Choldin - Kinship Networks in The Migration Process

Kinship Networks in the Migration Process
Author(s): Harvey M. Choldin

Source: International Migration Review, Vol. 7, No. 2 (Summer, 1973), pp. 163-175
Published by: The Center for Migration Studies of New York, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3002426
Accessed: 18-06-2015 20:18 UTC
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.
The Center for Migration Studies of New York, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
International Migration Review.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 157.92.4.75 on Thu, 18 Jun 2015 20:18:37 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
*
Networks In The Process
Kinship Migration
by Harvey M. Gholdin**
One element of the proposition that industrialism would destroy the

extended family was that geographic mobility?migration?in response to
market forces would be an important mechanism for family division.1 Research
published several years ago indicated the survival and transformation of the
extended kin network. The study we report here indicates the functions of
families and extended kinship networks for migrants moving into large U.S.
cities.
The research of Litwak led in revising our understanding of kinship and mi?
gration and occupational mobility.2 That research tied in with a set of studies
which outlined the modified extended kinship network in the U.S. and England.
The main points emerging from those studies were that, despite the spatial
dispersion of member households:
1. The extended family persists in industrial settings in terms of continued
interaction among kinfolk of differentgenerations;
2. strong affectiveties exist among its members; and
3. the members perform various services for one another.
Several studies in various settings have supported these points. They have
shown interaction patterns and help and advice exchanges within urban kinship
networks.3
Many of the services performed within extended kin networks are done in
the context of migration. Various descriptions of American immigration have
*Research
reportedin this articlewas supportedby grantsfromthe Ford Foundationand the
RockefellerFoundationtotheCommunity and StudyCenter,Department ofSociology,Universityof
Chicago.This paper represents part of a largerstudy,entitled"Problemsof Livingin the Me?
tropolis,"directed
byDonaldJ. Bogue.
**Department ofSociology,
University ofIllinois,Urbana.
'WilliamJ.Goode,WorldRevolution and FamilyPatterns, New York:FreePress,1963,Ch. 3.
2EugeneLitwak,"GeographicalMobilityand ExtendedFamilyCohesion,"AmericanSociological
Review,Vol. 25 (June,1960),385-394;and EugeneLitwak,"OccupationalMobilityand Extended
FamilyCohesion,"AmericanSociologicalReview,Vol. 25 (Feb., 1960),9-21.
3Someexamplesare: Michael Young and PeterWilmott,Familyand Kinshipin East London,
(London: Routledgeand Kegan Paul, 1957), 57-68. HerbertGans, The Urban Villagers,(New
York:The Free Press,1962),45-46. MarvinB. Sussman,"The Help Patternsin theMiddleClass
Family,"77**? AmericanSociologicalReview,Vol. XVIII (1953), 22-28.MarvinB. Sussman,"The
IsolatedNuclearFamily:Fact or Fiction,"Social Problems,Vol. VI (1959), 333-340.BertAdams,
Kinshipin an UrbanSetting,Chicago: Markham,1968. See also: Allen D. Coult and Robert
Habenstein,"The Studyof ExtendedKinshipin Urban Society,"The SociologicalQuarterly,3
(1962), pp. 141-145.SherwoodB. Slater,The Functionsof the UrbanKinshipNetworkUnder
Normaland CrisisConditions, unpublished WesternReserveUniversity,
dissertation, 1966. Reuben
Hill,FamiliesUnderStress,New York:Harper,1949.
163
1 64 THE INTERNATIONALMIGRATIONREVIEW
shown that kinfold shared scarce resources such as dwellings, food, and money.
Firey presents a description of the functions of the extended kinship network
among Italian immigrants in Boston.4 Two studies of migrant communities
which stress the functions of the kinship network are those of Wirth and Padilla.5
Jitodai has described the interaction of internal migrants with their kinfolk in
Detroit.6
Litwak offers a plausible explanation of why the extended family is well
suited to aid its members in migrating both in sending them from the community
of origin and receiving them in the community of settlement.7 He says that in
times of catastrophe, extended families help their members to leave the afflicted
area. This observation may be extended to indicate that there may be situations
or cultures in which the members of a parental generation of an extended family
wish to help their children to leave their community for the benefits of a new
community (in the model of the traditional, stable, small community, it was
assumed that parents wanted their children to stay in the home community).
Assuming that members of the extended family are motivated to help their
kinfolk to emigrate, Litwak offerstwo explanations of why the extended family
is well-suited to aid its member in this activity. The firstis that the members may
pool their resources and save to provide the wherewithal for the trip and set?
tlement. The group is better equipped to do this than is the individual member.
Then the member who has migrated can save from his new income and send
home money which will enable one or more additional members to join him. The
second advantage of the kinship network over the individual nuclear family in
the migration process is that the network can function as an information network
with regard to the migration process. Litwak writes: "Because of its close ties
and size, the extended family had superior lines of communications. Thus the
migrant became a communication outpost for those who remained behind, pro?
viding information on jobs, housing, local social customs, and language."8 He
adds that those who had migrated earlier could aid in the adjustment of the new
migrant after he arrives in the community of settlement.
This leads into the process of chain migration, defined by MacDonald and
MacDonald as "that movement in which prospective migrants learn of opportu?
nities, are provided with transportation, and have initial accommodation and
employment arranged by means of primary social relationships with previous
4WalterFirey,Land Use in CentralBoston,Cambridge:HarvardUniversity Press,1947,pp. 184-

