Current Sociology http://csi.sagepub.

com/

Changing meanings of family in personal relationships

Karin Wall and Rita Gouveia
Current Sociology published online 30 January 2014
DOI: 10.1177/0011392113518779

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://csi.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/01/27/0011392113518779
A more recent version of this article was published on - Apr 17, 2014

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Sociological Association

Additional services and information for Current Sociology can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://csi.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://csi.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Version of Record - Apr 17, 2014

>> OnlineFirst Version of Record - Jan 30, 2014

What is This?

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on May 28, 2014

518779
research-article2014
CSI0010.1177/0011392113518779Current SociologyWall and Gouveia

Article CS

Current Sociology

Changing meanings of family

1­–22
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
in personal relationships sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0011392113518779
csi.sagepub.com

Karin Wall and Rita Gouveia

University of Lisbon, Portugal

Abstract
Personal relationships are today less dependent on marriage and blood ties, with
commitments going far beyond the nuclear co-resident family to include kin, non-
kin and ex-kin. The aim of this article is to examine the meanings of family bonds by
exploring the changing boundaries between kinship ties and a wider array of affinities, in
a Southern European country with a specific pathway (Portugal). The authors begin by
analysing the ties which individuals consider as ‘family’ within their personal networks and
describe the main types of family configurations. They then examine the determinants of
including non-kin as ‘family’ and excluding kin from the family network. Findings reveal
the salience of kinship ties, as well as greater fluidity in the social construction of family
bonds, in particular through friendship. Structural, life stage and family variables are
shaping factors, but relational effects, linked to the quality of the tie, are of particular
importance.

Keywords
Family, kinship, life course, networks, personal relationships

Introduction
Research on family meanings and practices in late modernity underlines the continued
importance of the bonds of affection and support in families, but it also reveals changing
sets of close relatives and a blurring between kin, non-kin and ex-kin in family networks.
Personal relationships are today less dependent on marriage and blood ties, with family
bonds and commitments going far beyond the nuclear co-resident family and extending
across households linked by friendship, vicinity, dissolved marriages, step-parenting and
care arrangements.

Corresponding author:
Karin Wall, Institute of Social Sciences, University of Lisbon, Avenida Professor Aníbal Bettencourt nº9,
Lisboa 1600-189, Portugal.
Email: karin.wall@ics.ul.pt

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on May 28, 2014

2 Current Sociology

This intertwining between familial and non-familial ties has been acknowledged in
recent research on family and personal networks (Allan, 2008; Edwards and Gillies,
2012; Finch, 2007; Jamieson et al., 2011; Morgan, 2011; Widmer, 2010; Williams, 2004).
The configurational approach, for example, has highlighted the large array of relation-
ships included by individuals in their family networks or ‘configurations’ (Widmer,
2010). The importance of bonds beyond the central family dyads (the conjugal or the
parent–child dyads) has been shown to be particularly significant for individuals dealing
with the impact of critical life events, such as divorce, dependency in illness, unemploy-
ment or moving across borders (Aboim and Vasconcelos, 2009; Widmer and Jallinoja,
2008). Evidence on post-divorce families shows that they tend to build up specific family
configurations including a variety of step-kin, half-brothers/sisters and ex-kin (Cherlin
and Furstenberg, 1994). New family forms such as same-sex families also point to fluid-
ity in the structuring of family bonds, with ‘rainbow’ families of couples with children
stressing both blood and non-blood relationships, both biological filiation and adoption
as well as step-parenting (Weeks et al., 2001).
Moving beyond the well-known generative mechanisms of proximity linked to part-
nership, biological filiation, co-residence and lineage, recent literature on personal rela-
tionships has focused on the crucial importance of acquaintanceship, friendship and
extended kinship such as aunts, uncles and cousins (Allan, 1998, 2008; Milardo, 2010;
Morgan, 2010). A further challenge of this approach has been to reflect on the underlying
nature of closeness. Straightforward dichotomies which oppose ‘given (kin)’ and ‘cho-
sen (non-kin)’ ties tell us little about the social processes building up personal proximity.
Seeking to move this analysis forward, Pahl and Spencer (2004) refer to the changing
nature of close ties as a process of suffusion, meaning the merging or blurring of kin and
non-kin within networks. Their exploratory findings, based on qualitative research in the
UK, show that the exercise of personal choice in determining significant family members
seems to be conditional upon the level of commitment in relationships, which explains
why some friends are considered as family and provide support as such, whereas some
relatives are not. But the opposite is also true. Some relatives, for instance siblings, can
be felt as persons to confide in and considered as friends. In this sense, we can have kin
and non-kinship ties playing both friend-like and family-like functions. The main chal-
lenge lies in understanding the factors which are essential to building up a certain level
of commitment. However, as some authors have pointed out, despite the increased blur-
ring of boundaries, the two domains are not totally overlapping. Both are important in
personal relationships and have their own place. Kinship ties are deeply rooted in west-
ern societies through blood and alliance principles (Allan, 2008; Déchaux, 2009;
Godelier, 2010), therefore the development of personal relationships is still strongly
shaped by them.
Drawing primarily on data from qualitative studies but also on some surveys on social
networks, both previously mentioned approaches have begun to identify an emerging
variety of distinctive personal networks. Pahl and Spencer’s six-fold exploratory typol-
ogy includes a friend-like community where friends outnumber kin and occupy a central
role (in particular long-term and confiding friends), as well as friend-enveloped networks
in which the central ring is reserved for close kin, usually a partner and children, even if
friends outnumber family overall. In three other types of networks family members are

