Pacific Sociological Association

Brothers' Keepers: Situating Kinship Relations in Broader Networks of Social Support Author(s): Barry Wellman and Scot Wortley Reviewed work(s): Source: Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Autumn, 1989), pp. 273-306 Published by: University of California Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1389119 . Accessed: 29/04/2012 13:27
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of California Press and Pacific Sociological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Sociological Perspectives.

http://www.jstor.org

Sociological Perspectives

0 1989 PacificSociological Association Copyright

Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 273-306 ISSN 0731-1214

BROTHERS'KEEPERS: Situating Kinship Relations in BroaderNetworks of Social Support

BARRY WELLMAN SCOT WORTLEY

University of Toronto

ABSTRACT: Theauthorsevaluatetheimportance ofkin in providingfour dimensions emotional social services,financialaid, aid, different of support: and companionship.Theauthorsanalysis uses both quantitativeand interview data from the East York (Toronto) studies of social networks. Kin compriseslightly less than half of thesenetworks:an averageof five ties out of twelve. Parents and adult children are highly supportive network members,providinghigh levels of emotionalaid, services and financial aid however).Siblings complementand substitute (they avoid companionship, for parentsand children,especiallyin the provisionof services.Becausethere are many more ties between siblings than there are between parents and children, siblings (along with friends and neighbors)providea substantial proportionof the support East Yorkersreceive.By contrast, extended kin tend to be the least supportiveand least companionable of networkmembers. If kinshipsystems did not keepextendedkin in contact,few would be active networkmembers.

W(H)ITHER KIN? "Am I my brother'skeeper?"asked Cainabout Abel. Millennialater,this is still an open question.People in all societieswonder aboutthe extentto which theirfriends and relatives can help them to deal with everyday problems, acute crises, and chronicburdens. Concernsabout the availabilityof such "social support"usually mingle with nostalgia for the past. Are contemporarycommunities and kinship groups as ready and able to be supportiveas were our legendaryancestors? We now know thatcommunityand kinshiphave stood up well to the large-scale social transformations of urbanization,industrialization,bureaucratization, techWe have also learnedthatkith and kin nologicalchange,capitalism,and socialism.1 are not relics from a pastoral past but are active arrangementsfor helping individuals and households deal with stresses and opportunities. They provide everything from empatheticadvice to health care to capital and labor power for productivework.
Direct all correspondence to: BarryWellman,Centrefor Urban and CommunityStudies, University of Toronto, M5S1A1. Toronto,Ontario, Canada,

274

Volume32, Number3,1989 PERSPECTIVES SOCIOLOGICAL

Analysts have triumphantly gone beyond demonstrating the sheer persistence of community and kinship to debating the place of such ties in contemporary lives. They have found interpersonal networks to be motley crews: socially diverse, spatially dispersed, and sparsely knit (Willmott 1987;Wellman 1988a). They crudely estimate that most North Americans and Europeans have informal ties with approximately 1,500 persons (Boissevain 1974; Pool & Kochen 1978). Friends comprise the largest segment of active relations, while neighbors and co-workers dominate daily meetings. Active kinship relations are much rarer, with most kin only vaguely known or known about. Now that we know that kinship ties continue to exist, what is their volume, proportion, role, and uniqueness? Do individuals have many kinship ties or a few? How central are these relations within an individual's broader network of sociability and support? What sorts of support do kin give each other? Is this different from the support that friends give? Such questions have sometimes led analysts to divide Western kinship relations into two distinct categories. They have argued that especially supportive ties stretch between parents and adult children (Fischer 1986; Coward 1988; Radoeva 1988; Somlai 1988) and siblings (Irish 1964; Farber & Smith 1985; Gold 1987; Rosenthal 1987), while weak, unsupportive ties usually link extended kin (Coombs 1980; Laslett 1988). In arguing (with Parsons 1943; Wirth 1938, and others) that kinship ties remain important sources of companionship and support, analysts sometimes reduce their conception of kinship to a form of friendship (see the discussions in Craven & Wellman 1973; Fischer 1982a). If kinship is now just a peculiar form of friendship, then it has become more of a voluntary act with individuals choosing to maintain active (as distinguished from latent) relationships with selected kinfolk. Unsupportive kin should be as rare as unsupportive friends in such voluntaristic networks, and kin should be indistinguishable from friends in the kinds of support they provide. Yet most North Americans and British do distinguish between kith and kin, and they make important distinctions in how they expect to relate to different types of kin. They feel they should have stronger ties with their immediate kin-parents, adult their extended children, siblings, and cognate in-laws-than with kin-grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. They regard parent/adult child bonds as especially strong and supportive (Firth, Hubert, & Forge 1969; Mogey 1977; Farber 1981; Rosenthal 1985). They are less apt to expect relations with extended kin to be strong and supportive. There is no one kind of social relationship called "social support." Rather, many different kinds of supportive resources flow through informal networks. Yet most network members provide only specialized aid. This means that the people at the centers of these networks must obtain various kinds of aid from different network members. Just as general stores have given way to boutiques, people must search through their assortment of ties to find specific kinds of support. This differentiated world suggests caution in treating kinship, a priori,as a unique system of sociability and support. Instead, our study uses a social network approach to situate kinship relations within broader sets of informal ties. The network

BROTHERS KEEPERS

275

approach starts with the sets of all persons with whom individuals are actively linked and only then inquires whether such network members are kith or kin (Wellman1982,1988a,1988b). Our basic question is: To which network membersoutside of their households do people turnin orderto obtainwhich kinds of social support?When do they look to kith or to kin-and for what kinds of resources?We first document the variety of kinship and friendship relationships-supportive and not-in these networks. We next look at which kinds of relationshipstend to provide similarkinds of social support, with a view to seeing if kinshipties are distinctivein the kinds of support they provide. For which kinds of support are which kinship ties especially apt to be useful? As partof this enterprise,we investigatein detail the most supportiveof all relationships:those between parents,adult children,and siblings. THE EAST YORK STUDIES Our investigation uses both quantitativeand qualitativedata from the East York studies of urbansocial networks.EastYorkis a densely settled, residentialarea of about 100,000,a half-hourtripfromToronto'scentralbusiness district.Its residents view their area as a tranquil,cohesive community with strong family ties. The informal social support East Yorkersget is often interwoven with institutionally provided care.The boroughhas a long traditionof communalaid and active social service agencies, and as in the rest of Canada,medical services are free. Ourinformationcomes principallyfrominterviewsconductedin 1977-1978with a quasi-random subsample of twenty-nine of the 845 randomly-sampled East Yorkerswe had firstsurveyed in 1968.TheEastYorkersare predominantlyBritishCanadian,married(with children),working-classand lower middle-class.Themen hold jobs such as electrician,laboratorytechnician,and truck driver, while the women hold jobs such as secretary,waitress, and insuranceclaims examiner.The somewhat homogeneous class and ethnic composition of the sample may restrict its general applicability. We interviewed the respondentsfor 10-15 hours about the 347activemembersof theirpersonalnetworks:137socially-closeintimates and 210somewhatless-intimate with whom the were significantpersons respondents actively in contact.2These active ties arethe units of the analysisin the presentstudy. Byaskingaboutall active ties, we are able to assess the position of kinship ties in these networks and to compare supportive and non-supportive ties. Because we have available both quantitativeand qualitative data from the interviews we have been able to juxtapose the precision of statisticalanalysis with the richness of textual analysis. As a checkon the findings derived fromthe smallinterviewsample,we have also done as comparableas possible an analysis using the larger 1968 survey dataset (845 respondents with 3,930 ties). Findings based on the survey data consistently corroboratethose reportedhere which are based on the interview data. The networks contain a mean of twelve active ties, five intimate and seven significant (but not intimate). Slightly less than half (44 percent) of the active network membersare kin. Only a minorityof the active network memberslive in

276

SOCIOLOGICAL Volume 32, Number3,1989 PERSPECTIVES

the same neighborhoodsas the respondents,with morethanhalf living at least nine miles away. Themedian networkmemberis in touch with a respondentaboutonce every two weeks, with contactbeing in person somewhatmore frequentlythan by takesplacein privatemilieus:homes, vacationcottages, telephone.Mostinteraction or the telephone (formore details, see Wellman,Carrington, & Hall 1988). Theseactive networkstypicallycontainone largecore componentof about eight members, all of whom are directly or indirectly linked with one another, for example, "friendsof friends"or "my best friend is also close with my sister."Yet the appreciableamount of local integrationwithin the componentsand clustersof these networksdoes not mean that the overallnetworksare highly integrated.The mediandensity of 0.33meansthatonly one-thirdof all possiblelinksbetweenactive networkmembersactuallyexist. SUPPORT Socialscientistsoriginallytreatedsocialsupportas a generalizedresourceavailable from network members to deal with routine problems,acute crises, and chronic burdens.Workingin healthcareresearch,they concentrated on showing thatsocial to be and support helps people happier,healthier, longer-lived.Yet socially supresources and have been distinguishing between differ, portive analysts recently different types of support:for example, emotional aid, materialaid, information, and companionship.They have come to realize that not all network membersare supportive,and thateven thosenetworkmemberswho aresupportivemay provide only certainkinds of support(see the reviews in Wellman1981;Lin,Dean, & Ensel 1986;Pilisuk & Park1986;Hall &Wellman1985;Israel& Rounds 1987). Our own researchis interestedmore in the social productionof support than in its health-givingconsequences.We acquiredinformationabout eighteen different kinds of social support from the interviews and a follow-up questionnaire.We asked the respondentsto tell us abouteach of the majorand minortypes of aid they had ever received from or given to each network member (for more details, see Wellman1982;Wellman&Hiscott 1985;Wellman&Wortley1989).3 We found that the network members specialize in the kinds of social support they give to East Yorkers.Although many ties have provided some kind of companionship,emotional aid, or service, most ties have usually supplied a total of only one to three kinds of support (out of a maximum of eighteen studied). A typical relationship contains one or two kinds of companionship together with one or two kinds of either emotionalaid or services. We used variable cluster analysis to identify which kinds of support these relationshipshave often provided. This analysis showed that the same network membershave provided severaldifferentkinds of emotionalaid or differentkinds of services, but that the same network members have not often provided both emotionalaid and services.Theone substantiveanomalyis instructive: the network memberswho provide majorservices(such as acute or chronichealthcare)are the samepersonsas those who provideemotionalaid-and not thosewho providesuch