187.
5LouisWirth,TheGhetto,Chicago:University ofChicagoPress,1928.
"Migrationand KinshipContacts,"PacificSociologicalReview,6, (1963) pp. 49-55.
6TedJitodai,
7Litwak,"GeographicalMobility.. .," op.cit.,p. 386.
"Ibid.
KINSHIP NETWORKS J65
migrants.9 The MacDonalds have documented the process of chain migration in

the large-scale immigration of Italians into the United States in the late 19th and
early 20th century.
Tilly and Brown10 present a similar argument and similar data from re?
search in a smaller city. They introduce a new concept, "auspices of migration,"
defined as "the social structures which establish relationships between the mi?
grant and the receiving community before he moves."11 Tilly and Brown find
that some migrants are involved with kinfolk or friendship networks, or work or?
ganizations before, during, and after a move. They indicate which groups are
most likely to have the various types of auspices and they then correlate the aus?
pices with indicators of assimilation.
Chicago Migrant Data
This paper is a report of data which indicate the pervasiveness of kinship in?
volvement in the migration of individuals into the city of Chicago. Many of these
migrants were involved in chain migration in three ways: they were preceded to
the city by kinfolk, they traveled in the company of other kinfolk, and/or they
were received by kinfolk who had preceded them in the migration. The survey
further documents the ways in which the earlier migrants who received the new
arrivals provided them with advice and assistance in adjusting to urban life. At
the end of this paper we examine two hypotheses concerning the effectsof chain
migration, help, and advice upon adjustment to the city.
The data reported in this article represent a portion of those collected in a
multi-purpose sociological survey of the population of Chicago, the fieldwork of
which was conducted in 1959-1960. A main focus of this survey was on the
process of migration, settlement, and adjustment in the city.
In the survey, the household heads of 1,560 Chicago households were inter?
viewed. In households with a married couple, both husband and wife were inter?
viewed, producing a total of 2,454 persons interviewed.12 Of these, 1,561 had
migrated to Chicago at some point in their lifetimes. These migrants were
questioned intensively regarding their motivations for migrating, their ad-
9JohnS. MacDonald and Leatrice D. MacDonald, "Chain Migration,EthnicNeighborhood