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on May 28, 2014

Wall and Gouveia 3

seen as more important (family-like), as providing more support than friends (family-
dependent) or as the only significant ties (partner-based). In the sixth professional-based
personal community both friends and family play only a minor role. On the other hand,
findings from Widmer’s (2010) studies in Switzerland also suggest that, although family
trajectories in late modernity are more varied and complex, individuals organize their
personal interdependencies within a limited number of actively structured networks.
With a few differences according to three different life stages (young adulthood, parent-
hood, post-divorce or remarriage), beanpole, friendship, post-divorce, conjugal, kinship
and sibling family configurations seem to be some of the main types of networks organ-
ized by individuals, revealing a complex process of suffusion between close and distant
kin, ex-kin and non-kin.
In summary, significant family ties are being examined in the context of wider pro-
cesses of closeness and commitment, and conceptualized as embedded in complex inter-
dependencies which go beyond the central family dyads and the traditional components
of western kinship systems. Based on findings from a national survey in Portugal, this
article will seek to contribute to research by identifying the main types of family configu-
rations and analysing the factors which influence the inclusion (or exclusion) of kin and
non-kin in individuals’ family configurations or networks. Although previous research
clearly shows that both processes are at work in the new blurring of boundaries between
kin and non-kin, we still do not fully grasp the key sociodemographic, biographical and
interactional contexts which shape the inclusion of non-kin or the exclusion of kin in
individuals’ significant family ties. Drawing on a national survey on the life course and
personal networks of individuals belonging to three different birth cohorts, the article
proposes to undertake an extensive analysis of individuals’ family configurations from
the perspective of a society which, albeit strongly familialistic, has also undergone
change in families over the last three decades. Before the transition to democracy in 1974
and during almost 50 years of right-wing dictatorship, the male breadwinner model,
Catholic marriage, high birth rates, no divorce (for those married in the Catholic church)
and strong gender inequalities, both in private and public spheres, were the core charac-
teristics of family life in Portugal. In the absence of a welfare state supporting families
and the care of dependent persons, family obligations were strong not only within the
nuclear family but also across the generations and with regard to distant kin such as aunts
and uncles. Co-residence of several generations within the same household was an
important form of support, in particular during life stages such as the beginning of mar-
ried life and old age. However, as in other European societies, the nuclear family house-
hold was the predominant form, with extended family households representing only one
in eight households in mid-20th-century Portugal (Almeida et al., 1998). Taking a longer
historical view, the tradition of the stem family, based on long-term co-residence of dif-
ferent generations in traditional rural societies, was found to be predominant in the well-
off landed peasant families (Rowland, 1997). It represented an important ideal norm, but
was more rarely adopted in families constrained by poverty, the need for geographical
mobility and poor housing.
In contrast to this model of ‘unsupported familialism’ (Leitner, 2003), the last three
decades have seen rapid change. Developments in family policies following the 1974 revo-
lution led to the recognition of family diversity, new obligations on the part of the state to

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on May 28, 2014

4 Current Sociology

support families, and strong linkages between family and gender equality policies. The
full-time ‘dual earner’ model and the promotion of work–family balance for both mothers
and fathers have been high on the policy agenda. As a result, past and present pathways
have blended in a specific way and made for some differences as well as commonalities
with other Southern European countries (Wall and Escobedo, 2009). In common, Portugal
may be described as a country with an explicit ideological commitment to the family.
Intergenerational obligations remain strong, even if highly unequal across the social spec-
trum (Wall et al., 2001) and rooted today in values of residential autonomy for both indi-
viduals and couples; temporary co-residence, in particular to care for dependent elderly
persons, is acceptable but only in case of extreme need, making for a sharp decline in
extended family households, from 15% in 1960 to 8% of households in 2011. However, in
contrast to other Southern European countries, Portugal has moved rapidly towards a dual
earner family model and a welfare state which, albeit limited in its budget, has fostered
support for dual earning through the building up of leaves and publicly subsidized institu-
tions (Guerreiro et al., 2009; Wall, 2011). Rather than defamilialization, however, this has
made for a mixed welfare model in which the state, the market and families are seen as
complementary. At the level of family transitions and practices, these developments have
led to growing pluralization and individualization, in particular since the nineties (Aboim,
2006; Wall, 2005). Divorce levels are today above average in the EU, cohabitation and
post-divorce families have increased steadily, female activity rates (women aged 15–64)
stood at 70% in 2010 and family values reveal diversification of family and gender cultural
models, albeit with strong generational differences. This specific double bind in culture and
policy, underlining the importance of family commitments as well as new trends in families
and family policies, makes Portuguese society an interesting case study; our data should
allow us to gain some new insights into the impact of late modern trends, such as growing
individualization and pluralization, on individuals’ significant family ties, in a country with
a historically strong and evolving family culture.

Focus and methodology

The main aim of this article is to contribute to the understanding of the plural meanings
of family bonds by exploring the changing boundaries between close kinship ties and a
wider set of relationships, such as friends, neighbours, acquaintances, work colleagues,
ex-partners or more distant kin. It argues that a diversity of meanings of significant fam-
ily ties is increasingly the norm, requiring new accommodations between blood or mar-
riage ties and a wider array of affinities. The specific objectives that will guide our
analysis are to: (1) examine if kin ties, and which ones, remain the core bonds of what
individuals perceive as their ‘family’; (2) understand if non-kin ties, and which ones, are
becoming more relevant; (3) capture the main types of configurations of close persons
considered as family and the main predictors that shape each type; and (4) identify the
predictors of considering non-kin as ‘family’ members and the predictors of not consid-
ering some relatives as ‘family’, i.e. the dynamics of inclusion in and exclusion from the
family configuration.
Drawing on a configurational approach to family, our main hypothesis is that we will
find a plurality of understandings of ‘who is considered as family within the networks of

