, used, as in many cultures, to explain natural forces and events and especially the way in which the world came about and operates. Groups of siblings often feature in this

5

¯ SIBLINGS IN MAORI MYTH, CULTURE AND PRESENT-DAY SOCIETY

89

mythology, either working together or in conflict. Birth order is always an important factor in how the siblings interact, as the following examples— the creation story and the exploits of the demi-god M¯ aui—illustrate. Many of the features of these stories are similar to those in other Pacific cultures, reflecting the Pacific origin of the M¯aori. The M¯ aori Creation Story (Royal, Accessed 2019) In the beginning the earth mother—Papatuanuku—lay on her back. The continents and the islands were her body, arms and legs. The sky father— Rangi—lay over her. Their children were between them in darkness and cramped conditions. Six major brother gods wished to find a way out of the darkness and one by one they tried to separate their parents. Eventually Tanemahuta (god of the forests) thrust his feet against the sky, with his head on the earth and tore them apart, letting in the light of day. Tawhirimatea (god of wind and storm) was angry with his brothers and followed Rangi to the sky. This led to war between the gods, in which the seas were stirred up and the forests laid waste. The god Tane provided the sun, moon and stars, helped by his brothers. The sun and moon as the dominant sources of light were seen as the elder children. Tane also breathed life into an earthen shape and this became a woman. Rangi and Papa continue to grieve for each other, endlessly creating the rain and dew. The Exploits of M¯ aui (Taonui, Accessed 2019) M¯ aui tikitiki-a-Taranga was the youngest of a set of five brothers in ancient M¯aori mythology and had a typically tempestuous relationship with his older brothers. But his position as the youngest, or potiki, gave him freedoms from responsibilities and obligations and allowed him to accomplish extraordinary tasks. For the benefit of all the people he negotiated the trust of his older brothers, leading them to act together to achieve his goals. In the early times, the hours of daylight were seen as too short to accomplish everyday tasks. M¯ aui suggested to his brothers, against their misgivings, that they should force the sun—Tamanui-te-r¯ a —to move more slowly and urged them to work together to accomplish this. M¯ aui suggested they make strong ropes of flax and take them to the sun’s cave from which he rose every morning. After some unsuccessful attempts,

90

J. A. DAVEY AND C. CUNNINGHAM

the brothers worked together to capture the sun and pull on the ropes while M¯ aui belaboured the sun with the magic jawbone of his grandmother. Tamanui-te-r¯ a weakened and from then on travelled more slowly through the sky. The days became longer for M¯ aui and his people, giving them plenty of time to fish and gather food. Later, on a fishing expedition with his brothers, M¯ aui again used his magic jawbone as a hook and baited it with his blood. The gigantic fish which the group managed to pull in was the North Island of Aotearoa/New Zealand, reflecting its shape similar to that of a sting-ray. Its M¯aori name is Te Ika a M¯ aui (M¯ aui’s fish). The shape of the South Island suggests the canoe used by the brothers.

¯ Traditional Maori Cultural Concepts Whanau Historically, the primary social unit of M¯aori society was the whanau, which consisted of immediate and extended family encompassing several generations. There are various definitions of whanau, but it could be used for a set of siblings, excluding parents (Metge 1990; Walker 2006). The roles and responsibilities of whanau members reflect their birth position, or the status achieved within the whanau. In the traditional whanau it is the elders who have the greatest responsibility, and influence for guiding the rest of the group (Davey and Smith 2016). The concepts of whanau and traditional M¯aori roles have undergone significant changes in meaning and structure in recent times. Since the 1980s there has been an upsurge in the pride of M¯aori people in their cultural heritage, expressed especially in the drive for the revival of the M¯aori language. This has brought the word whanau back into common use and in policy discourse. Whanau is still seen as providing care and nurturing as well as identity and a sense of belonging and purpose (Mead 2003; Moeke-Pickering 1996). There has also been growth in the metaphorical use of whanau, to refer to groupings of people who are not connected by kinship or descent. For example, a new form of school organisation may be labelled “the whanau system” where a group of teachers and students from different age-based classes share resources and space. The Kohanga Reo (M¯aori language preschool) movement adopted the term whanau for all the children and adults associated with a particular educational establishment. Individuals

5

¯ SIBLINGS IN MAORI MYTH, CULTURE AND PRESENT-DAY SOCIETY

91

appearing before committees or being interviewed for positions may be allowed to bring along “whanau” as supporters. Sibling Roles and Terminology Traditional leadership in M¯aori communities was primarily based upon ancestry and birth descent lines—whakapapa—and has generally been the domain of men (Aginsky Buck 1940). The eldest first-born male inherited chiefly titles and mana (social status and prestige) predominately from his father. If a daughter was the first born, she passed the right of chieftainship on to her first-born male child. Her descendants through the generations would continue to be senior to any of her younger brothers’ descendants. This practice, however, can differ between M¯aori tribes. Tuakana and Teina Among siblings, traditionally, there are reciprocal relationships, based on age and sex, intended to support the welfare of the whanau, and these continue to be relevant in contemporary M¯aori society, as will be shown. These relationships are epitomised by kinship terminology: Tuakana is an older brother of a male or an older sister of a female, and a cousin of the same sex in an older branch of the family. Teina is a younger brother of a male, a younger sister of a female, and a cousin of the same sex in a younger branch of the family.

But these terms are not used, in traditional terminology, for a sibling of the opposite sex, hence: Tuahine is used by a male to refer to his sister or female cousin of whatever age. Tungane is used by a female to refer to her brother or male cousin of whatever age.

The first-born son (matamua) is tuakana to all his brothers and teina to no one. The last-born son (potiki) is teina to all his brothers and, as he is last, is not tuakana to anyone. The intermediate brothers have and

92

J. A. DAVEY AND C. CUNNINGHAM

are both tuakana and teina. If there are any daughters in the family, they follow the same principle, being tuakana to all their younger sisters and teina to their older sisters. There is a different set of terms for siblings of a different sex, as indicated above. This system was of vital importance in establishing rank and prestige in traditional M¯aori society and succession to particular status. It was perpetuated through succeeding generations in any particular lineage. By tracing lineage back to common male ancestors it was possible for individuals to determine whether they were junior or senior to each other. Thus, if “my” ancestor was a younger brother or sister of “your” ancestor, then I would be of the junior lineage and teina. You would be of the senior lineage and tuakana. Male lineages were the important ones, but sometimes female lineages came to the fore. The identification of senior and junior lines played a large part in M¯aori social and political life. For example, if one M¯aori group was visiting another, an elder would recite their genealogies to establish seniority. He would start with the first group living in Aotearoa, many generations before, and often came to a split, when two brothers became separated, perhaps by conflict or by going on different expeditions. The two groups are established as the descendants of the two brothers along with their senior or junior relationships. The senior group, by establishing itself as such, is then in the position to command respect and deference from the junior group. This process helped to avoid group conflict and clarified individual treatment in the context of sibling relationships. The respective order of birth of the children of common ancestors determines what people called each other, regardless of age differences. Traditionally, the elder brother takes precedence over his siblings on the basis of birth order and had responsibilities for leadership, protection and advice. Prominent tuakana were expected to be knowledgeable about genealogical connections between whanau, hap¯ u and iwi; to have a high level of diplomacy and negotiating skills; to have the interests of the collective at heart; to demonstrate patience and conciliatory abilities; to arbitrate through the relationship complexities that may arise and to lead the people by example. Occasionally a particularly brilliant younger male could be given “first-born” status by his father when his older brother was not considered capable of leadership. But younger brothers were not expected to challenge the elder brother’s rights.

5

¯ SIBLINGS IN MAORI MYTH, CULTURE AND PRESENT-DAY SOCIETY

93

The younger siblings were required to serve and provide and to protect the hap¯ u in times of danger. Teina are freed from certain responsibilities and expectations of older siblings, for example the expectation to aui was whaik¯ orero (speak formally on the marae 2 ). The way in which M¯ able to goad his brothers to action epitomises this aspect of sibling relationships. M¯ aui always called on brothers for help and would not have completed his ventures without them. This teamwork is an example of whanaungatanga. Since all the members of a tribe trace their descent from a common ancestor, they are related in varying degrees, and every member of a genealogical generation may be seen as a sibling. Chiefly lines often married their “first cousins” to fend off too many aspirants for power and leadership. Cousin marriage was also recommended as a way of keeping any domestic trouble within the family. The modern vernacular “cuzzy-bro” reflects this equivalence among cousins as if they were siblings. The sibling relationship, and expectations around it, is a basic feature in wider Polynesian life, expressed through systems of kinship terminology (Firth 1970). Few Polynesian societies seem to have a general term equivalent to “sibling” without further specification and most share the two main principles of sibling differentiation, sex and seniority.

Sibling Relationships in Contemporary Life There are still echoes of cultural concepts and practices relating to sibling relationships in modern M¯aori society (Webster 1975). Whenever the relationship between sub-groups based on descent comes to the fore, the concepts of tuakana (senior) and teina (junior) may be used. This could arise in engagement on the marae, at sporting events, traditional cultural competitions and other occasions which require the recognition of relative distinction. “The use is often merely in good humour and without immediate practical effect, but nevertheless perpetuates an ideology of mutual relationships based on descent”. Several, more personal, examples illustrate the lasting influence of the tuakana–teina concept. Edwards (2009, pp. 166–168), working on his Massey University thesis, states that M¯aori protocol “required that I 2 A marae is a formal Maori meeting place where greetings, discussion and ceremonies take place.

94

J. A. DAVEY AND C. CUNNINGHAM

approach the elder brothers and sisters of the elders who I first asked about the thesis…. Approaching a younger sibling would be considered improper and causing shame to the elder sibling; embarrassment for whole family and challenge to wh¯anau unity, mana and social cohesion”. A situation arose where a younger brother would not speak on the marae even though he knew the reo (M¯aori language) and his older brother did not, without consulting the older brother about his views and permission. This example also illustrates how respect for older siblings prompted care and compassion for older people requiring support (Davey and Smith 2016). An account of M¯aori decision-making about arrangements following death provides another contemporary example (Nikora et al. 2012). This case study describes how Rose and her siblings applied M¯aori customs as participants at a tangi for Rose’s mother. Tangi is M¯aori mourning rituals surrounding the return of the deceased and the immediately bereaved to their marae. Once the deceased arrives, the death must be shared with a broader grieving community. For M¯aori, the institution of tangi provides a customary way to respond to death. It affords security, comfort and reassurance about what to do next and that the right thing will be carried out. Immediately following death, the whanau is called to gather and search for unity in planning for the tangi. If a consensus is not reached, then whanau members are likely to defer to the leadership and seniority exercised by the elder members (both tuakana and mataamua—the first born). If dissent continues, people may withdraw their engagement to avoid conflict. The account continues: Men, particularly the first born (mataamua), carry the responsibility of leadership and wh¯anau representation. Latter born members of the wh¯ anau (who are teina to the mataamua) have a responsibility to support the decisions of their elder sibling (tuakana) and to ensure that they are all genuinely representing the wh¯ anau’s plans rather than their own personal interests (for example about where the deceased will be interred). Although this is the general pattern, first born women and sometimes younger wh¯anau members also fill leadership roles particularly if the tuakana abandon or cannot meet their responsibility or if teina demonstrate outstanding competence. The youngest born (potiki) of a wh¯ anau occupies a unique position, one where they are expected to ask the difficult questions, suggest other options and push the boundaries (M¯ aui again).

5

¯ SIBLINGS IN MAORI MYTH, CULTURE AND PRESENT-DAY SOCIETY

95

The reason for this is that potiki do not normally carry the weight of critical responsibilities, decisions having been made for them by their older siblings.

Although Rose was the potiki in her whanau, the situation was different for her, even though traditionally the last born did not usually influence whanau decision-making. She was knowledgeable and experienced in ways and relationships different to those of her siblings because perhaps of her being the last to leave home. She carried the burden of care for her mother and father, and in return, and possibly because of her university level education, they privileged her with insight into their needs and desires including their financial affairs and relationships with those of their own generation. This is recognized by Rose’s own siblings, her father, her aunts and uncles.

Rose had achieved a status beyond that of her ascribed status as the last born. As a result, she was given consent to articulate her personal views. If she had acted outside of what was culturally expected unilaterally, she would have been at best, firmly reprimanded, at worst, ignored. Another cultural practice, performed by M¯aori, along with many cultures, is ritual aimed at the removal of “pollution” in various forms. This may be the cleansing of a home or location where a death has taken place, for example (Smith 1974). In M¯aori practice it is the role of the elder brother to perform ritual acts of tapu removal needed for community wellbeing. M¯aori cultural concepts may even pervade everyday talk in contemporary society. This was illustrated in a study by Tomlins-Jahnke and Durie (2008). There were many references to talking about whanau “looking after” or “helping out” close kin, illustrating the value of manaakitanga. This included having relatives to “stay over”. One participant, Robbie, invited his younger relative (teina), Reggy, to stay over. As tuakana, Robbie offered to take Reggie home to collect his “clothes and shit”. This may be regarded as a tuakana/teina obligation. Robbie is seen to be looking after Reggy’s welfare, as would be expected between whänau members. Another piece of research tried to bring the voices of young people into the discussion of social issues, through life story data from young M¯aori aged 12–25 in Counties/Manukau (urban area south of Auckland) (Edwardset al. 2010). Extended family relationships continued to

96

J. A. DAVEY AND C. CUNNINGHAM

be of considerable cultural and social importance. Kin networks emerged as important; providing linkages with their related age cohorts and crucial “safety nets” at time when the family was stressed. Kinship peer-groups of cousins provided independent advice and support during periods of need and refuge when tensions in the home become too great. Sibling relationships were frequently mentioned. Many participants recalled being the tuakana, with responsibilities to care for siblings— to cook, to walk to school, to collect, to be responsible—as well as to perform certain tasks to support the whänau, such as doing the dishes or mowing the lawns. Older siblings saw the younger ones as annoying and females talked of males being more annoying than younger sisters. In contrast, participants who were not in senior roles explained that they did not enjoy being bossed around by older siblings. Older siblings said they preferred to hang out with their teina at home rather than in public where they preferred to be with their own age group. However, tuakana participants said that they enjoyed the opportunity to be trusted and to be responsible for their family members. They felt that having these roles was a step towards adulthood and independence and that it prepared them for later roles.

Contemporary Formal Recognition ¯ of Maori Sibling Concepts Schools The M¯aori tuakana–teina relationship has come to provide a model for buddy systems in schools. In this context, an older or more expert student—referred to as tuakana—helps and guides a younger or lessexperienced student—teina—in a learning environment. This relationship may be two-way. It can take the form of older to younger—the tuakana has the knowledge and content to pass on to the teina, but also younger to older—the teina has some skills in an area that the tuakana does not and is able to teach the tuakana. For example, the student who yesterday explained the lunar calendar may need to learn from her classmate today about how manaakitanga (hospitality) is practised by the local hap¯ u . This reflects the M¯aori concept of ako—reciprocal learning. The tuakana–teina model is linked to the “whanau” orientation of the classroom and the promotion of a culture of care in schools. Students, not only M¯aori children, are encouraged to be role models for their peers

5

¯ SIBLINGS IN MAORI MYTH, CULTURE AND PRESENT-DAY SOCIETY

97

and younger students by modelling appropriate behaviour and tutoring them in their learning, intervening when misbehaviour is occurring, and assuming leadership roles. The tuakana–teina concept was brought into work on creating culturally safe schools, defined as “places that allow and enable students to be who and what they are”. MacFarlane et al. (2007) brought the tuakana–teina concept into their work on creating culturally safe schools for Maori students, defined as “places that allow and enable students to be who and what they are”. In her thesis, Hunia (2016) used case studies of how very young children became socialised and acquired M¯aori language. She showed how the tuakana–teina concept has again been extended beyond its traditional kinship meaning into educational contexts, where it has been described as mentorship or expert-novice roles. It still embodies the M¯aori values, with its reciprocal roles of responsibility, care, respect and emotional bonds. Tu¯ akana have the responsibility to nourish and nurture younger children and to facilitate the gradual acceptance of responsibilities by t¯eina over time. Children learn to take on the role of tuakana by observing others being guided and then taking on that role, and also through guided participation. M¯aori sayings are quoted as defining these relationships—“M¯ a te tuakana e tiaki, m¯ a te teina e whakarongo”—“It is for the tuakana to nurture and for the teina to listen”. Older siblings/cousins are expected to take responsibility in the nurture and socialisation of younger children, while younger children, and particularly younger siblings/cousins, are expected to listen to and learn from those in tuakana roles. As already observed, teina and tuakana roles are fluid and children may move between roles, depending on the situation and its participants. Thus, socialisation involves negotiating the roles, and the rights and responsibilities within those relationships. Hunia (2016) uses the example of teaching children to become compeohanga Reo). tent kapa haka 3 performers in M¯aori pre-schools (Te K¯ Older children—tu¯ akana (aged 3–4 years)—were directed to stand in traditional kapa lines. Younger children—teina (0–3 years)—were left to observe and participate as they chose, either next to tuakana, or from the periphery. 3 Kapa haka is the term for M¯ aori performing arts and literally means to form a line (kapa) and dance (haka). Kapa haka is an avenue for M¯aori people to express and showcase their heritage and cultural Polynesian identity through song and dance.

98

J. A. DAVEY AND C. CUNNINGHAM

Another example comes from the report of an indigenous knowledge programme in a M¯aori-Language immersion school, based on a particular tribal epistemology—Waikato-Tainui (Harrison 2008). Teachers are addressed as whaea (mother/aunt) or matua (father/uncle), and classes are organised into multi-graded “extended families”. Some instructional and social activities are regularly structured so that older students help younger students, reflecting tuakana–teina values. The Tuakana–Teina concept, however, is not confined to M¯aori schools or M¯aori students. The terminology is applied extensively to “buddy” systems where older or more experienced learners’ guide and mentor younger students (Ministry of Education 2020). Tertiary Education Use of the M¯aori concepts of whanau, tuakana and teina, albeit in modified forms, can also be found in tertiary education environments. At the University of Otago, the M¯aori Student Association hosts a mentoring programme in which the older students look out for the young ones, as would older and younger siblings, as part of tikanga M¯ aori (cultural practice) (Maile, undated). It is also expected that this caring relationship is reciprocal. Looking at the tertiary education system more widely, Winitana (2012) asks “What messages are in the tuakana–teina pedagogy for tertiary educators?” She quotes the stories of M¯ aui as a guide to new interpretations in foundation level programmes of adult education. “The M¯ aui exploits contain philosophical messages which we can draw from in our visioning and strategic planning in education”. This would include examination of the tuakana–teina (senior–junior) model. This, Winitana argues, would be consistent with a commitment in the 2009 Tertiary Education Strategy to “develop the skills, competencies and knowledge needed for M¯aori to participate in the economy and in society” (Ministry of Education 2009). M¯ aui’s actions were those of a charismatic person who knew how to enhance the mana of other people (his brothers) while convincing them to do his bidding. Managing relationships like the tuakana–teina one in a vocational setting provides an opportunity to adapt and interpret ancient narratives in current situations to improve educational achievements and provide a more rewarding educational engagement between learner and tutor. Again, in this context “tuakana” refers to the more experienced

5

¯ SIBLINGS IN MAORI MYTH, CULTURE AND PRESENT-DAY SOCIETY

99

person, and the “teina” refers to the junior, or less-experienced person. From the M¯aori worldview, the tuakana vocational tutor will hold the mana of the selected vocational field; for example, as a trained and experienced electrician. M¯aori pedagogy can exemplify the mana of the tuakana (tutor) with the teina (apprentice) in mutually beneficial ways that uplift the mana of both and of the training organisation. Tuakana–teina relationships, also in a tertiary educational context, can be viewed as being closely aligned to “culturally safe” practices (MacFarlane et al. 2007). It provides a structure that encourages reciprocal interactions between the tutor and students and students with students, reflecting tuakana–teina relationships. The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand is a public sector tertiary education institution specialising in distance and online learning, with a strong vocational emphasis. There was concern that despite significant numbers of M¯aori participating in tertiary education the problem of poor retention and underachievement remained. There is evidence that culturally relevant support for first-year M¯aori students has positive outcomes. The need for a sense of connection, belonging and community is a strong value for M¯aori, especially given potential isolation inherent in distance learning, and can be enhanced through relationships with mentors. This belief led to the creation of a pilot project—Tuakana-teina e-Belonging —an online mentoring space for M¯aori students to connect and establish relationships with other M¯aori students at the Open Polytechnic (Rawlings and Wilson 2013). It is an opportunity for M¯aori learners to use the principles of peer mentoring to develop culturally relevant support that not only meets the students’ learning needs, but their cultural needs as well. The tuakana are experienced students, invited to participate in a pilot project for Tuakana-teina e-Belonging. These were volunteers, not from any specific subject area, but who were willing to tautoko (support) a small group of teina (student mentees). They are selected on the basis of their academic record and knowledge of kaupapa M¯aori. The second group of first-time first-year M¯aori students formed the teina group. Despite the use of the tuakana–teina terminology these two groups were not distinguished by age, but by experience in the distance learning environment. The notion of ako—reciprocal learning—was again apparent throughout the project, where in some circumstances the teacher becomes the student, and in others the student becomes the teacher.

100

J. A. DAVEY AND C. CUNNINGHAM

Each group of tuakana and their teina had their own digital space and were seen as whanau. The vast majority of the teina participants strongly agreed that Tuakana-teina e-Belonging had helped them gain a sense of identity. When students feel competent in their learning and are confident, they become more effective learners.

¯ The Rauawaawa Kaumatua Charitable Trust Tuakana–Teina Project The aim of the Rauawaawa Kaum¯atua Charitable Trust in Hamilton is to enhance the quality of life and wellbeing of kaum¯ atua (elders) and to provide culturally focussed and accessible health, social and community-based activities and services. The Tuakana–Teina project is a peer education/mentoring programme building on the knowledge of kaum¯ atua. It is intended to help people through the “transitions” of later life, and to enhance the mana of both the giver and the recipient, highlighting “kaum¯ atua mana motuhake” (elder independence and autonomy) (Simpson et al. 2019). The analogy is made to the educational use of the terms whereby the tuakana is the senior and “experienced person”, and teina is the junior “inexperienced person” (Winitana 2012). It is argued that attending to cultural factors positively improves participation rates and programme effectiveness, for example in health-related initiatives, and hence tuakana–teina peer support may improve kaum¯ atua wellbeing, especially when approaching or experiencing transitions in later life. The kaum¯ atua themselves identified five life-transitions—loss of a spouse; crises in health; loss of independence (e.g. moving into care); loss of driver’s license and adjusting to retirement. The M¯aori concepts of tautokotanga (providing assistance or support) in relation to the role of a mentor; and “whakawhiti k¯ orero” meaning talking and listening between tuakana and teina/peers are central to this initiative. The findings of research into this programme show that the key components for a culture-centred approach to developing tuakana–teina peer support intervention for kaum¯ atua experiencing life-transitions are partnership and communication. M¯aori concepts, processes and factors inform the intervention.

5

¯ SIBLINGS IN MAORI MYTH, CULTURE AND PRESENT-DAY SOCIETY

101

Conclusion M¯aori kinship terminology, defining siblings based on age/birth order and sex, are the basis for fundamental cultural beliefs and practices, which are shared with other Pacific cultural groups. The tuakana–teina concept has both social and political implications. It is closely linked with the fundamental concepts of whanaunatanga, defined as a relationship through shared experiences and working together which provides people with a sense of belonging. It develops as a result of kinship rights and obligations, which also serve to strengthen each member of the kin group. It is closely related to manaakitanga—hospitality, kindness, generosity, support, the process of showing respect, generosity and care for others; tiakitanga (protection, guardianship), and tautoko (proving care and support). As well as pervading ancestral myths of the M¯aori and age-old traditional practices, beliefs about responsibilities and duties between siblings continue to influence present-day behaviour. These beliefs have been carried further into contemporary structures and practices, into everyday speech and activities, and into formalised sectors, such as education at several levels. In this respect the tuakana–teina and related kinship concepts have relevance beyond the M¯aori population and have become part of a bi-cultural Aotearoa/New Zealand.

References Aginsky, Bernard Willard, and Buck, Te Rangi Hiroa. (1940). Interacting Forces in the Maori Family. American Anthropologist, Vol. 42. Carter, J. (1998). None of Us Is What Our Tupuna Were: When ‘Growing Up P¯akeh¯a’ is ‘Growing Up M¯aori’, pp. 253–267. In W. Ihimaera (ed.), Growing Up Maori. Auckland: Tandem Press. Cicirelli, V. (1995). Sibling Relationships Across the Life Span. New York. Plenum Press. Cunningham, C., Stevenson, B., and Tassell, N. (2005). Analysis of the Characteristics of Wh¯ anau in Aotearoa. Report prepared for the Ministry of Education, Wellington. Davey, J., and Smith, C. (2016). Maori Grandfathers in Aotearoa/New Zealand. In Ann Buchanan and Anna Rotkirch (eds.), Grandfathers: Global Perspectives. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

102

J. A. DAVEY AND C. CUNNINGHAM

Durie, M. (1989). The Treaty of Waitangi—Perspectives on Social Policy. In I. Kawharu (ed.), Waitangi Maori and Pakeha—Perspectives of the Treaty of Waitangi. Auckland: Oxford University Press. Durie, M. (1995). Nga Matatini M¯ aori: Diverse M¯ aori Realities. Palmerston North: Massey University. Edwards, Shane. (2009). Titiro whakamuri kia marama ai te wao nei: whakapapa epistemologies and Maniapoto Maori cultural identities. A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Massey University. https://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/1252. Edwards, Shane, McCreanor, Tim, and Moewaka-Barnes, Helen (2010). Maori Family Culture: A Context of Youth Development in Counties/Manukau, K¯ otuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 1– 15. Firth, Raymond. (1970). Sibling Terms in Polynesia. The Journal of the Polynesian Society, Vol. 79, No. 3, pp. 272–287. Harrison, Barbara. (2008). The Development of an Indigenous Knowledge Program in a New Zealand Maori-Language Immersion School. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 57–72. Hunia, Tessa Mataea. (2016). He k¯ opara e k¯ o nei i te ata / M¯ aori Language Socialisation and Acquisition by Two Bilingual Children: A Case-Study Approach. Victoria University of Wellington Thesis. MacFarlane, A., Glynn, T., Cavanagh, T., and Bateman, S. (2007). Creating Culturally-Safe Schools for M¯aori Students. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, Vol. 36, pp. 65–76. Maile, J. (undated). How tikanga M¯ aori Is Implemented at the University of Otag o. E-Journal of MAOR202. Mead, H. M. (2003). Tikanga Mäori: Living by Mäori values. Wellington: Huia Publishers, Wellington. Metge, J. (1990). Te rito o te harakeke: Conceptions of the whaanau. The Journal of the Polynesian Society, Vol. 99, No. 1, pp. 55–92. Ministry of Education. (2009). Tertiary Education Strategy, p. 7. http://www. education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Further-education/Tertiary-Educat ion-Strategy.pdf. Accessed 19 June 2020. Ministry of Education. (2020). Te reo M¯ aori curriculum guidelines. http:// tereomaori.tki.org.nz/Curriculum-guidelines/Teaching-and-learning-te-reoMaori/Aspects-of-planning. Accessed 19 June 2020. Moeke-Pickering, T. M. (1996). Maori Identity Within Whanau. Masters thesis, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. Nikora, Linda Waimarie: Masters-Awatere. Bridgette and Te Awekotuku, Ngahuia. (2012). Final Arrangements Following Death: Maori Indigenous Decision Making and Tangi. Journal of Community and Applied Social

5

¯ SIBLINGS IN MAORI MYTH, CULTURE AND PRESENT-DAY SOCIETY

103

Psychology, Vol. 22, No. 5, Special Issue: Case studies in Community and Social Psychology. Pool, I., and Du Plessis, R. (2011). Families: A History—Changing Families. Te Ara—The Encyclopedia of New Zealand. http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/fam ilies-a-history/page-1. Accessed 27 June 2019. Pihama, L., and Penehira, M. (2005). Building Baseline Data on Maori Whanau Development and Maori Realising Their Potential: Literature Review—Facilitating Engagement, Final Report. The International Research Institute for Maori and Indigenous Education (IRI), University of Auckland, for Te Puni Kokiri, Auckland. Rawlings, Caroline, and Wilson, Karaitiana. (2013). Tuakana-Teina E-belonging Report. Ako Aotearoa. Royal, Te Ahukaram¯u Charles (2019). M¯aori Creation Traditions. Te Ara— The Encyclopedia of New Zealand. http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/maori-cre ation-traditions. Accessed 2019. Simpson, M., Greensill, H.-M., Nock, S., Meha, P., Harding,T., Shelford, P., Hokowhitu, B., Oetzel, J., and Reddy, R. (2019). Kaum¯atua mana motuhake in action: Developing a Culture-Centred Peer Support Programme for Managing Transitions in Later-Life. Ageing and Society. Published online: 04 April 2019. Smith, Jean. (1974). Tapu Removal in Maori Religion. Supplement to the Journal of the Polynesian Society, Memoir 40. Taonui, R¯awiri. Ranginui—The Sky—The Family of Light. Te Ara—The Encyclopedia of New Zealand. http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/artwork/5179/maui. Accessed 2019. Tomlins-Jahnke, A., and Durie, A. (2008). Whanau Socialisation Through Everyday Talk: A Pilot Study. New Zealand Families Commission, Wellington. Walker, Tai. (2006). Whanau Is Whanau. Blue Skies Report No. 8/06. Families Commission Wellington. Webster, Steven. (1975). Cognatic Descent Groups and the Contemporary Maori: A Preliminary Assessment. The Journal of the Polynesian Society, Vol. 84, No. 2, pp. 121–152. Winitana, Mei. (2012). Remembering the Deeds of Maui: What Messages Are in the Tuakana–Teina Pedagogy for Tertiary Educators? MAI Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1. Zukow, P. G. (ed.). (1989). Sibling Interaction Across Cultures. New York, NY: Springer.

CHAPTER 6

Brothers and Sisters, Husbands and Wives: Love, Power, and Being an In-Law Suad Joseph

Introduction This chapter is a reflection piece. The author has spent the better part of her scholarly career trying to puzzle out the pathways of personhood (her earliest unpublished writings on the subject were in the early 1980s). This chapter reflects specifically on brother/sister relationships, using ethnographic examples from over 50 years of fieldwork in Lebanon. Data on the specific siblings in this chapter have been gathered starting in 1968 through 2020. The author first met some of these siblings in the late 1960s, others in the early 1970s and in the early 1990s. The ones observed the longest have been observed over 50 years. The ones observed the shortest time have been observed over 25 years. Data collection included mixed methods such as participant observation, interviews, and surveys. Over the course of lives lived long and well, these siblings became more than “subjects” of study or interlocutors for the author. They became friends and family—idiomatic family. The case studies below powerfully illustrate the complex relationships across time

S. Joseph (B) University of California, Davis, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2021 A. Buchanan and A. Rotkirch (eds.), Brothers and Sisters, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55985-4_6

105

106

S. JOSEPH

between brothers and sisters and how their marriages, their husbands and wives, impact and transform the brother/sister relationships among Arab families in Lebanon.

Siblings Hanna was worshipped by his mother, sisters, and respected by his brothers in the Borj Hammoud municipality of Lebanon. As he has aged, he has softened in his views and behaviour, especially after marriage and children. He continues to care for all his siblings. Over the course of almost fifty years he and his family have been known to the author, his relationships with his brothers have ranged from admiration and reserved respect to silence and disconnect. The profound love and power he holds for, and from his sisters, has not changed. Madlaine is the second oldest of five—three boys and two girls in Beirut. She and her sister, the youngest of the family, never married. One brother migrated and never returned to Lebanon. The two remaining brothers lived in Lebanon until their deaths, though all their children migrated. Madlaine and her sister were exceedingly respectful and deferential to their brothers. Yet, it was utterly clear to all extended kin that Madlaine was the head of the family. Eva is the only daughter in a family of four boys, all of whom married and had children. Though married, Eva does not have children. Adored by her parents and revered by her brothers as a talented and beautiful young woman growing up in Beirut, her adult relationships with her three of her four brothers has dramatically worsened as they brought wives into the family. Samer is the second oldest of his family of six siblings. With the oldest and a younger brother abroad, he became the head of the family, carefully attending to the needs of his two sisters, one unmarried brother, and his mother in the village of Yusfiyyi, Mount Lebanon. His sisters and mother—and brothers—looked up to him for direction and support.

Arab Brothers and Sisters Arab sibling relationships (like all family relations) are notoriously changeable over time, particularly as siblings age (Doumani 2003; Dwairy et al. 2006, Dahlgren 2008; Yount and Hoda Rashad 2008; Ghannam 2013; Joseph 2018a; Rabho 2015). In the Arab region, brother/brother

6

BROTHERS AND SISTERS, HUSBANDS AND WIVES …

107

relationships are supposed to anchor of the whole kinship structure (Joseph 2003). They are frequently competitive with each other, but their response to those external to the family is expected to be unified as one (Fabos 2010). Similarly, sister/sister relationships are supposed to be mutually supportive, though in reality, they are often competitive, especially in their relationships to brothers (Scheherazade 1999; Salamandra 2006). Brother/sister relationships are normatively relationships of mutual love and support, undergirded by a power asymmetry in which the brother is supposed to retain superior authority. Though brother/sister relationships in the Arab region are highly diverse in reality (Altorki 2003), the pattern of love/power in those relationships described in earlier work (Joseph 1994) remains rather common. A highly evocative workshop, organized by Mary Montgomery at the London School of Economics Department of Anthropology (June 6, 2016), brought together over a dozen scholars to analyze sibling relationships in the Middle East. Prof. Montgomery’s noted that the author’s earlier work (Joseph 1994) on connectivity in brother/sister relationships in Lebanon was “the starting point for discussions.” (email March 8, 2016). Nevertheless, the range of love/hate, caring/ignoring, competition/support, intimacy/distance, and equality/hierarchy in sibling relationships observed by scholars at the workshop who presented on Egypt (Chihab El Khachab, Farha Ghannam, and Marta Agosti), Iran (Shirin Garmaroudi and Rose Wellman), Morocco (Mary Montgomery and Meriam Cheikh), and Jordan (Geoff Hughes) was as broad as any spectrum of human relations one might expect. The workshop proceedings were not published; yet, it was a well-spring for conversation and dialogue about the ever-contested and changing sibling relationships of the Middle East. It paralleled research in the region which finds sibling (and family relations in general) highly variable emotionally, psychodynamically, culturally, politically, and economically (Joseph 1999a, Nahleh 2006, Rabo 2008; Muhanna 2013; Adely 2016). While ethnographic studies report the highly diverse range of on-theground relationships among siblings, folk tales often teach people on the ground what to expect in their sibling relationships. The classic tale that is retold in many countries (Greece, Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon, Iran, and many others) is that of a queen choosing to save the life of her brother over that of her husband and son, when forced into a choice by an enemy king who has captured the three men related to her—because she could marry again and have a son again, but could not produce a brother again.

108

S. JOSEPH

Again, and again, folk tales show lesser brothers becoming envious of the wealth and power of a successful brother and trying to destroy him, even as he is benevolent and kind to them. Tale after tale recounts lesser sisters becoming envious of the beauty and acclaim of a successful sister and trying to destroy her, even as she is good and generous to them. Jamal Sleem Nuweihed (2002) collected twenty-seven folk tales from Palestine and Lebanon with a plethora of stories about siblings, yet nowhere in any of these folk tales is there a story of a brother and sister jealous or envious of each other or trying to hurt or destroy each other. Throughout the fairy tales in this collection, the storyteller tells the listener and reader that sisters love and worship their brothers and brothers care for and protect their sisters. Previously, Joseph (1994) extensively documented brother/sister relationships in the Arab region in what was called the love/power relationship between brothers and sisters, mediated through patriarchal connectivity. Patriarchal connectivity was described as “the production of selves with fluid boundaries organized for gendered and aged domination in a culture valorizing kin structures, morality, and idioms”—a system that enables deeply connected senses of self with others and facilitates the privileged initiative of males and elders (including elder women) in directing the lives of others (Joseph 1999b: 12). The love/power dynamic is the expectation of life-long mutual love and caring between brothers and sisters, nested in gendered hierarchy—which is nevertheless, always contested, challenged, situational, and subject to the particularities of personas (Joseph 1999b: 15). The production of selves in Arab families (Joseph 1999a, Hopkins 2003, Yount and Hoda Rashad 2008, Joseph 2018b) is no less complex, situational, and historically constituted than in other regions of the world. Everywhere, selving is impacted by class, race, gender, ethnicity, religion, birth order, education, the specific cultures and practices of parenting, larger structures of governance and law, the historical moment, and the like. As changeable and contested as these variables are, there is also the power of persona. Specific persons respond to cultures, structures, and normative patterns very differently—from acquiescing and acceptance to resistance and rebellion.

6

BROTHERS AND SISTERS, HUSBANDS AND WIVES …

109

Categorical Thinking In the study of Arab families, caution is needed as to the “danger of the default”—what the author has called “categorical thinking” (Joseph 2018b, 2019). Categories work by creating groupings on the basis of apparent shared traits. At some level, creating groupings is a descriptive project undertaken universally in various capacities by all thinking persons (and probably animals). Categorical thinking is built into language and the human brain. It is impossible to speak without reference to categories. Brothers, sisters, Arab, Muslim… and on and on—are all arbitrary categories, constructed for the convenience of speech and social/political/economic action. Science, especially biology, mobilizes categorical thinking in developing all major theories. At another level, categorical thinking can become prescriptive. For example, women can be described as having certain characteristics. When women must have these characteristics in order be considered women, then the category of women becomes prescriptive—it creates its own subject (Collier and Yanagisako 1987). Arab women can be described as having certain characteristics. When having these characteristics become prescriptive for women to be considered Arab women, the burden of categorical thinking weighs on the bodies and minds of those women. Arab families can be described as having certain characteristics—but when the assumption is that all Arab families have these characteristics, then cultural, social, historical, and empirical realities are at risk of being erased. Similarly, brothers and sisters are constructed categories that shift meanings and enactments with time, place, and personnel. It is when an assumption is made that brothers must always act a certain way, and sisters must always act in a certain way, that categorical thinking glosses over the lived reality of relationships, or that the deployment of categorical thinking attempts to mandate and control behaviour. Especially problematic is when categorical thinking undergirds sexism (all women are…), racism (all people of colour are…), classism (all poor people are…)—and a host of other “isms”. Then categorical thinking does its most destructive work. This destructive work of categorical thinking is facilitated by the hierarchies which tend to adhere to categories. White/coloured; profit/loss; rational/irrational; active/passive; male/female; culture/nature—implied in all these binary categories is the implicit or explicit understanding that the first category is more powerful or better or superior in some way than the second. While categorical

110

S. JOSEPH

thinking is foundational to language and thinking, the social, cultural, and scientific challenge is to constantly be aware that categories are constructed. The following reflections address a few of the myriad of ways in which brother/sister relationships are normatively understood and empirically lived and enacted in Lebanon. While the focus of these reflections is brother/sister relationships, they need to be seen in the context of other sibling relationships as well, especially the brother/brother relationships or the sister/sister relationships. The persons mentioned above, lived in highly urban, to rural, to diasporic communities. Their class positions ranged from working class, to lower and upper middle class. Their education ranged from illiterate to post-graduate. The persons in these relationships currently range in age from early 60s to early 90s. The oldest of these people was around 40 when first met; the youngest was a pre-adolescent (actually one was born the year the author ended fieldwork for her doctoral dissertation). All these relationships, when first encountered, were overwhelmingly relationships of mutual love, respect, and caring. They were imbued, of course, with power differentials (varying in degree) in favour of key brothers that, on the whole, were accepted (though always negotiated) as normal and ordinary by their siblings and those around them. These specific persons were all Christian Lebanese. Hanna and His Sisters The author first met Hanna in 1971 when beginning fieldwork for her doctoral dissertation. He has featured in a number of articles written about Camp Trad neighbourhood of Borj Hammoud, just East of Beirut (Joseph 1994, 1999a). In the nearly fifty years in which the author, has gone back and forth to Lebanon since, she has visited Hanna and his family frequently, including a visit in 2019. The eldest son of a Lebanese Christian father and a Palestinian Christian mother, he was, in 1971, the most highly respected young man of the neighbourhood. Handsome, more educated than any male of his cohort in the neighbourhood at the time, articulate, and elegant in self-presentation, he was every mother’s dream son-in-law. His father worked hard, but was most likely an alcoholic. With his father’s frequent absence from home, Hanna became, in many ways, the head of the family.

6

BROTHERS AND SISTERS, HUSBANDS AND WIVES …

111

His mother and brothers deferred to him family decision-making. His mother also deferred to him decisions about his younger siblings’ upbringing, but especially decisions about his sisters. He was particularly involved in disciplining the older of his two sisters, whom he considered ill-prepared to be a lady (Joseph 1994). When Flaur married, Um Hanna (his mother) expressed disappointment: “Wein Hanna, wa wein hada”—“Where is Hanna and where is that one”—meaning that Flaur should have married someone more like Hanna and the one she married was nothing like her brother. Hanna’s relationship to Flaur softened over time. He stopped physically disciplining her, though he continued to give her advice and guidance. He gave employment to her son at a certain point and helped her financially when her husband’s income proved inadequate. Over a number of visits in the 1990s and the early decades of the 2000s, the author saw Hanna and Flaur interacting in his home. His posture was authorial as ever. Her posture towards him was compliant, deferential, even reverential. Hanna prided himself in marrying a woman his own age. Having married a little later in life than many of his neighbourhood cohort, he might have married someone considerably younger than himself. Instead, he indicated that he wanted a more mature woman, someone more his equal. His wife was mild mannered and kind. In the earlier years of their marriage, the author observed her tolerating some of his masculinity power performances with grace and patience. She did not seem to entangle herself in his relationship with his sisters. His relationship with Flaur did not seem to put her relationship with him at risk and the sister who infatuated him lived at a significant enough distance to not risk their intimacy. She was respectful and attentive to his mother and all his brothers. In contrast, his relationship with his brothers was more uneven. He gave an apartment to one of his brothers to live in after he moved into a condo in the foothills that he purchased. That brother’s wife was constantly sitting with Hanna and his wife in Hanna’s business place, visiting or at times helping out. He employed another brother until that brother’s premature death. When this brother died, Hanna took care of his wife and children. Both of these brothers were reserved and displayed that reserved respect for Hanna. A third brother had migrated, married abroad, and rarely visited. When the author visited this brother in his new home abroad, just prior to his marriage, he too expressed a reserved respect for Hanna. The relationship with the youngest brother was more

112

S. JOSEPH

contentious. They had their separate businesses in Borj Hammoud and they bought condos in the same building in the foothills. Their different approaches to business and family life led to a falling out when Hanna asserted his patrimonial privilege of telling this brother how he should conduct himself with his family and work. They were, for some extended time, not talking with each other, much to Hanna’s anguish. Eventually, the relationship smoothed over enough to re-engage. But the sister that Hanna reserved his deepest emotion for was the youngest of the family. Born in 1973, Ayna had received enough schooling to be considered educated by local standards. She married young and moved to South Lebanon. She rarely came to Beirut and the family rarely went to visit her. Hanna repeatedly said that his ideal of female beauty and womanhood was Ayna. He claimed he did not know a more beautiful woman or womanly woman than Ayna. He made this claim repeatedly, even after he married, even after he had daughters of his own. His wife was not fazed by his declarations. The author’s visits to Hanna and his family rarely coincided with Ayna’s visits. The author has not come to know Ayna as well as other members of the family. As late as 2019, when the author asked him about Ayna, Hanna’s face softened into a glow and he spoke warmly that she was well with her family and children, still living in South Lebanon. When asked about Flaur, his countenance flattened, as he reported that she was fine. He would continue to support her, as she needed, it was clear. She was not his ideal of womanhood, though he would have been her ideal of manhood. Madlaine and Her Brothers Madlaine came from a propertied Lebanese family of South Lebanon who had lost their property in Palestine on the creation of the state of Israel. The property in South Lebanon was subdivided among her uncles, with one uncle receiving a disproportionate share—or at least husbanding the property so well that he and his family became wealthier than the rest. Madlaine’s family moved to Beirut. While she would have liked to go to college, Madlaine had to go to work to help support the family. She worked all her adult life, most of it under the authoritarian eye of an older kinswoman. She never married. She dedicated her life to caring for her parents and her siblings. As the eldest of her family living in Beirut, she helped all her siblings complete their education. While the brothers

6

BROTHERS AND SISTERS, HUSBANDS AND WIVES …

113

became financially better situated than Madlaine, she continually used her modest funds to support them and their children through gift-giving. Madlaine and her sister stayed in the small apartment her family had rented when they first moved to Beirut most of their adult lives. That apartment, centrally located in Beirut, became the family headquarters, even though her brothers came to have larger and more fashionable homes over time. When there were family meals, they were almost always at Madlaine’s and she—an excellent cook—did most of the cooking. The author met them in 1968 and came to know not only all their family (except the brother who migrated), but many of the extended kin. Madlaine and her younger sister were distinctly deferential to the brothers, while loving and deeply caring for them. The two brothers in Beirut were very attentive to their two unmarried sisters and their needs, visiting with them frequently, calling them, and observing holidays with them. Both sisters adopted a strategy of supporting their brothers, their sisters-in-law, and their children, life-long. One sister-in-law was a bit forceful and perhaps a bit self-centred. Madlaine navigated the relationship to keep her brother contented with her, as well as his wife. Never having been married and not having children, she treated the children of her brothers as her own. They, for their part, revered their aunt. Both of these brothers married strong-willed women, each of whom was rather controlling. The author never observed Madlaine have a falling out with her brothers or their wives. Madlaine was attentive to her younger sister as well. She mentored Sawsan, supported her through schooling, tried to help her get married, navigated familial relationships with her and gave her the space she needed in the small apartment they shared, first with the whole family, then with their mother after the brothers had married and moved out and the father had passed away, and then eventually just the two of them. The two sisters were distinctly different in temperament, style, and perhaps values. They loved and respected each other deeply. In over 50 years the author has known them, she has not seen them to have a falling out. Madlaine was the one who navigated to widen Sawsan’s pathways. It was particularly striking to observe the two sisters caring for the youngest brother when he became ill. He and his wife moved into the small apartment with Madlaine and Sawsan, even though they had a lovely home in the mountains. The need for frequent visits to doctors made living in Beirut practical. The two sisters did as much as the wife to care for their brother. The sole remaining male of the immediate family and

114

S. JOSEPH

the brother they were the closest to, he became, for the period of his illness, almost their entire life. The fact that his wife did not know how to drive and that Madlaine had stopped driving many years earlier, made Sawsan the driver and go-for, for the whole family. This, and Madlaine’s decline after the death of this youngest brother, led increasingly to Sawsan’s becoming the head of the family. She took care of all the family finances and made the decisions on behalf of herself and Madlaine—and in some cases, on behalf of this brother’s wife. She took over all family external responsibilities, which in this family were quite extensive. Sawsan became as devoted to the care of Madlaine as she had been to the care of her brother. She spoke of Madlaine in compassionate tones, caring for her bodily needs, medicine, and telling her what she could eat or not eat. Madlaine, though very alert and apparently aware of everything going on around her, spoke very little in the several visits the author had with her and Sawsan in 2019–2020. With all their brothers gone, they held dearly on to the relationships with each other, the remaining sister-in-law, and their nieces and nephews—as well as the very large extended kin. Eva and Her Brothers Eva was in her 20s when the author first met her in 1968, unmarried, living at home with her parents and four brothers all of whom were unmarried and still in school. The family was very close, with loving parents (who deeply loved each other) and siblings who loved and respected each other and their parents. They ate most of their meals together, especially the evening meal which was dense with conversation. Second oldest in the family, Eva was the “Rose” of this educated middle to upper middle-class family. Doted upon by her father, cared for and attended to by her brothers, her life appeared charmed. She and the oldest brother Ibrahim, were very close, each other’s closest confidants in many ways. They went out together, shared friends, and shared many activities and interests. The three younger brothers were close to the family, and close to Eva, but tended to do their own things more. Relationships among the siblings took severe turns after they all had married. None of the wives of her four brothers got along with Eva. By cultural terms, she was more beautiful than all but perhaps one; more elegant than all but perhaps one; more educated than all of her sisters-in-law; and, unlike any of them, had a professional career and was

6

BROTHERS AND SISTERS, HUSBANDS AND WIVES …

115

highly successful. She might have been considered more successful than her brothers as well. While the sisters-in-law did not always get along with each other either, or did so sporadically, they were all in relatively solid marriages. The sisters-in-law could rely on the support of their husbands to supersede the loyalty the husbands would feel towards their sister—except one, Riyad. Eva endured a period in which three of the brothers and their three wives all were highly critical of her at the same time. She endured periods in which one or two were critical of her. She was criticized for outshining her brothers or speaking up too much or having too many opinions. Riyad was supportive of her, but did not intervene to try to halt his brothers’ heated attacks on Eva. While not as close to Eva as Ibrahim had been when they were younger, Riyad became increasingly close to her as they grew older. He stood by her through the silent treatment she received from one brother, the attacks she received from three brothers—and their wives— and continued to call her daily, visit her, and invite her, even as she was ostracized by one or more of the other brothers and their wives. His wife did not usually join the others in attacks on Eva in the early years of their marriage, she being the other beauty and elegant lady in the family. Later, as Riyad’s relation with his wife became more strained, her relationship with Eva became more strained. With Riyad, Eva confided everything—even more than she confided in her husband. Riyad confided in her, more than he confided in his wife. They talked daily. They went out together, often having meals together alone. They discussed family relations, their work, their professions, politics, and personal interests. For each of them, the person they were closest to in their lives was the other. In many ways, they each saw themselves in the other. Eva saw Riyad as the most like her in the family. Riyad, though skilled at navigating relationships with the three other brothers, their wives and children, felt most akin to Eva than anyone else in the family. She worshiped him. He was her perfect man. He worshiped her. She was his perfect woman. The fact that the brothers and the wives all loved Eva’s husband helped enormously. Her husband stayed out of the entanglements with her brothers and her sisters-in-law. He saw all those dynamics as useless energy which could better be invested elsewhere. He navigated all the relationships with ease, remaining warm and respectful to all the family, while keeping a degree of distance from the entangled intimacies.

116

S. JOSEPH

That her brothers and their wives liked her husband deflected possible competition there. That the wives, on the whole, did not like Eva, pulled the brothers away, as each (except Riyad) aligned with his wife against his sister. At no point, however, did Eva give up on her brothers. Pained as she was by the treatment she received, she continued to reach out to her brothers, was respectful and generous with the wives, invited them to her house and doted on their children. By 2020, with all the siblings in their 70s, the world they lived in seemed harsher, their beloved Lebanon besieged, their parents gone, their children grown up, the siblings softened their relationships with each other. They contacted each other regularly; their children contacted each other regularly; they saw each other often; and the support they wished for each other was rekindled. Eva remained the closest to Riyad. Samer and His Sisters Samer became the default head of family after his eldest brother (and later a younger brother) migrated and his father passed away leaving him, the eldest to stay in the village, to take care of the family in their village of Yusifiyya in Mount Lebanon. The most successful of his siblings, in 1994 when I met him, he had more means to help than the others. He remained living at home with his mother, unmarried brother and two sisters until he married. For a while, after her marriage, one sister and her husband lived with them. For a while a younger brother who eventually migrated, lived with them with his wife and children. This younger brother’s wife and children stayed with Samer and the family after her husband migrated for an extended period before she and the children joined her husband. While this sister-in-law and her children were living with the family, Samer considered himself in place of their father, his younger brother. He took the children out for adventures, bought them play things and treats, and mentored/disciplined them as he thought they needed. A falling out with his brother, or at least his brother’s wife, occurred when the wife returned to Lebanon with the children after years abroad, with the intent of remaking their home in the village. She and her husband had bought a separate apartment in the village, near Samer and the family. Samer once again took on a responsibility to act as their father in place of his younger brother who had not yet returned to the village. He took his nephews out for treats and spent time with them. When, on one occasion, one of

6

BROTHERS AND SISTERS, HUSBANDS AND WIVES …

117

the boys talked back at him, Samer was stunned. He talked repeatedly to me about it. He could not fathom that a nephew would talk back to the uncle/who was the father in loco parentis. He figured this was the impact of being abroad and he wanted to correct this aberration. The child’s mother, however, had developed considerable independence from the family during her years abroad. In no uncertain terms, she told Samer that the child had a father—and a mother–and did not need his discipline. That too shocked Samer who thought he was doing good for the child, for his brother, and his whole family. One of Samer’s brothers remained unmarried (at least by 2020), living with the mother in the family home. All other siblings married, had children, and eventually moved into homes of their own. One sister’s husband was disabled and could not work. The unmarried brother changed businesses and work a number of times. Two sisters went on to college. All this was done with the help of Samer, who continued to support the entire family and his mother. Of the four brothers, Samer was the closest to his two sisters. Before the youngest sister was married and while she was still in school, he considered it his responsibility to take her out periodically so she could have fun. He helped her pay for her schooling and gave her spending money. He supported his older sister as her husband tried to figure out what he could do given his disability. All the children, even after they married, came to the mother’s house regularly for meals. The mother, a dynamic, energetic, and very bright woman, did as much as Samer to keep the family together. She cooked banquets for her children and their families—funded by Samer. The sisters, and their husbands, looked up to Samer. They consulted with him on personal and professional matters. They engaged in side business junkets with him. He frequently travelled abroad to see his brothers. On these trips, he typically took one or both of his sisters and his mother. He arranged dual citizenship for himself and his sisters—expenses he paid and matters he managed himself. After he married, Samer bought an apartment just a street away from his mother and siblings. His wife, of a different ethnic group, slipped into the family with little sense of being an outsider. She created warm and affectionate relationships with his mother and sisters. They all praised her as loving and kind. I detected little or no competition between Samer’s wife and his sisters on multiple visits in the early years of their later in life marriage. It was one of the most remarkable marital transitions I

118

S. JOSEPH

observed in the village of Yusfiyyi, in Mount Lebanon. No doubt the very strong and loving relationship of Samer and his two sisters and the strong leadership of their mother were at work.

Conclusions David M. Schneider famously observed that all kinship is culturally constructed. The category of kinship, as a sphere distinct from the economic and political and religious, is itself a relatively recent construct in human history (Schneider 1968). As powerful as the social pressure is to naturalize kinship, it is useful to reassert that all kinship is constructed, is historically situated, contested, and fluidly adapting to time, place, and personas. As “natural” as categorical thinking presents itself to be, it is useful to reassert that among the most constructed of all categories is that of kinship. Categories of kinship become even more powerful through the sanctions of the state and religion. Laws institutionalize and mobilize the force of the state behind claims of who gets to be called a mother or father or sister or brother; who can marry whom based on kinship; who inherits from whom on the basis of kinship; what tax benefits accrue on the basis of kinship; what citizenship one has access to on the basis of kinship. Religions give divine moral justifications to the answers to these questions and often have the force of law behind them. It is not an accident that among the powerful of categories that are mobilized to indicate intimacy and solidarity in work and politics and social engagements are the categories of “brother” and “sister”. It is not an accident that in Arabic, that when a person is in pain or anguish, the common utterance, perhaps a call, is “akh” which means “brother”. It is not an accident that worker movements of all sorts, political movements of all sorts and anti-establishment movements of all sorts, including feminist movements, have used the language of brotherhood and sisterhood to evoke commitment to each other and to their shared cause—trade union brotherhoods (google trade union brotherhood for endless lists), soldiers on the battlefront, sports teams, idiomatic family groupings in prisons, Sisters-in Islam (https://www.facebook.com/officialSIS), Sisterhood is Powerful (Morgan 1970), on and on. It is not an accident that in the twenty-first century, following decades and centuries of radical transformations and ideologies of revolution, the most powerful idioms of bonding are the idioms of kinship (what I have called idiomatic kinship

6

BROTHERS AND SISTERS, HUSBANDS AND WIVES …

119

(Joseph 1999b))—brother, sister, uncle, aunt, mother, father—and the most life-long lasting of these are “brother” and “sister”. Arab brother/sister relations are as constructed as brother/sister relationships in any society at any time and as situational and contested. Perhaps power penetrates Arab brother/sister relations as they are infused with patriarchal connectivity. In long-lived lives, it is the brother who is expected to be the protector of the sister (whether he does so empirically or not). In long-lived lives, it is the sister who is expected to love and care for the brother (whether she does so empirically or not). In his late 60s in 2020, Hanna still looked out for his sisters and their children (and those of his brothers). Madlaine and Sawsan took care of their brothers through their dying days. Eva never stopped reaching out to her brothers, even in the most bitter of their disputes—and their anger eventually softened. Samer shouldered responsibilities for sisters and brothers and their children, even when rebuffed. Some brothers do not. Some sisters do not. The fact that so many do, transports the power of Arab brother/sister relationships into the twenty-first era of epidemic wars in the Arab region, explosions of refugee populations, massive transnational migrations, global pandemics, bank failures, collapsed economies, and states which falter or become more authoritarian. In this historical moment, many, so many brothers do and many, so many sisters do.

References Adely, F. (2016). “A Different Kind of Love: Compatibility (Insijam) and Marriage in Jordan.” Arab Studies Journal 24. 2. 102–127. Altorki, S. (2003). “Sisterhood and Stewardship in Sister-Brother Relations in Saudi Arabia.” In The New Arab Family, ed. by N. S. Hopkins. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press. Pp. 180–200. Collier, J. F. and Yanagisako, S. J. (1987). “Toward a Unified Analysis of Gender and Kinship.” In Gender and Kinship. Essays Toward a Unified Analysis, ed. by J. F. Collier and S. J. Yanagisako. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Dahlgren, S. (2008). “Introduction: The Middle Eastern Family Revisited.” Hawwa 6. 1. 1–11. Doumani, B. (2003). Ed. Family History in the Middle East: Household, Property and Gender. Albany: State University of New York Press. Dwairy, M., Mustafa A., Abouserie, R., Farah, A., Sakhleh, A., Fayad, M. and Khan., H. K. (2006). “Parenting Styles in Arab Societies–A first Cross-Regional Research Study.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 37. 3. 230–247.

120

S. JOSEPH

Fabos, A. H. (2010). Brothers or Others? Prosperity and Gender for Muslim Arab Sudanese. Oxford, UK: Berghahn. Ghannam, F. (2013). Life and Die Like a Man; Gender Dynamics in Urban Egypt. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press. Hopkins, N. S. (2003). Ed. The New Arab Family. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. Joseph, S. (1994). “Brother/Sister Relationships: Connectivity, Love and Power in the Reproduction of Arab Patriarchy.” American Ethnologist 21. 1 (Feb.). 50–73. Joseph, S. (1999a). Ed. Intimate Selving in Arab Families: Gender, Self and Identity. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press. Joseph, S. (1999b). Ed. “Introduction. Theories and Dynamics of Gender, Self, and Identity in Arab Families.” In Intimate Selving in Arab Families: Gender, Self and Identity, ed. by Suad Joseph. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press. Pp 1–20. Joseph, S. (2003). “Among Brothers: Patriarchal Connective Mirroring and Brotherly Deference in Lebanon.” In The New Arab Family, ed. by N. Hopkins. Cairo: The Cairo Papers in Social Science. 241. 2 (Spring/Summer). 165–179. Joseph, S. (2018a), Ed. Arab Family Studies: Critical Reviews. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press. Joseph, S. (2018b). “Gender, Intersectionality, and the Arab Renaissance.” Presented at conference on Arab Renaissance for Democracy and Development (April 25–26). Amman, Jordan. Joseph, S. (2019). “Categorical Thinking.” Economic and Social Commission for West Asia (ESCWA). United Nations. Beirut. January 16. Morgan, R. (1970). Sisterhood is Powerful. An Anthology of Writings from the Women’s Liberation Movement. New York: Vintage Books. Muhanna, A. (2013). Agency and Gender in Gaza: Masculinity, Femininity and Family During the Second Intifada. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing. Nahleh, A. L. (2006). “Six Families. Survival and Mobility in Times of Crisis in Living Palestine: Family, Survival, Resistance and Mobility Under Occupation.” In Living Palestine: Family Survival, Resistance, and Mobility Under Occupation, ed. by Lisa Taraki. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press. Nuweihed, J. S. (2002). Abu Jmeel’s Daughter and Other Stories. Arab Folk Tales from Palestine and Lebanon. Retold by Jamal Sleem Nuweihed. New York: Interlink Books. Rabho, L. A. (2015). “‘My Mother-in-Law Ruined My Life’: The Jealous Mother-in-Law and the Empowerment of Palestinian Women.” Contemporary Islam 9. 3. 455–470. Rabo, A. (2008). “‘Doing Family’: Two Cases in Contemporary Syria.” Hawwa 6. 2. 129–153.

6

BROTHERS AND SISTERS, HUSBANDS AND WIVES …

121

Salamandra, C. (2006). “Chastity Capital: Hierarchy and Distinction in Damascus.” In Sexuality in the Arab World, ed. by Samir Khalaf and John Gagnon. London: Saqi Books. Pp. 152–162. Scheherazade. (1999). “My Sister Isabelle.” In Intimate Selving in Arab Families. Gender, Self, and Identity, ed. by Suad Joseph. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press. Schneider, D. M. (1968). American Kinship: A Cultural Account. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Yount, K. M. and Hoda Rashad, H. (2008). Eds. Family in the Middle East. Ideational Change in Egypt, Iran, and Tunisia. New York: Routledge.

PART III

Sibling Relationships in Adolescence

CHAPTER 7

Sibling Relationships in Adolescence Across Cultures: Predictors, Transitions, and Support Avidan Milevsky

Introduction Over the past several decades developmental and clinical researchers have experienced an ascendancy of multidisciplinary and cross-cultural research on sibling relationships. This interest has been driven by a reexamination of socialization dynamics (Magnusson 1998; Magnusson and Stattin 1998) which has impacted developmental research, family dynamics studies, and clinical practice (Milevsky 2016). In the field of developmental science, multiple lines of research emanating from post-attachment theories have emphasized the importance of multiple support providers within the overall social network system (Levitt 1991; Levitt et al. 1993). This focus extends beyond the original devotion to the mother-child dyad, which was at the forefront of psychodynamic and attachment-based theories, drawing attention to the importance of multiple support providers for lifespan socialization including fathers, grandparents, and extended family. This emergent focus has furthered and

A. Milevsky (B) Department of Behavioral Sciences, Ariel University, Ariel, Israel e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2021 A. Buchanan and A. Rotkirch (eds.), Brothers and Sisters, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55985-4_7

125

126

A. MILEVSKY

encouraged research on the unique significance of siblings throughout the lifespan (Milevsky 2011). In the field of family dynamics many of the family system theories stipulate a unique role for the sibling relationship in individual and family functioning. For example, system theory’s focus on family boundaries contain a unique role for the sibling subsystem and its part in assisting the overall formation of healthy and adaptive family dynamics (Minuchin 1974, 1981). A robust sibling relationship can create a family subsystem which assists in solidifying a vigorous boundary between children and parents. For a more exhaustive examination of the role of siblings within family system theories see Milevsky (2016). Hence, over the past several decades a growing emphasis on multiple aspects of the sibling relationship has developed with both research and applied consequences.

The Significance of Siblings in Adolescence Although sibling relationships have been found to play a significant role throughout the lifespan siblings maintain a unique and inimitable prominence in the lives of adolescents. First, the natural developmental process of identity formation which is a keystone of the adolescent experience provides the infrastructure for siblings to be involved in substantial manners. As adolescents attempt to navigate the formation of a personal identity, removed from parental influence, siblings often take on a principal locus (Wong et al. 2010). For example, older siblings may serve as a model used by adolescents as they carve out their own unique identity. Alternatively, the unique role of siblings can be seen in adolescent deidentification which is a process where adolescents may choose a different path from an older sibling in order to develop a unique identity and minimize sibling rivalry (Schachter et al. 1976, 1978; Tesser 1980). Although leading to different paths, both modelling and deidentification theory highlight the power of the sibling relationship unique to the adolescent stage of life. An additional process that underlies the adolescent experience with significant sibling-based features is the re-examination and restructuring of social dynamics during the transition to, and from, adolescence (Bongers et al. 2003). Shifts in alliances involving parental relationships and friendships provide a unique opportunity for siblings to offer

7

SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS IN ADOLESCENCE ACROSS CULTURES …

127

compensatory support during this socially tumultuous chapter. Furthermore, studies indicate that adolescents may turn to siblings for dating advice as they navigate the complex new reality of romantic involvement (Buhrmester 1992; Kim et al. 2006). Considering the potency of the sibling relationship during the adolescent years an independent and unique focus of the predictors and outcomes of sibling relationships during this transitory developmental phase is necessary to further our understanding of broader lifespan socialization.

Predictors of Sibling Relationship Quality During the relatively short history of the study of sibling relationships two main areas of investigation have developed relating to the predictors of sibling relationship quality in adolescence. The first is on the manner family constellation variables or structural variables impact the relationship developed between siblings. These variables refer mainly to how gender and age composition of siblings within the family impact outcome. A second area of focus is on how family interactions and ecological variables impact sibling relationship quality. Family Constellation Variables and Sibling Relationship Quality Research on the association between constellation variables and sibling relationship quality is nested within a broader literature on how constellation variables impact broader psychological outcomes including intelligence, personality, and well-being. The earliest attempt at quantifying this association was undertaken by the nineteenth century English scientist and statistician Sir Francis Galton. In one of his many scientific observations he noted that firstborn were disproportionately represented in the membership of the Royal Society (Sulloway 2007). Since this early observation, thousands of empirical studies have been published linking sibling constellation variables with cognitive, social, and emotional outcomes most notably the finding that firstborns score higher on IQ tests than siblings in other birth positions (Blanchard 2004; Healey and Ellis 2007; Wichman et al. 2006). These family constellation variables have also been found to impact sibling relationship quality (Buhrmester 1992; Furman and Lanthier 1996; Minnett et al. 1983). Sibling dyad constellations can vary in many

128

A. MILEVSKY

interactive manners including gender, age, sibship position, gender tilting of the family, and size of sibship. Considering the many arrangements that can exist based on these constellation variables and considering the interactions possible between these variables exhaustive studies that assess sibling constellation variables systemically are difficult to conduct do to methodological and statistical complexities. However, several studies have assessed components of these constellation variables in adolescence including age and age spacing, birth order, gender, family size, and overall gender tilting of the family. The transition from childhood to adolescence is marked by two distinct sibling-based changes. First, as adolescents begin to develop greater intimacy with friends, their relationships with siblings acquire a more indifferent and isolated style (Milevsky 2011). Furthermore, relationship quality as a function of age-gap is also impacted by developmental transitions. Whereas studies on children indicate that siblings closer in age have greater warmth in their interactions in comparison to exchanges between sibling with larger age-gaps, during the adolescent years smaller age-gaps have been associated with more contentious relationships in comparison to adolescent sibling relationships with larger age-gaps (Milevsky 2005). This finding may be driven by deidentification processes trigger during the adolescent years. As noted in the introduction, the natural socioemotional process of identity development may trigger sibling alienation as they attempt to develop a unique identity removed from sibling influence (McHale et al. 2001). This process may be more potent for siblings similar in age and hence more susceptible to comparisons. Sibling deidentification dynamics may also play a role in the way birth order impacts sibling relationship quality. Studies indicate that firstborn and second-born children develop a combative relationship greater than the contention found between firstborn and third-born children. This birth order effect is particularly distinct during the Adolescent years. What may underlie these findings are interactions between deidentification and modelling processes. Although when viewed superficially these two processes may suggest competing outcomes where deidentification may produce differences between siblings and modelling triggers similarities (Dolgin and Lindsay 1999; Milevsky 2005). However, when these two dynamics combine particularly during adolescence the product may settle divergent expectation. First- and second-born siblings may experience deidentification processes triggered by comparisons between the first two children in the family. As noted, the need to avoid comparisons and

7

SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS IN ADOLESCENCE ACROSS CULTURES …

129

develop a unique sense of self is particularly distinct during adolescence, a time of personal identity exploration. However, a third sibling in the family experiences less comparisons to the firstborn and hence they may be more likely to look up to their oldest sibling and view their sibling as a model. Although age, age spacing, and birth order are found to play differing roles during the transition from childhood to adolescence, gender is one variable with consistent findings across developmental stages (Hetherington 1988, 1989). Studies indicate that females report stronger bonds between siblings in comparison to males. Sisters have been found to be more compassionate and supportive in their sibling relationships in comparison to brothers (Buhrmester 1992; Milevsky 2005). Additionally, more conflict is found between male siblings than female siblings. Although these findings are consistent across development, studies that interact age and gender indicate that greater sibling warmth between female siblings is particularly distinct in late adolescence (Milevsky et al. 2007). An additional gender-based sibling finding suggests that opposite-sex dyads engage in more conflict than same-sex dyads (Dunn and Kendrick 1982). Finally, studies indicate that the least intimate dyad is the older brother/younger sister constellation (Dunn et al. 1994). Sibling relationship quality has been suggested to vary as a function of family size as well. However, research findings have been mixed. On the one hand, based on the theoretical proposition of Rosenberg (1982), several studies have found closer sibling relationships in larger families. Power is diversified more evenly in larger families which reduces sibling tension and conflict. Furthermore, larger families may offer siblings multiple options for sibling interactions contributing to closer sibling dynamics throughout the system. An additional positive feature of large families is a sense of group orientation which furthers sibling warmth, support, and interdependence (Bat-Chava and Martin 2002; Riggio 2006; Wagner et al. 1985). On the contrary, children in larger families may need to compete over limited parental resources (Goodwin and Roscoe 1990; Newman 1991). Siblings may develop a rivalry over parental time and favouritism. However, as adolescents develop close relationships with friends, minimizing time spent with parents overall, the impact of sibling competition for parental resources may be diminished. As a result, the negative features of large families and sibling competition over parental resources may be diminished during the adolescent years (Milevsky 2005).

130

A. MILEVSKY

Families with only two children are at a particular disadvantage. Newman (1991, 1996) suggests that in two-sibling families all negative sibling feelings are directed towards one target. Furthermore, in such families the older siblings’ power role is permanent furthering the discontent of the younger sibling. The second child never has the opportunity to exude power over a younger sibling. A final sibling constellation variable that may impact sibling relationship quality is the gender tilting of the family. Although not researched extensively, studies indicate that families with more girls may produce warmth and support among siblings throughout the sibling network. On the other hand, male-tilted sibships may result in male-type interactions within the entire family which includes greater competition and hostility (Falconer and Ross 1988; Falconer et al. 1990). Hence, opposite from the majority gendered siblings take on sibling interactive characteristics similar to the majority gendered siblings. Family Interactions, Ecological Variables, and Sibling Relationship Quality Over the course of the short history of the study of sibling relationships studies focused on the predictors of sibling relationship quality have primarily concentrated on the above-mentioned family constellation variables. However, as our understanding of family interactive dynamics expanded and as statistical tools that allow for analyzing multiple data reports over time became more sophisticated recent literature has focused on family interactive characteristics and how they impact the development of sibling relationships. An additional focus has also been on various ecological variables that may impact sibling relationship quality. Concerning family interactive features and sibling relationship quality, the literature primarily focuses on two ways in which parents impact the relationship developed between their adolescent children. First, parents may impact the relationship develop between siblings indirectly via the type of relationship that exists between the parents (Ruff et al. 2017). Driven by Modeling Theory (Bandura 1962), children in the family look at their parents and their relationship as a model for their own social engagement. Studies indicate that marital satisfaction is positively associated with closeness between siblings. Parental divorce, on the other hand, has been found to be associated with conflict among siblings (Milevsky 2004).

7

SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS IN ADOLESCENCE ACROSS CULTURES …

131

An additional way parents indirectly impact sibling relationship quality is via the parenting styles they employ. Parenting styles creates a familial atmosphere that may support close sibling interactions. Empirical studies on parenting styles offer a typology based on specific parental behaviours. Driven by the original work of Baumrind (1971), parenting styles have been categorized into a four-fold classification emanating from two dimensions, demandingness and responsiveness. Demandingness refers to parental insistence on specific, steadfast demands from children relating to appropriate behaviour including family chores, school work, and social engagement. Responsiveness, on the other hand, refers to parental behaviours that highlight responding to the needs of children which include conveying warmth and understanding. Parents exhibiting both of these features are referred to as authoritative. Parents exhibiting high levels of demandingness but low levels of responsiveness are known as authoritarian parents. Parents exhibiting high levels of responsiveness but low levels of demandingness are referred to as permissive parents. And parents employing low level of both dimensions are referred to as neglectful parents (Maccoby and Martin 1983). In addition to the many cognitive and socioemotional advantages of authoritative parenting, sibling warmth is also found in families using this hearty combination of demandingness and responsiveness (Milevsky et al. 2011). Parents may also impact sibling relationship quality in adolescence directly via parental favouritism and the way in which they intervene during sibling fighting. These parenting behaviours are referred to as direct effects considering that these are behaviours that parents are deliberately engaged in attempting to influence the sibling relationship directly. Adolescents reporting high levels of parental favouritism report greater tension in their sibling relationship. Furthermore, retrospective studies on perceptions of parental favouritism in childhood have also been found to relate to sibling relationship quality in adolescence (Jensen et al. 2013). The manner in which parents intervene during sibling discord is an additional way in which parental behaviours impact sibling relationship quality directly. When siblings fight studies indicate that parents intervene in one of three matters. First, they may consciously decide not to get involved, in a style referred to as non-involvement. They may decide to punish the quarrelling siblings, in a style refer to as intervention. And finally they may choose to assist the siblings in understanding each other’s perspective, in a style refer to as coaching. Studies indicate

132

A. MILEVSKY

that in childhood coaching may be associated with sibling relationship warmth. This finding may be driven by the fact that at younger ages children still need guidance in navigating the social dynamics of sibling exchanges. On the other hand, as children reach adolescence, which includes a greater understanding of social norms and interactions, parental coaching may be seen by adolescents as parental overreach producing negative outcomes (Milevsky et al. 2011). Hence, during the adolescent years non-involvement has been shown to be associated with better relationships among siblings. Beyond family dynamics, several other ecological characteristics may impact sibling relations. For example, socio-economic status may be related to sibling relationship quality (Duncan and Yeung 1995; Zukow 2002). For example, in a study on economic condition and sibling relationship quality in adolescence, Milevsky (2005) found that participants reared in families with greater problems paying for essentials reported less sibling communication and more sibling conflict in comparison to those raised in families without difficulties in paying for life’s essentials. The tension produced due to the family’s economic situation may trickle down throughout the family system creating tension in the sibling subsystem as well (McLoyd 1989). An additional ecological characteristic that may impact sibling relationship quality is religiosity. Studies indicate that relationships among siblings are warmer in families who self-report being more religious (Milevsky 2005). Finally, and most distinctly, are studies that focus on cultural variations in sibling dynamics. Overall, studies suggest that in collectivistic societies, which emphasized the importance of the collective and familism, sibling relationships are found to be more supportive in comparison to the sibling relationships in individualistic societies (Buist et al. 2017). Beyond comparisons based on sibling relationship quality, studies have also focused on the unique role played by siblings across cultures (Crocetti and Meeus 2014; Zukow 1989). For example, in cultures with larger families, older siblings often take on a parental role in tending to the needs of younger siblings. This occurs as a reaction to the many necessities of children in large family coupled with economic strain and the need for parents to work multiple jobs. An additional interesting variation in sibling dynamics can be found in immigrant communities where parents lack language abilities in the host countries and rely on older children to serve as mediators between themselves and the larger culture (Zukow

7

SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS IN ADOLESCENCE ACROSS CULTURES …

133

2002). For example, parents may utilize the language skills of their children as they try to engage in simple tasks including daily purchases and banking. This responsibility bestowed upon older siblings offers them a unique role within the family and is respected by younger siblings in the family. The range of structural variables, family processes, and ecological variables that coalesce to influence sibling relationship quality highlight the complexity of mapping and predicting the course of sibling relationships during adolescence. The interactive process between these variables must also be taken into account considering studies that indicate that family process may impact outcomes differently based on the age and gender of the siblings (McGuire et al. 2000; Vandell et al. 1987). For example, Milevsky (2005) found that girls react differently than boys to parental intervention styles in sibling disputes. These collaborative processes must be assesses in future research on the predictors of sibling relationship quality in adolescence.

Outcomes of Sibling Relationship Quality Closeness and warmth among siblings has been found to be associated with multiple psychological benefits throughout the lifespan. In childhood sibling relationship quality has been associated with academic success and socio-emotional understanding (Downey and Condron 2004; Kramer and Kowal 2005). In adulthood studies indicate that those with a close sibling bond are able to respond to life adversities in healthier manners than those without sibling support (Cicirelli 1995). Successful ageing has also been linked with close sibling relationships (Cicirelli 1991). Particularly during the adolescent years, a time of heightened psychological and emotional turmoil, it is noteworthy that sibling relationship quality has been found to ameliorate some of the adolescent tumult. Studies indicate that adolescents scoring high on sibling warmth report lower levels of both internalizing and externalizing problems (Branje et al. 2004; Harper et al. 2016; Moser and Jacob 2002; Richmond et al. 2005; Yeh and Lempers 2004). Beyond minimization of difficulties, studies have also indicated that adolescents with close sibling relationships score higher on academic achievement and self-esteem indices (Milevsky and Levitt 2005).

134

A. MILEVSKY

In addition to the benefits of sibling relationship quality in normative samples, studies have also suggested that closeness among siblings can serve as a buffer for adolescents experiencing ecological risk. For example, studies have shown that sibling closeness may serve as a buffer for adolescents experiencing neighbourhood risk, family distress including marital hostility and divorce, living in single-parent homes, and foster care placement (East and Khoo 2005; Lockwood et al. 2002; Milevsky and Levitt 2005; Mota and Matos 2015; Sandler 1980; Vondra et al. 1999). In fact, the growing clinical trends of incorporating siblings in intervention treatments for adolescents under ecological risk is further evidence for the potential benefits of sibling support particularly for adolescents experiencing distress (Linares et al. 2007; Milevsky 2016). Finally, a growing literature has also suggested that during adolescence siblings may compensate for the lack of both parental and friends support. Although siblings may not offer complete compensation, which would occur when adolescents with only sibling support are doing just as well psychologically as of those with both sibling and parent/friend support, studies have found partial compensation of sibling support, which is when adolescents may be at a disadvantage by not having parent/friend support but are doing better psychologically than those who lack both parent/friend and sibling support (Milevsky 2005; Milevsky and Levitt 2005). For further analysis of full versus partial compensation and sibling support please see Milevsky (2011).

Limitations and Future Direction Research on the predictors and outcomes of sibling relationship quality is plagued with various limitations. First, the majority of studies on siblings utilize information from only one member of the sibship. In order to truly assess the interactive nature of sibling relationships multiple data sources should be assess in future research on sibling relationships. Furthermore, studies on the outcome of sibling relationship quality are beleaguered by the direction-of-effects challenge. It is possible that psychological wellbeing is a function of sibling relationship quality. However, the opposite may be true as well. Adolescents with better psychological outcomes may be more likely to develop closer relationships among siblings. This direction-of-effects issue must be taken into account in future research on adolescent sibling relationships.