Formation and SocialNetworks,"MilbankMemorialFund Quarterly, 42 (1964), p. 82.
10CharlesTilly and C. Harold Brown,"On Uprooting,Kinship,and theAuspicesofMigration,"
InternationalJournalofComparative Sociology,VIII, (1968), pp. 139-164.
uIbid.,p, 142.
12Thesamplewas stratified byqualityofhousing,racialcomposition, and proportion offoreign-born
in censustracts.Unequal samplingfractionsutilizedin thestrataproduceda weighted samplewhich
was notamenabletotheapplicationofstatistical testsofsignificance."NV' reported in thetablesin
thispaperrepresent weightedfrequencies.
166 THE INTERNATIONALMIGRATIONREVIEW
justment to and assimilation into life in the city, and other topics directly related
to migration (migrants were defined as persons who were born outside the
Chicago S.M.S.A. who had moved to Chicago after their sixteenth birthday;
persons who were born outside the U.S.A. and Canada but who had moved to
the U.S.A. or Canada after their twelfth birthday; or persons who were born in
the Chicago S.M.S.A. who had moved away at any age for five years or more
and who had returned to Chicago after their sixteenth birthday). The interviews
generated retrospective "recall" data, as the migrant was asked to reconstruct
experience he had at some earlier time in his life.
Chain Migration
The structure of the migrating unit is defined as the composition of the social
unit making the move. In the survey, migrants were asked whether they had
traveled alone or in the company of others. Those who came with others were
asked how many had accompanied them and what relationship those who came
with them had to themselves. The migrants were also asked whether any other
persons had later migrated to the city to join them. If any did follow, the migrant
was asked who had followed and how much time had elapsed between his own
arrival and the arrival of the new migrants. In another set of questions migrants
were asked about their decision to move. Responses to that set often indicated
that the decision was made after a relative had moved. Reports from the early
migrants on the new community, or their encouragement and help often in?
fluenced the decision. Thus, the kinship network is operative before the actual
move.
In the move itself, the nuclear or extended family is again involved. A little
more than half the migrants?51 percent?move to the city alone. The rest move
with relatives. Twenty-one percent move with one other person; the rest move
with more than two person. Of those moving with others, the modal migrant
moves with one other while only a few move with four or more others. The
spouse is the most frequent partner in the migration and most of those moving
with spouse move with children also. Few migrants move with only their
children. About 20 percent of those moving with other relatives move with
parents, siblings, or others. Very few migrants move with friends who are not
kinfolk.
In addition of those people traveling with the migrant, others follow him
and join him in the city. Thus a migration chain is established; one moves and
others follow. Twenty-four percent of the migrants are joined by others after
they arrive. The modal number of persons following is one, but about 60 percent
of those joined by others are joined by more than one.
Most frequently the persons following are the migrant's spouse and
KINSHIP NETWORKS 167
children. About 20 percent of those following are siblings. Fewer migrants are
followed by parents and other relatives.
The time lag between the migration of the first individual or group and
those joining is short; over 60 percent of those joining come less than a year after
the original migration and by the end of the second year, 87 percent of those who
follow have already come.
Reception in the City
A great deal of kinship involvement is evident in the settlement and ad?

justment process. Not only is the migration often made by family groups, but
most migrants join kinfolk or other primary group members in the city.
Sixty-eight percent of the migrants have someone waiting for them in the
city. These migrants thus re-establish social ties with a person or group from
"back home." Most receive a great deal of help from those receiving them.
Although some of the migrants are received by representatives of formal or?
ganizations such as churches or charities, the family is the most frequent
"agency" meeting migrants.
Of those who have someone waiting, 44 percent have close relatives?
parents, spouses, fiances, or children; 27 percent have more distant relatives?
aunts, uncles, cousins, and others; and 11 percent have in-laws waiting.
Seventeen percent are met by friends, 1 percent by clergymen, and 6 percent by
others. Thus, the primary group is much more important for this than any
voluntary association, charity, or government agency.
Help and Advice Patterns
The migrants receive three kinds of help: material assistance, intermediary