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on May 28, 2014

Wall and Gouveia 5

personal relationships’. In the context of growing pluralization and individualization,

where personal networks are being constantly (re)converted, we can expect meanings to
go beyond the nuclear family and reveal plural subjectivities (Beck-Gernsheim, 1998;
Bengstson, 2001; Roseneil and Budgeon, 2004; Widmer, 2010). However, given the
ideological commitment to the family in Portuguese society, as well as the overall
emphasis on bilateral filiation and biological ties in western society, we can also expect
this model of kinship to continue to strongly influence the meanings of ‘family’ bonds.
On the other hand, the inclusion of non-kin in the perceived ‘family’ configuration is
likely to be related, if Pahl’s hypothesis on the importance of commitment is to be con-
sidered, to frequent and relevant (positive) contact, which are characteristics of dense
bonding and proximity in family configurations (Widmer, 2010). However, we may also
anticipate that other factors, such as the life stage, gender, education or family-
biographical variables, will also emerge as important predictors. Friends have been
shown to have an overriding importance during the key life stage of young adulthood.
The life course is an important lens to look into the composition and structure of personal
relationships since each life stage opens and closes new opportunities for relational arrange-
ments (Fisher and Oliker, 1983; Pahl and Pehavalin, 2005; Shulman, 1975). Additionally,
research on family and social networks has consistently underlined the importance of edu-
cation and gender in shaping care and support relationships, with women emerging as
important generators of interaction between close kin, in particular on their side of the
family (Coenen-Huther et al., 1994; Troll, 1987; Wall et al., 2001). Moreover, having or not
having children as well as living or not living in a conjugal partnership may also be expected
to strongly influence the shape of family configurations, since it opens up the pool of
potential significant family members mainly to partners and children.
The article draws on data from the national survey Life Trajectories and Social
Networks conducted between 2009 and 2010 in Portugal. We used a representative sam-
ple of Portuguese men and women (N = 1500) belonging to three birth cohorts: people
born between 1935 and 1940, 1950 and 1955 and 1970 and 1975. These individuals
represent different life stages, but they also made the transition to adulthood in distinct
social and historical contexts, thereby allowing us to observe the impact of historical
processes on their biographies. Those born between 1935 and 1940 represent a genera-
tion born before the Second World War and raised in the heyday of Salazar’s right-wing
authoritarian and colonialist regime of the Estado Novo (1926–1974). The second age
group is the postwar generation, which enters adult life in the late 1960s, during the final
period of the authoritarian regime. This middle generation lived through the troubled
times of the transition to democracy, also undergoing the impact of major changes in
economic, social, political and family structures. Finally, those born between 1970 and
1975 represent a generation that entered adult life in the post-EU accession period. The
beginning of the 1990s was a time of stabilization and consolidation of previous social
changes. It allowed the youngest cohort to face the transition to adulthood with more
resources and opportunities, such as extended educational careers, better jobs for men
and women and easier access to housing, thereby promoting greater autonomy and more
individualized life courses.
Concerning sample distribution across cohorts, 36% (536) of the respondents belong
to the cohort born between 1970 and 1975, 34.5% (513) belong to the cohort of

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on May 28, 2014

6 Current Sociology

individuals born between 1950 and 1955 and 29.5% belong to the cohort born between
1935 and 1940 (438).
To assess the networks of personal relationships we used an ego-centred technique,
which means that the respondent (ego) provided the list of whom he/she considers as
important and in a next step, he/she traced the set of relationships between him/her and
the network members (alters) and between alters (interactions, emotional support and
conflict). We adopted the name generator from the Family Network Method (FNM)
(Widmer, 2010), but instead of limiting the relational context to significant family
members, we extended it to the wider set of personal relationships. In this sense,
respondents were allowed to identify their significant others by listing the names of
those persons that during the last year were important to them, even if they do not
get along with them.
After listing those they consider as important close persons, individuals were asked to
characterize each person they had listed in terms of their attributes (type of tie, sex, age,
duration of relationship, educational attainment, geographical proximity, frequency of
contact face-to-face and by other means, and co-residence over the life course). At the
end of this block of questions, respondents had to answer whether they considered each
of the persons as family, through a ‘yes or no’ question. In summary, first we captured the
network of personal relationships and second, through the last question, we were able to
filter and capture the network of those members perceived as family. In this way we can
compare the two sets of relationships.
Moreover, in line with Pahl and Spencer (2004), we were able to identify the role of
some criteria to generate closeness. Based on a qualitative study on personal networks,
these authors put forward some of the criteria which people may rely on to consider a
person as important (Pahl and Spencer, 2004). The first thing individuals take into
account when perceiving a person as important is the existence of a kinship tie between
them. The second criterion people mobilize is the intrinsic quality of the relationship.
By this property, the authors mean the strength of the tie, the degree of dependability
and support on that link, the level of trust and confiding, and the sense of being known
and accepted ‘as oneself’. Finally, the third factor people consider is the extrinsic condi-
tions of the relationship, which includes the duration of the tie, the frequency of contact,
the sense of involvement and presence, and of sharing ‘things in common’ (Pahl and
Spencer, 2004). Therefore, based on the reported information about each alter, we
explored the kin/non-kin principle and some components of the third set of criteria –
extrinsic qualities of the relationship – such as duration of the tie, frequency of contact
face-to-face, and additionally, co-residence at some point of the life course and the role
(positive vs negative) which the network member has had over the last year in the life
of the interviewee.
The analytical procedures have been carried out in five steps. First, we look at the
network of personal relationships and examine who is included. Then we focus on the
perceived ‘as family’ network (that we hereafter refer to as the ‘family’ configuration),
and explore the level of overlap with the network of personal relationships. In a third
step, we identify the persons included in the ‘family’ configuration. Next, adopting a
configurational approach, we look at a cluster analysis which we ran in order to extract
the main types of ‘family’ configurations. We use the term ‘configuration’ instead of
‘network’ to highlight the existence of patterns of combination of different ties. In the

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on May 28, 2014

Wall and Gouveia 7

Table 1. Characteristics of members in networks of personal relationships (percentage and

frequency of alters; N = 6449).

Type of tie Co-residence over Role Perceived as

life course family

Kin Non-kin Co- Not Positive Negative As Not

resident co-resident family as family
Percentage 86 14 66 34 96 4 91 9
Frequency (5530) (893) (4283) (2160) (6219) (230) (5840) (603)

fifth and last step, we seek to identify the main predictors (criteria) of inclusion and
exclusion in ‘family’ configurations.

