Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T12:54:18.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Kinship, Responsibility and Care for Elderly People

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 November 2008

Graham Allan
Graham Allan
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Southampton, Southampton SO9 5NH, England.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As is now widely recognised, children, but especially daughters, are often involved in providing their elderly infirm parent(s) with care and tending. This paper seeks to examine two aspects of this care provision. First, how it relates to the nature of kinship solidarity between parents and adult children during other phases of their lives. More specifically, it will be suggested that while children are usually thought to bear some responsibility for their parents' welfare, actually providing support can none the less entail a far more extensive commitment than is normally expected of them. Yet the paradox is that such caring often seems to intensify feelings of responsibility rather than generate a sense of moral worth amongst those most highly involved. The second part of the paper examines some of the factors responsible for this. It will argue that the responses of carers to their situation need to be understood in terms of the immediate social environment in which they find themselves. In particular, what needs to be recognised is the sense of individual, rather than shared or collective, responsibility which develops.

Type
Research Article
Information
Ageing & Society , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , September 1988 , pp. 249 - 268
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

Access options

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

References

NOTES

1 Hunt, A., The Elderly at Home: A Study of People Aged 65 and Over Living in the Community in England in 1976. OPCS, London, 1978Google Scholar; Wenger, C., The Supportive Network: Coping with Old Age, Allen and Unwin, London, 1984.Google Scholar

2 Finch, J. and Groves, D., ‘Community care and the family: a case for equal opportunities?’. Journal of Social Policy, 9 (1980), 486–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar; E.O.C., Caring for the Elderly and Handicapped, Equal Opportunities Commission, Manchester, 1982Google Scholar; Nissel, M. and Bonnerjea, L., Family Care of the Handicapped Elderly: Who Pays?, Policy Studies Institute, London, 1982.Google Scholar

3 Parker, R., ‘Tending and social policy’, in Goldberg, E. M. and Hatch, S. (eds). A New Look at the Personal Social Services, Policy Studies Institute, London, 1981.Google Scholar

4 Graham, H., ‘Caring: a labour of love’, in Finch, J. and Groves, D. (eds), A Labour of Love: Women, Work and Caring, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1983Google Scholar; Briggs, A. and Oliver, J. (eds), Caring: Experiences of Looking After Disabled Relatives, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1985.Google Scholar

5 E.g. Firth, R., Two Studies of Kinship in London, Athlone, London, 1956Google Scholar; Young, M. and Willmott, P., Family and Kinship in East London, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1962Google Scholar; Williams, W. M., A West Country Village: Ashworthy, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1963Google Scholar; Rosser, C. and Harris, C. C., The Family and Social Change, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1965CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bell, C., Middle Class Families, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1968CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Firth, R., Hubert, J. and Forge, A., Families and Their Relatives, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1970CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Allan, G., A Sociology of Friendship and Kinship, Allen and Unwin, London, 1979.Google Scholar

6 E.g. Finch, J. and Groves, D., op. cit.Google Scholar: E.O.C., op. cit.: Nissel, M. and Bonnerjea, L., op. cit.Google Scholar; Finch, J. and Groves, D. (eds), A Labour of Love: Women, Work and Caring, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1983Google Scholar; Briggs, A. and Oliver, J., op. cit.Google Scholar; Ungerson, C., ‘Paid work and unpaid caring: a problem for women or the state?’, in Close, P. and Collins, R. (eds). Family and Economy in Modern Society, Macmillan. Basingstoke, 1985.Google Scholar

7 British culture is, of course, more diverse than such a statement would suggest. However, kinship studies have demonstrated that there is a good deal of similarity in the way the kinship system operates amongst different groups. For a discussion see Allan, G., op. citGoogle Scholar. chapter 4. It does however need to be emphasised that none of the major kinship studies has focused explicitly on the kin relationships of ethnic minorities.