help, and help in making new social connections. By intermediary help we mean
activities which aid the migrant in overcoming his ignorance of customs,
geography, and other facts about the new community. By help in making new
social connections we mean activities which aid the migrant in meeting new
friends and joining organizations. The migrants recieve all three types of help
from kinfolk and friends.
Many of the people waiting meet the migrant at the point of arrival in the
city: the train depot, bus station, or airport. Forty-six percent of the migrants
who had someone waiting for them in the city received this kind of help. Many of
the persons receiving the migrants assist with the material necessities of life.
Sixty-four percent of the migrants stayed for some period of time in the resident
of those who were awaiting them. Thirty-one percent of the migrants received
loans and gifts of money from the people waiting. Twelve percent received loans
or giftsof clothing.
Many of the persons who receive the migrants assist them by acting as inter?
mediaries. About one-half of the migrants who had a person awaiting them
received help in finding a place to stay, 54 percent received help in finding a job,
and 35 percent received help in getting in touch with someone else. Many of the
persons receiving the migrants help them to make other social connections; 36
percent of the migrants get help in making new friends in the city.
In another more detailed series of questions dealing with the migrant's prob?
lems during his first few months in the city, the respondent was asked what
person or agency helped him with specific problems which were listed, how he
had contacted the person or agency, and whether the person or agency belonged
to the same ethnic group as himself. One aim of these questions was to discover
TABLE 1
SOURCES OF HELP FOR VARIOUS PROBLEMS*
MaterialNeeds
hous- finan-cloth- find-metat infor-trans-contact
ing cial ing food ing depotmation por- other
job tation person
Percentageofall migrants
thiskindofhelp
receiving 64.1 29.3 18.1 19.8 50.2 33.4 36.4 17.8 14.7
Sourcesofhelp:*
A. PrimaryGroup
Nuclear Family 41.9 49.9 49.4 36.2 33.8 48.2 37.4 38.9 38.5
OtherKinfolk 35.6 29.0 37.3 33.3 33.0 34.1 30.6 29.8 33.5
Friends,Co-workers,
Neighbors 18.4 14.9 5.2 16.3 26.1 17.1 29.0 25.4 27.1
B. PrivateOrganizations
Church 0.5 2.4 2.7 3.8 0.8 0.4 0.2 ? 0.6
PrivateCharity
Organization** 5.0 4.7 8.0 9.8 2.7 2.2 5.6 5.0 7.1
C. Governmentand Political
Organizations*** 3.0 2.3 ? 3.7 6.5 ? 3.6 2.4
D. Other 1.9 0.1 0.2 3.4 1.9 0.9 0.6 0.2
?Percentages
may addtomorethan
100asa respondent
mayhavereceived ofhelp
onekind from than
more onesource.
**Includes
settlement Salvation
houses, Army, andother
charities.
**Includes
political
party as
help, well
as welfare
andother
agencies.
KINSHIP NETWORKS 1 69
the chain of communications by which the migrant contacts persons of agencies