Results
Networks of personal relationships
In order to have a first portrait of who is included in the network of personal relationships
we begin by looking at composition features, such as the percentage of kin vs non-kin
ties, the percentage of co-residents over the life course, the percentage of positive vs
negative persons and the percentage of ties perceived ‘as family’ and ‘not as family’
(Table 1). Overall, the respondents named 6449 elements and the average dimension of
the networks is 4.34, with a standard deviation of 2.60.
Regarding the type of tie, findings show that 86% of the alters are linked to ego by
kinship ties and 14% by non-kin ties. In spite of the inclusion of non-kin, results reveal
the predominant presence of kin in respondents’ close circle of relationships. But are
kinship ties equally represented? And what types of non-kin are included? If we look
deeper into these categories, an interesting result immediately stands out (Figure 1): the
overrepresentation of the family of orientation and procreation.
Eighty-six percent of the kinship alters are close kin. Children represent the predomi-
nant category with 39.8%, followed by partners (18.5%), siblings (9.1%), grandchildren
(8.7%) and parents (10.9%) (Figure 1).
Regarding non-kin relationships, we find that friends are the most frequent type of
non-kin ties, representing 69.3%, followed by neighbours (12.3%) and co-workers
(7.3%) (Figure 2).
In relation to the other characteristics, nearly all of the alters played a positive role
during the last year (96%), the majority of them have lived at some point in their lives
with ego (66%) and 91% are considered as family. As reported above, 86% of the ele-
ments are kin, so the fact that 91% of the alters are perceived ‘as family’ means that there
are also some non-kin that are being considered as such.

‘Family’ configurations
As mentioned above, after listing the most important persons in their life during the last
year, respondents identified whom they consider as family. The number of alters

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on May 28, 2014

8 Current Sociology

Partner of partner’s siblings 0.4

Ego’s aunt/uncle 0.5
Stepchildren 0.5
Sibling’s partners 0.6
Boy(girl)friend 0.7
Ego’s cousin 0.8
Father-in-law 0.8
Other kin 1.3
Partner’s siblings 1.1
Ego’s nephew/niece 1.4
Mother-in-law 1.4
Son-/daughter-in-law 3.5
Father 4.4
Mother 6.5
Grandchildren 8.7
Siblings 9.1
Partner 18.5
Children 39.8

Figure 1. Types of ties cited within kin in networks of personal relationships (percentage of
alters).

Domesc employee 0.4

Ex-partner 1.5

Boss 2

Children’s friends 2.4

Ex-boy(girl)friend 2.4

Acquaintance 2.5

Co-worker 7.3

Neighbour 12.3

Friend 69.3

Figure 2. Types of ties within non-kin in networks of personal relationships (percentage of

alters).

considered as family (N = 5840) is slightly lower than those considered as important

close persons (N = 6449), which means a decrease of almost 10% (Table 2). The average
dimension of family configurations is 3.89, with a standard deviation of 2.39.

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on May 28, 2014

Wall and Gouveia 9

Table 2. Characteristics of members in ‘family’ configurations (frequency and percentage of

alters); N = 5840).

Type of tie Co-residence over life Role

course

Kin Non-kin Co-resident Not Positive Negative

co-resident
Percentage 93 7 73 27 99 1
Frequency (5435) (387) (4257) (1583) (5766) (74)

In terms of overlap between the two sets of relationships, if we consider the total
number of networks (1487), there are 1127 networks (76%) whose alters are all per-
ceived as family and 360 non-overlapping configurations (24%). This means that
only one-quarter (24%) of the respondents were selective concerning whom they
consider as close persons and whom they perceive as belonging to their family.
Looking at who is included in the family configurations, the strong salience of kinship
ties is once again unquestionable (93%), but there is also evidence of some elective ties
being perceived as family (7%) (Table 2). Regarding co-residence over the life course,
73% of the alters lived with ego at some point in his/her life and almost all had a positive
role in ego’s life during the last year (99%).
Again, the overrepresentation of the family of procreation and orientation (81.8%) is
very clear (Table 3). Children are the main category (37.5%) of kin, followed by partners
(17.4%), parents (10.3%), siblings (8.5%) and grandchildren (8.1%). Nevertheless, an
interesting result is also the importance of friends (5%), while other categories of non-
kin have extremely low values.

Typology of ‘family’ configurations

In the previous section, we identified the main ties that are considered as family. But can
we find different network patterns by examining the combination of specific ties?
In order to explore the composition features of family configurations, we carried out
a two-step cluster analysis. The variables introduced in the analysis were organized by
types of ties: children; partners; ascendants (parents); descendants (children); siblings;
siblings-in-law; other collateral kin (cousins, aunts, nephews); in-laws (parents and chil-
dren in-law); friends; and other non-kin ties (frequencies shown in Table 4). It is impor-
tant to highlight that we didn’t have access to the lineage of the tie, so that we cannot
assess the existence of a matrilinear or patrilinear configuration.
This codification was based on the type of kinship ties and the frequency of the cate-
gories. To avoid residual categories, we joined those with lower frequencies (under 4%).
We carried out a component analysis to test the suitability of these categories in order to
confirm our categories.
Based on the two-step cluster analysis, we identified four main clusters which we
labelled as nuclear (46%), friendship oriented (23.9%), beanpole-tree (15.9%) and sib-
ling oriented (14.3%) (Table 5). The most frequent cluster is the nuclear family

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on May 28, 2014

10 Current Sociology

Table 3. Types of ties in ‘family’ configurations (frequency and percentage of alters).

Frequency Percentage
Children 2188 37.5
Partner 1017 17.4
Siblings 498 8.5
Grandchildren 474 8.1
Mother 356 6.1
Friends 293 5.0
Father 244 4.2
Son- and daughter-in-law 184 3.2
Ego’s niece/nephew 76 1.3
Mother-in-law 73 1.3
Father-in-law 45 0.8
Partner’s siblings 42 0.7
Ego’s aunt/uncle 41 0.7
Boy(girl)friend 36 0.6
Neighbour 31 0.5
Sibling’s partner 30 0.5
Children-in-law 28 0.5
Ego’s aunt and uncle 28 0.5
Co-worker 23 0.4
Partner of partner’s siblings 20 0.3
Others 113 1.8
Total 5840 100.0

Table 4. Percentage of respondents citing each type of tie.