KEEPERS BROTHERS

277

other services as household aid and occasional child care (Wellman & Hiscott 1985). Such major services appear to be as emotionally supportive as they are instrumentally useful. The cluster analysis revealed five basic "dimensions" of support: Emotional Aid, provided in some form by 61 percent of the network members (the kinds included are minor emotional aid, family problems advice, majoremotionalaid, majorservices); Services, provided by 61 percentof the networkmembers(minorservices, lending or giving household items, minorhousehold aid, majorhousehold aid, organizationalaid); Companionship,providedby 58 percentof the networkmembers(discussin an organization); ing ideas, doing things together,fellow participants Financial Aid, provided by 16 percent of the network members (small loans/gifts, large loans/gifts, largeloans/gifts for housing); Job/HousingInformation,providedby 10 percentof the networkmembers jobcontacts,housing search).4 (jobinformation,

Few ties provide many dimensions of social support. Instead, different relationships tend to provide emotional aid, services, financial aid, companionship, or information.5 The division of supportive labor within these networks means that East Yorkers must work to maintain an array of potentially supportive relationships. When they have problems, they must search through their networks for specialized assistance rather than being able to count on finding help throughout the network. Yet such help has usually been there when sought, and it sometimes has been there when not sought. These ties do more than simply help the East Yorkers to pass time and find social identities. They not only provide aid for dealing with routine problems, they are important "reproduction reserve armies" sending large and diverse quantities of resources to the rescue in times of crisis: from emotional support to large and small services to major transfers of wealth. Aid from network members is more closely linked to domestic work than to paid work. The ties are almost always based in homes and not in workplaces or formal organizations. The East Yorkers spend much time and effort maintaining sociable relations with network members and using their relations to satisfy immediate household needs. They spend some time (and more effort) mobilizing resources through these networks to deal with crises. These networks are conservative, providing havens to help East Yorkers keep what they have and providing emotional aid and services to heal routine and extraordinary stresses. Unlike the informal relations of production and economic survival common in the Third World, the East Yorkers' networks principally provide emotional aid, domestic material aid, and companionship. They rarely provide financial aid, help in earning a living, or links to political movements.

278

Volume SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES 32,Number 3,1989 KINFOLK AS NETWORK MEMBERS

Kinship relationsare importantto East Yorkers.Kinfolkcomprise nearly half (44 percent)of theiractiveties,including47 percentof theirsocially-closeintimatesand 41 percent of their less socially-closebut still significantties. One-quarterof the networks contain at least two-thirds kin, while three-quartersof the networks contain at least one-quarterkin (Table 1). The kin in these active networks are usually a majorityof all living kin (throughfirst cousins).6 Most living immediate kin are active network members.Such relationshipsare usually quite important to the East Yorkers:53 percent of them are in intimate relationships rather than in less-close significant ones. Overall, immediate kin comprise 31 percent of all active network members, fully 42 percent of intimate network members,but only 24 percentof significantnetwork members (Table2). Siblingscomprise the bulk of the immediatekinship ties, followed by parentsand a few adult children. The great majority of these networks (79 percent) contain parents or adult children,usually as centralfigures. Eighty-sixpercentof all networksalso contain at least one sibling. In four networks without parents,sisters, and brotherswork actively to hold kinfolk together.Only two networks (7 percent)operate without kin activity:One containsonly a peripheralcousin and one containsno kin. In the lattercase, a childless retiredplumber(GeraldHopkins,married,sixty-six)has cut his ties with relativesbecausethey "expectmoreof you thannaturalfriends.As far as I am concernedrelativesaren'tworth it."7 In contrastwith immediate kin, extended kin relationships-with grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins-are rarely intimate. Although extended kin are 12 percentof all activenetworkmembers,they compriseonly 5 percentof the intimates but 18 percentof the weakersignificantrelationships(Table2). The kith who make up a slight majority of the network members are (20 percent), with a smaller predominantlyfriends (24 percent), and neighbors of co-workers and other (8 relationships which operate representation percent)
Table 1 Percentage of Kin in Networks All Ties Extreme Upper Network Upper Quartile Median Network Lower Quartile Extreme Lower Network 100 (100)* 67 (62) 42 (40) 26 (26) 0 (0) Intimate 100(100) 67 (65) 50 (33) 8 (8) 0 (0) 45 (43) 36 (36) Significant 100(100) 50(50) 42 (38) 20 (20) 0 (0) 44 (43) 28 (29)

Mean % Kin in Networks 46 (44) Standard Deviation 28 (27) Notes: *Percentages in parentheses countcoupleties as two. N = 29 Networks.

BROTHERS KEEPERS

279

within formal organizations(5 percent). Most friends are intimates (61 percent), but other kith rarely are intimate (Table 2). The East Yorkers' kinship relations are different from their friendship ties in ways that can affect the exchange of social support. Because most kinship ties have been born and not made, kin have known each other longer than friends. Kinship ties in these networks have lasted an average of thirty-five years, almost three times as long as ties with other network members. Moreover, because kinship is a system
Table 2 of RoleTypesby Intimacy(CouplesCountedas 2 Ties) Percentage
Tie Type All Ties Women Men Total Intimate Women Men Total Significant Women Men Total

Parents Parents-in-law Total Children Children-in-law Total Siblings Siblings-in-law Total ImmediateKin Grandparents Aunts/Uncles Cousins OtherKin Other-in-laws ExtendedKin All Kin Friends Neighbors Total Coworkers Organizational Total All Nonkin TOTAL
Note: N =444.

6 3 9 1 0 1 13 8 21 30 1 5 5 2 2 14 44 23 25 48 4
4

3 2 4 2
1 3

5 2 7
1

4 4 8 1 0 1 17 14 31 40 0 3 0 O 1 2 6 46 37 14 50 2 1 3 54
100

4 1 5
4

4 3 7 2 1 3 17 12 29 39 0 2 0 1 2 5 44 38 14 52 3 1
4

7 2 9 0 0 0 10 4 14 24 1
7

2 2 3 1 0 1 15 5 21 25 0 3 5 3 2 14 38 18 26 44 11 7
18

5 2 7 1 0 1 12 4 16 24 1 5
7

1 2 14 7 21 30 1 3 4 2 2 12 42 25 23 48 6
4

1 5 16 10 27 37 , 0

16 7 23 30 0 2 3 3 2 9 39 28 21 48 9
4

0
0 O 1 1 3

8 3 1 ' 19 42 15 32 47 5 5
10

3 1 17 41 17 29 46 8 5
13

39 41 14 56 5 0 5 61
100

8 56
100

13 61
100

10 58
100

56
100

58
100

58
100

59
100

280

Volume32, Number3,1989 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES

and not a set of unconnected ties, comparativelydensely-knit clusters of kinship bases forsocialcoordination and control.Thuskin have relationsprovide structural the advantages of having arrived early and having a densely-knit cluster of ties reinforcetheir relationships.However, they have the disadvantages of being less voluntarilychosen than friends to be network membersand of being less socially similarto the persons at the centersof these networks (Pitt-Rivers1973;Graves & Graves1980). Most of the networks with a high proportionof kin are large, densely-knit,and supportive.However, threenetworkswith a high proportionof kin arequite small. These East Yorkersrarely see their kinfolk or exchange aid with them. They are kinship ties because persons who reportthatthey "keepto themselves,"preferring they take less effort to maintain than social ties with friends, neighbors, or coworkers. Do kin enactdistinctroles in these networks?One approachto this question is to cluster ask if kin give differentkinds of supportthanfriends.We used hierarchical analysis to compare the tendency of different kinship and non-kinship roles to provide emotional aid, services, companionship,financial aid, and job/housing information.Those roles which tend to have similarprofiles in the proportionsof membersproviding these kinds of supportwill tend to clustertogether.8 The clusteranalysis shows thatwe can distinguishkin empiricallyfromnon-kin. Kinshiproles are generally distinct from non-kinshiproles in the extent to which they provide dimensionsof supportto the EastYorkers(see Figure1).We caneasily identify as clusters in Figure 1: (1) parents,(2) children,(3) siblings, (4) extended kin, (5) friends and neighbors,and (6) ties based on common membershipin the workplaceor anotherformalorganization.Moreover,with the exceptionof samegenerationbrothersand sisters (whose roles are more similarto friends),all of the kin lie near each other in the bottom half of the dendrogram.Othersimilaritiesare are similarto parents,and men are similarto women in instructive:Parents-in-law the equivalent kinship role (note the proximityof mothersand fathers). STRATEGY AND TACTICS Role Types While the clusteranalysis identifies similaritiesin the support profiles of different types of network members, it does not show which types of network members specialize in providing which types of support. To study this, we use a five-role typology based on the six clusters described above: (1) parents and children, (2) siblings, (3) extended kin, (4) friends,(5) organizationalties. Although cluster analysis guided the development of this typology, it did not determine it. We reduced the number of categoriesfrom six to five by grouping parentswith adultchildren.Theyareadjacentin the clusteringdendrogram(Figure 1), there are two few adult children in the sample for satisfactorymultivariate analysis,and the supportprofilesof parentsand childrendifferonly in thatit is the parentswho give financialsupport and the adult childrenwho receive it. We also