7

SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS IN ADOLESCENCE ACROSS CULTURES …

135

Over the past several decades a sluggish and mounting area of research within lifespan socialization dynamics has highlighted the crucial role played by siblings throughout life. It is important that this focus continues considering that in many ways both empirically and in practice the importance of sibling relationships has been neglected. Beyond the limited research focused on siblings, in many clinical settings the utilization of siblings in therapy is limited and is used as a tangent to family therapy without a unique focus on the potential of siblings to offer an important avenue of therapeutic outcome. Furthermore, this applied neglect can be seen in social services as well. Agencies that attend to families with children with special needs offer little in the alleviation of the difficult experience of well siblings of children with disabilities. In services for foster and adoptive families emphasis is needed in highlighting the importance of the sibling unit in placement and post-permanency discussions. Studies indicate that sibling support during these difficult transitions can help foster and adoptive children transition into their new home environment in healthier ways (Maguire-Pavao et al. 2007). Research and applied work on sibling relationships across the board can begin to remedy this chronic neglect of a most crucial relationship.

References Blanchard, R. (2004). Quantitative and theoretical analyses of the relation between older brothers and homosexuality in men. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 230, 173–187. Bandura, A. (1962). Social learning through imitation. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 10, pp. 211–274). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Bat-Chava, Y., & Martin, D. (2002). Sibling relationships of deaf children: The impact of child and family characteristics. Rehabilitation Psychology, 47 , 73– 91. Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monographs, 4, Part 1. Bongers, I. L., Koot, H. M., van der Ende, J., & Verhulst, F. C. (2003). The normative development of child and adolescent problem behavior. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 179–192. Branje, S., van Lieshout, C., Van Aken, M., & Haselager, G. (2004). Perceived support in sibling relationships and adolescent adjustment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 1385–1396.

136

A. MILEVSKY

Buhrmester, D. (1992). The developmental courses of sibling and peer relationships. In F. Boer & J. Dunn (Eds.), Children’s sibling relationships: Developmental and clinical issues (pp. 19–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Buist, K. L., Metindogan, A., Coban, S., Watve, S., Paranjpe, A., Koot, H. M., van Lier, P., Branje, S. J. T., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2017). Cross-cultural differences in sibling power balance and its concomitants across three age periods. In N. Campione-Barr (Ed.), Power, control, and influence in sibling relationships across development. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 156, 87–104. Cicirelli, V. G. (1991). Sibling relationships in adulthood. Marriage and Family Review, 16, 291–310. Cicirelli, V. G. (1995). Sibling relationships across the life span. New York: Plenum Press. Crocetti, E., & Meeus, W. (2014). “Family comes first!” Relationships with family and friends in Italian emerging adults. Journal of Adolescence, 37 , 1463–1473. Dolgin, K. G., & Lindsay K. R. (1999). Disclosure between college students and their siblings. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 393–400. Downey, D. B., & Condron, D. J. (2004). Playing well with others in kindergarten: The benefit of siblings at home. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 333–350. Duncan, G. J., & Yeung, W. J. (1995). Extent and consequences of welfare dependence among America’s children. Children and Youth Services Review, 17 , 157–182. Dunn, J., & Kendrick, C. (1982). Sibling: Love, envy, and understanding. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Dunn, J., Slomkowski, C., & Beardsall, L. (1994). Sibling relationships from the preschool period through middle childhood and early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 30, 315–324. East, P. L., & Khoo, S. (2005). Longitudinal pathways linking family factors and sibling relationship qualities to adolescent substance use and sexual risk behaviors. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 571–580. Falconer, C. W., & Ross, C. A. (1988). The tilted family. In M. D. Kahn & K. G. Lewis (Eds.), Siblings in therapy: Life span and clinical issues (pp. 273–296). New York: W. W. Norton. Falconer, C. W., Wilson, K. G., & Falconer, J. (1990). A psychometric investigation of gender-tilted families: Implications for family therapy. Family Relations, 39(1), 8–13. Furman, W., & Lanthier, R. (1996). Personality and sibling relationships. In G. H. Brody (Ed.), Sibling relationships: Their causes and consequences (pp. 127– 146). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.

7

SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS IN ADOLESCENCE ACROSS CULTURES …

137

Goodwin, M., & Roscoe, B. (1990). Sibling violence and agonistic interactions among middle adolescents. Adolescence, 25, 451–467. Harper, J. M., Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Jensen, A. (2016). Do siblings matter independent of both parents and friends? Sympathy as a mediator between sibling relationship quality and adolescent outcomes. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 26, 101–114. Healey, M. D., & Ellis, B. J. (2007). Birth order, conscientiousness, and openness to experience: Tests of the family-niche model of personality using a withinfamily methodology. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 55–59. Hetherington, E. M. (1988). Parents, children and siblings: Six years after divorce. In R. A. Hinde & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Relationships within families: Mutual influences (pp. 311–331). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hetherington, E. M. (1989). Coping with family transition: Winners, losers, and survivors. Child Development, 60, 1–14. Jensen, A. C., Whiteman, S. D., Fingerman, K. L., & Birditt, K. S. (2013). ‘Life still isn’t fair’: Parental differential treatment of young adult siblings. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75, 438–452. Kim, J., McHale, S., Osgood, D., & Crouter, A. (2006). Longitudinal course and family correlates of sibling relationships from childhood through adolescence. Child Development, 77 , 1746–1761. Kramer, L., & Kowal, A. K. (2005) Sibling relationship quality from birth to adolescence: The enduring contributions of friends. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 503–511. Levitt, M. J. (1991). Attachment and close relationships: A life-span perspective. In J. L. Gewirtz & W. M. Kurtines (Eds.), Intersections with attachment (pp. 183–205). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Levitt, M. J., Guacci-Franco, N., & Levitt, J. L. (1993). Convoys of social support in childhood and early adolescence: Structure and function. Developmental Psychology, 29, 811–818. Linares, L. O., Li, M., Shrout, P., Brody, G., & Pettit, G. (2007). Placement shift, sibling relationship quality, and child outcomes in foster care: A controlled study. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 736–743. Lockwood, R., Gaylord, N., Kitzmann, K., & Cohen, R. (2002). Family stress and children’s rejection by peers: Do siblings provide a buffer? Journal of Child & Family Studies, 11, 331–345. Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (4th ed., Vol. 4, pp. 1–101). New York: Wiley. Magnusson, D. (1998). The logic and implications of a person approach. In R. B. Cairns, L. R. Bergman, & J. Kagan (Eds.), Methods and models for studying the individual (pp. 33–63). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

138

A. MILEVSKY

Magnusson, D., & Stattin, H. (1998). Person-context interaction theories. In Lerner, R. M. (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development (Vol. 1, pp. 685–760). New York: Wiley. Maguire-Pavao, J., St. John, M., Ford-Cannole, R., Fischer, T., Maluccio, A., & Peining, S. (2007). Sibling kinnections: A clinical visitation program. Child Welfare, 86, 13–30. McGuire, S., Manke, B., Eftekhari, A., & Dunn, J. (2000). Children’s perceptions of sibling conflict during middle childhood: Issues and sibling (dis)similarity. Social Development, 9, 173–190. McHale, S. M., Updegraff, K. A., Helms-Erikson, H., & Crouter, A. C. (2001). Sibling influences on gender development in middle childhood and early adolescence: A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 37 , 115–125. McLoyd, V. C. (1989). Socialization and development in a changing economy: The effects of paternal job and income loss on children. American Psychologist, 44, 293–302. Milevsky, A. (2004) Perceived parental marital satisfaction and divorce: Effects on sibling relations in emerging adults. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 41, 115–128. Milevsky, A. (2005). Compensatory patterns of sibling support in emerging adulthood: Variations in loneliness, self-esteem, depression and life satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 743–755. Milevsky, A. (2011). Sibling relationships in childhood and adolescence: Predictors and outcomes. New York: Columbia University Press. Milevsky, A. (2016). Sibling issues in therapy: Research and practice with children, adolescents, and adults. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Milevsky, A., & Levitt, M. J. (2005). Sibling support in early adolescence: Buffering and compensation across relationships. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 2, 299–320. Milevsky, A., Schlechter, M. J., & Machlev, M. (2011). Effects of parenting style and involvement in sibling conflict on adolescent sibling relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 1130–1148. Milevsky, A., Schlechter, M. J., Netter, S. A., & Keehn, D. (2007). Maternal and paternal parenting styles in adolescents: Associations with self-esteem, depression and life-satisfaction. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16, 39–47. Minnett, A. M., Vandell, D. L., & Santrock, J. W. (1983). The effects of sibling status on sibling interaction: Influence of birth order, age spacing, sex of child, and sex of sibling. Child Development, 54, 1064–1072. Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. London: Tavistock. Minuchin, S. (1981). Family therapy techniques. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

7

SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS IN ADOLESCENCE ACROSS CULTURES …

139

Moser, R. P., & Jacob, T. (2002). Parental and sibling effects in adolescent outcomes. Psychological Reports, 91, 463–479. Mota, C. P., & Matos, P. M. (2015). Does sibling relationship matter to selfconcept and resilience in institutionalized adolescents? Child and Youth Service Review, 56, 97–106. Newman, J. (1991). College students’ relationships with siblings. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 20, 629–645. Newman, J. (1996). The more the merrier? Effects of family size and sibling spacing on sibling relationships. Child: Care, Health, and Development, 22, 285–302. Richmond, M. K., Stocker, C. M., & Rienks, S. L. (2005). Longitudinal associations between sibling relationship quality, parental differential treatment, and children’s adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 550–559. Riggio, H. R. (2006). Relationships in young adulthood structural features of sibling dyads and attitudes toward sibling. Journal of Family Issues, 27 , 1233– 1254. Rosenberg, B. G. (1982). Lifespan personality stability in sibling status. In M. E. Lamb & B. Sutton-Smith (Eds.), Sibling relationships: Their nature and significance across the lifespan (pp. 167–224). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ruff, S. C., Durtschi, J. A., & Day, R. D. (2017). Family subsystems predicting adolescents’ perceptions of sibling relationship quality over time. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 44, 527–542. Sandler, I. N. (1980). Social support resources, stress, and maladjustment of poor children. American Journal of Community Psychology, 8, 41–52. Schachter, F. F., Gilutz, G., Shore, E., & Adler, M. (1978). Sibling deidentification judged by mothers: Cross-validation and developmental studies. Child Development, 49, 543–546. Schachter, F. F., Shore, E., Feldman-Rotman, S., Marquis, R. E., & Campbell, S. (1976). Sibling deidentification. Developmental Psychology, 12, 418–427. Sulloway, F. J. (2007). Birth order. In C. Salmon & T. Shackelford (Eds.), Evolutionary family psychology (pp. 162–182). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tesser, A. (1980). Self-esteem maintenance in family dynamics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 77–91. Vandell, D. L., Minnett, A. M., & Santrock, J. W. (1987). Age differences in sibling relationships during middle childhood. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 8, 247–257. Vondra, J. I., Shaw, D. S., Swearingen, L., Cohen, M., & Owens, E. B. (1999). Early relationship quality from home to school: A longitudinal study. Early Education and Development, 10, 163–190.

140

A. MILEVSKY

Wagner, M. E., Schubert, H., & Schubert, D. S. (1985). Effects of sibling spacing on intelligence, interfamilial relations, psychosocial characteristics, and mental and physical health. In H. W. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (pp. 149–206). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Wichman, A. L., Rodgers, J. L., & MacCallum, R. C. (2006). A multilevel approach to the relationship between birth order and intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 117–127. Wong, T. M. L., Branje, S. J. T., VanderValk, I. E., Hawk, S. T., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2010). The role of siblings in identity development in adolescence and emerging adulthood. Journal of Adolescence, 33, 673–682. Yeh, H., & Lempers, J. (2004). Perceived sibling relationships and adolescent development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33, 133–147. Zukow, P. G. (1989). Sibling interaction across cultures: Theoretical and methodological issues. New York: Springer-Verlag. Zukow, P. G. (2002). Sibling caregiving. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 3: Being and becoming a parent (2nd ed., pp. 253–286). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

CHAPTER 8

Sibling Support: The Reports of Israeli Adolescents in Residential Care Shalhevet Attar-Schwartz

Introduction Social support has been strongly linked to resilience and ability to cope among adolescents (Berns 2012) and is especially important for vulnerable youth (Demaray and Malecki 2002). Youth in out-of-home settings, living apart from their biological families, are typically at higher risk for low social support (e.g., Perry 2006). Relationships with siblings are among the longestlasting and most prevalent relationships individuals have in their lives and can be a valuable source of support for children and youth living out of home. However, research on social support among young people in care is limited and focuses mainly on parents (e.g. Small et al. 2015) while downplaying alternative sources of support, such as siblings. The study presented in this chapter encompasses a sample of 864 adolescents residing in educational residential care settings in Israel designed for youth from underprivileged backgrounds. The study aimed to examine

S. Attar-Schwartz (B) Paul Baerwald School of Social Work and Social Welfare, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2021 A. Buchanan and A. Rotkirch (eds.), Brothers and Sisters, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55985-4_8

141

142

S. ATTAR-SCHWARTZ

the extent of sibling support reported by the adolescents and to compare it to other sources of support in the adolescents’ life. It also explored the link between sibling support and a variety of emotional, behavioural and social difficulties as well as positive outcomes, including prosocial behaviours and life satisfaction, of young people in care. There are two main types of residential care settings for children and youth in Israel. The first, supervised by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Services, is treatment-oriented and is designed for children at risk who have been removed from their parents’ homes, mainly due to parental maltreatment. The second type, which the current chapter focuses on, is education-oriented and is overseen by the Ministry of Education, designed mainly for youth from underprivileged backgrounds. Placement in educational residential care settings is usually initiated by the parents, in the hope of providing their children with a better education and improving their life chances. A high percentage of youth in educational residential care settings come from divorced, immigrant families and low socioeconomic backgrounds (Grupper 2012). Sibling Relationships Among Children and Youth in Out-of-Home Settings While most of the literature on the relationships of children in care focuses on their parents, especially their mothers (see for review, Pinchover and Attar-Schwartz 2018; Attar-Schwartz and Fridman-Teutsch 2018), there is evidence that other family support providers should also be taken into account. In recent decades there has been a growing awareness among professionals and policy makers of the importance of sibling relationships in out-of-home care (Miron et al. 2013). A large share of the existing literature has focused on the question of under what circumstances children and their siblings should be placed together in out-of-home care (Shlonsky et al. 2005). Studies have emphasized the advantages of joint placement of siblings in out-of-home care to their well-being (e.g., Gass et al. 2007; Waid 2014; Shlonsky et al. 2003) in cases that do not include negative dynamics such as abusive relationships (Oosterman et al. 2007). Closeness to siblings while in care has been associated with increased well-being of children and youth (Davidson-Arad and Klein 2011; Leichtentritt 2013). These findings are in line with the social capital perspective (Coleman 1988), which emphasizes the importance of an aggregate of real and potential resources related to a stable network of connections for

8

SIBLING SUPPORT: THE REPORTS OF ISRAELI …

143

the individual’s well-being. Siblings represent a social capital resource in one of the most important microsystems in the lives of young people— the family—that can have an effect on young people’s outcomes. It is also in line with the assumptions of the attachment theory (Bowlby 1988). The current study, based on a large-scale sample of youth in Israeli educational residential care settings, examined the extent of perceived availability of sibling support among youth in residential care, whether the siblings lived together or not. It also examined the position of sibling support in the hierarchy of other familial and non-familial sources of support. Finally, it examined the link between sibling support and a variety of positive and negative aspects of functioning and well-being among the youth.

Methods Sample The study was based on a sample of 864 Israeli adolescents in grades 8– 12, residing in sixteen educational residential care settings designed for youth from underprivileged backgrounds. To enable the comparison of the perceived support from the various sources examined here with sibling support, all adolescents included in the analyses had two living parents, at least one living grandparent, and at least one sibling older than them or up to two years younger than them. The reason for the age limit for siblings is that the study examined support received rather than provided, and it was assumed that younger siblings would be less likely to provide support to the adolescents (McDade 2012). The research sample was derived from a list provided by the Israeli Education Ministry of 42 educational residential care settings, from which 17 were randomly selected. Out of the 17 selected settings, one director declined to take part in the study, resulting in a response rate of 94.12% among the settings contacted. The response rate of adolescents who were present in the residential care settings during the survey was 97.02%. The original sample consisted of 1568 adolescents residing in 16 residential care settings. Based on the criteria mentioned above, we excluded 704 (44.9%) of the youth from the sample. Out of the remaining 864 adolescents, 51.06% were boys, aged 13–20 (M = 15.99, SD = 1.37). The average number of siblings recorded by the adolescents (in the age range mentioned above) was 3.34 siblings (SD = 2.06). In addition,

144

S. ATTAR-SCHWARTZ

20.1% of the adolescents reported that they had at least one sibling in the residential care setting in which they reside. Data Collection Information was collected from the adolescents through a structured, anonymous, self-report questionnaire, which they completed in the residential care setting. Letters were sent to the residential care settings’ directors asking for their assistance in data collection. Each director also received a letter to send to the adolescents’ parents/guardians specifying the study’s purpose and providing contact information in case they had questions. A slip was included for parents/guardians to return if they did not want their child to participate in the study. The adolescents were assured that their participation in the survey was voluntary and that they were free to withdraw from the study at any time for any reason. In the cases in which parents/guardians did not permit their children to participate, or in which the adolescents themselves did not agree to take part in the study, the adolescents did not complete the questionnaire. The questionnaire was administered by trained research assistants who visited the residential care settings and administered the questionnaire to all adolescents in grades 8–12 (ages 13 and above) who were on the premises and available to participate. The Israeli Ministry of Education and the Ethics Committee of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem reviewed and approved the study’s questionnaires, procedures, consent forms and instructions. Measures Perceived availability of support by siblings and other sources of support. Adolescents were asked a series of identical questions regarding the perceived availability of social support from their fathers, mothers, grandparents, at least one of their staff members, their peers, and at least one of their siblings. Based on an adaptation of the Social Support Network Questionnaire (SSNQ; Gee and Rhodes 2007), the support scale was designed to measure the delivery of basic types of social support, including concrete assistance, emotional support, advice and social participation (e.g. “To what extent do you turn to at least one of your siblings when you want to talk about something that is important to you, for instance, if you have something on your mind that is worrying you or

8

SIBLING SUPPORT: THE REPORTS OF ISRAELI …

145

making you feel down?”; “To what extent do your siblings give you or help you get something you need, for instance, clothing or money?”). The questions were answered on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all ) to 5 (always ). The score for each support provider was based on the mean of the seven items in the scale. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of the measure for the various support providers ranged from 0.89 to 0.95. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the seven items in the sibling support availability measure was 0.94. Adolescents’ adjustment difficulties and prosocial behavior. Adolescents’ adjustment difficulties and prosocial behaviour were assessed by the selfreport version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) (Goodman 1997) for 11–17-year olds, which was professionally translated into Hebrew and Arabic. The translated questionnaires are available at the SDQ website (www.sdqinfo.com). The SDQ is a 25-item 3-point Likerttype scale (0 = not true, 1 = somewhat true, 2 = certainly true) measuring four types of difficulty (hyperactivity, emotional symptoms, conduct problems and peer problems) as well as prosocial behaviour (Goodman 1997). Its psychometric properties have been found to be adequate in studies across cultures, languages and socioeconomic backgrounds, including in Israel (Goodman et al. 2000; Mansbach-Kleinfeld et al. 2010). Each subscale includes five items, such as “is constantly fidgeting or squirming” (hyperactivity; α = 0.69), “has many worries, often seems worried” (emotional symptoms; α = 0.86), “steals from home, school or elsewhere” (conduct problems α = 0.57), “is rather solitary, tends to play alone” (peer problems; α = 0.52) and “is helpful if someone is hurt, upset or feeling ill” (prosocial behavior; α = 0.64). The measures are based on the summation of the items included in each subscale. As a result, each of the five subscales included in the study ranged from 0 to 10, and the total difficulties score was calculated by summing the scores for hyperactivity, emotional symptoms, conduct problems and peer problems (α = 0.77), ranging from 0 to 40. Life satisfaction. The Student’s Life Satisfaction Scale (SLSS) (Huebner 1991) was used to measure adolescents’ life satisfaction. The SLSS is a widely-used, well validated measure (Huebner and Alderman 1993; Huebner et al. 1999) that has been used among children and youth in the general population as well as among children and youth in residential care (Gilman and Handwerk 2001; Schiff et al. 2006). It is a sevenitem measure of global life satisfaction (e.g. “Life is going well”, “I wish I had a different life”). Items are rated on a 6-point scale, ranging from

146

S. ATTAR-SCHWARTZ

1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The scale’s score was based on the items’ mean ranging from 1 (low life satisfaction) to 6 (high life satisfaction). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the sample was 0.87.

Results Sibling Support The average score of adolescents’ perception of sibling support was fairly high (M = 4.17, SD = 1.02) on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all supportive) to 5 (highly supportive). For example, as shown in Table 8.1, most of the young people (85.1%) reported that they felt close to at least one of their siblings very often or always and that their siblings made them feel loved and cared for (83.9%). In addition, about three quarters of the adolescents (75.1%) reported that their siblings gave them advice, helpful suggestions, or information when they turned to them with problems. About two thirds (around 68%)—a lower but still significant percentage— reported that their siblings helped them very often or always with things they needed to do, such as taking them somewhere they needed to go, helping them with school-related issues, or running errands for them, and that they turned to their siblings when they wanted to talk about something important (Table 8.1). Perceived Availability of Support from Siblings Compared to Other Support Sources When comparing perceived sibling support to other sources of support, the findings show a significant effect of support provider across the whole sample [F (5, 3435) = 74.271, p < 0.001]. Post hoc comparisons with Bonferroni correction revealed that mothers (M = 4.42, SD = 0.74; p = 0.016) were perceived to be most supportive, followed by peers (M = 4.31; SD = 0.81, p = 0.019), siblings (M = 4.16, SD = 1.08, p < 0.001) and fathers (M = 3.94, SD = 1.21, p < 0.001). An insignificant difference was found between fathers and closest grandparents (M = 3.88, SD = 1.19, p < 0.001). The level of perceived staff support was lower (M = 3.69, SD = 1.25, p < 0.001) than all other sources of support (for more information see Pinchover and Attar-Schwartz 2018).

8

SIBLING SUPPORT: THE REPORTS OF ISRAELI …

147

Table 8.1 Adolescents’ perception of sibling supporta To what extent Do you feel close to them? Do they make you feel they love you and care about you? Do you enjoy talking to them? Do they give you advice, helpful suggestions, or information when you turn to them with problems? Do they give you or help you get things you need (such as clothing or money)? Do they help you with things you need to do (such as taking you somewhere you need to go, helping with school-related issues, or running errands)? Do you turn to them when you want to talk about something that is important to you?

Never or rarely (%)

Sometimes (%)

Very often or always (%)

6.3

14.9

85.1

6.5

9.6

83.9

6.7

12.0

81.4

13.0

11.9

75.1

12.2

15.9

71.9

17.0

15.1

68.0

17.9

14.2

67.9

Note N = 864 adolescents a The questionnaire asked the adolescents to report on “at least one of their siblings”

Sibling Support and Adolescent Well-Being and Functioning The findings show significant correlations between sibling support and various measures of adolescents’ difficulties and positive outcomes. Specifically, significant negative correlations were found between perceived sibling support and adolescent conduct problems (r p = –0.11, p = 0.001), hyperactive symptoms (r p = –1.64, p < 0.001), emotional symptoms (r p = –1.23, p < 0.001), peer problems (r p = –1.43, p < 0.001) and total adjustment difficulties (r p = –0.195, p < 0.001). In addition, perceived sibling support was correlated positively with adolescents’

148

S. ATTAR-SCHWARTZ

prosocial behaviour (r p = 0.189, p < 0.001) and life satisfaction (r p = 0.303, p < 0.001).

Conclusions Social capital is a central factor in the well-being and adjustment of children and youth in the community and in out-of-home care (AttarSchwartz and Fridman-Teutsch 2018; Rose et al. 2013; Stein 2006). Sibling support represents an important social capital resource for adolescents. The current study focused on perceived availability of sibling support among adolescents in out-of-home care in Israel. Based on the self-reports of a large-scale sample of youth in Israeli educational residential care settings, the study examined the extent of perceived sibling support compared to other sources of support, as well as its link with positive and negative measures of adjustment and well-being among the adolescents. In their self-reports, the adolescents in residential care identified their siblings as the third most common source of support. Siblings are generally highly involved in the lives of these adolescents. For example, the study found that most of the young people (85.1%) felt close to at least one of their siblings very often or always and that they made them feel loved and cared for (83.9%). In addition, about three quarters of the adolescents (75.1%) reported that their siblings gave them advice, helpful suggestions or information when they turned to them with problems. These findings are especially encouraging because the current study also found a link between sibling support and various measures of adjustment and well-being among the youth. Specifically, the study found that increased sibling support was linked with fewer conduct problems, emotional symptoms, hyperactive behaviours and total adjustment difficulties. It was also linked with higher levels of prosocial behaviours and life satisfaction. These findings are in line with studies showing that sibling support is related to youths’ well-being while in care, whether the siblings are living together or not (James et al. 2008), and it can play a vital role in helping children and youth adapt to stressful situations and maintain a sense of continuity (Caya and Liem 1998). Despite the fact that adolescents in residential care live apart from their families, siblings continue, even for those who are not placed with their siblings, to play an important role in their lives and potentially contribute to their well-being. The findings of this study suggest that out-of-home care systems should take into

8

SIBLING SUPPORT: THE REPORTS OF ISRAELI …

149

account other factors than parents that could serve as valuable resources for the well-being of youth in residential care. The study’s limitations should be noted. For one, this study relied exclusively on adolescents’ self-reports. Future studies would benefit from cross-referencing information from other sources, such as siblings or parents. Future studies should also investigate the differences in support of siblings residing in and outside the residential care settings. In addition, future studies should include longitudinal analysis to gain a better understanding of changes in sibling support during the different stages of adolescence. Despite these limitations, the findings have implications for child welfare professionals and policy makers. The study demonstrates that siblings are significant figures in the lives of adolescents in residential care and are important for their adjustment and well-being. The role of siblings should be given further attention in future investigations into the development of children and adolescents in out-of-home settings, and also in policy agenda discussions. The findings of this and other studies suggest that siblings should be placed higher in policy and practice aimed at enhancing the social support systems of children and youth in residential care. In cases in which the siblings do not live together, residential child care social workers should include siblings informally in adolescents’ activities and should encourage adolescents to rely on their siblings’ assistance, wherever such relationships seem beneficial. Evidence from the current study serves as a platform for further examination into the role of siblings and their contributions to the wellbeing of children and adolescents in residential care, which to date has not been adequately studied. This study emphasizes the need to devote greater efforts to assess and encourage increased contact with siblings of youth in residential care settings. Siblings should be taken into account when designing interventions to promote the well-being of youth in out-of-home care. Acknowledgements I would like to thank the many young people, directors, residential care staff, and administrators who generously gave their time to make this study possible. The study was supported and conducted in collaboration with the Israeli Public Forum for Youth Villages and Boarding Schools for Children at Risk and with the Education Ministry’s Administration for Rural Education and Youth Immigration.

150

S. ATTAR-SCHWARTZ

References Attar-Schwartz, S., & Fridman-Teutsch, A. (2018). Father support and adjustment difficulties among youth in residential care: The moderating role of peer victimization and gender. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 88(6), 701–712. Berns, R. M. (2012). Child, family, school, community: Socialization and support (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent child attachment and healthy human development. USA: Basic Books. Caya, M. L., & Liem, J. H. (1998). The role of sibling support in high-conflict families. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68, 137–154. Coleman, J. C. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120. Davidson-Arad, B., & Klein, A. (2011). Comparative wellbeing of Israeli youngsters in residential care with and without siblings. Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 2152–2159. Demaray, M. K., & Malecki, C. K. (2002). The relationship between perceived social support and maladjustment for students at risk. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 305–316. Gass, K., Jenkins, J., & Dunn, J. (2007). Are sibling relationships protective? A longitudinal study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48(2), 167–175. Gee, C. B. & Rhodes, J. E. (2007). A social support and social strain measure for minority adolescent mothers: A confirmatory factor analytic study. Child Care, Health and Development, 34, 87–97. Gilman, R., & Handwerk, M. L. (2001). Changes in life satisfaction as a function of stay in residential care. Residential Treatment for Children and Youth, 18(4), 47–65. Goodman, R. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 581–586. Goodman, R., Ford, T., Richards, H., Gatward, R., & Meltzer, H. (2000). The development and well-being assessment: Description and initial validation of an integrated assessment of child and adolescent psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41(5), 645–655. Grupper, E. (2012). The education of immigrant youth in Israel: Applying an original model of residential educational setting—The multicultural youth village. Mifgash for Social Work and Education, 35, 131–152. (In Hebrew). Huebner, E. S. (1991). Correlates of life satisfaction in children. School Psychology, 6, 103–111. Huebner, E. S., & Alderman, G. E. (1993). Convergent and discriminant validation of a children’s life satisfaction scale: Its relationship to self-

8

SIBLING SUPPORT: THE REPORTS OF ISRAELI …

151

and teacher-reported psychological problems and school functioning. Social Indicators Research, 30(1), 71–82. Huebner, E. S., Gilman, R., & Laughlin, J. E. (1999). A multimethod investigation of the multidimensionality of children’s well-being reports: Discriminant validity of life satisfaction and self-esteem. Social Indicators Research, 46(1), 1–22. James, S., Monn, A. R., Palinkas, L. A., & Leslie, L. K. (2008). Maintaining sibling relationships for children in foster and adoptive placements. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 90–106. Leichtentritt, J. (2013). It is difficult to be here with my sister but intolerable to be without her: Intact sibling placement in residential care. Children and Youth Services Review, 35, 762–770. Mansbach-Kleinfeld, I., Apter, A., Farbstein, I., Levine, S. Z., & Poznizovsky, A. (2010). A population-based psychometric validation study of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire–Hebrew version. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 1, 151. McDade, M. M. (2012). Sibling social support, parent social support, and internalizing outcomes among adolescents (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northern Illinois University. Miron, D., Sujan, A., & Middleton, M. (2013). Considering the best interests of infants in foster care placed separately from their siblings. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(9), 1385–1392. Oosterman, M., Schuengel, C., Slot, N. W., Bullens, R. A. R., & Doreleijers, T. A. V. (2007). Disruptions in foster care: A review and meta-analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 29, 53−76. Perry, B. L. (2006). Understanding social network disruption: The case of youth in foster care. Social Problems, 53, 371–391. Pinchover, S., & Attar-Schwartz, S. (2018). Is someone there for you? Social support of youth in educational residential care from family, peers and staff. The British Journal of Social Work, 48(8), 2195–2214. Rose, R. A., Woolley, M. E., & Bowen, G. L. (2013). Social capital as a portfolio of resources across multiple microsystems: Implications for middle-school students. Family Relations, 62(4), 545–558. Schiff, M., Nebe, S., & Gilman, R. (2006). Life satisfaction among Israeli youth in residential treatment care. British Journal of Social Work, 36, 1325–1343. Shlonsky, A., Bellamy, J., Elkins, J., & Ashare, C. J. (2005). The other kin: Setting the course for research, policy, and practice with siblings in foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 27 (7), 697–716. Shlonsky, A., Webster, D., & Needell, B. (2003). The ties that bind: A crosssectional analysis of siblings in foster care. Journal of Social Service Research, 29(3), 27–52.

152

S. ATTAR-SCHWARTZ

Small, R. W., Bellonci, C., Ramsey, S. (2015). Creating and maintaining family partnerships in residential treatment programs. In J. K. Whittaker, J. F. del Valle, & L. Holmes (Eds.), Therapeutic residential care for children and youth: Developing evidence-based international practice (pp. 156–170). London, UK: Jessica Kingsley. Stein, M. (2006). Young people aging out of care: The poverty of theory. Children and Youth Services Review, 28, 422–434. Waid, J. (2014). Sibling foster care, placement stability, and well-being: A theoretical and conceptual framework. Journal of Family Social Work, 17 (3), 283–297.

CHAPTER 9

One Father, Many Mothers: Sibling Relationships in Polygamous Families Alean Al-Krenawi

Relations between brothers and sisters are profoundly affected by polygamy. Polygamy is a practice in which a person is married to more than one spouse simultaneously. There are several variations of this definition: Polygyny, wherein one husband is married to several wives; Polyandry, wherein one wife is married to several husbands; and, finally, a type of group marriage, wherein several husbands are married to several wives (Al-Krenawi et al. 2011; Zeitzen 2008). Of the three, Polygyny is the most common, an accepted practice across 82% of known societies in contrast to only 1% permitting Polyandry (Marlowe 2000; Dow and Eff 2013). In African countries, such as Benin, Senegal and Ghana, more than 30% of the population adhere to a polygamous lifestyle in one form or another (Tertilt 2006), and in South Africa, Jacob Zuma, a known polygamist, served as president of the state while married simultaneously to four wives. This latter example illustrates just how socially acceptable

A. Al-Krenawi (B) Spitzer Department of Social Work, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheba, Israel e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2021 A. Buchanan and A. Rotkirch (eds.), Brothers and Sisters, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55985-4_9

153

154

A. AL-KRENAWI

the practice is within the African continent, despite being undermined by westernization and urbanization (Delius and Glaser 2004). Because the term is most commonly used, this chapter will refer to polygamy as a marriage between one man and several wives. In order to understand how polygamy affects sibling relationships, we need an understanding of how polygamy operates. The arrangement of the polygamous household reflects an attempt to reconcile several different group needs—to bear offspring, provide optimal childcare, guarantee accumulation of resources, gratify sexual desires, display one’s power and status—while acting reverently towards the society’s cultural, religious and moral beliefs (Al-Krenawi 2014). Thus, polygamous households may differ significantly from one another, across cultures and even within them. Polygamy is usually practised in societies where human resources are ranked higher than material gains, with chiefs and other leaders flaunting their social status, wealth and nobility through multiple marriages (Heinrich et al. 2012; Zeitzen 2008). The discourse surrounding polygamy is further complicated when taking into account the distinction between what Zeitzen (2008) refers to as de jure polygamy, where a man takes a second wife in a lawfully, and by extension, socially acceptable form such as a formal marriage; and de facto polygamy, where a man takes another woman into the household, with who is he romantically or sexually involved and who bears his children, usually in compliance with marriage laws forbidding a polygamous union by marriage. Nevertheless, as the wording suggests, not every culture that outlaws polygamous marriage also prohibits a polygamous lifestyle. In Liberia, for example, polygamy is illegal under the civil code yet allowed under customary law, and indeed polygamy makes up onethird of the country’s marriages (Liberia: Family Code 2019). In China, the Communist Party has prohibited polygamy since 1949, yet customary laws allow a man to “marry” a second wife in a special ceremony (Zeitzen 2008). While polygamous societies far outnumber monogamous ones, polygamy is still considered a bizarre phenomenon among western countries, which favour a competitive accumulation of capital gains among smaller social groups (Heinrich et al. 2012; Dow and Eff 2013). Sanderson (2001) cites Richard Alexander’s claim that western cultures impose monogamy in a bid to equalize reproductive opportunities,

9

ONE FATHER, MANY MOTHERS: SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS …

155

while Heinrich et al. (2012) argue that, in terms of cultural evolution, monogamy promotes success between competing groups. Christianity preaches monogamy, while even the Greek and Roman empires favoured monogamy over its opposing alternative. The debate as to why monogamy is so prevalent in the west is difficult to determine, though a link between monogamous families and western socio-economic values is apparent Polygamy, then, is not viewed favourably among western societies, which encourage monogamous marriages through both legislation and social norms (Heinrich et al. 2012). Western research, focusing on the power and status of the male in a polygamous marriage, often views the practice as detrimental to females as it is perceived as subjugating them (Zeitzen 2008). Certainly, polygamy favours men, for whom the repercussions of a sexual act, both socially and biologically, are not as severe as for women (Kreager and Staff 2009). This is even more pronounced in traditional societies where a woman is expected to engage in sexual activities solely with her husband as part of her “marital duty” and certainly not before marriage (Sakalh-U˘gurlu and Glick 2003). Hence, it is not surprising to find this perspective on polygamy in the west. This practice has long been considered “regressive”, with western culture seeking to abolish it both from within as well as without, such as in the case of the colonial schooling undertaken by missionaries in the African continent (Fenske 2015). However, as western values also espouse freedom of religious practice; polygamous marriages have been witnessing an upsurge in the west. For example, in the US, polygamy is advocated through both urban and religious communities such as Muslims or splinter-groups of the Church of Latter-Day Saints, or the Mormons (Choudhury 2011; Al-Krenawi 2014), while European nations such as Sweden and the United Kingdom are tolerant towards immigration of more than one wife. Even in India, once a British colony, such a dual approach to the legality and legitimacy of polygamy, is present, prohibited by family law yet permitted, especially in minority populations, by religious law (Choudhury 2011). Polygamy, then, is not going away in the foreseeable future, and so it is crucial to keep discussing the impact it has on households and family members, and how best to approach them in treatment.

156

A. AL-KRENAWI

Psychosocial Impact of Polygamy on Men, Women and Children Polygamy effects whoever is involved. Men suffer more from stress-related issues in a polygamous marriage than men in a monogamous one: While seemingly beneficial to the husband, studies have shown that polygamous marriage can actually prove detrimental to the psychological well-being of men (Al-Krenawi and Slonim-Nevo 2002), as well as making each marriage challenging to maintain and destabilizing the household once a new spouse is introduced into it (Al-Krenawi 2014). Polygamy often proves difficult for the women involved and may severely affect their psychological well-being. They often feel mistreated, cheated on and bullied by their husbands against whom they are powerless to do anything (Al-Krenawi 2014), with several studies showing increased rates of physical abuse at the hands of their husbands, compared to monogamous marriages (Hassouneh-Phillips 2001; Al-Krenawi and Lev-Wiesel 2002). As the men and women involved, children, too, are adversely impacted by the polygamous marriage of their parents. As fathers tend not to get involved in the parenting style of the mothers, different mothers may use different parenting styles, which may not conform to each other (Al-Krenawi 2014). In addition, the children may become involved, wittingly or not, in the hostilities between the different mothers, going so far as to turn to violence against their semi-siblings towards whom they bear negative feelings (Al-Krenawi and Slonim-Nevo 2002). As relations between the senior wife and the husband tend to be poor, these children may perceive their father as being absent and neglectful (Al-Krenawi 1998, 2014). Furthermore, like their mothers, children also perceive themselves as being treated unequally, both emotionally and economically. They often compete with one another for attention, affection and other family resources. This happens in most families, but in a polygamous family, as feelings of neglect are exacerbated, the competition becomes much harsher. Even in well-functioning polygamous families, children often describe a distant relationship with their fathers, despite being close to both their semi-siblings and the father’s other wives. They also tend not to report most of the undercurrents of discontent and anger prevalent in such families. Being distanced from their fathers, these children confide in their mothers and look to them as the primary caregiver, siding with them on inter-family issues and disputes and aiding

9

ONE FATHER, MANY MOTHERS: SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS …

157

their mothers in their competing rivalries with the other wives, often leading to clashes with the other semi-siblings. Past research has shown that as children from polygamous families grow into adolescence, they exhibit lower psychological and social functioning when compared to those from monogamous families. The impact of polygamy on their psyche can manifest in increased levels of aggression, antisocial conduct, substance abuse, and higher incidence of psychological symptoms, such as somatization and depression (Al-Krenawi and Slonim-Nevo 2002), low self-esteem and self-image (Al-Shamsi and Fulcher 2005) and lower academic achievements (Al-Krenawi 2014). Polygamous men may experience their family as one that functions poorly in comparison to a monogamous family, with lower reported marital satisfaction and problematic relationships with their children (AlKrenawi and Slonim-Nevo 2002; Al-Krenawi 2014). A recent study has gone so far as to show that polygamous men are at higher risk of developing coronary heart disease (Daoulah et al. 2017). These issues become even more prevalent in families with poor socio-economic standing; moreover, as the stress of family life mounts, men may resort to violence to “stabilize” and rule the household (Al-Krenawi 2014). Studies have shown how these marriages can be psychologically damaging to their wives. Compared to those in monogamous marriages, polygamous wives show significantly higher psychological symptoms of distress (Al-Krenawi and Graham 2005), lower self-image (Al-Krenawi 2014), unhappiness (Elbedour et al. 2002) and in general are found at higher risk of poor mental health, regardless of their socio-economic status and educational achievements (Daoud et al. 2014). Some even have a traumatic reaction to the news of a second wife (Hassouneh-Phillips 2001). As the wives vie for their husband’s affection, the competition between them can take various forms: from the number of offspring, each wife can have tom bouts of physical violence against one another (Al-Krenawi et al. 2011). Senior wives are usually married through arrangements between families while the husband directly chooses the younger wives after he shows a romantic interest in them (Al-Krenawi 2014). To maintain their status and influence within the household, senior wives may deliberately give bad advice to the younger ones, or criticize their behaviour. The stories of these women are challenging to process. Cited in AlKrenawi and Graham (1999), one senior wife described how she “…gave him [her husband] up long ago [at the age of 23]”, carrying her anger

158

A. AL-KRENAWI

with her for decades, seeing her husband take five other wives after the first marriage [to her], saying “It doesn’t matter how I felt”. Another senior wife described, “Remembering every second of [her] life, all hatred” (Al-Krenawi and Graham 1999, p. 500). All six women participating in the above study shared how they had dreamt of having a husband exclusively their own. While they suffer in their marriage, the feelings of hatred and jealousy are often directed towards the other wives. They begin resenting each other, their quarrels turning more and more heated and spiteful, and the sub-families, including the children, soon becoming enemies of each other. Regardless of the level of family functioning, children often state their displeasure with at least some aspects of the polygamous household and maintain that they will not engage in a polygamous lifestyle of their own. Some girls declare that they would instead remain unmarried altogether than share a husband (Al-Krenawi and Slonim-Nevo 2002). No matter the circumstances of upbringing, polygamy is/injurious to children. Compared to their monogamous counterparts, children from polygamous families show more symptoms of emotional and behavioural problems. Spurred by a domestic environment of non-stop competition, problems affecting their mental health, education and social life often arise, severely impacting their formative years, and painting for them a bleak future.

Polygamy Across Muslim Societies And if you have reason to fear that you might not act equitably towards orphans, then marry from among [other] women such as are lawful to you [even] two, or three, or four: but if you have reason to fear that you might not be able to treat them with equal fairness, then [only] one - or [from among] those whom you rightfully possess. This will make it more likely that you will not deviate from the right course. (Surah a Nisaa, 4:3)

Polygamous marriage requires substantial resources to support multiple wives and children, and therefore many choose to refrain from practising it due to the immense strain placed on the men to both provide and care for such an extended family (Zeitzen 2008). Other Muslim nations and their people choose to abstain from the practice or prefer

9

ONE FATHER, MANY MOTHERS: SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS …

159

not to condone it even when permitted, for normative or moral reasons (Al-Krenawi 2014). While in Saudi Arabia, the practice is widespread and encouraged, Syria is known to have passed legislation which makes marriage to a second wife nearly impossible (The Syrian Observer 2019). In some Arab societies, men are still incentivized to be polygamous when allowed to, either when sanctioned by law or by an absence of criminalization, and when their economic status or social support system allows for it. A man can decide to marry a second, third or fourth wife should he wish to sire a boy who will be able to continue the family name, or even to act on any sexual desires he is unable or unwilling to indulge in with his existing wives. Given this reality, it is not uncommon to see a family where the first wife (often referred to as “the senior wife”) is significantly older than the other wives, who can sometimes be as much as fifty years younger than the husband (Zeitzen 2008; Al-Krenawi 2014). Some Arab societies bear a negative attitude towards women who do not marry, perceived as injuring the family’s honour (a paramount value in some Arab cultures) (Al-Krenawi 2014). Women are often forced into an arranged marriage by their own families as a way of forming alliances with other families and tribes, rarely able to act independently of the men in their life, who are free to come and go and handle money and finances as they deem fit (Sidani and Thornberry 2010). These women may not even know that their husband has taken another wife, and thus find themselves thrust into an uncomfortable familial life they did not choose, competing for both the affection and the support of their husband. This causes tensions to rise between the wives, with some senior wives’ report increased feelings of jealousy and hostility when a second wife is introduced into the household (Hassouneh-Phillips 2001; Al-Krenawi 2014). Often, the wives do not even give their full consent to the marriage, with some reporting that they were tricked into it and are afraid to divorce their husband, for fear they will be made pariahs in their communities and become undesirable for future marriage (Slonim-Nevo and Al-Krenawi 2006). Indeed, leaving or refusing to partake in a polygamous marriage may bring unwanted repercussions to the women involved.

160

A. AL-KRENAWI

Muslim Family Household As Arab Muslim fathers rarely become involved in the raising of their children, their wives usually shoulder the burden on their own, while in the process forming the bond between children and their fathers “who are often unable to interpret their children’s behavior” (Al-Krenawi 2014). With the mothers tending to caress their children, they foster a strong bond with them, thereby distancing themselves even further from their husbands and fathers. However, as families tend to mix parenting styles, so that the coddling of children may be witnessed alongside strict adherence to the established house rules, generating a need for both wives and children to obey these rules at the risk of being reprimanded, and at times even suffering violence (Al-Krenawi 2014). As such, children are subject to sharp verbal criticism at home, with many young girls believing that such abuse is an appropriate punishment for their alleged misdeeds (Dwairy et al. 2006).

Polygamy Among the Bedouin-Arab Families in the Negev Among the Bedouin society of the Negev, polygamy is not only prevalent—with 18% of Bedouin families being polygamous by nature (Ynet 2019)—but is also seen as a means of resisting westernization by adhering to nomadic values and traditions. This influences the practice of polygamy among the younger Bedouin men (Abu-Rabia et al. 2008). Being a tribal society, marriage does not just pair up a husband and a wife, but their families and tribes, as well. As such, the practice of polygamy among the Bedouin of the Negev brings tribes together while at the same time creating gaps between the extended families it begets. Polygamy places a considerable strain on family life, both through economic hardships, which are exacerbated by the infinite demands of an extended family (Al-Krenawi et al. 2011) and through the competitive feelings it generates among the wives and children (Al-Krenawi and Slonim-Nevo 2002). According to Al-Krenawi (2014), family functioning was found to be a critical factor in explaining the poor adjustment of men, women, and children in Bedouin polygamous families, compared to monogamous ones (Al-Krenawi 2014). As shown in the present study, polygamous families tend to be notably more extensive than their monogamous counterparts, being comprised

9

ONE FATHER, MANY MOTHERS: SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS …

161

of more sons and daughters. One-third of adolescents in the study, born to a first wife, fought with one of the other wives in the family, with 17% having fought with at least one other sibling from their own family, and double that (30%) for half-siblings from other families. These adolescents reported more problems with peer relationships, more difficulties in their relationships with their fathers, and poorer family functioning. It is notable that higher-functioning families tended to be ones where the fathers were more involved in the children’s upbringing. Nonetheless, most children described the relationships with their father as “distant”. While the families differed with regard to their level of functioning, children from low-functioning families were more hostile towards other members of their extended family, seemingly related to tensions between the different wives, with some children reporting that they felt closer to their mother than to their siblings. Overall, children from polygamous marriages tended to be much closer to their mothers than monogamous children were. Some of those born to the first wives stated that they felt distant from the second wife and her family, with one even going so far as to blame her for encouraging his father to beat him on one occasion as punishment. Overall, polygamous children fought more with their semi-siblings, as well as their father’s other wives, compared to their close first-degree siblings. Tellingly, children from both first and second families did not express a willingness to engage in a polygamous marriage in the future.

Polygamy’s Effect on Sibling Relationships Considering the extent of polygamy’s impact on family members and their interactions, it is important to consider how it may influence sibling relationships. Culturally speaking, the relationship between brothers and sisters in the Arab world is complex and multifaceted. In most Arab families, it is the oldest brother who assumes the responsibility, regardless of the father’s presence in the house, of grooming his sisters to become both women and wives, by fulfilling the ideals of patriarchy, as noted by Joseph (1994). This is especially notable as girls go through adolescence, when they will choose to dress in what will both impress and appease their brothers, while their brothers during adolescence are groomed to take after their father in leading the family. Nevertheless, among the various Arab cultures, brother and sister relationships are considered strong, despite such examples of unequal treatment (Al-Krenawi 2014).

162

A. AL-KRENAWI

Sibling relationships are paramount for the development of welladjusted, psychologically healthy individuals. During childhood, our social world is usually comprised of three interconnected spheres—family, peer-group, and outside-adult relationships (Hartup 1979); hence, the linkage between sibling and peer relationships cannot be ignored. Interactions with family members aid our understanding of social situations and distinct others, whether directly or indirectly (Bell et al. 1985; Brody 2004). Feelings of warmth and involvement between siblings shape our social competence, thereby leading to more positive peer relations, whereas high degrees of sibling rivalry can have a severely detrimental effect, leading to poor social adjustment, peer rejection, substance abuse and internalization issues (Stormshak et al. 1996; Lockwood et al. 2001; McHale et al. 2012). Polygamy generates constant sibling rivalry, and in some families, competition becomes a defining aspect of their day-to-day lives. A hostile domestic environment, brought on by incessant rivalry between both wives and siblings, can cause great difficulties in family functioning, severely affecting the psychosocial aspects of children’s personalities and lives. The development of communication and problem-solving skills suffers greatly, which can, in turn, further exacerbate an already difficult home atmosphere. While all families experience some degree of conflict, the overtly hostile interactions of an extended, polygamous family household are much more intense, potentially causing psychological injury, as evidenced by studies showing the links between poor family functioning and psychological symptomatology (Al-Krenawi and Slonim-Nevo 2002; Al-Krenawi 2014). It is a harsh and bitter reality where a vicious cycle of hostility allows sibling relationships to become ever more hateful. Al-Krenawi (1998) pointed out that children of senior wives appeared to have a variety of behavioural problems and to experience discordant family functioning. A study conducted on more than 3000 children in the United Arab Emirates, highlighted the polygamous family structure as a predictor of children’s mental health problems. An examination of the level of intelligence among Bedouin-Arab adolescents from monogamous and polygamous families living in the Negev region of Israel shows that participants with two mothers or with related parents tended to have lower non-verbal, abstract and cognitive abilities than those with three or four mothers. One major finding of this study is that polygamous family marital structures tended not to have deleterious effects on the Bedouin-Arab adolescents’ non-verbal, abstract and cognitive functioning abilities (Elbedour et al. 2003).

9

ONE FATHER, MANY MOTHERS: SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS …

163

BSI is a screening instrument that measures somatization, interpersonal sensitivity, obsession–compulsion, depression, anxiety, hostility, phobic anxiety, paranoid ideation and psychoticism. In addition, the scale provides a general severity index, a positive symptom index, and a positive symptom total. Adolescents from polygamous families scored higher in all BSI dimensions than did those from monogamous families. Respondents from polygamous families significantly self-reported problematic family functioning than among those from monogamous families. Hence, polygamy did not affect mental health directly but somewhat, indirectly through its association with lower education and socio-economic status. Therefore, the best predictor of mental health among the present population was perceived family functioning, i.e. a better family atmosphere created an improvement in mental health. Lower education may assist with a predisposition towards polygamy. Nevertheless, in all instances, knowledge of the particular variables that contribute to mental health status may assist policymakers and practitioners in order to provide effective intervention with polygamous families. In a study conducted by Al-Kobesi (2001) findings revealed that children from polygamous families have considerable difficulty in forming and managing/maintaining positive relationships with their peers both at school and home, with sibling relationships often souring and growing into jealousy-fuelled rivalries (Al-Krenawi et al. 2011). Such bitterness between children belonging to different mothers may be motivated by the day-to-day realities of an extended, polygamous family, where family members often compete for resources and attention, such as when boys attempt to assert their position in a female-majority household, or when children try to attract the attention of their parents in acts of misbehaviour (Ware 1979; Oyefeso and Adegoke 1992; Rivett and Street 1993). As such, these children often consider their siblings to be their rivals, in a way, mirroring how the mothers perceive one another (Al-Krenawi 1998). Indeed, polygamous households are oftentimes defined by conflict. A large family size, in and of itself, maybe enough to negatively impact the lives of family members, straining family resources and impacting their immediate circumstances and jeopardizing future endeavours (Blake 1981; Fischer 1984; Kahn and Kamerman 1983), but when multiple wives compete over the attention of a single caregiver (Mburugu and Adams 2004; Kilbride and Kilbride 1990, pp. 203–204, cited in Mburugu and Adams 2004), their sub-families may become embroiled in a conflict

164

A. AL-KRENAWI

much more bitter than those endured by their counterparts from monogamous families. And just like their mothers, these children may come to compete among themselves for family status and position, treating each other as bitter enemies, both to themselves and to their distinct subfamily (Owuamanam 1984; Al-Krenawi 1998). Indeed, numerous studies have found, in addition to case study evidence, significant correlations between the practice of polygamy and sibling rivalry (Pela 1984; Owuamanam 1984; Al-Krenawi and Lightman 2000; Yang 2003), which can bring about severe adverse consequences on the psychological well-being of the children.

Discussion The practice of polygamy is harmful to all those involved, and regrettably, the phenomenon is still widespread in more traditional communities. In Syria, for example, polygamy rates have been steadily rising in recent years, in the form of a second marriage, spurred by the still-ongoing Syrian Civil War (The Syrian Observer 2019). In the Negev Region of Southern Israel, efforts made by the Israeli government to mitigate the spread of polygamy have yet to bear fruit (Ynet 2019). In other western countries, polygamous communities are not uncommon. Hence, it is clear that the practice is not fading. Therefore, it is important to address it within a therapeutic framework and try to limit its harmful effects on family members. Children of polygamous families in Israeli Bedouin-Arab society, especially those of senior wives, have been demonstrated to experience impaired impeded academic achievement and higher attrition, increased aggression and antisocial behaviours, as well as higher levels of a variety of mental health issues, including depression, somatization, obsession– compulsion, paranoid ideation, anxiety and low self-esteem (Al-Krenawi and Slonim-Nevo 2002; Elbedour et al. 2003). The narratives of children of polygamous Israeli Bedouin-Arab families are saturated with a profound sense of disconnection and feelings of misery and anger (Al-Krenawi 2014). The difficulties of children in polygamous families, especially those of first wives, have been related in part to inadequate and dysfunctional exposure to their father. Distant child–father relations often culminate in disengagement and a related strong perception of low paternal interest (Al-Krenawi and Slonim-Nevo 2002; Lander 2014).

9

ONE FATHER, MANY MOTHERS: SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS …

165

As in most polygamous families (Al-Krenawi and Lightman 2000), the family children experienced academic difficulties, and some had learning problems. This was caused mostly by negligence of both parents, including the family’s father, and his lack of interest in their schooling. After intervention, their academic achievement improved, partly due to an improved atmosphere in their various households and partly due to their father’s interest in the siblings’ schoolwork (Al-Krenawi 1998). While the intervention was taking place, the children began calling each other “brother” and “sister”, and no longer treated each other as enemies after their parents, having created a sense of family and community, had shown them that they should not treat each other that way. This change in the mothers’ attitudes towards each other was reflected by the children, who were given more attention than before from their fathers. While polygamy’s impact on children is undeniable, the effects it has are highly dependent on family functioning (Al-Krenawi 2014), and so positive changes can be brought on by allowing for a more communicative family dynamic, encouraging both the co-wives, and in turn, the children, to see each other not rivals, but as family. This approach was successful in promoting a shared understanding, as well as a friendlier relationship between the wives, even going so far as to include the youngest wife with whom the others were most conflicted. This part of the intervention went a long way towards creating better relationships between the wives, and by doing so, established a good relationship with the different semi-siblings. Once achieved, an attempt was made to enlist the husband to become more actively involved in the daily lives of the different sub-families through the youngest wife, at the time his favourite. She, by approaching the father through the detailing of the various issues afflicting his children, caused him to show greater interest in them. While he blamed the older wives for not taking proper care of the children, the youngest wife, serving as a mediator between him and the other co-wives, brought their issues to him. This mediation eventually brought better communication between the husband and the rest of the family (Al-Krenawi 1998). In addition to the model proposed, another way of intervention for improving mental health for men, women, and siblings, is emphasizing forgiveness. Forgiveness is “the willingness to abandon one’s right to resentment, condemnation and subtle revenge toward an offender who acts unjustly while fostering the undeserved qualities of compassion, generosity and even love toward him or her” (Wade cited in Lander 2014).

166

A. AL-KRENAWI

Forgiveness can be a powerful tool in psychotherapy. Distinct multistage models have been developed to promote forgiveness between individuals, and a number of these approaches have come to be known as constituting forgiveness therapy (Hantman and Cohen 2010). Most are predicated upon individual treatment where a victim works with a therapist towards forgiving an offender for wrongdoing committed. Other models involve conjoint therapy with a victim together with an offender who is a family member and are intended via the achievement of forgiveness to contribute to the rehabilitation of family relations (Lander 2014).

References Abu-Rabia, A., Elbedour, S., & Scham, S. (2008). Polygyny and post-nomadism among the Bedouin in Israel. Anthropology of the Middle East, 3(2), 20–37. Al Kobesi, A. (2001). A study of polygamy. Al Mawadda J , 24, 16–18 (In Arabic). Al-Krenawi, A. (1998). Family therapy with a multiparental/multispousal family. Family Process, 37 (1), 65–81. Al-Krenawi, A. (2014). Psychosocial impact of polygamy in the Middle East. New York, NY: Springer. Al-Krenawi, A., & Graham, J. R. (1999). The story of Bedouin-Arab women in a polygamous marriage. Women’s Studies International Forum, 22(5), 497–509. Al-Krenawi, A., & Graham, J. R. (2005). Marital therapy for Arab Muslim palestinian couples in the context of reacculturation. The Family Journal, 13(3), 300–310. Al-Krenawi, A., Graham, J. R., & Al-Gharaibeh, F. (2011). A comparison study of psychological, family function, marital, and life satisfaction of polygamous and monogamous women in Jordan. Community Mental Health Journal, 47 (5), 594. Al-Krenawi, A., & Lev-Wiesel, R. (2002). Wife abuse among polygamous and monogamous Bedouin-Arab families. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 36(3–4), 151–165. Al-Krenawi, A., & Lightman, E. S. (2000). Learning achievement, social adjustment, and family conflict among Bedouin-Arab children from polygamous and monogamous families. The Journal of Social Psychology, 140(3), 345–355. Al-Krenawi, A., & Slonim-Nevo, V. (2002). Psychological and social functioning among Bedouin-Arabs in the Negev: Comparing polygamous and monogamous families. Final scientific report submitted to the national social security office. Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.

9

ONE FATHER, MANY MOTHERS: SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS …

167

Al-Shamsi, M. S. A., & Fulcher, L. C. (2005). The impact of polygamy on the United Arab Emirates’ first wives and their children. International Journal of Child & Family Welfare, 18(1), 46–55. Bell, N. J., Avery, A. W., Jenkins, D., Feld, J., & Schoenrock, C. J. (1985). Family relationships and social competence during late adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 14(2), 109–119. Blake, J. (1981). Family size and the quality of children. Demography, 18(4), 421–442. Brody, G. H. (2004). Siblings’ direct and indirect contributions to child development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(3), 124–126. Choudhury, C. A. (2011). Between tradition and progress: A comparative perspective on polygamy in the United States and India. University of Colorado Law Review, 83, 963. Daoud, N., Shoham-Vardi, I., Urquia, M. L., & O’Campo, P. (2014). Polygamy and poor mental health among Arab Bedouin women: Do socioeconomic position and social support matter? Ethnicity & Health, 19(4), 385–405. Daoulah, A., Lotfi, M., & Al-Murayeh et al. (2017). Polygamy and risk of coronary artery disease in men undergoing angiography: An observational study. International Journal of Vascular Medicine, Article ID 1925176, 6. Delius, P., & Glaser, C. (2004). The myths of polygamy: A history of extramarital and multi-partnership sex in South Africa. South African Historical Journal, 50(1), 84–114. Dow, M. M., & Eff, E. A. (2013). When one wife is enough: A cross-cultural study of the determinants of monogamy. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 7 (3), 211. Dwairy, M., Achoui, M., Abouserie, R., Farah, A., Sakhleh, A. A., Fayad, M., & Khan, H. K. (2006). Parenting styles in Arab societies: A first cross-regional research study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37 (3), 230–247. Elbedour, S., Bart, W. M., & Hektner, J. (2003). Intelligence and family marital structure: The case of adolescents from monogamous and polygamous families among Bedouin Arabs in Israel. The Journal of Social Psychology, 143(1), 95– 110. Elbedour, S., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Caridine, C., & Abu-Saad, H. (2002). The effect of polygamous marital structure on behavioral, emotional, and academic adjustment in children: A comprehensive review of the literature. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 5(4), 255–271. Fenske, J. (2015). African polygamy: Past and present. Journal of Development Economics, 117 , 58–73. Fischer, D. G. (1984). Family size and delinquency. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 58(2), 527–534. Hantman, S., & Cohen, O. (2010). Forgiveness in late life. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 53(7), 613–630.

168

A. AL-KRENAWI

Hartup, W. W. (1979). The social worlds of childhood. American Psychologist, 34(10), 944. Hassouneh-Phillips, D. (2001). Polygamy and wife abuse: A qualitative study of Muslim women in America. Health Care for Women International, 22(8), 735–748. Heinrich, J., Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (2012). The puzzle of monogamous marriage. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367 (1589), 657–669. Joseph, S. (1994). Brother/sister relationships: Connectivity, love, and power in the reproduction of patriarchy in Lebanon. American Ethnologist, 21(1), 50–73. Kahn, A. J., & Kamerman, S. B. (1983). Income-maintenance, wages and family income. Public Welfare, 41(4), 23–30. Kilbride, P. L., & Kilbride J. C. (1990). Changing family life in East Africa: Women and children at risk. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. Kreager, D. A., & Staff, J. (2009). The sexual double standard and adolescent peer acceptance. Social Psychology Quarterly, 72(2), 143–164. Lander, I. (2014). Expanding the horizons of forgiveness therapy: A crosscultural application with a Bedouin Arab woman. Clinical Social Work Journal, 42(4), 395–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-014-0480-7. Liberia: Family Code. (2019). Retrieved from http://genderindex.org/country/ liberia on July 4th, 2019. Lockwood, R. L., Kitzmann, K. M., & Cohen, R. (2001). The impact of sibling warmth and conflict on children’s social competence with peers. Child Study Journal, 31(1), 47–47. Marlowe, F. (2000). Paternal investment and the human mating system. Behavioral Processes, 51(1–3), 45–61. Mburugu, E. K., & Adams, B. N. (2004). Families in Kenya. Handbook of World Families, 1, 1–24. McHale, S. M., Updegraff, K. A., & Whiteman, S. D. (2012). Sibling relationships and influences in childhood and adolescence. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(5), 913–930. Owuamanam, D. O. (1984). Adolescents’ perceptions of polygamous family and its relationship to self-concept. International Journal of Psychology, 19(1–4), 593–598. Oyefeso, A. O., & Adegoke, A. R. (1992). Psychological adjustment of Yoruba adolescents as influenced by family type: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 33(4), 785–788. Pela, O. A. (1984). Psychosocial aspects of drug dependence: The Nigerian Experience. Adolescence, 19(76), 971.

9

ONE FATHER, MANY MOTHERS: SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS …

169

Rivett, M., & Street, E. (1993). ‘Informal polygamy’: A suitable case for treatment? Journal of Family Therapy, 15(1), 71–79. Sakalh-U˘gurlu, N., & Glick, P. (2003). Ambivalent sexism and attitudes toward women who engage in premarital sex in Turkey. Journal of Sex Research, 40(3), 296–302. Sanderson, S. K. (2001). Explaining monogamy and polygyny in human societies: Comment in Kanazawa and still. Social Forces, 80(1), 329–335. Sidani, Y. M., & Thornberry, J. (2010). The current Arab work ethic: Antecedents, implications, and potential remedies. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(1), 35–49. Slonim-Nevo, V., & Al-Krenawi, A. (2006). Success and failure among polygamous families: The experience of wives, husbands, and children. Family Process, 45(3), 311–330. Stormshak, E. A., Bellanti, C. J., & Bierman, K. L. (1996). The quality of sibling relationships and the development of social competence and behavioral control in aggressive children. Developmental Psychology, 32(1), 79. Surah a Nisaa, 4:3). (183). Tertilt, M. (2006). Polygyny, women’s rights, and development. Journal of the European Economic Association, 4(2–3), 523–530. The Syrian Observer. (2019, July). Polygamy rates in Syria. Retrieved from https://syrianobserver.com/EN/features/48149/polygamy-rates-risein-syria.html. Wade, Nathaniel G., Worthington, & Everett L., Jr. (2014, Jul 2005—Sep 2005). Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 42(2), 160–177. In I. Lander (Ed.), Expanding the horizons of forgiveness therapy: A crosscultural application with a Bedouin Arab woman. Clinical Social Work Journal, 42(4), 395–407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10615-014-0480-7. Ware, H. (1979). Polygyny: Women’s views in a transitional society, Nigeria 1975. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41(1), 185–195. Yang, M. (2003). A qualitative study examining the effects of polygyny on hmong individuals who had been raised in polygynous households (Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Stout). Ynet. (2019, July). The struggle against polygamy wanes: Council recommendations are not implemented. Retrieved from https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,734 0,L-5539804,00.html. Zeitzen, M. K. (2008). Polygamy: A cross-cultural analysis. Oxford, New York: Berg.

CHAPTER 10

Sibling Relationships Across Families Created Through Assisted Reproduction Vasanti Jadva

Background Gamete donation and surrogacy are both forms of third party reproduction, sometimes referred to as reproductive donation, where eggs, sperm or embryos are donated by a third person to achieve a pregnancy or in the case of surrogacy, where the pregnancy is hosted by another woman. Sperm donation is the oldest form of third party reproduction and is used to help infertile heterosexual couples as well as lesbian couples, and single women to have a child. Egg donation was only made possible after the arrival of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) with the first pregnancies reported in 1983 (Trounson et al. 1983). There are relatively few studies of children born through third party reproduction. Those that have been conducted have found that overall, regardless of the family structure or genetic connections between parents and the child, families function well and, moreover, that children do not experience adjustment difficulties during childhood, adolescence or young adulthood (see Golombok 2015 for a review). Far fewer studies have been carried out examining the

V. Jadva (B) Centre for Family Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2021 A. Buchanan and A. Rotkirch (eds.), Brothers and Sisters, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55985-4_10

171

172

V. JADVA

outcomes for children born through surrogacy compared to other forms of third party reproduction and importantly no studies have so far examined the psychological adjustment and experiences of those born through surrogacy beyond the stage of early adolescence. Surrogacy has increased both in prevalence and visibility in recent years, yet it remains highly controversial and is illegal in many countries. There are two types of surrogacy defined by whether or not the surrogate’s egg is used for the pregnancy. In traditional surrogacy (also referred to as partial/straight or genetic surrogacy), conception usually occurs following artificial insemination of the intending father’s sperm or donor sperm. As the surrogate’s egg is used, she is genetically related to the child she carries and if she has her own children, they would be genetic half-siblings of the child born through surrogacy. In gestational surrogacy (also known as full/host surrogacy) the surrogate does not use her egg and pregnancy is achieved through in vitro fertilization (IVF) using gametes from the intended parents or donors. As such, she has no direct genetic connection to the children she carried for the surrogacy pregnancy, and her children would not be genetically related to the surrogacy born children (unless the surrogate was carrying for a family member, such as a sister, in which case she and her children would have a genetic connection to the child regardless of the surrogacy connection). In the UK, no legal distinction is made between traditional and gestational surrogacy, whereas in other countries only gestational surrogacy is permitted. In some countries, surrogacy can be used by heterosexual couples, gay and lesbian couples, and single persons. Legislation on who can access surrogacy, as well as who can be a surrogate, differs from one country to the next. The practice of surrogacy can also vary greatly between different countries and cultural contexts. In the UK, a surrogate might be a friend or relative of the person they are carrying for. However, it is more common that she was unknown to the intended parent(s) prior to the surrogacy and met the family through a third party, such as a surrogacy organisation, or online. At the outset it is important to recognise that the term ‘sibling’ is problematic when discussing genetic or gestational connections across different families formed through third party reproduction. Not all people who are born from the same donor or surrogate recognise each other as siblings, nor would they use sibling-like terms to define these relationships. However, studies have found that some individuals born through egg and sperm donation search for others who have been born using

10

SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS ACROSS FAMILIES CREATED …

173

the same donor (sometimes referred to as donor siblings, same-donor offspring, donor-linked siblings), mainly out of curiosity, but also in some cases to gain a better understanding of their genetic identity (Jadva et al. 2010). When these connections are formed, individuals can develop strong familial connections with each other. The main focus of this chapter will be on surrogacy, and specifically on research examining the experiences of surrogates’ own children. I will refer to the child born through surrogacy as the ‘surrogacy child’, and the surrogates’ own children as ‘children of surrogates’, although some of them were young adults at the time we interviewed them. The parents who raise the child born through surrogacy will be called ‘intended parents’ prior to becoming parents, and ‘parents’ or ‘mother/father’ once the child is born. In the past, the term surrogate mother was often used to define women who carried a pregnancy for others, and is still the preferred term in some countries. However, many surrogates dislike the term ‘mother’ as they strongly feel they are not the mother of the children they gestate. In this chapter I will refer to surrogates as either surrogates, traditional surrogates or gestational surrogates.

Details of Study on Children of Surrogates The chapter presents interview data collected as part of a study which examined the psychological health and experiences of children whose mothers had acted as surrogates in the UK (Imrie and Jadva 2014). Thirty-six children of surrogates from twenty-three different families were interviewed between April 2011 and December 2012. Only children aged twelve or over were included in the study, as we wanted to ask detailed questions about their thoughts and experiences of surrogacy. Fourteen of the participants were male and 22 were female. The eldest ‘child’ interviewed was aged twenty-five years. Participants were aged between two and fifteen years when their mother had conducted their first surrogacy arrangement, and some were therefore too young to remember specific details about the surrogacy, such as whether they had been told that their mother will be giving the baby to someone else to raise, or how they felt during the birth and handover. Surrogates were less likely to invite their adult children who no longer lived with them to participate in the study and thus most (66%) of the participants still lived at home with their mother.

174

V. JADVA

Most (n = 31) of the participants were children of surrogates who were unknown to the intended parents prior to the surrogacy arrangement, that is they had met through a surrogacy organisation. Sixty-seven per cent (24) of participants were in touch with at least one of the surrogacy children their mother had carried. For those who were in contact with the surrogacy child, this involved direct face-to-face contact and all reported a positive relationship with him/her. Main Findings For children who had been told, surrogacy was often explained to them as their mother helping someone who can’t have a baby. For example, … cos they can’t have a baby she’ll be having it for them. Um and then after she’s had the baby she then gives it back to them.

Whilst some countries place limits on the number of times a women can carry a surrogacy pregnancy, no such restrictions apply in the UK. Thus, some children of surrogates had experienced their mother complete up to eight surrogacy arrangements with the average number being three. In terms of the type of surrogacy conducted, fourteen of the children of surrogate mothers had conducted traditional surrogacy only, fifteen had conducted gestational surrogacy only, and seven had completed both types of surrogacy. In our sample, children of traditional surrogates had seen their mothers complete more surrogacy arrangements (an average of four) compared to children of gestational surrogates. Given that traditional surrogacy is less invasive than gestational surrogacy, it is not surprising that traditional surrogates had completed more surrogacy arrangements than gestational surrogates (who are required to undergo IVF treatment). In the UK, surrogates and intended parents maintain direct contact with each other throughout the surrogacy journey, and as such can develop strong friendships that endure beyond the birth of the child. Once the baby is born, the type of contact the families maintain can vary: from an exchange of letters or photos once or twice a year, to frequent phone calls and even joint family holidays (Jadva 2016; Jadva et al. 2012). Thus children of surrogates often grow up knowing the surrogacy child, and may even develop their own independent relationships with them

10

SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS ACROSS FAMILIES CREATED …

175

when they are older. In the present sample, just under half of the children of surrogates were in contact with the surrogacy child at the time we interviewed them. Surrogate’s children are connected to the surrogacy child through shared gestation, and some share a genetic connection too. The significance placed on this genetic or gestational connection can vary between different people. For surrogates, genetic and gestational connections have been found to be less important than other factors such as the strength of the relationship with the intended parents (Jadva and Imrie 2014). How children of surrogates define their relationship to the surrogacy child varied greatly. Some used ‘sibling-like’ terms such as ‘brother’ or ‘sister’, ‘half-brother’ or ‘half-sister’. Others used more unconventional hybrid terms, such as ‘surro-sister’, ‘tummy-sister’ and ‘surrogate brother’, and one child of a traditional surrogate described the relationship as ‘half-family’. Some used different terms over the course of the interview, with several stating that they were unsure how to define the relationship using existing terminology (Jadva and Imrie 2014). Sometimes the pressure felt to define these terms came from outside of the family, with one child of a surrogate saying that “I think people feel like they have to give it a name, so we did, we gave it an auntie and a cousin”. Thus defining the relationship may be less of a concern for those involved than it is for those external to the family (Jadva and Imrie 2014). For others, the relationship was explained in a matter of fact way: “Um, I just tell them like he’s my half -brother, um, or he is a brother really that’s just part of the family but they live with someone else”. Some children of surrogates described the surrogacy child using their connection to their mother or to the intended parents, e.g. ‘mum’s surrogacy child’ or ‘Debbie’s (intended parent’s) child’, for example, or simply using the child’s name. Interestingly, there was no clear distinction in the type of terminology used by children of traditional or gestational surrogates, that is, kinship terms such as ‘half-brother’ or ‘half-sibling’ were used by children of surrogates regardless of whether they were the genetic half-sibling of the surrogacy child (Jadva and Imrie 2014). Of course, the terminology used to describe these relationships does not explain the nature of the relationships. Some children of surrogates formed very close bonds with the surrogacy child whilst others had no relationship whatsoever and used a neutral and indifferent tone when talking about the surrogacy child. However, most children of surrogates were happy with their level of contact regardless of whether they were in

176

V. JADVA

touch. Only five of the nineteen children of surrogates who were not in contact with the surrogacy child wished to have more contact. For children of surrogates who had no contact with the surrogacy child, the surrogacy child was seen as being separate to them and their life and they expressed no desire to maintain a relationship with them. As this child of a traditional surrogate said: I suppose he’s my half -brother but I don’t really look at it that way. He’s someone else’s child, I don’t know the parents. I don’t know the kid so no link. (Jadva and Imrie 2014, page 172)

Several mentioned that although they have no current contact with the surrogacy child, they could if they wished to, and they enjoyed hearing about how the surrogacy child was getting on. For some, the surrogacy child and his/her parents were viewed as family. For this fourteen year old the surrogacy child and her parents were seen as family even though she recognised that the lack of a genetic tie meant they differed from other family she had. “I like the fact that they’re not actually like part of our family but they are like, they’re not related to us but they still are family, like they’re treated as family”. For others, the same level of closeness was not felt for all members of the surrogacy family. For example, one seventeen year old child of a gestational surrogate said: “… cos she’s kind of like a sister to me, I’d like her to be closer obviously than [surrogacy child’s father], cos he’s… just kind of like a family friend.” For this participant, this ‘sister’ with whom he shared a gestational connection was seen as similarly related to his half-sister with whom he shared a genetic connection. As he mentioned when explaining how his girlfriend thinks of the surrogacy child: She loves [surrogacy child] [laughs]. Um she thinks it’s really great that my mum could do something like that for, for the family and for their family and she thinks it’s really nice for me to have um another sister. Cos I’ve also got a half -sister, [name], on my dad’s side.

Several children of surrogates described developing particularly close relationships with the surrogacy child. For example, …When she was born I can remember feeling really happy and like “oh there’s a baby”, um, and I was really happy that I got to, you know, like hold her

10

SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS ACROSS FAMILIES CREATED …

177

and look after her, and then when we went on holiday and stuff like it was nice to be able to see her but I can’t really, nothing like, even now to this day I love [surrogacy child] so much, like, she is like, we call her our tummysisters because we’re from the same tummy, and like mum was tummymummy, because we all have the same tummymummy. But like I think even when she was pregnant I think I can remember feeling like love for her then, yeah. —Fourteen year daughter of gestational surrogate

Contact was often made more difficult because of geographical distance between the surrogate’s family and the family she had helped. However, as children grew older and were able to communicate using other means they were able to maintain more frequent and direct contact. For example, in response to a question about whether the amount of contact they had was enough, one participant said the following: Um, less than it should be, I’d like to speak to her more, which hopefully we’ll be doing once I sort her out on facebook [laughs]. Um, but no, it would be nice to speak to her and see her more, um, so hopefully she can come down again in the summer some time.

Social media also enabled surrogates and their families to keep in contact when they lived further apart. Indeed, surrogacy can take place across different countries- it is increasingly common for intending parents to travel overseas for surrogacy either because it is not permitted in their home country or because they seek a better legal framework, cheaper costs, greater availability of surrogates or a professional agency to manage the surrogacy process (Jadva et al. 2018). A survey of UK parents who had a child born through surrogacy found that parents whose surrogates were in the USA felt just as involved in the pregnancy than those whose surrogate lived in the UK. They also did not differ in their ability to maintain positive relationships with the surrogate following the birth. Those who had surrogacy in Asia (either India or Thailand), were less likely to want a relationship with their surrogate after the birth and indeed were less likely to be in contact with their surrogates compared to those whose surrogates lived in the USA and the UK. This lack of contact partly resulted from parents communicating with the clinic, rather than directly with the surrogate during the pregnancy. Direct contact was also hindered by language differences (Jadva et al. 2019). Whilst the study of children of surrogates discussed above was the first study to examine the experiences of surrogacy from the surrogate’s

178

V. JADVA

child’s perspectives, the research did have a number of challenges. In the UK there are no official registries of surrogates, and thus recruiting surrogates was particularly difficult. Recruitment of surrogates’ children was done through the surrogates themselves and thus it is possible that surrogates may have been reluctant to ask their children to take part if they felt their child had negative experiences. The methods used in the study, which involved in-depth face-to-face interviews with surrogates and their families is also costly and time consuming and requires grant funding. The larger study of surrogates and their families was funded by the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council, and took almost three years to complete. As surrogacy becomes increasingly prevalent as a route to parenthood it is of paramount importance that the impact of surrogacy for all involved is better understood. Furthermore, given that surrogacy takes place in a number of countries which have different cultural values and which can differ in the importance placed on genetic and gestational connections, it is hugely important to understand what impact surrogacy has on surrogate’s own children in different cultural contexts.

Longitudinal Study of Surrogacy Born Children Whilst I have focused so far on the surrogate’s child’s perspective of their relationship with the surrogacy child, data are also available from the surrogacy children themselves, some of whom were those referred to in the study discussed above. The UK Longitudinal Study of Assisted Reproductive Families has been following children born from egg donation, sperm donation and surrogacy from infancy. The study began at the turn of the millennium, and families have so far been seen 6 times at ages 1, 2, 3, 6, 10 and 14 years. At this latter age, adolescents were interviewed about their thoughts and feelings about their method of conception as well as about the donor and surrogate. The majority of adolescents who were not in contact with the surrogate or donor were interested in them and those who were in contact largely described positive relationships with them (Zadeh et al. 2018). A previous study of adolescents conceived by sperm donation to single women and lesbian couples, found that adolescents who were securely attached to their mothers were more curious about their donor conception compared to those who were insecurely attached (Slutsky et al. 2016). Given that surrogacy families have also been found to have good parent–child relationships (Golombok et al.