Type of tie %
Children 73.2
Partner 70.8
Parents 40.1
Siblings 21.0
In-laws 16.6
Grandchildren 15.7
Friends 12.8
Other collaterals 6.9
Siblings-in-law 6.4
Other elective ties 4.9
Other kin 3.7

configuration, mainly composed of partners (M = 0.7) and children (M = 1.75), followed

by the friendship configuration which includes friends (M = 0.66) as well as the mother
(M = 0.69) and the father (M = 0.52). The third configuration is labelled beanpole-tree

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on May 28, 2014

Wall and Gouveia 11

Table 5. Distribution of types of ties by type of ‘family’ configuration (mean of ties in each
cluster).

% of respondents in Nuclear Friendship Beanpole Sibling oriented F

each cluster (46%) oriented (15.87%) (14.26%)
(23.87%)
Aunts and uncles 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 13.99**
Partner 0.7 0.63 0.78 0.61 6.71**
Co-worker 0 0 0 0.11 30.65**
Boy(girl)friend 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.03 2.56
Grandchildren 0.07 0.03 1.64 0.14 310.69**
Father-in-law 0 0.01 0.14 0.04 48.92**
Sibling-in-law 0 0 0 0.09 31.85**
Boss 0 0 0 0.03 7.90**
Cousin of ego 0.01 0.01 0 0.15 26.20**
Son-/daughter-in-law 0 0.01 0.72 0.05 252.72**
Great-grandchildren 0 0 0.03 0 6.84**
Grandparents 0 0.02 0 0.02 3.61**
Acquaintance 0 0 0 0.02 6.15**
Step-parents 0 0 0 0 1.2
Sibling-in-law 0 0 0 0.28 96.71**
Great-grandparents 0 0 0 0 1.06
Domestic employee 0 0 0 0 2.01
Friends 0 0.66 0.05 0.22 119.31**
Partner’s aunt 0 0 0 0 0.72
Stepchildren 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.34
Nephew 0.01 0.01 0 0.31 47.21**
Godparents 0 0 0 0.05 13.96**
Neighbour 0 0 0.01 0.14 38.81**
Ex-boy(girl)friend 0.01 0 0 0.01 0.39
Godchildren 0 0 0 0.03 14.47**
Children 1.75 0.89 1.92 1.04 53.48**
Father 0 0.52 0.1 0.16 214.45**
Children’s friends 0 0 0 0.08 13.91**
Mother-in-law 0 0.03 0.19 0.09 51.98**
Siblings 0.16 0.39 0.09 1.08 77.91**
Sibling-in-law 0 0 0 0.16 49.64**
Mother 0.03 0.69 0.16 0.27 301.41**
Ex-partner 0 0.01 0 0.01 1.08
*p ≤ .5; **p ≤ .01.

because it is multigenerational and vertical (relatives in descending line) as well as lat-

eral (children-in-law, M = 0.72; parents-in-law, M = 0.33). The descending line is mainly
represented by children (1.92) and grandchildren (M = 1.64). The last configuration is
considered to be strongly sibling oriented since it is composed of siblings (M = 1.08),
their partners (M = 0.56) and other collaterals such as aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces and
cousins.

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on May 28, 2014

12 Current Sociology

In sum, almost one half of the respondents belong to nuclear family configurations.
Despite the predominance of this type of configuration, the other half of the respondents
is embedded in more diversified networks, which we defined as friendship-oriented,
beanpole and sibling-oriented configurations. Thus, it is important to grasp the impact of
context on the social construction of family configurations, since the process of develop-
ing significant ties may be influenced by the structural, life stage and family contexts in
which they are built, rather than based on pure electivity (Allan, 2001).

Predictors of the types of configurations

In order to identify the main factors which shape the type of ‘family’ configuration, we
ran four logistic regression analyses (Table 6). We considered four blocks of predictors
according to the different nature of the shaping factors. The first includes the birth cohort
as a life stage variable (model a), the second includes marital status as a variable with a
mixed nature (model b), the third includes partnership and parenthood as family-
biographical variables expected to work as drivers of family bonding (model c); and
finally, gender, education and work status are included as structural variables (model d).
In the first model, data show that those who were born between 1935 and 1945 and
1950 and 1955 have a lower chance of having a friendship-oriented type of configura-
tion. When we introduced the second type of variables, the cohort effect remains the
same. Those who are married and widowed are also less likely to present a friendship
configuration than those who are single. However, when family variables enter into the
model, marital status loses its significant effect. Partnership and parenthood are good
predictors (model 1c), in the sense that those who are in conjugality and those who have
children are less likely to present a friendship-oriented family configuration. Lastly, we
added the structural variables. Gender and work status have no significant statistical
effect, whereas having an elementary level of education seems to decrease the chance of
building a friendship-oriented type of configuration.
Regarding the second model, we can see once again that there are cohort effects, but
the tendency is inversed. Those who belong to the oldest cohorts have a higher chance of
having a nuclear configuration than those from the youngest cohorts. When we intro-
duced the second block, cohort effects remain and the effect of marital status emerges,
with those who are married, divorced and widowed being more likely to build up this
type of configuration than single people. Regarding family variables, parenthood appears
as positively associated with having a nuclear configuration. People who have had chil-
dren are more likely to have this kind of configuration. When we add structural variables
no effect of this type of variable comes out, and the above pattern remains the same.
However, a new effect appears. Those who live with a partner show a higher probability
of building up this type of configuration.
In the third model, we see a very similar pattern to the nuclear configuration. Those
who belong to oldest cohorts are more likely to have a beanpole configuration. When we
add the second type of variables, data also show the role of marital status as a good pre-
dictor, with the exception of being divorced. In the third block, parenthood and partner-
ship are positively associated with this kind of multigenerational arrangement. Finally,
when we add the structural dimensions, we can see that those who are retired, have lower

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on May 28, 2014

 Table 6. Logistic regression of belonging to each type of configuration (odd ratios).
Friendship oriented Nuclear Beanpole Sibling oriented