BROTHERS KEEPERS

281

moved male neighbors and the few siblings-in-law to the friend and sibling categoriesrespectively. Couple Ties Ties with married couples present a major definitional problem in relating tie characteristicsto support. What appears at first to be a single tie between two persons can often be a complex social relationshipinvolving threeor four persons. Is a tie to a married couple one relationship or two? How do we count the relationshipsbetween "Boband Caroland Ted and Alice" (Mazursky1969)?There is no single answer. In many cases, there is really only a single tie to either the husbandor the wife, with the otherpersonbeing only a backgroundfigure.In many other cases, the East Yorkersinsisted that their tie was to the wife and husband jointly:They interactedwith them as a unit and thought of them that way. In only a few cases do the EastYorkersreporthaving separaterelationshipswith husbands and wives. Hence we countedties to a coupleas a single tie in analyzingsocialsupportunless the respondentsaid the ties were separate.We assumed thatsuchjoint"coupleties" essentially have the personalcharacteristics (gender,etc.) of the primaryperson in the relationship.This procedurereduced the numberof active ties from 444 to 347 (compareTables 2 and 3). It resulted in slight decreases in the proportionof ties who are friends and neighbors-persons most likely to be dealt with as couplesand a slight increasein the proportionsof parents,siblings, and organizationalties (Table3). Thus the procedureraisedthe percentageof kin among all active network membersfrom42 percentto 44 percent. EastYorkersrarelydefine kin as being in couple ties:Such ties areonly 6 percent of activeparent-child bonds, 16percentof siblingbonds, and 20 percentof extended kin bonds. If the EastYorkersdo name both immediatekin in a couple, they are apt to name them-and deal with them-as separaterelationships.By contrast,they deal as couples with many friends (35 percent)and neighbors (49 percent).These couple relationships are significantly more likely to operate in neighborhood milieus, such as backyardsand streetcorers. Although couple ties do provide two bodies for the priceof one relationship,our analysis suggests that they are not significantlymore likely than single ties to have provided support.The one partialexceptionis emotionalsupport.Only 38 percent of men in couple ties have provided any kind of emotionalaid, a significantlylower percentagethan is the case for supportprovidedby single men or women (coupled or single). Many married men defer to their wives as the principal providers of emotional support to households and networks(see also Wellman 1985). A Multivariate Approach Whilesimple cross-tabulations show directlythe extentto which differentroletypes and etc.) children, (parents provide various kinds of support (emotionalaid, etc.),

282

SOCIOLOGICALPERSPECTIVES Volume 32, Number 3,1989

multiple regression allows us to assess the importance of role type when compared with other relational factors which may also engender support. It also allows us to control for the confounding impact of such factors on support (for example, the tendency of kin to live further apart than friends). In addition to kinship, sociologists have produced at least five other potential explanations for the social production of social support:
Table 3 of RoleTypesby Intimacy(CouplesCountedas 1 Ties) Percentage
Tic Type All Ties Women Men Total Intimate Women Men Total Significant Women Men Total

Parents Parents-in-law Total Children Children-in-law Total Siblings Siblings-in-law Total ImmediateKin Grandparents Aunts/Uncles Cousins OtherKin Other-in-laws ExtendedKin All Kin Friends Neighbors Total Coworkers Organizational Total All Nonkin TOTAL
Note: N = 444.

7 3 10 1 0 1 13 5 18 29 1 5 5 2 2 15 44 22 25 47 5 4 9 56 100

2 2 4 3 0 3 19 7 26 34 0 1 4 4 1 9 43 27 12 39 12 6 18 57 100

4 3 8 2 0 2 16 6 22 31 0 4 4 3 1 12 44 24 20 44 8 5 12 56 100

5 5 10 1 0 1 21 10 31 42 0 4 0 1 1 6 49 33 14 47 3 1 4 51 100

3 2 5 5 0 5 22 8 30 40 0 0 0 2 2 4 44 42 7 49 7 0 7 56 100

4 4 8 3 0 3 21 9 31 42 0 2 1 1 1 5 47 37 11 48 4 0 4 53 100

8 2 10 0 0 0 9 2 11 21 1 7 8 3 2 20 41 15 32 47 6 6 12 59 100

1 3 4 1 0 1 17 6 23 28 0 3 6 5 0 14 42 15 16 31 16 11 27 58 100

6 2 8 0 0 0 12 4 16 24 0 5
7

4 1 18 41 15 26 41 10 8 18 59 100

KEEPERS BROTHERS Figure1 Clusteringof RoleTypesby SocialSupportProfiles

0 Sctp: s I 10 I is a

283

in data set. Note: No children-in-law

The social closenessof a relationship(e.g., intimacy,voluntariness); Opportunities for contact in a relationship (e.g., frequency of contact, residentialdistance); The multiplexityof a relationship(e.g.,the numberof contextsin which the relationshipoperates); The resources available to potentially supportive persons (e.g., socioeconomicstatus,gender,education); of the two participantsin a relaSimilaritiesin the personalcharacteristics tionship (e.g., same gender).

The first three arguments derive from the qualities of the relationships themselves while the fourth and fifth arguments derive from the characteristics of the network members. In contrast, kinship analyses derive from the interpersonal environment in which these ties are embedded. We selected a number of indicators of these arguments (see Wellman, et al. 1987 for more detailed discussions and variable descriptions) and use multiple logistic regression to discover the extent to which different types of relationships are apt to provide emotional aid, services, financial aid, or companionship. We use multiple logistic regression because the cluster-derived support variables

284

SOCIOLOGICAL Volume32, Number3,1989 PERSPECTIVES

are coded dichotomously:"Yes"(the relationshipprovides some sortof supportin this cluster)or "No" (the relationshipdoes not provide any kind of supportin this cluster).This approachtreatsrelationshipsprovidinga small amountof emotional aid are treatedthe same as those providing a great deal of emotionalaid. We use this conservativecoding approachfor several reasons:It addresses the fundamentalquestion of support and non-supportin a relationship(" does she or doesn't she help out with emotional problems?").It avoids assumptions that the numberof types of supportin a clusteris a continuous,equal-intervalvariable(0-1 types of emotional aid does not necessarilyequal 1-2 types). Moreover,the small range of possible values in a variablewhich counts the numberof kinds of support in each dimension of aid (0 to 3-5) is not suited to the assumptionsof ordinaryleast squaresregression. The next section provides the resultsof our analyses for each dimensionof social support.Logisticregressionsidentify which tie characteristics-including kinship ties-are supportive.9 Cross-tabulations show the percentageof networkmembers of each relationaltype who provide each kind of support(forboth "intimates"and non-intimate "significants").Quotationstaken from the respondents' interviews provide a more detailed understandingof the aid kin provide. WHICH TIES GIVE WHAT KINDS OF SUPPORT?

Emotional Aid
A majority(61 percent) of all active network members have given some kind of emotional aid to the East Yorkers.This aid is especially likely to have come from intimates,those interactingwith the EastYorkersin more than two social contexts (multiplexties), women, and parentsand children(Table4). Although friendsand siblings are not significantly more apt to provide emotional aid, most friends and siblings have provided emotional support (Table4). Indeed, because friends and siblings comprisethe majorityof relations(66 percent)in these networks,they comprise the majority(69 percent) of those active network members who have provided emotionalaid (Table5). By contrast,extended kin have not usually providedemotionalsupport(Table4) except in rare major crises (Table 6). Furthermore,emotional support does not depend significantlyon the frequencyof contactbetween network members,the multiplexity of their relationship, their resources (other than gender), or their similaritiesto the EastYorkers.

Parents and Adult Children

Almost all parents and adult children (including in-laws) have provided emotional support (Table 4). The bond is importantin both directions:whether the reportingrespondentis the adult child or (more rarely)the parent.Although only 8 percentof the East Yorkers'active ties are with parentsor adult children, these relationships comprise 13 percent of the East Yorkers'emotionally supportive relationships(Table5). Moreover,ties between parents and children are so emo-

BROTHERS KEEPERS

285

tionally supportive that they seem to transcend routine feelings of intimacy. Parents and children who are not intimates have provided emotional aid at about the same rate as those who are intimate (Table 4). At first glance the gender gap appears reduced for parents and children, with almost as high a percentage of fathers and sons (78 percent) as mothers and daughters (86 percent) having provided some kind of emotional support. Yet when we consider each specific kind of emotional support, mothers and daughters have been more supportive than fathers and sons. For example, 73 percent of mothers and daughters have provided advice on family problems in contrast to only 33 percent of fathers and sons (Table 6). Similarly, 64 percent of mothers and daughters have provided emotional support in crisis periods in contrast to 44 percent of fathers and sons. Taken as a whole, the emotional support data suggest that although fathers and sons are almost as likely as mothers and daughters to have provided some kid of emotional support, mothers and daughters are more likely to have provided each specific kind of emotional support (for example, help in a major emotional crisis) and are also more likely to have provided several kinds of it. Many East Yorkers have had warm, emotionally supportive ties with mothers and daughters. For example, Betty Lancaster (married homemaker, thirty-five, one child) still recalls vividly how her mother helped her many years ago through a period as a drug addict and teenage prostitute: Beingclose to my motheris that if therewere ever any problemthat she had or thatI had, we know thatthe otherpersonis always there. We'reclose in that we know each otheris always there.It wouldn't matterwhat it was, the otherone is always there.Lotsof things that I'vebeenthrough,she'salways stuckby me. My drugaddiction,and havinga child beforeI was marriedand I had a nervousbreakdown: she was with me throughall that. Robina Cook (married, forty-nine, three children) has frequently called on an adult daughter for routine advice: Well, it's more of a general thing. I will discuss things with Linda and she is a very commonsense person.I like talkingsomethingout with her even though I might have a fairidea on it:her feeling on it is quite importantto me. It reallyis. I like her thinking. Martha Ellis' (married homemaker, forty-five, two children) description of her mother shows the strength and breadth of their bond: I can sit down and discuss anything with my mother,and I know that'sas faras it's going to go. If she happensto be coming out this way on businessorsomething,she'lldropin and have a cup of coffee and a chat and away she'll go again. Often or particularly through the winteron a Saturdaynight if the childrenaren'tdoing anything, we'll just hop over and spend an houror a couple of hours with her