10

SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS ACROSS FAMILIES CREATED …

179

2017), it is perhaps not surprising that adolescents express curiosity about their donor or surrogate (Zadeh et al. 2018).

Studies of Connections Between Same Donor Offspring Recent years have seen a rise in the number of donor conceived individuals searching for their donor connections, either their donor, or others born using the same donor as themselves (i.e. genetic half-siblings). This search might be facilitated through different donor-linking mechanisms including internet connection sites such as the Donor Sibling Registry, which enables those who are aware of their donor conception to search for their donor connections. Looking for others born using the same donor has largely been motivated by curiosity (Jadva et al. 2010; Scheib and Ruby 2008; Freeman et al. 2009), although other reasons such as wanting to extend family have also been reported (Persaud et al. 2017; Hertz and Mattes 2011). Adolescents who were in contact with their samedonor offspring, have reported that comparing similarities and differences between themselves enabled them to obtain a better sense of their own genetic background and identity (Persaud et al. 2017; Blyth 2012). One study of 23 adolescents (aged between 12 and 19 years) born using sperm donation to single mothers or lesbian couples who had contacted their same donor offspring found two main reasons for wanting contact: curiosity about the donor and genetic origins, and forming relationships to extend family (Persaud et al. 2017). The authors provide the following example of how meeting same-donor offspring enabled a participant to explore his own identity: It’s been great it was an awesome opportunity. There’s nothing, I would do it all the same way again. It’s yeah it’s been great, I mean it’s been awesome to meet them, hang out with them, have this new kind of relative, explore like I mean through meeting them I’ve gotten to know more about myself you know and uh you know who I am, what the donor’s like… I mean it’s helped me learn about you know how these uh relationships were gonna work like how it would work if I met my father or how um you know about, taught me about you know brother relationships it’s, it’s cultivated, given me more inspiration in music and stuff… and that’s gonna be three new really good friends and brothers (Gregory). (Persaud et al. 2017, page 17)

180

V. JADVA

However, despite some relationships being described as familial, some adolescents reported the complexity of maintaining these relationships, and the expectation to feel close to their same donor offspring despite meetings feeling awkward, particularly at first (Persaud et al. 2017). Some parents of donor conceived children seek out their child’s donor connections when their children are still young mentioning similar motivations for doing so. A further reason for searching included having an only child, where parents actively looked for ‘siblings’ for their child (Freeman et al. 2009), a reason also given by some donor offspring. For example: I am an only child, with step-siblings and one half -sibling… I suppose the best description of my reasoning is curiosity, but it is also, if I can put this poetically, a call from my blood. I know there is a certain affinity within genetic family that is different from any other” (50 year old female, from heterosexual couple family). (Jadva et al. 2010, page 528)

Searching for the child’s same donor offspring also enabled parents and adolescents to find out more about the donor, especially in relation to medical information, where seeing the health and characteristics of others born using the same donor provided a sense of reassurance about the health of their own child (Freeman et al. 2016; Persaud et al. 2017). With sperm donation, unlike egg donation or surrogacy, it is possible for large numbers of offspring to be born from the same donor. This can cause a number of difficulties, including concerns over accidently forming incestual relationships and issues about how and whom to connect with. A study of 9 mothers, mostly single (n = 7), of donor conceived children aged between 9 months and 10 years, reported that having their child be a part of a large sibling group provided greater choice about which families to connect with. For others a small number of families meant it felt more special and intimate (Freeman et al. 2016). Similar to the study of families connected through surrogacy, this study also found that terminology was problematic. Some created their own terms such as ‘dibling’ or ‘brousin’ to use amongst themselves, and others whose children had formed a bond with their same donor offspring used sibling-like terms. Some family’s preferred to use the term ‘cousin’ in describing the connection because it didn’t require as much explanation to others as terms such as ‘brother’ or ‘sister’ (Freeman et al. 2016). From the donor conceived adolescents’ perspectives, those who were in contact with more than one same-donor offspring reported feelings of closeness with some more than others.

10

SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS ACROSS FAMILIES CREATED …

181

I’m really just like happy with like just her cause she real –she kind of like filled the place of needing to find like another sister or like someone who’s really like me and so I still really, so I do still like see like other siblings but for the most part I really just like spending time with [Donor Sibling Sister] cause I just, I love seeing her. (Veronica). (Persaud et al. 2017, page 17)

Conclusions A common finding from the studies examining the relationship between children who share a genetic or gestational connection is that no assumptions can be made about whether any form of relationship will be sought, and if formed, whether this will be seen as ‘sibling-like’ or not. The relationships also depend on how well the individuals get on with each other and the significance they place on the importance of the genetic or gestational connection. This can vary greatly from one individual to the next and, for children, will be determined by the importance placed on this by the adults involved. However, as children grow older and form their own opinions these may indeed differ from those of their parents, evident by the finding that some donor conceived people choose not to tell their parents about their search for their donor connections, particularly those raised in heterosexual couple headed families (Jadva et al. 2010; Beeson et al. 2011). Whilst research on sibling relationships across families formed through third party reproduction is growing, the field is still very much in its infancy. Some of the questions future studies need to address include, how important is it for individuals born through third party reproduction to know they have donor connections? Is it important to know the identity of people with whom they share a genetic or gestational link? When in a child’s development is it best to introduce these new connections? For individuals who seek donor connections, are there any differences in the mental health and family relationships between those who are in contact with their donor connections and those who are not? And, what factors (gender, age, sibling relationships within one’s own family) contribute to feelings of curiosity or a need to connect with others? Medical advances are continually changing the way in which families are formed. Surrogacy and gamete donation now take place across different countries making it increasingly common to have genetic and gestational connections with people in different countries, from a different culture and who speak a different language. The increase in direct-to-consumer

182

V. JADVA

DNA testing has also dramatically changed the way in which people are discovering not only their donor connections, but their donor origins (Harper et al. 2016). Some countries, including the UK and Australia have recognised the desire for some donor conceived people to connect with their same-donor offspring, and have introduced state funded donor registries. Nevertheless, it is important to recognise that whilst some do wish to connect, others do not and managing these different expectations, particularly when they occur within the same donor-linked group can be difficult. Furthermore, how these connections are defined and managed once made, also vary greatly, and it is important for those involved not to feel pressured into forming familial relationships. The lack of appropriate terminology and language to define these new types of connections is also commonly reported, with those involved using terms they feel most comfortable with, but which may not reflect the nature of the relationship. However, using sibling-like terms does not necessarily mean that those involved see each other as family, with the type of relationship being just as difficult to describe as finding the correct terminology to refer to one another. Similar to sibling relationships more generally, relationships across different families formed through reproductive donation are varied and complex, depending largely on the strength of the relationships formed between the individuals involved. In conclusion, surrogacy born children and donor conceived children can have good ‘sibling’ relationships with others to whom they are genetically or gestationally related, however, it appears that having a genetic or gestational connection is not in itself the determining factor for forming close relationships.

References Beeson, D. R., Jennings, P. K., & Kramer, W. (2011). Offspring searching for their sperm donors: How family type shapes the process. Human Reproduction, 26(9), 2415–2424. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der202. Blyth, E. (2012). Genes r us? Making sense of genetic and non-genetic relationships following anonymous sperm donation. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 24, 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.02.010. Freeman, T., Jadva, V., Kramer, W., & Golombok, S. (2009). Gamete donation: Parents’ experiences of searching for their child’s donor siblings and donor. Human Reproduction, 24(3), 505–516. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/ den469.

10

SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS ACROSS FAMILIES CREATED …

183

Freeman, T., Slutsky, J., & Jadva, V. (2016). Sperm donors limited: Psychosocial aspects of genetic connections and the regulation of offspring numbers. In S. Golombok, R. Scott, J. B. Appleby, M. Richards, & S. Wilkinson (Eds.), Regulating reproductive donation (pp. 126–139). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Golombok, S. (2015). Modern families: Parents and children in new family forms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Golombok, S., Ilioi, E., Blake, L., Roman, G., & Jadva, V. (2017). A longitudinal study of families formed through reproductive donation: Parent-adolescent relationships and adolescent adjustment at age 14. Developmental Psychology, 53(10), 1966–1977. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000372. Harper, J., Kennett, D., & Reisel, D. (2016). The end of donor anonymity: How genetic testing is likely to drive anonymous gamete donation out of business. Human Reproduction, 31(6), 1135–1140. https://doi.org/10.1093/ humrep/dew065. Hertz, R., & Mattes, J. (2011). Donor-shared siblings or genetic strangers: New families, clans, and the Internet. Journal of Family Issues, 20, 1–27. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0192513X11404345. Imrie, S., & Jadva, V. (2014). The long-term experiences of surrogates: Relationships and contact with surrogacy families in genetic and gestational surrogacy arrangements. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 29(4), 424–435. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.06.004. Jadva, V. (2016). Surrogacy: Issues, concerns and complexities In S. Golombok, R. Scott, J. B. Appleby, M. Richards, & S. Wilkinson (Eds.), Regulating reproductive donation (pp. 126–139). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Jadva, V., Blake, L., Casey, P., & Golombok, S. (2012). Surrogacy families 10 years on: Relationship with the surrogate, decisions over disclosure and children’s understanding of their surrogacy origins. Human Reproduction (Oxford, England), 27 (10), 3008–3014. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/ des273. Jadva, V., Freeman, T., Kramer, W., & Golombok, S. (2010). Experiences of offspring searching for and contacting their donor siblings and donor. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 20(4), 523–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. rbmo.2010.01.001. Jadva, V., Gamble, N., & Prosser, H. (2018). Cross-border and domestic surrogacy in the UK context: An exploration of practical and legal decision-making. Human Fertility, 11, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2018.154 0801. Jadva, V., Gamble, N., Prosser, H., & Imrie, S. (2019). Parent’s relationship with their surrogate during pregnancy and after the birth in cross border and domestic surrogacy arrangements: Comparisons by sexual orientation and location. Fertility and Sterility, 111, 562–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fer tnstert.2018.11.029.

184

V. JADVA

Jadva, V., & Imrie, S. (2014). Relatedness for surrogates and their families. In T. Freeman, S. Graham, F. Ebtehaj, & M. Richards. Relatedness in assisted reproduction: Families, origins and identities (pp. 162–177). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Persaud, S., Freeman, T., Jadva, V., Slutsky, J., Kramer, W., Steele, M., … Golombok, S. (2017). Adolescents conceived through donor insemination in mother-headed families: A qualitative study of motivations and experiences of contacting and meeting same-donor offspring. Children & Society, 31(1), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12158. Scheib, J. E. & Ruby, A. (2008). Contact among families who share the same sperm donor. Fertility and Sterility, 90(1), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.fertnstert.2007.05.058. Slutsky, J., Jadva, V., Freeman, T., Persaud, S., Steele, M., Steele, H., … Golombok, S. (2016). Integrating donor conception into identity development: adolescents in fatherless families. Fertility and Sterility, 106(1), 202–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.02.033. Trounson, A., Leeton, J., Besanko, M., Wood, C., & Conti, A. (1983). Pregnancy established in an infertile patient after transfer of a donated embryo fertilised in vitro. British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Ed.), 286(6368), 835–838. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.286.6368.835. Zadeh, S., Ilioi, E. C., Jadva, V., & Golombok, S. (2018). The perspectives of adolescents conceived using surrogacy, egg or sperm donation. Human Reproduction (Oxford, England), 33(6), 1099–1106. https://doi.org/10.1093/ humrep/dey088.

CHAPTER 11

Brothers and Sisters in China: No Longer the One-Child Family Bin-Bin Chen and Jo-Pei Tan

In the past three decades, the one-child policy, where couples were only allowed to have one child, dominated family life in China. As a result, there is limited research on sibling relationships in Chinese families (Chen 2018; Chen et al. 2016). However, in recent years, the population policy has been gradually relaxed in some areas in China (Wang et al. 2016). In particular since 2016, the Chinese central government has reversed the one-child policy and has allowed couples to have two children across the whole country. Following this change, there has been a rapid growth in the percentage of two-child families. The statistical report from the National Health Commission (NHC) of the People’s Republic of China showed that the number of newborns in 2018 is more than 15 million, and 50% of them are second births (NHC 2019). While the Chinese government’s decision to allow families to have more than one child was more inclined to address concerns of shrinking

B.-B. Chen (B) Department of Psychology, Fudan University, Shanghai, China e-mail: [email protected] J.-P. Tan Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK © The Author(s) 2021 A. Buchanan and A. Rotkirch (eds.), Brothers and Sisters, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55985-4_11

185

186

B.-B. CHEN AND J.-P. TAN

labour force and population ageing, the policy change may have profound implications for the system and functioning of families in China (Chen and Shi 2017; Chen et al. 2017), especially the long neglected family subsystems of sibling relationships. Hence, this chapter aims to clarify what is known about brothers and sisters in China and to explore what is happening today. The first section provides an overview of the Chinese familial culture within the context of its population policy that has dominated family life in China in the past three decades. Against this backdrop, the chapter will then review empirical findings on (1) role of Chinese parents in the development of sibling relationships such as sibling conflict and social comparisons; (2) how co-parenting behaviour and the parent’s personal siblings experience may hinder or promote better sibling relations and; and (3) the adaptation and adjustments of firstborn Chinese transition into siblinghood. Finally, the chapter summarizes and discusses the unique characteristics of sibling relationships within the Chinese context and its implication to the family dynamics and development of the new generation in China. Themes for future investigation are also introduced.

Cultural Contexts and Population Policy in China: What Have Remained and What Have Changed? In the past four decades, China has experienced significant social, political and economic changes (Xinhua 2018), characterized by rapid globalization and market-oriented economy as a result of its reform and open-door policy. China’s one-child policy was gradually implemented following the reform and the open-door policy, and this may have influenced familial and cultural values among Chinese families (Fong 2004). Research showed that those who were born at the time of one-child policy were more likely to be affected by the individualistic values and the market-oriented economy. For example, research suggests that these children were more likely to pursue their own desires and go against their parents’ expectations (Deutsch 2006). Following the introduction of the one-child policy, the one child in the family represented the only hope for the family, and their parents may have been more likely to encourage their child to be assertive and independent in order to adapt to the competitive society. Empirical evidence

11

BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN CHINA …

187

from more recent studies has indicated a mixed culture amongst Chinese families, especially in urban areas. Although Chinese families encouraged their children to be autonomous and independent, they also continued to emphasize family responsibility in socializing their children (Chen 2020b; Qu et al. 2016). A study on Chinese adolescent’s cultural values showed that Chinese urban adolescents showed higher scores on both individualistic values (e.g. personal uniqueness and assertiveness) and collectivistic values (e.g. group orientation and social connectedness) as compared to those in rural areas (Chen et al. 2012). In addition, the one-child policy seems to have contributed to greater gender equality in China. Cumulating evidence shows that girls without siblings received more parental investment, both material and psychological resources, than girls with siblings (Lee 2012; Wu 2016). While, traditionally China is characterized as a family-oriented society, its cultural values that emphasizes family responsibility, does not appear to be a strong factor in predicting care of the elderly (Zhan and Montgomery 2003). A Chinese study found that when an adult child had siblings to share parental care responsibilities, he or she tended to provide less support to their elderly parents (Zhan and Montgomery 2003). But it should be noted that the study was based on a sample who were born before the one-child policy. China is now challenged with a fast ageing population similar to developed countries in the West such as the UK, and East Asia such as Japan, Taiwan and Korea (e.g. Ogawa and Retherford 1993; Tan 2018). As such, the one-child policy may have made elder care more challenging (Zhang and Goza 2006).

Transitioning Towards the End of One-Child Policy There are more than 100 million Chinese families with only one child (Feng et al. 2014), reflecting the profound effects of the one-child policy on the size, structure, and relationships of the Chinese family. The typical family structure in China is a triadic constellation (i.e. a father-motheronly child pattern) with a child-centred family relationship. Lone children are described as little emperors who experience extended support from parents into their adulthood and married life in terms of housework, child care and material resources (Cameron et al. 2013). However, the implementation of the two-child policy may change the previous family dynamics in China, leading to increased family size, more

188

B.-B. CHEN AND J.-P. TAN

diverse family structure and a reorganization of family relationships (Feng et al. 2014). In terms of family structure, the arrival of the second child will have changed the family structure from a triadic to a tetradic constellation. From the children’s perspective, children with siblings would be less lonely with more companionship and support while growing up. Siblinghood may also reduce the possibility of parents who are emptynesters living in households without children in their old age (Zeng and Hesketh 2016). Since 1980s, prior to the introduction of two-child policy, the Chinese government has begun to implement a partial relaxation of population policy, based on the demographic and political considerations. Families which had the following conditions were permitted to have more than one child: members of minority ethnic groups, couples living in some rural areas, couples who themselves had no siblings, couples of handicapped children or rural couples who had a daughter as a firstborn child (Hesketh and Zhu 1997). Some rural parents did not officially register the birth of daughters (Cai and William 2003) but those who had more than one child could pay a huge sum of money as a penalty. These exemptions, together with the partial relaxation of the one-child policy gave families an opportunity to have a second child (Hesketh et al. 2005). A statistical report in 2007 estimated 1.5 children per couple further demonstrated that a substantial number of Chinese couples had more than one child (Gu et al. 2007). Against this background, the next section explores the sibling relationships based on samples derived prior to the two-child policy. It focuses on the role of parents, their co-parenting behaviour, parent’s own experience of having siblings and the adjustment of their firstborn child when transitioning into siblinghood.

The Role of Parents with Two or More Children The parenting experience of raising two or more children within a family may involve more energy and effort and be different when compared with a lone-child family. Parents may experience more parental stress and even parental burnout (Le Vigouroux and Scola 2018; Volling 2012); hence, they need more supportive co-parenting (Chen and Shi 2017; Kolak and Volling 2013; Szabó et al. 2012). In this section, we discuss how unique parental factors (e.g. parental involvement in sibling relationships and social comparison of siblings) and co-parenting influences sibling relationships.

11

BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN CHINA …

189

Parental Factors and Sibling Relationships In Chinese societies, parents are commonly involved in training their children to be obedient and to establish harmonious relationships in the family, including sibling relationships (Chao and Tseng 2002; Chen 2020b; Ho 1986). Previous literature has shown that parental involvement in children’s sibling relationships can be divided into two broad categories: positive guidance and authoritarian control (Chen 2019a). Positive guidance includes encouraging children to explain their point of view when they have a disagreement, praising them for getting along well, making suggestions about how they can get along better, and coaching them to negotiate a mutually acceptable outcome (McHale et al. 2000). Authoritarian control includes punishing siblings who fight one another, settling sibling conflicts without coaching, and using verbal and physical power to stop sibling disagreements (McHale et al. 2000). A recent study based on the sample of Chinese adolescents explored how mothers’ involvement in sibling relationships may influence adolescents’ sibling relationships (Chen 2019a). It found that mothers’ positive guidance was negatively related to sibling conflict while on the other hand, authoritarian control was positively related to sibling conflict. Positive guidance from Chinese mothers served as tool for their children to effectively resolve conflicts and to enhance positive interactions between siblings. In contrast, mothers’ authoritarian control (e.g. physical punishment) might be observed and modelled by adolescents and reflected in their harsh treatment and negative interaction with siblings. Hence, while Chinese parents tend to be actively involved in sibling interaction, their involvement strategies can lead to different outcome in sibling relationships. According to Social Comparison Theory (Festinger 1954), individuals establish self-concept by comparing others with themselves and comparisons often occur when an individual’s characteristics (e.g. gender, age or educational background) are similar to the comparison target, including between siblings (Suls et al. 2002). Chinese parents were often found to make critical comparisons as a form of child socialization (Camras et al. 2012; Fung and Lau 2012), including comparing their own children with children’s friend(s) or classmate(s) (Fung 1999). More importantly, when Chinese parents have more than one child within a family, they are more likely to make comparisons between siblings (Fung and Chen 2001). Although the intention of social comparison between siblings among Chinese parents was to set up a good

190

B.-B. CHEN AND J.-P. TAN

model for children, parental comparisons of siblings may have negative effects on children’s developmental outcomes. A study, using a twowave longitudinal design, explored how parents’ comparisons of siblings were associated with adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing problems (Chen et al. 2019). Cross-lagged path analysis showed that parents’ comparisons of siblings predicted more internalizing and externalizing problems in adolescents six months later. Moreover, the adolescents’ externalizing problems, but not internalizing problems, predicted more parents’ comparisons of siblings over time. Parental social comparison of siblings may have significant implications on the interaction of siblings and children outcome in Chinese families, following the implementation of two-child policy in the country.

Parents’ Cooperative Co-parenting Co-parenting is considered as a type of social support when couples become parents (Feinberg 2003). Cooperative co-parenting is conceptualized as a mutually supportive way for both parents to raise children (Schoppe et al. 2001). Specifically, raising two or more children within a family may require more support from partners (Chen and Shi 2017; Kolak and Volling 2013; Szabó et al. 2012). In China, as a result of one child policy, parental investment in developing children’s human capital has profoundly increased (Choukhmane et al. 2013) so that they support their only child to be as competitive as possible in the future (Fong 2004). Therefore, the change in Chinese population policy may have had implications for parental investment in child development, leading to changes to traditional parental role differentiations (Chen and Chang 2012) (e.g., fathers became more involved in domestic chores and in child care, such as feeding; Chuang and Su 2008). Because Chinese parents want to maintain their second born’s human capital similar to the firstborn’s, they may have to change their coparenting behaviours to sustain their parental investment (Chen 2019a). In a recent study, Chen (2019a) asked Chinese mothers to report fathers’ cooperative co-parenting and examined how it was linked to adolescents’ sibling relationships. The findings showed that a lack of cooperative coparenting, such as undermining co-parenting behaviour, was associated with greater sibling conflicts. Another study showed that the experience of high parental stress among Chinese mothers was associated with less warmth, and this eventually led to negative sibling relationships.

11

BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN CHINA …

191

However, co-parenting behaviour moderated the association between mothers’ parental stress and their warm parenting behaviours (Chen 2020a).

Parents’ Sibling Status and Their Children’s Sibling Relationship The Chinese central government began to implement the one-child policy in the early 1980s. Therefore, the first generation of Chinese children without siblings are in their adulthood now—most are married and have become parents (Chen 2019b). The recent change in the population policy has meant that their children may have a chance to have a sibling which provides a quasi-experimental context to compare individuals with or without siblings. Some pioneer studies have yielded preliminary understandings of Chinese parent’s sibling status and its relevance to children’s sibling relationships. A study was conducted by Chen (2019b) to examine how Chinese mothers’ sibling status influence their children’s sibling relationships. He proposed a model of intergenerational transmission of sibling experiences where he suggested that sibling experiences in childhood may influence parents’ parenting competence and strategies in dealing with their children’s sibling relationships. He found that the quality of sibling relationships among children whose mothers grew up with siblings were higher than those whose mothers without siblings. It seems to suggest that mothers who experienced childhood with siblings are more likely to be exposed to interaction skills with siblings than those without; thus, childhood experiences with her siblings may have enhanced their ability to manage her children better in forming positive sibling relationships. While, this seems to suggest that growing up with a sibling may benefit parents’ competency in raising multiple children, when Chen and his colleague’s (Fan and Chen 2020) investigated how both parents’ and children’s sibling status could separately or jointly influence parenting behaviours (i.e. authoritative (positive) and authoritarian parenting), the findings did not confirm this. The study showed that mothers without siblings who had two children reported more authoritative style of parenting (that is, warmer and more supportive parenting) and less authoritarian parenting (that is, highly demanding, but less supportive parenting) than their counterparts with siblings (Fan and Chen 2020). However, it should be noted that this study used a general measure of

192

B.-B. CHEN AND J.-P. TAN

parenting rather than a specific measure to assess parenting style in terms of involvement in sibling relationships. Future studies should use more specialized measurements to assess parenting behaviours in the contexts of sibling relationships. The mechanism of intergenerational transmission of sibling experiences is complex. More work is needed to understand its process, especially in the rapidly changing Chinese families.

Firstborn Children’s Adaptation to the Transition of Siblinghood Before the two-child policy, most of Chinese children were lone children who could enjoy all the family resources without sharing with another child in the family. The policy change providing parents an opportunity to have two children may lead to an unexpected event. That is, former only children may suddenly have a younger sibling. This transition may lead to more stress for the firstborn Chinese child, who may consequently relate badly to the birth of a little brother or sister (Chen 2018; Chen et al. 2018). At the beginning of the two-child policy, a recent study by Chen (2019, March) recruited Chinese families who were expecting their second child. The preliminary findings indicated that firstborn Chinese children aged 2 and 6 years old showed an increase in aggressive behaviours reported by mothers one month after their infant sibling’s birth (Chen 2019, March). Preparation for the arrival of a new sibling, may be very important for firstborn children to adapt well to the transition to siblinghood (BeyersCarlson and Volling 2017). This is especially so, when the firstborn child has no expectation that they will have a new brother or sister. An important factor in sibling preparation is having time to talk with the firstborn child about their mother’s pregnancy and the possibility of having a younger brother or sister. An anticipatory stress hypothesis suggests that when children anticipate a future stressful event, they may have more time to prepare themselves for dealing with the stress that has not yet happened (Lazarus and Folkman 1984). Therefore, if the firstborn children are informed early before the birth of their infant sibling, they may have more time to adjust to the idea of the upcoming birth of the new sibling. Chen and his colleagues (Chen et al. 2018) conducted an investigation called ‘Time to Inform about Mom’s Pregnancy’ (TIMP), which examined whether firstborn children’s positive feelings about their new sibling before the birth was related to the time at which the firstborn children

11

BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN CHINA …

193

were informed about their mother’s pregnancy. The preliminary findings indicated that firstborn Chinese children who were informed earlier in their mothers’ pregnancy were more likely to have positive feelings about their sibling before the birth (Chen et al. 2018). In addition, the firstborn child’s ‘effortful control’ seems to be a protective factor for their adjustment to the birth of a sibling (Chen et al. 2016; Volling 2012). ‘Effortful control’ was conceptualized as ‘the ability to inhibit a dominant response to perform a subdominant response’ (Rothbart and Bates 2006, p. 137). Children with high levels of effortful control may be better at regulating their behaviour, feelings and thoughts (Eisenberg et al. 2011). The TIMP project further examined whether firstborn Chinese children’s effortful control may moderate the association between the time when parents tell the firstborn children about the birth of a sibling, and their feelings about their sibling before the birth. The findings showed that when firstborn Chinese children had low levels of effortful control, being told later about their mothers’ pregnancy was linked to lower levels of positive feelings about the sibling. It seems to suggest that firstborn children with low level of effortful control may need much longer to accept the upcoming new sibling. The sibling relationship begins at the time of mother’s pregnancy (Gottlieb and Mendelson 1990). However, existing literature tends to focus on the period of time after the birth of the sibling. Children’s feelings towards the new sibling before the birth plays a unique role in their relationships with siblings after the birth (Dunn and Kendrick 1982; Szabó 2012; Volling 2017). Findings based on the TIMP project provided preliminary evidence that parents’ preparation and firstborn children’s effortful control may be interactively linked to the reaction to a sibling before the birth. This study has enhanced our understanding of the reaction of firstborn children to a sibling before the birth among Chinese families.

Implications and Future Directions The implementation and current development of population policy has led to some unique characteristics of sibling structure in Chinese contexts. One phenomenon is that at the early stage of the implementation of two-child policy, some parents have had their second child when the firstborn was relatively older (e.g. adolescents or even emerging adults) than those in western societies (Volling 2012). It means that the age difference

194

B.-B. CHEN AND J.-P. TAN

between siblings is very large in China. The firstborn children can serve as caregivers, like their parents, for their very young siblings. It will be interesting to explore those sibling relationships who have a wide age gap, which, in some ways may replicate parent–child relationships. Another unique phenomenon is how parents’ sibling status (having a sibling or not) and children’s sibling status may interact to influence the family functioning (Fan and Chen 2020). The dramatic change in population policy in China may provide quasi-experimental contexts to examine how different sibling statuses play a role in family and children’s development. With the implementation of the two-child policy in China, the 4-2-1 (4 grandparents, 2 parents and 1 child), and 4-2-2 (4 grandparents, 2 parents and 2 children) family structure will become the two main patterns within the Chinese society (Feng et al. 2014). The 4-2-1 structure seems to cause more stress for the adult only children because they must face challenges in elder care without support from siblings. In contrast, the 4-2-2 structure may cause more burden for the couples whereby these couples (commonly are only children) have to care for four older parents and two children at the same time. While their children will have siblings to share care responsibilities in the future, these couples are considered the ‘sandwiched generation’ without siblings themselves, and must care for both their children and parents. Dealing with both child and elderly care may lead to more constraints and stress for the parents. Parents’ stress in turn may adversely influence children’s sibling relationships as shown in a recent study (Chen 2020a). Considering that the 4-2-1 and 4-2-2 patterns will become prevalent in Chinese families, grandparents should be considered as a good potential source of childcare support (Goh 2009). This suggests that, three-generation living arrangements, in which grandparents, parents and children reside together or live closely, should be encouraged. Such arrangements are commonly acceptable in China. Most of grandparents seem to have enough energy and time to provide childcare, given the official retirement age is relatively young (i.e. 60 for most men, 55 for female white-collar workers and 50 for other employees) in China. Traditionally, Chinese grandparents are highly involved in childcare responsibilities. But it is unclear about grandparents’ involvement when their children have more than one child. For example, previous literature has shown that grandparents tend to have a grandson preference (Wang 2015), hence it is interesting to examine whether grandparents may treat granddaughters differently.

11

BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN CHINA …

195

In order to promote family functioning and welfare, including sibling relationships, some issues ranging from macro to micro levels are of concern. In the following section, we discuss sibling relationships with respect to its systemic nature in Chinese contexts based on the relational developmental systems meta-theory (Overton 2015). The relational developmental systems meta-theory emphasizes the process mechanism by which individuals and contexts mutually influence each other (Overton 2015). In particular, all levels of context where an individual lives, exist in a mutually influential way across the lifespan (Lerner et al. 2013). Therefore, to adequately understand the development of sibling relationships across the life span, we should focus on the significant contexts at different levels. We proposed a Developmental Contextual Model of Sibling Relationships (see Fig. 11.1) to promote in future research. In this model, parents and grandparents directly influence child adjustment and sibling relationships. Also, child adjustment and sibling relationships,

Culture Policy Community School & work network • Co-parenting • Living arrangement

• Marital quality

• Family value

• Sibling experience

• Health status

• Family value

Grand-

Parents

parents

Time

C1

Sibling relationship

C2

• Child characteristics • Sibling structure • Sibling relationship quality

Fig. 11.1

A developmental contextual model of sibling relationships

196

B.-B. CHEN AND J.-P. TAN

can also actively influence parents and grandparents. In addition, the basic features of child (and siblings), parents and grandparents are portrayed as both influencing factors and developmental outcomes. Kinship network, school/work, community, policy and culture are five broader levels. Last, all individuals and contexts change over time. Therefore, the mutual influential relations between individuals and contexts may subsequently change. Some points as future directions are emphasized in the model. First, we emphasized that policy is a broad level context that influences roles in sibling relationships. Some family policies should be changed and new policies should be introduced to improve the two-child family’s welfare. In the previous decades, Chinese governments gradually retreated from welfare provisions such as providing a day-care centres affiliated to the workplace and free apartments for employees. At present, both maternal and paternal leave periods seem to be too short for parents to effectively care for children. In particular, there are few explicit governmental initiatives to encourage and support fathers to be involved in childcare. Furthermore, elder care leave is extremely lacking. Therefore, more social support from the community and government is needed. For example, previous welfare provisions, such as child care and living accommodation, should be reinstated; maternal and paternal leave should be extended and should be transferable between the couples; and tax reduction or tax-free status should be provided for the family with two children. Second, family responsibility as an important traditional cultural value should continue to be emphasized. Family responsibility in Confucian cultural contexts reflect not only care and respect of the elderly, but also care and respect between siblings. One of recent investigation showed that family responsibility might be a victim of the negative effect of parents’ differential treatment of siblings (Chen 2019, June). Specifically, children’s perceived parents’ differential treatment may lead to lower levels of positive sibling relationships which in turn may lead to lower levels of family responsibility. Programmes to improve children’s sense of family responsibility are important. For example, formal or informal courses about family responsibility can be developed in K-12 schools. Last, there are developmental variations across time within contexts and across contexts within time (Lerner et al. 2013). Therefore, the time factor together with contextual factors may lead to a diversity of sibling relationships. In China, there is very limited investigation based on longitudinal designs. We do not know how sibling relationships develop and

11

BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN CHINA …

197

change across the lifespan. For example, it is unclear how sibling relationships in early childhood may influence its relationships in older adulthood, and how the changes and developments of sibling relationships may influence elder care. We believe that the use of longitudinal design in the future research has an important role in enabling us to understand sibling relationships.

References Beyers-Carlson, E. E. A., & Volling, B. L. (2017). Efficacy of sibling preparation classes. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing, 46, 521–531. Cai, Y., & William, L. (2003). China’s missing girls: Numerical estimates and effects on population growth. The China Review, 3, 13–29. Cameron, L., Erkal, N., Gangadharan, L., & Meng, X. (2013). Little emperors: Behavioral impacts of China’s One-Child Policy. Science, 339, 953–957. Camras, L. A., Sun, K., Li, Y., & Wright, M. F. (2012). Do Chinese and American children’s interpretations of parenting moderate links between perceived parenting and child adjustment? Parenting, 12, 306–327. Chao, R., & Tseng, V. (2002). Parenting of Asians. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (2nd ed., Vol. 4, pp. 59–93). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Chen, B.-B. (2018). The second child: Family transition and adjustment. Shanghai, China: Shanghai Educational Publishing House. Chen, B.-B. (2019a). Chinese adolescents’ sibling conflicts: Links with maternal involvement in sibling relationships and coparenting. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 29, 752–762. Chen, B.-B. (2019b). Chinese mothers’ sibling status, perceived supportive coparenting, and their children’s sibling relationships. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28, 684–692. Chen, B.-B. (2019, June). Parenting and sibling relationships in Chinese contexts. Paper presented at the Workshop on Child Development in Chinese Context, NYU-ECNU Institute for Social Development at NYU Shanghai, China. Chen, B.-B. (2019, March). Firstborn children’s externalizing behaviors and mothers’ perceived coparenting across the birth of a second infant. Paper presented at the The 2019 Biennial Meeting of Society for Research in Child Development, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Chen, B.-B. (2020a). The relationship between Chinese mothers’ parenting stress and sibling relationships: A moderated mediation model of maternal warmth and co-parenting. Early Child Development and Care, 190, 1350–1358. Chen, B.-B. (2020b). Socialization values of Chinese parents: Does parents’ educational level matter? Current Psychology, 39, 511–517.

198

B.-B. CHEN AND J.-P. TAN

Chen, B.-B., & Chang, L. (2012). Adaptive insecure attachment and resource control strategies during middle childhood. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 36, 389–397. Chen, B.-B., Han, W., Wang, Y., Sui, Y., Chen, Z., & Wan, L. (2018). The reaction of firstborn children to a sibling before the birth: The role of the time at which they are told about the mother’s pregnancy and their effortful control. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 36, 158–167. Chen, B.-B., Qu, Y., & Chen, X. (2019). Chinese parents’ comparisons of siblings and adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing problems. Submitted for publication. Chen, B.-B., & Shi, Z. (2017). Parenting in families with two children. Advances in Psychological Science, 25, 1172–1181. Chen, B.-B., Wang, Y., Liang, J., & Tong, L. (2016). And baby makes four: Biological and psychological changes and influential factors of firstborn’s adjustment to transition to siblinghood. Advances in Psychological Science, 24, 863–873. Chen, B.-B., Zhao, Y., Han, W., Wang, Y., Wu, J., Yue, X., & Wu, Y. (2017). Sibling relationships: Forms, causes and consequences. Advances in Psychological Science, 25, 2168–2178. Chen, X., Wang, L., & Liu, J. (2012). Adolescent cultural values and adjustment in the changing Chinese society. In G. Trommsdorff & X. Chen (Eds.), Values, religion, and culture in adolescent development (pp. 235–252). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Choukhmane, T., Coeurdacier, N., & Jin, K. Y. (2013). The one-child policy and household savings. CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP9688. https://ssrn. com/abstract=2341051. Chuang, S. S., & Su, Y. (2008). Transcending Confucian teachings on fathering: A sign of the times or acculturation. In S. S. Chuang & R. P. Moreno (Eds.), On new shores: Understanding immigrant fathers in North America (pp. 129– 150). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Deutsch, F. M. (2006). Filial piety, patrilineality, and China’s one-child policy. Journal of Family Issues, 27 , 366–389. Dunn, J., & Kendrick, C. (1982). Siblings: Love, envy, & understanding. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Eisenberg, N., Smith, C. L., & Spinrad, T. L. (2011). Effortful control: Relations with emotion regulation, adjustment, and socialization in childhood. In K. D. Vohs & R. F. Baumeister (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (2nd ed., pp. 263283). New York: Guilford Press. Fan, J., & Chen, B.-B. (2020). Parenting styles and coparenting in China: The role of parents and children’s sibling status. Current Psychology, 39, 1505– 1512.

11

BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN CHINA …

199

Feinberg, M. E. (2003). The internal structure and ecological context of coparenting: A framework for research and intervention. Parenting, 3, 95–131. Feng, X.-T., Poston, D. L., & Wang, X.-T. (2014). China’s one-child policy and the changing family. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 45, 17–29. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7 , 117–140. Fong, V. (2004). Only hope: Coming of age under China’s one-child policy. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Fung, H. (1999). Becoming a moral child: The socialization of shame among young Chinese children. Ethos, 27 , 180–209. Fung, H., & Chen, E. C. H. (2001). Across time and beyond skin: Self and transgression in the everyday socialization of shame among Taiwanese preschool children. Social Development, 10, 420–437. Fung, J., & Lau, A. S. (2012). Tough love or hostile domination? Psychological control and relational induction in cultural context. Journal of Family Psychology, 26, 966–975. Goh, E. C. L. (2009). Grandparents as childcare providers: An in-depth analysis of the case of Xiamen, China. Journal of Aging Studies, 23, 60–68. Gottlieb, L. N., & Mendelson, M. J. (1990). Parental support and firstborn girls’ adaptation to the birth of a sibling. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 11, 29–48. Gu, B., Wang, F., Guo, Z., & Zhang, E. (2007). China’s local and national fertility policies at the end of the twentieth century. Population and Development Review, 33, 129–148. Hesketh, T., Lu, L., & Xing, Z. W. (2005). The effect of China’s one-child family policy after 25 years. New England Journal of Medicine, 353, 1171–1176. Hesketh, T., & Zhu, W. X. (1997). The one child family policy: The good, the bad, and the ugly. British Medical Journal, 314, 1685–1687. Ho, D. Y. F. (1986). Chinese patterns of socialization: A critical review. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The psychology of the Chinese people (pp. 1–37). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press. Kolak, A. M., & Volling, B. L. (2013). Coparenting moderates the association between firstborn children’s temperament and problem behavior across the transition to siblinghood. Journal of Family Psychology, 27 , 355–364. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer. Le Vigouroux, S., & Scola, C. (2018). Differences in parental burnout: Influence of demographic factors and personality of parents and children. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 887.

200

B.-B. CHEN AND J.-P. TAN

Lee, M.-H. (2012). The One-Child Policy and gender equality in education in China: Evidence from household data. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 33, 41–52. Lerner, R. M., Agans, J. P., DeSouza, L. M., & Gasca, S. (2013). Describing, explaining, and optimizing within-individual change across the life span: A relational developmental systems perspective. Review of General Psychology, 17 , 179–183. McHale, S. M., Updegraff, K. A., Tucker, C. J., & Crouter, A. C. (2000). Step in or stay out? Parents’ roles in adolescent siblings’ relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 746–760. NHC. (2019). Communiqué on health development statistics of China in 2018. Retrieved September 19, 2019, from http://www.nhc.gov.cn. Ogawa, N., & Retherford, R. D. (1993). Care of the elderly in Japan: Changing norms and expectations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 585–597. Overton, W. F. (2015). Process and relational developmental systems. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science (7th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 9–62). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Qu, Y., Pomerantz, E. M., & Deng, C. (2016). Mothers’ goals for adolescents in the United States and China: Content and transmission. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 26, 126–141. Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (2006). Temperament. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development, pp. 99–166). New York: Wiley. Schoppe, S. J., Mangelsdorf, S. C., & Frosch, C. A. (2001). Coparenting, family process, and family structure: Implications for preschoolers’ externalizing behavior problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 526–545. Suls, J., Martin, R., & Wheeler, L. (2002). Social comparison: Why, with whom, and with what effect? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 159–163. Szabó, N. (2012). Families in motion: Changes with the arrival of a second child (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Utrecht University, The Netherland. Szabó, N., Dubas, J. S., & van Aken, M. A. (2012). And baby makes four: The stability of coparenting and the effects of child temperament after the arrival of a second child. Journal of Family Psychology, 26, 554–564. Tan, J.-P. (2018). Do grandparents matter? Intergenerational relationships between the closest grandparents and Malaysian adolescents. Contemporary Social Science, 13, 246–260. Volling, B. L. (2012). Family transitions following the birth of a sibling: An empirical review of changes in the firstborn’s adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 497–528.

11

BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN CHINA …

201

Volling, B. L. (2017). I. Introduction: Understanding the transition to siblinghood from a developmental psychopathology and ecological systems perspective. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 82, 7–25. Wang, F., Gu, B., & Cai, Y. (2016). The end of China’s One-Child Policy. Studies in Family Planning, 47 , 83–86. Wang, Q. (2015). Child gender, intergenerational kinship and parental labor market outcomes. Review of Development Economics, 19, 892–907. Wu, Q. (2016). Sibship size and children’s family resources: Findings from a nationally representative survey in China. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 36, 575–594. Xinhua. (2018). China marks 40th anniversary of reform and opening-up with greater resolve. Retrieved October 10, 2019, from http://www.xinhuanet. com. Zeng, Y., & Hesketh, T. (2016). The effects of China’s universal two-child policy. Lancet, 388, 1930–1938. Zhan, H. J., & Montgomery, R. J. V. (2003). Gender and elder care in China: The influence of filial piety and structural constraints. Gender & Society, 17 , 209–229. Zhang, Y., & Goza, F. W. (2006). Who will care for the elderly in China?: A review of the problems caused by China’s one-child policy and their potential solutions. Journal of Aging Studies, 20, 151–164.

PART IV

Relationships in Adult Life

CHAPTER 12

Adult Sibling Relationships in the United States: Mostly Close, Occasionally Contentious, and Caring for Ageing Parents Michael E. Woolley and Geoffrey L. Greif

Introduction Our interactions and feelings concerning our siblings, among the very few relationships we have that last our lifetime, are rarely indifferent— they can be along a continuum from consistently close and caring, to combustibly conflictual and difficult, or premeditatedly avoided or cutoff (all contact or communications have stopped). At different times across the lifespan, they can also vary along this continuum (Kuba 2011). Close and caring relationships between adult siblings have been linked to better mental health and well-being outcomes (Kramer and Bank 2005), and are related to three central dynamics of sibling relationships. First, as noted, these relationships can last a lifetime, typically longer than our other two central family relationships, those with spouses or parents. It is our siblings with whom we learn to share a bathroom, dinner

M. E. Woolley (B) · G. L. Greif University of Maryland School of Social Work, Baltimore, MD, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2021 A. Buchanan and A. Rotkirch (eds.), Brothers and Sisters, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55985-4_12

205

206

M. E. WOOLLEY AND G. L. GREIF

table, and long car ride; in several ways our siblings are our first spousallike relationships. It is also our siblings with whom we cooperate to care for our parents as they age or become ill and, when our parents die, with whom we plan and implement the family rituals to honour their lives and deal with their estate. Second, and relatedly, we have critical history with our siblings. Our siblings are there across all our life stages as we make our way to and through adulthood and as we build careers, marry, raise children, and deal with sickness, triumphs, and tragedies. Given such a long trajectory, it seems predictable that these relationships will be tested by the vicissitudes of life and experience significant ups and downs. Moreover, with such a rich history, our siblings can anticipate how we might respond to great joy or distress and know what to say or do at those times. In those ways, they can be our closest lifelong friends. In fact, it has been observed that, for many of us, our siblings are our first playmates, confidants, and therefore friends (Ainsworth 1989). Our adult siblings can be friends who we can always count on; friends for whom we are always there; friends we would enthusiastically choose if they had not been chosen for us. Also, like friends, we can get mad at them, be disappointed by them, and give them a hard time; in addition, they know the meanest thing that can be said to us (and occasionally say it). Consequently, these relationships can resonate at a greater range of frequencies than other relationships. Third, we are some combination of psychologically, emotionally, and familially connected to our siblings for life. They are like our shadows— not always visible but always with us. These relationships in some form, whether they are very close or cutoff, are for life. If they are close and supportive then the permanence is a key factor in their strength; if they are contentious or cutoff, the psychological connections remain, making the emotional pain more painful and long-lasting than other relationships. The familial connections also remain, making avoiding such troubled sibling relationships difficult to impossible. As Victoria Bedford pointed out, siblings are a “largely symbolic relationship”, meaning they do not end even if contact and communications do (1989, p. 211). To paraphrase an old aphorism, you pick your friends—and your spouses(s)—but not your siblings. We will begin this chapter with both a review of prior research on adult sibling relationships and an overview of findings from our own mixed methods research on adult sibling relationships previously reported

12

ADULT SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS IN THE UNITED STATES …

207

(Greif and Woolley 2015, 2016a, b; Woolley and Greif, in press; Woolley et al. 2014, 2015). Those findings will highlight how a majority of adult sibling relationships are close and caring, while a troubled minority can be contentious, avoided, or even totally cutoff of all communications. Finally, we will detail a new analysis that illustrates the multigenerational import of sibling relationships in adulthood, specifically how the lifelong trajectory of adult sibling relationships coalesces in how siblings come together to care for ageing parents. Given our increasingly longer lifespans, illness or infirmity in later life requires making complex, difficult, and consequential decisions about healthcare, living situation, or ongoing support services. The adult siblings of ageing parents are often called upon to collaborate in making and implementing such decisions. Understanding how parenting practices and the nature of adult sibling relationships may influence such decision making would both further our understanding of these understudied family relationships and be valuable knowledge for family and healthcare practitioners.

Research on Adult Sibling Relationships In the United States, research on sibling relationships, from childhood to adulthood, is limited compared to other family relationships and has come initially from a handful of researchers over the last four decades and more recently has expanded. An early call for such research came from Donald Irish, who pointed out in 1964 the dearth of research focused on sibling relationships as opposed to the bodies of research on the parent–child and spousal relationships. However, he was primarily calling for research on sibling relationships in childhood. Lillian Troll in 1971, included siblings in her review of research on the influence of social relationships in adulthood; she found and described scant and conflicting findings that adult siblings are either closer or not as close as friends. Then, in 1976, Jane Pfouts again opined about the relative absence of research on sibling relationships, pointing out how long these relationships last and how much time siblings spend together, echoing Irish’s and Pfouts’ calls for research on these neglected family relationships. Their calls were answered. In 1983, Dunn wrote a review of 10 studies published over the previous seven years and synthesized four interesting findings from these primarily observational studies of child siblings: (1) a pattern of frequent affectionate interactions between siblings; (2) siblings spend as much or more time interacting with each other than with their

208

M. E. WOOLLEY AND G. L. GREIF

mother; (3) younger siblings imitate the behaviour of older siblings; and (4) younger siblings seek out older siblings for comfort when upset. These findings ratified the earlier calls and triggered more research. Mostly Close and Caring It is not surprising, given the findings from that initial set of observational studies, that attachment theory, a leading theory informing research on parent–child relationships at the time, was applied to examine the close bonds developed between siblings in both childhood and lasting into adulthood (Ainsworth 1989). For example, Victor Cicirelli (1982, 1989, 1994, 1995), an important early researcher on sibling relationships across the lifespan, in a series of pioneering studies informed by attachment theory, found benefits to well-being from having siblings starting in childhood and lasting through adulthood. Cicirelli also found clear patterns of gender differences. For example, assessing attachment as higher closeness and lower conflict, Cicirelli found both sisters and brothers report being more bonded to sisters, with sister–sister the strongest and brother– brother the weakest attachments. He further found that attachment to sisters was associated with better mental health later in life, while attachment to brothers did not have such an effect. Finally, Cicirelli (2009), in his most recent research about elder siblings, found that feeling close to your siblings is predictive of less depressive symptomatology, while the loss of siblings to death has indirect negative effects on depressive symptomatology. Doherty and Feeney (2004), using validated survey instruments assessing attachment bonds, found that adult siblings reported bonds that included three of the four key characteristics of an attachment relationship: (1) emotional closeness; (2) feeling comforted by the sibling; and (3) feeling secure with the sibling. They found attachment-type bonds between more than one-third of adult siblings and found, when a sibling reports such a bond, it is usually reciprocal. Further, sisters and respondents not in romantic relationships were more likely to be so attached and concluded attachment theory is an appropriate lens through which to examine adult sibling relationships. They also found a life span trajectory with attachment strongest in early adulthood, less so in middle adulthood, but stronger again in later adulthood.

12

ADULT SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS IN THE UNITED STATES …

209

Another important thinker and researcher of adult sibling relationships is Ingrid Connidis (1994, 2007) who reported an overall pattern of adult sibling relationships as largely close and caring, and that such relationships predict better well-being. However, sibling relationships across the life span are complex and influenced by a number of factors both within the family (e.g. relationships in childhood, parenting practices) and outside the family (e.g. occupational careers, socio-economic differences). The factors outside the family are largely related to inequalities between siblings in adulthood. Connidis’ most significant contribution may be the introduction of the concept of ambivalence as useful in understanding adult sibling relationships, including such inequalities that often emerge in adulthood. Ambivalence captures the predominantly positive nature of these relationships, but also how they can be complicated, or conflictual, even become cutoff, and that multiple feelings and dynamics in those relationships can coexist across that continuum. In our own previous research surveying and interviewing 262 adults with siblings, we found similar patterns of closeness and caring between adult siblings (Greif and Woolley 2016a). For example, a large majority (79%) of the adults aged 40–90 reported their siblings were very important to them, and a majority (61%) were comfortable with the level of support they received from their siblings. We also administered a set of scales (Riggio 2000) that assessed how adult siblings feel and think and their siblings, with the overall pattern being quite positive. These two scales included eight questions each with a five-point response set from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1). The mean for the eight questions about how respondents felt about their siblings was 4.1, slightly higher than agree that, for example, their siblings make them happy, that they have fun together, and they enjoy their sibling relationships. The mean of the questions about how siblings think about their siblings was 3.87, just shy of agree, that they are proud of their siblings, that they have a lot in common, and that their siblings are good friends. In sum, the growing body of research on adult sibling relationships describes these lifelong relationships as predominantly important, close, and caring. Contentious to Cutoff As any adult with siblings can attest, even if we got along well with our siblings in childhood, we also have memories of times when we

210

M. E. WOOLLEY AND G. L. GREIF

fought “like brothers and sisters”. Bedford (1989) after describing the largely positive nature of adult sibling relationships pointed out how social desirability effects emerging from cultural norms may make respondents reluctant to endorse troubled sibling relationships. We assert that may mean when siblings do report such troubled relationships they may, in fact, be worse than reported. Bedford goes on to report how, in a study designed to assess underlying sibling relationship struggles that may date back to childhood, and that she termed ambivalent, she found sisters more consciously aware of underlying negative feelings than brothers. Empty nest sisters, who may have turned attention back to their sibling relationships after their children have left home, were particularly prone to such feelings. Informed by an interview study of adult sisters, Apter (2007) pointed out that conflicts and cruelties rarely drive sisters apart in childhood, while also pointing out how such negative feelings are stronger and more persistent than with friends. Further, as Bedford et al. (2000) found, those hurt feelings can go dormant but re-emerge in adulthood, especially if triggered by new conflicts or difficult situations, such as caring for or losing parents. In a study exploring the influence of parental management of sibling conflict in childhood on sibling adult relationships, Bouchard et al. (2019) found that parental control, noninvolvement, and positive coaching in terms of the sibling relationships were associated with sibling bullying and conflict in childhood as well as conflict later in adulthood. Their study makes it clear how parents, for better or worse, influence the trajectory of sibling relationships. In our own research (Greif and Woolley 2016a), we found that about one in ten of the siblings reported troubled relationships with their siblings, which ranged from contentious to avoided to totally cutoff. For example, 11% responded they did not trust their siblings and 9% responded that they were not close with their siblings. In addition, 10%, when prompted to offer words that described their siblings, offered negative descriptors. These like-minded responses came largely from the same respondents. So, what do this troubled one-tenth of the adults feel and think about their siblings? Their mean responses to two Riggio (2000) scales was 2.10 in relation to feelings. They essentially disagree that their siblings make them happy, that they have fun together, or that they enjoy their sibling relationships. The mean of the questions about how these troubled 10%

12

ADULT SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS IN THE UNITED STATES …

211

of the sample think about their siblings was 1.91. Thus, they also essentially disagree that they are proud of their siblings, that they have a lot in common, or that their siblings are good friends. Finally, Donley and Likins (2010) investigated whether sibling relationships repeat across generations. They learned that, whether calm or tense, troubled sibling relationships do tend to get passed down to the next generation. Caring for Aging Parents In the multigenerational life cycle, our parents take care of us, then years later, ideally in cooperation with our siblings, we take care of them (Woolley et al. 2015). The caretaking of ageing parents has gained some attention in the limited body of research on adult sibling relationships. For example, Ingersoll-Dayton et al. (2003) found that 65% of adult siblings reported that the distribution of effort in caring for ageing or ill parents was not equitable. Further, they found when such inequities occurred, they often lead to conflict. When siblings did perceive inequities, they often tried two different strategies to manage the imbalance, either ask the other siblings to help more or change the way they thought about the caretaking situation. However, no single approach is always successful and while some siblings experienced increased equity, others perceived the reverse, more inequity and conflict. In a study examining the impact on sibling relationships of having a parent in ill-health or having died, Fuller-Thomson (2000), found such siblings more often reported they did not get along with their siblings. They did report, as most adult sibling research has, that the proportion of adult siblings experiencing conflict is small. Still, that proportion tended to increase when a parent was sick or died. The authors hypothesized this may be due to a number of factors. First, the parent is no longer an active “kin-keeper” working to keep the sibling relationships intact. Second, having a parent in need of care can heighten tensions as siblings must work together to provide care. Third, the anticipation and the task of settling the parental estate and dividing up their belongings, can bring up unresolved issues about equity or favouritism.

212

M. E. WOOLLEY AND G. L. GREIF

Current Study The data for the current research were collected as part of a larger mixed methods study of sibling relationships in middle and later adulthood (Greif and Woolley 2016a) conducted by the authors. For the new analysis reported here, we developed three hypotheses which were informed by both the literature and our evolving understanding of adult sibling relationships based on our prior quantitative and qualitative analyzes. Our three hypotheses were as follows: (1) The perception of parenting in childhood will impact the nature and trajectory of sibling relationships emerging from the childhood years; (2) Parent–child and sibling set relationships in childhood will continue to have an impact on the nature and trajectory of sibling relationships into middle and later adulthood; and (3) Parenting practices and sibling set relationships across childhood into adulthood will be predictive of whether adult siblings agree in the care of ageing parents. Methods Data Collection and Sample Master’s students in an advanced research course in a school of social work in the United States were trained to administer these surveys and interviews across three waves in the fall of 2011, 2012, and 2013. The sample was a convenience sample with the students each interviewing six to eight middle age or older adults they knew who had living siblings. The authors also participated in the data collection. All data entry and analyzes were completed by the authors. Across the three waves, 262 respondents 40-years-old and over with at least one living sibling were surveyed. Respondents completed a 104-item questionnaire that included single survey items and multiple question scales about the nature of the parenting they and their siblings received in childhood and how those parent–sibling interactions operate currently. Respondents also answered questions about the nature of their relationships with their siblings both during childhood and currently. All these survey questions had a fivepoint Likert response set from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Of those 262 participants, the average age was 54.2 (SD = 10.3 years, range from 40 to 90), 150 were female and 112 were male, 69% reported their race as White, 17% African American, 6% Hispanic/Latino, 4% Asian American,

12

ADULT SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS IN THE UNITED STATES …

213

with 1% reporting “Other”. One hundred and eighty-three had longterm partners, 196 had children, and 49 had a step-, half-, or adopted sibling. Across a five-point income scale, nine reported upper, 92 uppermiddle, 126 middle, 30 lower-middle, and one reported lower income. For education, 8 reported less than a high school diploma, 47 completed high school only, 31 completed some college, 96 completed college and 98 completed one or more years of education beyond college. Twentyfive percent had just one sibling, 30% had two, 16% had three, 16% had four, 5% had five siblings, and 7% had six or more. Measures Dependent Variable Siblings Agree on Care of Ageing Parents was a single survey item, which asked respondents: How often do you and your sibling(s) agree about how to care for your parent(s)? Response options included: Very Often, Somewhat Often, Occasionally, or Never (which were coded 3 to 0 for analyzes). Independent Variables Seven latent variables were included in the analysis each with two to six survey item indicators. All of these survey items used the same five-point response option set, strongly agree (coded 5) to strongly disagree (coded 1). Supportive Parenting had two item indicators, which asked if parents were supportive of the respondent’s sibling relationships when growing up and as an adult. Negative Parenting Childhood included six items asking about various parenting interactions when the respondents were children including: showing favourites, interfering, protecting, or ignoring sibling relationships. Negative Parenting Adulthood asked about those same six parenting behaviours in adulthood. Positive Sibling Relationships Childhood included two survey items asking about whether as children the respondent and his or her sibling trusted each other and helped each other. Positive Sibling Relationships Adulthood included the same two relationship characteristics, trust and help, but asking about adulthood. Negative Sibling Relationships Childhood included three items asking about whether siblings argued, were jealous, or competed in childhood. Negative Sibling Relationships Adulthood asked about those same three relationship characteristics in adulthood.

214

M. E. WOOLLEY AND G. L. GREIF

Analytic Strategy First, we ran bivariate correlations for all model variables. Please see Table 12.1. Two of those correlations were large, reports of Negative Parenting Childhood were very predictive of reports of Negative Parenting Adulthood (r = .81). Further, Positive Sibling Relationships Adulthood had the largest correlation with Siblings Agree on Care of Parents (r = .62), with all other parenting and sibling relationship variables having small to moderate correlations with Siblings Agree on Care of Parents (.19–.40). Based on our hypotheses, we estimated a path model in AMOS 22, with between two and six survey item indicators for each of seven latent independent variables including: (1) Supportive Parenting, (2) Negative Parenting Childhood, (3) Negative Parent Adulthood, (4) Positive Sibling Relationships Childhood, (5) Positive Sibling Relationships Adulthood, (6) Negative Sibling Relationships Childhood, and (7) Negative Sibling Relationships Now. The dependent variable was a survey item, Siblings Agree on Care of Ageing Parents. Please see Table 12.2 for the coefficients for all survey item indicators.

Results Figure 12.1 details the path model examining the relationships between the independent variables and the outcome of interest, adult siblings agreeing on the care of parents, with that path model confirming our hypotheses. For example, please note in Fig. 12.1 that all pathways in the model were statistically significant and the coefficients were all in the hypothesized directions. All coefficients in Fig. 12.1 are standardized, so can be compared as to the relative magnitude of the pathways in the model. The largest influences on adult siblings agreeing on how to care for their ageing parents were found from the variable pathways that measured supportive and positive relationships. For example, Supportive Parenting predicted Positive Sibling Relationships Childhood (β = 0.95, p < .01), which predicted Positive Sibling Relationships Adulthood (β = 0.62, p < .01) and, in turn, predicted an increase in adult Siblings Agreeing on the Care of Ageing Parents (β = 0.43, p < .01). Negative Parenting Childhood strongly predicted Negative Parenting Adulthood (β = 0.92, p < .01) and, in turn, had a negative impact on adult Siblings Agreeing on Care of Aging Parents (β = −0.29, p < .01).

12

ADULT SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS IN THE UNITED STATES …

215

Table 12.1 Correlation table of study variables Variable Negative Parenting Childhood (NPC) Negative Parenting Adulthood (NPA) Positive Sibling Relationships Childhood (PSRC) Positive Sibling Relationships Adulthood (PSRA) Negative Sibling Relationships Childhood (NSRC) Negative Sibling Relationships Adulthood (NSRA) Siblings Agree on Care of Ageing Parents

Supportive parenting

NPC

NPA

PSRC

PSRA

NSRC

NSRA

−.42*

−.30*

.81**

.40**

−.50** −.30*

.40**

−.35** −.39**

.55**

−.28*

.37**

.37** -−23*

−.39**

.37**

.52**

.30*

−.35*

−.38**

−.26*

.40**

−.22

−.26*

.45**

.62** −.19*

Note Sample included 262 adults ages 40–90 with at least one living sibling * = p < .05, ** = p < .0

−.39**

216

M. E. WOOLLEY AND G. L. GREIF

Table 12.2 Coefficients of path model latent variable indicators Latent variable

Survey item indicators

B

β

Supportive childhood Supportive adulthood

1.00 .84**

0.74 0.67

0.11

Upset Interfere Protect Favorite Don’t know Ignore

1.00 .99** .94** .93** .73** .68**

.69 .67 .57 .52 .44 .44

0.11 0.12 0.13 0.15 0.14

Favorite Upset Interfere Protect Don’t know Ignore

1.00 .86** .84** .82** .56** .54**

.65 .67 .67 .63 .43 .43

0.13 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.12

Trust Help

1.00 .92**

.92 .84

0.10

Help Trust

1.00 .95**

.93 .92

0.09

Jealous Compete Argue

1.00 .71** .55**

.86 .59 .43

0.09 0.11

Jealous Compete Argue

1.00 .98** .77**

.88 .81 .58

0.10 0.10

Standard error

Supportive Parenting

Negative Parenting Childhood

Negative Parenting Adulthood

Positive Sibling Relationships Childhood

Positive Sibling Relationships Adulthood

Negative Sibling Relationship Childhood

Negative Sibling Relationships Adulthood

Note See Fig. 12.1 for relationships between latent variables. Sample included 262 adults ages 40–90 with at least one living sibling. ** = p < .0

12

ADULT SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS IN THE UNITED STATES …

217

-.53** Negative Parenting Childhood

Supportive Parenting

.92**

.95**

.54** Positive Sibling Relationships Childhood

Negative Sibling Relationships Childhood

Negative Parenting .62**

.41**

Positive Sibling Relationships Adulthood

Negative Sibling Relationships Adulthood

-.29**

.43**

-.17**

Siblings Agree on Care of Aging Parents

Fig. 12.1 Path model of influence of parenting practices on adult siblings care of ageing parents (Note Standardized coefficients reported. * = p < .05, ** = p < .01)

Negative Parenting Childhood also predicted Negative Sibling Relationships in Childhood (β = 0.54, p < .01) and, in turn, Negative Sibling Relationships Adulthood (β = 0.41, p < .01), which also revealed a negative impact on adult siblings agreeing on the care of parents (β = −0.17, p < .01).

218

M. E. WOOLLEY AND G. L. GREIF

Discussion The current analysis indicates that how parents interact with their children—from being supportive of sibling relationships to interfering or showing favouritism—is predictive of the relationships between those siblings in childhood, later in adulthood, and ultimately how those siblings will interact in the care of those ageing parents decades later. Our measurement of negative parenting included such dynamics as showing favouritism, interfering in sibling relationships, and being upset about those sibling relationships. Parenting that avoids such toxic dynamics both in childhood and adulthood will increase the likelihood of siblings working together to make decisions about the care of ageing parents. Conversely, parenting that is supportive of positive sibling relationships can lead to sibling relationships that are trusting and mutually helpful in both childhood and adulthood, which can lead to sibling sets that are more likely to reach consensus decisions in the care of their parents. Consistent with Donley and Likins’ (2010) research on the intergenerational transmission of family patterns, the lessons for parents seem clear: work to support positive relationships among your children and treat your children fairly and equally if you want them to work together to care for you when you need them. These findings are also similar to Connidis’ (2007) observations about the role of parents in their adult children’s relationship. The current findings also present useful information for clinicians working with adult siblings in the very stressful situation of making difficult and consequential decisions in the care of ageing or ailing parents. Ideally, though often not usually, clinicians have formed a relationship with a struggling family system before an extreme crisis occurs (Greif and Woolley 2015). When interactions among adult siblings in such situations are problematic, from a lack of agreement to open conflict, it may be beneficial to explore each adult sibling’s experience of parenting practices in relation to the sibling set across the lifespan. It may be particularly beneficial to explore the nature of the sibling relationships prior to the current stressful situation, which is now adding pressure to those relationships. Connecting the current struggle in agreeing on decisions and collaborating in the care of ageing parents to both problematic parenting practices and prior sibling relationship struggles, what Tonti (1988) refers to as reawakened sibling rivalry, may help adult siblings look beyond those prior family relationship struggles to see the current situation less

12

ADULT SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS IN THE UNITED STATES …

219

encumbered by that past. For example, a clinician could suggest that if the siblings did not get along before, it is unrealistic to expect them to easily work through such difficult decisions as the ones they confront now. A clinician could then urge them to set the prior issues aside, if temporarily, for the sake of all involved. A clinician could appeal to the siblings’ higher cognitive functioning and ask them to not respond as the hurt child within that may be welling up as they may have done in the past in stressful family situations. Bedford’s (1998) findings on the benefit of positive cognitive reappraisals of childhood sibling issues suggests that, in adulthood and at least temporarily, family members can be asked to put aside the past. In sum, this research indicates that positive relationships between adult siblings predict those adult siblings’ agreeing and working together to care for ageing parents. The research also indicates that what leads to such positive adult relationships among adult siblings in adulthood are parenting practices that support positive sibling relationships in both childhood and adulthood. Given the critical role adult siblings can play in the care of ageing parents, the current study can be used by practitioners and researchers to inform further explorations of these understudied but important family relationships, especially when those relationships are stressed by difficult transitions in the multigenerational life cycle. The current research, while confirming our hypotheses, and with a strong pattern of statistical significance, needs to be interpreted in light of the methodological weaknesses. First, this is a cross-sectional data set, asking respondents to report on current life experiences, but also childhood experiences from memory. The sample was also a convenience sample, so was neither randomly selected nor representative of any defined sample frame or population. Finally, given that the data analyzed came from a larger study, the data collection instruments were not specifically designed to test the current hypotheses. There may be significant factors that influence adult siblings working together and agreeing on the care of ageing parents that were not measured in this study.

Conclusion Family genograms illustrate vertical relationships, such as parent–child, and horizontal relationships, such as spouse–spouse and sibling–sibling. The current study demonstrates how these vertical and horizontal axes of family relationships interact. For example, the vertical relationships

220

M. E. WOOLLEY AND G. L. GREIF

between parent(s) and children influence the nature of the horizontal relationships among those children as siblings beginning in childhood and across the lifespan. In turn, horizontal sibling relationships in adulthood return to have a significant impact on the vertical relationships in how those siblings come together to care for their now ageing parents. Further exploration of the interplay between vertical and horizontal family relationships may offer great potential for understanding the multigenerational interactions between siblings.

References Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44, 709–716. Apter, T. A. (2007). The sister knot: Why we fight, why we’re jealous, and why we’ll love each other no matter what. New York: Norton. Bedford, V. H. (1989). Ambivalence in adult sibling relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 10, 211–224. Bedford, V. H. (1998). Sibling relationship troubles and well-being in middle and old age. Family Relations, 47, 369–376. Bedford, V. H., Volling, B. L., & Avioli, P. S. (2000). Positive consequences of sibling conflict in childhood and adulthood. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 51, 53–69. Bouchard, G., Plamondon, A., & Lachance-Grzela, M. (2019). Parental intervention style and adult sibling conflicts: The mediating role of involvement in sibling bullying. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38, 2585–2602. Cicirelli, V. G. (1982). Sibling influence throughout the lifespan. In M. E. Lamb & B. Sutton-Smith (Eds.), Sibling relationships: Their nature and significance across the lifespan, pp. 267–284. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cicirelli, V. G. (1989). Feelings of attachment to sibling and well-being in later life. Psychology and Aging, 4, 211–216. Cicirelli, V. G. (1994). Sibling relationships in cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 56, 7–20. Cicirelli, V. G. (1995). Sibling relationships across the lifespan. New York: Plenum Press. Cicirelli, V. G. (2009). Sibling death and death fear in relation to depressive symptomatology in older adults. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 64B, 24–32. Connidis, I. A. (1994). Sibling support in older age. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences & Social Sciences, 49, 309–317. Connidis, I. A. (2007). Negotiating inequality among adult siblings: Two case studies. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 482–499. Doherty, N. A., & Feeney, J. A. (2004). The composition of attachment networks throughout the adult years. Personal Relationships, 11, 469–488.

12

ADULT SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS IN THE UNITED STATES …

221

Donley, M. G., & Likins, L. (2010). The multigenerational impact of sibling relationships. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 38, 383–396. Dunn, J. (1983). Sibling relationships in early childhood. Child Development, 54, 787–811. Fuller-Thomson, E. (2000). Loss of the kin-keeper?: Sibling conflict following parental death. Omega, 40, 547–559. Greif, G. L., & Woolley, M. E. (2015). Patterns in adult sibling relationships after the death of one or both parents. Journal of Social Work in End-of-Life & Palliative Care, 11, 74–89. Greif, G. L. & Woolley, M. E. (2016a). Adult sibling relationships. New York: Columbia University Press. Greif, G. L., & Woolley, M. E. (2016b). Considering adult siblings in substance abuse treatment. Social Work, 61, 366–368. Ingersoll-Dayton, B., Neal, M. B., Ha, J.-h., & Hammer, L. B. (2003). Collaboration among siblings providing care for older parents. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 40, 51–66. Irish, D. P. (1964). Sibling interaction: A neglected aspect in family life research. Social Forces, 42, 279–288. Kramer, L., & Bank, L. (2005). Sibling relationship contributions to individual and family well-being: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 483–485. Kuba, S. A. (2011). The role of sisters in women’s development. New York: Oxford University Press. Pfouts, J. (1976, May). The sibling relationship: A forgotten dimension. Social Work, 21, 200–204. Riggio, H. R. (2000). Measuring attitudes toward adult sibling relationships: The lifespan sibling relationship scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 707–728. Tonti, M. (1988). Relationships among adult siblings who care for their aged parents. In M. D. Kahn & M. G. Lewis (Eds.), Siblings in therapy: Life span and clinical issues, pp. 417–435. New York: Norton. Troll, L. E. (1971). The family of later life: A decade review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 33, 263–290. Woolley, M. E., & Greif, G. L. (in press). Measuring adult sibling communication comfort about sensitive issues. Journal of Family Social Work. Woolley, M. E., Greif, G. L., & McMillan, G. (2014). Differences in sibling relationships between late and middle adulthood: Implications for practice. Poster presented at the Council on Social Work Education Annual Program, October, Tampa. Woolley, M. E., Greif, G. L., & McMillan, G. (2015). Parenting and relationship predictors of adult siblings collaborating in the care of aging parents. Paper presented at the Society for Social Work Research, January, New Orleans.

CHAPTER 13

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Siblings Dawn M. Szymanski and Angela N. Hilton

Despite the importance of sibling relationships, scant research has been conducted on siblings where at least one sibling identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or queer (LGBTQ). In her review of the research on LGBTQ siblings, Rothblum (2010) noted that sibling research focused narrowly on identifying causes of sexual orientation (e.g., heredity, genetics, hormones) and examining how LGBTQ individuals are similar to and different from their heterosexual siblings on demographic, relational, and household task variables. For example, when compared to their heterosexual siblings, LGB persons report higher educational attainment, greater geographic mobility, and more liberal political views. In addition, lesbian and gay couples are more likely to share housework and childcare responsibilities evenly and have less contact with their family of origin than heterosexual couples. Similarly, when compared to their cisgender sibling, transgender individuals report higher educational attainment, less support from their parents, and less likelihood of being

D. M. Szymanski (B) Department of Psychology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA A. N. Hilton Department of Behavioral Sciences, Maryville College, Maryville, TN, USA © The Author(s) 2021 A. Buchanan and A. Rotkirch (eds.), Brothers and Sisters, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55985-4_13

223

224

D. M. SZYMANSKI AND A. N. HILTON

in a partnered relationship. Since Rothblum’s (2010) review, a small but growing body of research has moved beyond these confines to examine predictors of coming out to siblings and factors that are associated with heterosexual siblings’ acceptance and support of their LGBTQ brother or sister. In addition, it has examined how the coming out process influences identity, coping, and relationship dynamics among LGBTQ persons and their siblings. In this chapter, we review findings from this exciting new area of research and discuss implications for mental health providers and educators. Research documents that LGBTQ individuals are coming out to their heterosexual and cisgender siblings. For example, Salvati et al. (2018) found that 62% of their sample of Italian lesbian and gay adults had come out to a sibling. Among United States (U.S.) sexual minority youth aged 14–21 years, 84% reported that at least one sibling knew of their sexual orientation (D’Augelli et al. 2008). Similarly, among U.S. LGBTQ young adults aged 18–24 years, 75% of the siblings knew of the respondents’ minority sexual orientation and/or gender identity (Toomey and Richardson 2009). Research indicates that LGBTQ persons often disclosure first to either their mother or their sibling (Chan 1989; Pistella et al. 2020; SavinWilliams 2001; Toomey and Richardson 2009). Many find it easier to come out to their sibling than their parents due to a lack of financial dependence on their sibling vs parents and less fear about encountering negative feelings and reactions to the disclosure (Haxhe and D’Amore 2014). Consistent with this, Pistella et al. (2020) found that parents were more likely to react negatively to Italian lesbian and gay men’s sexual orientation disclosure than their sibling. In a qualitative study of gay men, Cain (1991) found that sibling rejection of one’s sexual orientation was perceived as less distressing than rejection from parents.

Predictors of Coming Out to Siblings Although some research has examined potential differences in sexual orientation disclosure to siblings (in general as well as based on the gender and birth order of the sibling) between lesbians and gay men, the findings are conflicting and not clear (c.f., D’Augelli et al. 2008; Pistella et al. 2020; Salvati et al. 2018; Toomey and Richardson 2009). Other research has begun to examine predictors of LGBTQ persons’ disclosure to their siblings. LGB youth in the U.S. whose siblings did not know of

13

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, TRANSGENDER, AND QUEER SIBLINGS

225

their sexual orientation reported meeting sexual identity milestones (i.e., awareness of same-sex attractions, self-identification as a sexual minority, coming out to others) at older ages, more internalized heterosexism (i.e., more acceptance of negative attitudes about being LGBTQ), less lifetime verbal sexual orientation-based victimization from siblings, and more fears about sibling rejection than those whose siblings did know (D’Augelli et al. 2008). Among adults, Salvati et al. (2018) found that internalized heterosexism was related to less sexual orientation disclosure to siblings but only for gay men, not lesbians living in Italy. Toomey and Richardson (2009) found LGBTQ young adults were more likely to be out to a sibling if they perceived the relationship as close and if the sibling also identified as LGBTQ. In a qualitative study, Harvey (2007) found that some LGBTQ persons choose to come out to their sibling because of their close relationship and/or belief that they would respond positively and to decrease isolation and increase support, guidance, and feelings of safety.

Predictors of Siblings Reactions to Coming Out In terms of LGBTQ persons’ perceptions of their sibling reactions to their coming out, gender of the sibling and quality of the sibling relationship seem to be important. Two studies found that female siblings were perceived as more accepting than male siblings (D’Augelli et al. 2008; Toomey and Richardson 2009). LGBTQ youth and young adults who felt more closeness to their sibling (Toomey and Richardson 2009) and experienced less lifetime verbal sexual orientation-based victimization from their sibling (D’Augelli et al. 2008) were more likely to report positive reactions from siblings concerning their coming out about their sexual orientation. However, sexual identity milestones and adjustment indicators (i.e., internalized heterosexism, self-esteem, psychological distress) were not related to LGB youth’s reports of their sibling’s reactions to their sexual orientation (D’Augelli et al. 2008). Research exploring transgender persons’ perceptions of their cisgender sibling’s reaction to the disclosure of their minority gender identity is scant. We found one quantitative study (Bosse 2019) that investigated the degree that social support, including sibling acceptance or rejection, predicted symptoms of depression among transgender young adults. Results revealed that, when examined together, both perceived parental

226

D. M. SZYMANSKI AND A. N. HILTON

rejection and rejection from siblings uniquely predicted higher levels of depression among transgender young adults. Examining heterosexual siblings reports of their acceptance of their lesbian sister or gay brother, Hilton and Szymanski (2014) found that the quality of the sibling relationship; having contact with LGBTQ individuals; a liberal political ideology; knowledge of the LGBTQ community and supporting civil rights; higher level of education; identifying as female; not having a fundamentalist or orthodox view of religion; and less church attendance were correlated with higher levels of acceptance. When these variables were examined together, higher sibling relationship quality, having contact with LGBTQ individuals, supporting LGBTQ civil rights, and less church attendance emerged as unique predictors of acceptance.