M 1a M 1b M 1c M 1d M 2a M 2b M 2c M 2d M 3a M 3b M 3c M 3d M 4a M 4b M 4c M4 d

Cohort 1935–40 .060** .077** .072** .142** 3.60** 2.98** 3.12** 3.09** 4.88** 3.92** 4.11** 2.14** 0.58** 0.67 .63* .67
(ref:1970–75) 1950–55 .208** .244** .239 .335** 2.44** 2.13** 2.15** 1.98** 3.75** 3.04** 3.01** 2.39** 0.79 0.91 .90 .81
Marital status Married .481** .977 .91 1.80** .97 .98 5.77** 2.10 2.06 .57** 1.13 1.18
(ref:single) Divorced .872 1.29 1.03 1.66* 1.22 1.28 2.06 1.19 1.35 .69 .92 1.03
Widow .408* .56 .508 2.87** 1.70 1.78* 4.41** 3.28* 3.11** .62 .74 .75
Parenthood (ref:no) With children .513** .601** 1.69* 1.69* 3.05** 2.80** .65 .55
Partnership (ref:no) living with .618* .618** 1.48 1.57* 2.24* 2.19** .57 .61
partner
Sex (ref:female) Male .827 1.25 1.11 .70**
Education Non .449 .83 4.36** .98
(ref:university)
Elementary .433** 1.29 2.34** 1.53
Basic .718 1.07 2.47** 1.20
Secondary 1.01 .96 1.72 1.00

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on May 28, 2014

Work status Out of work .837 1.12 .60 1.56**
(ref:working) Unpaid work .849 1.01 1.19 .94
Retired .658 .921 1.54** .84

*p ≤ .5; **p ≤ .01.

14 Current Sociology

levels of education, have children and are in partnerships have a higher chance of having
a beanpole configuration.
Finally, in the last model, we can see that cohorts have a significant effect on this type
of configuration, with the oldest cohort being less likely to have a sibling-oriented con-
figuration. When we add the second block, we see that the cohort effect disappears and
civil status is the main predictor of this type of configuration. Findings show that being
married decreases the likelihood of building up this type of configuration. Interestingly,
family practices are not relevant as predictors of the sibling oriented configuration,
whereas structural variables feature as the main predictor. There is a gender effect, with
men being less likely to present this type of configuration than women and inversely,
those who are unemployed being more likely to build up this type of configuration.
In sum, the position in the life course, family practices and, to a lesser extent, struc-
tural variables play a key role as shaping factors of family configurations. The youngest
cohort is more likely to present more open configurations that include non-kinship mem-
bers (friendship configuration), as well as distant kin (sibling configuration). Instead, the
middle and the oldest cohort are more confined to the limits of the kinship system in a
more restricted mode (nuclear configuration) or a more extended mode (beanpole con-
figuration). Being or not being in a partnership and having or not having children is
decisive in the building up of family bonds. Finally, structural factors such as level of
education, work status and gender play a minor role in this process; still it is important to
take into consideration their role as differentiating factors. In particular, we would like to
underline that very low levels of education emerge as more associated with kin-salient
configurations.

Predictors of non-kin perceived ‘as family’

Findings show that 7% of the close persons perceived ‘as family’ members are non-kin.
Why are some non-kin ties considered as family while others are not? What are the cri-
teria of inclusion?
A multi-level regression analysis was used to test the impact of some explanatory
variables in considering non-kin as family, using the hierarchical linear modelling soft-
ware (HLM). For these analyses we were forced to drop the cases which presented miss-
ing values in one of the variables considered. Thus, from the initial sample of 893 non-kin
members of personal networks, we ended up with 821 non-kin members. The dependent
variable was a dichotomous variable, which consisted in a ‘yes or no’ answer for consid-
ering non-kin as family. The dependent variable is considering non-kin as family and the
reference category is not considering non-kin as family. In the first model, we tested the
impact of relational qualities of non-kin members or alters (level 1), such as frequency of
face-to-face contact, co-residence at some point in the life course, role (positive/nega-
tive) and duration of the relationship. In the second model, we introduced the variables
regarding ego (level 2), which means that we added variables concerning the structural,
life stage and family circumstances of the respondents, such as gender, education, work
status, birth cohort, marital status, conjugality and partnership. Table 7 shows the main
findings.

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on May 28, 2014

Wall and Gouveia 15

Table 7. Multi-level logistic regression analysis of considering non-kin as family (odd ratios) (N =
821 alters).

Predictors Model 0 Model 1 Model 2

Contact face-to-face Everyday 1.09
(ref:never) Some a week .87
Some a month 1.22
Several a year .85
Co-residence (ref:no) Yes 12.97** 8.56**
Role (ref:negative) Positive 14.35** 15.95**
Duration – 1.00 1.02**
Cohort (ref:1970–75) 1935–40 1.04
1950–55 .90
Marital status Married .40*
(ref:single) Divorced .45
Widow .19**
Parenthood (ref:no) Having children 1.03
Partnership (ref:no) Living with partner .61
Gender (ref:female) Male .40**
Education Elementary .30*
(ref:university) Basic 1.62
high school 1.58
Work status Out of work 1.57
(ref:working) Unpaid 1.03
Retired .70
Intercept .085 .065** .11**
*p ≤ .5; **p ≤ .01.