in the city, and the extent to which migrants are dependent upon other members
of their own ethnic groups.
For all kinds of problems encountered by new migrants, kinfolk are by far
the most important source of help (see Table 1). The only other persons who give
a substantial amount of help to the migrants are friends, co-workers, and
neighbors. For all kinds of problems studied, private, governmental, and
political organizations were contacted by migrants much less frequently than
were family members and friends.
Private agencies are utilized occasionally by those migrants who must go
outside the family for help with food and clothing. About 20 percent of the mi?
grants need this kind of help, and about 10 percent of these (i.e., 2 percent of all
migrants) receive help from private organizations such as churches, settlement
houses, and other private charities.
After family members, friends provide the second most important source of
help for all kinds of problems. These friends include not only people from the
place of origin, but also friends made soon after arrival, both neighbors and co-
workers. Friends help more often in intermediary ways, such as in finding jobs
and providing information, than in supplying material needs. There is no type of
help in which friends provide aid to more than 30 percent of the migrants. The
chain of communications to the source of help indicates further the functions of
the kinship network. In the survey, migrants who indicated that they had
received help in a particular problem area were asked who had helped them,
how they had contacted the helper, and what the helper's ethnicity was. (Data
concerning help with housing are presented here, but the communications pat?
tern is similar in finding help with other kinds of problems).
Since most of the helpers are family members the individual most often
contacts the person himself. A smaller proportion of migrants contact the helper
through another relative. Only 5 percent of the helpers are contacted through
friends, churches, organizations, and others. The communications chain is a
short and simple one, with the migrant most often contacting the source of help
himself.
Very few (about 11 percent) of the migrants moved outside of their own
ethnic groups for help.
Effects of Affiliation and Assistance
Kinship networks are involved in chain migration and within this process
kinfolk provide various kinds of help to the migrant. These facts lead into a set of
hypotheses concerning the effects of the kinship network on the adjustment
process. The general hypothesis is that kinship affiliation in the migration
process aids the migrant in adjusting to urban life. Operationally, this means
that migrants traveling to the city in the company of kinfolk adjust more quickly
and positively to life in the new community and that migrants who joined others
in the city adjust more quickly and more positively than those who migrated
alone or who were not met by others. An additional hypothesis is that those
receiving assistance in the city are more likely to adjust positively than those
receiving no assistance. The rationale for these hypotheses is that migrants who
come alone or who settle alone in the city are more prone to the loneliness or
anomie of urban life. It is assumed that those coming alone or having no one to
help them in the city are hindered by the lack of ready sources information about
the new environment and that, should they encounter problems, they have
nowhere to turn for assistance. Conversely, those migrating with others are pre?
sumably not as prone to feelings of anomie, and the social support of group affi?
liation aids them in their adjustment process.
Other researchers have proposed counter-arguments using these same
variables. Tilly and Brown,13 basing their argument on the findings of
Abu-Lughod, Breton, and others, argue that those who have kinfolk and others
available to them in the city may assimilate more slowly than those who are
alone. Their findings are mixed and do not clearly support either the positive or
negative hypotheses.
There are three aspects of the adjustments that the migrant must make in
the city: his material adjustment, morale, and formation of new social networks.
Material adjustment is that aspect of adjustment in which the migrant obtains
the simple requisites of life in the city, particularly a residence and a source of in?
come. Morale, for the new migrant, represents his feelings about living in the
metropolis, the extent to which he is homesick for his place of origin, the extent
to which he considers the city to be his home, and the extent to which he is happy
that he made the move to the city. Formation of new social networks refersto the
migrant's problem of making new friends and acquaintances in the city and
joining new primary groups. All of these are seen as necessary to the migrant's
overall adjustment to urban life.
The hypotheses listed above regarding the functions of kinship involvement
and assistance were tested with regard to each of these aspects of adjustment.
The initial hypothesis, relating affiliation and assistance to adjustment when
combined with the three aspects of adjustment as dependent variables, yields six
hypotheses: that kinship affiliation is associated with more positive material ad?
justment; that kinship support (help from kinfold) is associated with more
positive material adjustment, and similar hypotheses for morale and formation of
new social networks.
The hypotheses were tested only on migrant adjustments in the short run,
and Brown,op. cit.,p. 145.

13Tilly
i.e., the migrant's firstyear in the city. Even so, the weakness in this analysis is
clear, first,that the retrospective data may introduce error, secondly, that other
important independent variables are neglected.
Making New Social Connections
In studying the formation of new social networks, we view the migrant as

making social contacts on three levels; a primary group level, a voluntary
association and neighborhood level, and a level outside the neighborhood in the
city. We have indicators of making friends in the responses to the question "did
you make new friends in your firstsix months in the city?" In terms of the wider
circles of contacts, we have more partial measures. The only kind of organiza?
tional participation we have studied thus far in our analysis of the survey data, is
church attendance during the firstyear in the city. An indicator of wider ranging
social contacts is the response to a question about the migrant's travels within the
city outside of his own neighborhood for non-work purposes during his firstyear
in the metropolis.
Almost all migrants report that they made new friends in their firstmonths
in the city. There was very little difference between migrants who joined kinfolk
and other primary group members in the city and those who did not.
Most migrants reported that they began attending a church in their first
months in the city. The hypothesis that kinship affiliation is useful in making
social contacts was confirmed in this area, in that more of the migrants who
joined others in the city began attending church than did migrants who came
alone.
Most migrants did not venture outside of their own neighborhoods during
their first year in the city. However, more of those who did not have kinfolk or
other primary group members in the city left the neighborhood to travel to other
parts of the city during their leisure time. This finding is consistent with that
concerning the job search. It indicates that, to some extent, early involvement
with kinfolk or other primary group members in the city may allow the migrant
to restrict his social contacts and to expand his social participation more slowly.
Those who are on their own must find jobs sooner and, evidently, find it
necessary or attractive to explore the city sooner (see Tables 2, 3, and 4
following).
Finding Employment
The second test of the hypothesis that kinfolk involvement and assistance af?
fects adjustment to the city is in terms of material adjustment; i.e., finding a job.
Those who joined someone when they arrived in the city were less likely to find a
job during their first week in the city than were those who did not join anyone.
However, by the end of the first months in the city, the proportions of the two
groups holding jobs were quite similar.
TABLE 2
MAKING FRIENDS BY PRIMARY GROUP RECEPTION
Joined: Someone No one