Sibling Experiences Related to Sexual Orientation Coming Out Several qualitative research studies have provided rich, nuanced understandings of how the coming out process to siblings influences identity, experiences, coping, and relationship dynamics among LGBTQ persons and their siblings. We identified seven studies that focused on LGBTQ persons coming out about their sexual orientation to their siblings. Four were published journal articles or book chapters (Haxhe and D’Amore 2014; Haxhe et al. 2018; Hilton and Szymanski 2011; Huang et al. 2016) and three were unpublished doctoral dissertations (Barrow 2013; English 2008; Harvey 2007). Three studies focused on heterosexual siblings experiences and included 22 adult participants who had a lesbian sister (English 2008), 14 White highly educated U.S. adults with a lesbian sister or gay brother (Hilton and Szymanski 2011), and 10 second-generation adult Taiwanese and Chinese Americans with a lesbian sister or gay brother (Huang et al. 2016). Three studies sampled sibling dyads/groups and included 10 adult U.S. White sibling dyads where one sibling had disclosed a minority sexual identity to the other at least one year before the study (Harvey 2007), 102 Belgian adults (19 lesbians, 25 gay men, and 58 siblings; Haxhe and D’Amore 2014), and six Belgian Frenchspeaking adults (three White sisters with one being lesbian and three Romani brothers with one being a gay man; Haxhe et al. 2018). One study included 15 racial/ethnically diverse adult sexual minority persons in the U.S. who were the second sibling in their family to come out as

13

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, TRANSGENDER, AND QUEER SIBLINGS

227

a LGBTQ (Barrow 2013). There was a remarkable similarity in the findings across these studies. Therefore, we summarize and synthesize the main finding from these studies below. Reactions to the Disclosure Heterosexual siblings reported reacting differently after the initial disclosure or discovery of their sibling’s sexual minority identity. Initial disclosures were most often direct but sometimes heterosexual siblings found out indirectly or from someone else. Some heterosexual sibling’s felt negative emotions such as confusion (e.g., not understanding, being unsure how to respond, uncertain for what this would mean for their sibling relationship), denial (because they didn’t believe it), shock (because they had no idea), ambivalence (wrestling with love for their sibling while holding negative attitudes towards LGBTQ persons), embarrassment, disappointment, devastation, and loss (Harvey 2007; Hilton and Szymanski 2011; Huang et al. 2016). Some heterosexual siblings felt that they couldn’t relate to their LGBTQ sibling because it felt so different/foreign to them which often led to increased distance in the sibling relationship (Hilton and Szymanski 2011). Others reported experiencing hurt and anger because they felt betrayed and lied to (Huang et al. 2016), felt the sibling withdraw from them prior to the disclosure when they were most likely trying to figure out and come to terms with their sexual minority identity (English 2008), or didn’t like the way they found out, typically when it was not directly disclosed by the sibling (Havey 2007). For some, feelings of abandonment and loss persisted because they felt left out of their LGBTQ sibling’s life long after the initial disclosure (English 2008). Some heterosexual siblings expressed anxiety, protectiveness, and/or concern about their LGBTQ sibling’s physical and psychological wellbeing due to sexual orientation-based stigma in the larger culture that often manifests in prejudice, discrimination, and violence towards LGBTQ persons (English 2008; Harvey 2007; Hilton and Szymanski 2011). Other heterosexual siblings reacted with nonchalance or indifference because they were not surprised or negatively impacted by the disclosure (Huang et al. 2016). This relates to two other studies that found that many heterosexual siblings reported some awareness that their sibling might be a sexual minority either before they came out or shortly

228

D. M. SZYMANSKI AND A. N. HILTON

after via hindsight and reflection (Harvey 2007; Hilton and Szymanski 2011). Suspecting that their sibling might be a sexual minority was often based on gender-related stereotyping of lesbian and gay persons, their sibling’s lack of romantic relationships with a person of a different gender, and/or their sibling being perceived by others as lesbian/gay. Other heterosexual sibling’s reported positive feelings and reactions to finding out about their sibling’s sexual orientation. They described supporting and accepting their LGBTQ sibling which resulted in happiness, excitement, relief, and acceptance for both the heterosexual and LGBTQ sibling (English 2008; Harvey 2007; Hilton and Szymanski 2011; Huang et al. 2016). Other benefits, particularly for the LGBTQ sibling, included decreased isolation, being able to share previously hidden aspects of themselves, and increased self-efficacy about being more “out” to others (Harvey 2007). For those not reporting immediate acceptance of their sibling’s sexual orientation, some were able to become accepting over time, whereas others still struggled with coming to terms with their sibling’s sexual orientation (Hilton and Szymanski 2011; Huang et al. 2016). Heterosexual siblings who reported becoming more comfortable with their sister/brother’s sexual minority identity overtime attributed this to engaging in self-reflection, increasing their awareness and knowledge of LGBTQ issues, increasing exposure to their LGBTQ sibling’s lives and the LGBTQ community, realizing their own heterosexist attitudes, and a growing understanding of heterosexual privilege (English 2008; Harvey 2007; Hilton and Szymanski 2011; Huang et al. 2016). Heterosexual siblings often confronted, and had to work through, difficulties associated with handling their LGBTQ sister/brother’s level of outness and public displays of affection with their romantic partner (Harvey 2007). In addition, openly discussing sexuality, integrating same-sex partners into the family, and questions about family allegiances emerged as challenges (Harvey 2007). Acknowledging differing cultural experiences and facing conflicting cultural and/or religious beliefs was also part of the process, particularly for religious and racial/ethnic minority siblings (Huang et al. 2016).

13

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, TRANSGENDER, AND QUEER SIBLINGS

229

Changes in Sibling Relationship Research indicates that the impact of the coming out process on the sibling relationship can be negative, unchanged, or positive (Harvey 2007; Hilton and Szymanski 2011). Hilton and Szymanski (2011) found that these changes often mimicked the pre-existing relationship. That is, if the sibling relationship was close prior to disclosure, the sibling relationship was typically strengthened and improved as a result of the disclosure. If the sibling relationship was negative or distant before disclosure, the disclosure often amplified this tension, conflict, and disengagement. For those experiencing positive changes, participants reported feeling closer to their sibling, spending more time together, increasing communication and openness, using better communication skills (e.g., intentional listening), talking about sensitive or previously taboo topics, and for heterosexual siblings being more aware and empathetic towards LGBTQ issues and experiences (Haxhe and D’Amore 2014; Harvey 2007; Hilton and Szymanski 2011). For some, increased closeness was directly related to sexuality, especially for siblings that included a heterosexual sister and gay brother because they bonded over “girly” things and the fact that they both liked men (Harvey 2007; Hilton and Szymanski 2011). More closeness also occurred when the heterosexual sibling was the first, or one of the few, to learn about their sister/brother’s sexuality (Harvey 2007; Huang et al. 2016) and/or they were a supportive ally in a heterosexist context (Harvey 2007). For sisters/brothers who were the second sibling in their family to come out as a LGBTQ, they described feelings of appreciation and respect for their LGBTQ sibling who was the first to come out (Barrow 2013). Many reflected that watching their sibling come out provided them with the courage to do it themselves. They described a deep understanding about being LGBTQ that the two siblings shared and the positive impact that this had on them and their relationship. Navigating Family Dynamics and Reactions to Disclosure Some heterosexual siblings provided vital support for their LGBTQ sibling’s sexual minority identity and/or for coming out to other members of the family either through encouragement or mere visible presence when the disclosure occurred (Haxhe and D’Amore 2014;

230

D. M. SZYMANSKI AND A. N. HILTON

Haxhe et al. 2018; Huang et al. 2016). Navigating tricky family dynamics emerged for siblings in families where the LGBTQ sibling had disclosed to some but not all family members, or there was a discomfort with sexuality in general within the family (Harvey 2007). This often led to constrained or uncomfortable communication within the family. For example, if parents were not aware of their child’s LGBTQ identity, this stunted the relationship between their heterosexual sibling and the parents because it was something they needed to keep secret. Navigating challenging family dynamics also emerged for siblings in families when other family members reacted negatively to the disclosure (English 2008; Harvey 2007; Haxhe and D’Amore 2014). Some heterosexual siblings reported feeling angry, frustrated, resentful, and disappointed with these family members which often resulted in relational strain (English 2008; Hilton and Szymanski 2011; Huang et al. 2016). Others were placed in a mediator role, providing support not only to their LGBTQ sibling, but also to their parents (Harvey 2007; Haxhe and D’Amore 2014) and serving as a go-between their LGBTQ sibling, parents, and other siblings. Some heterosexual siblings helped ease parental fears, reduce conflict/tension between family members, increase communication, challenge family members heterosexist/heteronormative beliefs, promote acceptance of the LGBTQ family member, facilitate new ways of relating within the family system, and celebrate growth (Harvey 2007; Haxhe and D’Amore 2014; Haxhe et al. 2018). Coming Out as a Sibling of a LGBTQ Brother/Sister For heterosexual siblings who reacted positively to their sister/brother’s coming out, many reported that they became more open-minded and accepting of others in general, as well as to LGBTQ persons (Harvey 2007; Hilton and Szymanski 2011; Huang et al. 2016). Many were willing to disclose to others that they were the sibling of a LGBTQ sister or brother. Strategies used to come out to others as a sibling of a LGBTQ sister/brother included getting to know others to determine if they would be affirming, waiting until they felt ready, being direct, and using humour (English 2008; Harvey 2007; Hilton and Szymanski 2011). Many heterosexual siblings reflected that they distanced themselves from people who were not LGBTQ supportive, were more willing to challenge others who made heterosexist remarks, and became politically and socially engaged as

13

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, TRANSGENDER, AND QUEER SIBLINGS

231

LGBTQ allies and advocates (Harvey 2007; Hilton and Szymanski 2011; Huang et al. 2016).

Sibling Experiences Related to Gender Identity Coming Out Two qualitative, unpublished doctoral dissertation studies focused on disclosure about one’s gender minority identity in the sibling relationship. Bartel (2012) interviewed seven transgender women, one gender non-binary individual, and one cisgender sibling; whereas, Davis (2018) focused solely on the experiences of 11 cisgender siblings. For the transgender women and gender non-binary participants, perceptions of the closeness of their sibling relationship were instrumental in predicting whether or not their disclosure would lead to acceptance of their gender identity (Bartel 2012). Those who believed they had a close relationship were more likely to believe that their gender identity disclosure would be accepted, whereas those who felt that the relationship was fractured in some way were less likely to expect acceptance (Bartel 2012). Furthermore, cisgender siblings revealed the closeness and open-mindedness of their overall family system influenced their ease in adjusting to their transgender sibling’s disclosure (Davis 2018). Despite most of the participants experiencing worry and fear before disclosure, results indicated that they were mostly provided acceptance (Bartel 2012; Davis 2018). Transgender women who did not experience immediate acceptance from at least one of their siblings, noted that conservative religious views seemed to influence their sibling’s decision and the lack of acceptance led to a fractured sibling relationship (Bartel 2012). Although cisgender siblings reported feeling surprised, shocked, sad, and confused by the disclosure, they also noted experiencing relief in knowing as well as sympathy and empathy for their sibling (Bartel 2012; Davis 2018). Some also described worrying about their transgender sibling’s overall well-being, feelings of uncertainty regarding their future, yet also viewing the transition as a positive for their quality of life (Davis 2018). In Davis’ (2018) study, cisgender siblings recounted that, after their sibling’s disclosure, they gained a new, even broader, conceptualization and awareness of gender diversity and adjusted fairly easily to the use of chosen pronouns, names, and physical changes. Most reported a greater

232

D. M. SZYMANSKI AND A. N. HILTON

understanding of the discrimination and other issues that gender nonconforming individuals face and an awareness of their own privilege as a cisgender individual. Almost half reported feeling the need to take on the role as the protector of their transgender sibling from discrimination, bullying, and gender-minority stress. Additionally, several cisgender siblings believed they provided an important source of emotional and instrumental (e.g., helping them access trans-affirmative information and organizations) support for both their transgender/gender non-binary sibling and their parents (Davis 2018). Transgender and gender non-binary siblings also reported that acceptance after their disclosure led to greater social support and increased satisfaction with their lives (Bartel 2012). Importantly, for both the cisgender and transgender sibling, acceptance led to deepening the closeness of their sibling relationship (Bartel 2012; Davis 2018).

Limitations and Directions for Future Research Research on LGBTQ siblings is in its infancy and much more research is needed in this area. Studies that have been conducted have utilized small sample sizes and are largely qualitative and descriptive. Most use convenience samples that are likely to include siblings who are more likely to be accepting of their sister/brother’s sexual orientation and/or gender minority identity and that focus on the experiences of the heterosexual or cisgender sibling rather than the LGBTQ’s sibling perspective. More research is warranted on siblings who are not accepting of their sister/brother’s sexual orientation and/or gender identity. Additionally, research focusing on the LGBTQ’s siblings perceptions of their heterosexual or cisgender sister or brother’s reaction to their coming out and its impact on them and the sibling relationship is needed. Furthermore, the majority of research has focused on lesbian and gay issues. Sibling issues related to bisexuality and gender minority identities and expressions also needs to be explored. With the exception of Huang et al.’s (2016) study using Asian American siblings, samples used have been predominately or exclusively White. Thus, research using racial/ethnic minority siblings is needed. Future research might examine additional correlates of coming out to a sibling as LGBTQ, such as religious involvement, involvement in LGBTQ activism, identity salience, and stigma consciousness. Similarly, investigations that identify other correlates of heterosexual and cisgender siblings’ acceptance of their LGBTQ sister or brother, as well as potential

13

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, TRANSGENDER, AND QUEER SIBLINGS

233

mediators and moderators in the relationship between LGBTQ sibling disclosure and acceptance by the heterosexual or cisgender sibling is warranted. Longitudinal research that follows siblings over time would provide more information about the developmental processes that siblings go through in navigating coming out processes and how it impacts wellbeing and the sibling relationship. Quantitative studies are needed to examine if the quality of the sibling relationship and heterosexual and cisgender sibling acceptance serve as protective factors against internalized oppression and mental health risks for LGBTQ individuals who have experienced parental rejection and sexual orientation and gender identity-based discrimination (Hilton and Szymanski 2014).

Practice Implications Taken together, the findings from existing research examining sibling relationships where at least one sibling is LGBTQ provides useful information for practitioners, including mental health providers and educators. The findings provide insight when working with LGBTQ individuals who are in the coming out process, heterosexual and/or cisgender siblings who are coming to terms with their LGBTQ sibling coming out, and sibling dyads. They also offer directions for training, education, and advocacy interventions. When working with LGBTQ individuals who are in the coming out process, therapists might consider siblings as a potential source of support. In deciding whether or not to come out to a sibling, a therapist might ask the LGBTQ client questions about the level of closeness in the sibling relationship, how siblings have handled conflict within their relationships, the religious beliefs of the sibling, their sibling’s attitudes towards LGBTQ issues, whether they have had exposure to LGBTQ individuals, and their racial/ethnic cultural family values to help them in the decision-making process (Bartel 2012; Harvey 2007; Huang et al. 2016). Exploring potential costs (e.g., rejection, worsening of the sibling relationship) and benefits (e.g., relief, increased quality of the sibling relationship, improved mental health, and well-being) of coming out to their sibling might be helpful. Therapists might also assess the LGBTQ client’s level of internalized heterosexism/cissexism that might be related to disclosure issues and challenge negative attitudes about being LGBTQ that might be present (Kashubeck-West et al. 2008).

234

D. M. SZYMANSKI AND A. N. HILTON

When working with heterosexual and/or cisgender sibling who are coming to terms with their LGBTQ sibling coming out, therapists might first focus on assessing whether the sibling is expressing ambivalence, rejection, or acceptance, as this will provide direction for further therapeutic work in this area. It is imperative that therapists normalize, validate, and provide a safe space for the heterosexual and/or cisgender sibling to explore feelings of discomfort, shame, grief, confusion, shock, decide whether/how to share their sibling’s identity with others, and/or discuss concerns about family dynamics and the sibling relationship (Davis 2018; Hilton and Szymanski 2011, 2014). Therapists might take into consideration and explore with heterosexual and/or cisgender sibling clients the level of closeness in their sibling relationship and how her/his religious beliefs, political affiliation, and exposure to the LGBTQ community may influence their reactions (Davis 2018; Hilton and Szymanski 2011, 2014). For siblings struggling to accept their sister or brothers sexual or gender minority identity, therapists might teach emotional regulation skills, help them explore their values and beliefs, especially if these are conflicting, and challenge heterosexist and cissexist attitudes (Huang et al. 2016; Hilton and Szymanski 2014). Increasing connection with their LGBTQ sibling, gaining LGBTQ affirmative informal (e.g., friends) and formal (organizations such as Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) support, and increasing knowledge about and exposure to LGBTQ issues/communities might also be helpful (Davis 2018; Hilton and Szymanski 2011, 2014). For siblings who are accepting, therapists can highlight the important role they can play in providing emotional and instrumental support to their sibling and being a LGBTQ ally and advocate. Therapists might also attend to the unique issues that may arise for the heterosexual and/or cisgender sibling, particularly negative reactions to family members who are not accepting, anxiety and worry related to trying to protect their LGBTQ sibling from discrimination, and stress associated with serving as a mediator between their LGBTQ sister/brother and other family members (Huang et al. 2016; Davis 2018). Empathetic responding to the heterosexual and/or cisgender sibling’s feelings, teaching them effective communication and conflict resolution skills, and encouraging self-care and boundary setting may be useful interventions. Therapists might also consider working with siblings in dyads/groups. In this work, therapists might facilitate each sibling sharing their experiences and feelings with each other, fostering dialogue, and encouraging

13

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, TRANSGENDER, AND QUEER SIBLINGS

235

perspective taking by considering the other’s feelings and point of view (Bartel 2012; Haxhe and D’Amore 2014). A therapist could encourage consistent contact and teach effective communication skills such as intentional listening, paraphrasing, reflecting feelings, providing empathy and compassion, and asking open-ended questions as a way of promoting sibling relationship quality (Davis 2018; Harvey 2007). Therapists might also help siblings discuss and navigate potential problems that might arise such as family loyalty issues, differing levels of comfort with being out, how to incorporate romantic partners into the family, adjusting to gender transitions, and dealing with other family member’s negative reactions (Davis 2018; Harvey 2007; Haxhe and D’Amore 2014; Hilton and Szymanski 2011; Huang et al. 2016). Beyond the therapy room, mental health professionals and educators might incorporate the research reviewed above into relevant undergraduate and graduate courses (e.g., life span development, multicultural psychology, couples and family counselling), training of mental health professionals, and support groups and outreach programmes for siblings and/or families. Outreach programmes targeting heterosexual and/or cisgender siblings who may be more likely to react negatively to sexual orientation and gender minority identity disclosure such as men, religiously orthodox or fundamentalist individuals, those who are politically conservative, and/or lack knowledge or contact with LGBTQ individuals might be fruitful (Hilton and Szymanski 2014). We offer these as examples, but there are many ways that practitioners can work to increase the public’s knowledge about and support for LGBTQ individuals and their siblings.

References Barrow, K. M. (2013). When a second child comes out as LGBT: Examining sibling relationships and family [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Virginia Tech University. Bartel, C. M. (2012). Relational factors influencing self-disclosure of gender identity in sibling relationships [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The Chicago School of Professional Psychology. Bosse, J. (2019). Transgender young adults, sibling relationships, and mental health [Unpublished doctoral dissertation abstract]. University of Massachusetts-Amherst. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_2/ 1566.

236

D. M. SZYMANSKI AND A. N. HILTON

Cain, R. (1991). Relational contexts and information management among gay men. Families in Society, 72, 344–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/104438949 107200603. Chan, C. S. (1989). Issues of identity development among Asian-American lesbians and gay men. Journal of Counseling and Development, 68, 16–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1989.tb02485.x. D’Augelli, A. R., Grossman, A. H., & Starks, M. T. (2008). Families of gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth: What do parents and siblings know and how do they react? Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 4, 95–115. https://doi.org/10. 1080/15504280802084506. Davis, S. (2018). Examining the experience of trans identity and gender transition through the lens of cisgender siblings: A phenomenological investigation [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Simon Fraser University. English, K. (2008). Siblings of lesbian sisters: Conceptually mapping their roles and experiences throughout the family’s coming-out process [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Chestnut Hill College. Haxhe, S., & D’Amore, S. (2014). Siblings in the coming-out process. In H. Pereira & P. Costa (Eds.), Coming-out for LGBT: Psychology in the current international scenario (pp. 298– 305). Libson, Portugal: University of Beira Interior. Haxhe, S., Cerezo, A., Bergfeld, J., & Walloch, J. C. (2018). Siblings and the coming-out process: A comparative case study. Journal of Homosexuality, 65, 407–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2017.1321349. Harvey, R. G. (2007). The experience of disclosure of queer identity within sibling dyads [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Syracuse University. Hilton, A. N., & Szymanski, D. M. (2011). Family dynamics and changes in sibling of origin relationship after lesbian and gay sexual orientation disclosure. Contemporary Family Therapy, 33, 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10 591-011-9157-3. Hilton, A. N., & Szymanski, D. M. (2014). Predictors of heterosexual siblings’ acceptance of their lesbian sister or gay brother. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 8, 164–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2014.895664. Huang, J., Chen, E. C., & Ponterotto, J. G. (2016). Heterosexual Chinese Americans’ experiences of their lesbian and gay sibling’s coming out. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 7, 147–158. https://doi.org/10.1037/aap 0000051. Kashubeck-West, S., Szymanski, D. M., & Meyer, J. (2008). Internalized heterosexism: Clinical implications and training considerations. The Counseling Psychologist, 36, 615–630. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000007309634. Pistella, J., Caricato, V., & Baiocco, R. (2020). Coming out to siblings and parents in an Italian sample of lesbian women and gay men. Journal of Child

13

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, TRANSGENDER, AND QUEER SIBLINGS

237

and Family Studies, 29, 2916–2929. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-01901597-0. Rothblum, E. D. (2010). Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender siblings. In J. Caspi (Ed.), Sibling development: Implications for mental health practitioners (pp. 123–145). New York, NY: Springer. Salvati, M., Pistella, J., Ioverno, S., Laghi, F., & Baiocco, R. (2018). Coming out to siblings and internalized sexual stigma: The moderating role of gender in a sample of Italian participants. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 14, 405–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/1550428X.2017.1369916. Savin-Williams, R. C. (2001). Mom, dad. I’m gay. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Toomey, R. B., & Richardson, R. A. (2009). Perceived sibling relationships of sexual minority youth. Journal of Homosexuality, 56, 849–860. https://doi. org/10.1080/00918360903187812.

CHAPTER 14

Sibling Support in Transnational Families: The Impact of Migration and Mobility on Sibling Relationships of Support Over Time and Distance Loretta Baldassar and Rosa Brandhorst

Introduction An increasing number of migrants are separated from their family by national borders and distance. Despite the geographic separation, these migrants and their relatives who “stayed behind” continue to maintain a sense of “familyhood” (Bryceson and Vuorela 2002) through transnational care and support practices. To date, research on these transnational families has focused on the organisation of childcare across borders through transnational parenting (e.g. Parreñas 2001), as well as the organisation of care for ageing parents by adult migrant children (e.g.

L. Baldassar (B) School of Social Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia e-mail: [email protected] R. Brandhorst Faculty of Sociology, University of Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany © The Author(s) 2021 A. Buchanan and A. Rotkirch (eds.), Brothers and Sisters, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55985-4_14

239

240

L. BALDASSAR AND R. BRANDHORST

Baldassar et al. 2007). In both literatures, the role of sibling relationships is curiously under-examined, and at best a secondary consideration. As a result, there is little research that explores how transnational migration impacts on sibling relationships and vice versa. Locating sibling support in the transnational migration context adds a layer of complexity to the question of how the universal tendencies of sibling attachment and support, as well as competition and conflict, play out across the life course. Not only does migration add distance and separation as additional factors to consider, it also often introduces cultural complexities, particularly if sending and receiving areas have different cultural traditions, expectations of family roles and obligations, and welfare regimes. In addition, transnational family relations introduce the important role of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in sustaining family connections across distance, including between siblings, which are often characterised by unequal access to the necessary resources, as well as varying degrees of digital literacy (Baldassar et al. 2016, 2021). There may also be further confounding migration and social policies that constrain these relationships (Merla et al. 2020; Brandhorst 2020). Drawing on our research on the transnational support networks of older migrants, and on transnational family and aged care more broadly, we explore this new field of sibling support in transnational families. We begin with an overview of transnational families and a series of case studies that feature transnational sibling care. In the Discussion, we introduce a set of themes and conceptual tools that help us to shine a light on non-migrant and migrant siblings support each other across distance. To conclude, we discuss the new perspectives the study of siblings provides for transnational family research and vice versa.

Siblings and Transnational Families The lack of attention to the role of siblings in families suggests the need for conceptual and methodological tools that capture their relationships. Kahn and Antonucci (1980) employ the convoy model of analysis to highlight how siblings journey together across the life course. When applied to the migration context, this model raises the questions: Because they no longer journey together through life—in the same place—are siblings less likely to call on each other for support? And are the increased opportunities for connecting across distance provided by information and communication technologies today protective of these relationships?

14

SIBLING SUPPORT IN TRANSNATIONAL FAMILIES …

241

The case studies that follow focus on the exchange of care and support between siblings across distance, drawing on conceptual frameworks that have been central to our research on transnational families to date. These include Baldassar et al.’s (2007) notion of “transnational care’, which builds on Finch and Mason’s (1993) classic typology of family care—comprising emotional and moral; practical; personal (hands on); financial and accommodation—to include virtual, imagined, physical and proxy forms of caring and co-presence across distance (Baldassar 2008). Transnational care is understood as a set of practices that circulate, albeit unevenly, between family members, governed by the reciprocal, multidirectional and asymmetrical care relationships “that fluctuate over the life course within transnational family networks subject to the political, economic, cultural and social contexts of both sending and receiving societies” (Baldassar and Merla 2014: 25). Importantly, the type and quality of care exchanged in transnational families is largely informed by family histories and relationships prior to migration (Brandhorst 2014, 2015) and, as we shall see, is particularly relevant to a discussion of sibling transnational care relationships. The case studies presented are drawn from qualitative ethnographic and narrative-biographical interviews conducted by the authors in several connected research projects over the past two decades. While a focus on siblings was not the primary aim of these research projects, the analysis of family relationships, and of the exchange of care between family members, ensured that siblings feature in the case studies selected.

Case Study: Adolfo and Zelda When Zelda’s older brother, Adolfo, migrated from the Veneto, Italy to Perth, Western Australia in 1960, she had little to do with him, although she missed him as he had been “her favourite brother” who always “looked out for” her. While missing Adolfo’s company, Zelda benefitted from the monthly remittances he sent to their parents, allowing them to build a new house with an indoor bathroom. Their increased income also allowed Zelda to go to school for three years longer than he had. However, Adolfo’s absence also meant Zelda had to take on more household responsibilities, including the care of their ageing parents and aunt and uncle who lived next door and did not have children of their own. Adolfo had departed with a strong desire to contribute to the family’s meagre earnings and, like most other migrants from the region at the

242

L. BALDASSAR AND R. BRANDHORST

time, he intended to eventually return with enough money to buy his own piece of land. For a period of two decades, Adolfo and Zelda had little to do with each other, although they regularly exchanged postcards for birthdays and feast days. It was not until much later in their lives, when Adolfo visited home for the first time in 1980, that the relationship between the siblings was reinvigorated. On this trip, Adolfo travelled together with his own family and because his mother’s house was not large enough, the children stayed in Zelda’s home. Adolfo witnessed first-hand the level of care Zelda provided to their ageing parents. As the cost of air travel became more affordable, Adolfo began to visit every 3–4 years. In this way, Zelda and Adolfo began to increasingly participate in each other’s lives. So grateful was he to his sister, that when their parents died, Adolfo bequeathed his share of the modest inheritance to Zelda, on the understanding that when he visited, he could stay in her home. Adolfo felt the loss of his parents keenly, particularly as they were an important tie to homeland; he worried that without his parents there, his connection to his hometown was under threat, particularly after the sale of his childhood home. His weekly phone calls to his parents, which had begun after the first visit home, became weekly calls to his sister. By giving his inheritance to Zelda, Adolfo conscientiously and explicitly transferred his tie to homeland from his parents to her, in the form of welcome and accommodation. Adolfo was also keen to transmit this connection to homeland to his children, and Zelda could be relied upon to host Adolfo’s children when they visited. Adolfo reciprocated by hosting Zelda’s children on a holiday in Australia, and more recently by providing support and accommodation for Zelda’s grandson who is studying in Australia. Nowadays, Adolfo and Zelda skype each other for birthdays, exchange regular text messages on their “la famiglia” WhatsApp group, and follow the lives of the members of each other’s families on Facebook. They feel a strong bond to each other, and it is their relationship which fosters a sense of connection also among the members of their extended families.

Case Study: Irma and Lena Irma also migrated to Perth in 1960, but unlike Adolfo, her decision to migrate was not supported by her family. Irma’s family was relatively wealthy and lived in a large house in central Milan. Irma had fallen in love with a man, Basilio, who had migrated to Perth a few years earlier

14

SIBLING SUPPORT IN TRANSNATIONAL FAMILIES …

243

to join his brothers in a tailoring business. Irma’s decision to move to Perth without the blessing of her family caused a rift in their relationship. While they stayed in touch through the extremely dutiful efforts of her mother, Irma found these weekly letters “a psychological drain” as they were filled with demands and entreaties for Irma to return and “lots of guilt-tripping about how much I was needed at home”. Irma is the first to admit that she was the favourite daughter and that her relationship with her sister, Lena, suffered because of this; “Somewhat ironically”, Irma’s migration only served to worsen this as their mother “didn’t hold back from showing Lena how much she pined for me”. Over the years, Irma and Lena developed independent lives. Irma visited her parents regularly, beginning with a visit every 4–5 years in the 1960s/70s, and slowly increasing in frequency until they became annual events in the 1990s when her parents were in their 70s. Both daughters participated in the care of their ageing parents. Irma contributed to the cost of a live-in domestic care worker and Lena, who lived nearby, took charge of the coordination of daily arrangements. Irma felt sadness that her relationship with Lena did not permit her to be more involved, even if from afar, as any attempts at making suggestions were taken by Lena as criticisms. Instead, Irma spent several extended visits with her parents during the final years of their lives where she took over the primary care giving role, “to give Lena a break”. After their parents died, Irma and Lena remained in touch, mostly through viewing each other’s Facebook posts, but do not feel “close”. Their children are also “not that close” having seemingly inherited the rift that exists between their parents. Irma visits Milan less frequently, and stays in rental accommodation rather than with her sister. Irma is not sure whether her relationship with her sister would be any better had she remained in or returned to Italy.

Case Study: Rita and Her Siblings Rita is the youngest of 5 siblings born in a town not far from Messina, Sicily. Rita was the only child in her family not to move abroad; “being the youngest, I was left behind to look after the parents”. This duty resulted in Rita never marrying; “I couldn’t leave my parents, there was no-one else here to care for them”. Given the lack of employment opportunities in the region, Rita’s oldest brother decided to migrate to Australia. On finding many opportunities for work and a better future there, he set about sponsoring the migration of each of his siblings, except Rita,

244

L. BALDASSAR AND R. BRANDHORST

through family reunion. Although her siblings provided all the financial support they needed, and visited as often as they could, Rita said she “struggled” with her role, and often felt “abandoned”. She had hoped to marry “later in life”, but her mother lived “a very long time, until she was in her 90s”, outliving her husband by more than 20 years. On their mother’s death, the four siblings living in Perth agreed to forgo their share of the inheritance and “gifted” the parental home to Rita, in recognition of the sacrifices she had made in caring for their parents. Rita says she “loves being in charge of the house” and especially enjoys hosting the regular visits home of her siblings and nieces and nephews from Australia. “There are so many of them, a year doesn’t go by that I don’t have someone coming to stay”. Rita even visited Perth once, soon after her mother passed away, “to help me get over it”. She loved this three-month trip, where she spent several weeks staying with each of her siblings.

Case Study: Paola and Enza Although a more recent migrant, having moved to Perth in the 1980s, Paola, like Irma, migrated from Milan to Perth “for love” and without the blessing of her parents. However, unlike Irma, Paola enjoyed the constant support of her sister, Enza, who “always tried to smooth things out” between Paola and their parents; who could not understand Paola’s decision to move “so, so far away”, especially as she “had a good teaching job in the local town and all her family live here”. This lack of “license to leave” (Baldassar 2001) was a burden for Paola, who felt guilty for moving away and tried to placate her parents by arguing that it was her love her for husband and her obligations to her marriage that kept her from returning. It was this emotional predicament that led Paola to hide the difficulties she was experiencing in her marriage from her parents. The strong sibling relationship with Enza became particularly important when Paola’s marriage ended in separation, and Paola decided to conceal the marriage break up from her parents “to save them from stressing-out, but also to save myself from their demands that I return”. Enza was “a huge support”, not only in keeping the separation secret, but also in providing emotional support to Paola in a time of great need, and when she could not turn to her parents. Enza also arranged financial support for Paola, by asking her parents for a loan that she then passed on to Paola. Eventually, Paola remarried in Australia and her

14

SIBLING SUPPORT IN TRANSNATIONAL FAMILIES …

245

parents now accept Paola’s choice to live there. Paola contributes to the cost of domestic support for her elderly parents, and has a great deal of involvement in their lives through daily skype calls facilitated by Enza. Recently, Paola hosted Enza on an extended holiday, “to help her cope with her own marriage break up”. Enza would in fact like to migrate to Perth, to “start a new chapter in my life” and Paola is keen to support her. The sisters have children who are about the same age and the “cousins are really close… probably because they know how important we [sisters] are to each other”.

Case Study: Anna and Giulia Anna is 80 years old, was born in a small town in Abruzzo, Italy and migrated together with her husband after the Second World War to Perth at the age of twenty leaving her family of origin and her sister back in Italy. Today she lives in a residential aged care facility dedicated to the care of migrants from southern Europe. After the death of her husband and the move to the facility, Anna’s sense of belonging to Italy increased. Her social support network is mainly comprised of family members, especially her children, who live locally, and her sister and cousins in Italy. As Anna migrated to Australia in early adulthood, and could not afford to visit Italy for nearly twenty years, she has lost most ties with her former friends. In contrast, the relationship with her sister Giulia persisted over time and across the distance. Giulia is a crucial linking tie to the extended family in Italy. Anna calls Giulia daily on Skype and enjoys hearing the local neighbourhood gossip. Anna also sometimes gets to talk to her nieces and nephews and grandnephews. Through these means, Anna is closely connected to her family in Italy, can “virtually” see her nephew’s baby growing up and takes part in the family’s everyday life. The connection with her sister serves Anna as a linking point to homeland, bridging past and present and providing continuity. In addition, Anna is the main person to whom her sister can confide regarding personal or family issues, and both women have come to depend on the regular calls: “I know that six o’clock at night, it’s twelve o’clock in Perth. So, she knows that I’m still up, she can call me, because sometime I don’t have to call her, she calls me”. Anna engages in family care from a distance and regularly tells her nieces and nephews to spend more time to care for their grandmother and reminds them of family birthdays: “My cousin’s children are in touch with me by text message.

246

L. BALDASSAR AND R. BRANDHORST

All of them. Like yesterday I sent a message to the granddaughter of my cousin to say, ‘I know it’s your Nonna’s birthday and your Nonno’s later in the month,’ so I said, ‘please pass on my best wishes to them’”.

Case Study Maria and Juana María was born in Havana, Cuba, as the illegitimate child of a relationship rejected by her grandmother, who was the head of the family. When her mother married her stepfather and María’s half-sister Juana was born, María felt she did not belong anymore. When my sister Juana was born, it was really difficult for me, as I was 21 years old and I always thought I am the only girl at home, it has to be a boy, and then Juana arrived and I thought, damn! I felt as if I had been pushed off the throne. (María)

María married and had a daughter. When Maria’s marriage broke up in 1990, during the economic crisis, she decided to migrate to Germany as a way of providing for her daughter. After María’s migration, her relationship with her sister improved considerably. María, the migrantsibling living abroad, who previously had a marginal status as the “black sheep” in the family, gained a more important role and is now more respected. Her new-found status is directly linked to the significant financial remittances she sends to her family of origin, which are greatly valued due to the income disparities between both countries, and which instil a feeling of indebtedness to her by family members. In return for María’s economic assistance, her sister and mother are the primary caregivers for her daughter. In the context of the economic crisis in Cuba, Maria’s extended family, including her mother, sister and daughter depend on her remittances; which have improved their living conditions considerably: Here we are lucky to have María’s support economically and we were able to build a room in the house for every couple as you can see. That has helped us a lot, because many families have problems when living together. (Juana)

Although Juana works fulltime as a secretary, María is the main breadwinner. Her monthly remittances are more than double the average

14

SIBLING SUPPORT IN TRANSNATIONAL FAMILIES …

247

salary. Juana is grateful for María’s economic support and admires María. Inspired by her sister, Juana plans to migrate as she too would like to be held in high esteem by the family. In return for María’s financial remittances, her sister Juana provides hands-on personal care for the children and ageing parents. María’s new-found social status and much-valued attention from her sibling and mother has facilitated a reconciliation within the family and, in particular, between Maria and her sister Juana, whose relationship is now idealised by Maria; “by now my sister is my favourite sister, she is also Cancer just like me”.

Case Study: Alejandro and Pedro Since Alejandro’s migration from Cuba to Germany, the emotional connection and the frequency of contact of Alejandro with his brother Pedro have considerably decreased. In contrast to other Cuban migrants, like María, Alejandro only provides the minimum of family care. He seldom calls his brother or parents, seldom communicates via Email, does not provide hands-on care for his ageing parents because he lives abroad, and only sends financial remittances occasionally. His brother, Pedro, in contrast, lives with their ageing parents in Cuba and provides handson care for them. Pedro often asks Alejandro for compensation in the form of financial contributions to his personal care provision, but these requests are mostly in vain. Sometimes the family has big expenses, for example, the need to repair the roof, and they contact Alejandro for help. Alejandro, however, struggles with the pressure to send large sums of his salary to his family and feels used; “Well I have contact with my brother either when I go to Cuba or when he asks me for money. If they have to repair something in the house that is broken, they turn to me”. This perceived pressure and unevenness in care reciprocity has led to an increasing distancing from his brother and his parents and a refusal to further engage in family care. Alejandro blames his lack of contact on the difficulty of travel to Cuba, which is costly and constrained by his visa conditions, as well as on the restricted access to ICTs and the high telephone connection costs between Cuba and Germany. In Cuba, Internet access is still extremely limited. In fact, Pedro does not have Internet access at home and Internet in hotels and Internet cafes costs 5 CUC an hour, which represents a substantial drain on his monthly salary of 30 CUC. While his family have a landline at home, calls outside of Cuba are

248

L. BALDASSAR AND R. BRANDHORST

too expensive to afford. So, communication in this case is mostly oneway, from Alejandro to his family. Furthermore, he explains, it requires a bigger effort to stay in touch; “Well, I speak once every two months with them. They don’t have Internet, so it is a bit complicated. Usually I phone them but it is expensive to talk on the phone, so you can’t really have a relaxed conversation. It is more organising things”. Despite the refusal to engage in family care from Alejandro’s side, the disappointment from Pedro’s side, and the ongoing tensions between the two, the brothers still maintain contact and do not completely cut their ties. Whereas emotional distance, lack of willingness to reciprocate and geographical distance could be justification to cut ties between friends, as siblings Pedro and Alejandro are able to disassociate themselves from each other and to reconnect periodically, as they are bound together by their status as siblings.

Discussion: Siblings Caring Across Distance As noted in our introduction, sibling relationships have been understudied in both family and transnational studies as both tend to focus on nuclear family relationships and, in particular, parent–child dyads. Where sibling relationships are mentioned, it is usually in relation to their role in connection to the parent–child dyad and not as the central focus of the research. In this section, we draw on the case studies presented above to highlight some key themes that help us to theorise the role of sibling relationships in transnational and migrant families. We conclude with reflections on the conceptual tools needed to ensure siblings are included in analyses of transnational families. Finch and Mason (1993) have convincingly argued that family care obligations are negotiated over time and are characterised by generalised reciprocity among all family members. This is also the case in transnational family relations, where negotiations between family members, including siblings, are arguably even more necessary due to the mobility, absence and distance involved. Locke et al. (2013: 1889–1890) in their study of the organisation of social reproduction by migrants and their families point out that “each critical juncture involves, whether of self or of intimate other, whenever it is experienced, a renegotiation that is rendered more complex in the context of migration” (see also Ting and Ho 2020). Eugene Litwak (1960; Litwak and Kulis 1987), with her concept of the “modified extended family”, was one of the first to recognise that

14

SIBLING SUPPORT IN TRANSNATIONAL FAMILIES …

249

geographical proximity is not a prerequisite for maintaining close family bonds and organising care. In her study on parents’ support to their adult children that moved away, she states that in modern societies and in the modern family the kin structure had to permit differential mobility of kin members, and this was only possible as modern technologies permitted the provision of care obligations across distance. Migration has long been a family strategy to meet the care obligations of its members, including extended family members as the case studies reveal. Motivations for mobility today are varied and often mixed. Whether this mobility is chosen or enforced by economic constraints or conflict, the contemporary political context of restrictive migration policies, temporary visas and lack of family reunion policies, result in many people being separated from their families (Merla et al. 2020). Both the family members who move, as well as those who stay behind, are influenced by the roles each other perform in the family. Siblings are invariably caught up in these forms of mobility. Enduring and Changeable Ties The special characteristics of sibling relationships shape their role in families, and this appears to also be the case in the context of migration and transnational families. Cicirelli’s (1995: 4) argument that sibling relationships “are ascribed rather than voluntary” and hence are more enduring, and that even after some time of physical or emotional distancing the status of the sibling remains, seems particularly pertinent to the context of migration, which, by definition, involves physical distancing. Further, Cicirelli’s (1995: 4f.) argument that, in contrast to friendships or parent– child relationships, the strength or closeness of sibling relationships may vary across time, from a weaker to a stronger bond, and vice versa, but may still persist, is evident in the case studies. Relationships between siblings are ascribed rather than voluntary, which makes them enduring even across temporal distancing lasting a lifetime. The case studies presented above suggest that this characteristic is especially relevant to siblings in transnational families, whose roles and relationships with each other change over the migration and life course. This specific characteristic of a sibling relationship is particularly evident in the case study of Alejandro and Pedro who, despite their emotional distance due to a lack of care reciprocity, remain connected. It shows that in contrast to friendships, sibling relationships can also be distant, but as ascribed relationships

250

L. BALDASSAR AND R. BRANDHORST

they will not end (Cicirelli 1995: 5). Anna and Giulia’s case study also reveals a temporal distancing of the sisters caused by migration and the difficulty of staying in contact, followed by a rapprochement at a later stage in life when maintaining ties became much easier due to ICTs and cheaper travel. Of special relevance to the enduring nature of transnational sibling support, even despite emotional and temporal distancing, is the role of the sibling relationship in shaping and colouring the migrants’ enduring tie to homeland, beyond the death of parents. After extended periods of separation from their hometown, Zelda’s brother and Rita’s siblings relied on them to provide a physical home and a sense of belonging to homeland after their parents had passed away. It was the lack of a close relationship with her sister Lena that left Irma without access to accommodation, highlighting how this really is an important form of care in the migration context. Sibling Hierarchies Unlike parent–child–and spouse relationships, the provision of care between siblings is not subject to legal obligations (Finch and Mason 1993: 6). The sibling relationship tends to be based on equality and similar positions and a lower obligation to reciprocate in comparison with the parent–child dyad (Cicirelli 1995). However, there is still often a hierarchy between siblings and different expectations and obligations, often relating to birth order, gender and age. A more equal relationship makes it easier to confess difficulties to siblings (divorce or financial problems), as seen in the case study of Paola and Enza. Sibling hierarchies notwithstanding, Amelina and Bause (2020) in their research on refugee families found that transnational communication between siblings was more open than it was with parents, precisely to support each other while protecting parents from emotional burden (see also Baldassar 2007). The migration context and welfare regimes (Kilkey and Merla 2014; Brandhorst 2020) clearly impact on the interdependencies between migrant and non-migrant siblings.

14

SIBLING SUPPORT IN TRANSNATIONAL FAMILIES …

251

Care Slotting and Entrainment The case studies highlight the important role siblings can play in providing care on each other’s behalf in the context of migration. As a result of family member’s migratory moves, decisions about who will provide care to whom, when and where are negotiated within extended families, including among siblings, and these roles may change over time (Finch and Mason 1993). Coe’s (2016) notion of care entrainment helps to explain how the life trajectories of migrants and their non-migrant kin are “knitted together” in ways that permit their redistribution, particularly in times of crisis, including in response to death, illness, birth, unemployment, ageing and so on. Similarly, Ting and Ho (2020) use the notion of care slotting to refer to the way non-migrants “step in for” absent migrant kin to fulfil care roles in their stead. Relatedly, Lee and Pacini-Ketchabaw (2011) examine the role of immigrant girls as caregivers for their younger siblings. As our case studies show, siblings are often called upon to take the place of, or perform each other’s roles, to compensate for the absence of family members through migration. For example, Juana cared for her sister Maria’s daughter on her behalf and Rita, Zelda and Pedro took on the main care responsibilities for their ageing parents on behalf of their migrant siblings. In each of these cases, the migrant siblings compensated the care through financial remittances and inheritance rights. In her ethnographic and biographical study of transnational families between Cuba and Germany Brandhorst (2014, 2015) observes a “reconfiguration of intrafamilial roles and power hierarchies ”, as well as changes of the assignment of productive and reproductive tasks across distance. The sibling abroad becomes the main household breadwinner from afar, whereas the sibling who stayed behind assumes the care for children and ageing parents. Often female siblings or relatives, e.g. grandmothers, in the homeland assume reproductive tasks for the migrated relatives. However, in the case of the migration of a female relative, traditional gender roles within the family might be reconfigured and reproductive tasks are assigned to male relatives in the country of origin. A transformation of gender roles and responsibilities was also observed by Belánger et al. (2011) in their study on transnational marriage migration in Southeast Asia. The change of gender roles and intrafamilial hierarchies in the scope of migration is especially relevant in the case study of María and Juana.

252

L. BALDASSAR AND R. BRANDHORST

The processes of care slotting and entrainment can have significant consequences for the lives of both migrant and non-migrant siblings. Rita was unable to marry due to having to take the place of her siblings in caring for her parents. María was unable to experience first-hand her daughter growing up due to her family’s need for her financial remittances. In these cases, migration brings increased obligation to slot into particular care roles that constrain (and entrain) life courses. If Sicily offered greater care support for the elderly, the constraints of the care burden may have lessened such that Rita could have married. The complex care slotting and entrainment processes exemplified in the case studies illustrate the interdependencies between migrants and nonmigrants, including siblings, which reinforce family bonds and economic ties through the multidirectional exchange of money, labour, resources and affection. Digital Kinning, Polymedia and ICTs Access to information and communication technologies (ICTs) helps to ensure families can stay connected and provide care across distance more easily. Indeed, the contemporary “polymedia environment” (Madianou and Miller 2012) creates new forms of care and a new simultaneity across distance (Baldassar et al. 2016). Through online connections via ICTs, people can share a feeling of connectedness and an experience of copresence that approximates physical co-presence (Madianou and Miller 2012; Wilding 2006), transforming family care. This transformation of the possibility of transnational care and the feeling of connectedness can be best observed in the case study of Anna who, after her migration to Australia in the 1950s/60s was initially unable to stay in touch with her sister due to the distance and the lack of communication. However, today, Anna calls her sister daily on Skype, feels closely connected to her family in Italy, and can “virtually” take part in the family’s everyday life. With older age, the death of her husband, and separation from her neighbourhood due to the move into a residential home, Anna developed a closer connection to Italy, serving her as an imagined space of home and belonging that can only be maintained and revitalised by her connection to her sister. At the same time, the relationship between the migrant and nonmigrant siblings is not a unidirectional relationship of support and

14

SIBLING SUPPORT IN TRANSNATIONAL FAMILIES …

253

care flowing only in the direction of the migrant supporting the nonmigrant, although financial remittances are the most well documented form of transnational support. The case studies show several examples of reciprocal exchange of support, even when relationships are strained. The sibling relationships are characterised by reciprocal care circulation (Baldassar and Merla 2014), in the form of “indirect repayment”/reciprocity (Finch and Mason 1993). For example, Anna is not a passive recipient of care, but actively uses new media and ICTs to communicate with her kin abroad, providing emotional care for her sister. Furthermore, her sister calls her when she needs practical advice. Baldassar and Wilding (2020) define this reciprocal exchange of care using new media and ICTs as a form of “digital kinning”, the practice or “doing” and establishing family bonds via distant care. The case study of Pedro and Alejandro, however, reveals that access to and the cost of ICTs is embedded in mobility regimes and existing socio-economic and global inequalities (Brandhorst 2020; Kania-Lundholm and Torres 2018).

Conclusion We hope this chapter demonstrates that a focus on sibling support opens up new perspectives in the study of transnational families. The case studies clearly show the complex, changing and ongoing negotiation of family commitments and care obligations between siblings over time, which are arguably made more acute in transnational family contexts, particularly around what we might call the “joint obligations of siblings” to care for dependent family members, including children and ageing parents. A focus on transnational sibling relationships provides us with a deeper understanding of the reconfiguration of intra-familial roles and positions in the scope of migration, and of the distribution of care work within transnational families beyond the traditional focus on the parent–child dyad. In addition, it highlights the importance of non-physical forms of care, in particular the reciprocal exchange of emotional support and advice. At the same time, the analytical focus on migration and transnational families provides a novel perspective on the study of sibling relationships, as it highlights the transformative aspect of sibling relationships not only across the life course, but across distance and national borders. The reconfiguration of power and status within families that result from migration and global disparities helps to emphasise the unequal status

254

L. BALDASSAR AND R. BRANDHORST

and power within families, including within the more egalitarian relationships between siblings. In addition, the analysis of the organisation of sibling responsibilities across distance and borders highlights the complex negotiations of care work and family responsibilities. Finally, the study of transnational families and migration reveals that geographical distance between siblings does not necessarily imply emotional distance or a distanced relationship. Acknowledgements Data for the case studies have been drawn from a number of interrelated research projects, including Australian Research Council (ARC) DP0346275 led by Baldassar, Baldock and Wilding, ARC DP160102552 led by Baldassar and Wilding, and Brandhorst’s German Research Foundation Grant BR 5645/1-1.

References Amelina, A., & Bause, N. (2020). Forced migrant families’ assemblages of care and social protection between solidarity and inequality. Journal of Family Research. https://doi.org/10.20377/jfr-375. Baldassar, L. (2001). Visits home: Migration experiences between Italy and Australia. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press. Baldassar, L. (2007). Transnational families and the provision of moral and emotional support: The relationship between truth and distance. Identities, 14(4), 385–409. Baldassar, L. (2008). Missing kin and longing to be together: Emotions and the construction of co-presence in transnational relationships. Journal of Intergenerational Studies, 29(3), 391–405. Baldassar, L., Baldock, C., & Wilding, R. (2007). Families caring across borders: Migration, aging and transnational caregiving. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Baldassar, L., & Merla, L. (Eds.). (2014). Transnational families, migration and the circulation of care: Understanding mobility and absence in family life. Routledge Transnationalism Series. London: Routledge. Baldassar, L., Nedelcu, M., Merla, L., & Wilding, R. (2016). Migration and new media: ‘Being together’ and ‘co-presence’ in transnational family life. Special Issue, Global Networks, 16(2), 131–256. Baldassar, L., & Wilding, R. (2020). Migration, aging, and digital kinning: The role of distant care support networks in experiences of aging well. The Gerontologist, 60(2), 313–321.

14

SIBLING SUPPORT IN TRANSNATIONAL FAMILIES …

255

Baldassar, L., Wilding, R., Krzyzowski, L., & Mihelcic, J. (2021). In Tsatsou, P. (Ed.). Vulnerable people and digital inclusion: Theoretical and applied perspectives. London: Palgrave. Belánger, D., Linh, G., & Tran, G. L. (2011). The impact of transnational migration on gender and marriage in sending communities of Vietnam. Current Sociology, 59(1), 59–77. Brandhorst, R. (2014). Transnational families in Cuba and Germany: On the intersection between isolation, restrictions and agency. Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies, 76, 254–278. New York: Routledge. Brandhorst, R. (2015). Migration und transnationale Familien im sozialen Wandel Kubas. Eine biographische und ethnographische Studie. Wiesbaden: VS Springer. Brandhorst, R. (2020). A regimes-of-mobility-and-welfare approach: The impact of migration and welfare policies on transnational social support networks of older migrants in Australia. In Merla, Kilkey & Baldassar (eds.): Transnational care families confronting borders. Journal of Family Research, 3. https://doi. org/10.20377/jfr-374. Bryceson, D., & Vuorela, U. (2002). The transnational family: New European frontiers and global networks. Oxford/New York: Berg. Cicirelli, V. (1995). Sibling relationships across the life span. New York: Plenum. Coe, C. (2016). Orchestrating care in time: Ghanaian migrant women, family, and reciprocity. American Anthropologist, 118, 37–48. Finch, J., & Mason, J. (1993). Negotiating family responsibilities. London/New York: Routledge. Kahn, R., & Antonucci, T. (1980). Convoys over the life course: Attachment, roles, and social support. In Paul B. Baltes & Olim G. Brim (Eds.), Life-span development and behavior (pp. 383–405). New York: Academic Press. Kania-Lundholm, M., & Torres, S. (2018). Ideology, power and inclusion: Using the critical perspective to study how older ICT users make sense of digitisation. Media, Culture & Society, 40(8), 1167–1185. Kilkey, M., & Merla, L. (2014). Situating transnational families’ care-giving arrangements. Global Networks, 14(2), 210–229. Lee, J.-A. & Pacini-Ketchabaw, V. (2011). Immigrant girls as caregivers to younger siblings: A transnational feminist analysis. Gender and Education, 23(2), 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540251003674063. Litwak, E. (1960). Geographic mobility and extended family cohesion. American Sociological Review, 25, 385–394. Litwak, E., & Kulis, S. (1987). Technology, proximity and measures of kin support. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 649–661. Locke, C., Seeley, J., & Rao, N. (2013). Migration and social reproduction at critical junctures in family life course. Third World Quarterly, 34(10), 1881– 1895.

256

L. BALDASSAR AND R. BRANDHORST

Madianou, M. & Miller, D. (2012). Migration and the new media: Transnational families and polymedia. London: Routledge. Merla, L., Kilkey, M., & Baldassar, L. (2020). Examining transnational care circulation trajectories within immobilizing regimes of migration: Implications for proximate care. Journal of Family Research. https://doi.org/10.20377/ jfr-351. Parreñas, R. S. (2001): Mothering from a distance: Emotions, gender, and intergenerational relations in Filipino transnational families. Feminist Studies, 27(2), 361–390. Ting, W., & Ho, E. (2020). Care Circulations between Singapore and Myanmar: Balancing eldercare work abroad with care for ageing parents back home. Wilding, R. (2006). “Virtual” intimacies? Families communicating across transnational contexts. Global Networks, 6, 125–142.

CHAPTER 15

Social Support When a Sibling Has a Disability John Kramer, Ariella Meltzer, and Kate Strohm

Disabilities is an umbrella term, covering impairments, activity limitations, and participation restrictions. An impairment is a problem in body function or structure an activity limitation is a difficulty encountered by an individual in executing a task or action while a participation restriction is a problem experienced by an individual in involvement in life situations. Disability is thus not just a health problem. It is a complex phenomenon, reflecting the interaction between features of a person’s body and features of the society in which he or she lives. Overcoming the difficulties faced by people with disabilities requires interventions to remove environmental and social barriers. World Health Organization (2020)

J. Kramer (B) Department of Occupational Therapy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA e-mail: [email protected] A. Meltzer Centre for Social Impact, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia K. Strohm Siblings Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia © The Author(s) 2021 A. Buchanan and A. Rotkirch (eds.), Brothers and Sisters, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55985-4_15

257

258

J. KRAMER ET AL.

Introduction In this chapter, we discuss sibling relationships where there is at least one sibling with a disability. Our definition is that from the World Health Organization (2020) above, who estimate that worldwide over one billion people experience some form of disability (WHO 2020). Given that most people have at least one brother or sister (see Chapter 1), large numbers of individuals have a sibling with a disability. The basic starting point in this type of sibling relationship is that disability has a unique influence on the relationship, and can inflect the dynamic between siblings. We begin by discussing how social support for and between siblings with and without disabilities, is interwoven with how people with disabilities themselves historically were understood, treated and supported. The chapter includes comments on social support for and between siblings during childhood, young and middle adulthood and as siblings age, and draws from both research and practice to illustrate a twofold picture of what social support from, and for siblings, for this group looks like. Historical Context: Changing Attitudes to People with Disabilities Before the Industrial Revolution, people with disabilities often did not live very long and, when they did, most lived at home. Their families usually worked together on farms or in a family business, and this meant people with disabilities often lived and worked with them (Wehmeyer 2013). However, with industrialization and the need for more skilled labour, many people with disabilities did not have obvious places to work or live. Disability therefore became more equated with social problems, such as poverty and homelessness. It followed that stigma became more apparent. Families often ‘hid’ members with a disability, and professionals often recommended that children with disabilities be institutionalized. Institutionalization was seen as a solution for managing the stigma of disability and also as a way of meeting support needs that were considered unmanageable in the community. An additional rationale for institutionalization was that it would remove the stress and burden of having a family member with a disability, which would in turn help the other children—that is, siblings —to thrive. In most Western societies, at this time, it was generally accepted that people with severe disabilities should be admitted to institutions (Department of Health 2001). Mothers who gave birth to a child with a disability

15

SOCIAL SUPPORT WHEN A SIBLING HAS A DISABILITY

259

were often advised to place the child in an institution and have another baby. The sibling with a disability was then lost from the family. Younger siblings were often not aware that they had an older brother or sister. In the 1960s and 1970s, there was a radical change in attitudes to disability in countries such as the USA, UK and Australia. Wolfensberger (1972) wrote that people with learning disabilities could lead a ‘socially valued role’ in the community. In the 1970s/80s in the UK, the social model of disability was developed, suggesting that what makes someone disabled was not their medical condition or incapacity of their body or mind, but rather the inaccessible attitudes and structures of society (UPIAS 1976; Oliver 1990). The theory argued that disability should not be seen solely as a medical problem, but as a social, access and human rights issue. The theory led the way for a reconfiguration in how social policy addressed disability and to the process of deinstitutionalization of people with disabilities. Large hospitals for people with disabilities closed and incumbents returned to supported living in the community. Policies and services to support people with disabilities focused increasingly on access and attitudes. This culminated in 2006, when the United Nations developed its Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations 2006), an international treaty intended to protect the rights and dignity of people with disabilities. As countries around the world ratified the Convention, they thought further about how to better support people with disabilities and their families, and many countries began to design explicit services so that people with disabilities would have more choice and control in their everyday lives. Most recently, this has resulted in a proliferation of personalization policies in many countries, including the UK and Australia, which aim to see people with disabilities tailoring the support they receive in the community to their own goals and ambitions for their lives. Developing Interest in Siblings and Disability As people with disabilities re-entered family homes, medical and other professionals began to ask questions about the impact this move would have on their families, especially their siblings, who would again live alongside brothers and sisters with significant disabilities (Meltzer and Kramer 2016). A proliferation of research followed about the lifelong set of impacts that people with disabilities can have upon their siblings, and, as such, a field that can be termed ‘sibling-disability research’ was

260

J. KRAMER ET AL.

born. Much of the early research focused on the psychological adjustment of the sibling without the disability to the presence of disability in their family and upon the disabled child’s influence on family functioning. Newer research has continued these focuses, but also looked at the presence and impact of disability in the lived experience of sibling and other family relationships, as well as long-term caregiving and other related issues. In response to the evidence of social support being needed by siblings of people with disabilities, a practice field of ‘sibling support’ was also born, aimed at supporting the well-being of those who have brothers and sisters with disabilities. Beginning in the late 1970s and early 1980s, this field saw various social work, health and disability practitioners providing social support to siblings of people with disabilities (Meyer 2017). While often hard to fund and maintain within existing policy structures, various sibling support providers have existed for many years and have strong practice in the USA, UK and Australia, among other countries. Their work reflects the findings of sibling-disability research, but also goes beyond, reflecting many years of connections on the ground with siblings, people with disabilities, parents and other family members. The following sections outline the main areas, findings and insights from both the research and practice on siblings and disability.

Key Areas of Sibling-Disability Research As sibling-disability research developed as a field, several clear areas have crystallized as its central focuses. A few of the main areas are detailed below, followed by a brief discussion of the unresolved tensions in the existing literature that contemporary literature is currently beginning to address more thoroughly. Studies of ‘Sibling Adjustment’ From the earliest studies after deinstitutionalization, there have been explorations of the difficulties siblings experience and attempts to predict which siblings face the most challenges. The central concept was the ‘adjustment’ of siblings to the presence of disability in their family—that is, the likelihood of siblings developing either externalizing behaviours

15

SOCIAL SUPPORT WHEN A SIBLING HAS A DISABILITY

261

(e.g. ‘mis-behaviour’, ‘acting out’) or internalizing behaviours (e.g. depression, anxiety) in response to disability in the family (Cuskelly 1999). The findings about adjustment are mixed. Across both externalizing and internalizing behaviours, studies have found negative psychological outcomes (Barnett and Hunter 2012; Farber 1959, 1960, 1963; Farber and Jenne 1963; Senel and Akkök 1995; Shojaee et al. 2018), positive outcomes (Cuskelly and Gunn 2006; Perenc et al. 2015; Pilowsky et al. 2004; Shivers 2019), and mixed findings (Macks and Reeve 2007; Neely-Barnes and Graff 2011). Several studies have emphasized that particular experiences may be difficult, such as where siblings are exposed to and/or harmed by violence or challenging behaviour related to a brother or sister’s disability (Barker 2011; Fishbein 2010; Petalas et al. 2009) or where they witness distressing health situations, such as their brother or sister having a seizure (Kroner et al. 2018). Other studies have identified a complex set of ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ emotions that siblings experience as a result of their brother or sister’s disability, where increased tolerance, compassion and patience for others commonly coexist alongside or combine with siblings also feeling isolated, overly responsible, angry, guilty or stressed in response to the disability (Abrams 2009; Guse and Harvey 2010; Mulroy et al. 2008). Overall, meta-analysis has found a statistically small likelihood of siblings experiencing psychological problems, with the internalizing problems of depression and anxiety more likely than the externalizing behaviours (Rossiter and Sharpe 2001). While the likelihood is small, the numbers are still concerning compared to peers (Hastings 2014). A range of studies have also examined factors from siblings’ social context that mediate their adjustment. A key finding is that access to good quality social support has an extensive bearing over siblings’ outcomes— that is, when they do have access to sibling and other family supports, and have supportive relationships and communities in general, siblings fare better psychologically than when they do not (Incledon et al. 2015; Lovell and Wetherell 2016; Roberts et al. 2016; Tomeny et al. 2018). This suggests that, beyond the direct experience of their brother or sister’s disability, poor social circumstances and service/support options also have very significant implications for siblings.

262

J. KRAMER ET AL.

Studies of the Sibling Relationship Another key focus of the sibling-disability literature has been studying the nature of the sibling relationship itself, including the influence of disability on the interactions, feelings and activities shared between the sibling with and without the disability. Early studies tended to use control groups to examine, for example, how the presence of disability affected the warmth, intimacy, reciprocity, egalitarianism and conflict between siblings where one had a disability compared to those where neither had a disability. These studies typically found that disability made the sibling relationship less warm, intimate, reciprocal, egalitarian and conflictual than those between siblings where neither have a disability (Dallas et al. 1993a, b; Doody et al. 2010; Eisenberg et al. 1998; Kaminsky and Dewey 2001; Love et al. 2012). More recently, this work has however been critiqued for defining the sibling relationship only by what it is not, rather than looking at the unique interactions that do actually occur between siblings where one has a disability (Meltzer 2015, 2018). Newer work has instead shown, for example, that it is not simply that relationships between siblings with and without disabilities are less egalitarian than those where neither have a disability, but rather that siblings have to work harder at explicitly maintaining an egalitarian feeling to their relationship where one has a disability (Meltzer 2015), because of differing abilities and support needs, and that working at this can be emotionally and practically challenging. Similarly, research has shown that sibling relationships where one sibling has a disability are not always simply non-reciprocal, but rather that many siblings, with different ways of acting and different abilities, may enact and return each other’s support differently to each other (Kramer et al. 2013), with symbolic returns being more accepted from the sibling with the disability than the one without (Dew 2010). Other newer work has sought to understand more about what siblings with and without disabilities do together day-to-day, particularly that which goes beyond caregiving and support (on which there has been much work; see following section) to what fosters a sense of social connection between them. A central finding of this work is that siblings with and without disabilities participate in leisure activities and family occasions together right across the life course, and that this can take on particular importance for people with disabilities who are commonly socially

15

SOCIAL SUPPORT WHEN A SIBLING HAS A DISABILITY

263

isolated. Siblings commonly play together in childhood (Yavuz and Safak ¸ 2019) and eat out together, exercise, shop and see movies in adulthood (Burbidge and Minnes 2014; Rossetti et al. 2020). Roles as aunts or uncles may also sometimes be particularly important to people with disabilities (Kramer 2009). Siblings often share this social time together in the face of inaccessible resources, such as inaccessible telecommunications (Burbidge and Minnes 2014). They may also need to work hard at finding ways to participate that are fulfilling for both siblings, when each may have very different ways of participating or levels of understanding and/or the sibling with the disability may need significant assistance to participate, due to disability-related support needs. There can also be added complexity when the ageing process interacts with disability to change the support needs involved or when issues such as violence or challenging behaviour make it hard for sibling to want to spend time together (Barker 2011; Fishbein 2010; Petalas et al. 2009). Yet, despite these complexities, particularly in adulthood, research has shown that, where it happens successfully, the social connective function of sibling relationships is very important and, in fact, the service system often relies on siblings to be a relational connection for people with disabilities to home and community (Bigby et al. 2014). Studies of Caregiving and Future Planning Within Families A final key theme of sibling-disability research has been studies of siblings’ involvement in caregiving for people with disabilities and of the range of associated issues that follow from care, including future planning for when parents age or pass away. These themes are examined as a well-being issue for siblings, as care and anxiety about the future can have significant practical and emotional implications for them, but also as services and policy issue, as siblings’ involvement has implications for what the service system needs to offer siblings, people with disabilities and families. A range of studies have examined the patterns with which siblings are involved in care for people with disabilities, finding that many are involved right from childhood (Nuttall et al. 2018; Stoneman et al. 1988). The predictors of siblings’ involvement have also been studied, with key findings showing that women who live in close proximity to a brother or sister with an intellectual disability and do not have other siblings without a disability are commonly expected to be the most involved in their brother

264

J. KRAMER ET AL.

or sister’s care in adulthood (Burke et al. 2012). Studies have additionally shown that beyond typical caregiving roles, adult siblings also take on non-traditional assistance roles, such as service coordinator, guardian, advocate and emergency contact person (Lee et al. 2018). Research has shown that siblings anticipate their future caregiving responsibilities from long before they happen (Heller and Arnold 2010; Rawson 2010). Studies of future planning show that it is often difficult for parents to make proactive decisions about plans for the future and that this can be a source of major anxiety for siblings, and of conflict within families (Davys et al. 2014; Leane 2020). Where siblings want something different for their brother or sister than their parents, or where they are concerned about the impact of their potential caregiving role on their own lives in terms of their plans for their marriage, children or career, the difficulties are most heightened. Research has highlighted the benefits of proactive future planning conversations and support programmes in this context (Davys et al. 2014; Heller and Caldwell 2006). Finally, research has also shown the complexity with which siblings think about their role in caregiving. While many siblings feel a sense of commitment, duty and/or value in the care they provide (Tozer et al. 2013), there is also an extent to which too much care or participation in certain kinds of care can feel challenging to siblings; it can damage the feeling of being siblings and instead make the sibling relationship feel too utilitarian, like a worker or parent relationship instead of a sibling relationship (Meltzer 2017). There is evidence to suggest that some siblings with and without disabilities try to put boundaries on the types of care they are involved in together to manage this challenge, however this is not always possible due to socio-economic factors and/or the practicalities of managing care within families (Meltzer 2017). Further, protecting the feeling of being siblings can be particularly challenging when many countries, including the UK and Australia, see siblings within a policy framework of ‘carers’, which on the one hand qualifies them for some service support, but on the other, based on the research, also risks taking away from the feeling of being a sibling (Meltzer 2017). Recent research has begun to parse the many different roles that siblings play that are adjacent to caregiving roles, reconfirming the realization that caregiving is only one facet of the sibling relationship (Lee et al. 2018; Strohm 2018).

15

SOCIAL SUPPORT WHEN A SIBLING HAS A DISABILITY

265

Unresolved Tensions in the Existing Literature In reading the existing research, there is a need to be aware of its current limitations. Historically, most research on sibling relationships with disabled brothers and sisters has been informed by studies with white, middle-class families; there was a reliance on maternal reports of siblings’ outcomes, rather than asking siblings themselves (Cuskelly 1999; Hastings 2014); and few studies used comparison or control groups (Cuskelly 1999). Further, much of the research excluded the voices of the sibling with the disability, reflected negative biases about disability (Stoneman 2005) and ignored the impacts of life stage, class and culture (Stoneman 2005). Newer studies are now beginning to address these issues, for example, including more of a cross-cultural lens (e.g. Hwang and Charnley 2010; Tsai et al. 2018) and drawing on the perspectives of siblings with disabilities themselves (e.g. Kramer 2009; Dew 2010; Burbidge and Minnes 2014; Meltzer 2015; Burke et al. 2016; Rossetti et al. 2020). Nevertheless, there is need for more research that continues to redress the historical limitations of the field.

Practice Insights for Supporting Siblings While researchers have focused on empirical data, social work, health and disability practitioners have simultaneously acquired practice experience in engaging with and supporting siblings where one has a disability (Siblings Australia 2017, 2018). This has led to the development of a field of ‘sibling support’, aimed at supporting the well-being of those who have brothers and sisters with disabilities. While there is a link between sibling-disability research and ‘sibling support’ practice, many of the practice insights are worth detailing separately, as they show what support to siblings looks like on the ground and, in some cases, not all of the practice insights have yet been reflected in the research literature, correspond consistently with the research or have been adequately integrated with the more current research developments. Key practice insights are detailed in the following sections, using a life course framework.

266

J. KRAMER ET AL.

Supporting Siblings in Childhood and Young Adulthood Practice experience suggests that children and young people who are siblings of people with disabilities need support across several main areas, including: Understanding disability. From a young age, practitioners have found that siblings need to be supported to understand their brother or sister’s disability, with age-appropriate information that becomes more complex as they move from childhood into young adulthood. Without support, practitioners have seen that siblings may feel confusion about their brother or sister’s disability. This confusion may lead to misunderstandings about what is happening with their sibling or in their family, and may result in siblings blaming themselves for what is happening or— particularly as very young children—fearing they might catch the disability themselves. Support to engage well with their brother or sister. Engaging well together in childhood and young adulthood can have a significant impact on the ongoing relationship between siblings with and without disabilities, but sometimes siblings of people with disabilities will need support to know how to engage well with their brother or sister. Practitioners have observed that sometimes siblings may need support with how to communicate or play with their brother or sister, or to adapt their talk or play to any disability-related support needs. As they become young adults, siblings with and without disabilities may need support to remain connected, as their lives change and grow further apart. Responsibility. Practitioners highlight that siblings will commonly provide care or practical or emotional support to their brother or sister, even from childhood and extending into young adulthood. This may be at their own initiative or due to expectation from family. Such activities can be beneficial for both siblings, as long as there is balance. Support may be required to ensure that in childhood siblings do not become overly responsible for a brother or sister with a disability or too stressed by the caregiving responsibilities they do have. Some practitioners have mentioned that siblings can be at risk for premature maturity especially if they take on extra responsibility, either through direct caregiving or through their own worries about the child with a disability or their parents. In young adulthood, siblings may need support to know how to set boundaries so that they are not drawn into care routines that make them feel more like a ‘carer’ than a ‘sibling’.

15

SOCIAL SUPPORT WHEN A SIBLING HAS A DISABILITY

267

Feelings. From childhood and into young adulthood, siblings of people with disabilities may require support with the range of feelings they may have about their brother or sister’s disability. Siblings have reported to practitioners that they can feel isolated and feel that others do not understand what growing up was like for them. Practitioners also highlight that siblings may feel sadness about their brother or sister’s disability and its impact on their family, guilt about their own accomplishments, embarrassment about the disability or resentment about the fact that family activities might be restricted or that their brother or sister gets more attention than them. They may feel pressure to ‘make things right’ to reduce stress on parents. Practitioners have found that acknowledging the feelings and allowing for their expression can help siblings to feel accepted, develop greater feelings of self-worth, and to respond more positively to their brother or sister. Without support, some siblings can experience longer-term anxiety. Others’ reactions. Practitioners highlight that siblings may require support to deal with the reactions of other people and society in general to their brother or sister’s disability. In childhood, teasing, staring and bullying on the grounds of disability are common, and can affect both a child with a disability and their siblings. As they grow older, peer connectedness is an important part of developing one’s own identity as a teenager and young person. Some siblings can feel divided loyalties during these life stages between their brother or sister with a disability and their peers who might talk negatively about disability. Others become advocates and call out such behaviour, as well as becoming more critical of how disability is represented in the media. Work by practitioners has shown that siblings can feel stronger and better able to respond effectively if they are given the skills to address these issues productively and the opportunity to rehearse what they might say in these situations. Often, they can be confronted by others’ reactions and having the correct information can help them develop responses that feel comfortable for them. Thinking about the future. Practitioners very commonly highlight that even from as early as childhood and young adulthood siblings may require support with thinking about the future. Particularly as children move into their teen years, siblings may worry about developing greater independence when they perceive their brother or sister may not do the same or may face more barriers to independence than themselves. They may also start to worry about the future and what will happen when parents are no longer able to provide care for their brother or sister. They may

268

J. KRAMER ET AL.

have concerns about finding a life partner who will value their brother or sister and be willing to share any possible future caregiving responsibilities. They may also worry about having children themselves, and then balancing responsibilities as time goes on. Practitioners highlight that siblings’ concerns about the future need to be acknowledged, and they need to be included in discussions about the future and supported to balance their own life goals with supporting their brother or sister. TYPES OF SUPPORT FOR SIBLINGS IN CHILDHOOD AND YOUNG ADULTHOOD Direct supports to siblings • Individual support through a therapist or school counsellor, which allows the sibling to explore their feelings and learn skills to manage any challenges. • Structured peer support programmes, run and moderated by social work, health and disability professionals, either online or in-person. • Programmes which allow siblings to take part in recreational activities that might be difficult in their own family. • Programmes that help the sibling and the child or young person with a disability to interact more positively. • Books and other resources that allow siblings to read about a specific disability and/or the experiences of other siblings. Supporting others to support siblings • Supporting parents to understand and respond to the needs of siblings. • Supporting friends/other family members to give support to the sibling, e.g. grandparents or other ‘trusted adults’ who might provide encouragement or a ‘listening ear’. • Supporting disability and health agencies, schools and community groups to understand and support siblings. • Supporting the development of opportunities where families can connect informally in the community, e.g. through play-dates or community activities, so that siblings can meet each other.

15

SOCIAL SUPPORT WHEN A SIBLING HAS A DISABILITY

269

Supporting Siblings in Middle and Late Adulthood Reflecting the sibling-disability literature, the experience of practitioners also highlights that as siblings move through middle and then later adulthood, they commonly take on more extensive roles with their brother or sister with a disability. This happens as parents age and pass more responsibility to siblings, and as siblings develop and are able to act on more opinions about what kind of support, they think their brother or sister may need. The particular roles siblings play depends on a number of factors, including family dynamics, life stage, gender, type of disability and their own personal commitments, as well as the nature and quality of the sibling relationship. Some of the different roles observed by practitioners are: Informal support. Adult siblings might meet up with their brother or sister with a disability for a meal or fun activity; help with shopping for clothes or groceries; support them at medical appointments; ensure they are included in family gatherings; and/or provide transport when needed. For people with disabilities who have limited networks, their time with siblings may be important in providing and/or enhancing their opportunities for social relationships. If the person with a disability lives with parents, adult siblings can also provide short breaks for parents. For some siblings, the informal support they provide may be a fairly minimal commitment, whereas for others it will be a more extensive involvement. Primary support. Many adult siblings take on the role of primary support person for their brother or sister with a disability. Sometimes this role is taken on by choice; in other situations, it may seem like there are no other options. Some siblings who provide this type of support live with their brother or sister or very close by. Others may be the primary family contact person, where service providers are responsible for day-today care, for example, if the person with a disability lives in residential or supported accommodation. Depending on the circumstances in which a sibling takes up a primary support role and the level of support they have for it, it may be demanding but satisfying or may be a role that can become too much for them. Formal roles. Sometimes adult siblings take on formal roles in looking after the person with a disability’s legal or financial affairs or may become a formal decision-maker about their brother or sister’s health and safety. These roles have many different titles depending on the country siblings live in, with some common titles including ‘guardian’ and ‘administrator’.

270

J. KRAMER ET AL.

Advocacy. Whether a sibling is involved in the day-to-day support of a person with a disability or not, many speak up together with or on behalf of their brother or sister, so their rights are respected, problems are addressed and so they can access the services and supports they need. This may be in a formal or informal capacity. It may include advocating for their brother or sister directly or on disability issues in general. TYPES OF SUPPORT FOR SIBLINGS IN MIDDLE AND LATE ADULTHOOD Direct supports to siblings • Like younger siblings, adult siblings often need to be acknowledged and given support to express and understand their emotional reactions to the presence of disability in their family. Professionals can sometimes assist with this through therapy and counselling. • Peer support may be crucial to adult siblings feeling supported in their care and advocacy responsibilities, and in developing greater capacity to envision and work towards a ‘good life’ for themselves and their brother or sister with a disability. Supporting others to support siblings • Future planning for the person with a disability is a difficult topic in many families. Siblings and parents commonly have long-standing misunderstandings in this area, and future planning discussions can contain many difficult emotions. Parents can support siblings by having early and open communication about future planning. • Professionals can assist siblings by acknowledging the support they provide, listening to their concerns, incorporating them in the same way as parents in service planning and processes, and helping them to access information about disability and community services. • Guardianship and custodial laws often favour parents with dependent children and, as a result, siblings sometimes face legal barriers to acquiring the formal right to make health care and financial decisions for and with their sibling with a disability. Service providers can help siblings by assisting them to navigate legal barriers and find solutions that will work for them, their brothers and sisters, and families. • Some countries view siblings’ input into their brother or sister with a disability’s life within the context of a ‘carer’ framework. While it can sometimes be useful to siblings to access services and supports made available to carers by governments, service providers and policymakers can support adult siblings by understanding that they will

15

SOCIAL SUPPORT WHEN A SIBLING HAS A DISABILITY

271

not always want to be seen as a ‘carer’ and would often prefer to be seen as a sibling, yet still be able to access services and supports. • Ageing with a disability is a fairly new historical phenomenon, as people with disabilities are now living much longer than they did in the past. In many cases, it is not yet clear how ageing with a disability impacts choice about living in the community or other arrangements typically associated with ageing and elderly people. Service providers can assist siblings and their brothers and sisters with disabilities by being willing to find innovative solutions to these new questions.

Conclusion Both research and practice give important insights into the relationships between siblings where one has a disability. Together they highlight that disability can inflect siblings’ relations over the lifecourse, and that siblings very often need support when disability is present. Continuing to extend sibling-disability research and practice is important to ensure that siblings receive the support they need to flourish in their relationships and supportive roles with each other. Future researchers and practitioners should look at ways to support a plurality of different family structures, including ones where siblings with and without disabilities are of primary importance for each other.

References Abrams, M. (2009). The well sibling: Challenges and possibilities. Am. J. Psychother. 63, 305–317. Barker, K.A. (2011). Psychological functioning in adolescent siblings of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. St. John’s University (New York), New York. Barnett, R. & Hunter, M. (2012). Adjustment of siblings of children with mental health problems: Behaviour, self-concept, quality of life and family functioning. J. Child Fam. Stud. 21, 262–272. Bigby, C., Webber, R. & Bowers, B. (2014). Sibling roles in the lives of older group home residents with intellectual disability: Working with staff to safeguard wellbeing. Aust. Soc. Work Ahead-of-Print 68:4, 453–468. Burbidge, J. & Minnes, P. (2014). Relationship quality in adult siblings with and without developmental disabilities. Fam. Relat. 63, 148–162.