286

SOCIOLOGICALPERSPECTIVES Volume 32, Number 3,1989

for a chat,aboutanythingin generalor aboutothermembersof the family or a crisis or somethingthat has come up. If I needed her in an emergencyto come to the house and stay, she'd be on the next trainor the next plane and be here when I needed her.If she was on her feet and able to get here. Although not as supportive as mothers and daughters, fathers and sons are some of the most emotionally supportive network members, except when it comes to dealing with problems with spouses and children (see Table 6). Thus Harry Warner (single laborer, twenty-nine, no children) often visits his chronically ill father in the hospital: I see my Dad a lot. I go over there to see him at least once a week, sometimes two or three times a week. And if he's bad, I'll go over
Table 4 EmotionalAid fromNetworkMembers
A: Logistic on Emotional Aida Regression Beta (Standardized)

Contextsof Interaction Intimacy Gender Parent/Child .30 LogisticModel R: Somer'sD: .46 Notes: aOnly variables at.05shown. significant N= 294.
B: Percentage Members Emotional Aid ofNetwork Providing Total

.22 .22 .20 .13

Intimates

Significants

RoleType (N = 337) Parent/Childb Sibling ExtendedKin Friend/Neighbor Tie Organizational (N = 337) Intimacyb Genderb (N = 337) Male Female Contextsof Interactionb (N = 333) Morethan2 2 or less

84 68 40 63 49

87 76 71 76 86 77

81 56 34 53 41 50 38 57 57 49 50

50 69 75 56

63 88 85 71 77

TOTAL SAMPLE 61 (N = 337) Note: bSignificant variable from logistic regression.

BROTHERS KEEPERS Table 5 Percentof SupportProvidedby NetworkMembers

Role Emotional Services Financial Companionship

287

Total

Parent/Child Sibling ExtendedKin. Friend/Neighbor Organizational

TOTAL Note: N = 347.

13 24 8 45 10
100

13 21 6 51 9
100

30 22 4 29 15
100

8 18 5 52 17
100

10 21 8 48 13
100

and stay with him because I worry. I think the world of my old man. I think so much about him, it bothers me. I talk to him, and we get into heavy conversations, and I argue with him too. I think it helps him, he likes to argue. Everybody's trying to be nice to him, but just to be natural with him is good.

Siblings Statisticallyspeaking, siblings are not significantlymore likely than other network members to have provided emotional support (Table 4). Yet, in practice, emotional supportfrom sistersand brothersis important,being nearlyone-quarter (24 percent)of all emotionallysupportiverelationships(Table5). Partof the reason why siblings are importantfor emotional aid is because they are such a large part of most networks, comprising 22 percentof all active ties. Moreover,siblings are somewhat more supportivethan most other networkmembers:The percentageof sisters (including sisters-in-law)who have provided specific kinds of emotional support is second only to mothersand daughters(Table6). Baillie's(marriedclaimsexaminer,forty-three, threechildren)sisterhas Margaret been her key supporter:
Table 6 Percentageof NetworkMembersProvidingSpecificKindsof Emotional Support
Major Service Minor Emotional Aid 56 Major Emotional Aid Family Problems Advice 33 73 43 51 17 20 30 44 30 28 Overall Emotional Support 78 86 57 77 41 40 43 74 48 50

MaleParent/Child FemaleParent/Child MaleSibling FemaleSibling Male ExtendedKin FemaleExtendedKin FemaleFriend/Neighbor MaleOrganizational FemaleOrganizational OVERALL SAMPLE
_

11

23 11
13 0 3 4 7 0 0 7
|

73 43
56 25 30 34 58 30 44 47
u

44 64
34 51 33 23

Male Friend/Neighbor

25
31 13

17
33

39

61

Note: N = 337.

288

Volume32, Number3,1989 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES With your sister you have more to share because you have been broughtup togetherand know each other'slives. So you reallyfeel you could rely on her and she could rely on you. Thatis one of the majorreasonsI feel close to her. We don't keep many secretsfrom each other.I would do almost anythingif she were in trouble,and vice-versa.We'vehelped each otherout wheneverwe could.

Maureen O'Sullivan (divorced executive secretary, forty-nine, two children) says of her sister: "We share all of our experiences. She would be the person that I would go to talk over any emotional problems or anything like that with." Likewise, Patricia Fairgray (widowed secretary, sixty-three, three adult children) has relied on two of her sisters-in-law for emotional support since the death of her husband: I feel I canshareall my thoughts,my worries,everythingwith Marg. Sheis so understanding and can come up with some good ideas too. I have a lot of confidenceand faithinJessieas well, and a high regard forher.I wouldn'thesitateto expressmy innermostthoughtsto her. Similarly, Lisa Foster (married waitress, thirty-eight, three children) has counted on her sister for stable emotional support during stressful times: WhatI callclose is thatwe get alonggood. IfI havesomethingI want to talk to her about,I know she is there to listen. This is what I call closeness. I thinkof her as more of a friendthan a sister.My young fellow got hurt one day. We rushed him into the hospital,and she camewith me. Whenany of my kids get hurt,I get reallywound up. I moreor less need somebodythere.And then Cindywent in to have her appendixout, and she was with me at the hospitalthattime too. Fewer brothers than sisters have provided emotional support (Table 6). Yet in some ways brothers are as emotionally supportive as fathers. Although a lower percentage of brothers (57 percent) than fathers (78 percent) have provided overall emotional support, brothers have been as likely as fathers to have provided each specific kind of emotional support (Table 6). Taken together, these data suggest that those brothers who are emotionally supportive tend to be generally supportive and provide a broader range of emotional support than do fathers. For example, Jack Aitken (civil servant, thirty, two children) has often relied on his brother to help sort out his personal life: He is thetype of guy thatIcanassociatewithand sharemy problems. I feel so close to him that if I had any problems, very personal problems,he would be the one I would go to. I am not a Roman Catholic,so I don't know aboutconfessingto a priest,but when you talk to him about things that are really deep inside you, you feel closerto him. He would be my confessor. Similarly, Eve Spencer (housewife, thirty-one, two children) knows that her brother has always stood by her when she has needed understanding:

BROTHERS KEEPERS I went through a very bad time with my daughter when I was pregnantwith her.He was the only one who understoodwhat was happening with me, the emotions. I can just talk to him when something is hurtingor whatever.I can talk to him and know that he will listen and understand. I could say things to him that I couldn't even admit to my husband.I know he wasn't going to be judging me or anything,and that's something I can't forget. I will always be gratefulfor that.

289

Gender
Male East Yorkers are multiply disadvantaged in getting emotional support. They have not received much emotional support from other men, and because they rarely have women friends (Wellman, Carrington, & Hall 1988), they have few women in their networks. As a result, men have usually turned to the few women to whom they have access: their wives, mothers, and sisters. Like it or not, these women are "the representative of the nuclear family in fulfilling obligations to relatives" (Robins & Tomanec 1962; see also, Cseh-Szombathy 1988). Thus John Williams (married, self-employed tailor, forty-four, three children) depends on his sister to lend a sympathetic ear when he has problems at home: I guess we are able to talk to each other;to tell each other's more sensitive problems.If I have any family problems,I go to her. It's a close to the heartrelationship. If male East Yorkers have not been able to call upon their mother or sister for emotional support, they have often sought a substitute. Jack Aitken has found a surrogate mother in an elderly friend: Especiallywhen my Mom died, I felt that I could talk to her about thingsthatI would discusswith my Mom.She'sa very good listener, that'swhat I found. I have told herthings sometimesI haven'teven told my own wife. Becauseof the environmentand I know she has an open ear, I can spill the beans. I feel that she protects.She is my idea of a mother.

Services
As many network members have provided services as have provided emotional aid (61 percent), although there is only moderate overlap between those who have provided these two types of support (r = 0.33). Those who have provided services have mainly helped with small chores (such as helping out with shopping or fixing the car, 39 percent), minor household tasks (such as minding a child, 35 percent), or lending household items (37 percent). A small of percentage of network members also have helped with major household projects such as home renovations (10 percent), or have helped the East Yorkers to deal with large organizations such as government bureaucracies (10 percent).