8 Firth, R., op. cit.Google Scholar: Firth, R. et al. , op. cit.Google Scholar; Allan, G., op. cit.Google Scholar

9 Harris, C. C., ‘Changing conceptions of the relationship between family and societal form in western society’, in Scase, R. (ed.), Industrial Society: Class, Cleavage and Control, Allen and Unwin, London, 1977.Google Scholar

10 Bell, C., op. cit.Google Scholar

11 Leonard, D., Sex and Generation, Tavistock, London, 1980.Google Scholar

12 Allan, G., ‘Property and family solidarity’, in Hollowell, P. (ed.), Property and Social Relations, Heinemann, London, 1982.Google Scholar

13 Schneider, D., American Kinship: A Cultural Account, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs. N.J., 1968.Google Scholar

14 Rosser, C. and Harris, C. C., op. cit. p. 200.Google Scholar

15 Parsons, T., ‘The American family: Its relations to personality and to the social structure’, in Parsons, T. and Bales, R. F. (eds), Family: Socialisation and Interaction Process, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1956Google Scholar: Harris, C. C., The Family, Allen and Unwin, London, 1969.Google Scholar

16 Firth, R. et al. , op. cit.Google Scholar

17 Young, M. and Willmott, P., op. cit.Google Scholar

18 Firth, R. et al. , op. cit. pp. 404–5.Google Scholar

19 Firth, R. et al. , op. cit.Google Scholar: Leonard, D., op. cit.Google Scholar

20 E.g. Lee, G., ‘Kinship and social support: the case of the United States’. Ageing and Society, 5, (1985), 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 Rosser, C. and Harris, C. C., op. cit. p. 283.Google Scholar

22 As an illustration, consider the comments of one of Rosser and Harris's respondents, Mrs Jones, a widow in her seventies: ‘Of course, children don't look after the old people like they used to do when we were young. Children just don't care any more. When you are old they don't think you are worth bothering about. I mean you can see that with all these Homes, can't you? Children didn't put their parents in Homes in my young days, I can tell you.’ Interestingly, she proceeds to highlight some of the more subtle contradictions experienced in the relationships between elderly parents and their children: ‘Myself I think you should keep your respect, keep independent from your children, if possible. Mark you, my two are very good, I will say that. Mary comes round two or three times a week and Dave and his wife come and take me for a run in the car every Saturday which is very nice but I'd rather they didn't. You know what it is: they come round and take me out and then bring me back here at five and then- they're off. Like they were saying “There we are Mam, we've come and given you your little bit of pleasure, now we're going off to have ours!”’ (Rosser, C. and Harris, C. C., op. cit. pp. 283–4).Google Scholar

23 Finch, J., ‘Family obligations and the life course’, in Bryman, A., Blythway, B., Allatt, P. and Keil, T. (eds), Rethinking the Life Cycle, Macmillan, Basingstoke, 1987.Google Scholar

24 Firth, R. et al. , op. cit.Google Scholar: Nissel, M. and Bonnerjea, L., op. cit.Google Scholar

25 Ibid. p. 32.

26 Briggs, A. and Oliver, J., op. cit.Google Scholar

27 In the words of Ruth Cowling, a contributor to the Briggs and Oliver collection: ‘Looking back, I see that what began as a pleasant duty became an intolerable burden’ (Ibid p. 6).

28 An issue that has not been researched to any extent is the role that inheritance plays in either encouraging children to provide care for parents or making parents feel less obligated for the support they are given. This question of inheritance is certainly likely to become more pertinent as increasing numbers of elderly people have houses and other substantial assets to leave. Indeed little or nothing is known about what parents receiving care regard as a ‘fair’ distribution of their estate. Should it be split equally between all their children, or should the child providing them with most support in their old age be rewarded differentially? Either way it could be that under these circumstances matters of inheritance lead to some tension and even feuding between siblings.

29 Murcott, A., ‘“It's a pleasure to cook for him”: Food, mealtimes and gender in some south Wales households’, in Gamarnikow, E., Morgan, D., Purvis, J. and Taylorson, D. (eds), The Public and The Private, Heinemann, London, 1983.Google Scholar

30 Finch, J. and Groves, D., 1980. op. cit.Google Scholar; E.O.C., op. cit.; Walker, A. (ed.), Community Care: The Family, the State and Social Policy, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1982.Google Scholar

31 Firth, R. et al. , op. cit.Google Scholar

32 Finch, J., op. cit.Google Scholar

33 Young, M. and Willmott, P., op. cit.Google Scholar; Rosser, C. and Harris, C. C., op. cit.Google Scholar; Firth, R. et al. , op. cit.Google Scholar

34 Delphy, C., Close to Home: A Materialist Analysis of Women's Oppression, Hutchinson, London, 1984.Google Scholar

35 Gilligan, C., In A Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development, Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Mass., 1982Google Scholar; Mason, J., Marriage, Ageing and Inequality: A Study of Continuity and Change in Long Term Marriage, unpublished Ph.D., University of Kent, 1987.Google Scholar