Model 1 shows the importance of the qualities of the network members for being
considered as family. Co-residence over the life course and having a positive role in
respondent’s life are strong predictors of considering non-kin members as family.
Actually an impressive boosting effect of co-residence and positive impact are present;
to have shared the same household at some point in the life course with the respondent,
and currently having a positive role in the respondent’s life increases the chance of being
considered as family by a factor of 13 and 14, respectively. Inversely, frequency of con-
tact face-to-face is not a significant predictor. Model 2 shows the impact of structural and
family variables concerning ego. Cohort and work status have no effect on perceiving
non-kin as family. Instead, sex, education and marital status are good predictors of con-
sidering non-kin as family. Men are less likely to consider non-kin as family than women.
Regarding educational level, findings show that individuals with lower educational
attainment, such as elementary school level, are also less likely to include non-kin in
family perceptions. In relation to marital status, those individuals who are married or
widowed are less likely to consider non-kin as family than single people. The introduc-
tion of these variables didn’t affect the power of explanation of relational variables at
level 1. In fact, the duration of the relationship also appeared as positively related with

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on May 28, 2014

16 Current Sociology

perceiving non-kin as family, in the sense that the longer the relationship, the greater the
chance of perceiving non-kin as family. Positive roles and co-residence are still the
strongest predictors of family status.
In sum, the main criteria for considering non-kin as family are linked to the qualities
of the relationship, such as the acquaintance length (duration), the positive impact of that
person in the life of the respondent (role) and finally the sharing of a common household
at some point during the life course. These are the fundamental mechanisms of family
meaning. However, these preferences are also influenced by the social structural envi-
ronments and the family circumstances in which individuals are embedded. Men are less
likely to consider non-kin as family, as well as those individuals with lower educational
attainment, and those who are married and widowed.

Predictors of close kin ‘not perceived as family’

In spite of close blood ties or marriage ties, some kin members considered as important
close persons are excluded from the ‘family’ configuration. These close kin are mainly
in-laws (41%), including brothers- and sisters-in-law, daughters- and sons-in-law and
mothers-in-law, but there are also a few children (16%), grandchildren (8%), siblings
(7%), partners (6%) and a tiny number of other kin such as stepchildren, parents, grand-
parents, aunts and uncles. In order to identify some explanatory variables, we again ran
a multi-level regression analysis, maintaining the same predictors and the same model as
in the previous analysis. The dependent variable is not considering kin as family and the
reference category is considering kin as family. In the first model, we again tested the
impact of the relational qualities of kin members or alters (level 1), and in the second
model, we introduced the variables regarding ego (level 2). From the initial 5530 alters,
we dropped the cases with missing values, ending up with 5360 alters. We can see the
main findings in the Table 8.
Model 1 shows the importance of the qualities of the network members for being
excluded as family. In fact, all relational variables are good predictors of not considering
some close kin members as family.
Not having co-resided over the life course and having a negative role in respond-
ent’s life are strong predictors of not considering kin as family. As the odd ratios show,
having shared the same household at some point in the life course with the respondent,
and currently having a positive role in the respondent’s life decreases the chance of not
being considered as family. Frequency of contact face-to-face is also a significant pre-
dictor. Those alters who are in frequent face-to-face contact with ego are less likely to
be excluded as family than those who are never in face-to-face contact. Lastly, the
longer the relationship, the lower the chance of not perceiving kin as family. Model 2
shows the impact of structural and family variables concerning ego. Family variables
such as partnership, conjugality and civil status are not significantly correlated to the
exclusion of kin as family. Instead, birth cohort, gender and work status stand out as
strong predictors of not considering kin as family. Individuals belonging to the oldest
cohort are seven times more likely to exclude kin as family than those from the young-
est one. This may be due to long-lasting conflicts, such as inheritance problems, which
have severed family ties (Allan, 1996). On the other hand, men are less likely to

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on May 28, 2014

Wall and Gouveia 17

Table 8. Multi-level logistic regression analysis of not considering kin as family (odd ratios) (N
= 5360 alters).

Predictors Model 0 Model 1 Model 2

Contact face-to-face Everyday 0.14*** 0.14***
(ref:never) Some a week 0.28** 0.24**
Some a month 0.04*** 0.03***
Several a year 0.57 0.63
Co-residence (ref:no) Yes 0.20*** .20***
Role (ref:negative) Positive 0.026*** 0.015***
Duration – 0.98** 0.98***
Cohort (ref:1970–75) 1935–40 6.99***
1950–55 0.91
Marital status Married 0.95
(ref:single) Divorced 0.60
Widow 0.19*
Parenthood (ref:no) Having children 1.19
Partnership (ref:no) Living with partner 0.46
Gender (ref:female) Male 0.67**
Education Elementary 0.59
(ref:university) Basic 1.30
High school 1.16
Work status Out of work 4.20***
(ref:working) Unpaid 2.08*
Retired 5.41***
Intercept 0.02*** 6.83*** 4.44*

* p ≤ .5; **p ≤ .01.

exclude kin as family than women. This partly contradicts our initial hypothesis related
to women’s privileged orientation towards kin; however, although strongly investing
in kin ties, this shows that women may be more sensitive to the qualities of the rela-
tionship rather than the formal bond. In relation to work status, those individuals who
are out of the labour market (unemployed, at home or retired) are more likely to not
consider some kin as family than those who are working. This would seem to indicate
that disengagement from the labour market may sometimes lead to estrangement from
or tensions within close kin ties and make for the questioning of their status as family.
The introduction of these variables did not affect the power of explanation of relational
variables at level 1.
In sum, as in the inclusion of non-kin as family, the main criteria for not considering
kin as family are linked to the qualities of the relationship, such as less frequent face-to-
face contact, a shorter acquaintance length (duration), the negative impact of that person
in the life of the respondent (role) and, finally, not having shared a common household at
some point during the life course. These are the fundamental mechanisms of taking away
the meaning of family. However, these exclusions are also influenced by the social struc-
tural environments in which individuals are embedded. Cohort, gender and work status

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on May 28, 2014

18 Current Sociology

shape these meanings. Men are less likely to exclude kin as family, whereas older people,
women and those who are out of labour market are more likely to do so.