290

SOCIOLOGICALPERSPECTIVES Volume 32, Number 3,1989

As physical access is necessary for the delivery of many services, a higher percentage of network members in frequent face-to-face contact with the East Yorkers have supplied them with services (Table 7). Although the significant variable in the logistic regression is "friends and neighbors," it is actually only neighbors who have been heavy service providers: 75 percent of them have provided services as compared with 66 percent of friends. Many immediate kin-parents, children, and siblings-have also been service providers. By contrast, few extended kin have provided services. Like siblings, they often live far away from the East Yorkers, and they have little face-to-face contact with them. Yet, unlike siblings, only a minority of those extended kin who are intimates have provided services; extended kin constitute only 3 percent of the service-providing relationships (Table 5). Network members who have similar employment statuses are somewhat more likely to have exchanged services. This reflects the tendency of women homemakers to help each other with domestic chores, while men help each other with home and car repairs (Wellman 1985). No other similarity between network members and East Yorkers and no personal characteristic of the network members is significantly associated with the provision of services. Parents and Adult Children As is the case for emotional aid, parents and adult children are the most likely of all network members to have provided services (Table 7). Moreover, the services provided by parents, unlike those provided by other network members, are statistically independent of frequent face-to-face contact with the East Yorkers. Almost all of the intimate parents and children and three-quarters of those with a significant relationship have provided services. For example, Tom Robinson's (newly-married printer, thirty,, no children) parents take care of his pet parakeet every weekend when he goes away to his cottage. (When his mother was acutely ill, he drove her to the hospital.) Penny Crawford (married part-time sales clerk, thirty-five) provides a typical example of this kind of service exchange: My father[a baker]gave me cakes and pies for my party.He made a big cake for me, a big birthdaycake.I fixed his drapesfor him:He wanted them clean so I took them to the cleanersand got him some new ones for the bedroom. In many cases, adult children have helped their parents with physical work around the home. For example, Jenny Draper (married, retired clerk, sixty-four, one adult child) had her thirty-four year old daughter cut down trees and clear the land before Jenny and her husband began construction on their cottage. Since her divorce, Maureen O'Sullivan's adult son has done many household chores: He does any repairslike curtainrungs that fall down, doors that need fixing.He does some repairson the car,his carand my car,and

BROTHERS KEEPERS

291

that sort of thing. The things you need a man aroundfor. When they are capable of it, parents have also helped with heavy chores. Dick Johnson (married sales manager, thirty-eight, three children) is often surprised by the zeal of his mother-in-law: She is a very unique woman. She is so self-sufficient. When I wouldn't go on the ladderto paintthe top of my own house, she did it for me. I didn't know she was doing it, I wouldn't have allowed her. I justcame home and it was done. Some East Yorkers complain that their parents expect their children's time and energy as a right. As Tom Robinson puts it: The more you do for them, the moreyou have to thankthem for it. They have a tendencyto say, "Afterall that we have done for you." Margaret Baillie expresses similar feelings: They expect theirchildrento look afterthem. Whenyou say, "Gee, I look forwardto my weekendstoo,"she says, "Whoelse am I going to depend on if I can'tdepend on my kids?"I don't mind cookinga meal for her,but it's more that my husbandhas to be the chauffeur for her,or that she phones up and asks me to pick up somethingfor her when I'm shopping. In other cases, reciprocity has been a cooperative family enterprise, with each network member maintaining independence while providing services as diverse as taking telephone messages, painting, and babysitting.10 In these situations, immediate kin have given aid freely without feelings of coercive obligation. As Wendy Sherwin (married homemaker, thirty-three, two children) says, "You don't hesitate to ask a family member for help if you need it." Dick Johnson (married sales manager, thirty-eight, three children) has been helping his mother-in-law for a decade: I guess I might at one time have preferredto sit and read a book ratherthango and dig in hergarden.Butshe's such a greatlady, it's been one of those things that flashesin my mind momentarily,and I immediatelydiscountit. Shehas helpedme when I neededit.That's why I feel guilty when thatkind of idea comes into my head. I don't think I've ever said no to her. Mindyou, she doesn't ask a lot of me either. Siblings The case of siblings shows the usefulness of combining cross-tabular and regression analyses. On the one hand, the cross-tabulations in Table 7B show that brothers

292

SOCIOLOGICAL Volume32, Number3,1989 PERSPECTIVES

and sisters have provided less services than parents,children,and neighbors,and no more services than most other role types. On the other hand, the regressionin Table 7A shows that siblings are particularlyapt to provide services. Unlike the cross-tabulations,the multiple logistic regression controls for the effect of other variables,such as frequencyof contact.Siblingstend to live furtheraway from the EastYorkersand see them less often:situationsinhibitingthe provision of services (Wellman,et al. 1987,Table2). Becausetherearemore siblingsthanparentsin these networks,siblingscomprise a greater percentage of service-providingrelationships:21 percent as compared
Table 7 ServicesfromNetworkMembers
A: Logistic on Servicesa Regression Beta (Standardized)

Parent/Child Friend/Neighbor Faceto FaceContact(logged) Sibling Intimacy SimilarEmployment Status LogisticModel R:

Somer's D:

.29 .28 .19 .18 .17 .10 .33

.49

Note: aOnly variables at .05shown. significant

B: Percentage Members Services ofNetwork Providing Total Role Type (N = 337) Intimates Significants

Parent/Childb Siblingb ExtendedKin Friend/Neighborb Tie Organizational Faceto FaceContactb (N = 329) Morethan52/year 25 to 52/year Lessthan25/year (N = 337) Intimacyb SimilarEmploy.Statusb (N = 327) R & NM Not Employedc R & NM Employed R Employed,NM Not R Not, NM Employed

84 58 34 70 44 70 79 52 -76 67 64 55 57

93 67 43 82 71 88 84 67

75 47 29 61 38 59 74 42 51

79 79 71 71
76

59 52 47 48
51

TOTAL SAMPLE (N = 337) 61 Notes: bSignificant variable fromlogisticregression. = Respondent; NM = NetworkMember. CR

BROTHERS KEEPERS

293

with the parents' 13 percent (Table 5). For example, Douglas Freedman (married, forty-seven, two children) asked his brother for help with major household renovations: I called him on the phone. I said, "I need your help, I'm doing aluminum siding. What are you going to be doing on this weekend?" He said, "Fine,I'm on holidays, and I'll earmarkthe weekend for you." He did. He stretchedit out until Monday. Patricia Fairgray's brother-in-law has provided many services since the death of her husband: He's been very close to me. Thereis hardlya week that goes by that he doesn't pop in here at some time, and he phones three or four times a week to see if everythingis okay.If I need anything,I always know he is at the end of the phone. Ifthereis somethingwrong with the tap or the washing machineor anything,he will always come over and do his best. Aftertheir Dad died, he took the boys places, to football games, and if they had a Scout Night or something, he would go with them. Similarly, Margaret Baillie has frequently exchanged services with her two sisters: We've helped each other out whenever we could. When I had my thirdone, my youngest sistercameoverand stayedat my house and looked aftermy childrenwhen I went out. We've sharedthe careof our mother. My oldest sister always whips up dresses for us. She made my wedding gown, bridesmaids',and attendants'gowns.

Financial Aid Financialaid, small and large, is more rarelyprovided by network membersthan emotional aid, services, or companionship.Only 16 percent of all active network membershave provided the EastYorkers with money. Mostfinancialhelp is a small loan when one person is short of funds: 13 percent of all network members have given EastYorkerssuch smallloans.Overtime,thesesmallloans have oftenbecome Suchexchangesare significantreciprocal exchangesratherthanone-way transfers. associated with seen ly voluntary, frequently relationships,especially with men (Table8). Thus 20 percentof organizationalties (coworkers,etc.) have lent money to the EastYorkers. Largeloans or gifts of money are rare,whetherthey be for housing (3 percent)or for other major needs such as health care (4 percent). Unlike many kinds of emotional aid or services, they are rarely reciprocatedbecause the East Yorkers would not have borrowed if they had prospects for receiving the needed money (Wellman, Carrington,& Hall 1988).Network members who do not hesitate to supply large quantities of services and emotions hesitate to supply financialaid. Bothgiver and receiverfearthatbecauselarge sums cannotbe repaid, it will strain

294

SOCIOLOGICALPERSPECTIVES Volume 32, Number 3,1989

the relationship.As Douglas Freedmansays of his brother:"He can rely on me for everything except money." Yet East Yorkers have often been provided major support to the chronicallyill who are unlikely to returnsuch aid in the future.
Table 8 Financial Aid fromNetworkMembers
A: Logistic onFinancial Aid Regression
. . . .. . . . ..

Beta (Standardized)

Parent/Child Voluntariness Faceto FaceContact(logged) Marital Status Gender LogisticModel R: Somer'sD: Notes: aOnly variables at.05shown. significant
N= 294. B: Percentage Members Financial Aid ofNetwork Providing Total Role Type (N = 337)

.32 .17 .12 -.11 -.10 .38 .60

Intimates

Significants

Parent/Childb Sibling ExtendedKin Friend/Neighbor Tie Organizational Voluntarinessb (N = 325) Discretionary PurelyEmbedded Faceto FaceContactb (N = 329) Morethan52/year 25 to 52/year Lessthan25/year Marital StatusSimilarityb (N = 336) R & NM Marriedc R & NM Single NM Single R Married, R Single,NM Married
Genderb (N = 337)

52 16 5 11 20 22 11 24 17 13 15 5 31 9 20 14
16

53 14 0 12 43 22 3 31 25 10 14 11 44 5 19 18
18

50 19 6 10 15 21 13 20 10 15 16 0 22 11 21 11
14

Male Female
TOTAL SAMPLE (N = 337) Notes: bSignificant variable fromlogisticregression. = Respondent; NM = NetworkMember. CR

BROTHERS KEEPERS

295

Parents and Adult Children Although large loans are rare, the East Yorkers'demand for them also is rare. Suchmonetarytransfershave been the key They are a once in a lifetimetransaction. for buying several homes and seeing severalEastYorkersthroughcrises. sense of reciprocal Perhapsa particular obligationsbetween parentsand children In the those needing majorchroniccareare usually explains generalstory. practice, And it is the who have been significantlyready to provide elderly parents. parents financial aid, especially major financial aid (Table 8). Although they are only 8 percentof all active networkmembers,parentsand adult childrenform 30 percent of all financially-supportive relationships(Table5). Over half of them have given and they arejustaboutthe only network loans or monetarygifts to the EastYorkers, memberswho have provided substantialsums (Sussman&Burchinal1962b,report similar findings). Moreover, the statistically significant association of financial support with networkmembersin differentmaritalsituations(Table8) reflectsthe propensity of widowed parents to aid marriedchildren.(No other personal characteristicof network membersand no other similaritybetween network members and EastYorkersis associated with financialsupport.) For example, Penny Crawford'sfatherquickly provided airfarefor her and her husbandwhen Penny'sfather-in-lawsuddenly becameill in Scotland.He also gave them the down payment for theirmortgage.Similarly,PatriciaFairgray,a widow, has made significantloans to both of her sons:
Bobsaw this carhe wanted and he was a littlebit short.So he asked me if I could loan him $1,500for his car,and I said yes. Then I sent Ross [her other son] a check for $1,500.I said, "Justkeep it on the side and if anything crops up you will have some extramoney." I knew thatby the time he put the down paymentdown on the house he didn't have an awful lot of cash left.