272

J. KRAMER ET AL.

Burke, M.M., Lee, C.E., Arnold, C.K. & Owen, A. (2016). Correlates of sibling relationship quality and caregiving reception of adults with disabilities. J. Dev. Phys. Disabil. Early View. 28:5, 735–750. Burke, M.M., Taylor, J.L., Urbano, R. & Hodapp, R.M. (2012). Predictors of future caregiving by adult siblings of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Am. J. Intellect. Dev. Disabil. 117, 33–47. Cuskelly, M. (1999). Adjustment of siblings of children with a disability: Methodological issues. Int. J. Adv. Couns. 21, 111–124. Cuskelly, M. & Gunn, P. (2006). Adjustment of children who have a sibling with Down syndrome: Perspectives of mothers, fathers and children. J. Intellect. Disabil. Res. 50, 917–925. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2006.009 22.x. Dallas, E., Stevenson, J. & McGurk, H. (1993a). Cerebral palsied children’s interactions with siblings I: Influence of severity of disability, age and birth order. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 34, 621–647. Dallas, E., Stevenson, J. & McGurk, H. (1993b). Cerebral palsied children’s interactions with siblings II: Interactional structure. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 34, 649–671. Davys, D., Mitchell, D. & Haigh, C. (2014). Futures planning—adult sibling perspectives. Br. J. Learn. Disabil. Early View. 43:3, 219–226. Department of Health. (2001). Valuing people. London: HMSO. Dew, A. (2010). Recognising reciprocity over of the life course: Adults with Cerebral Palsy and their non-disabled siblings. University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Doody, M.A., Hastings, R.P., O’Neill, S. & Grey, I.M. (2010). Sibling relationships in adults who have siblings with or without intellectual disabilities. Res. Dev. Disabil. 31, 224–231. Eisenberg, L., Baker, B.L. & Blacher, J. (1998). Siblings of children with mental retardation living at home or in residential placement. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 39, 355–363. Farber, B. (1959). Effects of severely mentally retarded children on family integration. J. Early Interv. 13, 230–238. Farber, B. (1960). Family organization and crisis: Maintenance of integration in families with a severely retarded child. Monogr. Soc. Res. Child Dev. 25, 3–93. Farber, B. (1963). Interaction with retarded siblings and life goals of children. Marriage Fam. Living 25, 96–98. Farber, B. & Jenne, W.C. (1963). Family organization and parent–child communication: Parents and siblings of a retarded child. Monogr. Soc. Res. Child Dev. 28, 2–77. Fishbein, L.B. (2010). Examining caregiving and household responsibility in typically developing siblings of children with an autism spectrum disorder. State University of New York at Binghamton, New York.

15

SOCIAL SUPPORT WHEN A SIBLING HAS A DISABILITY

273

Guse, T. & Harvey, C. (2010). Growing up with a sibling with dwarfism: Perceptions of adult non-dwarf siblings. Disabil. Soc. 25, 387–401. Hastings, R.P. (2014). Children and Adolescents Who Are the Siblings of Children with Intellectual Disabilities or Autism: Research Evidence. Sibs UK with the University or Warwick, West Yorkshire. Heller, T. & Arnold, C.K. (2010). Siblings of adults with developmental disabilities: Psychosocial outcomes, relationships and future planning. J. Policy Pract. Intellect. Disabil. 7, 16–25. Heller, T. & Caldwell, J. (2006). Supporting aging caregivers and adults with developmental disabilities in future planning. Ment. Retard. 44, 189–202. Hwang, S.K. & Charnley, H., (2010). Making the familiar strange and making the strange familiar: Understanding Korean children’s experiences of living with an autistic sibling. Disabil. Soc. 25, 579–592. Incledon, E., Williams, L., Hazell, T., Heard, T.R., Flowers, A. & Hiscock, H. (2015). A review of factors associated with mental health in siblings of children with chronic illness. J. Child Health Care 19, 182–194. Kaminsky, L. & Dewey, D. (2001). Sibling relationships of children with autism. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 31, 399–410. Kramer, J. (2009). People with disabilities and their siblings: Building concepts of support and transitions. University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago. Kramer, J., Hall, A. & Heller, T. (2013). Reciprocity and social capital in sibling relationships of people with disabilities. Intellect. Dev. Disabil. 51, 482–495. Kroner, B.L., Ardini, M.-A., Bumbut, A. & Gaillard, W.D. (2018). Parental perspectives of the impact of Epilepsy and Seizures on siblings of children with Epilepsy. J. Pediatr. Health Care 32, 348–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. pedhc.2017.12.004. Leane, M. (2020). “I don’t care anymore if she wants to cry through the whole conversation, because it needs to be addressed”: Adult siblings’ experiences of the dynamics of future care planning for brothers and sisters with a developmental disability. J. Appl. Res. Intellect. Disabil. jar.12716. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/jar.12716. Lee, C.E., Burke, M.M., Arnold, C.K. & Owen, A. (2018). Perceptions of noncaregiving roles among siblings of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Res. Pract. Intellect. Dev. Disabil. 5, 118–127. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/23297018.2018.1493393. Love, V., Richters, L., Didden, R., Korzilius, H. & Machalicek, W. (2012). Sibling relationships in individuals with Angelman syndrome: A comparative study. Dev. Neurorehabilitation 15, 84–90. Lovell, B. & Wetherell, M.A. (2016). The psychophysiological impact of childhood autism spectrum disorder on siblings. Res. Dev. Disabil. 49–50, 226–234.

274

J. KRAMER ET AL.

Macks, R.J. & Reeve, R.E. (2007). The adjustment of non-disabled siblings of children with autism. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 37, 1060–1067. Meltzer, A. (2015). Siblings’ relational experiences of disability during young adulthood. UNSW Australia. Meltzer, A. (2017). ‘I couldn’t just entirely be her sister’: The relational and social policy implications of care between young adult siblings with and without disabilities. J. Youth Stud. 20, 1013–1027. Meltzer, A. (2018). Embodying and enacting disability as siblings: Experiencing disability in relationships between young adult siblings with and without disabilities. Disabil. Soc. 33:8, 1212–1233. Meltzer, A. & Kramer, J. (2016). Siblinghood through disability studies perspectives: Diversifying discourse and knowledge about siblings with and without disabilities. Disabil. Soc. 31, 17–32. Meyer, D. (2017). A Brief History of the Sibling Movement. Presented at the Sibling Leadership Network Conference, Hartford, CT. Mulroy, S., Robertson, L., Aiberti, K., Leonard, H. & Bower, C. (2008). The impact of having a sibling with an intellectual disability: Parental perspectives in two disorders. J. Intellect. Disabil. Res. 52, 216–229. Neely-Barnes, S.L. & Graff, J.C. (2011). Are there adverse consequences to being a sibling of a person with a disability? A propensity score analysis. Fam. Relat. 60, 331–341. Nuttall, A.K., Coberly, B. & Diesel, S.J. (2018). Childhood caregiving roles, perceptions of benefits, and future caregiving intentions among typically developing adult siblings of individuals with autism spectrum disorder. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 48, 1199–1209. Oliver, M. (1990). The Individual and Social Models of Disability. Presented at the Joint Workshop of the Living Options Group and the Research Unit of the Royal College of Physicians on people with established locomotor disabilities in hospitals, 23 July 1990. Perenc, L., Radochonski, ´ M. & Radochonska, ´ A. (2015). Prosocial competencies among adolescent siblings of the physically disabled. Curr. Issues Personal. Psychol. 34, 195–202. Petalas, M.A., Hastings, R.P., Nash, S., Lloyd, T. & Dowey, A. (2009). Emotional and behavioural adjustment in siblings of children with intellectual disability with and without autism. Autism. 13, 471–483. Pilowsky, T., Yirmiya, N., Doppelt, O., Gross Tsur, V. & Shalev, R.S. (2004). Social and emotional adjustment of siblings of children with autism. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 45, 855–865. Rawson, H. (2010). “I’m going to be here long after you’ve gone”—Sibling perspectives of the future. Br. J. Learn. Disabil. 38, 225–231. Roberts, R.M., Ejova, A., Giallo, R., Strohm, K. & Lillie, M.E. (2016). Support group programme for siblings of children with special needs: Predictors of

15

SOCIAL SUPPORT WHEN A SIBLING HAS A DISABILITY

275

improved emotional and behavioural functioning. Disabil. Rehabil. 38:21, 2063–2072. Rossetti, Z., Lee, C., Burke, M. & Hall, S. (2020). Perspectives about adult sibling relationships: A dyadic analysis of siblings with and without intellectual and developmental disabilities. Res. Dev. Disabil. 96, 103538. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ridd.2019.103538. Rossiter, L. & Sharpe, D. (2001). The siblings of individuals with mental retardation: A quantitative integration of the literature. J. Child Fam. Stud. 10, 65–84. Siblings Australia. (2017). Final report: Adult sibling project. Siblings Australia, Adelaide. http://siblingsaustralia.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ Final-Report-SDF-Aug-2017.pdf. Accessed April 8, 2020. Siblings Australia. (2018). Final report: Siblings ILC mapping project report. Siblings Australia, Adelaide. http://siblingsaustralia.org.au/wp-content/upl oads/2018/01/FINAL-Siblings-ILC-Mapping-Project-Report.pdf. Accessed April 8, 2020. Senel, H.G. & Akkök, F. (1995). Stress levels and attitudes of normal siblings of children with disabilities. Int. J. Adv. Couns. 18, 61–68. Shivers, C.M. (2019). Empathy and perceptions of their brother or sister among adolescent siblings of individuals with and without autism spectrum disorder. Res. Dev. Disabil. 92, 103451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd. 2019.103451. Shojaee, S., Hemati Alamdarloo, G. & Nikoobin Borujeni, F. (2018). Adjustment difficulties of siblings of children with disabilities and typically developing children. Int. J. Incl. Educ. Early View 24:4, 414–426. Stoneman, Z. (2005). Siblings of children with disabilities: Research themes. Mental Retardation. 43:5, 339–350. Stoneman, Z., Brody, G.H., Davis, C.H. & Crapps, J.M. (1988). Childcare responsibilities, peer relations and sibling conflict: Older siblings of mentally retarded children. Am. J. Ment. Retard. 93, 174–183. Strohm, K. (2018). Commentary on “Perceptions of non-caregiving roles among siblings of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities” (Lee, Burke, Arnold, and Owen, 2018). Res. Pract. Intellect. Dev. Disabil. 5, 128–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/23297018.2018.1525306. Tomeny, T.S., Rankin, J.A., Baker, L.K., Eldred, S.W. & Barry, T.D. (2018). Discrepancy in perceived social support among typically developing siblings of youth with autism spectrum disorder. Autism. 23:3, 594–606. Tozer, R., Atkin, K. & Wenham, A. (2013). Continuity, commitment and context: Adult siblings of people with autism plus learning disability. Health Soc. Care Community 21, 480–488.

276

J. KRAMER ET AL.

Tsai, H.-W.J., Cebula, K., Liang, S.H. & Fletcher-Watson, S. (2018). Siblings’ experiences of growing up with children with autism in Taiwan and the United Kingdom. Res. Dev. Disabil. 83, 206–216. United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/ convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html. Accessed March 27, 2020. UPIAS. (1976). Fundamental principles of disability, union of the physically impaired against segregation aims and policy statement. UPIAS, London. Wehmeyer, M.L. (Ed.). (2013). Oxford library of psychology. The Oxford handbook of positive psychology and disability. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Wolfensberger, W. (1972). Normalization: The principle of normalization in human services. National Institute of Mental Retardation, Leonard Crainford, Toronto. World Health Organisation. (2020). Disabilities. https://www.who.int/topics/ disabilities/en/. Accessed March 27, 2020. Yavuz, M. & Safak, ¸ P. (2019). Investigating the time children with autistic spectrum disorders spend with their typically developing siblings. Univers. J. Educ. Res. 7, 1795–1807.

CHAPTER 16

Sibling Relationships Across Generations in Rwanda: Continuity and Change Through Conflict and Development Kirsten Pontalti

Introduction Rwanda is a very small, densely populated country in the heart of Africa. The land is strikingly beautiful, a mountainous terrain covered in a patchwork of farm plots at the temperate elevation of 5000–13,000 feet. Many are also struck by the prevalence of children, who have comprised over half of the population at least since censuses began in the 1950s. But in popular memory, Rwanda is most strongly associated with the 1994 Genocide Against the Tutsi. Those familiar with International Development or African affairs also associate Rwanda with the rapid reconstruction and development it has achieved with international support since the Genocide—what many regard as a development ‘miracle’. Intellectual interest in these phenomena has resulted in Rwanda having the largest bibliography in the world for the size of its population. Yet despite being well-documented, there is very little written on Rwanda’s social history, including family relationships.

K. Pontalti (B) Department of International Development, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK © The Author(s) 2021 A. Buchanan and A. Rotkirch (eds.), Brothers and Sisters, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55985-4_16

277

278

K. PONTALTI

Drawing on research and analysis conducted for the author’s doctoral thesis for the University of Oxford, this chapter contributes to family studies by sharing a story of continuity and change in sibling relationships in Rwanda from colonialism to the present. Examining these relationships across the longue durée permits a glimpse into the nature of sibling relationships in Rwanda prior to its transition to a modern state system. It also allows readers to understand how sibling relationships have changed as brothers and sisters have navigated rapid change and political violence at the interface of both ‘traditional’ (i.e. kinship, feudal) and ‘modern’ institutional systems. The chapter argues that while sibling relationships have generally weakened, brothers and sisters continue to represent a critical network of support across the life course for many. The chapter closes with recommendations for how to protect and strengthen these relationships at the family and state level.

Methodology Since 2011, the author has studied and worked in Rwanda on issues related to childhood and adolescence, parenting, social change, education and law. This chapter is based on doctoral research conducted in central Rwanda for 10 consecutive months between 2012 and 2013, and three weeks in 2014.1 This study explored how three generational cohorts (i.e. grandparents, parents and children) experienced and navigated childhood and coming of age in their time amidst tremendous political and structural violence and rapid change. Methodologically, the author approached this research from a relational and historical institution perspective: that is, she examined how children and their families experienced and responded to life at the interface of multiple institutional systems—traditional and modern—each with their own distinct rule system, constraints, and opportunities. In Rwanda’s kinship-based culture, this approach allowed the author to identify how institutions and their actors—from the family to the church and state—influence children’s lives differently and, at the same time, how young people shape processes of reproduction and change in these same institutions as they transition to adulthood.

1 Permission and ethics clearance for this research was granted by the University of Oxford and the Rwanda Ministry of Education and National Ethics Committee (RNEC).

16

SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS ACROSS GENERATIONS …

279

This approach required historical and ethnographic methods capable of engaging multiple generations in reflective discussions about their memories of childhood and coming of age. To this end, the author developed a small urban study in Kigali and a rural community ethnography. The research primarily used purposive sampling to achieve a crossgenerational, gender-balanced sample with social, economic and ethnic backgrounds similar to the local population. Five in-depth, multigenerational family studies comprised the heart of the project. In total, over 100 young people and 70 adults between the ages of 12–103 actively participated in the research. In addition, the author conducted key informant interviews with 51 individuals and two groups. She also conducted extensive archival research in Rwanda and the UK. Research conducted for projects in 2018 and 2019 also inform this work.

Historicising Sibling Relationships: The ‘Domestic’ Domain Is Political In the aftermath of Rwanda’s 1959 Revolution and on the eve of Independence in 1962, anthropologist Helen Codere (1962) argued that pre-colonial power asymmetries in Rwanda—namely, the subjugation of the powerless to the more powerful—had come to define social relations at all levels of society, from the family to the nation (see also Newbury 1988; Jefremovas 2002). While it is not the convention to examine sibling relationships through the lens of power and politics, one cannot begin to understand these relationships in Rwanda without first doing so (see also Pells and Benda 2020). Writing prior to Independence, Codere was witnessing the effects of colonialism wherein Rwandans were systematically classed into the ‘racial’ categories of ‘Hutu’, ‘Tutsi’ and ‘Twa’ by their Belgian colonial rulers. This was done on the basis of height and physiognomy as well as cattle ownership (Codere 1973; Straus 2006). This divided siblings and families. As one Rwandan sociologist explained, if one son ‘owned’ the cattle within a family, he would be issued a Tutsi identity card while his siblings were identified as Tutsi or Hutu based on appearance. In a context of ‘dual’ colonialism where Rwandans were ruled by both the Belgian colonial administration and Tutsi Royal Court, ‘Tutsi’ siblings generally had access to opportunities for social mobility that their ‘Hutu’ siblings did not. Over the long term, this meant that siblings faced very different risks and opportunities related to their ‘ethnicity’. These power dynamics

280

K. PONTALTI

reversed with Hutu rule following Independence, and again after the 1994 Genocide. But there were also older cultural factors at play that influenced, and continue to influence, sibling relationships. In pre-Independence Rwanda, feudal, monarchic and colonial institutions organised relationships at the state level, but within these and at the household level, kinship institutions organised social, political and economic relations (Ntampaka 1997; De Lame 2005; Maquet 1954; Erny 2003). Through a child’s arranged marriage and the family alliance it forged, kin sought to reproduce the social, economic, cultural and political life and status of their group (Bushayija 1966). In the Kinyarwanda language, this kinship structure is described on three levels: ubwoko (group/clan), inzu (lineage) and urugo (household/compound) (Byanafashe 1997). Within lineages, the notion of family (umuryango) has historically been elastic: that is, the ‘family’ is the lineage rather than the nuclear family or household, and household roles and structures change in response to the domestic cycle and broader lineage needs (Byanafashe 1997; Codere 1973). Within families and households, sibling relationships have been—and continue to be—strongly influenced by birth order, household composition, gender and social class. Mothers trained the eldest child from a young age to manage household tasks and care for younger siblings so that she could return to her work activities. If the eldest child was a son, he would be replaced in his domestic role by a sister or female cousin or domestic helper as soon as possible so that he could focus on ‘male’ activities, such as family security (i.e. opening/closing the gate to the compound in early morning and evening), gathering grass for the animals, or apprenticing under his father or an overlord or patron (Codere 1973; Pontalti 2017). As children grew up, each one cared for his or her younger siblings, modelling behaviour and skills appropriate to their age and gender. In this way, children were predominantly educated by older siblings (Pontalti 2017). The more children in a home, the less likely it was that there would be resources for these older siblings to stay in school (Nkurunziza et al. 2012). These patterns were somewhat different in wealthy households where children were (and are) primarily cared for and less engaged in domestic reproduction, and where they are generally cared for by domestic workers rather than older siblings. As a result,

16

SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS ACROSS GENERATIONS …

281

sibling relationships in wealthy families have historically been built more on paternal, lineage and class identity than mutual caregiving. But within this kinship system, the ‘domestic’ domain was also ‘political’.2 Individual factors such as birth order, gender, jural status, years of schooling, beauty, physique and behaviour powerfully shaped sibling relationships. Within sibling groups, the eldest daughter would become the most powerful figure in her siblings’ lives—and the lives of her brothers’ children—across the life course. But overall, brothers had more status and power than sisters because they would remain members of their paternal lineage for life while their sisters married and left to serve another lineage. Jural status also impacted sibling relationships: children of a father’s first (formal) marriage were deemed legitimate and therefore entitled to inheritance; their illegitimate or stepsiblings were not.3 Consequently, when legitimate children lost their mother (i.e. she left due to marital separation or died), they often lived in fear of their stepmother and siblings, who were envious of their inheritance rights. Relatedly, fathers did not give inheritance to sons based on birth order, but favouritism—and who was ‘favourite’ could change over time (Meschi 1974; Erny 2005; Jefremovas 2002). For example, one elderly woman explained her former village chief’s family relationships saying, Even before the Genocide, that man was an abomination/outcast [igicibwa] to his father. Like their father, the other sons were kind, good people. But that one was really different. That man didn’t get along well with his father. His father was wealthy, but he only received one cow, but the other sons were given many cows. He wasn’t allowed to touch any of his father’s property.

These individual factors impacted sibling relationships because kinship was not, as De Lame (2005) warns, a brand of ‘African socialism and

2 Meyers Fortes (1958) distinguished himself by arguing that kinship is not simply a ‘domestic’ matter; it is also ‘politico-jural’ see McKinnon and Cannell (2013). He associated the domestic domain with women, children and social reproduction, and the politico-jural domain with men and formal power. This hardened the dichotomy between these domains when, in fact, what is most significant about Fortes’ insight is that kinship is simultaneously domestic and politico-jural: to the extent that children comply with kinship rules and practices, they sustain household production and social reproduction, but they also reproduce and reinforce existing generational, gender and class power hierarchies. 3 Children’s status and vulnerability also varies with the nature of their parents’ informal union see Erny (2005).

282

K. PONTALTI

Humanism’, but a distributive mechanism that historically placed the interests of the family group over the individual through ‘the reinforcement of its strongest members’ (italics added, 281–82). The playing field was unequal. This dynamic pressured siblings to compete for favour to attain scarce family and lineage resources. During colonialism, Rwandan Catholic Father Bushayija (1966) writes that children learned to assess their social position within these complex social hierarchies early in life. He explains that the prevailing message parents taught children was ‘The one who pleases more, wins more’ [‘Qui plaisait plus, gagnait plus.’ (sic, 61)]. In this highly unequal society where ‘there were no equal rights and duties, or rational and just distribution [of resources]’, favour and opportunity depended on the will of the person with authority. To please those with authority and thereby improve their life chances, children had to show absolute respect and obedience (Erny 2003, 2005). This compelled some brothers to compete with each other for their father’s favour to gain a larger share of the inheritance (Erny 2005, Jefremovas 2002). Sisters were not absent from these competitions but would support one brother over another to secure his favour and support across the life course (Erny 2005). These patterns played out more dramatically within wealthier households, but scarcity could also provoke quieter battles for a scrap of inheritance within poor households. But in the latter, siblings had more of a political and economic imperative to cooperate, so their relationships were generally less competitive (Erny 2005; Bushayija 1966; Vincent 1954). Since Independence, the state has introduced family laws that make parents duty bearers towards children. Additionally, the 1999 Land Law was amended to require fathers to give all legitimate children, including daughters, a land inheritance.4 This move addressed gender equality, but because the law did not regulate distribution, it did not decrease sibling conflict.5 Taken together, these changes have made sibling and nuclear family relationships more important, but lineage relationships—including with cousins who are like siblings—remain significant across the life course (Pontalti 2018).

4 The Inheritance Law (Law No. 22/99 of 12/11/1999). 5 The 2016 Law Governing Persons and Family removed parents’ obligation to give

a land inheritance to their children, but today there is so little land available that it is almost a moot point.

16

SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS ACROSS GENERATIONS …

283

The Effect of Conflict and Development on Sibling Relationships This section traces how sibling roles and relationships have changed across three generations in response to conflict and development. Rwanda is a strong case study in this regard for it has not only been the site of rapid development since colonialism but also the site of cycles of violence, which have included the 1959 Revolution, 1973 pogroms, 1990–1994 civil war and 1994 Genocide. Within conflict and institutional change literature, there is an assumption that episodes of political violence cause rupture and radical change (Thelen and Mahoney 2010). African child and youth studies lend support to this assumption with research on children affected by conflict that focuses almost exclusively on exceptional categories of young people, such as child soldiers and ex-combatants. Unsurprisingly, these studies tend to conclude that the experience of war damages children’s relationships with kin and community. However, Lubkemann’s (2008) anthropology of the social condition of war, Culture in Chaos, challenges these assumptions by showing that ‘everyday’ people navigate war and political violence largely by drawing on pre-war norms and relationships, including those with kin. Further, in Sierra Leone, Betancourt et al. (2010) find that a child soldier’s ability to rebuild his life post-war is highly dependent on the quality of his relationships with family. These scholars do not shy away from the multitude of ways war can damage close relationships, but they powerfully illustrate how these relationships are a vital sustaining force. Studies of childhood and youth in sub-Saharan Africa and the Global South also find that rapid development, including post-conflict reconstruction and development, is quickly changing children’s lived experience (see, for example, Twum-Danso Imoh and Ame 2012; Pells et al. 2014; Punch 2015). In Rwanda, parents, rather than older siblings, increasingly take responsibility for the everyday work of raising children (Pells and Benda 2020). However, when parents die or leave, siblings often step into caregiver and provider roles, as in the past (Pontalti 2018; Hashim and Thorsen 2011). Today, children are increasingly likely to attend school, but they are also increasingly likely to take on paid versus unpaid work. Within the world of children’s work, the type of work siblings do remains highly gendered (see, for example, André and Godin 2014) and who attends school and who brings in income impacts sibling relationships in far-reaching ways (Pontalti 2018). Although there are few studies that

284

K. PONTALTI

examine sibling relationships in these contexts, those that do suggest that siblings continue to have a strong sense of mutual reciprocity across the life course (see, for example, Hashim and Thorsen 2011). In the remainder of this chapter, the author examines continuities and change in sibling roles and relationships in relation to young people’s experiences of schooling, conflict and development in Rwanda. She does this by drawing on the stories of research participants to explore how brothers and sisters experienced the effects of rapid change and political violence as they lived at the interface of ‘traditional’ (kinship) and ‘modern’ institutional systems where they often encountered unequal access to opportunities and competing norms and values. Following this analysis, the author concludes with policy recommendations for strengthening sibling relationships.

Schooling: Creating Class Divisions Within Sibling Groups During colonialism, the Belgian administration and Catholic Church shared similar priorities related to young people’s education in Rwanda: both aimed to train a small loyal cadre of bilingual clerks, specialists and indigenous clergy who identified first with European culture, the Belgian state, Catholicism and the Tutsi monarchy rather than with their indigenous roots and culture (Carney 2014; Longman 2010). Both Catholic and Protestant Missions also trained ‘a select African clergy’—mostly poor Hutu—in French boarding seminaries (Hoben 1989, 8). The vision the Church and state had for the rest was ‘just enough [literacy] to convert them without changing their lives’ (Hoben 1989, 8). Thus, while schooling created opportunities for young people, it also became a new mechanism through which inequalities were created, reproduced and hardened in the lives of young Rwandans (King 2014; Pontalti 2017). Nowhere was this more evident than within sibling relationships. For the aforementioned reasons, elite and poor families experienced schooling quite differently. Schooling for the poor primarily consisted of ‘afternoon classes’ at a local church or mission. These were essentially catechism or Bible study classes for poor boys and, in some cases, elite girls like Aurore, who waged a silent war with her father (a hill chief) for the right to attend school ‘like the other children’ (i.e. elite Tutsi boys). Missions also provided board and full-time schooling in the local seminaire. Their students were most often destitute boys like Mugabo,

16

SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS ACROSS GENERATIONS …

285

whose grandmother brought him at age 7 to be raised by les Péres Blancs after his mother died in childbirth. These boys were raised to be clergy. Both forms of schooling provided children with basic literacy, but they had a limited impact on sibling roles and relationships. This is because children were not absent from home long for ‘afternoon classes’, and the schooling provided limited advantage. And in the case of the seminaires, students were often children without siblings or children who were cut off from their families. The experience was quite different for elite families (Longman 2010). When le Pére Blanc arrived at the compound of Jean Baptiste’s Tutsi grandfather, he demanded one son for the local boarding school. Jean Baptiste recounted that his grandfather gave up his fourth child - Jean Baptiste’s father—because he was not the prized infura (first born) or the beloved bucura (last born). He was (more) dispensable. The family did not expect what happened next. Jean Baptiste’s father completed a European education and graduated as a medical assistant. Then, Jean Baptiste explained, ‘He became the king of the family’—the modern equivalent of a lineage head or patron, displacing his brothers. Graduates like Jean Baptiste’s father became ‘developed’ while their siblings remained ‘backward’, living and working in their kinship-based subsistence economy. They dressed, ate, lived and spoke French like Europeans and worked for the colonial administration. They were part of the new educated indigenous elite – les évolués – who ‘progressed’ far more quickly than the peasant majority (Carney 2014, 53–6). Schooling played a central role in creating and broadening this class divide within society and more specifically, within sibling groups. After Independence, the governments of the First and Second Republic regarded schooling as a means to redress the inequality of the colonial period, inculcate a new national identity, and develop the country. To this end, they rapidly expanded primary schooling and in 1966, made it universal, fee-free and mandatory (Hoben 1989). But while access to primary increased, access to secondary did not: between 1962 and 1994, secondary completion peaked at 6–9 per cent6 (King 2014). Identity politics strongly influenced secondary school admission (Obura 2003).

6 By 1983, only 41 per cent of students completed primary and only 4 per cent could progress to secondary—the lowest rate in Sub-Saharan Africa (World Bank 1988, 171).

286

K. PONTALTI

This was critical because social mobility was tied to secondary completion: upon graduation, students were virtually guaranteed a position in the civil sector (King 2014). In this era, schooling divided siblings for several reasons. First, because secondary advancement and completion was valued as one of the very few direct pathways to social mobility, secondary students became highly revered within their community and lineage. Within households, secondary students held a status almost equal to their father. In a culture where children did not eat with adults or address them directly in conversation, secondary students—both boys and girls—ate with their parents and even advised them on matters. When they graduated, they entered the civil service and departed from their peasant upbringing permanently. This created a class divide within sibling groups, and often created a social divide. It created a social divide because while the student was away at boarding school, their brothers and sisters had to cover the student’s household roles and responsibilities as well as their own. They also had to sacrifice what little they had so that their parents could pay for the student’s school expenses. The family’s hope was that someday this brother or sister would ‘make it’ and help support their siblings and parents. Most students accepted this role of patron, but they were rarely as generous or grateful to their siblings as they were expected to be. And the more ‘developed’ the student became, the more his or her siblings were regarded as ‘backward’ and ‘undeveloped’. Second, unequal access to schooling—or rather, girls’ lack of access to schooling relative to boys’—effectively put the spotlight on preexisting patriarchal gender norms. For example, as girls, Josie and Pascale embraced primary schooling and increasingly saw women working beyond the compound as teachers and cell leaders. But despite their academic ability and love of learning, these girls came to realise that obstacles to their school attendance had little to do with cognitive limitations on their part. Their access to school was limited by entrenched patriarchal gender rules, norms and practices and a gendered division of household labour. Pascale explained that because sons laboured for their lineage for life while daughters left home to marry, parents saw a daughter’s schooling as a lost investment. Similarly, Josie complained that although her Tutsi father, a leader of the prominent Catholic newspaper Kinyamateka, wanted all of his children to attend school,

16

SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS ACROSS GENERATIONS …

287

The most important thing that could happen to a girl in her parents’ eyes was to give her away for marriage so that they could get cows as bridewealth. They always thought of a daughter in that way […] I stopped my studies in the 6th Form primary at the age of 13 […] Regardless of how far we could reach, a girl could go no farther than the 6th Form […] The main idea was that a boy was born to be superior; he had the chance to go to school [secondary].

Josie’s parents depended on receiving bridewealth from her marriage to marry their more educated sons. Any further schooling could jeopardise her parents’ ability to marry her well. In this way, unequal access to schooling made girls more aware of the gender divide between them and their brothers. To make matters worse, as Josie grew older, she came to realise that her more educated siblings look down on her for her lack of schooling. In her words, they see her as ‘a useless dish’ even though it was her bridewealth that helped to pay for their marriages. In this way, unequal access to schooling broadened and hardened gender and class differences between siblings as they (re)assessed their educational status in relation to each other. In contexts like Rwanda where social relations are highly unequal, schooling is exceptionally political for it bestows status and opportunity on a few but not others, shifts gender and generational relations, and hardens class and socio-economic divisions in ways that are often unrelated to ability or the acquisition of skills and knowledge. If siblings in this period had had equal access to schooling and opportunity, education would not have created class and social divisions within sibling groups. But they did not have equal access. So in families that sacrificed for a student(s), schooling divided siblings—and so much so that even in late adulthood, brothers and sisters like Josie’s live in different worlds, at times denigrating each other. Since the 1994 Genocide, the economy has shifted opportunities and incentives related to schooling. For the general population, secondary completion no longer leads directly to employment, let alone a secure job, even though it is still only achieved by a minority of the population (17.5 per cent; NISR 2018). Moreover, today secondary graduates are far less likely to have be employed in the previous year than those with ‘no education’ (NISR 2015, 43–5). Consequently, graduation confers far less status and opportunity than it did in previous periods (Williams 2016,

288

K. PONTALTI

2018). This reduces the likelihood that schooling will be a source of division among siblings. However, one type of sibling group is still strongly impacted by differential access to secondary: Tutsi survivor families (rescapé) who had children born both before and after the Genocide. This situation is illustrated in the story of Josie’s own family, who lived in a remote rural village. Both Josie and her husband Ngarambe, a village chief, were unable to progress to secondary when they were children so they were very committed to sending all eight of their children to school full-time. Four of their children were born prior to the Genocide. These children were rescapé so they had scholarships7 to attend secondary boarding schools—‘Centres for Excellence’, as they are called. Julien, the firstborn, continued on scholarship to university for a four-year Tourism degree. His brother completed a business diploma on scholarship. They were rarely home to visit. In contrast, their four children born since the Genocide do not fall under the government’s definition of ‘survivors’ so they do not have scholarships to attend ‘Centres for Excellence’. Josie is committed to their education, but she cannot afford to pay for boarding school. Consequently, these four siblings attended the local 12-Year Basic Education (12YBE) school, which was nicknamed ‘ndererizondaya’ (‘to raise my prostitutes, my bitches’) to reflect its low status in the eyes of the community. These children wanted to attend school and do well, but the quality of their education was very low. So they attended school—repeatedly. Justin loved learning and applied himself, but he had to repeat Senior 2 three times to pass. His twin, Justine, repeated Senior 4 twice. She deeply resented the fact that she had to attend 12YBE rather than boarding school. These four watched their older siblings move forward into skilled labour jobs in the capital and wondered what they would do? They lacked the skills and opportunities they needed to transition to off-farm employment and, due to attending school full time, they lacked the strength and will to farm like their parents. Differential access to schooling had once again created a social and class divide within a sibling group.

7 Funding from “Fond d’Assistance pour les Rescapés du Génocide/Assistance fund for survivors of the Genocide” (i.e. Tutsi).

16

SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS ACROSS GENERATIONS …

289

Sibling Relationships Following the 1994 Genocide The 1994 Genocide and its legacies impacted every Rwandan alive and those yet to be born. Over the course of one hundred days, an estimated 800,000 Rwandans were killed, including approximately 75 per cent of all Tutsi (Des Forges 1999; Verpoorten 2012). Total loss of life related to the Genocide exceeded one million people (MINALOC 2002). Nationally, children were massacred, raped and tortured alongside adults. Some children also participated in the Genocide (HRW 2003). One in ten children lost one or both parents and in 1998, an estimated 300,000 children lived in child-headed households due to parental death, migration, or imprisonment (HRW 2003). These losses were highly gendered: following the Genocide, the sex ratio for people aged 20 to 60 dropped from 0.94 (1991) to 0.77 (2002) (Schindler and Verpoorten 2013). Living in a rural zone hit by excess mortality (Verpoorten 2012), one grandmother in my study explained, ‘There were no men in the village, only women, for a long time’. For Rwandans recounting the past, lived experience occurred before the Genocide or after it. Life as they knew it ended. Then it began. When it began again, family members were absent due to death, flight to neighbouring countries, abandonment, imprisonment and soldiering. Some were effectively absent due to illness, alcoholism and mental health problems, which increased in the aftermath of the Genocide. Children lost parents, elder siblings, cousins, aunts, uncles and grandparents—the family who were meant to educate and support them as they grew up (see also Burnet 2012). Compounding these losses, families lost significant assets. Households reconfigured themselves in an effort to survive. These events profoundly affected sibling relationships. In a country where brothers and sisters and extended family are an individual’s primary or only source of welfare support, the loss of siblings represented both a material and relational loss. For example, elderly Mugabo and his wife Concilie each lost their only sibling and most of their extended family in a massacre.8 Concilie also lost Mugabo and their eldest son to prison for alleged genocide crimes for 12–14 years. Their youngest son disappeared on his way to school during the Genocide. These losses meant that Concilie and her only sister-in-law had to struggle alone to support 8 This was likely the massacre documented in the book, Giti et le Génocide Rwandais (2002), by Leonard Nduwayo, L’Harmattan, Paris, France.

290

K. PONTALTI

their children and grandchildren without the support they would have otherwise had from their adult siblings and families. They barely survived. But if the fight for survival built solidarity between siblings, it also strained relationships. Two rural mothers, Josie and Marie, both explained that extreme poverty was contributing to diminished trust and an increase in conflict between adult siblings. By way of example, Josie explained that people were so desperate for income that when parents died, their children could fight over the tiniest things—scraps of tin from the roof, a door, a window. Siblings keep close score: Marie complained that although she and her children had helped her adult sister when she needed support, her sister did not even visit them when they were all sick. As a result, she no longer trusts her. This relational and material scorekeeping continues to divide sibling groups today. The Genocide also reconfigured sibling relationships. When both parents died or disappeared (e.g. to prison or another country), the oldest remaining sibling was forced to become the head of the household. Pells (2009) finds that this has complicated siblings’ interpersonal relationships and often makes them more conflictual. This is because while eldest siblings have traditionally had a caregiving role within the sibling group, the child- or youth-head of household occupies a more ambiguous role: they are not just the eldest sister or brother, but neither are they recognised as a parent within the home or broader community. Yet they are responsible for their siblings’ care. More often than not, they have to quit school so they can support their younger siblings’ attendance. Amelie’s oldest sister was thrust into this role when their parents died suddenly. Her sister was very angry about her new role and took this out on Amelie, who was only 8 years old at the time. Amelie’s sister beat her, stole her land inheritance, told her she looked like a genocidaire and refused to care for her. A neighbour saw her crying on the side of the road and took her in. It was only years later, after Amelie’s marriage, that her sister came to apologise and ask forgiveness. But faced with hardship related to the loss of a parent or parents, some siblings drew closer. This response is illustrated in the following portrait.

16

SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS ACROSS GENERATIONS …

291

Siblings: A Post-Genocide Portrait The eldest of four children, Augustin was six when the Genocide arrived in his rural village and he fled with his family to a nearby refugee camp. Although they fled to protect their Tutsi mother, they returned home to find that the local chief had accused Augustin’s Hutu father, Mutamba, of genocide crimes. They sent him to prison for 14 years.9 His mother, Marie, was left alone and destitute with four small children. All their cattle and goods had been stolen. To cope, Marie withdrew Augustin from primary school. While his two younger sisters and brother continued to study, Augustin worked at home and took food to his father in prison, which was a one to two day’s walk each way. When his siblings were old enough to help their mother, Augustin was sent to live with and work for his maternal aunt, who also needed his support. He was never able to return to school, but his aunt gave him a goat in thanks for his work. In their father’s absence, Marie raised her children to work together— they were her ‘team’. This sense of solidarity is a core Rwandan value that is captured in the Kinyarwanda greeting ‘turi kumwe’, ‘we are together [in spirit and this situation]’. Augustin and his siblings were close. They all worked hard and supported each other through difficult times. When Anne, their eldest sister, ran away and then returned home from Kigali pregnant, her siblings helped raise her daughter as if she was their little sister. When Mutamba finally returned home from prison and forbade the younger two, Chantal and Theo, from continuing in primary school, Theo fought his father hard so that at least Chantal could continue. When she graduated from secondary, he explained with pride, ‘You see, if Chantal has succeeded it is because I sacrificed my life for her’. When Mutamba beat Augustin because he refused to work solely for his father, Theo lent Augustin some money so he could migrate to the capital to build his own life and home. When Augustin returned home four years later because he was struggling to support his wife and two small children, Theo, Anne and Chantal welcomed them. Today, Augustin and his siblings continue to care for each other and each other’s families. In a context of extreme poverty, this mutual care is not only these siblings’ strongest asset but also their key to survival. 9 The chief’s wife and all of his children had been killed in the Genocide, so in that village every Hutu man was convicted of genocide crimes.

292

K. PONTALTI

Conclusions and a Way Forward In Rwanda, older siblings have historically raised their younger siblings, except in wealthier homes where domestic workers and boarding schools primarily performed this role. For most, then, relationships with brothers and sisters have been formative and central across the life course. At the same time, power asymmetries and competition for resources have been a constant source of division, especially in families where the father has ample resources and more than one marriage (i.e. due to separation, widowhood and/or polygamy). This competition and conflict has been made more acute by the effects of unequal access to schooling and the effects of the 1994 Genocide and its legacies. But Genocide related hardships have also forced brothers and sisters to work together moreto help each other through crises. In a context where the state provides very limited welfare support, these relationships are vital to individuals’ wellbeing across the life course. Social policies have a role to play in strengthening these traditional sources of family support—namely, sibling relationships. One way the Rwandan government can do this is by increasing the provision of local mediators (abunzi) and raising mediators’ awareness of the specific ways that schooling, political violence and competition have historically undermined sibling relationships and made it harder for brothers and sisters to work together towards shared goals. Through these mediators, sensitisation campaigns, and community dialogue, the government and non-governmental organisations can also provide tools for repairing relationships within families, while emphasising Rwandan cultural values that support families working together. These efforts would ideally complement ongoing advocacy work related to national reconciliation and gender-based violence and build on lessons learned. If these efforts are implemented thoughtfully and systematically, they could go a long way towards helping Rwandans repair their relationships with siblings. This would provide greater social cohesion and much needed social and material support for families across the life course.

16

SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS ACROSS GENERATIONS …

293

References André, Géraldine, & M. Godin. (2014). “Child Labour, Agency and Family Dynamics: The Case of Mining in Katanga (DRC).” Childhood 21 (2): 161– 74. Betancourt, Theresa et al. (2010). “Sierra Leone’s Former Child Soldiers: A Follow-Up Study of Psychosocial Adjustment and Community Reintegration.” Child Development 81 (4): 1077–95. Burnet, Jennie E. (2012). Genocide Lives in Us: Women, Memory, and Silence in Rwanda. ProQuest. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Bushayija, Abb Stanislas, P. B. (1966). Le Mariage Coutumier au Rwanda. Bruxelles: F. Larcier. Byanafashe, Déogratias. (1997). “La Famille Comme Principe de Coherence de La Société Rwandaise Traditionnelle (Histoire II).” Cahiers Lumière et Société, (6): 3–26. Carney, J. J. (2014). Rwanda Before the Genocide: Catholic Politics and Ethnic Discourse in the Late Colonial Era. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Codere, Helen. (1973). The Biography of an African Society, Rwanda 1900– 1960: Based on Fourty-Eight Rwandan Autobiographies. Tervuren, Bel: Institut National de Recherche Scientifique Butare, Republique Rwandaise, Musee Royal de l’Afrique Centrale. Codere, Helen. (1962). “Power in Ruanda”. Anthropologica 4 (1): 45–85. De Lame, Danielle. (2005). A Hill Among a Thousand: Transformations and Ruptures in Rural Rwanda. Madison, WI and Terveren: University of Wisconsin Press and Royal Museum for Central Africa. Des Forges, Alison. (1999). “Leave None to Tell the Story”: Genocide in Rwanda. New York, NY and London: Human Rights Watch, Paris: International Federation of Human Rights. Erny, Pierre. (2003). Jeunesse D’hier Au Rwanda. EBook. Paris: L’Harmattan. Erny, Pierre. (2005). L’éducation Au Rwanda Au Temps Des Rois. Paris: L’Harmattan. Fortes, Meyer. (1958). “Introduction.” In The Developmental Cycle in Domestic Groups, 1–14. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hashim, Iman, & Dorte Thorsen. (2011). Child Migration in Africa. London; New York: Zed Books. Hoben, Susan J. (1989). “School, Work and Equity: Educational Reform in Rwanda.” African Research Studies No. 16, African Studies Center, Boston University, Boston, MA. HRW (Human Rights Watch). (2003). “Lasting Wounds: Consequences of Genocide and War on Rwanda’s Children.” New York, NY and Paris: Human Rights Watch and International Federation of Human Rights. Jefremovas, Villia. (2002). Brickyards to Graveyards: From Production to Genocide in Rwanda. Albany, NY: State University of New York.

294

K. PONTALTI

King, Elisabeth. (2014). From Classrooms to Conflict in Rwanda. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Longman, Timothy. (2010). Christianity and Genocide in Rwanda. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lubkemann, Stephen. (2008). Culture in Chaos: An Anthropology of the Social Condition in War. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. Maquet, Jacques. (1954). Le Systeme Des Relations Sociales Dans Le Ruanda Ancien. Tervuren: Sciences de l’homme V. 1, Musée Royal du Congo Belge. McKinnon, Susan, & Fenella Cannell. (2013). “The Difference Kinship Makes.” In Vital Relations, edited by S. McKinnon, & F. Cannell. Kindle ebook. Santa Fe: School for Advanced Research Press. Meschi, Lydia. (1974). “Évolution Des Structures Foncières au Rwanda: Le Cas D’un Lignage Hutu.” Cahiers d’Études Africaines 14 (53): 39–51. MINALOC, République Rwandaise. (2002). Dénombrement des victimes du génocide, Rapport final. Kigali: Ministère de l’administration locale, de l’information et des affaires sociales (MINALOC). Newbury, Catharine. (1988). The Cohesion of Oppression: Clientship and Ethnicity in Rwanda, 1860–1960. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. NISR (National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda). (2018). “EICV5_Education Thematic Report”. Kigali. NISR (National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda). (2015). “Rwanda Integrated Household Living Conditions Survey [EICV] 2013/14: Main Indicators Report.” Kigali. Nkurunziza, Joseph, Annelet Broekhuis, & Pieter Hooimeijer. (2012). “Free Education in Rwanda: Just One Step towards Reducing Gender and Sibling Inequalities.” Education Research International, 2012 (396019): 1–11. Ntampaka, Charles. (1997). “Rwanda: Family Law in Rwanda.” In The International Survey of Family Law 1995, edited by A. Bainham (415–33). Netherlands: The International Society of Family Law. Obura, Anna. (2003). Never Again: Educational Reconstruction in Rwanda. Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), UNESCO. Pells, Kirrily. (2009). “‘We’ve Got Used to the Genocide; It’s Daily Life That’s the Problem.’” Peace Review 21 (3): 339–46. Pells, Kirrily, & Richard Benda. (2020). “The State-As-Parent: Reframing ParentChild Relations in Rwanda”. Families, Relationships and Societies 9 (1): 41– 57. Pells, Kirrily, Kirsten Pontalti, & Timothy P. Williams. (2014). “Promising Developments? Children, Youth and Post-Genocide Reconstruction under the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF).” Journal of Eastern African Studies 8 (2): 294–310.

16

SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS ACROSS GENERATIONS …

295

Pontalti, Kirsten. (2018). “Kinship ‘Matters’: Continuity and Change in Children’s Family Relations across Three Generations in Rwanda.” Childhood 25 (2): 178–188. Pontalti, Kirsten. (2017). Coming of Age and Changing Institutional Pathways Across Generations in Rwanda. Doctoral thesis, Department of International Development, University of Oxford, Oxford. Punch, Samantha. (2015). “Possibilities for Learning between Childhoods and Youth in the Minority and Majority Worlds: Youth Transitions as an Example of Cross-World Dialogue.” In Handbook of Children and Young Adulthood, edited by J. Wyn, & H. Cahill. Ebook. Singapore: Springer. Straus, Scott. (2006). The Order of Genocide: Race, Power and War in Rwanda. Kindle ebook. Ithaca, NY; London: Cornell University Press. Thelen, Kathleen, & James Mahoney. (2010). “A Theory of Gradual Institutional Change.” In Explaining Institutional Change, edited by K. Thelen, & J. Mahoney (Net, 1–37). eBook. Cambridge; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Twum-Danso Imoh, Afua, & Robert Ame. (2012) (Eds.). Childhoods at the Intersection of the Local and the Global. Ebook. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Verpoorten, Marijke. (2012). “Detecting Hidden Violence: The Spatial Distribution of Excess Mortality in Rwanda.” Political Geography, 31(1): 44–56. Verpoorten, Marijke, & Kati Schindler. (2013). “Armed Conflict, Sex Ratio and Marital Outcomes: Evidence from Rwanda.” Unpublished Manuscript, 1–55. Vincent, Marc. (1954). L’Enfant Au Ruanda-Urundi. Bruxelles: Institut Royal Colonial Belge. Section des Sciences Naturelles et Medicales. Memoires. Williams, Timothy P. (2018). “The Things they Learned: Aspiration, Uncertainty, and Schooling in Rwanda’s Developmental State.” Journal of Development Studies, 55 (4): 645–660. Williams, Timothy P. (2016). “Theorizing Children’s Subjectivity: Ethnographic Investigations in Rural Rwanda.” Childhood 23 (3): 333–47. World Bank. (1988). “Education in Sub-Saharan Africa: Policies for Adjustment, Revitalization, and Expansion.” Washington DC: The International Bank.

CHAPTER 17

Brothers Who Kill: Murders of Sisters for the Sake of Family Honour in Pakistan Sadiq Bhanbhro

Introduction Family is a basic building block of a social organisation. It provides identity and protection to its members. Family as a unified social entity has great sociocultural and economic significance in diverse cultures of Pakistan. It forms the foundation of the society and includes a wide range of relationships. In its ideal, or extended, form, it includes a married couple, their unmarried daughters, both unmarried or married sons, and their sons’ wives and children. Traditionally, relationships between siblings in Pakistan are interdependent and involve deliberations throughout their lives regarding many aspects, most importantly, decisions about marriage, property and residence. Men are perceived as upholders and women as carriers of family honour. Of all family members, sons and daughters (brothers and sisters) are primarily responsible for safeguarding the social status of a family by way of maintaining the family honour through adhering to the prescribed norms, values and behaviours.

S. Bhanbhro (B) Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2021 A. Buchanan and A. Rotkirch (eds.), Brothers and Sisters, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55985-4_17

297

298

S. BHANBHRO

Maintenance of family honour and avoidance of dishonour and shame are key concerns of Pakistani communities. The notion of honour is diverse, complex and fluid. It contains a variety of connotations subject to context, situation, time and the function it plays. Honour is generally viewed as an inherent and indispensable system of social values, which provides the basis for the social position of a family within its respective social group that can be a lineage, biraderi (clan), caste, kinship group and tribe. Though the norms of honour apply to both men and women, it is always associated with the bodies, behaviours and actions of women. In the context of honour killings, honour is seen as the property of men that lies with social and sexual behaviour of women. Consequently, the number of murders on the pretext of violation of family honour is immensely skewed towards women. For example, of 837 recorded cases of honour killings in Pakistan during 2014, only 46 of were male victims (Human Rights Commission Pakistan 2019). In addition, with honour killings a woman is killed only by her own family members; by contrast, male victims are killed by the family or relatives of the woman with whom he was accused of inflicting the dishonour to the family, for example, by having a pre- or extra-marital affair or eloping together with the woman for marriage. Culturally relations between brothers and sisters are viewed as intimate and symbiotic but fragile in the society. Traditionally, brothers are protectors of sisters and sisters are carriers of family honour (izzat ) in the society. Sometimes the protector turns out to be a killer, when his sister is perceived as having brought or tried to bring shame or dishonour to the family by her actions and/or behaviours. The murders of women and girls by their male family members for the sake of saving or restoring family honour is commonly known as honour killings. In this chapter, I provide an interpretive account of the traditional role of brothers and sisters, the notions of honour and the relationships between brothers and sisters in context of honour killings in Southern province of Pakistan, through analysis of primary and secondary data.

Methods and Materials This chapter is a part of a larger primary study. The research was carried out in one of the districts of Sindh province of Pakistan. The province lies in the southeast of the country with a population of over 47 million (Government of Pakistan 2017). The district is located in the northern

17

BROTHERS WHO KILL: MURDERS OF SISTERS …

299

part of Sindh also known as Upper Sindh. The most widely spoken languages in the district are Sindhi and Balochi. The Upper Sindh region is comprised of eight districts and infamous for honour crimes locally constructed as karo kari (honour killings) (cf. Shah 2016a; Bhanbhro et al. 2013; Bhatti et al. 2011). The study included male and female participants aged 18 or above. In the wider study a variety of methods of data collection were applied including informal conversations, individual and group interviews, nonparticipant observation and archival research that produced a large corpus of data. This analysis draws on a purposive sample of three male (Dino, Wazir, Malook1 ) and three female (Zarina, Maryam, Khiraan2 ) in-depth interviews. Additionally, the quantitative data was extracted from the online database of Human Rights Commission of Pakistan for the analysis. The interviews were conducted in Sindhi language, which is the most widely spoken language of the research setting. Open-ended questions along with prompts were asked from the study participants in order to gain meticulous details and deeper understanding of the notion of honour, honour killings and the relationships between brothers and sisters in this context. The interviews were audio recorded with the consent of the participants. All audio recordings were translated and transcribed by two professionals and double-checked by me and one of my colleagues to ensure the accuracy. The analysis was performed within an overarching theoretical framework—critical realist social constructionism (Elder-Vass 2012). The framework combines social constructionism and realism paradigms and views social constructionism as a real and causally significant process that depends upon multiple interacting causal powers to produce social entities. Once the social entities are constructed, they exist and operate independently. The critical standpoint was used as a part of the analysis process for linking everyday discourses and narratives gathered through various methods with wider socio-economic and cultural practices (honour and honour killings) embedded in unequal power relations (Lawless and Chen 2019). The qualitative analysis of the data was conducted using the critical thematic analysis approach (Lawless and Chen 2019; Braun and Clarke 2006). The approach examines “the interrelationships between interview

1 Not real but assigned names of male research participants. 2 Not real but assigned names of female research participants.

300

S. BHANBHRO

discourses, social practices, power relations, and ideologies” (Lawless and Chen 2019, p. 92). Descriptive statistical analysis of the quantitative data was carried out.

Ethics Approval Ethics approval was obtained from Sheffield Hallam University’s Faculty of Health and Wellbeing Research Ethics Committee Ref: 2015/6-HWBHSC-39. There were no interviews or focus groups with actual known perpetrators or victims of (attempted) honour killings, hence there was little likelihood of problems in terms of safety arising from a breach of confidentiality. Full information was provided for eligible participants prior to the study commencement and they were reassured that their data would be anonymised with full respect to confidentiality. It was made clear to the participants that their participation was voluntary, and they were free to withdraw from the study at any point during the study.

Definitions of Honour and Honour Killings There are two terms for honour in Pakistan: ghairat and izzat . Though both are interpreted and understood differently by different communities, generally both are used interchangeably. Shah (2016a) defines “ghairat as defensive honour and izzat as a moderate term enclosing values of prestige, respect and status” (p. 12). Whereas, Alvi (2001) translates ghairat as shame and izzat as honour. Some other scholars interpret these terms as ghairat as honour, sharam as shame and izzat as respect (Bhanbhro et al. 2013; Chaudhary 2011). In relation to honour killings, the words ghairat (honour) and beghairat (dishonour) were most frequently used by the participants of this study. For instance, a frequently used phrase was “ghairat ae sabh kujh aa, beghairat g khiri zindagi aa” (honour is everything, a man without honour has no life). The notion of honour is an overarching evaluative concept (Pitt-Rivers 1965), which is used by members of a social group “to assess their own conduct and that of their fellows” (Peristiany 1965, p. 10). Anthropologists characterise honour as paired with shame, as honour is said to be acquired by men predominantly through female social and sexual conduct and shame is the property of women (Pitt-Rivers 1965; Peristiany 1965; Campbell 1965). For example, in the context of Sindh Pakistan ghairat (honour) is associated with the behaviour of women; it is only a male

17

BROTHERS WHO KILL: MURDERS OF SISTERS …

301

privilege to show ghairat and most men use it tactically for private gain, to avenge their enemies or to get rid of women they do not want (Shah 2007). In this context honour is defined as a highly valued social asset (Bond 2012) of social standing for a social group that can be a family, lineage, clan, caste and kinship (Pitt-Rivers 1965) within their social group that can be called a norm circle. The norm circle is a set of individuals who hold normative beliefs, dispositions and social expectations to endorse and enforce a norm (Elder-Vass 2012). A family could be a norm circle in which all members are assigned particular roles to observe the norms of honour, such as sisters to be carriers and brothers to be defenders of the family honour. One of the key features of a norm a circle is the tendency of its members to construct and adhere to relatively standardised social practices such as karo-kari (honour killings). In this analysis, I call “honour killings” a social practice not an individual behaviour, which is used by the members to maintain the highly valued social asset of honour. The practice is rooted in patriarchal cultures and operates within closely tightened social groups. So far there is no consensus on the definition of honour killings. Generally they are viewed as a form of honour crimes, which is an umbrella term that includes honour-based violence, honour killings, forced marriages and many other harmful practices. The more widely used definition of honour crimes is violence (physical, social, psychological, economic), which has or may have been committed against an individual (mainly women and girls) who have brought dishonour and shame to the family and/or community through an act or behaviour (Hester et al. 2015; Gill 2008; Welchman and Hossain 2005). Killing or attempted killing of a woman or a girl under the pretext of honour is an extreme form of honour crimes. Honour crimes affect women, men, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender but the incidents of honour killings of women and girls are the most widespread.

Statistics of Honour Killings In 2000, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) estimated that at least 5000 women and girls worldwide are murdered each year in the name of so-called honour (UNFPA 2000). This is the most widely cited figure in the academic literature and the media and, as yet, these numbers have not been updated by any United Nations bodies or international human rights organisation or governments. Also, the actual source of the

302

S. BHANBHRO

figure is not known. Thus, the numbers are contested by various women and human rights groups and some researchers believe that the rates are much higher. Since 2004, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) has recorded honour crimes from media sources and volunteer reports. The HRCP reports show that between 2004 and 2016 15,222 cases of honour killings of women and men have been recorded in the country; this figure excludes attempted honour killings. This means an average of 1170 honour killings every year and 22 per week (Human Rights Commission of Pakistan 2019). In the UK there are more than one million people of Pakistani ancestry. It is believed that in the UK a majority of honour crime incidents occur in people of Pakistani descendants. For instance, UK police forces have recorded more than 11,000 incidents of honour crimes between 2010 and 2014 (IKRWO 2014). According to the Henry Jackson Society 2015 report, honour-related violence and honour killings take place across a range of social groups of different ethnic origins in the UK. However, of the 22 out of 29 reported cases of honour killings and attempted killings from 2010 where the ethnicity of the victims is known or alleged, 15 were of Pakistani origin, three of Indian, one of Bangladeshi, one of Palestinian/Syrian, one of Kuwaiti and, one of white British (Dyer 2015). Therefore, most reported UK honour killings and attempted killings have been carried out against people of South Asian origin, the majority of them had Pakistani ethnic origin. Overall, there is no national data on the scale of honour crimes in any country, including Pakistan and the UK, because it is not a recorded crime category. Consequently, the actual numbers of the crime are inaccurate. Having described the definitions of honour, honour killings and the scale of the problem, now I will move on to discuss the traditional role of brothers and sisters and their relationships in the context of honour killings.

The Traditional Role of Brothers and Sisters Bha/Bhen and Ada/Adi are most common terms in Sindhi language for a brother and sister. Bhai or its diminutive Bhayya and Bhen are Urdu terms to denote brother and sister (cf. Ahmad 1977). Kinship is the defining factor of the social organisation and value system across all ethnolinguistic groups of Pakistan, which is based on the hierarchically organised extended family structure, where preference

17

BROTHERS WHO KILL: MURDERS OF SISTERS …

303

is given to agnates (relatives through male descent) over affine (relatives by marriage) relations (Chaudhary 2011). The hierarchal arrangement is determined by two key factors gender and age (men over women and old over young) (Nuckolls 1993). After parent–offspring relations, the relationship of siblings with each other (siblingship) is the most important association within a household. The siblingship is a long-lasting and complex network of intersected relations among siblings. Typically, within a family siblingship can be divided into three sets: relationship of brothers with each other (brotherhood), brothers with sisters (brother/sisterhood) and sisters with each other (sisterhood). It is like committing “an anthropological sin” (Kolenda 1993, p. 103) by taking one set of siblingship out of a dense network of relationships, but it is beyond the scope of this chapter to cover all the relationships. Thus, the section focuses on the relationships between brothers and sisters (brother/sisterhood).

Brother/Sisterhood: Growing-Up Together The most important thing to understand brother–sister relationships is their “cultural place”, where they grow up together (Weisner 1993, p. 1). The basic social unit of the place is a family. This is a place where relationships between siblings are shaped, maintained and contested. The family has enormous influence on the roles and relationships of siblings. In rural areas of Sindh social spaces are divided into zenana 3 (female space) and otaq 4 (male space) (Shah 1993). Females most of the time stay inside their houses (zenana) and males use a male guest house (otaq). During their early years, both boys and girls learn the basics of their family, community and culture mainly from women of their families. When they are able to walk, they can move freely between male and female spaces. However, with age, girls’ mobility is restricted, and boys’ gets expanded. According to the male and female research participants, girls remain restricted to women’s spaces (zenana) before marriage at their natal 3 This is symbolised in an Urdu saying “chadar aur char diwari” (literally means veil and four walls), which means that the proper place for a woman is veiled and within the four walls of her home. 4 A place where male members of a village/community sit together to discuss and share a range of issues from everyday politics and moral values to folk wisdom. It has been an integral part of Sindhi culture.

304

S. BHANBHRO

houses and after marriage at their affine homes. Still, they are not only permitted but made to labour in fields in rural areas, most of the times together with their male family members and sometimes alone too. By contrast, there is no defined age limit, but boys at a young age are discouraged from staying with women and encouraged to joining men’s company at otaq. “It is in the benefit of a chokro (boy) to spend less time with his mother and sisters otherwise he will become a maaoputt ’ (literally mothers’-son symbolically too feminine or weak)”, said Wazir a male participant. Dino another male participant supported this view and said that, “it is vital for boys to join the men’s company at early age for learning things that are essential for them to be a mursmanhu (machismo) such as the rules of conduct of their khandaan (extended family), qaum/zat/biraderi (terms for a common identity, group, clan), mehmannawzi (hospitality), how to respect elders, control womenfolk and protect mal-milkiat (livestock and property) and izzat (family honour)”. Further they said that, similarly it is important for girls to stay at home and learn household chores and other female duties including how to obey a husband, mother and father in law; these they will have to perform for their whole life including behaviours and actions that should not bring dishonour to their families. While growing-up together, a brother customarily becomes a male chaperon for her sister despite being younger or older from her. It is his responsibility to accompany her if she goes out, such as meeting her girlfriends in neighbourhood, seeing a tailor or a doctor. Zarina a female participant said, “this now has become more common in town and cities than rural areas, where brothers are like ‘chowkidar’ (guards) for their sisters, in villages we can move freely without company of a male”. All three female participants were of the view that, if a brother accompanies his sister to somewhere out of the house and on return he is expected to report to his mother usually and sometimes to his father or elder brother what happened, whether his sister behaved differently such as interacted to any boy/man or not. Therefore, sisters mainly try to maintain cordial relationships with their brothers because they do not want them to report back to their parents in case such things happen. This is possible when their (brothers) are young, for example, by giving them sweets, sharing pocket money, helping them to complete their homework or keeping a secret of their faults. However, there is no age limit, but once a brother’s sense of family izzat (honour) is developed it would be hard to maintain the same cordial relations; traditionally, a brother’s role is converted from

17

BROTHERS WHO KILL: MURDERS OF SISTERS …

305

being a naive chaperon to a responsible protector of the family honour. “Generally, boys inhabit the notions of izzat/ghairat (honour) at very young age but they recognise the significance of those when they (boys) go out with their peers and are part of social groups”, said Malook. This shows how friends become assessors of the one’s honour. Likewise, the burden of family honour on sisters is reinforced through senior female family members. The brother–sister relationship is not always smooth, there are situations when it turns out to be fatal especially for sisters such as in case of honour killings. In the following section, I will discuss why, how, and in what circumstances, the relationship between brothers and sisters becomes hostile to the extent that a brother becomes a killer of his own sister.

Brother/Sisterhood: Family Honour Almost all research participants perceived that the relationship between brothers and sisters was celebrated and highly valued in the society. For instance, a woman without brothers is considered as a poor woman; on the other hand, having many brothers is seen as a reliable source of security and safety for a woman. Moreover, after the death of parents the sisters are treated like daughters by their brothers (Chaudhary 2011). “In our community the happiest moment for a sister in her life is the wedding of her brother”, expressed Maryam, a participant. Nevertheless, culturally assigned roles and responsibilities on a brother and a sister of being a bearer and a defender of the family honour turns their loving and caring relationship into a resentful one in which brother often sees his sister with suspicion and the sister becomes wary of it. The family honour is tied with social and sexual conduct of female family members. A brother, being the defender of the family honour, has to avenge in case of dishonour inflicted on the family by his sister when her behaviour is considered dishonourable or shameful. The analysis of the secondary data revealed that from 2010 to 2014, a total of 4388 incidents of honour killings of women and girls were recorded in Pakistan. The information of perpetrators was available for 4070 cases. Of these 4070 honour killings of women and girls, 22% (926/4070) of the killers were their brothers. The qualitative data showed that the brothers, who were involved in the killings of their sisters had used a

306

S. BHANBHRO

variety of motives and ‘reasons’ that they believed dishonourable. The most commonly cited reasons include: • a sister had, or was alleged to have, an illicit sexual relationship • a sister married without consent of her family, especially father and/or brother • a sister married to a man outside her social group (caste/clan/tribe) • a brother killed his sister to settle a debt and/or dispute • a brother killed his sister for taking her share of a family inheritance. An illicit relationship was the main reason given in more than 50% (2837/4388) of incidents of honour killings. Dino a male participant said, “in our society mardangi (masculinity) of a man hinges on the notion of how strong he is in controlling his womenfolk. If the man heard a rumour or someone gave him a tano (taunt ) about his sister’s character that she is having an illicit sexual relation with someone then he will have no choice but to kill her, as this would be challenge to his masculinity. This is our riwaj (tradition)”. Wazir believed that, “sometimes a father can ignore these things but a brother, who might be a young and aggressive person has to maintain his social status within the social group; thus, brothers react more violently to such things”. In some cases of honour killings, a brother gets assigned the task of killing his sister or taking the responsibility of it. For instance, the famous case of a Pakistani social media star Qandeel Baloch, was killed by her younger brother. It was believed that the perpetrator was assigned this task by his other brothers, as they had jobs and families, but he was unemployed and unmarried. Also, he was promised that they (brothers) would pursue their parents to pardon him, so he could get free (Maher 2018). The second most common reason for honour killing, 21% (953/4388) of cases, was marriage without the approval of her family (parents and/or brothers). Sexual intercourse is permitted only after marriage between a husband and a wife, pre and extramarital sex is a fornication (zina), which is the highest sin, and is punishable by death in Islamic law. The acceptable marriage in Pakistan is approved by one’s parents, sanctioned by the religion, registered by the State and with the wedding ceremony seen by one’s social group members. A female participant Khiraan said, “these days ‘preemi jora’ (couples married for love) are declared karo-kari and murdered more frequently than before. In this matter people of our

17

BROTHERS WHO KILL: MURDERS OF SISTERS …

307

community are more conservative, they do not let go girls if they choose to contract a love marriage through a court”. Zarina gave an example, a 17-year-old girl of her village married to a man without the consent of her family who ran away from the village to Karachi. Her family tracked down the couple; after a few months, the girls’ mother and father visited them and lured the couple with a promise that they now accepted the marriage, so the couple could come home to receive the blessings from the whole khandan (extended family). When the girl and her husband came to village at night both were killed by the girls’ brothers and cousins.

Brother/Sisterhood: Inheritance Share Brother–sister relationships, in contrast to fraternal ones, are believed to be a relationship of trust, durability and love (Chaudhary 2011; Mandelbaum 1988). In part, this is because sisters do not inherit property, thus their relationships with brothers is non-rivalrous compared to that of brothers with each other. Although since the Islamic right of inheritance through West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law Application Act 1962, Muslim women have had the legal right of inheritance, in practice, in the majority of cases sisters have renounced the inheritance share to their brothers (Holden & Chaudhary 2013; Haque 2000). This is because it would not only put them in a rivalrous position with their brothers (Shah 1993) but would stigmatise the woman in that she has taken away property from brothers, who are phinja/apnee (means blood relatives) and given it to her husband, who is paryo/ghair (means other). In the research setting, cousin marriages are very common. Thus, in many cases a woman’s husband is her first cousin, who is considered like a brother before marriage, so when it comes to sharing inheritance with him, the same cousin will be treated as another (paryo/ghair). Instead of claiming their legal and religious right of inheritance, traditionally, sisters expect to receive gifts from their brothers. The gift-giving system is called laapoo in Sindhi, in which fathers give gifts to their daughters and/or brothers to their sisters on different occasions such as harvesting time, religious festivals (Eids), birth of sons and their circumcision, blood relatives’ weddings and other festivities. Nevertheless, in some cases sisters ask for inheritance from their brothers. In most cases this does not go well, as brothers do not want to share their property. Thus, in some cases brothers declare their sister

308

S. BHANBHRO

as kari (adulteress) and get rid of her. According to the research participants, these types of incidents in their community are rare, as the majority of people do not have much property to share. The people are mainly small landholding farmers, government employees and small traders.

Brother/Sisterhood: Watta Satta (Exchange Marriage) The common marriage practices within a kinship-based value system are endogamy, cousin marriage and exchange marriage (de wath or watta satta). In the context of such practices, women have a transactional value. A woman from Sindh describes this more appropriately as: “[Watta satta] means that you will give a daughter and receive the same in return. It also implies that if our daughter will be in pain, we will treat your daughter the same way. (quoted in Jacoby and Mansuri 2010, p. 1804)

The above description of an exchange marriage system shows that a sister is not only exchanged in a marriage but if her brother did something wrong and tribal/community council penalised him, then preferably his sister will be given to settle the feud; the custom is locally called sangchatti (exchange of women to settle feuds). This is common practice to settle the karo kari (honour killings) related feuds in many social groups of Upper Sindh (Shah 2016a). Similarly, a sister gets sexually and/or physically punished when her brother does something wrong. This can be viewed as a form of honour revenge as illustrated in the example of a well-known case of Mukhtar Mai, who was the survivor of gang rape, when her 12-year-old brother was accused of having an affair with a 20year-old girl from a powerful tribe of the area (Fricker 2017). Khiran said, “de wath (exchange marriage) is a double-edged sword for the women, who are exchanged, if one woman is declared kari and killed for honour, the fate of other woman would be the same”. It is mostly sisters who are given in exchange for their brothers’ marriage. Exchange marriage rules dictate the way a brother should treat his wife; his sister will receive the same treatment in her affine family. The data shows that convenience is another reason why more brothers are perpetrators of honour killings of their sisters. For example, if a brother kills his sister for the family honour, then the parents will pardon

17

BROTHERS WHO KILL: MURDERS OF SISTERS …

309

him, such that he is soon released from prison. If the parents do not pardon him, then their other siblings or close relatives put pressure on them, saying they have already lost their daughter and now will lose their son as he will go to jail for life. Thus, in most of the cases the parents pardon the killers who thus gets away with murder. Nevertheless, in the wake of Qandeel Baloch’s murder, in October 2016, a new legislation. The anti-honour killings bill was introduced to address the loopholes in the existing law. Prior to the bill, perpetrators often walked free because they could seek pardon for the crime from another family member. Under the new law, relatives of the victim can only pardon the killer from the death penalty, but they would still face a compulsory life sentence of 12-and-a-half years.

Conclusion To sum up, the main responsibility of a brother involves protecting his sister before marriage, finding a suitable husband for her and, after marriage, making sure that she is not maltreated in her husband’s house. A sister’s major responsibility involves keeping family honour intact by not behaving in ways that can bring dishonour and shame to the family, by obeying her brother and learning household chores that she can apply in her husband’s house. Generally, brother/sisterhood relations are amiable. However, there are numerous honour-related customs and traditions, sometimes linked to exchange marriages and inheritance disputes. These not only create friction in the brother–sister relationships but can turn a brother into a killer of his sister. The legislation against honour killings has been tightened with the passing of 2016 anti-honour killings bill. However, it has loopholes. For instance, Nafisa Shah says that: problems in the structure and content of the law remain unaddressed, and religious groups prevent parliament from making the necessary changes. Until all murder is treated uniformly in the penal code, as a crime against the state instead of against an individual, acquittals for crimes against women and children will likely continue undeterred. (Shah 2016b)

The new law does indicate progress towards tackling the issue of honour killings. However, making changes in the law cannot change old engrained norms and attitudes overnight, or even over a generation or

310

S. BHANBHRO

two. Therefore, a radical approach is required to tackle the problem from its roots. The starting point should engage people, groups and communities to bring a change from within, where the crimes are committed. This could include moves for dismantling the patriarchal structures such as the jirga system and discriminatory marriage practices.

References Ahmad, A. (1977). Muslim kinship terminology in Urdu. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 20(3), 344–350. Alvi, A. (2001). The category of the person in rural Punjab. Social Anthropology, 9(1), 45–63. Bhanbhro, S., Wassan, M. R., Shah, M., Talpur, A. A., & Wassan, A. A. (2013). Karo kari: The murder of honour in Sindh Pakistan: An ethnographic study. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 3(7), 1467–1484. Bhatti, N., Jamali, M. B., Phulpoto, N. N., Mehmood, T., & Shaikh, F. M. (2011). Domestic violence against women: A case study of district Jacobabad, Sindh Pakistan. Asian Social Science, 7 (12), 146–162. Bond, J. (2012). Honour as property. Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, 23(2), 229. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Campbell, J. K. (1965). Honour and the devil. In Peristiany, J. G. (ed.), Honour and shame: The values of Mediterranean society. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Chaudhary, M. A. (2011). Good brothers bad husbands: Female inheritance and the Punjabi society. Scrutiny, 5/6, 135–160. Dyer, E. (2015). Honour killings in the UK. London: The Henry Jackson Society. Elder-Vass, D. (2012). The reality of social construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fricker, N. (2017). Biography: Mukhtar Mai—Survivor, activist. The Heroine Collective. Retrieved from http://www.theheroinecollective.com/mukhtarmai/. Gill, A. (2008). ‘Crimes of Honour’ and violence against women in the UK. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 32(2), 243–263. Government of Pakistan. (2017). Census 2017 . Pakistan Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.gov.pk/sites/default/files//DISTRICT_ WISE_CENSUS_RESULTS_CENSUS_2017.pdf.

17

BROTHERS WHO KILL: MURDERS OF SISTERS …

311

Haque, H. (2000). Feminist Islam and sexist Muslims: A case study of rural Punjab. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences XXIII: 1997 . Hester, M., Gangoli, G., Gill, A., Mulvihill, N., Bates, L., Matolcsi, A., … Yar, K. (2015). Victim/survivor voices —A participatory research project: A report for her majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary ‘honour’-based violence inspection. Holden, L., & Chaudhary, A. (2013). Daughters’ inheritance, legal pluralism, and governance in Pakistan. The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law, 45(1), 104–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/07329113.2013.781447. Human Rights Commission Pakistan. (2019). Stats: Honour crimes men/women. Retrieved from http://hrcp-web.org/hrcpweb/campaigns/. Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation (2014). Postcode lottery: Police recording of reported ‘honour’ based violence. London: IKRWO. Retrieved from http://ikwro.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/HBVFOI-report-Post-code-lottery-04.02.2014-Final.pdf. Jacoby, H. G., & Mansuri, G. (2010). Watta Satta: Bride exchange and women’s welfare in rural Pakistan. American Economic Review, 100(4), 1804–1825. Kolenda, P. (1993). Sibling relations and marriage practices: A comparison of North, Central and South India. In Nuckolls, C. W. (ed.), Siblings in South Asia: Brothers and sisters in cultural context. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 103–141. Lawless, B., & Chen, Y. (2019). Developing a method of critical thematic analysis for qualitative communication inquiry. Howard Journal of Communications, 30(1), 92–106. Maher, S. (2018). The sensational life and death of Qandeel Baloch. New Delhi: Aleph Book Company. Mandelbaum, D. G. (1988). Women’s seclusion and men’s honour: Sex roles in North India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Nuckolls, C. W. (1993). An introduction to the cross-cultural study of sibling relations. In Nuckolls, C. W. (ed.), Siblings in South Asia: Brothers and sisters in cultural context. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 19–41. Peristiany, J. G. (1965). Introduction. In Peristiany, J. G. (ed.), Honour and shame: The values of Mediterranean society. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Pitt-Rivers, J. (1965). Honour and social status. In Peristiany, J. G. (ed.), Honour and shame: The values of Mediterranean society. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Shah, N. (1993). Of female bondage. News time, 44. Shah, N. (2007). Making of crime, customs and culture: The case of karo kari killings of upper Sindh. In Bennett, J. (ed.), Scratching the surface: Democracy, traditions, gender. Lahore: Heinrich Böll Foundation, pp. 135–155. Shah, N. (2016a). Honour and violence: Gender, power and law in Southern Pakistan (Vol. 39). New York: Berghahn Books.

312

S. BHANBHRO

Shah, N. (2016b, Oct 30). Pakistan’s dishonour killings: Will the new crime bill work? Foreign Affairs. Retrieved from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ articles/pakistan/2016-10-30/pakistans-dishonor-killings. United Nations Population Fund. (2000). The state of the world’s population (Research Report). UNFPA, Retrieved from http://web.unfpa.org/swp/ 2000. Weisner, T. S. (1993). Overview: Sibling similarity and difference in different cultures. In Nuckolls, C. W. (ed.), Siblings in South Asia: Brothers and sisters in cultural context. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 1–117. Welchman, L., & Hossain, S. (eds.). (2005). Honour: Crimes, paradigms, and violence against women. London: Zed Books.

PART V

Sibling Relationships in Old Age

CHAPTER 18

Siblings Caring for Their Parents Across Europe: Gender in Cross-National Perspective Natalia Sarkisian and Naomi Gerstel

Many countries increasingly rely on family care for older adults (Broese van Groeou and De Boer 2016), with adult children providing a significant proportion (OECD 2005). Within families, gender remains central to the negotiations and collective decisions regarding care that siblings and parents make. In much of Western Europe, daughters still do more intergenerational care than brothers (Haberkern et al. 2015; Romoren 2003). In a meta-analysis of research on eldercare, Pinquart and Sörenson (2006) found, “Compared with male caregivers, female caregivers reported … more hours of care provided and a higher number of caregiving tasks” (p. 38). The power of gender, however, varies crossnationally. We ask: How do brothers and sisters across Europe divide parent care and what shapes that divide? Through analyses of the macro

N. Sarkisian (B) Department of Sociology, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA e-mail: [email protected] N. Gerstel Department of Sociology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA © The Author(s) 2021 A. Buchanan and A. Rotkirch (eds.), Brothers and Sisters, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55985-4_18

315

316

N. SARKISIAN AND N. GERSTEL

level (welfare state regimes), family level (parents’ and siblings’ characteristics), and the micro level (adult children’s resources and opportunities), we examine variation in the gendered division of care. Prior research suggests that the size of the gender divide depends on the types of tasks included in the definition of caregiving (e.g., housework, personal care) and is closely linked to the intensity of care (i.e., sporadic or more frequent and intensive). It is particularly important to examine intense care, as it is associated with a sense of greater burden and more negative health and employment outcomes than sporadic care (Brimblecombe et al. 2018). Using the 2015 Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) data, we first assess variation in the gender gaps among adult children in their sporadic and intensive care of parents across Europe. Second, we examine whether these gaps vary by welfare state regime. Third, we assess the extent to which parents’ and adult children’s needs, resources, and responsibilities as well as sibling characteristics shape gender gaps across welfare regimes.