(Percent)
Made friends 95.9 93.8

Made no friends 4.1 6.2
Total 100.0 100.0
WeightedN= 3383 1972
TABLE 3
CHURCHGOING BY PRIMARY GROUP RECEPTION

(Percent)
Did notattend 26.9 38.5

Attended1-11timesperyear 7.0 9.8
Attended1-3timespermonth 16.3 18.5
Attendedoncea weekor moreoften 49.8 33.2
Total 100.0 100.0
WeightedN = 3455 2084
TABLE 4
STAYING IN NEIGHBORHOOD BY PRIMARY GROUP RECEPTION

(Percent)
Stayedin neighborhood 62.1 55.5

Went outside 37.9 44.5
Total 100.0 100.0
Weighted N= 3547 2098
Among those who did join someone in the city, the amount of help in getting
a job had mixed effects.The migrants finding jobs most quickly were those who
received a small amount of help from those they joined. Those receiving more
help found jobs less quickly. Those receiving no help from the people theyjoined
were the slowest in finding jobs, (one or two kinds of help were considered "low
help" and three to five kinds were considered "high help.")
The summary observation is that those with no kinship ties or other affilia?
tions in the city who must depend upon themselves for material support, must
and do find jobs quickly, a high proportion doing so in the first week after mi?
gration. Of those who join kinfolk or others in the city, those receiving an inter?
mediate amount of support and help find jobs most quickly. Those receiving a
great deal of help are evidently under less pressure to find employment. Either
they are less effectivein the job market or they are free to be more selective in
choosing employment because of being socially or materially suppported by
kinfolk or others in the city (See Table 5 next page).
Morale
With regard to morale, the general hypothesis is that migrants receiving social
support from primary group affiliation and assistance will have more positive
feelings about the move and the new situation. This is not always the case. The
migrants who travel with their families are less likely to say they felt homesick.
However, the differencesin feelings between migrants met by someone in the city
and migrants who came alone are small. There is a slight tendency for those who
TABLE 5
PRIMARY GROUP SUPPORT BY TIME UNTIL FIRST JOB

(Cumulative
Percentage)
Numberofkindsofhelpreceived
Someonemet
No -
one no low high
met total help help help
Duringfirstweek 55.7 33.7 15.1 39.6 29.3

Duringfirstmonth 72.1 70.8 62.2 78.1 62.7
Duringfirstquarter 86.8 87.3 70.2 91.4 85.0
Duringfirstyear 91.3 92.4 71.1 96.7 90.8
Duringsecondyear 92.9 94.4 72.9 98.0 94.0
2.0 yearsor more 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
were not met to say they were not homesick or unhappy (see Tables 6 and 7 next
pages) more frequently than those who were met. The negative effectofjoining
others in the city is greater with regard to homesickness than to general feelings.
Persons who joined others in the city were more likely to be homesick than those
who did not.
The basic hypothesis regarding the effect of affiliation on the migrant's
feelings may be extended to say that the greater the support of the primary
group, the more positive the migrant's feelings are likely to be. The data indicate
that this is not the case. The amount of support a migrant receives from those he
joins is not related to his feelings in any manner. Affiliation with kinfolk or
TABLE 6
PRIMARY GROUP SUPPORT BY MORALE
NumberofKindsofHelp
No Some
one one no low high
met met help help help
A. All Migrants
Highestmorale 57.9 50.8 54.7 52.2 47.6
morale 17.0
Intermediate 16.7 22.3 14.5 18.8
"Unhappy" 25.1 32.5 23.0 33.2 33.6
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
WeightedN= 1992 3415 287 1850 1278
TABLE 7
PRIMARY GROUP SUPPORT BY MORALE: HOMESICKNESS
Amountofhelp
No Some
one one no low high
met met help help help
A. All Migrants (Percent)