Eve Spencer'sfatherhelped her get a large mortgagefrom her grandmother:

Therewas a house we were interestedin over here,a five-bedroom house, and the guy upped the down payment.I didn't feel we could manage it, and I was telling Dad about it. He went to my Grandmother.Firstthing I know she is on the phone.She had my Dad take her to the bank, she got out the money we needed, and my father was here with the cash in his hands. It was three or four thousand dollars.

Although it is not as common, children also have helped their parents out of financialdifficulties.Forexample,JackAitken paid the taxes on his parents'home
one year: "My father came and asked me. Times were rough then. He asked me for money, and I had it." Parents and children have often foregone overt bargaining or dominance relationships. Martha Ellis says of her mother-in-law: "If that woman had one dollar

296

SOCIOLOGICAL Volume32, Number3,1989 PERSPECTIVES

left in her purse and I asked for it she would give it to me ratherthan buy herself something she needed." However, some parentshave used theirfinancialresourcesto assert power in a relationship.Forexample,MarkHaines'(marriedproductionmanager,thirty,two children)parentsrefused his requestfor money to buy a home:
Whenwe were firstlooking for a house, I said, "Giveme $10,000," and they said "No!"They didn't take me seriously.

Companionship
Over half (58 percent) of the East Yorkers' active network members are "companions":persons with whom they exchange ideas (47 percent),engage in informalactivities(39 percent),or who are fellow membersof formalorganizations (18 percent).The social productionof companionshipis somewhat differentfrom that of the otherformsof social support.It comes from kithand not fromkin. To an appreciableextent, the persons whom EastYorkersenjoybeing with are not those who have provided them with emotionalor materialaid. Yet such ties aretrulyand importantlysupportive:They help EastYorkersavoid isolation,and they provide empathetic understanding and positive feelings of belonging to social circles (Leighton1986). Network memberswho are intimatesor who have multiplex ties with the East Yorkersare especially likely to be companions."Three-quarters of intimateties are most re9). (Table companionablerelationships Similarly, voluntarily-maintained are Thus friends and ties the are most lationships companionate. organizational likely of all role types to be companions(although the positive correlationdisappears in the multiple regression),reflectingthe tendencyof friendsto be voluntary ties. If friendsdo not enjoydoing and discussing things together,thereis often little structuralreason to maintaintheir relationship(see also, Fischer1982b;Wiseman 1986). Kin(30percent)aremuchless likely thankith(70percent)to providecompanionship. Although kin comprise44 percentof all active network members,they form only 31 percent of all companionship ties (Table 5). All three kinship rolesparent/child, sibling, extended kin-are significantlyless likely than friends and organizationalties to be companions (Table9A). Indeed, East Yorkersrarely are companions with those parents and extended kin with whom they do not feel intimate(Table9B).TomRobinsonholds a common sentiment:"Idon't chum with my relatives.They'restrictlyout." Immediatekin arejust about the only networkmemberswho can be intimatesof the EastYorkerswithout being theircompanions(Table9). In contrastto voluntary friendshipties, kinshipbonds of obligationcan substitutefor relationsof sociability in maintainingintimacy.Consequently,intimatekinship relationsare in place for supportiveinteractionwhen needed, even when they are not companionate.

Kinship

BROTHERS KEEPERS Table 9 fromNetworkMembers Companionship

onCompanionshipa A: Logistic Regression Beta (Standardized)

297

ExtendedKin Intimacy Sibling Parent/Child Voluntariness LogisticModel R: Somer'sD:

at .05 shown. Notes: aOnlyvariables significant N = 296. Members B: Percentage Companionship ofNetwork Providing Total Role Type (N = 337) Parent/Childb 48

-.26 .24 -.21 -.13 .10 .33 .48

Intimates 80

Significants 19

Siblingb
Extended Kinb

48
23

50
43

45
19

Friend/Neighbor Tie Organizational (N = 336) Intimacyb

Voluntarinessb (N = 327)

70 75 -74 70 42
58

89 86

54 73 48

Discretionary PurelyEmbedded
TOTAL SAMPLE (N = 327) Note: bSignificant variablefromlogisticregression.

85 33
74

49 44
48

Betty Lancaster reports on one unhappy, but still significant, kinship tie:
I have a brother that I cannot stand. I wouldn't even give him the time of day if he wasn't my brother. I only tolerate him because he is my brother. Leonard Dobson (married maintenance man, thirty-six, three children) is more

ambivalent about his intimate brother:

I feel close to him but I couldn't say why other than the fact that he is my brother. We don't go to places together: we don't go to hockey games or baseball games or anything like that. So I suppose our only tie is that we happen to be brothers.

The generation gap between parents and children inhibits companionship when the individuals are not intimates. For example, Dianne Cressey testifies, "I feel close

298

SOCIOLOGICAL Volume 32, Number3,1989 PERSPECTIVES

to my mother. But she is a lot older than I am, and her values are different from mine." Graham Hearst (single, unemployed, twenty-nine, no children) feels that his lifestyle has greatly compromised his relationship with his parents: I haven'tgot along with my parentsforhalfmy life.Theyreallywish that I would settle down and get a house, a car and 2.4 kids, and a job and all that, and then they would understandme. But it isn't happeningand it probablyisn'tgoing to. I don't see them thatoften, just dinnermaybe.It'sbetterthat way. Even those parent-child relationships that are companionate can be tempered by differences in age and attitudes. Betty Lancaster points out the difficulties with her mother: Yes, we have a lot in common.She's an animal lover, she has a lot of plants.We like to go to sales at the shoppingplaza and light stuff likethat,butthere'ssucha gap betweensixtyand thirty-five.I rarely can appreciatethe attitudesthatcome throughliving throughthose years and those times. Siblings are more apt than other kin to be companions even when they are not intimates (Table 9B). Similar ages give siblings more things in common, and many East Yorkers have a favorite sister or brother with whom they frequently do things or discuss ideas. For example, Margaret Baillie has shared many activities with a sister: She enjoysthe same kind of things that I do. When we were single, we used to go to dances. We used to bowl in the same league too. Now we play cards.We'll also go out to eat:The whole family and her whole family will go out to eat, or we'll have a picnic together. We'll even have holidays together. We went down to Florida together,and a lot of years we have rentedcottagestogether. As with other kinds of social support, extended kin are the least likely of all network members to provide companionship (Table 9). East Yorkers may dislike or be indifferent to these persons, or they may live so far apart that companionship is impractical. When great distances separate extended kin, communication has often ceased and the ties have deteriorated. For example, Lisa Foster is socially and spatially close with her immediate family, but feels distant from her extended kin: They'remostly backEast.I reallydon't know them well becausewe don'tkeepin contact.I don'teven know who is aliveand who's dead
now.

On the other hand, some individuals have actively tried to maintain relations with extended kin by arranging special occasions that bring together family mem-

KEEPERS BROTHERS

299

bers. Andy Capp (married mechanic, forty-five, three adult children) and his wife are such people: We might throw a partyhereand callall of the familyin. We gather all of the clan in now and then just to make sure we get them all together.It is a way of ensuringeverybodyremembersthat we are a family. DIFFERENT FROM KITH AND OFTEN KIND12 It is no longer news that kin continue to occupy important places in the lives of most inhabitants of the First, Second, and Third worlds. But our findings go further, placing kin in the context of individuals' broader set of interpersonal relations. They show that immediate kin are more than important: they occupy a central and rather unique place in the East Yorkers' social networks. There are several indications that the householdis as much the unit of the relationship as the individual: Supportbasically serves domestic, reproductiveneeds: the domain of the household.These relationsare used to heal the physicallyand emotionally wounded, to build homes, and to repaircars. They usually operate out of households and not out of workplacesor public places. Coupleties areno moresupportivethanindividualties:it is two households being linked and not threeor more adults. Parents-in-laware similar to parents in the support they provide. The between-householdlinksminimizequestionsof affinityand consanguinity. There are few gender differenceswithin role type: mothers behave more similarly to fathers than anyone else, sisters to brothers, etc. The most importantthing in determiningthe supportivelink appearsto be the basic role relationship-e.g., parent-child,sibling-sibling-and not the marital status,the consanguinity,or the gender of the networkmemberat the other end of the link.