The Impact of Macro Processes: Country Variation A cross-national perspective on the gender gaps in caregiving asks how broader social context shapes these gaps. Critiquing assumptions about an essential, universal gender divide in caregiving, such research shows that the ways brothers and sisters divide care vary across societies. For example, daughters play a central caregiving role in Western cultures (Fingerman et al. 2020; Pillemer and Suitor 2006), but in many Asian countries (such as China, Japan, Taiwan, India), “the dominant patrilineal norm” means parents expect sons (and by extension daughters-in-law) to provide more care than daughters (Fingerman et al. 2020). Intergenerational care patterns, however, also vary widely within Europe, and these differences are best explained not only by cultural differences but also by differences in other macro-level processes, such as public policies (Brandt and Deindl 2013). Welfare regime framework is one of the most productive and succinct ways to characterize such differences. Focusing on Europe, Dykstra (2018) argues that current research aims to understand how support is shaped by public policy around the familism or individualism divide—that is, policy that either bolsters reliance on family members or promotes individual autonomy. Many researchers rely on Esping Andersen’s (1990) model that classifies welfare arrangements

18

SIBLINGS CARING FOR THEIR PARENTS …

317

into regimes aligned across a continuum of proscribing weak vs. strong family care. We will use a modified Esping-Andersen’s typology which includes five groups: Social Democratic, Christian Democratic, Liberal, Mediterranean, and Eastern European (we omit Liberal due to lack of data). Social Democratic (Scandinavian) countries have comprehensive support. They provide significant professional services to support the elderly; family members are not obligated to provide care and can use “cash for care” programmes. These policies preserve involvement but reduce intensity of adult children’s caregiving (Schmid et al. 2012). Christian Democratic (“conservative-corporate”) and Eastern European welfare regimes assign responsibility for caregiving to the family; these, however, are “rather weak” family regimes, especially in Eastern Europe, as family supports are available, based primarily on cash payments and insurance systems (Dykstra 2018). Mediterranean (southern European) countries are considered to be “a strong family region” (Reher 1998): Provision of state services is comparatively low while obligations between relatives are strong and, in some cases, reinforced by legal statutes (Haberkern and Szydlik 2010; Vergauwen and Mortelmans 2019). The association of welfare regimes and the gendered division of caregiving among siblings has received relatively little attention. Haberkern and Szydlik (2010) found that daughters provided more intensive support than sons throughout Europe, and that this gap is furthered by legal obligations that promote daughters’, but not sons’, caregiving. They find that caregiving by adult children is more prevalent in southern and central European countries, where children are legally obligated to support parents; in northern Europe, the availability of formal care services enables adult children, particularly daughters, to have more choice. In a later piece, Haberkern and colleagues (2015) find that particular welfare programs (high public spending on old-age cash benefits) reduce gender inequality in intergenerational care; these policies, however, mostly affect daughters but hardly influence sons’ caregiving.

Individual Characteristics of Adult Children Dykstra and Fokkema (2011) rightfully reject the idea that a particular country has a single dominant pattern. Within countries, some siblings develop strategies to avoid care (Konrad et al. 2002) while others feel an obligation to help (Zelizer 2005). Many scholars argue that the gendered

318

N. SARKISIAN AND N. GERSTEL

character of care reflects the gendered nature of competing demands placed on children (employment, marriage, parenthood), their resources (e.g., education), and opportunities (e.g., proximity) (see reviews in Sarkisian and Gerstel 2004, 2012). Using SHARE data, Haberkern and coauthors (2015) find that parents are more likely to receive care from unemployed than from employed daughters, but they are more likely to receive care from part-time employed than from unemployed sons. Numerous researchers have argued that marriage is a greedy institution, which detracts from giving care to elderly parents (Sarkisian and Gerstel 2008; Leopold et al. 2014). These effects may vary by gender: Penning and Wu (2016) found marriage reduces women’s but increases men’s kinwork. Little consensus exists about the effects of minor children on eldercare. This is likely due to the fact that some members of the “sandwich” generation—those with dependent children and elderly parents—face particular difficulties giving care to their parents while for others, there is a positive association between helping parents and children (Grundy and Henretta 2006). Numerous researchers emphasize proximity as a key factor shaping siblings’ division of care (Leopold et al. 2014; Vergauwen and Mortelmans 2019). Coresidence is particularly important: While many studies leave out coresident children, Dykstra (2018) writes, “Excluding coresidential households from analyses implies that a major means of organizing intergenerational support does not receive the attention it deserves” (p. 6).

Family Characteristics: Parents and Sibship Set When understanding gender gaps, it is also important to consider familylevel processes, beyond individual children’s characteristics. Most research on gender gaps in care takes into account characteristics of parents, including not only their gender but also their resources as well as their level of need, especially health and availability of a partner (Haberkern et al. 2015; Grigoryeva 2017). Mothers (more than fathers), those with physical health problems, and parents without partners receive the most care from adult children (Haberkern and Szydlik 2010); daughters, however, are more responsive than sons to parents’ needs (Haberkern et al. 2015; Grigoryeva 2017). In contrast, little research examines how the characteristics of the sibship set as a whole may shape the care that individual daughters or sons

18

SIBLINGS CARING FOR THEIR PARENTS …

319

give. Examining the U.S., Grigoryeva (2017) finds not only that sisters are more likely to give care to parents than brothers, and daughters direct more care to mothers while sons direct care to fathers (meaning mothers get more care), but also that brothers provide less care if they have a sister while sisters provide more care if they have a brother. Luppi and Nazio (2019) use SHARE data (focusing on respondents as adult children giving care to their parents rather than as parents whose children provide care to them, as we do) and find men who have sisters give less care than those who do not. In their longitudinal analysis of SHARE data on intense care, Vergauwen and Mortelmans (2019) find that daughters are more likely to care for their parents, especially in families with only brothers; sons are more likely to give care in the absence of sisters, even controlling for individual characteristics like education and employment, and especially in southern European countries. To address the gaps identified in the literature, we ask: To what extent does the gap between brothers and sisters vary across the four regimes? Does that depend on whether the care is sporadic or intense? Do sibship set characteristics–like the number of sisters and brothers, and their resources and opportunities (e.g., marriage, employment, proximity)— account for variation in caregiving, and, if so, do they do so similarly for brothers and sisters? Finally, do child and parent needs and resources help reduce (or bolster) gender gaps and their cross-national variation?

Data and Methods This study uses the wave 6 of SHARE (release 7.0.0), collected in 2015 in 18 countries (Börsch-Supan 2019; Börsch-Supan et al. 2013; Börsch-Supan and Gruber 2019; Gruber et al. 2014; Malter and BörschSupan 2017). Due to our focus on Europe and on welfare state clusters, we omitted Israel and Switzerland. The SHARE sample included noninstitutionalized individuals aged 50 and over at the time of initial sampling and their partners living in the same household (irrespective of age). We include individuals aged 60 or older who served as wave 6 main family respondents and use the information they provided on their adult children (18+). The sample consisted of 68,234 parent–child dyads. We obtained some supplementary information on adult children from waves 2, 4, and 5 (some data were only collected at wave 6 if changed from previous waves or not previously collected) (Börsch-Supan 2019; Börsch-Supan et al. 2008; Malter and Börsch-Supan 2013, 2015).

320

N. SARKISIAN AND N. GERSTEL

Dependent Variables Interviewers asked whether, in the past 12 months, respondents received help with (a) personal care, e.g., dressing, bathing or showering, eating, getting in or out of bed, using the toilet; (b) practical household work, e.g., home repairs, gardening, transportation, shopping, household chores; or (c) paperwork, such as filling out forms, settling financial or legal matters from anyone outside their household. Respondents could list up to three persons including their children and then were asked how often the respondent received help from each person (with response categories including “about daily,” “about every week,” “about every month,” and “less often”) and which adult child(ren) provided it. Respondents also were asked whether, in the past 12 months, they received regular personal care (such as washing, getting out of bed, or dressing) from someone within their household and, if so, the relationship of the person. The interviewers clarified that by regularly, they meant daily or almost daily during at least three months; they did not want to capture help during short-term sickness. They did not, however, ask the exact frequency of in-household personal care receipt. We created two dependent variables—the first included both sporadic and intense caregiving of non-coresident adult children; the second included intense caregiving of both coresident and non-coresident adult children. Each was coded 1 = received care, 0 = didn’t receive care. “Any care” from a non-coresident child is the receipt of care of any of the aforementioned three types and of any frequency from a non-coresident adult child. “Intense care” is the receipt of care of any of the aforementioned three types from a non-coresident child at least once a week or more, or regular receipt of personal care from a coresident child. We assume that care from coresident children is usually provided at least weekly (based on findings from previous research, e.g., Michaud et al. 2010). Independent Variables Key independent variables include child’s gender (coded 1 = female) and four welfare regime dichotomies: (a) Christian Democratic, including Austria, Germany, France, Belgium, Luxembourg; (b) Social Democratic, including Sweden and Denmark; (c) Mediterranean, including Spain, Italy, Greece, and Portugal, and (d) Eastern European, including Czech

18

SIBLINGS CARING FOR THEIR PARENTS …

321

Republic, Poland, Slovenia, Estonia, and Croatia. Three other sets of explanatory variables detail child’s, parent’s, and siblings’ characteristics. Child characteristics included measures of needs, resources, and opportunities, and a few controls. First, for child’s marital status, we included two dichotomies indicating previously married (combining divorced, widowed, and separated) and never married, with married/partnered the omitted category. Children’s parental status indicated whether the child has their own child under 18. Second, for geographic proximity, we used a dichotomy indicating whether each adult child co-resides with the responding parent and a variable indicating approximate distance from the parent (in 10 km units; generated by coding original categories to middle points). Third, child employment status was measured using four dichotomies: (1) unemployed or on a temporary leave; (2) in retirement or early retirement; (3) permanently sick or disabled, and (4) looking after home or family, with the omitted category being employed. (“Other” employment status category was treated as missing.) Fourth, we measured child’s education using two dichotomies based on the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 1997 that helps harmonize education across countries. Our high school dichotomy combined upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education. Our college education or more dichotomy combined first stage and second stage of tertiary education. Less than high school was our omitted category. Finally, we included two child-level controls, child’s age and child’s relationship to respondent (1 = respondent’s own biological or adopted child, 0 = child of respondent’s spouse/partner or former spouse/partner only). Sibling characteristics were generated by aggregating data across all sisters and all brothers that each adult child has (variables were coded zero for those without sisters or brothers). First, number of sisters and number of brothers were created by aggregating gender. Second, we generated dichotomies indicating whether each adult child had any brothers and any sisters who: (a) were married, (b) had minor children, (c) co-resided with the focal parent or lived in the same building, (d) were employed, (e) had high school education only, (f) had college education or more, and (g) were own children of the focal parent. Finally, parental characteristics were based on respondent’s self-reports. Parent gender was coded 1 = mother, 0 = father; parental age was measured in full years. Five measures of parental health were (1) self-rated health (fair or poor = 1; excellent, very good, and good = 0); (2) number of chronic conditions (out of 17 possible), topcoded at 5; (3) depression

322

N. SARKISIAN AND N. GERSTEL

level using EURO-D scale ranging from 0 = not depressed to 12 = very depressed; (4) two counts of limitations (from 0 to 5), one for activities of daily living (ADL) and the other for instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) limitations. To control for availability of other caregivers, we used a dichotomy indicating whether the respondent was living with a spouse or partner and household size (number of people residing in the same household as the respondent), topcoded at 8. For socioeconomic status, we used four variables: first, two dichotomies indicating (a) those with high school education only and (b) those with college education or more (using 1997 ISCED classification; less than high school education was the omitted category); second, respondent’s employment status (1 = currently employed or self-employed, 0 = retired, unemployed, permanently sick or disabled, homemaker, or other); and third, a logtransformed measure of respondent’s net household income (created by SHARE staff based on the information on income from various sources). Finally, we controlled for urbanicity, with big city, the suburbs or outskirts of a big city, or a large town = 1, and a small town and a rural area or village = 0. Analytic Strategy We used Stata 16.0 for data management and analysis. We compared the means of our dependent variables by child gender separately for each country (standard errors were adjusted for family clusters). Then, we estimated mixed effects (multilevel) logistic regression models with random intercepts and gender slopes varying by country and standard errors adjusted for clustering by country, overall, and separately by child gender. To explore differences in gender gaps among welfare regimes, we conducted pairwise comparisons for all regime pairs, with a Bonferroni correction. In order to evaluate whether the effects of child gender are significant for each welfare regime, we present interaction models using separate slope parameterization (Cohen et al. 2003). Four separate gender coefficients for the four welfare regimes, representing simple slopes, were estimated using four variables in which one welfare regime’s gender variable values were included along with zeroes for the other three welfare regime groups. To handle missing data, we performed multiple imputation by chained equations (Royston 2004), estimating models over five imputations. Most variables, with exception of adult child’s employment status, marital

18

SIBLINGS CARING FOR THEIR PARENTS …

323

status, parental status, and proximity, contained less than 5% missing data. We used dependent variables in the imputation process but subsequently deleted their imputed values (multiple imputation then deletion strategy).

Findings Table 18.1 examines gender gaps separately for each country. Looking at any care (without any restrictions placed on frequency), we find that non-coresident daughters are significantly more likely to provide care than non-coresident sons in two out of five Christian Democratic countries and in three out of four Mediterranean countries. No significant gender differences exist in Eastern European countries. Both Social Democratic countries exhibit the reverse gender gap: Sons are significantly more likely to report providing any care than daughters. Table 18.1 Proportion of adult children providing care by gender Any care, non-coresident only

Christian democratic Austria Germany France Belgium Luxembourg Social democratic Sweden Denmark Mediterranean Spain Italy Greece Portugal Eastern European Czech Republic Poland Slovenia Estonia Croatia

Intense care

Sons

Daughters

Sons

Daughters

0.104 0.087 0.054 0.063 0.018

0.125* 0.086 0.060 0.074 0.043**

0.044 0.032 0.026 0.022 0.011

0.070*** 0.044* 0.032 0.048*** 0.030**

0.068 0.111

0.049** 0.090*

0.012 0.022

0.017 0.025

0.036 0.049 0.103 0.031

0.097*** 0.072** 0.122 0.053*

0.034 0.029 0.048 0.014

0.089*** 0.067*** 0.077*** 0.037***

0.215 0.036 0.080 0.154 0.127

0.204 0.049 0.087 0.139 0.107

0.090 0.028 0.052 0.069 0.061

0.108* 0.044* 0.062 0.071 0.071

Note Significant gender differences: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

324

N. SARKISIAN AND N. GERSTEL

For more intense care, we see more pronounced gender gaps in Christian Democratic and Mediterranean countries: In all of these countries except for France, daughters are significantly more likely to provide care than sons. Some differences also emerge in Eastern European countries, with daughters more likely to provide intense care than sons in Czech Republic and Poland, but these gaps are much less pronounced than those in Christian Democratic and Mediterranean countries. Finally, for Social Democratic countries, no significant gender gaps in intense care exist. Next, we estimated multilevel logistic regression models where intercepts and gender slopes varied by country. Table 18.2 presents the results of these analyses as odds ratios. Looking at a bivariate model (“Gender only” results in the bottom rows of Model 1 column), we find a significant overall gender gap in any care provided by non-resident children: Women’s odds of providing such care are 26% higher than men’s (p < .05). In the top rows of Model 1 column, we examine these gaps separately by welfare regime (without any controls). When care is defined broadly, daughters are more likely than sons to provide care in Christian Democratic and Mediterranean welfare regimes, while there is no significant gender gap in Eastern European countries and even a gap favoring sons in Social Democratic countries. Comparisons of gender slopes across regimes suggest that Social Democratic regime differs significantly from the others (which is consistent with the uniquely reversed gender gap in Social Democratic countries). There is also a significant difference between Mediterranean and Eastern European countries, while Christian Democratic countries are not significantly different from either Mediterranean or Eastern European ones. Surprisingly, in all regimes, gender gaps do not change much when we control for children’s, siblings’, and parental characteristics (Model 2). Even with these controls, in Christian Democratic and Mediterranean welfare regimes, non-coresident daughters are more likely than noncoresident sons to provide care, while there is no significant gender gap in Eastern European countries and even a gap favoring non-coresident sons in Social Democratic countries. Turning to more frequent caregiving (Models 5–8 of Table 18.2; this includes any care provided by coresident children as well as weekly or more care provided by non-coresident adult children), we find a more pronounced gender gap (Model 5 column, the bivariate version presented in the bottom rows): Daughters’ odds of providing intense care are 69% higher than sons’ (p < .001). Examining gender gaps separately for each

0.88

1.13 1.28 1.74 0.99 1.12 1.00 0.97*** – 1.00 0.98 0.74

1.22 2.35** 2.42* 0.99 1.13** 0.98 0.96*** – 0.98 0.95 0.63*

0.91 0.50**

– 0.99

0.97 1.11 0.98 0.96***

0.53 1.94*

1.24*c 2.16***b,d 1.21***a,c

0.73***a,c,d 1.76***b,d 0.99b,c

2.52** 2.68**

1.68***d

1.25*b

1.31

Model 4: men

Model 5: baseline

Model 3: women

Model 1: baseline

Model 2: full

Intense care

Any care, non-coresident only

Female slopes by regime Christian 1.27*b Democratic Social Democratic 0.73***a,c,d Mediterranean 1.89***b,d Eastern European 0.99b,c Welfare regime Christian 1.04 Democratic Social Democratic 1.52 Eastern European 2.02* Child characteristics Previously married Never married Has a minor child Distance from parent Coresident Unemployed/on leave Retired Sick/disabled

Independent variables

0.97 0.68**

1.75*** 1.00

1.08 1.25*** 1.01 0.94***

1.20 2.61**

1.35

1.33**c 2.30***b,d 1.31***c

1.79***

Model 6: full

1.00 0.61*

1.83*** 1.05

1.01 1.25* 0.95 0.94***

0.71 1.46

1.05

Model 7: women

Table 18.2 Models of caregiving to ageing parents. Results of multilevel logistic regression (odds ratios)

SIBLINGS CARING FOR THEIR PARENTS …

(continued)

0.95 0.79

1.69*** 0.95

1.18 1.27** 1.10 0.94***

0.97 2.22**

1.11

Model 8: men

18

325

Model 4: men

1.16 1.12 1.16 1.00 2.31***

0.87** 0.91* 1.01 0.92 1.05 0.99 0.66** 0.76*** 0.99

1.24** 1.14 1.20* 0.99* 1.92***

0.85*** 0.86*** 1.05 0.93 1.03 0.99 0.66*** 0.74*** 0.96

0.93

0.66*** 0.71***

0.98

1.09 0.93 1.00

0.83*** 0.81***

1.29** 0.99** 1.65***

1.90 1.19

Model 5: baseline

Model 3: women

Model 1: baseline

Model 2: full

Intense care

Any care, non-coresident only

Homemaker High school education College or more Age Respondent’s own child Sibling characteristics Number of sisters Number of brothers Married sisters Married brothers Sisters with minor children Brothers with minor children Coresident sisters Coresident brothers Employed sisters

Independent variables

Table 18.2 (continued)

1.00

0.66*** 0.73***

0.89

1.24*** 0.97 1.02

0.86*** 0.92*

1.05 1.00 2.11***

1.25** 1.13

Model 6: full

1.01

0.72** 0.75**

0.92

1.25* 0.91 1.04

0.85*** 0.92*

1.02 1.00 2.25**

1.19* 1.12

Model 7: women

0.97

0.59*** 0.69**

0.84

1.24** 1.05 0.98

0.88*** 0.94

1.10 1.00 2.00**

2.68 1.15

Model 8: men

326 N. SARKISIAN AND N. GERSTEL

1.21* 0.96 0.95

0.95

0.92

0.79**

0.89

1.34*** 1.05***

1.19* 0.93 0.92

1.00

0.98

0.87

0.86*

1.35*** 1.05***

1.36*** 1.05***

0.84*

0.94

1.04

1.05

0.89

0.92

1.18*

Model 4: men

Model 5: baseline

Model 3: women

Model 1: baseline

Model 2: full

Intense care

Any care, non-coresident only

Employed brothers Sisters with high school education Brothers with high school education Sisters with college education or more Brothers with college education or more Sisters who are respondent’s own children Brothers who are respondent’s own children Parent characteristics Female Age

Independent variables

1.44*** 1.06***

0.82

0.73***

0.89

0.93

0.94

0.97

1.27**

Model 6: full

1.34** 1.06***

0.99

0.72***

0.87

0.90

0.95

1.00

1.23*

Model 7: women

(continued)

1.60*** 1.06***

0.65***

0.75*

0.91

0.97

0.94

0.94

1.33**

Model 8: men

18 SIBLINGS CARING FOR THEIR PARENTS …

327

Model 4: men

1.29*** 1.10*** 1.07*** 1.05 1.17*** 0.70*** 0.77** 0.93 0.81* 0.95 1.04*** 0.85*

1.18**

1.22*** 1.10*** 1.07*** 1.05 1.17*** 0.68*** 0.81*** 0.88*** 0.88* 1.08 1.04** 0.87** 1.07 1.19**

1.34**

1.03 0.88**

1.14

0.92

0.85** 0.84**

1.03 1.16*** 0.66***

1.06***

1.17*** 1.10***

1.01 1.10**

Model 5: baseline

Model 3: women

Model 1: baseline

Model 2: full

Intense care

Any care, non-coresident only

Fair/poor health Number of chronic diseases Depression scale EURO-D ADL limitations IADL limitations Living with spouse/partner Household size High school education College education or more Currently employed Income (log) Urban residence Variance components Female slope 1.07 Constant 1.17** Gender only model

Independent variables

Table 18.2 (continued)

1.02 1.15**

1.02 0.85**

0.70*

0.68***

0.88*** 0.93

1.05 1.30*** 0.57***

1.07***

1.35*** 1.09***

Model 6: full

1.13**

1.02 0.84*

0.48**

0.66***

0.89*** 0.92

1.06 1.30*** 0.53***

1.08***

1.37*** 1.11***

Model 7: women

1.17**

1.01 0.85*

0.95

0.70*

0.85** 0.95

1.05 1.31*** 0.65***

1.06***

1.34*** 1.07**

Model 8: men

328 N. SARKISIAN AND N. GERSTEL

28,690

1.29*** 67,959

28,905

1.56*** 57,603 57,602

1.69*** 1.10**

1.26* 1.09

Model 4: men

Model 5: baseline

Model 3: women

Model 1: baseline

Model 2: full

Intense care

Any care, non-coresident only

67,956

Model 6: full

33,649

Model 7: women

34,300

Model 8: men

Note *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. For gender slopes, a = different from Christian Democratic, b = different from Social Democratic, c = different from Mediterranean, d = different from Eastern European (p < 0.05)

Female child Female slope variance Constant variance Sample size

Independent variables

18 SIBLINGS CARING FOR THEIR PARENTS …

329

330

N. SARKISIAN AND N. GERSTEL

welfare regime (without any controls; Model 5 column, top rows), we find that daughters are more likely than sons to provide intense care in all regimes, although the gap is particularly large in Christian Democratic and Mediterranean ones, and it is smaller in Eastern European and Social Democratic countries. For both definitions of care, the gender gap is most pronounced in the Mediterranean cluster. Focusing on more intense care, welfare regime explains most of the cross-national variation in gender gaps, rendering the remaining variance non-significant (see the bottom rows for variance components). As the full model (Model 6) shows, children’s, siblings’, and parental characteristics do not explain gender gaps—they are even somewhat more pronounced after we control for these characteristics. We do find, however, some important effects of these characteristics on care provision, and some of these effects vary by the intensity of care and by gender of the adult child. Beginning with child’s characteristics, we find that never married children are more likely to provide care than married ones, an effect most pronounced for intense care. Parenthood does not play a role regardless of the definition of care. Proximity to parents uniformly emerged as a strong determinant of caregiving across models. Those permanently sick or disabled were less likely to provide care than those employed, while homemakers were more likely to provide care. While education had few effects on caregiving, we did observe an effect for men in terms of care of any intensity: College educated sons were more likely to report giving such care than sons with less than high school education (this may be linked to educated sons’ higher likelihood of helping with legal and financial paperwork). Turning to sibling sets, we found that having more brothers or sisters reduced rates of caregiving, although for intense care, these effects were more pronounced for the number of sisters than brothers. In terms of siblings’ marital status, only the marital status of sisters, but not brothers, mattered, and only for intense care: Having married sisters increased the likelihood of providing intense care to parents. Having brothers or sisters who live with or very close to the focal parent also reduced caregiving rates for both sons and daughters. Siblings’ employment status also had some effects—here, only brothers’ employment status mattered: Having employed brothers increased the caregiving rates for both sons and daughters. Finally, siblings’ education did not appear to have an effect on caregiving.

18

SIBLINGS CARING FOR THEIR PARENTS …

331

Analyses of parent characteristics suggest that children are responsive to parents’ own resources (they decrease care) and parental needs (both physical and mental health problems, which increase care). Mothers were more likely to receive care than fathers; those living with a spouse/partner were less likely to receive care than those living without, and those living in larger households were less likely to receive care from non-resident adult children than those in smaller households. Older parents, parents with fair/poor self-rated health, parents with more chronic diseases, higher depression levels, or more IADL limitations were more likely to receive care than younger and healthier parents. Parents’ education is linked to reduced rates of care, and parents’ employment reduces rates of intense care receipt, but only from daughters. Surprisingly, parents with higher incomes were more likely to receive care than those with lower incomes, but that was only the case for care broadly defined, and only for sons. (This may reflect more help that sons in affluent families give with financial/legal paperwork.)

Conclusion Demographic transitions, especially the growth of the elderly population in concert with shrinking family size, widespread austerity in the public provision of formal care, and shifts in gender ideology have made the provision of adequate informal care into a pressing social and political issue. Although sisters and brothers often must figure out how to provide and divide the care of their parents, few studies examine these family processes. In our analysis of these gendered processes, we emphasized the role of structure—both at the macro level through a comparison of welfare regimes and at the mesa or familial level by examining sibship set characteristics (although we also examined those individual characteristics of adult children and their parents that other research highlights). Our analysis comparing policy regimes clearly shows that studying this variation is key to understanding the gap between brothers and sisters. Importantly, when we focus on the intense (likely to be especially burdensome) care, differences across welfare regimes explain most of the cross-national variation in gender gaps, showing that the broad framework of welfare regimes remains useful for understanding gender differences in caregiving. Nevertheless, future research should move beyond the basic descriptions of the

332

N. SARKISIAN AND N. GERSTEL

effects of welfare regime policy packages and examine the role of specific policies for gender inequality, as Dykstra (2018) argued. Assuming causation based on our analyses is somewhat problematic. Along with many others, we have implied that macro-level policy drives the gender divide; instead, cultural changes, like family values and gender ideology, may shape the gender divide and drive social policy. The same difficulty characterizes analyses of some independent and control variables, like proximity or employment. Either adult children or their parents may change their residence in response to caregiving needs (e.g., Van den Broek and Dykstra 2017). Similarly, adult children, especially daughters, may alter their employment status and/or hours to provide care to their parents (e.g., Johnson and LoSasso 2006; Naldini et al. 2016). Our analysis encountered some limitations stemming from the constraints of SHARE. We could not assess care intensity or types of care in more detail because SHARE did not collect detailed information on either hours or types of care. Moreover, quantitative analyses can examine the frequency of caregiving among brothers and sisters and the characteristics associated with their division of labor. Such analyses do not document the collective understanding, negotiations, conflicts, and familial dynamics that produce these outcomes. This is an area ripe for new research—especially using cross-national comparisons such as that which Collins (2019) employs to show that not only policies vary cross-nationally but negotiations and orientations to policy do too. In sum, the cross-national variation we found clearly demonstrates the power of the social and political context to shape gender differences among siblings that some have argued are invariant or at least tenacious. Our study further confirms that cross-national comparisons offer an important strategy for understanding the impact of macro-level social forces on intergenerational care more broadly, and specifically on the division of labor between sisters and brothers. Acknowledgements This paper uses data from SHARE Waves 2, 4, 5, and 6 (DOIs: https://doi.org/10.6103/share.w2.700, https://doi.org/10. 6103/share.w4.700, https://doi.org/10.6103/share.w5.700, https://doi.org/ 10.6103/share.w6.700), see Börsch-Supan et al. (2013) for methodological details. The SHARE data collection has been funded by the European Commission through FP5 (QLK6-CT-2001-00360), FP6 (SHARE-I3: RIICT-2006-062193, COMPARE: CIT5-CT-2005-028857, SHARELIFE: CIT4CT-2006-028812), FP7 (SHARE-PREP: GA N°211909, SHARE-LEAP: GA

18

SIBLINGS CARING FOR THEIR PARENTS …

333

N°227822, SHARE M4: GA N°261982) and Horizon 2020 (SHAREDEV3: GA N°676536, SERISS: GA N°654221) and by DG Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion. Additional funding from the German Ministry of Education and Research, the Max Planck Society for the Advancement of Science, the U.S. National Institute on Aging (U01_AG09740-13S2, P01_AG005842, P01_AG08291, P30_AG12815, R21_AG025169, Y1-AG4553-01, IAG_BSR06-11, OGHA_04-064, HHSN271201300071C) and from various national funding sources is gratefully acknowledged (see www.share-pro ject.org). This paper also used some data from the generated easySHARE data set (https://doi.org/10.6103/share.easy.700), see Gruber et al. (2014) for methodological details. The easySHARE release 7.0.0 is based on SHARE Waves 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 (DOIs: https://doi.org/10.6103/share.w1.700, https://doi.org/ 10.6103/share.w2.700, https://doi.org/10.6103/share.w3.700, https://doi. org/10.6103/share.w4.700, https://doi.org/10.6103/share.w5.700, https:// doi.org/10.6103/share.w6.700, https://doi.org/10.6103/share.w7.700).

References Börsch-Supan, A. (2019). Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) Waves 2, 4, 5, 6. Release version: 7.0.0. SHARE-ERIC. Dataset. Börsch-Supan, A., Brandt, M., Hunkler, C., Kneip, T., Korbmacher, J., Malter, F., Schaan, B., Stuck, S., & Zuber, S. (2013). Data resource profile: The Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE). International Journal of Epidemiology, 42, 992–1001. Börsch-Supan, A., Brugiavini, A., Jürges, H., Kapteyn, A., Mackenbach, J., Siegrist, J., & Weber, G. (Eds.). (2008). First results from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (2004–2007). Starting the longitudinal dimension. Mannheim: Mannheim Research Institute for the Economics of Aging (MEA). Börsch-Supan, A., & Gruber, S. (2019). easySHARE. Release version: 7.0.0. SHARE-ERIC. Dataset. Brandt, M., & Deindl, C. (2013). Intergenerational transfers to adult children in Europe: Do social policies matter? Journal of Marriage and Family, 75, 235–51. Brimblecombe, N., Fernandez, J. L., Knapp, M., Rehill, A., & Wittenberg, R. (2018, September). Review of the international evidence on support for unpaid carers. Journal of Long-Term Care, 25–40. https://doi.org/10. 21953/lse.ffq4txr2nftf. Broese van Groenou, M., & De Boer, A. (2016). Providing informal care in a changing society. European Journal of Ageing, 13, 271–79.

334

N. SARKISIAN AND N. GERSTEL

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences, 3rd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Collins, C. (2019). Making motherhood work: How women manage careers and caregiving. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Dykstra, P. A. (2018). Cross-national differences in intergenerational family relations: The influence of public policy arrangements. Innovation in Aging, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igx032. Dykstra, P. A., & Fokkema, T. (2011). Relationships between parents and their adult children: A West European typology of late-life families. Ageing & Society, 31, 545–69. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Fingerman, K. L., Huo, M., & Birditt, K. S. (2020). A decade of research on intergenerational ties: Technological, economic, political, and demographic changes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82, 383–403. Grigoryeva, A. (2017). Own gender, sibling’s gender, parent’s gender: The division of elderly parent care among adult children. American Sociological Review, 82, 116–46. Gruber, S., Hunkler, C., & Stuck, S. (2014). Generating easySHARE: Guidelines, structure, content and programming. SHARE Working Paper Series (17–2014). Munich: Munich Center for the Economics of Aging (MEA). Grundy, E., & Henretta, J. C. (2006). Between elderly parents and adult children: A new look at the intergenerational care provided by the ‘sandwich generation’. Ageing & Society, 26, 707–22. Haberkern, K., Schmid, T., & Szydlik, M. (2015). Gender differences in intergenerational care in European welfare states. Ageing & Society, 35, 298–320. Haberkern, K., & Szydlik, M. (2010). State care provision, societal opinion and children’s care of older parents in 11 European countries. Ageing & Society, 30, 299–323. Johnson, R. W., & Lo Sasso, A. T. (2006). The impact of elder care on women’s labor supply. INQUIRY: The Journal of Health Care Organization, Provision, and Financing, 43, 195–210. Konrad, K. A., Künemund, H., Lommerud, K. E., & Robledo, J. R. (2002). Geography of the family. American Economic Review, 92, 981–98. Leopold, T., Raab, M., & Engelhardt, H. (2014). The transition to parent care: Costs, commitments, and caregiver selection among children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76, 300–18. Luppi, M., & Nazio, T. (2019). Does gender top family ties? Within-couple and between-sibling sharing of elderly care. European Sociological Review, 35, 772–89.

18

SIBLINGS CARING FOR THEIR PARENTS …

335

Malter, F., & Börsch-Supan, A. (Eds.). (2013). SHARE Wave 4: Innovations & methodology. Munich: MEA, Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy. Malter, F., & Börsch-Supan, A. (Eds.). (2015). SHARE Wave 5: Innovations & methodology. Munich: MEA, Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy. Malter, F., & Börsch-Supan, A. (Eds.). (2017). SHARE Wave 6: Panel innovations and collecting Dried Blood Spots. Munich: MEA, Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy. Michaud, P., Heitmueller, A., & Nazarov, Z. (2010). A dynamic analysis of informal care and employment in England. Labour Economics, 17, 455–65. Naldini, M., Pavolini, E., & Solera, C. (2016). Female employment and elderly care: The role of care policies and culture in 21 European countries. Work, Employment, and Society, 30, 607–30. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2005). Long-term care for older people. Paris: OECD. Penning, M. J., & Wu, Z. (2016). Caregiver stress and mental health: Impact of caregiving relationship and gender. Gerontologist, 56, 1102–13. Pillemer, K., & Suitor, J. (2006). Making choices: A within-family study of caregiver selection. Gerontologist, 46, 439–48. Pinquart, M., & Sörensen, S. (2006). Gender differences in caregiver stressors, social resources, and health: An updated meta-analysis. The Journals of Gerontology Series B, 61B, P33–P45. Reher, D. S. (1998). Family ties in Western Europe: Persistent contrasts. Population and Development Review, 24, 203–34. Romoren, T. (2003). The carer careers of son and daughter primary carers of their very old parents in Norway. Ageing and Society, 23, 471–85. Royston, P. (2004). Multiple imputation of missing values. Stata Journal, 4, 227–41. Sarkisian, N., & Gerstel, N. (2004). Explaining the gender gap in help to parents: The importance of employment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 431– 51. Sarkisian, N., & Gerstel, N. (2008). Till marriage do us part: Adult children’s relationships with their parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 360–76. Sarkisian, N., & Gerstel, N. (2012). Nuclear family values, extended family lives: The importance of gender, race, and class. New York: Routledge. Schmid, T., Brandt, M., & Haberkern, K. (2012). Gendered support to older parents: Do welfare states matter? European Journal of Ageing, 9, 39–50. Van den Broek, T., & Dykstra, P. A. (2017). The impact of siblings on the geographic distance between adult children and their ageing parents: Does parental need matter? Population, Space, and Place, 23, e2048.

336

N. SARKISIAN AND N. GERSTEL

Vergauwen, J., & Mortelmans, D. (2019). An integrative analysis of sibling influences on adult children’s care-giving for parents. Ageing and Society, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X19001156. Zelizer, V. (2005). The purchase of intimacy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

CHAPTER 19

Linking Up Again: Views of Barnardo’s Elders on Being Separated from Their Siblings and How They Reconnected in Old Age Ann Buchanan

This chapter will record the views of 14 elders (in their 70s and 80s and 90s), who grew up in Barnardo’s facilities in the UK, on being separated from their siblings, and how they re-connected with their brothers and sisters in old age. It will highlight how relationships with brothers and sisters were maintained despite great challenges and how these challenges were overcome. In addition, how they traced other members of their family once they had left Barnardo’s care, and how they found these sibling relationships supportive in old age. It will also highlight those siblings with whom they no longer felt a connection. In addition, the chapter will describe the ethos of care in the placement of siblings at Barnardo’s some fifty years ago, and the controversies surrounding the placement of siblings together today when supporting brothers and sisters who are unable to live safely in their own homes. The key message from

A. Buchanan (B) Department of Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2021 A. Buchanan and A. Rotkirch (eds.), Brothers and Sisters, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55985-4_19

337

338

A. BUCHANAN

the elders is that siblings matter and ongoing contact with them may be as important, or more important across the life course, than that with their parents.

Barnardo’s History Thomas John Barnardo was born in Dublin in 1845. By the time he was 25 he had started a charity in London which would become a household name and which would transform the lives of thousands of children. The London in which Thomas Barnardo arrived in 1866 was a city struggling to cope with the effects of the industrial revolution. The population had doubled between 1821 and 1851 and doubled again before the end of the century. Much of this increase was concentrated in the East End, where overcrowding, bad housing, unemployment, poverty and disease were rife. 20% of children died before their fifth birthday. One evening Barnardo walked around the East End and found children sleeping on roofs and in gutters. The encounter affected him so deeply that he decided to devote his life to helping destitute children. In 1870 Barnardo opened his first home for boys in Stepney Causeway. At night, he went out regularly into the slum districts to find destitute boys and bring them back to Stepney Causeway where they were given food, clothing and some work training. At first, he limited the numbers he took in, but after one child died when the home was full his motto became ‘No destitute child ever turned away’ (Barnardo’s 2018). In the 1880s Thomas Barnardo also began an emigration programme to settle children in colonies overseas. By 1939 around 30,000 had made the journey across the Atlantic. The reasoning was by doing so children were given ‘a fresh start away from the vice and squalor of overcrowded slums and the “bad” influence of their parents’ (Barnardos 2018, p. 13). The scheme finally ended in 1967. In 2010 the British government formally apologised for the UK’s role in sending more than 130,000 child migrants to former colonies. In the following illustrative study two Barnardo’s elders mentioned that they were offered the programme, but they had not volunteered to take part. How Many Children Are Brought Up in Out-of-Home Care? The Barnardo’s elders, in the following illustrative study, now in their 70s, 80s and 90s, mostly came into the care of the charity following the

19

LINKING UP AGAIN: VIEWS OF BARNARDO’S ELDERS …

339

difficult circumstances after the war. In 1949, across a range of facilities, not just Barnardo’s, there were 55,255 children in care in England and Wales. By 1952, this had risen to 64,682 children and this figure remained fairly static until recently (Lynch 2019). In recent years, the numbers of children in out-of-home care, has risen dramatically. On 31 March 2018, there were 75,420 ‘looked after children’ (this is the term now used to describe children removed from their families by care orders or admitted voluntarily to public care) in England and Wales. In addition, there were another 3820 children who ceased to be ‘looked after’ due to adoption (Department of Education 2019). Elsewhere in the Western World, large numbers of children continue to be admitted to out-of-home care. In the US in 2018, over 650,000 children spent more than a year in foster care services (Children’s Bureau 2018). The most recent statistics from Australia show that, as of 30 June 2017, there were 47,915 children living in out-of-home care (Australian Institute of Family Studies 2018). This had increased from 7.4 per 1000 children at 30 June 2011 to 8.7 per 1000 children at 30 June 2017. What Are the Outcomes for These Children? A recent report by Lord Laming (2017) showed that although looked after children represented 1% of children in the general population in England and 2% in Wales, they were six times more likely than children in the general population to be convicted of a crime or receive a caution, and that over half of children in secure training centres and 38% of children and young people in youth offending institutions report that they are, or have been, in care, compared with 1% of children in the general population in England and 2% in Wales. They estimated that up to half of all children in custody were, or have been, looked after children. Today in England and Wales, local authorities are expected to stay in touch with care leavers and provide statutory support to help the care leaver transition to living independently. In the year ending 31 March 2018, local authorities were in touch with 88% of 19–21-year olds care leavers (Department of Education 2019). 29% were known to be not in education, employment or training (which is compared to around 12% of all young people aged 19–21 years). In the US, the North Western Foster care alumni study (Pecora et al. 2005) reviewed 659 children who had been in Casey Family programmes in Oregon and Washington, 1988–1998. This study involved 61% of women and 54% people of colour with an average age of 24.2 years.

340

A. BUCHANAN

Compared to general populations, those who had been in foster care had more mental health problems, less educational progress, 22.2% had been homeless and a third had no health insurance. Where Do Children Go When They Leave Care? A study by Courtney and Barth (1996) in the US, found that 17% of young people regardless of race or gender, who had already spent at least 18 months in care, would eventually be placed with their ‘family’ at final discharge. Over four-fifths of them returned to their biological parents. In addition, a significant proportion of those who ran away from placement went to their families. In another US study by The Casey Family Program, they found that, although their particular programme was ostensibly designed for children in ‘permanent’ foster care, over 20% of foster children discharged from the programme returned to their biological or adoptive families (Fanshel et al. 1990). These studies suggest that keeping in touch with your family is important if that is where you may end up. Children Living with Their Extended Families Because of the importance of family links, today greater efforts are made to place children who cannot live at home with relatives. In the UK, secondary analysis of the 2011 census data (Wijedasa 2017) showed that 179,740 children were living in relative-headed households without a parent present. It is presumed that some of these children were not known to social services. In Wijedasa’s study grandparents were the largest group of carers. However, a study by Farmer and Moyers (2008) of children admitted to care in four local authorities found that nearly a third of these looked after kin placements were with aunts and uncles (32%) and a small number of children were cared for by other relatives such as cousins or siblings. A study by the Family Rights Group (Ashley and Roth 2015) found that half (49.5%) of sibling groups in local authority care were split up. Of those sibling groups who were placed together—23% were living in family and friends foster care. An International review of research on children’s perspectives on kinship care reports positive findings (Hunt 2018). In Australia, they found that most children were happy living with their kin because they felt safe, secure and settled, loved and cared for, valued and understood. They particularly valued the opportunity to maintain contact with siblings

19

LINKING UP AGAIN: VIEWS OF BARNARDO’S ELDERS …

341

and extended family. Studies of adults brought up in kinship care generally confirm the positive picture. Dolbin-Macnab and Kelley (2006) in the US found that those adults raised in kin care felt it had given them a sense of stability, and their respect and gratitude to their kin who had cared for them became stronger once they reached adulthood. Similarly, in Spain Del Valle et al. (2011) felt that kin carers made them feel protected and supported. Only 12% thought that better arrangements could have been made. In the UK, a study on adult outcomes of kinship care reports a fairly similar picture (Wellard et al. 2017). Just over half were categorised as having entirely or predominately good outcomes. Hunt (2018) concludes that children and adults who have experienced kinship care are generally positive about their care. It is easy to present an over-rosy picture about kinship care. Where grandparents are involved, the levels of stress from children who might be considerably traumatised by their early experiences, can be particularly hard on elderly carers. High levels of stress are not helpful to either carers or children and are associated with poorer mental health in both children and carers (Wellard et al. 2017). Should Siblings Be Separated When in Out-of-Home Care? In England and Wales, The Children and Young Persons Act (2008) places a duty on Local Authorities to accommodate siblings together in care, so far as is reasonably practicable and subject to welfare considerations. Existing evidence suggests that siblings in care should be placed together unless there is a justifiable, child-centred reason for separation. In 2012, Ofsted undertook a survey in England of more than 2000 looked after children which found that nearly two thirds (63%) of the young people had at least one sibling also in care, yet 71% of these children were not in the same placement as all their brothers and/or sisters (Ofsted 2012). In a review of the international evidence by the Rees Centre at Oxford (Meakings et al. 2017), it was found that in the main, sibling groups placed together experienced greater stability of placement. Older children who had previously been placed with siblings, once separated, were found to be at particular risk of placement disruption, and they often found it hard to settle in the new foster family. Siblings, particularly those who had entered care at the same time, were more likely to reunify with the birth family. As to their emotional and behavioural outcomes, the picture is mixed. For certain children in certain conditions, being

342

A. BUCHANAN

placed with a sibling is associated with more favourable mental health outcomes. However, some young people who were separated from their siblings, and who had high levels of behavioural difficulties on entry into care, improved when not living with their brother or sister. The review, however, concluded that taken together, the findings provided qualified support for provision of sibling placements. In the US, a study by Casey Family Programs (2003) found that one third to two-fifths of jurisdictions separated brothers and sisters when they entered out-of-home care. They suggested that if the same were true on a national basis as many as 18,000–22,000 children in out-of-home care were separated from their siblings at any given time. However, they indicate that no one really knows because few jurisdictions in the US keep such records. The UK Fostering Networks notes that in 2018 (Fostering Network 2018) there has been a rise of almost 50% in the number of separated brothers and sisters who are looked after in England even though their plan says they should be placed together. They suggest that nearly 2000 children, for whom it has been assessed that they should be placed with their brothers and sisters, are living apart. A report by Wellard et al. (2017) of the views of 53 young people who had been brought up in kinship care, highlighted how important siblings were. Three quarters had been separated from a sibling at some point. Most had some contact with at least one separated sibling, especially when siblings lived with a parent or relative, but less so when they were in unrelated foster care or had been adopted. Many of the young people who had lost contact with a sibling mourned the loss. Some young people felt continuing concern for siblings after separation. If a younger sibling was harmed by their parents or placed for adoption, the young people often felt they should have prevented this happening and felt guilty, and blamed themselves. The real problem is that there are not enough foster carers who can look after a group of siblings. Houses may be too small. But, in addition, caring for two or three children who may have been abused and traumatised is a bigger commitment than caring for one child. The following illustrative study, albeit focussed on those who came in care at a very different period, highlights the importance of siblings keeping in touch, and how despite efforts to separate them from the supposed ‘bad’ influences of their families and siblings, they managed to remake sibling links which were supportive in their old age.

19

LINKING UP AGAIN: VIEWS OF BARNARDO’S ELDERS …

343

Illustrative Study of Barnardo’s Elders The following small-scale study was undertaken by the author in 2019. Histories of 14 elders in their 70s, 80s and 90s were elicited via telephone interviews. Barnardo’s placed an advertisement in their magazine for old boys/girls asking anyone interested in taking part in a study about brothers and sisters to contact Buchanan by email. The author followed up those who contacted her and undertook telephone interviews. The following ethical protocol was followed: informed consent, ability to optout, confidentiality (no one to be identified). After each interview a copy of their answers to the questionnaire was sent to the participant and asked to correct, or delete anything they were unhappy about. One participant decided to drop out and his information was deleted. The following are the major themes elicited in the survey: Entry into Barnardo’s Care Was a Life Saver Most elders entered Barnardo’s after the war. Their home backgrounds reflected the difficult conditions at that time: extreme poverty, mothers whose partners had deserted them, poor housing and life-threatening neglect of children. Some mothers, in order to survive, had taken to prostitution. Other families were involved in criminality. We lived in dire circumstances…. our mother had been deserted.

Some families were large with six or seven children. Our mother was living on social security and hardly able to feed and clothe us properly.

Some elders remarked that they felt going into Barnardo’s was the best thing that happened to them. X, (an older brother who stayed at home) had a very difficult life. In many ways, we were better off in Barnardos.

One elder also mentioned that a sister who stayed at home had died.

344

A. BUCHANAN

Separation of Brothers and Sisters on Entry in Barnardos The elders appeared to have little warning that they were going to be taken in the care of Barnardo’s nor any say about the decision. Once they got to Barkingside, boys and girls went their separate ways. The boys went to a boys’ house and the girls to a girls’ house. Although brothers and sisters were living in the same village, there appeared to be little contact between siblings. One sister fought to be placed with her brother and persuaded Barnardos to send her and a brother to a group home where they lived happily for two or three years. The brother later commented: It was through her persistence that we were reunited and as a result we remained close throughout our lives.

Some Brothers and Sisters of Primary School Age Were ‘Boarded Out’ As noted earlier, Barnardo’s was one of the first charities to develop family care, or what they called ‘boarding out’. In our study three elders were boarded out, a girl and boy going to one family, and a lone boy going to another. The first placement with the brother and sister, although shortlived (the boy once adolescent, moved on to a Training College) was successful, but the lone boy had a more difficult time. The family had a natural son of much the same age. I was the Barnardo’s boy who they had taken in. I was always the outsider and bullied at school.

The lone boy, however, spoke favourably about the Barnardos staff who supervised their placement and visited every second month. Separation of Brothers and Sisters in Adolescence The elders in our study noted that there appeared to be a firm policy to separate boys and girls at adolescence. Barnardo’s boys were sent to training colleges. The priority was to train them up with skills that would give them employment and an independent future, once they were adult. Girls were trained up for domestic service. Watts Naval Training School had been opened in 1903, accommodated up to three hundred and twenty boys, and admission was open to orphaned or destitute boys between the ages of 11 and 14. They lived a military style life and were identified by numbers rather than names. The

19

LINKING UP AGAIN: VIEWS OF BARNARDO’S ELDERS …

345

regime was extremely harsh by today’s standards. On leaving Watts, some boys went into the Navy. One elder noted that his early naval type training had stood him in good stead and he progressed rapidly up the ranks when in the navy, but as an afterthought, he said, he regretted that while at Watts he had no contact with his much-loved sister. Another facility used by Barnardos was Goldings—the William Baker Technical School, which had opened in 1922. As Watts naval Training School, this was a boys’ only facility. The aim was to teach boys a trade. In the early days, boys would stay there until around 17 years of age and then Barnardos would find them lodgings and a place of work. One elder in our study noted: Goldings was a military style school with fierce discipline and lots if scrubbing floors… I had no support from my siblings - I felt very much that I was on my own.

Elders who went to Goldings made no mention of any visits by parents or siblings. Brothers Together in Large Group Homes Barnardos also ran some large group homes. One called Horsington House, which ran from 1946 to 1972 and contained 50–60 boys, was supervised by a married couple who were affectionately known as ‘Ma’ and ‘Pa’. Elders in our survey said that many hundreds of boys came through the doors. One family of brothers were reunited there I can recall meeting my brothers and being quite elated there when they arrived. My mother who visited said that we were so busy enjoying each other’s company that we did not even notice her leaving.

Another elder noted that although he had been separated from his brothers when he was quite young: Once we were together again (in a group home), the protection and loyalty from my brothers gave me the confidence that I now have.

Another brother mentioned:

346

A. BUCHANAN

I felt it was my duty to protect my younger brother after my two older brothers left. I also found it necessary to protect the boys from potential bullies in school. It was very Mafia like.

All the children went to local schools: There were lots of ‘Banana’ boys there and we supported each other.

On Leaving Barnardo’s Care Most of the elders spoke of the care taken by the charity to ensure that they had a viable future. Training for work, whether in Watts naval establishment or Goldings where they learnt a trade, or in the girls’ establishments where they were prepared for domestic service, was a central tenet of Barnardo’s. On leaving school, they would be interviewed by the office in Barkingside. Most would be set then be set up with a job and lodgings and given a new suit for the interview. There appeared to be little, or no, family involvement in this process. A few of the elders returned home as teenagers, but this was not always an easy transition having had little or no contact with their parents while they were in Barnardo’s. Parents may have remarried and other children may have taken their place. Barnardo’s, however, was very good at being available to those who had left their care, but needed help as they adjusted to adult life. Those who had unexpected difficulties received considerable support from Barnardo’s if needed. There appeared no assumption that their families would help them. Barnardo’s had been their parent. Middle Life Many elders were handicapped by the low educational expectations for them while at Barnardo’s. Two elders said that they had won places at grammar school but for one reason or another they were not able to take the place up: ‘maybe the uniform was too expensive or they did not want us to be different’. Both elders ended up at the local secondary modern schools and left with minimal qualifications. Another elder said that he could barely read or write on leaving school but has since become proficient and became a skilled technician. Others managed to gain other qualifications later in life and achieved high status in their professions. One girl who entered domestic service on leaving Barnardos later became

19

LINKING UP AGAIN: VIEWS OF BARNARDO’S ELDERS …

347

a fully qualified nurse. Others rose to high ranks in the Services or Police Force. Despite the difficult early lives of the elders interviewed, many reported having happy long-lasting marriages, settled lives and children who went onto further education or university and important jobs. In the middle years, those who had strong relationships with brothers and sisters while at Barnardo’s kept in touch, although their main focus was on their immediate family, career and children. There were regular re-unions for ex-Barnardo’s children over the years and some elders also kept in touch with some of the much-loved staff, cooks and carers, who in many ways had been their parents. Linking Up in Old Age Although some brothers and sisters had kept in touch during the middle years, there remained huge unanswered questions about their parents and wider family. As our interviewees aged, particularly when they retired, they wanted to know more about themselves, who they were, and what had happened to their wider families. Gaining access to their Barnardo’s records was an important step. Getting to see our records was important and filled many gaps in our lives.

The past records were helpful in re-establishing links. I managed to get all my brothers together to meet up with my father and we stayed in touch until he died. As brothers we are all still in touch regularly.

The process of reconnecting with families brought considerable joy to some elders. When I was 14/15, I managed to trace my family and they welcomed me with open arms. From having no family, suddenly I had a family of over 100 aunts and uncles, nephews and nieces. It was wonderful and we stayed in touch for the next 50 years.

For others, Barnardo’s policy of keeping families at bay meant no contact with parents:

348

A. BUCHANAN

I never saw my mother again after we were admitted to Barnardos. If I did, I do not remember. My father disappeared. I do not know what happened to him.

For yet others the reconnection with their family was sadder as they discovered parents had died. I never saw father again after admission to Barnardos. I later discovered he lived close to our original home with his grandmother and older brother.

Another elder said that he had managed to trace his father several months after his mother had died, and he stayed in touch with him until his death 10 years later. Curiously, he appeared to become the carer for the father who had failed to care for him as a child. Finding Siblings They Did Not Know About—Those They Connected with, and Those They Did Not Research into their families brought surprises. In addition to the Barnardo’s records, Church baptismal records, electoral rolls, census and internet search engines were used. One elder when researching into his family history was surprised to find he had a younger brother who had been adopted. After a lot of research, he managed to make contact with this man, who was equally surprised to find he had siblings. Because he looked just like his father, the elder had little difficulty in relating to him. But for most having lived together, or having had contact in childhood, determined who they reconnected with. Although half siblings from parents’ remarriages emerged from their searches, there appeared to be less enthusiasm to link up with these brothers and sisters. I had little in common and found them difficult to relate to.

Many of the elders talked about the importance of having a shared history in childhood. A and I have always been close. We have shared our early lives and are still close. Y, I found more difficult to relate to, maybe because he had a hard life because he stayed at home and we did not see him as we grew up so did not know him.

19

LINKING UP AGAIN: VIEWS OF BARNARDO’S ELDERS …

349

The key to having a strong ongoing relationship with siblings appears to be having spent time together in childhood or having contact while in care. I have no relationships with those (brothers and sisters) I did not live with. They meant nothing to me. It is very difficult to have a relationship (with a sibling) if you do not see them as you grow up.

One elder noted poignantly: Once a bond is broken it remains broken for ever.

The Support Siblings Gave Each Other Through the Life Course Those who had a strong relationship because they had a shared history of being cared for by Barnardo’s, or because they had met up in childhood, spoke powerfully about the support their brother or sister had given them over the life course. This was mainly emotional support. Contacting each other, sometimes once a week, giving essential help and presents. Having made contact, this was usually maintained through old age. One elder said: ‘My Older brother phones most days and older sister is also in contact ’.

Once elders died, contact with the wider family sometimes continued: My Brothers and sisters have now all passed away, but I am in touch with the wider family. Once I made contact, they were supportive. You have a blood line and you have to look after them. But Barnardo’s taught us to be independent.

Barnardo’s Was Really Our Parent This small illustrative study is, however, only a window into a much larger group of Barnardo’s elders, and it is possible that those willing to be interviewed were those who had led more successful lives. In the main the elders who took part in the study were very positive about the care they had received at Barnardo’s. Barnardo’s was my family. They were brilliant. I have very positive memories. I am amazed and gobsmacked at the dedication and love the staff lavished

350

A. BUCHANAN

on me. I wasn’t their son; I wasn’t related to them but they treated me as their own child. Until I was 11, I had no ideas about my parents. I just thought some children had parents and some didn’t.

There were negative views. In keeping with the scandals seen in many residential establishments in the past, one elder noted: Most of the staff were good, but 10% should never been allowed anywhere near children.

However overall, most elders regretted that there had not been a greater priority on linking up with siblings. ‘They (Barnardo’s) were very protective but it is crucial if you want to have relationships with your family and brothers/sisters that you have to meet up while growing up’.

Conclusion If we put together what we know about siblings today who cannot live with their parents, with what we have learnt from the Barnardo’s elders two strong messages come through. We Need to Think ‘Life Course’ Sadly, there will always be some children who cannot safely live with their parents. Indeed, as our elders suggested, removal from home may be lifesaving. But those involved in separating children from their parents need to think that the decisions they make are likely to impact across the young person’s life course, through mid-life into old age. As one elder said ‘once a bond is broken, it is broken for ever’. This could mean that as they have their own families, they miss out on the vital family support in the middle years. In our longitudinal research using the National Child Development Study (Buchanan and Ten Brinke 1997) we showed that children who had been in care, as they raised their own families (age 33), had limited help from their birth family when they needed it. Elders in this Barnardo’s study, however, who managed to reconnect with their families, received considerable support from them in old age. At a time when social care for elders is limited, this could be important.

19

LINKING UP AGAIN: VIEWS OF BARNARDO’S ELDERS …

351

We Need to Think ‘Siblings’ and Wider Family—Not Just Parents As our elders reminded us, relationships with the wider family are important. This is after all, where most of them return. In recent years, the role of grandparents as kin carers has shown that for some young people who cannot live at home, kin care may be preferable to that offered by strangers. Most young people prefer family care, and in many cases the outcomes for the young people are better (Hunt 2018). However, the important role of siblings has been less well recognised. A study by the Nuffield Foundation (Monk and Macvarish 2018) on sibling contact and the law, showed that in England and Wales, routine decision-making in the Family Courts can have a significant impact on children and young people’s sibling relationships. The impact is most profound in care and adoption proceedings in public law, as they can result in siblings being separated with limited or no effective provision for contact. The report points out that siblings are ‘the most enduring’ or ‘longest-lasting’ relationships in most people’s lives. Although they are often considered a relevant factor in care and adoption proceedings the significance attached to them is easily and routinely outweighed by other considerations. The report notes that ‘As a result of the overarching focus on resolving issues of parental responsibility, children’s own views about their siblings may be overlooked’ (Monk and Macvarish 2018, p. 3). What Should We Do? First there needs to be a higher priority attached to sibling relationships given by the courts and by social workers responsible for the placement. We need to know more how to assess what is in a child’s best interest at the time of placement but also the impact of any decision made in the long term. Where of sufficient age and understanding the views of young people should be taken into consideration. If more siblings are to be placed together, this will mean establishing more foster placements willing to take sibling groups. At present the Fostering Network in the UK estimates that there is a shortage of over 7000 foster carers willing to take sibling groups (Fostering Network 2018). If it is not appropriate, or possible, to place siblings together, greater efforts need to be made to maintain sibling contact. Sibling relationships may be as important or even more important than those with parents. There are now a number of projects that are experimenting with making

352

A. BUCHANAN

contact with siblings in care. In the US North Carolina projects have established a ‘Sibling Practice Curriculum 2004’ (NC Division of Social Services 2009). Among the ideas suggested are family to family visits and joint meals; allowing children to use Skype to chat briefly to brothers and sisters and looking for opportunities to bring siblings together in summer activities and camp. In the UK, an evaluation of the ‘Siblings Together Buddy project’ (Sebba 2017) found that the young people greatly enjoyed meeting their siblings and did not want to part company. Following the meetings some of the young people’s behaviour improved significantly. There was evidence that some siblings supported one another through crises such as placement changes, bereavements or relationships problems (Sebba 2017). On leaving care, young people may need help to re-establish contact with their families. Our elders said that it was extremely helpful having access to their records as it helped them to make sense of their lives and reconnect with their siblings. This process needs to be made easier for all looked after young people. Linked into this, is that we need better data collection. Both in the UK and the US, there are few authorities that routinely collect data on siblings. There are of course, a number of difficulties here, as identified by the Monk and Macvarish (2018) report. For example, dilemmas about who is and who is not a sibling? The elders in our study suggest the most important siblings are those with whom you have lived with at some stage in your childhood or remained in touch while in care. However, if siblings are to be able to contact each other while in care, better records of where siblings are at any given moment need to be kept. In the UK there has been discussion about possible legislation change. In discussion on the Children and Social Work Bill 2017, it was suggested that a clause should be inserted in Paragraph 15(1) of Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989 after paragraph (c) which would ensure that children in care are allowed reasonable contact with their siblings. Emma LewellBuck, Shadow Minister for education (children and families) argued: It cannot be right that our legislation gives more weight to a child’s contact with those who may have or have caused them significant harm than with siblings who are totally blameless. (Lewell-Buck 2017)

19

LINKING UP AGAIN: VIEWS OF BARNARDO’S ELDERS …

353

While Edward Timpson, the then Minister for Education (Children and Families) did not disagree with the member, he felt the existing legislation already covered contact with siblings On an application made by the authority or the child, the court may make such order as it considers appropriate with the respect to contact…between the child and any named person.

The trouble is, it is not obvious that ‘any named person’ could refer to a sibling. Perhaps, the key message from our elders is that ‘Siblings matter’ and ongoing contact with them may be as important, or more important across the life course, than that with parents. In old age there may be no one else out there for them. Acknowledgements Many thanks to the Barnardo’s elders who were willing to share their histories with us, also to Barnardo’s for helping us to make contact with them in the first place.

References Ashley, C., & Roth, D. (2015). What happens to siblings in the care system?—Family Rights Group. https://www.frg.org.uk/images/PDFS/sib lings-in-care-final-report-january-2015.pdf. Australian Institute of Family Studies. (2018). Children in care. https://aifs.gov. au/cfca/publications/children-care. Accessed April 19, 2020. Barnardo’s. (2018). Barnardo’s children. http://www.barnardos.org.uk/bar nardo_s_children_v2.pdf. Accessed April 19, 2020. Buchanan, A., & Ten Brinke, J.-A. (1997). What happened when they were grown up? Outcomes from parenting experiences. York: York Publishing Services. Casey Family Programs. (2003). Siblings in out-of-home care: An overview. http://www.ahunter.cuny.edu/socwork/nrcfcpp/downloads/sibling_over view.pdf. Accessed April 19, 2020. Children and Young Persons Act. (2008). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ ukpga/2008/23/contents. Accessed April 19, 2020. Children’s Bureau. (2018). The AFCARS report no 25. https://www.acf.hhs. gov/cb/resource/afcars-report-25. Accessed April 19, 2020. Courtney, M., & Barth, R. P. (1996). Pathways of older adolescents out of foster care: Implications for independent living services. Social Work, 41(1), 75–83.

354

A. BUCHANAN

Del Valle, J., Lazaro-Visa, S., Lopez, M., & Bravo, A. (2011). Leaving family care: Transitions to adulthood from kinship care. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(12), 2475–2481 Department of Education. (2019). Children looked after in England including adoption: 2017 to 2018. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/statis tics-looked-after-children. Accessed April 19, 2020 Dolbin-Macnab, M. L., & Kelley, M. (2006). A systematic examinations of grandparents’ emotional closeness with their custodial grandchildren. Research in Human Development, 3, 59–71 Fanshel, D., Finch, S., & Grundy, J. (1990). Foster children in a life course perspective. New York: Columbia University Press. Farmer, E., & Moyers, S. (2008). Kinship care: Fostering effective family and friends’ placements. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Fostering Network. (2018). Increase in the number of sibling groups being separated in care. https://www.thefosteringnetwork.org.uk/news/2018/inc rease-in-number-sibling-groups-being-separated-in-care. Accessed April 19, 2020. Hunt, J. (2018). Grandparents as substitute parents in the UK. Contemporary Social Science, 13(2), 175–186. Laming, Lord H. (2017). In care, out of trouble. Prison Reform Trust. http:// www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/PressPolicy/News/vw/1/ItemID/318. Accessed April 19, 2020. Lewell-Buck. (2017). Sibling contact for looked after children. Children and Social Work Bill (Lords) Deb, 12 January, c221. Lynch, G. (2019). Pathways to the 1946 Curtis report and the postwar reconstruction of children’s out-of-home care. Contemporary British History. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13619462.2019. 1609947. Accessed April 19, 2020. Meakings, S., Sebba, J., & Luke, N. (2017). What is known about the placement and outcomes of siblings in foster care? An international literature review. Oxford: University of Oxford. Rees Centre. Monk, D., & Macvarish, J (2018). Siblings, contact and the law: An overlooked relationship. London: Nuffield Foundation. https://www.nuffieldfoun dation.org/siblings-contact-and-law-overlooked-relationship. Accessed April 19, 2020. North Carolina Division of Social services. (2009). What you can do to strengthen sibling connections. Fostering perspectives, 14, 1. https://fostering perspectives.org/fpv14n1/You.htm. Accessed April 19, 2020. Ofsted. (2012). Children’s care monitor 2011: Children on the state of social care in England. Manchester: Ofsted. Pecora, P. J., Kessler, R. C., Williams, J., O’Brien, K., Downs, A. C., English, D., White, J., Hiripi, E., White, C. R., Wiggins, T., & Holmes, K. E. (2005).

19

LINKING UP AGAIN: VIEWS OF BARNARDO’S ELDERS …

355

Improving family foster care: Findings from the Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study. Seattle, WA: Casey Family Programs. Available at http://www.cas ey.org. Accessed April 19, 2020. Sebba, J. (2017). Evaluation of the siblings together buddy project. Oxford: Rees Centre. Wellard, S., Meakings, S., Farmer, E., & Hunt, J. (2017). Growing up in Kinship care: Experiences as adolescents and outcomes in young adulthood. London: Grandparent Plus. Wijedasa, D. (2017). Children growing up in the care of relatives in the UK (Policy report 18). Hadley Centre for Adoption and Foster Care Studies, University of Bristol.

CHAPTER 20

“We Are Close Enough”: Closeness and Support from Siblings Among Divorced and Widowed Seniors in Singapore Leng Leng Thang, Emily Zee Kee Lim, Dionysia Jia Ying Kang, and Wei Loong Lim

Introduction In the literature on brothers and sisters, the sibling relationship is recognized as important in impacting older adults’ health and well-being (Stocker et al. 2020). However, sibling support in older adulthood is relatively understudied. In this chapter focusing on exploring the sense of closeness and the forms of support for older persons in Singapore,

L. L. Thang (B) National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] E. Z. K. Lim University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA, USA D. J. Y. Kang University of Turku, Turku, Finland W. L. Lim Fei Yue Community Services, Singapore, Singapore © The Author(s) 2021 A. Buchanan and A. Rotkirch (eds.), Brothers and Sisters, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55985-4_20

357

358

L. L. THANG ET AL.

we further ask: for older individuals with the lack of support from their adult children, and who have had experienced life transitions such as spousal loss and marital dissolution, to what extent do they regard their siblings as a source of support? Demographically, Singapore—a small city-state situated in Southeast Asia with a total population of 5.7 million, is characterized with a rapid rise in ageing population (PMO-SG 2019). From a proportion of 16.0% of citizen population aged 65 and above in 2019, it is projected that 1 in 4 of Singapore’s citizen population will comprise of people aged 65 and above by 2030 (PMO-SG 2019). Divorced, widowed and separated seniors constitute a proportion of Singapore’s ageing population. In 2019, the percentage of individuals who are widowed, divorced or separated is 16.8% of the total aging population (aged 50 and above) (DOS 2020). However, more older women than men are widowed, divorced or separated in 2019. About 24.4% of the older women population are widowed, divorced or separated compared to 8.5% of older men aged 50 and above (DOS 2020). The number of divorces among the older age group has seen an increase over the years. Among divorces in 2018, couples who were married for 30 years or longer constituted 6.7%, an increase from 5.2% in 2008 (DOS 2019). While the proportion of widowed aged 50 and above has decreased from 13.7 to 11% between 2009 and 2019, the overall number had increased from 145,500 to 162,100 (DOS 2020). By definition, divorce and widowhood denote loss and presuppose that divorced and widowed seniors are more susceptible to loneliness, poor financial health, social isolation, depressive mood, frailty that could adversely affect their health and well-being (Ellis 2008; Zeng et al. 2013). Given that children constitute an important source of support, the seniors’ predicaments are potentially aggravated with a lack of care and support from children (Choi 1996; Vikström et al. 2011; Pezzin et al. 2013). Various factors contribute to the absence of children’s support, including estranged relationship, migration, death or disability (Adhikari et al. 2011; Li 2013; Piazza et al. 2014) or childlessness in the first place (Zhang and Hayward 2001). In the absence of spouse and children, extended kinship such as grandchildren, siblings, nieces and nephews are often next as alternative sources of support that seniors seek (Roberto and Blieszner 2015). Emotional support from siblings has shown to alleviate loneliness among widowed seniors (Merz and de Jong Gierveld 2016). Other than extended kinship,

20

“WE ARE CLOSE ENOUGH”: CLOSENESS AND SUPPORT …

359

the social network of support may also include friends and neighbours, and even fictive kin, although the social networks of divorced and widowed seniors tend to become smaller after spousal loss (Perrig-Chiello et al. 2015; Pezzin et al. 2013; Perrig-Chiello et al. 2015). Whether they derive support from extended kin or non-kin, the presence of a social network to support their daily living has a positive effect on their health and reduces loneliness (Garay Villegas et al. 2014; Teh et al. 2014). In Singapore, where both government policy and the society at large regard the family as the first line of support for older persons (Kang et al. 2013; Rozario and Rosetti 2012; Thang and Suen 2018), adult children are expected to be a key source of support for those who are widowed and divorced. Failing which, will siblings come next in line as a normative expectation? Data for this paper is derived from a qualitative study titled “Understanding the care and support system of divorced and widowed seniors in Singapore”1 comprising of semi-structured in-depth interviews with 100 divorced and widowed older adults aged between 55 and 87 years old (average age of 67.2). There were 49 males and 51 females, “Childlessness” is the most common (51%) reason for lack of support among the respondents, followed by different circumstances that have led to the lack of contact with children (See Table 20.1). This chapter, in exploring the extent to which sibling is regarded as a source of support among this group of seniors, specifically examines the following: How close are siblings regarded in the social network of the divorced and widowed seniors? What types of support do siblings provide? What are the contradictions in sibling relationships and support? We argue that with longer life expectancies and hence increasing likelihood of individuals having living siblings in later life, sibling ties will be increasingly embedded in the family structure and hence deserves recognition in the discussion on family relationships, ageing and the life course.

1 The research was part of a commissioned project by the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), Singapore. The views are the authors’ own and do not represent the Ministry’s. The authors are grateful to MSF for the permission to use data from this project. We thank our respondents for their participation in the study and their useful insights.

360

L. L. THANG ET AL.

Table 20.1 Demographic characteristics of the respondents (N = 100) Demographic characteristic Age group 55–64 years old 65 years old and above Gender Male Female Ethnicity Chinese Malay Indian Other ethnicity Religion a Buddhism Christianityb Hinduism Islam Taoism Others No religion Highest education level a No qualification Primary Secondary Polytechnic/‘A’ levels/other diploma or certification University or Higher Education Socio-economic status c Lower Middle High Marital status Divorced Widowed Child status d Childless At least one child migrated or living overseas At least one child mentally or physically incapacitated At least one child passed away

Percentage

38.0 62.0 49.0 51.0 72.0 11.0 12.0 5.0 17.2 34.3 8.1 14.1 4.0 2.0 20.2 6.1 24.2 39.4 19.2 11.1 25.0 62.0 13.0 62.0 38.0 51.0 16.0 4.0 2.0

(continued)

20

“WE ARE CLOSE ENOUGH”: CLOSENESS AND SUPPORT …

361

Table 20.1 (continued) Demographic characteristic In an estranged relationship with at least one childe

Percentage 29.0

Note a N = 99, Values do not add up due to missing responses b Includes Catholicism c Participants’ socio-economic status was determined using proxies such as housing type, income, ownership of property, employment status and savings d For participants with children, their child status can fulfil multiple criteria. E.g. Not in contact with child(ren) and child(ren) incapacitated e Not in contact with children

Conceptual Frameworks and Related Literature In this study, the hierarchical compensatory model of support (Cantor 1979, 1991) is a useful theoretical framework for understanding the role of siblings in seniors’ support seeking behaviour. We also make reference to the convoy model of social relations (Antonucci et al. 2014) and the task-specificity model (Penning 1990) to account for the trends observed. In the hierarchical compensatory model of support, older persons compensate for the absence of spouse and children by relying on extended kin (comprising of siblings, grandchildren, etc.), friends, neighbours, formal care providers in order of preference (Li et al. 2014; Penning 1990; Roberto and Blieszner 2015). However, the model assumes that seniors naturally enjoy good relationships with their family members and relatives, while in reality, the quality of relationships could affect the availability of support. Studies focusing on the quality of sibling relationships have found diversity and variability in the strength of relationships. As the literature shows, conflict and tension can develop from within-family differences impacted by parents’ show of favouritism on one child over the others, and sibling rivalry (Gilligan et al. 2015). Nonetheless, Stocker et al. (2020)’s review of the limited research suggests the tendency for more positive relationships among siblings in later life, although not necessarily in frequent contact, siblings are important form of support in times of crisis. Sisters seem to provide more emotional support to their siblings, and sister–sister ties are comparatively closer (Cicirelli 1991).

362

L. L. THANG ET AL.

Recent studies show increasing recognition of a sense of ambivalence in sibling ties (Fingerman et al. 2004). Although such display of contradictory sentiments is commonly regarded in intergenerational relationships (Connidis 2007), the concept of ambivalence features in all forms of family ties. Connidis (2015) contends that “no one escapes ambivalence, but some have better chances than others of managing it in preferred ways” (p. 79). He thus relates ambivalence with “inequality to individual lives and family relationships” (p. 79). Also referring to inequality among adult siblings, Hirayama and Furukawa (2016) focus on the burden of supporting siblings with various needs, and vividly capture the ambivalence in the term “sibling risk” in their book of the same title. As risk connotes uncertainty, the authors are essentially calling for multi-level approaches where family work with a supportive social system to prevent “sibling risk” from expanding to a larger social and family problem. Do the siblings in need perceive themselves equally as a risk and burden? How would such perceptions lead to ambivalence in sibling relationship and support?

Siblings in the Perception of Emotional Closeness Among the participants in the study, 90% of them have at least one living sibling at the point of interview. 71% have one to five living siblings, with most of these (35%) having two or three living siblings. The hierarchical network mapping technique2 identifies a high level of the respondents’ perceived emotional closeness with their siblings. This resonates with hierarchical compensatory model of care where siblings are the next significant contact in the compensatory ordered preference when spouse and children are not available.

The Sense of Closeness and Distance Being in constant contact is often an indication of closeness among the siblings. When the respondents talked about their closeness with siblings,

2 The mapping technique requires participants to identify a maximum of ten social contacts and place each of these contacts in one of the concentric circles according to the perceived level of closeness (closet, closer, close), with “You” written in the middle (smallest circle) (Antonucci 1986).

20

“WE ARE CLOSE ENOUGH”: CLOSENESS AND SUPPORT …

363

they talked about things they do together, such as having overseas holidays together, and also their common experience when young in their perceptions of closeness. It is most common for siblings to meet during family events such as weddings, funerals, death anniversaries and festive celebrations. A 67-year-old divorced Malay female (MF47) is a good example of close relationships with siblings. She meets with her siblings for dinner, visits each other when they sense one is not well and watch out for each other. They also have big family gatherings. They meet up about once or twice a month unless someone is not free, and talk or message each other almost every day. She is also close with her nephews, nieces and grandnieces. If she does not call her siblings, they will know that something is wrong and will visit her. As the siblings are aging together, they share problems, update about own health and encourage each other to exercise and visit the doctor when unwell. CF100 (59-year-old divorced Chinese female) has seven siblings whom she keeps in touch within different frequencies, some daily and some once in a long while especially when they are overseas. When asked about the closeness in sibling relationships, she did not think “very close” is the right description for her, “but we are close enough.” When prompted further, she said they are close enough because she shares with her siblings very personal feelings and ongoing happenings in their life. A few respondents spoke about being “forced” to become more distance from their brothers as a consequence of the disapproval from their sisters-in-law. 76-year-old divorced female respondent (CF18) regards sisters-in-law as a barrier for siblings to be close. CM10 (61-yearold divorced Chinese male) is still in contact with his siblings, but laments of less opportunities for them to meet up with their older brother because of the sister-in-law. Several respondents talked about keeping a especially close relationship with a particular sibling whom they can rely upon when in need, but not with other siblings. A 68-year-old divorced male respondent (CM12) only asks for help from one of his older sisters with whom he is close. For example, if I fall sick or when I had no place to stay just like that time. Or if I need anything, she will help. This older sister is very good. I am lucky I have her; otherwise I would be sleeping in the streets after I was released from prison. Some people who have spare rooms in their house will not even let you stay… (She is) Very good. (CM12)

364

L. L. THANG ET AL.

The 68-year-old divorced Chinese male respondent (CM79) is quite typical among the respondents. He keeps in touch with his two siblings only in a cordial manner, and contact only when necessary. He added that “Now I’m so down, nobody looks up to me.” Some other respondents said they have already lost contacts with their siblings and stopped meeting each other. While respondents often indicate that they see their siblings as close, they do not necessarily meet each other often, with reasons such as “they live too far,” “they have their own lives” to account for the lack of regular contact. The lack of physical contact is increasingly compensated with social media contact, such as WhatsApp chat and text. CM03 who is a divorced 71-year-old Chinese woman and still working said her younger sister is very busy and they only meet “once in a blue moon.” However, they have daily contact through WhatsApp, even when it is just a simple greeting. Nonetheless, not all siblings have mobile phone. CM05 (61-year-old widowed Chinese male) does not meet his siblings often, but “we all are on good terms. It’s just that everyone is busy with their own matters. So, we hardly contact each other. They don’t have a mobile phone. Only my third sister has.” When asked why he does not see the need to meet frequently, he said, “Sometimes, when we meet often, we may quarrel.” As later narratives will show, the respondents commonly regard their siblings as a reliable form of next-of-kin contact and support, which helps account for why they perceive close family ties even when they do not necessarily keep in close contact. The Monkeys Are Dispersed When the Tree Falls (Shudao Housunsan) The presence of parents often serves as a pillar in attracting the siblings to come together. After the parents passed on, whether siblings continue to have regular meetups will largely depend on the willingness of any one sibling to initiate and organize regular family gatherings. The 69-year-old divorced Chinese female respondent (CF101) mentioned that her family is not super close and usually meet when there are special occasions such as funerals and weddings, and festivities. She is always the one initiating family gathering on birthdays and so on as she regards the opportunity to gather together as significant, and would always try to do so. She shared that each gathering usually lasts about three-quarters of the day and they would talk and reminisce about the

20

“WE ARE CLOSE ENOUGH”: CLOSENESS AND SUPPORT …

365

past. On one of such occasions, her nieces and nephews showed the elderly family members how to use the internet. Her family (siblings, nieces and nephews) has a WhatsApp chat group that allows them to keep in contact. They used to meet regularly when her mother was alive. To her, her mother’s passing, is as if the tree has fallen and the monkeys dispersed (according to a Chinese saying shudao husunsan). After the demise of her mother, a 60-year-old divorce Chinese female respondent (CF40) takes the initiative to contact her brothers occasionally to visit them and go out for meals together. She does this at the advice of her mother whom before her passing reminded her daughter to keep in regular contact with her brothers, otherwise the sibling tie will be severed. She realizes that when a mother is at home, “everybody will gather at the house, then we will all meet, and the bond will be there. Once the mother passed away, there was nobody to visit. He has his own family, I’m alone, so if you don’t contact or visit them, eventually they will also leave you alone. So, I have been maintaining that ever since my mother’s death. I do visit them quite often, sometimes I went over to their place to pray at the Buddhist altar, because I don’t set up the altar in my house.” In general, it is ideal to be able to maintain closeness in sibling relationship, which is helpful for one’s well-being and reduce social isolation. Although the past common experiences play a role in generating a sense of closeness, the cultivation of the sense of closeness has shown to require effort, and could be affected by differences in circumstances, personality differences and inferior complex. An exploration of the ways siblings is regarded as a source of support will further help provide a better understanding of the significance of sibling relationships.