Extremelyhomesick 3.6 13.0 4.5 11.7 16.6
Somewhathomesick 10.9 13.5 13.5 15.8 10.3
Lonesome,"notreally
homesick" 8.9 14.1 17.0 15.4 11.8
Not homesickat all 74.7 59.5 64.9 57.1 61.2
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
WeightedN = 2020 3560 288 1884 1388
others who have migrated earlier seems to hinder the migrant in breaking his at?
tachment to the community of origin as expressed in his "homesickness." A
possible explanation is that the family which preceded the migrant reminds the
migrant of the people and culture he has left behind. Thus, the general relation?
ship between social support and homesickness is inverse. The migrants with high
social support are most likely to experience extreme homesickness (see Table 7).
Migrants who joined others were less likely than those who did not to report
that, during their early months in the city, they felt happy about the move. As in
the expressions of homesickness, migrants who joined others in the city had
lower morale. Furthermore, those who received the most help were the least
likely to report happiness about the move. In both tests, we see that the
hypotheses prove false and that social affiliation and support in the early months
following migrations do not contribute to the maintenance of high morale. The
explanation again suggested is that continued attachment to persons from the
community of origin may provide frequent reminders to the migrant of what he
has left behind. The migrant who must confront the new social situation alone,
however, may be forced to make a more rapid psychological adjustment.
Summary:
The study indicates that kinship networks are considerably involved in the
migration process. In chain migration, migrants are aided materially and with
information from the inception of the process at the community of origin. Many
migrants travel within a family unit and many join kinfolk in the community of
settlement. Those they join assist the migrants in confronting the problems of
settlement and adjustment: in providing material necessities, in establishing new
social connections, and in maintaining morale. However, the effectsof kinship
affiliation and support are not simple. Migrants without kinship affiliation and
support find jobs more quickly and maintain higher morale than do migrants
who join kinfolk or others.
Returning to the argument that migration promotes the destruction of kin?
ship networks, this study indicates that, for many migrants, kinship networks
are involved in the chain migration process and that through the migration
process, the networks may be reestablished in a new community. One of the
activities that members of the network perform is assisting other members in the
migration and settlement process, an activity which may tend to support the vi?
tality of such networks.

Choldin - Kinship Networks in The Migration Process

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Choldin - Kinship Networks in The Migration Process

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Choldin - Kinship Networks in The Migration Process

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kinship Networks in the Migration Process

Author(s): Harvey M. Choldin

One element of the proposition that industrialism would destroy the

4WalterFirey,Land Use in CentralBoston,Cambridge:HarvardUniversity Press,1947,pp. 184-

migrants.9 The MacDonalds have documented the process of chain migration in

Chicago Migrant Data

9JohnS. MacDonald and Leatrice D. MacDonald, "Chain Migration,EthnicNeighborhood

Reception in the City

A great deal of kinship involvement is evident in the settlement and ad?

Help and Advice Patterns

The migrants receive three kinds of help: material assistance, intermediary

SOURCES OF HELP FOR VARIOUS PROBLEMS*

D. Other 1.9 0.1 0.2 3.4 1.9 0.9 0.6 0.2

the chain of communications by which the migrant contacts persons of agencies

Effects of Affiliation and Assistance

and Brown,op. cit.,p. 145.

Making New Social Connections

In studying the formation of new social networks, we view the migrant as

MAKING FRIENDS BY PRIMARY GROUP RECEPTION

Joined: Someone No one

Made friends 95.9 93.8

CHURCHGOING BY PRIMARY GROUP RECEPTION

Joined: Someone No one

Did notattend 26.9 38.5

STAYING IN NEIGHBORHOOD BY PRIMARY GROUP RECEPTION

Joined: Someone No one

Stayedin neighborhood 62.1 55.5

PRIMARY GROUP SUPPORT BY TIME UNTIL FIRST JOB

Duringfirstweek 55.7 33.7 15.1 39.6 29.3

PRIMARY GROUP SUPPORT BY MORALE

PRIMARY GROUP SUPPORT BY MORALE: HOMESICKNESS

A. All Migrants (Percent)

You might also like