If kinship did not exist in theory, we would have found it anyway in practice-at least for parents, adult children, and siblings. These relationships stand out for the high percentage of network members who provide emotional aid, services, and financial aid (from parents). Despite the small number of immediate kin in these networks, they provide about one-third of the supportive relationships. The are the persons upon whom the East Yorkers count. The highly supportive parentsand childrenhave helping profiles which stand out from all other network members. Even when the relationship is not intimate, it is reliably and actively helpful. Parents and kin continually recognize and act on perceived obligations to support immediate kinfolk: what Fortes (1969) and Farber (1981; Farber & Smith 1985) call the "axiom of amity." They are supportive for

300

SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume 32, Number3,1989

emotional problems (especially crises). They provide services as mundane as food shopping, as acute as a large loan to start a boutique, and as chronic as moving in to care for the sick. Our findings extend the now-common finding of widespread care for elderly parents by adult children (for example, Coward 1988; Soldo, Wolf, & Agree 1986; Somlai & Lewis 1988; Steuve 1982; Wenger 1987). Although such support for the frail elderly is important for social policymakers' concerns about old-age care, the gerontologists' emphasis on the frail elderly has downplayed the longer-term support which adult children give to their active parents and which parents give to their adult children (see also, Fischer 1986). These data also give statistical precision to the ambivalent parent/adult child relationships documented in such popular fiction as Portnoy'sComplaint(Roth 1969) and nonfiction as How to be a JewishMother (Greenburg 1965). They make it clear that parents and children do not function as friends. Indeed, the high mobilization of parents and children to provide aid to each other may work against having relaxed relations. Support, yes; companionship, no! Siblings complement and substitute for parents and children. When parents get frail, a sister usually holds together the kinship group (see also, Wellman 1985;Gold 1987;Rosenthal 1987). Thus when asked why she feels close to her sister, Helen Troy (single bank clerk, fifty-three, no children) responded that:. I just sort of am, although we're not reallyalike. I think if we were not sisters,we might not have much to do with each otherbecause we are different.Butbecausewe have the same remembrances and have always felt like a family,it keeps us close. Although siblings are usually similar in ages and interests to the East Yorkers, they do not provide the companionship that friends do. To a great extent, this is because siblings often live further apart than friends, inhibiting social contact. (To put it more positively, kinship is better able than friendship to maintain active long-distance relations.) Extendedkin stand out, too, but in much different ways. They are different both from immediate kin and from friends. They tend to be the least supportive and least companionable of network members. If kinship systems did not keep extended kin in contact, few would be active network members. At most, East Yorkers expect amity from a favorite aunt (who they deem close enough to be a fictive immediate kin). Although they would like reciprocity from the small number of other extended kin they have helped, they rarely receive it. While they are bothered when they do not get support, they really do not expect it. Among extended kin, those apparently eligible for active-albeit unsupportivenetwork membership are aunts, uncles, grandparents, and first cousins. Grandchildren are too young to be supportive, and other relatives are too socially distant. Many extended kin remain active network members because of their position in kinship systems and not because they are supportive or sociable. As Chris Armstrong (married firefighter, thirty-one, two children) puts it, "My relatives are welcome any time." They are welcome for limited interaction, but the East

KEEPERS BROTHERS

301

Yorkers expect little from them. Indeed, reclusive John Williams values their social distance: Familyties aregreatas long as they arejustties and not stranglables. Don't drive it into me thatbecausewe're relatedyou've got to come and see me. Although holding markedly different positions in these active networks, both immediate kin and extended kin operating in these networks are part of the same kinship system. Reliability underpins their relationships with the East Yorkers. Immediate kin are reliably there for support; extended kin are reliably there as significant network members without having to do much in the way of support or sociability. They function without the need for direct, one-on-one reciprocity which characterize many friendship relations. And in crises, some extended kin do provide support.13 In their distinctive ways, both immediate and extended kin help individuals and households to reduce interpersonal uncertainties in making their way through stressful, problematic worlds. Let us give Andy Capp the last word: You have a duty to your family if they requireassistance.This has been drummedinto us since forever,and it is a fact.Becauseif your familycan'ttell it to you who the hell can they tell it to? I don't care if you hate your brother,if he asks for help, that's what you'll give him. It's somethingthat'sbred into us, and our parentsmade sure we understoodthat if anybody needs help in the family, then you would help them. I've got a coupleof sistersI'm not all thatfond of, but if they ask,that'sit. Ifthey weren'tfamily,I would totallyignore them.

Acknowledgments: Our research has been supported by grants from Health and Welfare Canada (Welfare ResearchProgram),the SocialSciences and Humanities Research Council (generalresearchand aging research), the OntarioMinistryof Healthand the Programmein Gerontologyof the University of Toronto. We thankVicenteEspinoza,Kristina Makkayand Susan Sim for their assistance with this research. We thank Bonnie Erickson, Bernard Farber, Charles Jones, Peter Laslett, John Mogey, Detelina Radoeva, Sebastien Reichmann, Bev Wellman, and Peter Willmottfor theiradvice.

A preliminaryversion of this article

was presented at the conference on 'Kinship and Aging." Committee on

Family Research,InternationalSociological Association, Lake Balaton, Hungary,April, 1988. NOTES

1. For community, see the reviews in Fischer 1976; Wellman 1988a; Wellman & Leighton1979;for kinship,see the reviews in Sussman & Burchinal 1962a; Mogey 1977;Lee 1980;Eichler1983;Fischer1982a; Goldthorpe 1987;Laslett 1988; Plakans & Wetherell1988;Wellman1990. 2. Intimatenetwork members are those

302

SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume32, Number3,1989 tween emotional aid and services (see Wellmanwith Hiscott1985). 6. Our supposition about the proportion of availablekin in these networksderives fromSmith& Laslett's(1988)estimatesfor "20th century England."These show for adults aged 30-65: -3.5-4.5 living "primary kin"(parents, children,siblings,grandparents); -3-7 "descending kin" great-grandchildren, grandchildren, children, nieces and nephews; -5 "lateral kin":cousins,auntsand uncles, nieces and nephews. Thereare some differencesbetween their approachto counting kin and ours: they count nieces and nephews twice (albeitfor different purposes), they do not include in-laws, and they include children under eighteen. 7. All quotations are from interview transcripts, edited for conciseness. To preserveanonymity,we have changed all names of respondentsand network members. In addition, we have changed some identifying details in ways which should not weaken the validity of the examples and discussion. 8. We used SPSS-X 2.1'sCLUSTER procedure.Weclusteredtypes of relationshipsnotindividuals:the relationaltypes shown at the left of Figure 1. We compared the percentageof the incumbentsof these relationaltypes who gave eachof the five types of social support under study: emotional financialaid, aid, services,companionship, and job/housing information.(These are the basic dependent variables in this study.) We used the method of average linkage between groups with the measure of squared Euclidian distances for the clustering.Westoppedat six clustersin our stepwise analysis because the proximity coefficients started increasing markedly with further combinations into five or fewer clusters, indicating that the procedure was unwarrentedly forcing dis-

whom interviewed respondents "feel are closest to you outside your home." Signetworkmembersarethose non-innificant timates whom respondents "are in touch with in your daily life and who are significant in your life." Intimate and significantnetworkmembersjointlycomprise the respondents' sets of active network members. See Wellman(1979)for the resultsof the survey;Wellman(1982)fora descriptionof the interview and study design; Wellman & Wellman(1989)for the relationshipbetween household support and network support;Wellman& Wortley(1989)for an evaluation of different theories of the tie basisof support.Thenumbersin thisarticle differ slightly from those in previous East Yorkarticlesdue to further cleaningof variables (cf., Wellman,et al. 1987;Wellman, Carrington& Hall 1988).As in our other articles,we generallycount "coupleties"as one relationship.See below for a further discussion of such ties. 3. The questionnairewas a follow-up to the interviewsdesigned to elicit more systematicinformation aboutsupport.Thefifteen items asked about whether each network member gave or received a specific kind of support. (The three companionship items were coded from the interviews.) For example, the first item was "Gave help with small household jobs (such as minor repairsto house, car, cottage; small amount of help with housework)." For all items, the respondents were asked whetherthe supporthas been given to or from them: "You to (Name)"or "(Name)to You."Becausewe were interestedin supportivecommunity, we did not put any time limit on the exchanges.Bycontrast,many studiesrelating social support to health ask only about recently-received support. 4. Wehave not used this dimensionin this analysisbecausea small, specializednumberof workmatestend to provide information and contactsaboutjobopenings. 5. The strongest correlation is 0.33 be-

KEEPERS BROTHERS

303

crepantrolesinto a cluster.Happily,the six clusters are relatively clean and have theoreticalinterest. 9. The logistic regression tables only present variablesfound significant(at the .05 level) in multiple logistic regressions. "LogistModel R" is a parametricstatistic in the logistic regression reflectingthe fit between the dichotomousdependentvariable (e.g., whether or not the tie provides emotionalaid) and a linearcombinationof the significantindependentvariables(e.g., intimacy,parent/childtie).Somer'sD indicatesthe strengthof the ordinalfit between the dichotomous dependent variable and linear combinations of the independent variables. TheSASlogisticregressionprocedurewe use only provides unstandardizedcoefficients which are not meaningful in the context of this study. To provide the standardized betas shown here,we performed OLSmultiple regressionscontainingonly the variablesfound significantin the logistic regressions.Our confidencein the usefulness of this procedurewas bolsteredby finding that all the OLSR coefficientswere nearly identical to the square of the analogous LogistModel R. After ascertaining that network members' occupational status and level of educationdid not seem to be relatedto any of the dependent support variables, we removed them from the final logistic regressions.The many missing values for these variablesmeantthatthe respondents often were not aware of their network members' occupational or educational situations, or that neither the network members nor their spouses had a current occupation. For the same reason we also removedvariablesindicatingif the respondent and the networkmemberhad similar occupational statuses or levels of education. Analyses including these variables produced almost identicalresults to those with these variablesdeleted. In all cases the Model R and the Somer's D are reasonablystrong.This is gratifying

because the dichotomous dependent variables in the logistic regressionsdo not take intoaccountvariationsin the strengthof the dependent variables. Moreover, we only aspireto offera partialexplanation.Clearly mattersotherthan the socialcharacteristics of a relationship affect whether a tie provides support: e.g., the psychological attributes of networkmembers,the support recipients'own needs and resources,and locationin divisions of labor,the natureof the networksin which the ties are situated, and Toronto's position in world socioeconomicsystems. To aid interpretation, we also presentfor the significantvariablesthe percentagesof networkmemberswho providethe respondents with this type of support.These percentages are also presented separatelyfor intimateand significantties in orderto aid comparability with those studies which have only analyzed intimates. 10. Johnson (1978) reports that grandparents are the most common source of child carein Torontofor dual non-parental incomefamilies. 11. Mulitplexity is so highly correlated with companionship that we removed it from the final logistic regression. In part, this is becauseour operationaldefinitionof multiplexity,the numberof differentcontexts in which network members interact with EastYorkers,is somewhat similarto our operationaldefinition of companionship. 12. With apologies to Shakespeare[Hamlet,I, ii, 65]. 13. Fischer's (1982b) California survey reports similar findings. See especially Chapter7.