Siblings as a Preferred Source of Support Among the five types of support listed in Table 20.2, “extended family members”—of which siblings are the most commonly cited—topped as the preferred source of support in the areas of instrumental, emotional and physical support. The response parallels the convoy model of social relations in which siblings, as people who journeyed with them through their life course will tend to continue to provide support to them as they age. As 67-year-old divorced Chinese woman (CF102) said, “Whether your friends ignore you or not is unimportant, but your siblings will never ignore you.”

366

L. L. THANG ET AL.

Table 20.2 Respondents’ top 3 preferred sources of support based on types of support needed Instrumental (N = 86)a Extended family members Voluntary welfare organizations Government Bodies Others Social (N = 84)a Friends Extended family members VWOs Emotional (N = 83)a Extended family members Friends VWOs Physical (N = 86)a Extended family members Government bodies VWOs Financial (N = 87)a Government bodies Extended family members VWOs

Divorced (n = 55)

Widowed (n = 31)

22 17 9 9 Divorced (n = 56)

13 6 7 8 Widowed (n = 28)

31 23 12 Divorced (n = 54)

15 10 6 Widowed (n = 29)

25 22 8 Divorced (n = 55)

15 10 2 Widowed (n = 31)

17 16 14 Divorced (n = 57)

14 6 8 Widowed (n = 30)

33 16 11

15 9 5

a In some categories, there were more responses as participants could choose more than one option.

Some other categories had missing responses because participants either did not want to answer, did not know how to answer the questions or their responses were out of the categories provided Source Thang et al. (2017, p. 57)

In the area of social support, friends are slightly more preferred than extended family members. In the area of financial support, there is stronger preference for state/public support. We can suppose that these responses resonate with the task-specificity model, especially when focusing on solving financial needs deemed as a sensitive request that may affect friendship and family relationship. In the following, we explore the nuances observable in the forms of support to better understand the ambivalence that intersect with the provision and receiving of help which impacts the help seeking behaviour of the divorced and widowed seniors.

20

“WE ARE CLOSE ENOUGH”: CLOSENESS AND SUPPORT …

367

“When I Am Old, They Are Old Too”: Instrumental and Physical Support The data offers rich narratives of the kinds of support the respondents received from their siblings. Instrumental and physical support for daily living included siblings offering to cook dinner or purchase food for them, buying them clothes and shoes, helping them with moving home and repairing broken things at home, fetching them for clinic visits and help them when they are sick. Instrumental and physical support are common when the siblings live in close proximity. However, some respondents expressed reluctance about receiving support from their siblings. The most voiced concern was that their siblings were also aging themselves. During the interview with CF102, a 67-year-old Chinese, divorced female, at her home, she constantly emphasized that she would want to go to old folks’ home in the future. She has five siblings who are supportive, one of the siblings accompanying her during the interview interrupted and assured her that all the siblings are willing to take care of her and do not want to see her enter an old folk’s home. After which the respondent replied, When I am old, they are old too. How can they take care of me? Even shitting we cannot take care of ourselves. So, we should simply let the hospital take care of us…Everyone has their own family and their own grandchildren, how can they take care of me? Because their health isn’t that good, and they have their grandchildren and son…. So, let’s not trouble them.

Reflecting the literature on ambivalence in intergenerational relationships, as well as concerns that their aging siblings were equally requiring help and incapable of supporting them, the desire of not wanting to be a burden to their siblings flowed through the narratives. Thus, some respondents were reluctant to seek help from their siblings even when they lived close by. However, although “reluctant help seekers,” they regard siblings as an important source of help in times of crisis (Connidis 2007). Support to me like as you say, in case of emergency, real emergency… Like that time I went for my cataract, the doctor insisted that I must have somebody to accompany me… I said I no need. He say no you must have

368

L. L. THANG ET AL.

someone. So I can’t help it and just called my younger sister… my younger brother came to fetch me. (76-year-old divorced Chinese female, CF18)

Another 60-year-old divorced Chinese female (CM48) noted down her third youngest brother as his emergency contact although they did not meet except during festive seasons. As she does not own a mobile phone, this brother who became her next-of-kin would call to notify her whenever he receives messages from the hospital for her. Thus, besides living close, the ageing of siblings and the desire to be independent, affected the extent to which siblings were able to be providers of instrumental and physical support for this group of seniors. Nonetheless, siblings were critical as a point of emergency contact. Siblings Should at Least Show Care and Concern: Social and Emotional Support Compared to expectations for instrumental and physical support, respondents showed more desire for social and emotional support. Some felt that they did not expect their siblings to help, but they should at least show some care and concern. A 75-year-old widowed Chinese female respondent (CF74) who is not close to her siblings said, “they have their own lives and families. I seldom share intimate things that are in my heart with them. We all have our own individual lives to lead.” But she showed that emotional support from siblings was important. She was upset that her brother did not show any concern when she underwent a heart operation. I called my brother after I had my heart operation when I was soon to be discharged home. I asked if he would visit me in the hospital and he said, “I can’t even take care of myself properly, where do I find the time to care about you?” I was hurt so much back then. Those words were like knives through my heart. All I wanted to do was to let him know that I was fine and that I was going home soon…I also didn’t want him to worry about me…. So, I gave up. It’s better to be alone.

After her divorce, CF90 (62-year-old Chinese female) lived with her mother. She has three brothers and they constantly check on her to see

20

“WE ARE CLOSE ENOUGH”: CLOSENESS AND SUPPORT …

369

that she is fine. She is most appreciative of his eldest brother whom she found to be most helpful and has a traditional sense of responsibility. When my mother passed away, he keeps me company, he took care of me like he took care of my mother.

She also keeps good relations with her nieces and they contact through texting. She knows her nieces well because they were taken care by her mother when they were little. “Now they are all grown up, and they respect me, when I text them, they reply me. “How are you, GuGu (Aunt), how’s your life? Are you happy?”…The three nieces are very good.” To her, her brothers and nieces “give me their listening ear”.

CM05 (61-year-old Chinese male) who was widowed at the age of 41 and is childless, was saved by his siblings’ concern for his mental conditions. A few years after his wife’s death, he developed health problems and went into a depression. He was suicidal and was trying to end his own life but “I didn’t have the courage to kill himself…So I was thinking…why do I have to make myself suffer? …I must pull myself up, cannot act that way…I have a sister, brother and their daughters. I can’t just die like this….and my colleagues are good… so I did not kill myself.” His depressive mood was noticed by his sister who was worried and contacted the brother who worked as a counsellor. His brother quickly brought him to the hospital where he was treated and soon fully recovered. More than a lack of care and concern, sibling tension can be a big source of emotional stress. CF02 who is widowed and childless is very affected by her sister’s avoidance of her. She felt that she has done a lot for her sister, and did not deserve such cold treatment. When she cried in front of her mother about her sister’s attitude, her mother said, “You…angry in the heart okay already…. Don’t show your anger,… Because my mother knows that I am (now) single, maybe I need her (my sister’s) help (in the future).” It is also common to hear of respondents who are ambivalent due to a sense of inferiority and as a result choose to refrain from contacting their siblings. A 68-year-old divorced Chinese male respondent (CM12) is one such case,

370

L. L. THANG ET AL.

Usually, we do not contact each other because I do not like to bother other people. I have also told them…No news is good news, you know? Isn’t it? If something bad happens, there will be someone from the government who will notify my family. So, they should know that I am fine.

In general, while not expecting frequent contact, social and emotional support in the form of a phone call or text messages and occasional visits were valued among the siblings. But some respondents found sisters-inlaw a barrier which prohibited brothers showing care and concern towards their own siblings. CF88 is a Chinese female who is 82-year-old, divorced and childless who lives in a rental public apartment. Her brother who had migrated to Australia and worked as a gynaecologist, used to call her regularly. Lately she found that his wife did not approve of her husband’s show of concern to his sibling, including his provision of financial support. They would visit her whenever they travelled to Singapore, “She is not interested in visiting me. It’s my brother who insists that…. So why do I want to bother? To force them to help me. If you don’t want to help, it’s fine with me. I leave everything to God.” The anger displayed shows that when financial provision is implicated in social and emotional support, the relationship gets more complicated and becomes a source of sibling tension and dissatisfaction. This further limits the care and concern that siblings intend to express for each other. “I Would Be Imposing on Them”: Financial Support It is common for the respondents to receive financial support from one or more siblings. Compared with other forms of support, it appears that financial support is perceived as the most basic and direct form of help a sibling can provide. A 69-year-old divorced Chinese female (CF71) who is childless claimed that her youngest brother did not provide her with any form of social or emotional support, but he provided financial support to her once a year. Every Chinese New Year, he would give her a substantial lump sum that would cover her financial needs for the entire year. A 71-year-old divorced Chinese male (CM24) who is estranged from his three children, was pleased to have a wonderful brother that readily supports him financially, “When I stretch out my hand, my brother will not turn me away. If I ever need.” They don’t meet often, “… when we

20

“WE ARE CLOSE ENOUGH”: CLOSENESS AND SUPPORT …

371

meet, we got nothing to say to each other. He is not talkative. He is not chatty. But I know he loves me.” The above are two happy examples where well-to-do siblings are generous and provided substantial financial support. More often, respondents mentioned receiving small sums of money either monthly or as and when they needed from different siblings to make up for their financial needs. Although we see in Table 20.2 the preference is for state support when in financial need, but based on the author’s view, it is not common to receive support from the state because it comes with various restrictions. If they have little financial means, siblings’ support thus becomes critical in meeting their financial needs. The 62-year-old childless widowed Indian male respondent (IM108), for example, does not work and is supported by his elder brother who brings him food and gives him $10 every day. A few respondents said they received financial support from old friends as well. Let me tell you, sometimes my friends, these are good friends, know that I am very poor. When they have some spare cash (some of them are taxi drivers, or have allowance from their grown children), they will give me $50…They know my situation. So, I feel that friends are better than siblings. (68-year-old divorced Chinese male, CM12) No, not emotional (support from friends) but sometimes financially I go to my old friends for some help…Like this $2000 I’ve been seeking, even my brother won’t help me. (68-year-old divorced Chinese male, CM79)

The fact that male respondents tend to receive support from close friends may indicate an ambivalence to receive help from their own siblings to avoid being seen as failure in life, compounded by the dominant idea of not wanting to be seen as a burden. Financial issues can become a point of contention among siblings and with their in-laws, this further gives rise to ambivalence and a more conscious attempt to seek help elsewhere when sibling tension is anticipated due to money matters. CM51 (61-year-old divorced Chinese male) is candid about the dilemma of asking for help from siblings, “In my perspective, everyone has a family. Mine isn’t very affluent so if I have financial struggle, I wouldn’t look to my sisters. I feel that not only would I not be able

372

L. L. THANG ET AL.

to get help, I’ll also increase their trouble. I would be imposing on them. They can’t refuse me nor help me, and they have their own family.” The sister-in-law concern contributes to the desire to stay self-reliant as far as possible. CF40 (60-year-old divorced Chinese female) wants to enter a welfare home if she becomes frail, “But if I want to ask my brother to pay for me (for nursing home), then I don’t think he will do that. I don’t think so. He may…he may agree to do but his wife may not. So, I don’t want to cause all this unhappiness to his family.” CF18 (76-year-old divorced Chinese female) said her brothers-inlaw would be equally unhappy if they learnt that their wives supported their siblings financially. However, a 56-year-old widowed Chinese female (CF54) is appreciative of a well-off sister-in-law who was generous in providing financial support to her. She is appreciative but noted that “not many people can do that, they have their own family. And also, some of them they work so hard, why should they give you the money? They would rather keep it for their own family, their own emergency, right?” In general, financial support from siblings is common. However, as the questions from the above quotes show, such a dependency may lead to a sense of insecurity for the siblings providing the help as it may risk their own financial stability. Hirayama and Furukawa (2016) who termed this sense of insecurity “sibling risk” looked at the causes of such risk in the context of Japanese society. In this paper focusing on the siblings in need in the Singapore context, the ambivalence expressed in the dominant narrative of not wanting to be a burden to their siblings suggests their consciousness to avoid turning into a risk burdening their siblings.

Discussion and Conclusion This paper begins with an exploration of the sense of closeness perceived between siblings, and flashes out the nuances behind the meaning of “closeness.” Most importantly, it shows that despite a lack of regular contact or feeling of intimacy, siblings play a critical role serving as a reliable point of contact during times of crisis. The various types of sibling support provided reveal the extent and willingness for siblings to assume the responsibility of providing for their brothers and sisters in need. The ageing of siblings could, on one hand, affect one’s capability to provide support, and lesser opportunity to meet due to declining mobility. On the other hand, as siblings retire, they also find more time to meet up and provide mutual companionship. This parallels with the findings of

20

“WE ARE CLOSE ENOUGH”: CLOSENESS AND SUPPORT …

373

more positive relationships among siblings in later life (Stocker et al. 2020). New social media expand connection and support not only among siblings, but also with their nieces and nephews. Besides support by and among sisters, close ties and support are also revealed between brothers and sisters. This paper focuses on the provision of sibling support to divorced and widowed seniors, but it should be noted that the respondents are also capable in providing for their parents and siblings. Some give instrumental support such as accompanying siblings who are frail to clinic visits. Some (mostly daughters) assume the responsibility of caring for their aged parents as primary caregivers since they have turned single again. When they can, they give allowances to parents, siblings and other older relatives experiencing hardship as an obligation or filial piety. In Chinese language, the term sibling is called shouzu. It is literally translated as hand and foot, symbolizing the same bloodline among siblings, thus denoting their inseparable co-existence like one’s hand and foot. Although not stipulated by law, sibling relationships are known for being mutually supportive. Nonetheless, the respondents had mixed opinions to the question as to whether adult siblings must be responsible in supporting each other. Some felt that siblings must provide support because they are next in line when spouse and children are not available. While they agreed that it is a moral obligation for children to support parents, this does not apply to siblings, as a respondent reasoned, “I didn’t bring him up. We’re equals” (84-year-old divorced Chinese female, CF06). The majority, though, express ambivalence, such as one who said “I know they will (support me), but I don’t want to expect it. That’s why I am trying to be selfsufficient… take good care of myself so that I will not be a burden to anyone” (58-year-old divorced Chinese female, CF87). In Singapore, siblings are encouraged to provide support for each other as evidenced through various provisions. For example, individuals who support their handicapped siblings or siblings-in-law can claim Handicapped Brother/Sister Relief for income tax reduction. From June 2019, MediSave has expanded the scope of dependants to also include siblings. Medisave is a national medical savings scheme where members put aside part of their income into their MediSave Accounts for future medicalrelated expenses that are incurred by the self or approved dependants. Previously, dependants consisted of spouse, children, parents and grandparents. Such policies are helpful and welcomed by individuals who are

374

L. L. THANG ET AL.

willing and able to support their siblings. However, given the ambivalence which expressed realistic concerns of not wanting to become a risk to their siblings, state policies to support older people should work towards providing adequate assistance, especially in financial and instrumental provision for those who need it as a last resort. Hopefully, this will help to lighten the burden of siblings who may then be more willing to complement state support with other forms of help (such as social and emotional support) to provide a more secured later life for their vulnerable siblings.

References Adhikari, R., Jampaklay, A., & Chamratrithirong, A. (2011). Impact of children’s migration on health and health care-seeking behavior of elderly left behind. BMC Public Health, 11(1), 143–151. Antonucci, T.C. (1986). Social support networks: Hierarchical mapping technique. Generations, X(4), 10–12. Antonucci, T.C., Ajrouch, K.J., & Birditt, K.S. (2014). The convoy model: Explaining social relations from a multidisciplinary perspective. The Gerontologist, 54(1), 82–92. Cantor, M.H. (1991). Family and community: Changing roles in an aging society. The Gerontologist, 31(3), 337–346. Cantor, M.H. (1979). Neighbors and friends: An overlooked resource in the informal support system. Research on Aging, 1(4), 434–463. Choi, N. (1996). The never-married and divorced elderly. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 26(1–2), 3–25. Cicirelli, V.G. (1991). Sibling relationships in adulthood. Marriage & Family Review, 16, 291–310. Connidis, I.A. (2007). Negotiating inequality among adult siblings: Two case studies. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(2), 482–499. Connidis, I.A. (2015). Exploring ambivalence in family ties: Progress and prospects. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77(1), 77–95. Department of Statistics (DOS). (2019). Statistics on marriages and divorces, 2018 [online]. Available at https://www.singstat.gov.sg/find-data/sea rch-by-theme/population/marital-status-marriages-and-divorces/latest-data [Accessed 19 March 2020]. Department of Statistics (DOS). (2020). M810641—Singapore residents aged 20 years & over by sex, age group and marital status, annual [online]. Available at https://www.tablebuilder.singstat.gov.sg/publicfacing/createDataTable.act ion?refId=12084 [Accessed 19 March 2020].

20

“WE ARE CLOSE ENOUGH”: CLOSENESS AND SUPPORT …

375

Ellis, W. (2008). Well-being of marital groups in later life: Are divorced elders disadvantaged? Marriage & Family Review, 44(1), 125–139. Fingerman, K.L., Hay, E., & Birditt, K.S. (2004). The best of ties, the worst of ties: Close, problematic, and ambivalent social relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(3), 792–808. Garay Villegas, S., Montes de Oca Zavala, V., & Guillén, J. (2014). Social support and social networks among the elderly in Mexico. Journal of Population Ageing, 7(2), 143–159. Gilligan, M., Suitor, J., & Nam, S. (2015). Maternal differential treatment in later life families and within-family variations in adult sibling closeness. Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 70(1), 167–177. Hirayama, R., & Furukawa, M. (2016). Kyodai risk (Sibling risk). Tokyo: Asahi Shimbun Publications Inc. Kang, S.H., Tan, E.S., & Yap, M.T. (2013). National survey of senior citizens 2011 [online]. Available at https://www.msf.gov.sg/publications/Pages/Nat ional-Survey-of-Senior-Citizens-2011.aspx [Accessed 11 July 2019]. Li, H., Ji, Y., & Chen, T. (2014). The roles of different sources of social support on emotional well-being among chinese elderly. PLoS ONE, 9(3), 1–8. Li, Y. (2013). A perspective on health care for the elderly who lose their only child in China. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 41(6), 550–552. Merz, E., & de Jong Gierveld, J. (2016). Childhood memories, family ties, sibling support and loneliness in ever-widowed older adults: Quantitative and qualitative results. Ageing and Society, 36(3), 534–561. Penning, M.J. (1990). Receipt of assistance by elderly people: Hierarchical selection and task specificity. The Gerontologist, 30(2), 220–227. Perrig-Chiello, P., Spahni, S., Höpflinger, F., & Carr, D. (2015). Cohort and gender differences in psychosocial adjustment to later-life widowhood. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 71(4), 765–774. Pezzin, L.E., Pollak, R.A., & Schone, B.S. (2013). Complex families and late-life outcomes among elderly persons: Disability, institutionalization, and longevity. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75(5), 1084–1097. Piazza, V., Floyd, F., Mailick, M., & Greenberg, J. (2014). Coping and psychological health of aging parents of adult children with developmental disabilities. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 119(2), 186–198. Roberto, K., & Blieszner, R. (2015). Diverse family structures and the care of older persons. Canadian Journal on Aging/La Revue canadienne du vieillissement, 34(3), 305–320.

376

L. L. THANG ET AL.

Rozario, P., & Rosetti, A. (2012). “Many helping hands”: A review and analysis of long-term care policies, programs, and practices in Singapore. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 55(7), 641–658. Stocker, C., Gilligan, M., Klopack, E., Conger, K., Lanthier, R., Neppl, T., O’Neal, C., & Wickrama, K. (2020). Sibling relationships in older adulthood: Links with loneliness and well-being. Journal of Family Psychology, 34(2), 175–185. Strategy Group, Prime Minister’s Office, Singapore (PMO-SG). (2019). Population in brief 2019 [online]. Available at https://www.strategygroup.gov.sg/ files/media-centre/publications/population-in-brief-2019.pdf [Accessed 19 March 2020]. Teh, J., Tey, N., & Ng, S. (2014). Family support and loneliness among older persons in multiethnic Malaysia. The Scientific World Journal, 1–11. https:// doi.org/10.1155/2014/654382. Thang, L.L., Lim, E., Lim, W.L., & Kang, D. (2017). Understanding the care and support system of divorced and widowed seniors in Singapore. Unpublished report. Singapore: Fei Yue Community Services. Thang, L.L., & Suen, J. (2018). Singapore’s approach to ageing policies. In Yeung, W.J. and Hu, S. (eds.), Family and population changes in Singapore. London: Routledge, pp. 131–149. Vikström, J., Bladh, M., Hammar, M., Marcusson, J., Wressle, E., & Sydsjö, G. (2011). The influences of childlessness on the psychological well-being and social network of the oldest old. BMC Geriatrics, 11(78). https://doi.org/ 10.1186/1471-2318-11-78. White, L. (2001). Sibling relationships over the life course: A panel analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(2), 555–568. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1741-3737.2001.00555.x. Zeng, W., North, N., & Kent, B. (2013). Family and social aspects associated with depression among older persons in a Chinese context. International Journal of Older People Nursing, 8(4), 299–308. Zhang, Z., & Hayward, M. (2001). Childlessness and the psychological wellbeing of older persons. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 56(5), S311–S320.

PART VI

Conclusion

CHAPTER 21

To What Extent Can We Rely on Support from Our Brothers and Sisters at Different Stages in Our Life Span? Ann Buchanan

The chapters in this book have sought to answer the big question above. In a fast-changing world, with smaller families, more diverse types of family, and in varying regions of the world, to what extent do siblings support each other at different stages of the life cycle, adolescence, midlife, old age? Today, what factors are associated with support given, or not given, at different ages? How do cultural practices and family obligations impact on sibling support? How does sibling support differ in different situations; surrogate siblings; migrant families, a sibling with learning disabilities and in post-conflict areas? In this book, the definition of a brother/sister is someone who is a first-degree sibling relation, through genetic relatedness, kinship (e.g. adoption), or co-residence in childhood, that is, someone who has been brought up as a brother or sister in the family as a child. We also distinguish between full, half and step siblings. Four types of emotional

A. Buchanan (B) Department Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2021 A. Buchanan and A. Rotkirch (eds.), Brothers and Sisters, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55985-4_21

379

380

A. BUCHANAN

support are considered: First, Emotional/Psychological support which offers empathy, concern, affection. Second, there is Instrumental support in the provision of financial assistance, material goods, or services. Third, there is Informational support in the provision of guidance and useful information, and finally, there is Companionship support in the sense of shared social activities (Wills 1991; Uchino 2004). The chapter authors were all invited for their expertise and have come from across the world. They are leading family scholars, from different disciplines, from different cultural and religious backgrounds, and have been researching into the various diverse family types that exist in our modern society. In the following chapter, the first section sets the scene outlining the demographic changes that have impacted on sibling relations, the theories that have been used to explain sibling support, factors that have been shown by Western research to be associated with supportive sibling relationships, and then an analysis of historical/cultural factors linked to how brothers and sister treat each other, first in the UK and USA, then in New Zealand, and finally in Lebanon among Arab families. The next sections follow the life course. Each section is opened by a summary of research, mainly from Western sources, identifying the key factors linked to the support brothers and sisters give each other at each age, and then follow sections illustrating how sibling relationships may differ, or indeed have similarities, under particular conditions and settings. The overall aim is to learn more about the factors associated with supportive sibling relationships. In a world with increased ageing, siblings may be called upon to offer support to their brothers and sisters, but will they be willing to help, and if not, what can societies do to encourage more support?

Continuity and Change in Sibling Relations How Have Demographic Changes Impacted on Sibling Relationships? The key message that comes from Haskey’s (2021, Chapter 3), is one of change. Since the early twentieth century, families across Europe have become smaller; women have had less children, and as a result, children have fewer brothers and sisters. But divorce and remarriage have meant that siblings may have other brothers and sisters living in different households who may be considerably older or younger than those in the original

21

TO WHAT EXTENT CAN WE RELY ON SUPPORT …

381

family. Families have also become more diverse with adoption, same sex marriages and surrogacy influencing the so-called ‘New Family’. Larger families are seen among the new Britons arriving in the UK and the more disadvantaged. But, despite the changes, the surveys show that many siblings across the life course are in regular contact with each other. Siblings still featured highly as their ‘closest relatives’ and ‘prime confidantes’, and contact between most of them, particularly sisters, is frequent. Haskey concluded, from his various analyses, that it was evident that siblings played an important role in one another’s lives. But there are problems with demographic analyses. Haskey in Chapter 3 notes that brothers and sisters are rarely identified in traditional censuses and surveys. Household members are grouped together under the ‘head of family’. The key defining relationships have been parent and child, i.e. vertical, rather than horizontal. This means that although brothers and sisters may have other full, half or step siblings living in separate homes, the links between the two families are not recorded. What Are the Theories That Explain Sibling Relationships? Attachment theory has been used, not only to examine parent/child relationships, but also to examine the close bonds developed between siblings in both childhood and into adulthood (Ainsworth 1989). Victor Cicirelli (1995), in a series of pioneering studies informed by attachment theory, found benefits to mental health from having siblings. In his most recent research about elder siblings, Cicirelli (2009) found that feeling close to your siblings is associated with greater well-being. Sibling relationships can also be viewed by psychologists from an evolutionary perspective. But there are opposing views. One area of biological literature views siblings as rivals, whereas another views them as important resources. Factors such as birth spacing and gender, for example, determine when siblings are rivals and when they are supportive. Pollet and Hoben (2011) conclude that although sibling competition is widespread and can be fierce both during development and in adulthood, siblings are also an important resource throughout one’s life. Tanskanen and Danielsbacka (2021, Chapter 2), suggest that the four most important evolutionary theories associated with sibling relationship quality are: ‘Inclusive fitness theory’ (Hamilton 1964), ‘Parental investment’ theory (Trivers 1972), ‘Parent-offspring conflict theory’ (Trivers 1974) and incest aversion or the ‘Westermarck effect’ (Westermarck 1921).

382

A. BUCHANAN

Inclusive fitness theory (Hamilton 1964) suggests that ‘all else being equal’, individuals provide more support for their more closely related relatives compared to more distantly related relatives or non-relatives. Parental investment theory (Trivers 1972) argues that by investing in their descendants, parents can increase their inclusive fitness (i.e. the likelihood that their genes spread into future generations). But according to parent-offspring conflict theory (Trivers 1974), siblings have tendencies to compete with each other over limited parental resources, and several factors, such as a disadvantaged financial condition, decreased age difference between siblings and unequal parental treatment, can intensify sibling rivalry (Salmon and Hehman 2015). Finally, The Westermarck effect can explain how an individual recognizes his or her siblings. According to this effect, physical proximity during early childhood provides an important cue for kinship and thus regulates individuals’ behaviour towards siblings in later life (Westermarck 1921). In the West, What Factors Are Associated with Supportive Sibling Relationships Over the Life Course? Tanskanen and Danielsbacka (2021, Chapter 2) reviewed major studies, including many of their own, relating to brother/sister relationships in the Western literature. They highlight 11 factors predicting relationship quality among adult siblings. The strong message here is that many of the key factors associated with sibling closeness in adulthood have their origins in childhood and adolescence. They note, however, that in adulthood, sibling relationships can be ambivalent, including both support and conflict. The relative importance of support and conflict varies by age in that the number of conflicts tends to decrease over the life course, and, despite all, adult siblings typically provide an important resource for one another (Pollet and Hoben 2011). The key factors identified by Tanskanen and Danielsbacka are: The first factor is gender. Most studies show that sisters are more supportive of each other. Second, in line with ‘inclusive fitness’ theory, full siblings are generally closer. Third, where there are a large number of brothers and sisters in a family, sibling relationships may be less close. Fourth, birth order may be relevant. According to the neglected middleborn hypothesis, firstborn and lastborn children should report closer family ties than middleborns. Fifth, where there are large age differences between siblings, there may be less opportunities for closeness. Sixth,

21

TO WHAT EXTENT CAN WE RELY ON SUPPORT …

383

socio-economic position appears to impact on brother/sister relationships. The need and opportunity structures models predict that when individuals have more opportunities to provide support for kin, the amount of help will also increase. Seventh, children and young people need to live close to one another if they are to develop close relationships. Linked to this is factor eight: co-residence in childhood is one of the strongest associations with later supportive relationships. A ninth factor is maternal perinatal association. The interesting idea here is that if an older sibling sees their mother breast feeding a younger child, the assumption is that this child is likely to be a brother or sister. As such it becomes, in evolutionary theory, a kin detection mechanism (Lieberman et al. 2007). The tenth factor identified is one of the strongest factors influencing later sibling relationships: favouritism or unequal parental treatment. Unequal parental treatment experienced in childhood may remain in an individual’s mind for a long time and have an influence on sibling relationship quality in adulthood. Finally, as the eleventh factor, a further study by Tanskanen and Danielsbacka (2017), explored whether parenthood status is associated with relationship quality in sibling sisters when they become parents. In their study they found that women with children, had more contact with sisters with children, compared with childless women with childless sisters. To What Extent Are Sibling Relationships Influenced by Our Cultures? The question following Tanskanen and Danielsbacka’s careful analyses is: how far are relationships impacted by our culture? Buchanan (2021a, Chapter 4), in exploring themes in myth, legends and histories from England and the New World, demonstrates how our folk tales have had a role in passing on core values. As folktales are passed down over generations, they model core behaviours and help reinforce expectations about how to live a meaningful life. Over time, folktales subtly incorporated character traits like caring, resourcefulness, trust or courage into the fabric of the stories. Certainly, the dire consequences of sibling rivalry are well documented in the tales of Romulus and Remus, Cain and Abel etc. Also, the impact of step-parenting and unfair parental treatment is well illustrated in Cinderella and the Ugly sisters. These examples are very relevant today. But current cultural practices are also born in our histories. Primogeniture still features in the UK and elsewhere, especially among the

384

A. BUCHANAN

aristocracy, where the oldest son inherits the family estate and most of the family resources. Today, with more women in the labour market, sisters are less likely to be confined to ‘home’ work, but among some of our New British communities, sons’ education may be given preference over their sisters’, and older siblings may be withdrawn from education early to care for younger siblings. The conclusion appears to be that cultural traditions in the West still influence the relationships between brothers and sisters. In other cultures, traditions remain powerful influences, but with economic development and education, some cultures are moving towards more Western values. Cultures in Transition A good example of a culture in transition is found in Davey and Cunningham’s paper (2021, Chapter 5). In this analysis, on the other side of the world to the UK, in a totally different society, Davey and Cunningham discuss brother/sister roles in the M¯aori community in New Zealand. Since the 1950s, large numbers of M¯aori have relocated from their tribal areas and moved from a farming to an industrialized urban society. In the process, many have become separated from their tribal heritage and forced to change their lifestyles from the collective support of the wh¯anau/extended family to the P¯akeh¯a-oriented nuclear family. As in the West, parents are having smaller families. Nevertheless, basic traditions are still strong among many M¯aori, but ways of doing things vary from family to family. As a result, some commentators have concluded that there is simply no one way to ‘be M¯aori’. A form of primogeniture operates, but with this comes the responsibility of caring for the wider family. Traditional leadership in M¯aori communities was primarily based upon ancestry and birth descent lines and has generally been the domain of men. Usually, the elder brother, the ‘tuakana’, took precedence over his siblings on the basis of birth order and had responsibilities for leadership, protection and advice. Prominent ‘tuakana’ were expected to be knowledgeable about genealogical connections; to have a high level of diplomacy and negotiating skills; to have the interests of the collective at heart; to demonstrate patience and conciliatory abilities; to arbitrate through the relationship complexities that may arise; and to lead the people by example. These beliefs have been carried into contemporary structures and practices, into everyday speech and activities, and into formalized sectors, such

21

TO WHAT EXTENT CAN WE RELY ON SUPPORT …

385

as education at several levels. In this respect the ‘tuakana’ and related kinship concepts have relevance beyond the M¯aori population and have become part of a bi-cultural Aotearoa/New Zealand. How Does Culture Influence the Roles of Brothers and Sisters in Arab Families? In yet another part of the world, Joseph (2021, Chapter 6) paints a picture of life among brothers and sisters in Arab families in Lebanon. It focuses on the relationships between brothers and sisters with the spouses of their siblings. Although Lebanon is more progressive than some other Arab states, and in this sense is in an early stage of transition, as elsewhere in the Middle East region, the role of women is severely constrained and the family structure is still strictly patriarchal. In the Lebanon, all men have a superior status in society and this transcends the barriers of religion or ethnicity. The father is central to the family economic unit. Even in rural regions of Lebanon, where women participate in peasant work, patriarchy still operates. In recent years, although the percentage of women working in the labour force has increased to about 20%, these are mostly younger women. The majority of women remain in the home. Social norms, cultural traditions, and more recently the terrible conflicts, have continued to influence the different roles of brothers and sisters in society. Given the social constraints in Lebanon, Joseph (2021) argues that, with marriage, sibling relationships become increasingly fraught. Not infrequently a pattern of competition is found between the wives of brothers and the sisters of brothers. Using case studies as ethnographic examples, she illustrates the complex love/power dynamics of the brother/sister relationship in adulthood.

When It Comes to Adolescence, What Support Do Brothers and Sisters Offer Each Other? Sibling Relationships in Adolescence: Predictors, Transitions, and Support The adolescent years are a time of heightened psychological and emotional turmoil. Milevsky (2021, Chapter 7), in his review of Western literature, notes that numerous studies demonstrate that sibling relationship quality has been found to ameliorate some of this adolescent

386

A. BUCHANAN

tumult. In developmental psychology, post-attachment research theories now emphasize the importance of multiple support providers. This focus extends beyond the original mother-child dyad, which was the original basis of psychodynamic and attachment-based theories, and draws attention to the importance of multiple support providers including fathers, grandparents, and the extended family. When it comes to the field of family dynamics, many of the family system theories stipulate a unique role for the sibling relationship in individual and family functioning (Minuchin 1974). Adolescence is marked by two distinct sibling-based changes. First, as adolescents begin to develop greater intimacy with friends, their relationships with siblings acquire a more indifferent and isolated style. Second, in this developmental stage, the age gap between siblings is important. Siblings who are closer in age have greater warmth in their relationships when compared to those between siblings with larger age-gaps, but at the same time adolescents closer in age may be more contentious. The natural socio-emotional process of identity development may trigger sibling alienation as they develop a unique identity removed from sibling influence. Contentious relationships are more likely between firstborn and second born siblings than other brothers and sisters. Parenting relationships and their parenting style powerfully influence sibling relationships during adolescence. Parental conflict and divorce have been found to be associated with more disturbance among siblings. A parenting style that is warm and understanding is associated with better relationships between siblings. Adolescents reporting high levels of parental favouritism show greater tension in their sibling relationships. Milevsky (2021) notes that cultural variations impact on adolescent sibling dynamics. Overall, studies suggest that, in collectivistic societies, which emphasize the importance of the collective and familism, sibling relationships are found to be more supportive in comparison to the sibling relationships in individualistic societies. This may be because, in collectivistic societies, older siblings often have a greater role in caring for younger brothers and sisters. Closeness and warmth among adolescent siblings have been found to be associated with multiple psychological benefits throughout the lifespan. In childhood, sibling relationship quality has been associated with academic success and socio-emotional understanding. In adulthood, studies indicate that those with a close sibling bond are able to respond

21

TO WHAT EXTENT CAN WE RELY ON SUPPORT …

387

to life adversities in healthier manner than those without sibling support. Successful ageing has also been linked with close sibling relationships. The Experience of Adolescents in Public Care Social support is especially important for young people in out-of-home settings, who are living apart from their biological families. However, research on social support among young people in care is limited and focuses mainly on the support given by parents, while downplaying the role of siblings. Attar-Schwartz (2021, Chapter 8) in a study of adolescents residing in educational residential care settings in Israel designed for youth from underprivileged backgrounds, examined the extent of sibling support reported by the adolescents. She also explored the link between sibling support and a variety of emotional, behavioural, and social difficulties as well as positive outcomes, including prosocial behaviours and life satisfaction, of the young people. Her sample was 864 adolescents with a sibling no more than two years older or younger. Just over half were boys aged between 13 and 20. Around one fifth had a sibling resident in the same institution. She found that most of the young people (85%) reported that they felt close to at least one of their siblings and that their siblings made them feel loved and cared for (83.9%). In addition, three quarters of the adolescents (75%) reported that their siblings gave them advice, helpful suggestions, or information when they turned to them with problems. Over two thirds (around 68%) reported that their siblings helped them with things they needed to do, such as taking them somewhere they needed to go, helping them with school-related issues, or running errands for them, and that they turned to their siblings when they wanted to talk about something important. The findings also found significant correlations between sibling support and various measures of adolescents’ difficulties and positive outcomes: fewer emotional and behavioural difficulties and greater pro social behaviour and life satisfaction. Despite the fact that these adolescents in residential care lived apart from their families, siblings continued, even for those who were not placed with their siblings, to play an important role in their lives and potentially contributed to their well-being. The findings of this study suggest that those responsible for the care of young people at risk may need to look, not only to parents as supporters for children in out-of-home care, but also to their siblings.

388

A. BUCHANAN

How do Siblings Relate in Polygynous Families? When it comes to different family types, the question is to what extent do the findings from more generalized Western research hold? Al-Krenawi (2021, Chapter 9) who has undertaken extensive research into polygynous families, that is where one husband is married to several wives, paints a negative picture of the outcomes for children, mothers and siblings in such families. There are studies, however, notably one from Canada, that paint a more positive picture (e.g. Goldfeder and Sheff 2013), but polygynous families often involve many of the risk factors seen earlier (Tankskanen and Danielsbacka 2021) for poor sibling relationships: marital conflict, large discordant families, step siblings, sibling conflict/rivalry, and unequal parental treatment. Al-Krenawi (2021) notes that polygyny is an accepted practice across 82% of known societies. In African countries such as Benin, Senegal and Ghana, more than 30% of the population adhere to a polygamous lifestyle in one form or another. He feels that polygyny affects all those involved. Men suffer more from stress-related issues in a polygynous marriage than men in a monogamous one. Many women find polygyny difficult and this may severely impact their psychological well-being. Women often feel mistreated, and there may be increased rates of physical abuse at the hands of their husbands, compared to monogamous marriages (Al Krenawi 2021). Children, too, are adversely impacted by the polygynous marriage of their parents. Children may become involved in the hostilities between the different mothers, which can result in violence towards their semi-siblings. In addition, like their mothers, children also perceive themselves as being treated unequally, both emotionally and economically. As children from polygynous families grow into adolescence, they exhibit lower psychological and social functioning when compared to those from monogamous families. The impact of polygyny on their psychological well-being can manifest in increased levels of aggression, antisocial conduct, substance abuse, and higher incidence of psychological symptoms, such as somatization and depression, low self-esteem and self-image and lower academic achievements. When it comes to sibling relationships, the relationship between brothers and sisters in the Arab world is complex and multifaceted. In most Arab families, it is the oldest brother who assumes the responsibility, regardless of the father’s presence in the house, of grooming his

21

TO WHAT EXTENT CAN WE RELY ON SUPPORT …

389

sisters to become both women and wives, by fulfilling the ideals of patriarchy, as noted by S. Joseph (1994). This is especially notable as girls go through adolescence, during which they will choose to dress modestly in a way that pleases their brothers. Nevertheless, among the various Arab cultures, brother and sister relationships are considered strong, despite examples of unequal treatment. Surrogate Families: Is Closeness Powered by a Genetic Relationship? At the other end of the spectrum are the relatively small number of families created by assisted reproduction. An interest here by Jadva (2021, Chapter 10), is whether, as might be suggested by evolutionary theory, sibling closeness is powered by a genetic relationship? There are two types of surrogacy. In traditional surrogacy, conception usually occurs following artificial insemination of the intending father’s sperm or donor sperm. As the surrogate’s egg is used, she is genetically related to the child she carries and if she has her own children, they would be genetic half siblings of the child born through surrogacy. In gestational surrogacy the surrogate does not use her egg and pregnancy is achieved through in vitro fertilization (IVF) using gametes from the intended parents or donors. As such, she has no direct genetic connection to the children she carried for the surrogacy pregnancy. The demand for surrogacy has increase substantially in recent years (The Economist 2017). Britain registered nearly 400 in 2016, eight times as many as in 2007. One large Indian surrogacy clinic popular with foreigners claimed to have delivered more than 1000 babies between 2004 and 2015. Jadva and her colleagues interviewed thirty-six adolescent children of surrogates from twenty-three different families between April 2011 and December 2012. Thirty-one of the participants were children of surrogates who were unknown to the intended parents prior to the surrogacy arrangement. However, 24 of those interviewed were in touch with at least one of the surrogacy children their mother had carried. This involved direct face-to-face contact and all reported a positive relationship with him/her. The type of contact the families maintained varied from letters or photos, to frequent phone calls and even joint family holidays. Thus, these children of surrogates often grew up knowing the surrogacy child, and even developed their own independent relationship with them when they are older.

390

A. BUCHANAN

Although some children of surrogates formed very close bonds with the surrogacy child, others had no relationship whatsoever and used a neutral and indifferent tone when talking about the surrogacy child. For children of surrogates who had no contact, the surrogacy child was seen as being separate to them and their life and they expressed no desire to maintain a relationship with them. For others, the surrogacy child and his/her parents were viewed as family, even though they may have had no genetic tie. Recent years have seen an increase in the number of donor conceived individuals searching for their donor connections. Adolescents who were in contact with their same-donor offspring have reported that comparing similarities and differences between themselves enabled them to obtain a better sense of their own genetic background and identity. There is still much we do not know about surrogacy. As to the question whether surrogate brothers and sister who have a genetic link are closer than those with no genetic link, Jadva’s study suggests that it is the quality of family relationships that has a greater influence on children’s psychological well-being and their closeness to siblings, rather than the presence or absence of a biological connection between the mother and child. New Brothers and Sisters in China: What Is the Impact of Ending the One-Child Policy? The particular interest in these developments is that the dramatic change in population policy in China provides a quasi-experimental context to examine how the arrival of a second child impacts on family relationships. In the past three decades, the one-child policy has dominated family life in China (Chen and Tan 2021, Chapter 11). However, in 2016, the Chinese central government reversed the one-child policy and allowed couples to have two children across the whole country. Following this change, there has been a rapid growth in the number of two-child families. The statistical report from the National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China (NHC 2019) showed that 50% of new births were second children. In Chinese societies, parents commonly train their children to be obedient and to establish harmonious relationships in the family. Of concern to the authorities, is that parents who have themselves been lone children, have no parenting model for caring for two children. Many

21

TO WHAT EXTENT CAN WE RELY ON SUPPORT …

391

become stressed and use punitive measures such as verbal and physical power to stop sibling disagreements. A considerable body of international literature suggests this type of ‘authoritarian’ control is associated with poor outcomes for children (Baumrind 1966). Indeed, Chen in China has found that adolescents are reflecting their harsh treatment in their interactions with their siblings. Another parenting practice, much used in China, is Social Comparison Theory (Festinger 1954). Chinese parents make critical comparisons comparing their own children with children’s friend(s), or in the current case with their sibling. Making comparisons between siblings, however, can have negative effects on children’s development and is associated with increased maladjustment. Another problem is the unexpected arrival of a younger sibling. Chinese children may relate badly to the birth of a little brother or sister, especially when some of these second children may arrive when they are adolescents or even older. Chen and Tan (2021) advocate that the sibling relationship begins when the mother is pregnant and the first-born child needs to be carefully prepared for a new arrival. At a policy level Chen and Tan suggest new policies should be introduced to improve the two-child family’s welfare: an increase in paternal and maternal leave periods; more day centres affiliated to the workplace, and more encouragement for fathers to play a role as parents. Family responsibility is an important traditional cultural value in China. In Confucian cultural contexts, family responsibility reflects not only care and respect of the elderly, but also care and respect between siblings. Chen and Tan (2021) demonstrate that current authoritarian parenting practices and differential treatment of children may lead to lower levels of positive sibling relationships, which in turn may be reflected in lower levels of responsibility for their brothers and sisters when they become old.

392

A. BUCHANAN

Sibling Relationships in Adult Life What Factors Influence the Relationships Between Adult Siblings in the United States? Woolley and Greif (2021, Chapter 12) in an important study in the USA, confirm the impact of early parenting on later sibling relationships, and how this affects their willingness to care for their elderly parents. They note that our interactions and feelings concerning our siblings in adult life are rarely indifferent—they can be along a continuum from consistently close and caring, to combustibly conflictual and difficult. At different times across the lifespan, they can also vary along this continuum. In early life, it is our siblings with whom we learn to share a bathroom, a dinner table, and a long car ride. Our siblings are there across all our life course as we make our way through adulthood, and as we build careers, marry, raise children, and deal with sickness, triumphs, and tragedies. It is with our siblings that we cooperate when caring for our parents as they age, become ill and die. Woolley and Greif (2021) suggest that siblings are like our shadows—not always visible, but always with us. Whether these relationships are close and caring, or whether they are very contentious and even, the family connections remain. In adulthood, sibling relationships are influenced by a number of factors in early life such as parenting practices, but in adult life, they are also influenced by occupational careers, and socio-economic differences. Nevertheless, Woolley and Greif (2021) found that nearly 80% of the adults aged 40–90 reported their siblings were very important to them, and nearly two thirds were comfortable with the level of support they received from their brothers and sisters. They found that only about 1 in 10 of the siblings reported very troubled relationships with their brothers and sisters, which ranged from contentious, to total cut-off. This troubled one-tenth of the adults essentially disagreed that their siblings made them happy, or that they enjoyed their sibling relationships. Sadly, Donley and Likin (2010) found that troubled sibling relationships tend to get passed down to the next generation. The Woolley and Greif’s (2021) study tested the impact of early parenting in a three-wave sample of 262 respondents, aged 40-yearsold and over with at least one living sibling. The analyses indicated significantly that how parents interacted with their children—from being

21

TO WHAT EXTENT CAN WE RELY ON SUPPORT …

393

supportive of sibling relationships, to interfering or showing favouritism— was predictive of the relationships between those siblings in childhood, later in adulthood, and ultimately how those siblings interacted in caring for their ageing parents decades later. Their measurement of negative parenting included such dynamics as showing favouritism, interfering in sibling relationships, and being upset about those sibling relationships. Parenting that avoided such toxic dynamics both in childhood and adulthood increased the likelihood of siblings working together to make decisions about the care of ageing parents. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Siblings Other factors may also impact on adult sibling relationships. Szymanski and Hilton (2021, Chapter 13) discusses their own and others’ research showing how being Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ) may impact on the relationships between brothers and sisters. One of the great challenges for LGBTQ young people and adults is whether to go public about their sexual orientation, and how to do this. Stonewall (2020), the charity supporting LGBTQ young people and adults in the UK notes that ‘coming out’ about your sexual orientation can be difficult and takes courage. How LGBTQs ‘come out’, and to whom, is important for their future well-being and future relationships with family and siblings. Salvati et al. (2018) found that nearly two thirds of their sample of Italian lesbian and gay adults had come out to a sibling. Many LGBTQs found it easier to come out to a brother/sister than to their parents because they were not financially dependent on their sibling and less afraid about encountering negative feelings and reactions to their disclosure. Female siblings were perceived as more accepting than male siblings. Szymanski and Hilton (2021) found specific features predicted the quality of the sibling relationship after coming out: having contact with LGBTQ individuals; a liberal political ideology; knowledge of the LGBTQ community and supporting civil rights; higher level of education; identifying as female; not having a fundamentalist or orthodox view of religion; and less church attendance. These features were all correlated with higher levels of acceptance. Heterosexual siblings reported reacting differently after the initial disclosure or discovery of their sibling’s sexual identity. Some heterosexual siblings felt that they could not relate to their LGBTQ sibling because it

394

A. BUCHANAN

felt so different/foreign to them. For some, feelings of abandonment and loss persisted because they felt left out of their LGBTQ sibling’s life long after the initial disclosure. Other heterosexual siblings expressed anxiety, protectiveness and/or concern about their LGBTQ sibling’s physical and psychological well-being. Research indicates that the impact of the coming out process on the sibling relationship can be negative, unchanged, or positive. Szymanski and Hilton (2021) found that these changes often mimicked the preexisting relationship. That is, if the sibling relationship was close prior to disclosure, the sibling relationship was typically strengthened and improved as a result of the disclosure. If the sibling relationship was negative or distant before disclosure, the disclosure often amplified this tension, conflict, and disengagement. For those experiencing positive changes, participants reported feeling closer to their sibling, spending more time together, increasing communication and openness, using better communication skills (e.g., intentional listening), talking about sensitive or previously taboo topics, and for heterosexual siblings being more aware and empathetic towards LGBTQ issues and experiences. Szymanski and Hilton’s (2021) research provides some useful indicators for therapists. It may be that improving the sibling relationships will also improve the well-being of people who are LGBTQ. How Do Siblings Exchange Care Across Distance and Across the Life Cycle? An increasing number of migrants are separated from their family by national borders and distance. The dilemma is whether the bonds of kinship in adulthood remain despite distance and time apart, particularly in times of crisis, and whether the increased opportunities for connecting across distance by information and communication technologies is protective of these relationships? Baldassar and Brandhorst (2021, Chapter 14), in their research on transnational families suggest that the answers to these questions rest on a set of key variables including the cultural context of migration and cultural notions of obligation as well as access to available services and resources, including how migration and social welfare regimes constrain how people can support each other across distance. The authors outline a set of principles which they call ‘transnational care’. These principles are governed by the reciprocal, multidirectional and asymmetrical care relationships that fluctuate over the life course

21

TO WHAT EXTENT CAN WE RELY ON SUPPORT …

395

within transnational families. Crucially, the type and quality of care exchanged in transnational families is largely informed by family histories and relationships prior to migration. Litwak and Kulis (1987) with their concept of the ‘modified extended family’, were two of the first to recognize that geographical proximity is not a prerequisite for maintaining close family bonds and organizing care. In their study on parents’ support to their adult children that moved away, ongoing care to those living away was made possible through modern technologies. Baldassar and Brandhorst (2021, Chapter 14) illustrate this, in a series of case studies, that reflect the complexities of sibling relationships in transnational families. These case studies reveal that siblings can and do engage in all the different types of care, and that the type of care they provide is influenced by gender, culture, life stage, economic means, migration histories and visa restrictions, as well as the family histories and sibling relationships prior to migration. The case studies suggest that siblings’ roles and relationships can change over life course. Anna’s and Giulia’s case study, for example, showed how Anna had become less close when Anna migrated to Australia, and communication was difficult in the 1950s/60s. This, however, changed when she could call her sister Giulia daily on Skype and speak with her nieces and nephews. Through these means, Anna was closely connected to her family in Italy; she could ‘virtually’ see her nephew’s baby growing up and take part in the family’s everyday life. The case studies highlighted how siblings were often called upon to take the place of, or perform each other’s roles, to compensate for the absence of family members. This has been called ‘care slotting’. Care slotting can have significant consequences on the lives of both migrant and non-migrant siblings. In the case study of Rita, she was unable to marry due to having to take the place of her siblings in caring for her parents. María was unable to experience first-hand her daughter growing up due to her family’s need for her financial remittances. In these cases, migration brought increased obligations. The case studies revealed that transnational siblings can and do engage in all the different types of care, and that the type of care they provide is influenced by gender, culture, life stage, economic means, migration histories and visa restrictions, as well as the family histories and sibling relationships prior to migration.

396

A. BUCHANAN

Siblings of Adults with Disabilities Kramer et al. (2021, Chapter 15), in reviewing the research, note that in the past many siblings of adults with disabilities may not have been aware that they had such a brother or sister. Until 1959, in the UK, for example, mothers who gave birth to a disabled child were often advised to place the child in an institution and have another baby. Historically, from the 1970s there was a major change in attitudes to disability. Wolfensberger (1972) suggested that people with disabilities could lead societally valued roles in society. The disabled were discharged from the large hospitals and starting living in the supported lodgings in the community. Children with disabilities re-entered family homes. Medical and other professionals, however, began to ask questions about the psychological impacts this move would have on their siblings. Kramer et al. (2021) note that the earliest studies explored the frustrations, tensions, anxieties and ‘deviant’ behaviours that siblings experienced as a result of living with their disabled sibling. The research findings, however, were mixed. Studies found both negative psychological outcomes as well as positive outcomes, such as greater capacity for empathy. Overall, metaanalyses showed a statistically small likelihood of siblings experiencing psychological problems that could be mitigated by good quality social support. Researchers also found that, in general, nondisabled siblings rated their relationships with siblings with disabilities highly. While researchers have focused on empirical data, service providers (such as Siblings Australia) have simultaneously acquired practice experience in engaging with and supporting siblings. They have found that, in childhood and young adulthood, children and young people, who are siblings of people with disabilities need support in understanding the disability, in relating to their disabled brother or sister, and as they become young adults, in remaining in contact. Practitioners note that siblings commonly provide care or practical or emotional support to their brother or sister, from childhood and extending into adulthood. Such activities can be beneficial to both siblings, as long as there is a balance and siblings do not become overly-responsible for a brother or sister with disability or too stressed by the caregiving responsibilities. Siblings of people with disabilities may need help with the feelings they have about their brother or sister’s disability; they can feel isolated; they may feel sadness about their brother or sister’s disability and its impact on their family; they may feel guilty about their own accomplishments.

21

TO WHAT EXTENT CAN WE RELY ON SUPPORT …

397

Siblings may also require support to deal with the reactions of other people and of society in general to their brother or sister’s disability. Teasing and bullying on the grounds of disability is common, for both a child with disability and their siblings. But perhaps, most important, they worry about the future and what will happen when parents are no longer able to provide care for their brother or sister. Many adult siblings take on the role of primary support person for their brother or sister with a disability. Sometimes this role is taken on by choice; in other situations, it may seem there are no other options. Future planning for the person with disability is a difficult topic in many families. Ageing with a disability is a fairly new historical phenomenon, as people with disability are now living much longer than they did in the past. Brothers and sisters may have the challenges of making arrangements for their elderly disabled brother/sister. What Impact Does National Conflict and Change Have on Sibling Relationships? Pontalti (2021, Chapter 16) draws on her research on sibling relationships in Rwanda. In popular memory, Rwanda is most strongly associated with the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi. The chapter argues that while sibling relationships have generally been weakened by the conflict, brothers and sisters continue to represent a critical network of support across the life course. In Rwanda, sibling relationships have been strongly influenced by birth order, household composition, gender and social class. Mothers trained the eldest child from a young age to manage household tasks and care for younger siblings so that they could return to their work activities. In this way, children were predominantly educated by older siblings. The more children in a home, the less likely it was that there would be resources for these older siblings to stay in school. These patterns were somewhat different in wealthy households where children were generally cared for by domestic workers rather than older siblings. Within sibling groups, brothers had more status and power than sisters because they remained members of their paternal lineage for life while their sisters married and left to serve another lineage. In contexts like Rwanda, where social relations are highly unequal, schooling bestows status and opportunity on a few but not on others.

398

A. BUCHANAN

This shifts gender and generational relations, and hardens class and socioeconomic divisions in ways that are often unrelated to ability or the acquisition of skills and knowledge. The 1994 Genocide and its legacies impacted every Rwandan alive and those yet to be born. Over the course of one hundred days, an estimated 800,000 Rwandans were killed. Nationally, children were massacred, raped and tortured alongside adults. Following the Genocide, the sex ratio for people aged 20–60 dropped from 0.94 (1991) to 0.77 (2002) and men became scarce in the villages. For Rwandans the Genocide ended life as they knew it. Family members were absent due to death, abandonment, imprisonment, and soldiering, alcoholism and mental health problems, which increased in the aftermath of the Genocide. Children lost parents, elder siblings, cousins, aunts, uncles, and grandparents—the family who were meant to educate and support them as they grew up. Households reconfigured themselves in an effort to survive. These events profoundly affected sibling relationships. In a country where brothers and sisters and extended family are an individual’s primary, or only, source of welfare support, the loss of siblings represented both a material and relational loss. In the aftermath, the fight for survival built solidarity between siblings, but it also strained relationships. The Genocide also reconfigured sibling relationships. When both parents died or disappeared, the oldest remaining sibling was forced to become the head of the household and responsible for his siblings’ care. More often than not, they had to quit school so they could support their younger siblings. Competition and conflict between siblings were made more acute by the effects of unequal access to schooling, but genocide-related hardships also forced brothers and sisters to work together more, to help each other through crises. In a context where the state provides very limited welfare support, and the older generation have been killed or gone absent, sibling relationships have been vital to individuals’ survival and well-being in post-conflict Rwanda. Brothers Who Kill: Murders of Sisters for the Sake of Family Honour in Pakistan In previous sections, we have seen that how culture impacts on sibling relationships, in particular, the different statuses held by brothers as opposed to sisters in some societies, but perhaps, to Western eyes, nothing

21

TO WHAT EXTENT CAN WE RELY ON SUPPORT …

399

is so horrific as ‘honour killing’. Bhanbhro (2021, Chapter 17), drawing on primary and secondary research, discusses the murder of women in Pakistan by their male family members for the sake of family honour. Culturally, relations between brothers and sisters in Pakistan are viewed as intimate and symbiotic in the society. The main responsibility of a brother involves protecting his sister before marriage, finding a suitable husband for her and, after marriage, making sure that she is not maltreated in her husband’s house. A sister’s major responsibility involves keeping family honour intact by not behaving in ways that can bring dishonour and shame to the family, by obeying her brother, and by learning household chores that she could apply in her husband’s house. Generally, brother/sisterhood relations are amiable. Traditionally, brothers are protectors of sisters and sisters are the carrier of family honour (izzat ). But when his sister is perceived as having brought, or tried to bring shame or dishonour to the family by her actions and/or behaviours, sometimes the protector turns out to be a killer. Bhanbhro (2021) in his analysis of secondary data revealed that from 2010 to 2014, a total of 4388 incidents of honour killings of women and girls were recorded in Pakistan. The information of perpetrators was available for 4070 cases. Of these 4070 honour killings of women and girls, 22% of the killers were their brothers. The qualitative data showed that the brothers who were involved in the killings of their sisters used a variety of motives and ‘reasons’ that they believed dishonourable. The most commonly cited reasons included: a sister had, or was alleged to have had, an illicit sexual relationship; a sister married without consent of her family, especially father and/or brother; a sister married a man outside her social group (caste/clan/tribe); a brother killed his sister to settle a debt and/or dispute; a brother killed his sister for taking her share of a family inheritance. Bhanbhro (2021) notes that the legislation against honour killings has been tightened with the passing of 2016 anti-honour killings bill. However, Bhanbhro (2021) concludes, that making changes in the law cannot change old engrained norms and attitudes overnight, or even over a generation or two. Communities need to be engaged to bring a change from within, where the crimes are committed. This could include moves for dismantling the patriarchal structures and discriminatory marriage practices.

400

A. BUCHANAN

Sibling Relationships in Old Age Siblings Caring for Their Parents in Europe The central questions in this book are first, to what extent do siblings share care for their elderly parents, and second: to what extent do they care for each other in old age? In Sarkisian and Gerstel (2021, Chapter 18) in original research, they answer the first question. Sarkisian and Gerstel (2021) note that the growth of the elderly population in concert with shrinking family size, widespread austerity in the public provision of formal care, and shifts in gender ideology, have made the provision of adequate informal care into a pressing social and political issue. Using the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) data, their sample includes more than 68,000 individuals aged 50 or older from 20 European countries and Israel. SHARE contains data on health, socio-economic status, family composition, and the caregiving that sons and daughters provide. Using the data from wave 6 (collected in 2015), their paper first asks: do brothers and sisters differ in the likelihood and frequency of care they provide to their ageing parent? how are these differences shaped by the gender composition of sibling groups as a whole and by the gender of parent? and do these gender gaps vary across European nations? Second, they analyzed the extent to which cross-national variation in the gender gap among siblings is explained by differences in parents’ or adult children’s characteristics, including their needs, resources and responsibilities. These processes, however, operate in varying ways under the welfare regimes of different nations. For general care, they found that daughters are more likely than sons to provide care for their parents in Christian Democratic countries (such as Scandinavia) and Mediterranean countries (such as Italy, Spain and Greece). In Eastern European countries (Czech Republic, Poland, Slovenia, Estonia, Croatia) there is no significant gender gap, but there is a gap favouring sons in the Social Democratic cluster (Belgium, Germany, France, Austria, and Luxembourg). Overall, when it came to more intense care, this was women’s work. Overall, they found that daughters are more likely than sons to provide intensive care in Christian Democratic, Mediterranean, and Eastern European welfare regimes but the availability of services in the different welfare regimes explained much of the cross-national variation.

21

TO WHAT EXTENT CAN WE RELY ON SUPPORT …

401

Linking Up Again: How Barnardo’s Elders Reconnected in Old Age Buchanan (2021b, Chapter 19) explores the second part to the question: how do brothers and sisters support each other in old age?. Using a small sample of elders now in their 70s, 80s and 90s who grew up in Barnardo’s facilities in the UK, the author traces how they linked up in old age. When they entered care, Barnardo’s policy at that time was to separate children from their past and give them ‘a fresh start’. Parents received only minimal support to stay in touch and brothers were separated from sisters. In adolescence, many of the boys went off to naval or army training colleges and were prepared for entry into the armed services, while the girls were trained to find employment in domestic service. The survey highlighted that despite these inhibitions, brothers and sisters often maintained contact. In old age, some went to great lengths to trace family members. Gaining access to their Barnardo’s records was an important step and was a starting point in their ongoing search for family members. Later they searched birth registers, Church baptismal records, electoral rolls, census and internet search engines. One elder when researching into his family history was surprised to find he had a younger brother who had been adopted. After a lot of research, he managed to make contact with this man, who was equally surprised to find he had siblings. Because he looked ‘just like my father’, the elder had little difficulty in relating to him. But for most, having lived together, or having had contact in childhood, determined with whom they reconnected. Although half siblings from parents’ remarriages emerged from their searches, there appeared to be less enthusiasm to link up with these half brothers and sisters. To many, reconnecting with their family in old age brought great joy and most gave considerable support to each other as they came to the end of their lives. The survey highlights the importance of helping brothers and sisters, who cannot be placed together to stay in touch when in outof-home care. Closeness and Support from Siblings Among Divorced and Widowed Seniors in Singapore The next question is to what extent do older individuals who lack support from their adult children, look to their siblings as a source of support? Thang et al. (2021, Chapter 20), using data from a study of 100 divorced

402

A. BUCHANAN

and widowed older adults aged 55–87 in Singapore, focus on closeness and support from siblings among divorced and widowed seniors. Demographically, Singapore—with a population of 5.7 million, is characterized with a rapid rise in ageing population. Among the over 65s, nearly half of women and a quarter of men are widowed, divorced or separated. Various factors contribute to the absence of support in old age, including estranged relationships, migration, death, or disability of children, but 51% of the sample were childless. Among the participants, 90% had at least one living sibling at the point of interview; 71% had one to five living siblings, with 35% of these having two or three living siblings. Extended family members were most commonly cited as giving instrumental assistance when sick, cooking, helping with moves, household repairs, taking them to clinics etc. as well as emotional and physical support. As a 67-year-old divorced Chinese woman said, ‘Whether your friends ignore you or not is unimportant, but your siblings will never ignore you’. Instrumental and physical support were common when the siblings lived in close proximity. Some, however, felt that they were unable make demands on their siblings, but they expected them to show care and concern. Social and emotional support in the form of a phone call or text messages and occasional visits were much valued. Compared with other forms of support, it appears that financial support is the most basic and direct form of help a sibling can provide. Although not stipulated by law, in Singapore, siblings are encouraged to provide support for each other. Individuals who support their handicapped siblings or siblings-in-law can claim Handicapped Brother/Sister Relief for income tax reduction. MediSave, a national medical savings scheme where members put aside part of their income, has expanded the scope of dependants to include siblings. Most importantly, the study shows that even when there was a lack of regular contact or feeling of intimacy, siblings played a critical role during times of crisis. Outside of crisis, there was often less willingness to assume the responsibility of providing for their siblings when they were in lesser need.

21

TO WHAT EXTENT CAN WE RELY ON SUPPORT …

403

Conclusions In Chinese language, the term sibling is called shouzu. It is literally translated as ‘hand and foot’, symbolizing the bloodline among siblings, thus denoting their inseparable co-existence, like one’s hand and foot. The above contributions from our international scholars would support the idea that, for better or worse, siblings are part of our very being, and we ignore their influence on each other at our peril. The following bullet points summarize the key points. Today, most Western brothers and sisters have fewer siblings than previously, but with family breakdown, they may have other siblings living elsewhere. International surveys show that siblings feature highly as close relations and prime confidantes. Some of the main findings that have emerged from the chapters in this book are listed below. • Many of the key factors associated with sibling closeness in adulthood have their origins in childhood and adolescence. The relative importance of support and conflict varies by age. The number of conflicts tends to decrease over the life course, and, adult siblings typically provide an important resource for one another. In adolescence, sibling relationship quality is linked to academic success; in adulthood, studies indicate that those with a close sibling bond are better able to respond to life’s adversities, and in old age, successful ageing is linked to positive sibling relationships. • Parenting style and parenting relationships powerfully influence sibling relationships across the life course. A punitive parenting style lacking in warmth is mirrored in the relationships siblings have with each other in later life. Unfair parenting or favouritism is particularly associated with poor sibling relationships and, ultimately, how siblings interact in caring for their ageing parents and each other decades later. • Cultural traditions in the West still impact on the roles and relationships between brothers and sisters. In other cultures, traditions remain powerful influences, but with economic development and education many cultures are moving towards Western values. Among cultures in transition, kinship concepts from the traditional culture can become incorporated into mainstream values. Polygyny produces problems for siblings who may feel left out or unfairly treated but, despite all, they can have supportive relationships. In the extreme,

404

• •

•

•

•

• •

•

A. BUCHANAN

such as in the case of honour killings, cultural practices remain deeply ingrained and are unlikely to be changed easily. In challenging situations, such as when young people are living in out-of-home care or following national conflict, siblings may be the only help available. When it comes to diverse family types such as surrogacy, surrogate brothers and sisters can have positive relationships with their siblings in surrogate families, but it is the quality of family relationships rather than any genetic link which appears to influence this. Brothers and sisters of LGBTQ siblings may be supportive when their sibling ‘comes out’ but whether they are negative, or positive will be influenced by their pre-existing relationship and their current values. Adult Siblings of people with disability, in general, rate their relationships with their disabled siblings highly. They commonly provide care, practical and emotional support from childhood extending into old age, but in doing this, they themselves may need considerable professional emotional and practical help. When it comes to caring for ageing parents, across Europe, sisters play the major role, but different Welfare regimes influence this involvement. Some brothers play a more important part, for example, in Eastern European countries (Czech Republic, Poland, Slovenia, Estonia, Croatia), and in Belgium, Germany, France, Austria, and Luxembourg. But intensive care of elderly parents remains women’s work. In old age, reconnecting with previously lost or unknown siblings can bring great joy and give considerable support as siblings come to the end of their lives. Transnational siblings can, and do, engage in all the different types of care. The type of care they provide is related to their gender, culture, life stage, economic means, migration histories and visa restrictions as well as the family histories and sibling relationships prior to migration. Keeping connected is vastly aided by modern technologies. Studies on the divorced and the elderly in Singapore show that, even when there is a lack of regular contact or feeling of intimacy, brothers and sisters play a critical role during times of crisis. But some siblings are less willing to assume the responsibility of providing for their brother and sister at other times.

21

TO WHAT EXTENT CAN WE RELY ON SUPPORT …

405

Thoughts on Policy and Practice • National statistics need to move away from tracking ‘horizontal’ relationship from the ‘Head of household’ to children in the household, to take account of ‘vertical’ relationships of brothers and sisters who may be living in different households. • Many disciplines, as this volume illustrates, are involved in researching relationships between brothers and sisters: psychologists, sociologists, statisticians, anthropologists, historians, gender scholars, government and policy academics, as well as scholars examining literature and legends, social workers and practitioners. New understandings on the relationships between brothers and sisters and how they support each other over the life course come from all their findings. • Policy wise, national governments should consider how they can better support brothers and sisters who care for the disabled, for aged brothers and sisters, and disadvantaged groups such as children who otherwise would have been in care. Supporting adult brothers and sisters to care may be better in promoting the well-being of the siblings in need and be less costly than state provision. • Therapists and others, when counselling those in need, need to be aware not only of the parent-child relationship, but also of the importance of the sibling relationships, to their client’s well-being. • Since early parenting remains crucial to future positive sibling relationships, more support is needed globally for stressed parents, and more facilities for them, such as family centres.

References Ainsworth, M. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44(4), 709–716. Al-Krenawi, A. (2021). One father, many mothers: Sibling relationships in polygamous families. In A. Buchanan & A. Rotkirch (Eds.), Brothers and sisters—Sibling relationships across the life course (153–169). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Attar-Schwartz, S. (2021). Sibling support: The reports of Israeli adolescents in residential care. In A. Buchanan & A. Rotkirch (Eds.), Brothers and sisters— Sibling relationships across the life course (141–152). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

406

A. BUCHANAN

Baldassar, L., & Brandhorst, R. (2021). Sibling support in transnational families: How brothers and sisters exchange care across distance and across the life cycle. In A. Buchanan & A. Rotkirch (Eds.), Brothers and sisters— Sibling relationships across the life course (239–256). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child Development, 37 (4), 887–907. Bhanbhro, S. (2021). Brothers who kill: Murders of sisters for the sake of family honour in Pakistan. In A. Buchanan & A. Rotkirch (Eds.), Brothers and sisters—Sibling relationships across the life course (297–312). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Buchanan, A. (2021a). Brothers and sisters: Themes in myths, legends and histories from Europe and the New World. In A. Buchanan & A. Rotkirch (Eds.), Brothers and sisters—Sibling relationships across the life course (69–86). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Buchanan, A. (2021b). Linking up again: Views of Barnardo’s elders on being separated from their siblings and how they reconnected in old age. In A. Buchanan & A. Rotkirch (Eds.), Brothers and sisters—Sibling relationships across the life course (337–355). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Chen, B., & Tan, J.-P. (2021). Brothers and sisters in China: No longer the one-child family. In A. Buchanan & A. Rotkirch (Eds.), Brothers and sisters— Sibling relationships across the life course (185–201). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Cicirelli, V. (1995). Sibling relationships across the lifespan. New York: Plenum Press. Cicirelli, V. (2009). Sibling death and death fear in relation to depressive symptomatology in older adults. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 64(1), 24–32. Davey, J., & Cunningham, C. (2021). Siblings in M¯aori myth, culture and present-day society. In A. Buchanan & A. Rotkirch (Eds.), Brothers and sisters—Sibling relationships across the life course (87–103). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Donley, M. G., & Likins, L. (2010). The multigenerational impact of sibling relationships. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 38, 383–396. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140. Goldfeder, M., & Sheff, E. (2013). Children in polyamorous families: A first empirical look. Journal of Law and Social Deviance, 5, 150–243. Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour I and II. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 1–52.