36 Nissel, M. and Bonnerjea, L., op. cit.Google Scholar

37 Briggs, A. and Oliver, J., op. cit.Google Scholar

38 The research Janet Finch and Jennifer Mason are conducting on kinship obligations should again provide interesting information on this under-researched question, as in their study they are interviewing other kin as well as primary carers (Finch, J., op. cit.).Google Scholar

39 Ungerson, C., op. cit.Google Scholar

40 Doreen Hore, one of the contributors in the Briggs and Oliver volume, expressed this more graphically: ‘Indeed, it is circumstances, not vocation, that condemns us to bottom-washing’ (Briggs, A. and Oliver, J., op. cit. p. 80).Google Scholar

41 ‘Time spent on themselves can be seen as frivolous in their own eyes’ (ibid. p. 112). See also E.O.C., op. cit.

42 Such perceptions/theories may, of course, also be expressed tacitly rather than explicitly, for example by the denial that care of a particular level is actually required. See, for instance, Elizabeth Reid's account in Briggs and Oliver, , op. cit., especially p. 43.Google Scholar

43 Bott, E., Family and Social Network, Tavistock, London 1957.Google Scholar

44 Finch, J., op. cit.Google Scholar

45 Briggs, and Oliver, , op. cit.Google Scholar

46 Graham Crow's one-time biology teacher was the source of this particular illustration of human cruelty.

47 ‘It gradually dawned on me that my life had become more and more centred around my mother. I realised with horror that I was a clock watcher. Whatever I might want to do had to be disregarded to meet her needs. I looked for support and found none. My mother relied solely on myself.’ Lilian McSwceney in Briggs, and Oliver, , op. cit. p. 102.Google Scholar

48 Nissell, and Bonnerjea, , op. cit.Google Scholar: Charlesworth, A., Wilkin, D. and Durie, A., Carers and Services: A Comparison of Men and Women Caring for Dependent Elderly People. Equal Opportunities Commission, Manchester, 1984Google Scholar; Briggs, and Oliver, , op. cit.Google Scholar

49 Nissel, and Bonnerjea, op. cit. p. 44.Google Scholar

50 Morris, L., ‘Renegotiation of the domestic division of labour in the context of male redundancy’, in Roberts, B., Finnegan, R. and Gallie, D. (eds), New Approaches to Economic Life, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1985.Google Scholar

51 E.O.C., op. cit. p. 13.Google Scholar

52 Val Hollinghurst, one of Briggs and Oliver's contributors, wrote: ‘The risk I found hardest to take was to leave my mother alone. Shopping was done in a frantic rush and all invitations out were refused. It was bad enough to risk my mother falling while I was unavoidably out, but the ultimate sin was to risk her falling while I was enjoying myself. (Briggs, and Oliver, , op. cit. p. 18Google Scholar). Sec also Nissel, and Bonnerjea, , op. cit. p. 44.Google Scholar

53 Allan, G., ‘Friendship and care for elderly people’, Ageing and Society, 6, (1986), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

54 Nissel, and Bonnerjea, , op. cit. p. 21.Google Scholar

55 Ibid.: E.O.C, op. cit.

56 Nissel, and Bonnerjea, , op. cit. p. 36.Google Scholar

57 Firth, R. et al. , op. cit.Google Scholar: Briggs, and Oliver, , op. cit.Google Scholar

58 ‘You're just assumed to be a “natural carer”; somehow you will magically find all the necessary physical and emotional resources to cope. It's funny when you consider the effort they go to to give new mothers advice how to handle babies - no one tells you how to handle incontinent, senile parents that spread faeces over the walls and wander off at night. Because it's not talked about, you think you should “know” and then in addition to all the other pressures, you feel guilty because you can't cope with it.’ (Oliver, Judith, quoted in E.O.C., op. cit. p. 13.)Google Scholar

59 As Val Hollinghurst has written: ‘One of the hardest problems I have found in caring for my mother has been coming to terms with the “tangled web” of my own emotions: love, which naturally grows when you tend someone in need, mixed in with fear, resentment and guilt.’ (Briggs, and Oliver, op. cit., p. 15.)Google Scholar

60 Ibid. p. 113.