REFERENCES
Boissevain, Jeremy.1974.Friends ofFriends: and Coalitions. Networks, Manipulators, Oxford: Blackwell. Coombs, Gary. 1980. "Variant Usage in American Kinship: The Nomenclator Effect."Pp. 11-27 in The Versatility of

304

Volume32, Number3,1989 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ly. New York:RandomHouse. Graves,Theodore & Nancy Graves. 1980. "KinshipTies and the PreferredAdaptive Strategiesof UrbanMigrants."Pp. Lon195-217in TheVersatility ofKinship. don:AcademicPress. Greenburg,Dan. 1965. How to be a Jewish Los Angeles:PriceStern. Mother. Hall, Alan & BarryWellman.1985. "Social Networks and SocialSupport."Pp. 23andHealth, edited by 41 in Social Support Sheldon Cohen and S. LeonardSyme. New York:AcademicPress. A Irish,Donald.1964."SiblingInteraction: Neglected Aspect in Family Life Research." SocialForces42 (March):279288. Israel, Barbara& KathleenRounds. 1987. "SocialNetworksand SocialSupport:A Synthesis For Health Educators."Pp. in HealthEducation 311-351 in Advances Vol. 2, edited by Scott and Promotion. Simonds, Patricia Mullen & Marshall Becker.Greenwich,CT:JAIPress. Johnson, Laura Climenko. 1978. Taking Care.Toronto:Social Planning Council Toronto. of Metropolitan Laslett,Peter. 1988. "Family,Kinship and Collectivity as Systems of Support in Pre-Industrial Europe:A Consideration of the 'Nuclear-Hardship' Hypothesis." andChange 3: in press. Continuity Lee,Gary.1980."Kinshipin the Seventies: A Decade Review of Research and Theory." Journalof Marriageand the 42 (4):923-934. Family Leighton, Barry.1986. 'The Myth of the Demise of Community. Experiencing PersonalCommunityNetworks."Ph.D. Thesis, Departmentof Sociology, Universityof Toronto. Lin, Nan, Alfred Dean & Walter Ensel. 1986. Social Support,Life Events and Depression. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Mazursky,Paul.1969."Boband Caroland Tedand Alice."Burbank, CA:Columbia Pictures. Mogey, John. 1977. "Contentof Relations

Kinship,edited by Linda Cordell and London:Academic StephenBeckerman. Press. Coward,Raymond.1988. "Careof Elderly Parents by Adult Children: A Comparison of the Patterns of Sons and Daughters." Paper presented to the "Kinshipand Aging" conference,Balatonzamardi,Hungary,April. Craven,Paul & BarryWellman.1973.'The Network City." Sociological Inquiry43: 57-88. Laszl6.1988."SexDifferCseh-Szombathy, ences in KinshipInteraction." Pp. 274andAging,edited by Peter 291in Kinship Somlai. Budapest: MTZ Szociologiai Kutat6Intezete. Eichler,Margrit.1983. Familiesin Canada Toronto:Gage. Today. 1981. Conceptions Bernard. Farber, of KinNew York: Elsevier North Holland. ship. &KarenSmith.1985.'Ties Bernard Farber, with Childrenand SiblingsamongResidents of Sun City." Paperpresentedto the annualmeeting of the AmericanSociological Association, Washington, August. Firth,Raymond,Jane Hubert,& Anthony andTheir Relatives. Forge.1969.Families London:Routledge& KeganPaul. Claude.1976.TheUrban Fischer, Experience. New York:HarcourtBraceJovanovich. . 1982a.'The Dispersionof Kinship Tiesin ModernSociety." ofFamiJournal 7 353-375. (Winter): ly History . 1982b. To Dwell Among Friends. Press. Berkeley: Universityof California Lives: Adult Fischer,LucyRose.1986.Linked and Their New York: Mothers. Daughters Harper& Row. and the Social Fortes,Meyer. 1969. Kinship Order. Chicago:Aldine. Gold, Deborah.1987."Siblingsin Old Age: on Journal SomethingSpecial."Canadian Aging6:199-215. 1987.Family in Western Life Goldthorpe,J.E. Societies.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. FamiGordon,Michael.1978.TheAmerican

KEEPERS BROTHERS

305 andAging. Somlai, Peter,ed. 1988. Kinship MTA Szociol6giai Kutat6 Budapest: Intezete. Somlai,P6ter& RobertLewis. 1988. "Help Givento and ReceivedfromAged Family Members in the United States and Hungary." Pp. 55-100 in Kinshipand Aging,editedby PeterSomlai.Budapest: MTASzociologiaiKutat6Intezete. Steuve, Ann. 1982. 'The Elderly as Network Members."Marriageand Family Review 5(4):59-87. Sussman,Marvin & Lee Burchinal.1962a. "Kin Family Network: Unheralded Structure in Current Conceptualizations of Family Functioning."Marriageand Family Living24 (August):231-240. . 1962b. "ParentalAid to Married andFamily Children." Marriage Living24 320-332. (November): Wellman, Barry. 1979. 'The Community Journal of Sociology Question."American 84 (March): 1201-1231. . 1981."ApplyingNetworkAnalysis to the Study of Social Supports." Pp. andSocial Networks 171-200in Social SupGottlieb.Beverport,editedby Benjamin ly Hills, CA:Sage. . 1982. "Studying Personal Communities."Pp. 61-80 in SocialStructure and NetworkAnalysis,edited by Peter Marsden& Nan Lin.BeverlyHills, CA: Sage. .1985. "DomesticWork,Paid Work and Net Work."Pp. 159-191 in UnderPersonal edited by standing Relationships, Steve Duck & Daniel Perlman.London: Sage. . 1988a.'The CommunityQuestion Re-evaluated." Pp. 81-107 in Power, Communityand the City, edited by Michael Peter Smith. New Brunswick, Books. NJ:Transaction . 1988b."Structural Analysis:From Method and Metaphorto Theory and Substance."Pp. 19-61 in SocialStructures: A NetworkApproach, edited by BarryWellman&S.D. Berkowitz.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

with Relatives." Pp. 413-429 in The Societies, FamilyLife Cyclein European editedbyJ.Cuisnier&M.Segalen.Paris: Mouton. Parsons,Talcott. 1943. 'The Kinship System of the Contemporary United 45:22States."American Anthropologist 38. Pilisuk, Marc& Susan Hillier Parks.1986. TheHealingWeb. Hanover,NH: Univerof Press New sity England. Pitt-Rivers, Julian.1973.'The Kithand the Kin."Pp. 89-105 in TheCharacter ofKinship,edited by JackGoody. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress. Plakans, Andrejs & Charles Wetherell. 1988. 'The KinshipDomain in an East EuropeanPeasantCommunity:PinkerHistorical Rehof, 1833-1850."American view93 (2):359-386. Pool, Ithiel de Sola & Manfred Kochen. 1978. "Contactsand Influence."Social Networks 1: 5-51. 1988."OldBulgarians: Detelana. Radoeva, Value Aspectsof theirAttitudetowards Childrenas a Partof the Family."Paper presented to the "Kinshipand Aging" conference,Balatonzamardi, Hungary, April. Robins, Lee & Miroda Tomanec. 1962. "Closenessto Blood RelativesOutside the Immediate Family." Marriage and 24 340-346. (November): Family Living Rosenthal,Carolyn.1985. "Kinkeepingin the FamilialDivision of Labor." Journal and the Family47 (Novemof Marriage ber):965-974. . 1987. "The Comforter:Providing Personal Advice and Emotional Support to Generations in the Family." Canadian on Aging6: 228-239. Journal 1969. Roth, Philip. Portnoy'sComplaint. New York:RandomHouse. Soldo, Beth,Douglas Wolf,&EmilyAgree. 1986. "Family, Household and Care Arrangements of Disabled Older Women."Paperpresentedto the annual meetingof the Gerontological Societyof America,Chicago,November.

306

PERSPECTIVES Volume32, Number3,1989 SOCIOLOGICAL Wellman,Barry&ScotWortley.1989."Different Strokes from Different Folks." Revised Version. Toronto: Centre For Urbanand CommunityStudies. Wellman,Beverly& BarryWellman.1989. "Domestic Affairs and Network Relations." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association.SanFrancisco, August. Networks; Wenger,G. Clare.1987. Support and Stability: SecondReportof a Change in People Follow-Up Studyof Old Elderly North Wales.Bangor:Centre for Social and Development,UniPolicyResearch versity College of North Wales. Networks Willmott,Peter. 1987. Friendship andSocial London:Policy StudSupport. ies Institute. as a Wayof Wirth,Louis.1938."Urbanism Life." American Journalof Sociology44 3-24. (July): Wiseman, Jacqueline. 1986. "Friendship: Bonds and Binds in a Voluntary Relof SocialandPersonal ationship."Journal 3 Relationships(June):191-212.

. 1990.'The Placeof Kinfolkin Personal CommunityNetworks."Marriage andFamily Review: Forthcoming. & Alan Wellman,Barry,PeterCarrington, Hall. 1988. "Networks as Personal Communities." Pp. 130-184 in Social A Network edited Structures: Approach, Berkoand S.D. Wellman by Barry witz. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wellman, Barry & Robert Hiscott. 1985. "From Social Support to Social Network." Pp. 205-222 in Social Support, edited by Irwin Sarason & Barbara Sarason.The Hague:MartinusNijhoff. Wellman, Barry & Barry Leighton. 1979. "Networks,Neighborhoodsand Communities." UrbanAffairs Quarterly14 363390. (March): Wellman, Barry,Clayton Mosher, Cyndi Rottenberg,& Vicente Espinoza. 1987. "Different StrokesFromDifferentFolks: WhichTiesGiveWhatSupport?" WorkInstitutefor Urban ing Paper.Berkeley: and RegionalDevelopment,University of California.