21

TO WHAT EXTENT CAN WE RELY ON SUPPORT …

407

Haskey, J. (2021). Brothers and sisters: A social and demographic perspective. In A. Buchanan & A. Rotkirch (Eds.), Brothers and sisters—Sibling relationships across the life course (41–68). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Jadva, V. (2021). Sibling relationships across families created through Assisted Reproduction. In A. Buchanan & A. Rotkirch (Eds.), Brothers and sisters— Sibling relationships across the life course (171–184). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Joseph, S. (1994). Brother/sister relationships: Connectivity, love, and power in the reproduction of patriarchy in Lebanon. American Ethnologist, 21(1), 50–73. Joseph, S. (2021). Connectivity, love and power: Traditions and change in brother/sister relationships in Arab families. In A. Buchanan & A. Rotkirch (Eds.), Brothers and sisters—Sibling relationships across the life course (105– 124). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Kramer, J., Meltzer, A., & Strohm, K. (2021). Siblings of adults with developmental disabilities: Psychosocial outcomes, relationships and future planning. In A. Buchanan & A. Rotkirch (Eds.), Brothers and sisters—Sibling relationships across the life course (257–276). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Lieberman, D., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2007). The architecture of human kin detection. Nature, 445, 727–731. Litwak E., & Kulis, S. (1987). Technology, proximity and measures of kin support. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 649–661. Milevsky, A. (2021). Sibling relationships in adolescence across cultures: Predictors, transitions, and support. In A. Buchanan & A. Rotkirch (Eds.), Brothers and sisters—Sibling relationships across the life course (125–140). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. London: Tavistock. NHC. (2019). Communiqué on health development statistics of China in 2018. Retrieved September 19, 2019, from http://www.nhc.gov.cn. Pollet, T., & Hoben, A. (2011). An evolutionary perspective on siblings: Rivals and resources. In T. Shackelford & C. Salmon (Eds.), The Oxford book of evolutionary family psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pontalti, K. (2021). Sibling relationships across generations in Rwanda: Continuity and change through conflict and development. In A. Buchanan & A. Rotkirch (Eds.), Brothers and sisters—Sibling relationships across the life course (277–295). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Salmon, C., & Hehman, J. (2015). Evolutionary perspectives on the nature of sibling conflict: The impact of sex, relatedness, and co-residence. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 1(2), 123–129. Salvati, M., Pistella, J., Loverno, S., Laghi, F., & Baiocco, R. (2018). Coming out to siblings and internalized sexual stigma: The moderating role of gender in a

408

A. BUCHANAN

sample of Italian participants. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 14, 405–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/1550428X.2017.1369916. Sarkisian, N., & Gerstel, N. (2021). Old age: Siblings caring for their parents: Gender in European perspective. In A. Buchanan & A. Rotkirch (Eds.), Brothers and sisters—Sibling relationships across the life course (315–336). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Stonewall. (2020). Coming out as an adult. https://www.stonewall.org.uk/helpadvice/coming-out/coming-out-adult-1. Accessed March 18, 2020. Szymanski, D. M., & Hilton, A. N. (2021). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer siblings. In A. Buchanan & A. Rotkirch (Eds.), Brothers and sisters—Sibling relationships across the life course (223–237). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Tanskanen, A. O., & Danielsbacka, M. (2017). Parenthood status and relationship quality between siblings. Journal of Family Studies, 23. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13229400.2017.1374203. Tanskanen, A. O., & Danielsbacka, M. (2021). Brothers and sisters across the life course: Eleven factors shaping relationship quality in adult siblings. In A. Buchanan & A. Rotkirch (Eds.), Brothers and sisters—Sibling relationships across the life course (25–40). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Thang, L., Lim, E., Kang, D., & Lim. W. L. (2021). “We are close enough”: Closeness and support from siblings among divorced and widowed seniors in Singapore. In A. Buchanan & A. Rotkirch (Eds.), Brothers and sisters— Sibling relationships across the life course (357–376). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. The Economist. (2017). Surrogacy: Help wanted, 13 May. https://www.econom ist.com/international/2017/05/13/as-demand-for-surrogacy-soars-morecountries-are-trying-to-ban-it. Accessed March 18, 2020. Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp. 52–97). Chicago, IL: Aldine. Trivers, R. L. (1974). Parent-offspring conflict. American Zoologist, 14, 249–264. Uchino, B. (2004). Social support and physical health: Understanding the health consequences of relationships (pp. 16–17). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Westermarck, E. A. (1921). The history of human marriage. London: Macmillan. Wills, T. A. (1991). Margaret, Clark (Ed.). Social support and interpersonal relationships. Prosocial Behavior, Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 265–289. Wolfensberger, Wolf P. (1972). The principle of normalization in human services. Toronto: National Institute on Mental Retardation. Woolley, M., & Greif, G. (2021). Adult sibling relationships in the United States: Mostly close, occasionally contentious, and caring for aging parents. In A. Buchanan & A. Rotkirch (Eds.), Brothers and sisters—Sibling relationships across the life course (205–221). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Index

A Aboderin, I., 13 Abouserie, R., 106, 160 Abrams, M., 261 abunzi Rwandan for local mediators, 292 Abu-Rabia, A., 160 Abu-Saad, H., 157 Abuse in Arab Muslim families, 157 Abusive sibling relationships in joint-placement, 142 Achoui, M., 160 Ada/Adi, sister, 302 Adams, B.N., 163 Adegoke, A.R., 163 Adely, F., 107 Adequate informal care for elderly, pressing social and political issue, 400 Adhikari, R., 358 Adler, M., 126 Adolescence importance of multiple support family providers, 386

parenting style influencing sibling relationships, 386, 403 sibling-based changes greater intimacy with friends, 386 Adolescent ecological variables and sibling relationship quality, 127, 130, 133 Adolescent of identity development, 386 Adolescent research, direction-of-effects issue, 134 Adolescents from polygamous families scored higher in all BSI dimensions, 163 Adolescent sibling-based changes, siblings who are closer in age have greater warmth, 386 Adolescent sibling research future directions of, 134 limitations of, 134 Adolescents in polygamous families and problems with peers, 161 relations with father, 161

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 A. Buchanan and A. Rotkirch (eds.), Brothers and Sisters, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55985-4

409

410

INDEX

relations with members of extended family, 161 Adolescents in public care, experience of, 387 Adolescent years, time of heightened psychological and emotional turmoil, 385 Adoptive siblings, 43, 44 Adult “sibling risk”, family work with a supportive social system to prevent, 362 Adults brought up in kinship care, 341 Adult sibling relationships ambivalence of, 36 contentious to cutoff, 209 in the United States, 205, 207 mostly close and caring, 205, 207, 209 research on, 206, 209, 211 Adult siblings ambivalence, 209 factors influencing the relationships in the United Sates, 392 feelings from childhood re-emerging in adulthood, 210 inequality among, 362 inequitable caring of parent and conflict, 211 number reporting very troubled relationships with their brothers and sisters, 392 taking on the role of primary support person for disabled brother/sister, 397 Adult siblings of people with disability, rate their relationships highly, 404 Adults reporting troubled relationships with siblings, number of, 210 African American families, 79 African socialism and Humanism, 282

Agans, J.P., 195, 196 Age and age spacing, impact of, 128 Age difference between respondent’s and eldest living sibling’s ages, 56 between siblings, factor influencing across life support, 382 between the respondent and the oldest sibling, 56 impact of, 31 Ageing successfully linked with close sibling relationships, 387 Ageing with a disability, 397 Aging population in Singapore, 358 Aginsky, Bernard Willard, 91 Ahmad, A., 302 Aiberti, K., 261 Aiken, L., 322 Ainsworth, M.D.S., 206, 208, 381 Ajrouch, K.J., 361 Akkök, F., 261 Al-Krenawi, A., 156, 162–165 Alderman, G.E., 145 Alexander, the Great, 72 Al-Gharaibeh, F., 153, 157, 160, 163 Al Kobesi, A., 163 Al-Krenawi, A., 153–165, 388 Al-Murayeh, 157 Al-Shamsi, M.S.A., 157 Altorki, S., 107 Alvi, A., 300 Ambivalence in literature on intergenerational relationships, 367 Amelina, A., 250 American Indians, 81 Ame, Robert, 283 Amis and Amiloun, 71 André, Géraldine, 283 Anticipatory stress hypothesis, 192 Antigone, 70 Anti-honour killings bill (2016), 399

INDEX

new legislation in Pakistan, 309 Antonucci, T.C., 240, 361 Apter, T.A., 145, 210 Arab brother caring for all siblings, 108 Arab brothers and sisters, 106, 119 relationships, 105–108, 119 Arab brother/sister relationships in 21st era of epidemic wars in the Arab region, 119 Arab family(ies) competition/support, 107 competitive brother/brother relationships, 107 competitive sister/sister relationships, 107 equality/hierarchy in Arab families, 107 falling out with siblings and in-laws, 116 girls’ dress to please their brothers, 389 influence of culture on the roles of brothers and sisters, 385 intimacy/distance, 107 love/hate in caring/ignoring in Arab families, 107 older brother supporting sister, 106 oldest brother assumes the responsibility, 388 physically disciplining sister in, 111 selving in Arab families, 108 Arab families in Lebanon, 385 family structure strictly patriarchal, 385 with marriage sibling relationships become fraught, 385 Arab husbands and wives, 106 Arab in-laws, 110, 113 Arab Muslim fathers and child care, 160

411

Arab mythology, folk tales in, 107, 108 Arab sibling relationships, power asymmetry, 107 Arab sister respectful and deferential to brother, 106 Ardini, M.-A., 261 Aristotle, 72 Arnold, C.K., 264 Artificial insemination, 172 Ashare, C.J., 142 Ashley, C., 340 Asian cultures, “the dominant patrilineal norm” sons involvement in caregiving, 316 Atkin, K., 264 Attachment of adolescents conceived by sperm donation to single women and lesbian couples, 178 Attachment theory, 6, 143, 381 and siblings, 208 Attachment to sisters, and better mental health later in life, 208 Attachment-type bonds in adult siblings, 208 Attar-Schwartz, S., 142, 146, 148, 387 Austen, Jane, 75, 76, 83 Australian Institute of Family Studies, 339 ‘Authoritarian’ control and poor outcomes for children, 391 Authoritative parenting, 131 Authoritative Parenting versus Authoritarian Parenting, impact of, in China, 191 Avery, A.W., 162 Avioli, P.S., 210 Axell, J., 80 B “Baby boom” post war, 52

412

INDEX

Baiocco, R., 224, 225, 393 Baker, B.L., 262 Baker, L.K., 261 Baldassar, I., 244 Baldassar, L., 240, 241, 249, 250, 252, 253, 394, 395 Baldock, C., 240, 241 Bandura, A., 130 Bank, L., 205 Barker, K.A., 261, 263 Barnardo’s, 337–339, 343–350 entry into their care was a life saver, 343 Barnardo’s early caring philosophy, ‘No destitute child ever turned away’, 338 Barnardo’s early policy, giving children a fresh start, 401 Barnardo’s elders how they reconnected in old age, 337 illustrative study of, 338, 343, 349 illustrative study of, methods, 339 on being separated from their siblings, 337 re-connecting in old age, 401 Barnardo’s emigration programme, 338 Barnardo’s, first home for boys in Stepney Causeway, 338 Barnardo’s history, 338 Barnardo’s study Barnardo’s was really our parent, 349 boarding out of brothers and sisters, 344 brothers together in large group homes, 345 finding siblings they did not know about, 348 handicapped by Barnardo’s low educational expectations, 346

importance of access to records, 347, 352 leaving Barnardo’s care, 337, 346 linking up in old age, 347 need to think ‘life course’, 350 need to think ‘siblings’ and wider family – not just parents., 351 outcomes at middle life, 346 separation of brothers and sisters in at adolescence, 344 support siblings gave each other through the life course, 349 Barnett, R., 261 Barrow, K.M., 226, 227, 229 Barry, T.D., 261 Bartel, C.M., 231–233, 235 Barth, R.P., 340 Bart, W.M., 162, 164 Bat-Chava, Y., 129 Bateman, S., 97, 99 Bates, J.E., 193 Bates, L., 301 Baumrind, D., 131, 391 Bause, N., 250 BBC New China law, 14 BBC News Why the World needs rules for selling babies , 12 “Be M¯aori”, 384 “Beanpole family”, 42 Beard, K.W., 82 Beardsall, L., 129 Bedford, V.H., 206, 210, 219 Bedouin Arab adolescents, difficulties in non-verbal, abstract, and cognitive functioning, 162 Beeson, D.R., 181 Belánger, D., 251 Bellamy, J., 142 Bellanti, C.J., 162 Bell, N.J., 162

INDEX

Bellonci, C., 141 Benda, Richard, 279, 283 Bengtson, V.L., 13 Bergfeld, J., 226, 230 Berns, R.M., 141 Besanko, M., 171 ‘Best interests’ of the child, 15 Betancourt, Theresa et al., 283 Beyers-Carlson, E.E.A., 192 Bha/Bhen, brother, 302 Bhanbhro, S., 299, 300, 399 Bhatti, N., 299 Bhayya brother in Urdu, 302 Bhen sister in Urdu, 302 Bierman, K.L., 162 Bigby, C., 263 Billingsley, J., 33, 34 biraderi, clan in Pakistan, 298 Birditt, K.S., 131, 316, 361, 362 Birth order effect in adolescence, 128 factor influencing across life sibling support, 397 impact of, 128 Births per hundred women by age 45, number of, 46 Blacher, J., 262 Bladh, M., 358 Blake, J., 163 Blake, L., 174, 178 Blanchard, R., 127 Blieszner, R., 26, 27, 358, 361 Blood brother ceremony, 71 Blood links, importance of, 77 Blyth, E., 179 Bond, J., 301 Bonds between siblings in adolescence, females stronger, 129 Bongers, I.L., 126 Born in the world by IVF, 12 Börsch-Supan, A., 319 Bosse, J., 225

413

Bouchard, G., 210 Bowen, G.L., 148 Bower, C., 261 Bowers, B., 263 Bowlby, J., 6, 143 Boyd, R., 154, 155 Boys’ education, 73 Boys sent to naval or army training colleges, 401 Bracke, P., 27 Brandhorst, R., 240, 241, 250, 251, 253, 394, 395 Brandt, M., 316, 317, 319 Branje, S., 133 Branje, S.J.T., 126, 132 Braun, V., 299 Bravo, A., 341 Bressan, P., 33 Bridewealth, 287 Brimblecombe, N., 316 Brody, G.H., 34, 134, 162 Broekhuis, Annelet, 280 Broese van Groenou, M., 315 Brother and sister, definition used in this book, 379 Brother, main responsibilities for sister in Pakistan, 399 Brothers and sisters, 3–6, 8–10, 13, 17 age 50 and over, number of living, 63 extent we can rely on support across the life span, 379 number in the USA, 10, 15, 17 number in UK families, 10, 11, 13, 15 of respondent by year of birth, number of, 57 of respondents living in European countries, 62 relative numbers, 42, 47

414

INDEX

traditional roles in Pakistan, 298, 302 Brothers and sisters in China, impact of ending the one-child policy, 390 Brothers and sisters in Lebanon, influenced by cultural traditions, terrible conflicts, 385 Brothers and sisters in the New World, relationships of, 79 Brothers as male chaperons, 304, 305 Brothers as policemen of sisters , 76 Brothers had more status and power than sisters in Rwanda, 397 Brothers in Pakistan, traditional roles, 298, 302 Brother/sisterhood: family honour in Pakistan, 305 Brother/sisterhood in Pakistan: growing-up together Sindh social spaces, 303 Brother/sister inheritance share, reason for honour killing, 307 Brothers quitting school to support their younger siblings in Rwanda, 398 Brothers who kill, 297 murders of sisters for the sake of family honour in Pakistan, 398 Brugiavini, A., 319 Bryceson, D., 239 Buchanan, A., 11, 17, 69, 74, 343, 350, 383, 401 Buck, Te Rangi Hiroa, 91 Buhrmester, D., 7, 127, 129 Buist, K.L., 4, 6, 132 Bullens, R.A.R., 142 Bumbut, A., 261 Burbidge, J., 263, 265 Burke, M., 263, 265 Burke, M.M., 264, 265 Burnet, Jennie E., 289

Bushayija, Abb. Stanislas, P.B., 280, 282 Byanafashe, Déogratias, 280 C Cain and Abel, 70, 383 Cain, R., 224 Cai, Y., 185, 188 Caldwell, J., 264 Cameron, L., 187 Campbell, J.K., 300 Campbell, L.D., 209 Campbell, S., 126 Camras, L.A., 189 Cannell, Fenella, 281 ‘Canticle of the Sun’, St Francis, 1224, 41 Cantor, M.H., 361 “Care slotting”, 395 Caregiving and proximity, 330 Caregiving for elderly and individual characteristics of adult children, 317 Caregiving patterns, influence of public policies, 316 Care slotting and entrainment, impact on siblings, 251 Caridine, C., 157 Caring for ageing parents, across Europe, sisters play the major role, 404 Caring for aging parents, 211 Carney, J.J., 284, 285 Carr, D., 359 Carter, J., 88 Casey Family Programs, 342 Casey, P., 174 Categorical thinking and sexism, 109 Categorical thinking in Arab families, 109, 110, 118 Cattle ownership, importance in Rwanda, 279

INDEX

Cavalieri, M.B., 33 Cavanagh, T., 97, 99 Caya, M.L., 148 Cebula, K., 265 Cerezo, A., 226, 230 Challenging behaviour in disability, 261 Challenging situations, siblings may be the only help available, 404 Chamratrithirong, A., 358 Chan, C.S., 224 Changes in adolescence, greater intimacy with friends, 128 Changing families, 10 Changing types of family, 12 Chang, L., 190 Chao, R., 189 Charles II, 78 Charnley, H., 265 Chaucer, G., 71 Chaudhary, M.A., 300, 303, 305, 307 Chen, B., 390, 391 Chen, B.-B., 185–194, 196 Chen, E.C., 226–235 Chen, E.C.H., 189 Chen, T., 361 Chen, X., 187, 190 Chen, Y., 299, 300 Chen, Z., 192, 193 Childbirth, unrestricted in medieval through Victorian times, 74 Childhood co-residence duration, impact of, 33 Childhood sibling relationship quality associated with academic success, 386 Children adversely impacted by the polygynous marriage, 388 impact of polygamous marriages, 156, 161 in larger families, 129

415

living with their extended families, 340 when they leave care, 340 ‘Children of surrogates’ definition, 173, 175 Children’s Bureau, 339 Children’s perspectives on kinship care, 340 Children and Young Persons Act, 341 Children born into families, number of, 45 Children from polygamous families, difficulty with their peers, 157, 158, 163 Children in out-of-home care need for better records, 352 number in UK, 338 number in US, 339 number of Australia, 339 outcomes in UK, 339 Children in polygamous marriages competing for resources, 163 higher incidence of psychological problems, 157 violence against their semi-siblings, 156 Children leaving out-of-home care in UK, in touch with social services, 339 Children leaving out-of-home care in US, mental health problems, education, homelessness, 340 Children look after and adoption, 339 Children of senior wives, behavioral problems and discordant family functioning, 162 Children of surrogates details of study, 173, 177 who formed very close bonds with the surrogacy child, 390 who had no contact with surrogacy child, 390

416

INDEX

China birth of daughters unregistered, 188 cultural contexts and population policy, 186 cultural values and family responsibility, 187 families permitted to have more than one child, 188 fast ageing population, 187 firstborn children’s adaptation to siblinghood, 192 model of intergenerational transmission of sibling experiences, 191 need for longitudinal design in the future research, 197 need for new policies to improve the two-child family’s welfare, 196 need to change parenting behaviors to sustain parental investment, 190 No Longer the One-Child Family, 185 parental factors and sibling relationships, 189 parents’ sibling status and their children’s sibling relationship, 191, 194 polygamy prohibited yet ok under customary laws, 154 possible new policies to improve the two-child family’s welfare, 391 quasi-experimental context how second child impacts on family relationships, 390 role of parents with two or more children, 188 triadic constellation, 187 China’s one-child policy details, 186 relaxation, 188

China two-child policy impact of implementation, 187, 190, 193, 194 Chinese adolescents reflecting harsh treatment in interactions with their siblings, 391 Chinese central government reversing the one-child policy, 390 Chinese familial culture, 186 Chinese family structure, change from 4-2-1 to 4-2-2, impact of, 194 Chinese grandparents and future childcare responsibilities, 194 Chinese parenting influence on adolescents’ sibling relationships, 188, 189 positive guidance and authoritarian control, 189 Chinese parents co-parenting behavior, 188, 190 of two children, stressed and using punitive measures, 391 role of, in sibling relationships, 186 who have been lone children, no parenting model for two children, 390 Chinese population policy, Implications and future directions, 193 Chinese societies, parents train their children to be obedient, 390 Chinese statistical report in 2007 on number of second children, 188 Chinese transition into siblinghood, 186, 188, 192 Choi, N., 358 chokro, boy, 304 Choudhury, C.A., 155 Choukhmane, T., 190 ‘chowkidar’, guards, 304 Christiaens, W., 27

INDEX

Christian Democratic (“conservativecorporate”) family responsibility for responsibility for caregiving, 317 Chuang, S.S., 190 Cicirelli, V.G., 6, 7, 9, 10, 25, 87, 133, 208, 249, 250, 361, 381 Cinderella, 70, 74 Cinderella and the Ugly sisters, 383 Circumstances for siblings placed together in out-of-home care, 142 Civil Rights Movement, 72 Clarke, V., 299 Clausen, J., 29 Clinicians working with adult siblings caring for elders, information for, 218 Closeness among siblings in adolescence, a buffer or ecological risk., 134 Closeness and warmth among siblings in adolescence, impact across lifespan, 133 Closeness and warmth in adolescent siblings associated with psychological benefits, 386 Closeness to siblings, impact in out of home care, 142 Close relationships with children and other family members, 60, 61 Close sibling bond in adulthood, ability to respond to life adversities, 387 Coban, S., 132 Coberly, B., 263 Codere, Helen, 279, 280 Coe, C., 251 Coeurdacier, N., 190 Cohen, J., 322 Cohen, M., 134 Cohen, O., 166

417

Cohen, P., 322 Cohen, R., 134, 162 Colarelli, S.M., 33 Coldwell, J., 34 Coleman, J.S., 29 Collectivistic societies, sibling relationships more supportive, 132, 386 Collier, J.F., 109 Collins, C., 332 Coming out as a sibling of a LGBTQ brother/sister, 230 Coming out, features predicting the quality of the sibling relationship after, 393 Coming out to sibling, quality of the sibling relationship afterwards, 393 Companionship support , 6 Compensating for the absence of family members, 395 Composition of childhood families by numbers of brothers and sisters, 58 Conceptual frameworks and related literature, 361 Condron, D.J., 133 Confidantes – roles brothers and sisters play, 64 Conflict and development, continuity and change, 277 Confucian Code, 76 Confucian cultural contexts, family responsibility reflects respect between siblings, 391 Confucianism, Three Obediences and Four Virtues , 72 Confucius , 76 Conger, K., 357, 361, 373 Connidis, I.A., 8, 209, 218, 362, 367

418

INDEX

Contact in childhood, determined with whom elders reconnected, 401 Contacting eldest brother/sister, frequency of, 60 Conti, A., 171 Convoy model of analysis, 240 Convoy model of social relations, 361 Conway, H., 16 Cooperative co-parenting, 190 Co-residence in childhood, factor influencing across life sibling support, 379, 383 Cosmides, L., 33, 34, 383 “Countdown effect”, 52 Courtney, M., 340 Crapps, J.M., 263 Critical realist social constructionism theory, 299 Crocetti, E., 132 Cross-national comparisons in elderly care in understanding macro-level social forces on intergenerational care, 332 on the division of labor between siblings, 332 Crouter, A.C., 127, 128, 189 Cultural changes shaping the gender divide and driving social policy in adult caregiving, 332 Cultural complexities in transnational care, 240 Cultural construction of kinship, 118 Culturally safe schools for Maoris, 97 Cultural traditions in the West influencing the relationships between brothers and sisters, 384, 403 Cultural traditions remain powerful influences in non-Western societies, 384

Cultural variations in sibling dynamics, 132 Cultures in transition, 384, 403 Cultures with larger families, siblings taking on parental role, 132 Cunningham, C., 88, 384 Cuskelly, M., 261, 265

D Dahlgren, S., 106 Dallas, E., 262 Daly, M., 30 Damian, R.I., 30 D’Amore, S., 224, 226, 229, 230, 235 Danielsbacka, M., 26–33, 35, 36, 43, 44, 381, 383, 388 Daoud, N., 157 Daoulah, A., 157 Data collection of Israeli study, 144 D’Augelli, A.R., 224, 225 Daughters are more likely than sons to provide care, regimes were this apparent, 400 Daughters providing more intergenerational care than brothers, 315 Davey, J., 90, 94, 384 David-Barrett, T., 26–28, 31 Davidoff, L., 70, 72–78 Davidson-Arad, B., 142 Davis, C.H., 263 Davis, S., 231, 232, 234, 235 Davys, D., 264 Day, R.D., 130 de:Elternunterhalt (support to parents), 15 De Boer, A., 315 de facto polygamy, 154 Definition of a ‘brother’ or ‘sister’, 72 Deindl, C., 316

INDEX

Deinstitutionalization of people with disabilities, 259 de jong Gierveld, J., 358 de jure polygamy, 154 de Kemp, R.A.T., 34 Dekovic, M., 4, 6 De Lame, Danielle, 280, 281 Delius, P., 154 Del Valle, J., 341 Demaray, M.K., 141 Demographic analyses brothers and sisters rarely identified, 42 involving siblings and types of siblings, 42 Demographic changes, impact on sibling relationships, 380 Demographic family analyses, problems with, 381 Deng, C., 187 Department of Education, 339 Department of Statistics (DOS), 358 Des Forges, Alison, 289 De Smet, D., 33, 34 DeSouza, L.M., 195, 196 Deutsch, F.M., 186 Developmental Contextual Model of Sibling Relationships, 195 Dew, A., 262, 265 Dewey, D., 262 Didden, R., 262 Diesel, S.J., 263 Digital Kinning, Polymedia and ICTs importance in transnational families, 252 Disability(ies) and social problems, 258 changing attitudes to people with disabilities, 258 developing interest in siblings and of disabled, 259 estimated numbers of, 258

419

field of ‘sibling support’, 265 historical treatment and support, 258 practice field of ‘sibling support’, 260 radical change in attitudes, 259 WHO definition, 258 Divorce and remarriage, impact of, 380 Divorced and widowed factors contributing to the absence of children’s support, 358 Divorced and widowed, loneliness, poor financial health, social isolation, depressive mood, 358 Divorced and widowed seniors siblings show care and concern, 402 who felt unable make demands on their siblings, 402 Divorced and widowed seniors in Singapore, 401, 402 closeness and support, 357 Divorced and widowed study closeness in sibling relationship helpful for wellbeing, 357 constant contact as an indication of closeness, 362 Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents, 360 discussion and conclusion, 372 expectation that siblings show some care and concern, 368 financial support, dilemma of asking siblings, 371 financial support from family, 366 financial support from old friends, 371 instrumental and physical support, 367, 368 meeting on special occasions, funerals and weddings, and festivities, 364

420

INDEX

not ‘very close’ “but we are close enough”, 363 “Now I’m so down, nobody looks up to me”, 364 nuances behind the meaning of ‘closeness’, 372 parents’ favouritism, and sibling rivalry, impact of, 361 preferred sources of support based on types of support needed, 366 reluctance to receive physical support from their siblings, 367 sense of closeness and distance, 362 siblings as an important source of help in times of crisis, 367 siblings, perception of emotional closeness, 362 ‘siblings will never ignore you’, 365 sibling tension as a source of emotional stress, 369 sisters-in-law as a barrier for siblings to being close, 363 social and emotional support, 368, 370, 374 the lack of physical contact compensated by social media contact, 364 Doherty, N.A., 208 Dolbin-Macnab, M.L., 341 Dolgin, K.G., 128 Donley, M.G., 211, 218, 392 Donor conceived children, complex relationships, 180 Donor conceived individuals searching for their donor connections, 390 Donor Sibling Registry, 179 Donor testing, discovering donor connections and donor origins, 182 Doody, M.A., 262

Doppelt, O., 261 Doreleijers, T.A.V., 142 Doumani, B., 106 Dowey, A., 261, 263 Dow, M.M., 153, 154 Downey, D.B., 30, 133 Downs, A.C., 339 Dubas, J.S., 188, 190 Dunbar, R.I., 32 Duncan, G.J., 132 Dunn, J., 7, 34, 70, 129, 133, 142, 193, 207 Dunn, review of 10 studies on siblings, 207 Du Plessis, R., 88 Durie, A., 88, 95 Durie, M., 88 Palmerston North, 88 Durtschi, J.A., 130 Dwairy, M., 106, 160 Dyer, E., 302 Dykstra, P.A., 28, 316–318, 332

E Early parenting and willingness to care for their elderly parents, 392 Eastern European welfare, family responsibility for caregiving, 317 East, P.L., 134 Economic development and education, some cultures moving towards Western values, 384 Edwards, Shane, 93, 95 Edward Timpson, previous Minister for Education (Children and Families), 353 Eff, E.A., 153, 154 Eftekhari, A., 133 Egg donation, 171, 178, 180 Eids festival as a time of gift giving, 307

INDEX

Eisenberg, L., 262 Eisenberg, N., 193 Ejova, A., 261 Elbedour, S., 157, 160, 162, 164 Elder-Vass, D., 299, 301 Eldred, S.W., 261 Elkins, J., 142 Ellis, B.J., 127 Ellis, W., 358 Emma Lewell-Buck, previous Shadow Minister for education, 352 Emotional/Psychological support, 6 Emotional support from siblings, alleviating loneliness among widowed seniors, 358 Engelhardt, H., 318 Engels, F., 77, 78, 82 Engels, R.C.M.E., 34 English American families and primogeniture, 80, 83 English, D., 339 English, K., 226–228, 230 English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA), 47, 48, 60 Eriksen, S., 8 Erkal, N., 187 Erny, Pierre, 280–282 Erola, J., 29 Esping-Andersen, G., 317 Ethics Committee of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 144 Eva, the “Rose” of educated middle/upper middle-class Arab family, 114 Evolutionary perspective, 381 Evolutionary theory, 26 Extended family members as preferred source of support for divorced and widowed in Singapore, 365 giving instrumental assistance to divorced and widowed, 402

421

F Fabos, A.H., 107 Factors associated with sibling closeness in adulthood, 382, 403 Factors contributing to the absence of support amongst divorced and widowed seniors, 402 Factors influencing contact in older siblings, 9, 15 Factors shaping social support provision, 4 Falconer, C.W., 130 Falconer, J., 130 Families more diverse, 379, 381 Families with no siblings, percentage of, 58 Family care classic typology by Finch and Mason’s (1993), 241 for older adults, 315 obligations and reciprocity, 248 Family characteristics in elderly caregiving, 318 Family composition, changing pattern of, 57 Family constellation variables/structural variables in adolescence, 127 Family constellation variables and sibling relationship quality, 127 Family honour, social and sexual conduct of female family members, 305 Family life, changes, 4 Family members with whom the respondent has a close relationship, 44, 61 Family obligation, 76, 77, 83 in religions , 76 in M¯aori families, 95 Family relationships, vertical and horizontal axes of, 219

422

INDEX

Family responsibility in Confucian cultural contexts, 196 Family Rights Group, 340 Family size and sibling relationship quality, 129 impact of, 128 Family system theories, 126 Fan, J., 191, 194 Fanshel, D., 340 Farah, A., 106, 160 Farber, B., 261 Farbstein, I., 145 Farmer, E., 340–342 Favouritism or unequal parental treatment, factor influencing across life sibling support, 383 Fayad, M., 106, 160 Feeney, J.A., 208 Feinberg, M.E., 190 Feldhaus, M., 28, 30 Feld, J., 162 Feldman-Rotman, S., 126 Feng, X.-T., 188, 194 Fenske, J., 155 Fernandez, J.L., 316 Fertility rates, decline in, 11 Festinger, L., 391 Fictive siblings, 5, 70 ‘Filial obligation’, 13 Financial remittances, significant of, in transnational families, 246 Finch, J., 77, 83, 241, 248, 250, 253 ‘Family Obligations and the Life Course’, 13, 14 Finch, S., 340 Fingerman, K.L., 131, 316, 362 First-born and second-born children, competitive in adolescence, 128 Firstborn child’s ‘effortful control’, 193 First-born child needs to be carefully prepared for a new arrival, 391

Firstborn children in China serving as caregivers, 194 Firstborns scoring higher on IQ tests, 127 Firth, Raymond, 93 Fischer, D.G., 163 Fischer, R.L., 35, 36 Fischer, T., 135 Fishbein, L.B., 261, 263 Flap, H., 28 Fletcher-Watson, S., 265 Flowers, A., 261 Floyd, F., 358 Fokkema, T., 317 Folkman, S., 192 Ford-Cannole, R, 135 Ford, T., 145 Forgiveness, as intervention in polygamous families, 165 Forgiveness therapy, 166 Foster and adoptive families, importance of sibling unit, 135 Fostering Network, 342, 351 fr:obligation alimentaire, 15 Freeman, T., 173, 178–181 French Napoleonic code system, 75 Freud, S., 70, 81, 82 Fricker, N., 308 Fridman-Teutsch, A., 142, 148 Frosch, C.A., 190 Fulcher, L.C., 157 Fuller-Thomson, E., 211 Full/host surrogacy, 172 Full siblings are generally closer, 382 Fung, H., 189 Fung, J., 189 Furman, W., 7, 127 Furukawa, M., 362, 372 Future planning for the person with disability, 397

INDEX

G Gaillard, W.D., 261 Gaining access to their Barnardo’s records, 401 Galton, Francis, 127 Gamble, N., 177 Gamete donation, 171, 181 Gangadharan, L., 187 Gangoli, G., 301 Gans, D., 13 Garay Villegas, S., 359 Gasca, S., 195, 196 Gass, K., 142 Gatward, R., 145 Gaylord, N., 134 Gee, C.B., 144 Gender as a factor influencing across life sibling support, 397 differences in births and deaths, 47 divide in the types of tasks in caregiving, 316 impact of, 128 in cross-national perspective, 316 stereotypes in early settlers, 79 Gender tilting of the family, impact of, 128, 130 Generational Transmissions in Finland survey, 44 Genetic relatedness, 28, 29, 36 Genetic surrogacy, 172 Genocide ended life as they knew it in Rwanda, 398 Genocide in 1994 in Rwanda, 397, 398 Genocide in Rwanda, 277 Geographical proximity, impact of, 32 Geographical proximity not a prerequisite for maintaining family bonds, 395 Gerstel, N., 8, 17, 318, 400

423

“ghairat ae sabh kujh aa, beghairat g khiri zindagi aa”, honour is everything, a man without honour has no life, 300 ghairat and izzat, terms for honour, 300, 305 Ghannam, F., 106, 107 Giallo, R., 261 Gill, A., 301 Gilligan, M., 357, 361, 372 Gill, P., 29 Gilman, R., 145 Gilutz, G., 126 Girls were trained for domestic service, 401 Glaser, C., 154 Glick, P., 155 Glynn, T., 97, 99 Godin, M., 283 ‘The Godly family’ in US, 79 Goh, E.C.L., 194 Goldfeder, M., 388 Golombok, S., 171, 173, 174, 178–181 Goodman, R., 145 Goodwin, M., 129 Gottlieb, L.N., 193 Government of Pakistan, 298 Goza, F.W., 187 Graff, J.C., 261 Graham, J.R., 153, 157, 160, 163 Grandparents Plus, 16 Greenberg, J., 358 Greensill, H-M., 100 Greif & Woolley coefficients of path model latent variable Indicators, 216 correlation table of study variables, 215 methods used in study, 206, 212 path model of Influence of parenting practices on adult

424

INDEX

siblings care of ageing parents, 217 Greif, G.L., 8, 17, 207, 209–212, 218, 392 Grey, I.M., 262 Griffee, K., 82 Grigoryeva, A., 318, 319 Grimm, J., 70, 74 Grimm, W., 70, 74 Grossman, A.H., 224, 225 Gross Tsur, V., 261 Group marriage, defined, 153 Growth in older population, 12 Gruber, S., 319 Grundy, E., 13, 42, 43, 318 Grundy, J., 340 Grupper, E., 142 Guacci-Franco, N., 125 Gu, B., 185, 188 Guillén, J., 359 Gunn, P., 261 Guo, Z., 188 Guse, T., 261

H Haberkern, K., 315, 317, 318 Haigh, C., 264 Ha, J-h, 211 Hall, A., 262 Hall, S., 263, 265 Hamilton, W.D., 26, 28, 33, 381, 382 Hammar, M., 358 Hammer, L.B., 211 Handicapped Brother/Sister Relief in Singapore, 373 Handwerk, M.L., 145 Hank, K., 27–32 Hantman, S., 166 Han, W., 186, 192, 193 hap¯ u (M¯aori subtribes), 88, 92, 93, 96

Harakeh, Z., 34 Harding, T., 100 Harper, J., 182 Harper, J.M., 133 Harrison, Barbara, 98 Hartup, W.W., 162 Harvey, C., 261 Harvey, R.G., 225–231, 233, 235 Haselager, G., 133 Hashim, Iman, 283, 284 Haskey, J., 42, 43, 48, 380, 381 Hassouneh-Phillips, D., 156, 157, 159 Hastings, R.P., 261–263, 265 Hawk, S.T., 126 Haxhe, S., 224, 226, 229, 230, 235 Hay, E., 362 Hayward, M., 358 Hazell, T., 261 Healey, M.D., 127 Heard, T.R., 261 Hehman, J.A., 26, 27, 31, 36, 382 Heinrich, J., 154, 155 Heitmueller, A., 320 Hektner, J., 162, 164 Heller, T., 262, 264 Helms-Erikson, H., 128 Hemati Alamdarloo, G., 261 Hemphill,C. Dallett, 75, 79–81, 83 Henderson, S.H., 34 Henretta, J.C., 318 Hershberger, S.L., 29 Hertz, R., 179 Hesketh, T., 188 Hester, M., 301 Heterosexual siblings acceptance of lesbian sister or gay brother, factors associated with, 226 increasing their awareness and knowledge of LGBTQ issues, 228

INDEX

reacting differently after the coming out initial disclosure, 393 Hetherington, E.M., 129 Hetherington, M., 34 Hierarchical compensatory model of support, 361 High mortality of women, 74 Hilton, A.N., 226–231, 233–235, 393, 394 Hindu festival of Rakshabandhan, 76 Hinduism, 72 Hirayama, R., 362, 372 Hiripi, E., 339 Hiscock, H., 261 Hobbs, David, 78 Hoben, A.D., 25, 31, 36, 381, 382 Hoben, Susan J., 284, 285 Hodapp, R.M., 264 Ho, D.Y.F., 189 Ho, E., 248, 251 Hokowhitu, B., 100 Holmes, K.E., 339 Honour and honour killings, definitions, 300–302 Honour crimes, 299, 301, 302 lack of national data, 302 Honour crimes in Pakistan, number of, from media sources and volunteer reports, 302 Honour killings, 399, 404 as social practice not an individual behaviour, 301 early release from prison, 309 in the UK, 302 need for a radical approach, 310 number in Pakistan, 298 ‘reasons’ for, 399 statistics, 301 Honour killings of women and girls in Pakistan, number of, 399 Honour, the notion of honour in Pakistani communities, 298

425

Hooimeijer, Pieter, 280 Höpflinger, F., 359 Hopkins, N.S., 108 Hossain, S., 301 Households reconfiguring in effort to survive, 398 Howarth, J., 74 Howe, G.W., 34 Hrdy, S.B., 28 Huang, J., 226–235 Huebner, E.S., 145 Hughes, A.L., 35 Human Rights Commission Pakistan, 298, 302 Human Rights Watch (HRW), 289 Hunia, Tessa Mataea, 97 Hunkler, C., 319 Hunter, M., 261 Hunt, J., 340–342, 351 Hunt, T., 77 Huo, M., 316 Hupcey, J., 6 Huxley, Thomas, 76 Hwang, S.K., 265

I Identity formation in adolescence, 126 igicibwa, Rwanda for abomination/outcast , 281 Ilioi, E.C., 178, 179 Imrie, S., 173, 175–177 Incest aversion or the ‘Westermarck effect’ relatives, 381 Incest in Egypt and Inca Peru, 78 Incledon, 261 Inclusive fitness theory, 26, 28, 381, 382 Individualistic societies, sibling relationships less supportive, 132, 386 Informational support , 6

426

INDEX

Information and communication technologies, importance of in transnational care, 240 Ingersoll-Dayton, B., 211 Inman, N., 79 Institutionalisation of disabled, 258 Instrumental support, 6 Intelligence of children in polygamy, 162 ‘Intended parents’ in surrogacy, definition, 173 Intense care of elderly, 400 Inter country adoptions, 12 Intergenerational care patterns, varying widely within Europe, 316 Internalized heterosexism and sexual orientation disclosure to siblings, 225 International migration, impact of, 4, 12 International Social Survey Programme, 43 In vitro fertilisation (IVF), 171, 172, 174 inzu Rwandan for lineage, 280 Ioverno, S., 224, 225 Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation, 302 Irish, D.P., 207 Israeli Adolescents in Residential Care, sibling Support, 141 Israeli Education Ministry, 143 Israeli study, adolescents’ adjustment difficulties and prosocial behavior, 145 Israeli study, Perceived support by siblings, 143 Israel, men more likely to confide in a brother than a sister, 65 Italian lesbian and gay adults coming out to a sibling, 393

iwi (M¯aori tribes), 88, 92 izzat, carrier of family honour, 298, 300, 304 J Jacobs, K., 15 Jacob, T., 133 Jacoby, H.G., 308 Jadva, V., 173–181, 389, 390 Jamali, M.B., 299 James, S., 148 Jamoussi, Z., 75 Jampaklay, A., 358 Jefremovas, Villia, 279, 281, 282 Jemison, Mary, 81 Jenkins, D., 162 Jenkins, J., 7, 15, 142 Jenne, W.C., 261 Jennings, P.K., 181 Jensen, A.C., 131, 133 Jin, K.Y., 190 Ji, Y., 361 Johnson, C.H., 78, 83 Johnson, R.W., 332 Joint placement of siblings in out-of-home care, 142 Jokela, M., 26–28, 31 Joseph, S., 106–111, 119, 161, 385, 389 Jural status in Rwanda, 281 Jürges, H., 319 K Kahn, A.J., 163 Kahn, R., 240 Kallio, J., 29 Kamerman, S.B., 163 Kaminsky, L., 262 Kang, D., 401 Kang, S.H., 359 Kania-Lundholm, M., 253

INDEX

Kaprio, J., 29 Kapteyn, A., 319 kari, adulteress, 308 karo kari, honour killings, 299, 301, 306, 308 Karpel, M.A., 76 Kashubeck-West, S., 233 Kate in Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew, 73 kaum¯ atua (M¯aori elders), 100 kaum¯ atua (M¯aori for wellbeing), 100 Kelley, M., 341 Kellogg, S., 79 Kempton, T., 15 Kendrick, C., 129, 193 Kennett, D., 182 Kent, B., 358 Kersting, L., 28, 30 Kessler, R.C., 339 khandan, extended family, 304, 307 Khan, H.K., 106, 160 Khoo, S., 134 Kigali, urban study, 279 Kikuyu chieftain Waiyaki Wa Hinga, 71 Kilbride J.C., 163 Kilbride, P.L., 163 Kilkey, M., 240, 249, 250 Kim, J., 127 “Kin-keeper”, 211 King, Elisabeth, 284–286 Kin placements for children in out of home care, 340 ‘Kinship’ carers, 15 Kinship categories and sanctions of the state and religion, 118 Kinship in Pakistan, 302 Kitzmann, K.M., 134, 162 Klein, A., 142 Klopack, E., 357, 361, 373 Knapp, M., 316 Kneip, T., 319

427

Kolak, A.M., 188, 190 Kolenda, P., 303 Kolk, M., 42, 43 Konrad, K.A., 317 Koot, H.M., 126, 132 Korbmacher, J., 319 Korzilius, H., 262 Kowal, A.K., 133 Kramer, J., 259, 262, 263, 265, 396 Kramer, L., 133, 205 Kramer, W., 173, 179–181 Kreager, D.A., 155 Kroner, B.L., 261 Kuba, S.A., 205 Kulis, S., 248, 395 Künemund, H., 317 L laapoo gift giving system, 307 Lachance-Grzela, M., 210 Laghi, F., 224, 225, 393 Lamb, M., 9 Laming, Lord H., 339 Lander, I., 164–166 Lanthier, R., 127, 357, 361, 373 Large families amongst new settlers but many child deaths, 79 Larrington, C., 69, 71, 73 Later life, tendency for more positive relationships among siblings, 373 Lau, A.S., 189 Laughlin, J.E., 145 Lawless, B., 299, 300 Laws institutionalizing force of state around relationships, 118 Laws of Manu, 72 Law, T., 34 Lazaro-Visa, S., 341 Lazarus, R.S., 192 Leane, M., 264 Lebanon, increase in women working, 385

428

INDEX

Lee, C.E., 263–265 Lee, J.-A., 251 Lee, M.-H., 187 Leeton, J., 171 ‘Legal siblinghood’, lack of clarity on, 44 Legal obligations to provide care China, 14 France, 15 Germany, 14 Singapore, 14 Ukraine, 14 USA, 14 Legal rights of siblings, 15 Leichtentritt, J., 142 Lempers, J., 133 Leonard, H., 261 Leopold, T., 318 Lerner, G., 72 Lerner, R.M., 195, 196 Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Siblings (LGBTQ), 223–235, 393 and impact on the relationships between brothers and sisters, 393 changes in sibling relationship post disclosure, 230–232 ‘coming out’ about sexual orientation difficult and takes courage, 393 coming out process influences identity, coping, 224, 226 coming out to their heterosexual and cisgender siblings, 224 directions for future research, 232 early research on causes of sexual orientation, and difference to heterosexuals, 223 female siblings more accepting than male siblings, 225

impact of close sibling relationship prior to disclosure, 229 impact of sibling relationship negative or distant before disclosure, 229 importance of acknowledging differing cultural and/or religious beliefs, 228 Italian parents’ reaction to lesbian and gay men’s sexual orientation, 224 Navigating family dynamics and reactions to disclosure, 229 persons coming out about sexual orientation to siblings, studies of, 226 predictors of coming out to siblings, 224 predictors of siblings reactions to coming out, 225 reactions of siblings to disclosure, 224, 233 siblings may be supportive when their sibling ‘comes out’, 404 les évolués, educated poor in Rwanda who became elite, 285 Leslie, L.K., 148 Le Vigouroux, S., 188 Levine, S.Z., 145 Levitt, J.L., 125 Levitt, M.J., 125, 133, 134 Lev-Wiesel, R., 156 Lewell-Buck, Emma, 352 LGB youth in the U.S. and siblings, 224 Liang, J., 185, 193 Liang, S.H., 265 Liberia Family Code, 154 polygamy, civil code and customary law, 154 Lieberman, D., 33, 34, 383

INDEX

Liefbroer, A.C., 13, 14 Liem, J.H., 148 Life course and family solidarity models, 26 Lightman, E.S., 164, 165 Li, H., 361 Likins, L., 211, 218, 392 Lillie, M.E., 261 Li, M., 134 Lim, E., 401 Lim, W.L., 401 Linares, L.O., 134 Lindsay, K.R., 128 Linh, G., 251 Linking up again in old age, 401 ‘Little emperors’, 187 Litwak, E., 248, 395 Liu, J., 187 Living close, factor influencing across life sibling support, 383 Living Kin survey, 47, 48, 57, 59 Li, Y., 189, 358 Lloyd, T., 261, 263 Locke, C., 248 Lockwood, R.L., 134, 162 Lommerud, K.E., 317 Longitudinal Study of Assisted Reproductive Families, 178 Longman, Timothy, 284, 285 Lopez, M., 341 Lord Lugard, 71 Lo Sasso, A.T., 332 Loss of siblings in Rwanda represented both a material and relational loss, 398 Lotfi, M., 157 Lovell, B., 261 Loverno, S., 393 Love, V., 262 Lowenstein, A., 13 Lubkemann, Stephen, 283 Lugard, F.G., 71

429

Luke, N., 341 Lu, L., 188 Luppi, M., 319 Lynch, G., 339 Lyttelton, Mary, 76

M maaoputt, mothers’-son, feminine or weak, 304 MacCallum, R.C., 127 Maccoby, E.E., 131 Mace, R., 28 MacFarlane, A., 97, 99 Machalicek, W., 262 Machlev, M., 131, 132 Mackenbach, J., 319 Macks, R.J., 261 Macro-level policies driving the gender divide in adult caregiving, 332 Macvarish, J., 44, 351, 352 Madianou, M., 252 Madlaine and her brothers, 112 and her younger sister deferential to the brothers, 106, 113 being cared for by siblings when old, 119 working Arab woman supporting brothers, 112 Magnusson, D., 125 Maguire-Pavao, J., 135 Mahoney, James, 283 Maile, J., 98 Mailick, M., 358 Malecki, C.K., 141 Male siblings more conflict between, in adolescence, 129 mal-milkiat, livestock and property, 304 Malter, F., 319 Maluccio, A., 135

430

INDEX

manaakitanga (M¯aori for showing respect, kindness and hospitality to others), 88, 95, 96, 101 Mandelbaum, D.G., 307 Mangelsdorf, S.C., 190 Manke, B., 133 Mansbach-Kleinfeld, I., 145 Mansuri, G., 308 M¯aori contemporary recognition of sibling concepts, 96 decision-making following death, 94 identification of senior and junior lines, 92 modern protocol, 93 mythology on brothers and sisters, 88, 89 population, 88, 101 relocating from tribal areas, 384 relocation, 88 sibling relationships in contemporary life, 93 sibling roles and terminology, 91 Tuakana-Teina project, 99, 100 M¯ aori creation story, 89 Maori culture, role of elder brother, the ‘tuakana’, 384, 385 M¯aori families, size of, 88 M¯aori mothers, age of, 88 Maoris changing from wh¯anau/extended family to the P¯akeh¯a-oriented nuclear family, 384 Maquet, Jacques, 280 Marcusson, J., 358 mardangi, masculinity, 306 Marital rape, legality of, 77 Marlowe, F., 153 Marquis, R.E., 126 Marriage rates, decline in, 11 Marriage without the approval of family in Pakistan, 306

Martin, D., 129 Martin, J.A., 131 Martin, R., 189 Mason, J., 77, 83, 241, 248, 250, 253 Masters-Awatere, Bridgette, 94 Mataamua (M¯aori firstborn), 94 Maternal perinatal association factor influencing across life sibling support, 383 impact of, 33, 34, 36 Matolcsi, A., 301 Matos, P.M., 134 Mattes, J., 179 M¯ aui (M¯aori demi-god), 89 Mburugu, E.K., 163 McCoy, J.K., 34 McCreanor, Tim, 95 McDade, M.M., 143 McGuire, S., 29, 133 McGurk, H., 262 McHale, S.M., 5, 6, 127, 128, 162, 189 McKinnon, Susan, 281 McLoyd, V.C., 132 Mead, H.M., 90 Meakings, S., 341, 342 Measurement of negative parenting in Greif & Woolley study, 218 Medieval families in the UK, 70 Medieval times, allotted gender roles, 73 MediSave in Singapore, 402 expanded the scope of dependants to include siblings, 373 Mediterranean (southern European) “a strong family region”, 317 Meeus, W.H.J., 126, 132 Meha, P., 100 mehmannawzi, how to respect elders, control womenfolk and protect property, 304 Mehmood, T., 299

INDEX

Meltzer, A., 259, 262, 264, 265, 396 Meltzer, H., 145 Mendelson, M.J., 193 Meng, X., 187 Merla, L., 240, 241, 249, 250, 252, 253 Merz, E., 358 Meschi, Lydia, 281 Metge, J., 90 Metindogan, A., 132 Meyer, D., 260 Meyer, J., 233 Michaud, P., 320 Middleton, C., 73, 74 Middleton, M., 142 Migration and mobility, impact on sibling support relationships, 239 Migration as a strategy to meet care obligations, 249 Migration not supported by family, impact of, 242 Milevsky, A., 7, 8, 17, 125, 126, 128–134, 385, 386 Milgram, J., 9 Milk siblings, 5, 71 Miller, D., 252 MINALOC, République Rwandaise, 289 Ministry of Education, 98 Minnes, P., 263, 265 Minnett, A.M., 127, 133 Mintz, S., 79 Minuchin, S., 126, 386 Miron, D., 142 Mitchell, D., 264 Modeling Theory, 130 Modified extended family, 248, 395 Moeke-Pickering, T.M., 90 Moewaka-Barnes, Helen, 95 Monk, D., 44, 351, 352 Monn, A.R., 148 Monogamy

431

and Christianity, 155 in Greek and Roman empires, 155 Montes de Oca Zavala, V., 359 Montgomery, R.J.V., 187 Morgan, R., 118 Mortelmans, D., 317–319 Moser, R.P., 133 Mota, C.P., 134 Moyers, S., 340 Muhanna, A., 107 Mukhtar Mai, survivor of a gang rape, 308 Mulder, C.H., 13, 14 Mulroy, S., 261 Mulvihill, N., 301 Murders of sisters for the sake of family honour, 297 Murphy, M., 42, 43 mursmanhu, machismo, 304 Mustafa, A., 106 Myths, legends and histories passing on core values, 383 themes in, 69, 83 N Nahleh, A.L., 107 Naldini, M., 332 Nam, S., 361 Nash, S., 261, 263 National Health Commission (NHC), 185, 390 National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China, 390 National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda (NISR), 287 National statistics need to move from tracking ‘horizontal’ relationships, to include ‘vertical’ relationships, 405 Native American family, 79 ‘Natural attraction’ between family members, 78

432

INDEX

Nazarov, Z., 320 Nazio, T., 319 ndererizondaya, Rwanda basic education for girls following genocide, 288 Neal, M.B., 211 Nebe, S., 145 Nedelcu, M., 240, 252 Needell, B., 142 Neely-Barnes, S.L., 261 Neglected middleborn hypothesis, 30, 382 Neppl, T., 357, 361, 373 Nettle, D., 30 Newbury, Catharine, 279 ‘New Family’, 381 Newman, J., 129, 130 New understandings on brother/sister relationships from multidisciplinary research parenting, need for more support, 405 policy wise, possible changes, 405 therapists, need to be aware of importance of the sibling relationships, 405 Neyer, F.J., 29 Ng, S., 359 Nikoobin Borujeni, F., 261 Nikora, Linda Waimarie, 94 Nkurunziza, Joseph, 280 Nock, S., 100 Non-traditional forms of maternity and paternity, 43 North Carolina Division of Social Services, 352 North, N., 358 Ntampaka, Charles, 280 Nuckolls, C.W., 303 Nuffield Foundation study on sibling contact and the law, 351 Number of children per woman

in Africa, 5 in Asia, 5 in Europe, 5 in Latin America, 5 in North America, 5 Number of times a women be a surrogate, 174 Nuttall, A.K., 263 Nuweihed, J.S., 108

O Obligations to our family, 13, 14 O’Brien, K., 339 Obremski, K., 29 Obura, Anna, 285 O’Campo, P., 157 OECD Family Database, 11 Oetzel, J., 100 Office for National Statistics, 4, 11 Ofsted, 341 Ogawa, N., 187 O’Keefe, S.L., 82 Old age, reconnecting with previously lost or unknown siblings can bring great joy, 404 Oldest brother, role of, in Arab families, 161 Oldest sibling, sex of, by the characteristics of the respondent, 54 Oliver, M., 259 O’Neal, C., 357, 361, 373 One-child policy and family life in China, 390 transitioning towards end of, 187 One Father, Many Mothers, 153 O’Neill, S., 262 One-person households, less likely to have siblings, 52 Onwuegbuzie, A.J., 157 Oosterman, M., 142

INDEX

Opposite-sex dyads engage in more conflict, 129 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 315 Osgood, D., 127 otaq Sindhi for male space, 303, 304 Outcomes of adolescent sibling relationship quality, 127, 133, 134 Out of home placement and the law, sibling relationships to be higher priority, 351 Overbeek, G., 34 Overton, W.F., 195 Owen, A., 264 Owens, E.B., 134 Owuamanam, D.O., 164 Oyefeso, A.O., 163

P Pacini-Ketchabaw, V., 251 Padilla-Walker, L.M., 133 P¯ akeh¯ a (M¯aori nuclear family), 88 Pakistan a brother’s responsibilities for sister, 304, 305, 309 honour a highly valued social asset, 301 honour killings, 298, 300, 305 restriction of girls before end after marriage, 303 sister’s major responsibility, 309 Pakistan honour killings, who does the killing?, 298 Pakistan study brothers committing honour killings, 305 critical thematic analysis approach, 299 Ethics approval, 300

433

number of honour killing from analysis of secondary data, 305 on honour killings, methods and materials, 298 ‘reasons’ for honour killings, 306 Palamon and Arcite, 71 Palinkas, L.A., 148 Paranjpe, A., 132 Parental coaching in sibling discord, 132 Parental conflict and divorce associated with more disturbance among siblings, 386 Parental divorce, impact of in adolescence, 130 Parental favouritism, impact of, 129, 131 in adolescence, 386 Parental intervention during sibling discord, 133 Parental investment theory, 26, 27, 381, 382 Parenthood status factor influencing across life sibling support, 383 impact of, 35, 36 Parenting styles and parenting relationships influence sibling relationships across the life course, 403 in adolescence, 131 ‘Parent-offspring conflict theory’, 27, 381, 382 Parents impacting the relationships between siblings, 130, 131 Parreñas, R.S., 239 paryo/ghair cousin marriages, 307 Patriarchal connectivity in Arab families, 108, 119 Patriarchal structures need to dismantle to end honour killings, 399

434

INDEX

Patriarchy and gendered roles, 72 Patriarchy and preserving the family resources , 77 Patwari, H.N., 73 Pavolini, E., 332 Pearson, K., 14 Peasant classes, role of medieval women, 73 Pecora, P.J., 339 Peining, S., 135 Pela, O.A., 164 Pells, Kirrily, 279, 283, 290 Penehira, M., 88 Penning, M.J., 318, 361 Perenc, L., 261 Peristiany J.G. Introduction, 300 Perrig-Chiello, P., 359 Perry, B.L., 141 Persaud, S., 178–181 Petalas, M.A., 261, 263 Pettit, G., 134 Pezzin, L.E., 358, 359 Pfouts, J., 207 phinja/apnee blood relatives, 307 Phulpoto, N.N., 299 Physical abuse of women in polygamous marriages, 156 Piazza, V., 358 Pihama, L., 88 Pike, A., 34 Pillemer, K., 316 Pilowsky, T., 261 Pinchover, S., 142, 146 Pinquart, M., 315 Pistella, J., 224, 225, 393 Pitt-Rivers, J., 300, 301 Plamondon, A., 210 Plomin, R., 7, 34 Pollak, R.A., 358, 359 Pollet, T.V., 25, 28–33, 36, 381, 382 Polyandry, defined, 153

Polygamous families impact of interventions with children, 165 larger families, 163 Polygamous household meeting different needs, 154 Polygamous marriage and wellbeing of men, 154, 156 need for substantial resources to support multiple wives, 158 psychologically damaging to women, 157 Polygamous societies outnumbering monogamous ones, 154 Polygamy across Muslim Societies, 158 among the Bedouin-Arab Families in the Negev, 160, 164 and economic hardships, 160 and sibling rivalry, 164 and women psychological wellbeing, 156 defined, 153 extent of, 161 favouring men, 155 how operates, 154 in US, 155 psychosocial Impact of on Men, Women, and Children, 156 sexual activities with husband part of “marital duty”, 155 socially acceptable practice in Africa, 154 Polygamy’s effect on sibling relationships, 161 Polygynous families, Canadian study painting a positive picture, 388 Polygyny and increased levels of aggression, 388 as an accepted practice across 82% of known societies, 388

INDEX

defined, 153 impact on family members, 388 Pomerantz, E.M., 187 Pontalti, Kirsten, 280, 282–284, 397 Ponterotto, J.G., 226–235 Pool, I., 88 Poortman, A.-R., 30 Positive cognitive reappraisals of childhood sibling issues, benefit of, 219 Post-attachment research theories, 386 Post-attachment theories, 125 Poston, D.L., 188, 194 Poznizovsky, A., 145 Practice experience when working with siblings of disabled, 396 Predictors of sibling relationship quality in adolescence, 127, 130, 133 preemi jora, couples married for love, 306 Preparation for the arrival of a new sibling, importance of, 192 Primogeniture, 75, 77, 80, 83, 383, 384 Prinzie, P., 4, 6 Prosser, H., 177 Protectors turned killer in Pakistan, 298 Punch, Samantha, 283 Putney, N.M., 13 Q Qandeel Baloch, Pakistani social media star, 306, 309 qaum/zat/biraderi, terms for a common identity, group, clan, 304 Quality of family relationships rather than any genetic link influences good sibling relationships, 404 Queen Elizabeth I, 73

435

Qu, Y., 187, 190

R Raab, M., 318 Rabo, A., 107 Radochonska, ´ A., 261 Radochonski, ´ M., 261 Ramsey, S., 141 Rankin, J.A., 261 Rao, N., 248 Rapid development in sub-Saharan Africa and the Global South impacting childrens’ lives, 283 Rashad, H., 106, 108 Rawlings, Caroline, 99 Rawson, H., 264 Recognition of siblings in surrogacy, 172 Reconnecting with their family in old age brought great joy, 401 Reddy, R., 100 Reeve, R.E., 261 Reher, D.S., 317 Rehill, A., 316 Reisel, D., 182 Reiss, D., 34 Relational Developmental Systems Meta-theory, 195 Relatives considered part of the family, 49 Religions and divine moral justifications to family relationships, 118 Religiosity and sibling relationship quality, 132 Reproductive donation, 182 rescapé, tutsi survivors, 288 Research limited on social support among young people in care, 141 Research on the impact of culture, 9 Research over the life course, 9

436

INDEX

Residential care for children and youth in Israel, 142, 149 Restoring family honour, 298 Restrictive migration policies, impact on transnational families, 249 Retherford, R.D., 187 Rhodes, J.E., 144 Richards, H., 145 Richardson, R.A., 224, 225 Richerson, P.J., 154, 155 Richmond, M.K., 133 Richters, L., 262 Riedman, A., 9, 32 Rienks, S.L., 133 Riggio, H.R., 129, 209, 210 Rivalry between wives and siblings, difficulties in family functioning, 162 Rivett, M., 163 riwaj, tradition, 306 Roberto, K., 358, 361 Roberts, B.W., 30 Robertson, L., 261 Roberts, R.M., 261 Roberts, S.G., 32 Robledo, J.R., 317 Rodgers, J.L., 127 Roles of brothers and sisters across time in US and UK conclusions, 81 Roman, G., 178 Romoren, T., 315 Romulus and Remus, 70, 383 Roscoe, B., 129 Rosenberg, B.G., 129 Rose, R.A., 148 Rose, R.J., 29 Rosetti, A., 359 Ross, C.A., 130 Rossetti, Z., 263, 265 Ross, H., 9 Rossi, A., 13

Rossi, P., 13 Rossiter, L., 261 Rothbart, M.K., 193 Rothblum, E.D., 223, 224 Roth, D., 340 Rotkirch, A., 11, 26–28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 43, 44, 69 Royal, Te Ahukaram¯u Charles, 89 Royston, P., 322 Rozario, P., 359 Ruby, A., 179 Ruff, S.C., 130 Runaway advertisements for missing slaves, 80 Rwanda, 277–280, 283, 284, 287, 292 1999 Land Law, 282 brothers competing to gain a larger share of the inheritance, 282 changes in schooling since genocide, 287 children’s work, 283 conclusions and a way forward, 292 difference in wealthy households, 280 education by older siblings, 280 effect of Conflict and Development on Sibling Relationships, 283 family laws introduced, 282 following death of parents, siblings taking caregiver and provider roles, 283 genocide changing opportunities for graduates, 287 importance of birth order, household composition, gender social class, 280 kinship system, 281 organisation by kinship of social, political and economic relations, 280 potential role of social policies, 292

INDEX

prior to independence, 279 reciprocity between siblings across the life course, 284 role of brothers, 280 role of eldest daughter, 281 schooling after Independence, 285 schooling: class divisions within sibling groups, 284 schooling for elite families, 285 schools dividing siblings post Independence, 285 state organisation preIndependence, 280 status of secondary students, 286 unequal access to schooling for girls’, 286 Rwanda genocide absent family members post genocide, 291 impact on children, 288 numbers killed, 289 Rwandan “Centres for Excellence”, elite boarding schools, 288 Rwandan ‘racial’ categories of ‘Hutu’, ‘Tutsi’ and ‘Twa’, 279 Rwandan study methodology, 278 numbers involved, 279 Rwanda post genocide fight for survival between siblings, 290 reconfiguring of sibling relationships, 290 Rwanda’s kinship-based culture, 278 Rwanda’s social history, little written, 277 S Safak, ¸ P., 263 Sakalh-Ug˘urlu, N., 155 Sakhleh, A.A., 106, 160

437

Salamandra, C., 107 Salmon, C.A., 26, 27, 30, 31, 36, 382 Salvati, M., 224, 225, 393 Same donor offspring, searching for the child’s parent, 180 Sanderson, S.K., 154 Sandler, I.N., 134 Sandmaier, M., 82 “Sandwich” generation, impact on elderly caregiving, 318 sangchatti, exchange of women to settle feuds, 308 Santrock, J.W., 127, 133 Sarkisian, N., 318, 400 Savin-Williams, R.C., 224 Schaan, B., 319 Schachter, F.F., 126 Scham, S., 160 Scheherazade, 107 Scheib, J.E., 179 Schiff, M., 145 Schindler, Kati, 289 Schlechter, M.J., 131, 132 Schmid, T., 315, 317, 318 Schneider, D.M., 118 Schoenrock, C.J., 162 Scholte, R.H.J., 34 Schone, B.S., 358, 359 Schooling bestows status and opportunity in Rwanda, 397 Schoppe, S.J., 190 Schubert, D.S., 129 Schubert, H., 129 Schuengel, C., 142 Science Daily, 12 Scola, C., 188 Sear, R., 28 Seaver, J., 81 Sebba, J., 341, 352 Second births in China, number of, 185

438

INDEX

Second sibling coming out as a LGBTQ, impact of, 227, 229 Seeley, J., 248 Segal, N.L., 29 Senel, H.G., 261 “The senior wife”, 159 Separation of enslaved African American of siblings at puberty, 80 Separation of siblings at puberty, 80 Sex of eldest living sibling, by sex and age of respondent, 55 Sexuality and incest, 78 Shackelford, T.K., 27 Shah, M., 299, 300 Shah, N., 299–301, 303, 307–309 Shaikh, F.M., 299 Shakespeare’s Henry V, 72 in Act IV, 72 Shalev, R.S., 261 SHARE data, 316, 318, 319 Sharpe, D., 261 Shaw, D.S., 134 Sheff, E., 388 Shelford, P., 100 Shelton, N., 42, 43 Shivers, C.M., 261 Shi, Z., 186, 188, 190 Shlonsky, A., 142 Shoham-Vardi, I., 157 Shojaee, S., 261 Shore, E., 126 shouzu, Chinese for “hand and foot”, 403 shouzu (Hand and foot), symbolizing bloodline among siblings, 373 Shrout, P., 134 Sibling alienation in adolescence, 128, 386 Sibling closeness in adulthood, associated with origins in childhood and adolescence, 403

Sibling concern for LGBTQ sib’s physical psychological well-being, 227 Sibling conflict in childhood impact on sibling adult relationships, 210 Sibling contact children’s views may be overlooked’, 351 Sibling contact when in out of home care, covered under ‘any named person’, 353 Sibling deidentification dynamics, 128 Sibling-disability research, 260, 265, 271 key areas, 260, 263 studies of ‘sibling adjustment’, 260 Sibling dyad constellations, 127 Sibling dynamics in immigrant communities, 132 Sibling eroticism, 78 Sibling experiences related to gender identity when Coming Out, 231 Sibling relations, continuity and change in, 380 Sibling relationship quality ameliorating adolescent tumult, 386 associated with academic success, 133 Sibling relationship quality, factors predicting, 36 contact and emotionally closeness, impact of, 25, 28–30, 32, 33, 35, 36 gender, differences in different countries, 28 gender, impact of, 28 intragenerational solidarity, 26, 27 Sibling relationships across cultures, 132 across distance and national borders, 253 across lifecourse, 206, 208, 209

INDEX

among children and youth in out-of-home settings, 142 ascribed rather than voluntary, 249 begins when the mother is pregnant, 391 changing following political violence, 278, 284 chronic neglect in research and practice, 135 coming out to sibling and pre-existing relationship, 404 complex in the Arab world, 161 created through assisted reproduction, 171 during national conflict and change, 397 following the 1994 Genocide, 289 how far influenced by our cultures, 383 importance to older adults’ health and well-being, 357 in adult life influenced by careers, and socioeconomic differences, 392 in adult life influenced by own parenting, 392 in adults, parents influencing the trajectory of, 210 in agrarian or pastoral societies, 10 in industrialized societies, 10 in old age, 400 in polygamous Families, 153, 161 less close with many siblings, 382 positive, negative and conflict, 6–10, 15, 17 predictors, transitions, support, 125 role in shaping migrants’ enduring tie to homeland, 250 vital to wellbeing in post-conflict Rwanda, 398 Sibling relationships in adolescence, 125, 128, 133, 134

439

predictors, transitions, and support, 385 ‘Sibling risk’, 362, 372 Sibling rivalry in legends, 383 Sibling roles, 6, 10 and relationships changing over the migration and life course, 249 Siblings and transnational families, 240 as a resource throughout life, 381 as ‘closest relatives’ and ‘prime confidantes’, 381 average number of, 53, 54 better working in the care of ageing parents when early parenting not toxic, 393 brothers, sisters by age of respondent, 53 can be less willing to assume the responsibility of providing for elderly brother and sister, 402, 404 closer in age have greater warmth in adolescence, 128 compensating for lack of both parental and friends support, 134 contact or visitation rights, 15 definition used in this book, 5 exchanging care across distance and life cycle, 394 impact of inequalities in adulthood, 209 more positive relationships among siblings in later life, 361 number living in old age, 9 number of by age of respondent and size of respondent’s household, 51 number of while growing up, and older siblings, 48, 54

440

INDEX

psychologically, emotionally, and familially connected for life, 206 research on early years, 7 research on later childhood and adolescence, 7 significance in adolescence, 126, 134 significant figures for adolescents in residential care, 149 symbolic relationship, 206 who are regarded as forming part of a family, 48 who lost contact with a sibling mourned the loss, 342 Siblings are like our shadows—not always visible, but always with us, 392 Siblings Australia, 265 Siblings caring for parents across Europe, 315 for their parents in Europe, 400 impact of macro processes, 316 Siblings caring across distance, discussion, 248 Siblings caring parents study analytic strategy, 322 data and method siblings caring parents study, independent variables, 320 findings, 323 key questions, 318 models of caregiving to ageing parents, 325 need to explore specific policies for gender inequality, 332 policy regimes influencing who cares, 331 proportion of adult children providing care by gender, 323 structure at the macro level and at familial level, 316

welfare regimes explaining crossnational gender gaps, 330, 331 Siblings in adult life, feelings along a continuum from close and caring, to conflictual, 392 Siblings in polygynous families, how they relate to each other, 388 Siblings in residential care, needs to encourage contact, 149 Siblings in Rwanda: a post genocide portrait, 291 Siblings in therapy, importance of, 135 Siblings of adults with disabilities unaware of sibling’s existence, 396 Siblings of children with disabilities, neglect of, 135 Siblings of disabled adult siblings taking on nontraditional assistance roles, 264 benefits of proactive future planning conversations, 264 bias to studies with white, middle class families, 265 caregiving is one facet of the sibling relationship, 264 conclusion, 271 key needs in practice in childhood and young adulthood, 266 practice insights, 265 predictors of siblings’ involvement, 263 siblings anticipating future caregiving responsibilities, 264 small likelihood of experiencing psychological problems, 396 social context mediating their adjustment, 261 the social connective function important, 263

INDEX

studies of caregiving and future planning within families, 263 studies of the sibling relationship, 262 unresolved tensions in the existing literature, 260, 265 what they do together day-to-day, 262 Siblings of disabled in practice handling responsibility, 266 help in dealing with others’ reactions, 267 help needed to understand disability, 266 informal support, primary support, formal roles, advocacy, 269 supporting siblings in middle and late adulthood, 269 support needed to engage with their brother or sister, 266 thinking about the future, 267 types of support in childhood and young adulthood, 268 types of support in middle and late adulthood, 270 Siblings of people with disabilities, areas where they may need help, 396 Siblings of those in residential care, source of support, 148 Siblings placed together, outcomes, 341 Siblings playing a critical role during times of crisis, 402, 404 Siblings relationships in Arab families, deterioration when brothers married, 113 Siblings separated when in out-of-home care arguments for and against, 341 finding from US, 342 increase in numbers in UK, 341

441

Siblings share critical history, 206 Sibling studies, poorly neglected stepchild, 69 Sibling support and links with emotional, behavioral, and social difficulties, 142 and social capital, 148 for those in residential care linked to adjustment and well-being, 148 in old age, 8 in the hierarchy of familial and non-familial support, 143 in the mid years, 8 in transnational families, 240 Sibling ties, ambivalence in later life, 362 Sibship size, impact of, 29, 36 Sidani, Y.M., 159 Siegrist, J., 319 Significant persons, confidantes, 64 Sillars, A., 15 Simmens, S.J., 34 Simpson, M., 100 Sindh province of Pakistan, population, 298 Singapore policy/society regard the family as first line of support for older persons, 359 population and rapid rise in aging, 358 siblings encouraged to provide support for each other, 402 study of divorced and widowed seniors “we are close enough”, 357 Singapore Legal Advice, 14 Sister in Pakistan major responsibility involves keeping family honour intact, 399

442

INDEX

traditional roles, 298, 302 Slavery and African American families, 84 Slomkowski, C., 129 Slonim-Nevo, V., 156–160, 162, 164 Slot, N.W., 142 Slutsky, J., 178–181 Smaller families in twentieth century in Europe, 380 Small, R.W., 141 Smith, C.L., 90, 94, 193 Smith, Jean, 95 Smith, M., 7 Social capital and youth in out-of-home care, 148 Social capital perspective, 142 Social comparison, impact of, 186 Social Comparison Theory, 189 parenting strategy in China, 391 Social construction of Arab brother/sister relationships, 118 Social Democratic (Scandinavian), comprehensive support for elderly caregiving, 317 Social desirability effects, impact of, 210 Social dynamics, restructuring during the transition to, and from, adolescence, 126 Socialization dynamics in family relationships, 125, 135 ‘Socially valued role’ for disabled, 259 Social model of disability, 259 Social support and resilience in adolescence, 141 definition, 5 when a sibling has a disability, 258, 260 Social Support Network Questionnaire (SSNQ), 144 Societally valued roles for disabled, 396

Socio-economic position factor influencing across life sibling support, 383 impact of, 31 Socio-economic status, impact of in sibling relations, 132 Solera, C., 332 Sons’ education given preference over their sisters, 384 Sophocles Antigone, 70 Sörensen, S., 315 Spahni, S., 359 Spanish Hapsburgs and family marriages, 78 Sperm donation, 171, 172, 178–180 Spinrad, T.L., 193 Spitze, G., 8 Staff, J., 155 Starks, M.T., 224, 225 State provision of family care, possible impact of, 13 Stattin, H., 125 ‘Stayed behind’ relatives of migrants, 239 Steele, H., 178 Steele, M., 178–181 Steinbach, A., 27–32 Stein, C., 76 Stein, M., 148 Stevenson, B., 88 Stevenson, J., 262 St Hilda of Whitby, 73 St. John, M., 135 Stocker, C.M., 133, 357, 361, 373 Stoneman, Z., 34, 263, 265 Stonewall, 393 Stormshak, E.A., 162 Strategy Group, Prime Minister’s Office, Singapore (PMO-SG), 358 Straus, Scott, 279

INDEX

Strauss, E.S., 76 Street, E., 163 Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), 145 Stroebel S.S., 82 Strohm, K., 261, 264, 396 Stuck, S., 319 Student’s Life Satisfaction Scale (SLSS), 145 Subjugation of the powerless to the more powerful, Rwandan study, 279 Successful ageing, link with close sibling relationships, 133 Succession law and inheritance, 16 Suen, J., 359 Suitor, J., 316, 361 Sui, Y., 192, 193 Sujan, A., 142 Sulloway, F.J., 127 Suls, J., 189 Sun, K., 189 Supportive sibling relationships over the life course, factors are associated with, 382 Support, siblings in care, perceived availability compared to other support, 146 Surah a Nisaa, 158 Surrogacy danger of accidently formed incestual relationships, 180 genetic or gestational connection not factor for close relationships, 182 increase in recent years, 389 legal distinctions between different types, 172 naming the relationship to the surrogacy child, 175 psychological adjustment and experiences of, 172

443

research still limited, 174 survey of UK parents who had a child born through surrogacy, 177 travel overseas for, 177 UK’s Economic and Social Research Council, study of, 178 Surrogacy born children, longitudinal study of, 178 ‘Surrogacy child’ definition, 173, 175 Surrogacy child, sibling bonds with, 175 Surrogacy organisation, 172, 174 Surrogacy study, Main findings, 174 Surrogacy, types of gestational surrogacy, 389 traditional surrogacy, 389 Surrogate brothers and sisters, genetic link versus no genetic link, 390 Surrogate family contact with, 174, 177 is sibling closeness and a genetic relationship, 389 use of social media, 177 Surrogate mother, definition, 173 Surrogates and intended parents, direct contact, 174 Surrogate siblings, quality of family relationships greater influence than any genetic link, 404 Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE), 8, 17, 47, 48, 62, 64, 316, 319, 322, 332, 400 Sutton-Smith, B., 9 Su, Y., 190 Swearingen, L., 134 Swindell, S., 82 Sworn-brothers, 5, 71 Sydsjö, G., 358 Szabó, N., 188, 190, 193 Sznycer, D., 33, 34

444

INDEX

Szydlik, M., 26, 31, 315, 317, 318 Szymanski, D.M., 226–231, 233–235, 393, 394 T Talpur, A.A., 299, 300 Tan, E.S., 359 Tan, J-P., 187, 390, 391 tano, taunt, 306 Tanskanen, A.O., 26–33, 35, 36, 43, 44, 381–383, 388 Taonui, R¯awiri ‘Ranginui’, 89 Task-specificity model, 361, 366 Tassell, N., 88 tautoko (M¯aori for providing support), 88, 99, 101 Taylor, J.L., 264 Taylor, R.L., 72 Te Awekotuku, Ngahuia, 94 Teh, J., 359 Teina (M¯aori younger sibling), 91–100 Ten Brinke, J-A., 74, 350 Tertilt, M., 153 Tesser, A., 126 Tey, N., 359 Thang, L.L., 359, 401 ‘The proper thing to do’, 13, 77, 83 The Cambridge Study, 7 The Children and Young Persons Act (2008) a duty to place siblings together if appropriate, 341 The Conversation Explaining Rakshabandhan, 76 The Economist, 389 The emancipation of women, 77 The inter-generational transmission of family patterns, 218 The Lancet, 11 The Law in England and Wales, possible legislation change to enable sibling contact, 351

Thelen, Kathleen, 283 The long family, 74, 75 the monkeys are dispersed when the tree falls (shudao housunsan), 364 The need and opportunity structures model, 26, 31, 32 Theories to explain sibling support, 380 Theory of sibling relations, 6 The sibling relationship in Polynesian life, 93 The Syrian Observer, 159, 164 Thornberry, J., 159 Thorsen, Dorte, 283, 284 Thoughts on policy and practice, 405 Time to Inform about Mom’s Pregnancy (TIMP), 192, 193 Ting, W., 248, 251 Tomeny, T.S., 261 Tomlins-Jahnke, A., 88, 95 Tong, L., 185, 193 Tonti, M., 218 Tooby, J., 33, 34, 383 Toomey, R.B., 224, 225 Torres, S., 253 Tozer, R., 264 Tran G.L., 251 Transgender and gender non-binary siblings, acceptance, social support and life satisfaction, 232 Transgender persons’ support from siblings, 225 ‘Transnational care’, 394 Transnational families Adolfo and Zelda, 242 Alejandro and Pedro, 247, 249 Anna and Giulia, 250 care slotting and Entrainment, 251, 252 conclusion, 253

INDEX

contributing to the cost of domestic support for her elderly parents, 245 enduring and changeable ties, 249 engaging in family care from a distance, 245 factors influencing type of care provided, 395 Irma and Lena, 243 lack of ‘license to leave’, 244 “left behind to look after the parents”, 243 Maria and Juana, 246 migrating to pay for child care, 239 Paola and Enza, 250 quality of care exchanged and family histories, 241 Rita and her siblings, 243 role of sibling hierarchies, 250 unevenness in care reciprocity, 247 use of Skype to keep in touch, 242, 245, 252 use of WhatsApp and Facebook, 242 variables influencing how people support each other across distance, 394 Transnational parenting, 239 Transnational siblings can, and do, engage in all the different types of care, 404 Transnational studies, sibling relationships understudied, 248 Trent, K., 8 Trivedi, Ira, 83 Trivers, R.L., 26, 27, 381, 382 Troubled sibling relationships passed down to the next generation., 211 Trounson, A., 171 Tsai, H.-W.J., 265 Tseng, V., 189

445

Tuakana (M¯aori older sibling), 91–100 Tuakana-Teina M¯aori contemporary buddy concept, 93, 96–101 Tuakana/Teina (M¯aori family obligation), 95 Tucker, C.J., 189 “turi kumwe”, Rwanda for “we are together” [in spirit and this situation], 291 Tutsi, 277, 279, 284–286, 288, 291 Tutsi or Hutu identification based on appearance, 279 “Twin studies”, 43 Twin data, 29 Two children families in adolescence, 128, 130 Twum-Danso Imoh, Afua, 283 Types of siblings in family studies, 42 Types of support Companionship support, 380 Emotional/Psychological support, 380 Informational support, 380 Instrumental support, 380 U ubwoko Rwanda for group/clan, 280 Uchino, B., 6, 380 umuryango Rwanda for family, lineage, 280 ‘Understanding the care and support system of divorced and widowed seniors in Singapore’, 359 Unequal parental treatment, impact of, 34, 35 United Nations, 5, 12, 259 United Nations developed its Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 259 United Nations Population Fund, 301 Unmarried aunts , 76

446

INDEX

Updegraff, K.A., 128, 162, 189 Updegraff, S., 5, 6 UPIAS, 259 Urbano, R., 264 Urquia, M.L., 157 urugo Rwandan for household/compound, 280 US Department of State, 12 V van Aken, M.A., 133, 188, 190 Vandell, D.L., 127, 133 Van den Broek, T., 332 van der Ende, J., 126 van der Lippe, T., 28 VanderValk, I.E., 126 van Lier, P., 132 van Lieshout, C., 133 Van Volkkom, M., 8 Vergauwen, J., 317–319 Verhulst, F.C., 126 Verpoorten, Marijke, 289 Viken, R., 29 Vikström, J., 358 Vincent, Marc, 282 Violation of family honour in Pakistan, 298 Volling, B.L., 188, 190, 192, 193, 210 Vondra, J.I., 134 Voorpostel, M., 26–28, 30, 32 Vulnerability of youth in out-of-home settings, 141, 142, 149 Vuorela, U., 239 W Wade, Nathaniel G., 165 Wagner, M.E., 129 Waid, J., 142 Walker, Tai, 88, 90

Walloch, J.C., 226, 230 Wan, L., 192, 193 Wanda, schooling for the poor ‘afternoon classes’, 284 Wang, F., 185, 188 Wang, L., 187 Wang, Q., 194 Wang, X.-T., 188, 194 Wang, Y., 185, 186, 192, 193 War, damage close relationships, but relationships are a vital sustaining force., 283 Ware, H., 163 Warren Sabean, 78, 83 Wassan, A.A., 299, 300 Wassan, M.R., 299, 300 Watta Satta, exchange marriage, 308 Watve, S., 132 Wauterickx, N., 27 Webber, R., 263 Weber, G., 319 Webster, D., 142 Webster, Steven, 93 Wehmeyer, M.L., 258 Weisner, T.S., 9, 303 Welchman, L., 301 Welfare arrangements, regimes supporting weak vs. strong family care, 317 Welfare regimes influences siblings how care for elderly parents, 404 Wellard, S., 341, 342 Wenham, A., 264 Westermarck, E.A., 26, 27, 33, 381, 382 Westermarck effect, 26, 27 Western Cultural tradition impact on the roles and relationships between brothers and sisters, 403 Western cultures, daughters central caregiving role, 316

INDEX

West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law Application Act 1962, 307 West, S.G., 322 Wetherell, M.A., 261 Whakapapa (M¯aori ancestry and birth lines), 91 whanau (M¯aori extended families), 95, 96 whanaungatanga (M¯aori for belonging and working together as kin), 93 WhatsApp keeping divorced and widowed in contact, 365 Wheeler, L., 189 White, C.R., 339 White, J., 339 White, L.K., 9, 26, 32 Whiteman, S.D., 5, 6, 131, 162 Whitlow, B., 29 Wichman, A.L., 127 Wickrama, K., 357, 361, 373 Widowed, divorced or separated, population of men and women in Singapore, 358 Wiggins, T., 339 Wijedasa, D., 340 Wilding, R., 240, 241, 252, 253 William, L., 188 Williams, C.J., 29 Williams, J., 339 Williams, L., 261 Williams, Timothy P., 283, 287 Wills, T.A., 6, 380 Wilson, Karaitiana, 99 Wilson, K.G., 130 Winitana, Mei, 98, 100 Wittenberg, R., 316 Wives tricked into marriage, 159 Wolfensberger, Wolf P., 259, 396 Wolfgang Mozart, 74 Women forced into an arranged marriage, 159

447

Women reporting larger numbers of close relationships with family members than men, 66 Wong, T.M.L.., 126 Wood, C., 171 Woolley, M.E., 8, 17, 148, 207, 209–212, 218, 392 World Bank, 78, 285 World Health Organisation (WHO), 258 Worsening of relationships when brothers bring brought wives into family, 106 Worsley, L., 75 Wressle, E., 358 Wright, M.F., 189 Wu, J., 186 Wu, Q., 187 Wu, Y., 186 Wu, Z., 318 X Xing, Z.W., 188 Xinhua, 186 Y Yanagisako, S.J., 109 Yang, M., 164 Yap, M.T., 359 Yar, K., 301 Yavuz, M., 263 Yeh, H., 133 Yeung, W.J., 132 Yirmiya, N., 261 Ynet, 160, 164 Young D.H., 82 Younger sibling in China, impact of unexpected arrival, 391 Young People in public care close to at least one of their siblings, 387

448

INDEX

main focus on support given by parents, 387 siblings making helpful suggestions, 387 support by siblings associated with fewer emotional and behavioural difficulties, 387 Yount, K.M., 106, 108 Youth living out of home, siblings as supporters, 141 Yue, X., 186

Z Zadeh, S., 178, 179

Zeitzen, M.K., 153–155, 158, 159 Zelizer, V., 317 zenana Sindhi for female space, 303 Zeng, W., 358 Zeng, Y., 188 Zhang, E., 188 Zhang, Y., 187 Zhang, Z., 358 Zhan, H.J., 187 Zhao, Y., 186 Zhu, W.X., 188 zina, extra marital sex, 306 Zuber, S., 319 Zukow, P.G., 87, 132 Zuma, Jacob, 153