Main findings and conclusions

Individuals’ networks of significant family ties in Portuguese society may differ quite
strongly in size and composition, but they reveal the continued and overarching salience
of kinship. Not surprisingly, close kinship ties involving relatives from the family of
orientation and procreation are also more prominent than extended kinship ties, even if
multigenerational and collateral ties do play an important, rather than a predominant,
role in family configurations. In sum, findings seem to highlight the still fundamental
generating principles of partnership, consanguinity and co-residency in building up fam-
ily bonds, in particular of conjugal and parent–child relationships. These results confirm
previous findings on family support networks in contemporary Portuguese society, in
which extended kinship occupied a relevant but secondary role (Wall et al., 2001).
Non-kin ties considered as family bonds, on the other hand, seem to be strongly
focused on friendship rather than acquaintanceship, vicinity, or work relationships.
Interestingly, the friendship-oriented family configuration, based on mixed networks
involving both friends and close kin, is mainly predicted by life stage and family-
biographical variables, even if there is also a moderate impact of structural variables
such as education: it is associated with younger and non-partnered individuals, both men
and women, and higher levels of education. Another interesting finding is the salience of
sibling-oriented configurations for those who are unemployed, especially women. This
clearly points to the importance of taking into account the position of individuals in the
labour market, since this may also shape the configurations in which they are
embedded.
Testing for the main predictors of the inclusion of non-kin and exclusion of kin from
family configurations largely confirmed our initial hypothesis based on Pahl’s model of
suffusion predicting the crucial role of the relational qualities of ties.
Non-kin who had a positive role in ego’s life, who lived with ego in the same house-
hold at some point and represent a long-lasting tie are more likely to be considered as
‘family’. However, in line with expectations, some contextual factors also play a role:
gender (women more than men), education (higher levels of education) and marital sta-
tus (single rather than married or widowed persons) also shape the inclusion of
non-kin.
Relational variables are also good predictors of not considering close kin ties as fam-
ily. Kin that had a negative role in the respondent’s life, who never shared the same
household and who have low levels of contact and a shorter duration of relationships are
more likely not to be considered as family. However, the exclusion of kin is also shaped
by the birth cohort (oldest cohort), by work status (those who are out of the labour mar-
ket) and by gender (women rather than men).
In other words, the relational properties of ties are of major significance for these
dynamics, but contextual variables such as work status, gender, education and marital
status should not be neglected in future theoretical models seeking to understand the
changing meanings of family and personal relationships. The influence of birth cohort is

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on May 28, 2014

Wall and Gouveia 19

also an important finding. However, it must be examined with caution, since it is linked
to lifecycle as well as generational effects. For instance, the greater openness of the
youngest cohort to non-kin must be interpreted from the perspective of both biographical
and historical time. Young adults, mainly those who are highly qualified and single, may
be less confined to the kinship realm due to their life stage proximity to the contexts of
friendship and work affinities rather than conjugality and parenthood. At the same time,
the social context in which they were socialized is characterized by strong diversification
of family arrangements and increasing individualization – modernization trends which
have certainly shaped their family practices and biographies. It is thus important to note
that our cross-cohort design is methodologically limited, in that it draws on a snapshot in
time which does not enable us to disentangle these aspects. The clarification of these
effects would require a longitudinal design providing a biographical approach to indi-
viduals’ personal networks over the life course.
Looking back to the possible influence of Portugal’s specific normative and cultural
context, it is difficult, in the absence of similar extensive data for other European socie-
ties, to confirm whether the salience of kinship is due to a specific historical and cultural
pathway focusing strongly on family obligations or whether the effects of pluralization
and individualization on family life in European societies have been slightly overesti-
mated, in particular when the focus is on qualitative studies drawing on purposive sam-
ples, such as individuals in post-divorce or same-sex families. Overall though, our study
confirms the need to carefully consider both kin and non-kin ties, both given and chosen
ties, both the intrinsic and extrinsic drivers of closeness and family bonding.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Eric Widmer and Cícero Pereira for their comments and methodological
support.

Funding
This research received a specific grant from the national funding agency: the Foundation for
Science and Technology – Ministry of Education and Science (Grant reference: PTDC/
SDE/65663/2006).

References
Aboim S (2006) Conjugalidade, afectos e formas de autonomia individual: Perspectivas no femi-
nino. Análise Social XLI(180): 801–825.
Aboim S and Vasconcelos P (2009) Differential and cumulative effects of life course events in an
intergenerational perspective: Social trajectories of three-generation family lineages. Swiss
Journal of Sociology 35(2): 297–319.
Allan G (1996) Kinship and Friendship in Modern Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Allan G (1998) Friendship, sociology and social structure. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships 15(5): 685–702.
Allan G (2001) Personal relationships in late modernity. Personal Relationships 8(3): 325–339.
Allan G (2008) Flexibility, friendship, and family. Personal Relationships 15(1): 1–16.
Almeida A, Guerreiro MD, Lobo C et al. (1998) Family relations: Change and diversity. In: Viegas
JM and Costa AF (eds) Crossroads to Modernity. Lisbon: Celta, pp. 41–70.

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on May 28, 2014

20 Current Sociology

Beck-Gernsheim E (1998) On the way to a post-familial family: From a community of need to

elective affinities. Theory, Culture and Society 15(3–4): 53–70.
Bengston VL (2001) Beyond the nuclear family: The increasing importance of multigenerational
ties. Journal of Marriage and the Family 63(1): 1–16.
Cherlin AJ and Furstenberg F (1994) Stepfamilies in the United States: A reconsideration. Annual
Review of Sociology 20: 359–381.
Coenen-Huther J, Kellerhals J and Von Allmen M (1994) Les Réseaux de solidarité dans la
famille. Lausanne: Éditions Réalités Sociales.
Déchaux J-H (2009) Sociologie de la famille. Paris: La Découverte.
Edwards R and Gillies V (2012) Farewell to family? Notes on an argument for retaining the con-
cept. Families, Relationships and Societies 1(1): 63–69.
Finch J (2007) Displaying families. Sociology 41(1): 65–81.
Fisher CS and Oliker CS (1983) A research note on friendship, gender, and the lifecycle. Social
Forces 62(1): 124–133.
Godelier M (2010) Métamorphoses de la parenté. Paris: Flammarion.
Guerreiro MD, Torres A and Capucha L (2009) Welfare and Everyday Life: Portugal in the
European Context, Vol. 3. Lisbon: Celta.
Jamieson L, Simpson R and Lewis R (2011) Researching Families and Relationships: Reflections
on Process. Palgrave Macmillan Studies in Family and Intimate Life. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Leitner S (2003) Varieties of familialism: The caring functions of the family in comparative per-
spective. European Societies 5(4): 353–375.
Milardo RM (2010) The Forgotten Kin: Aunts and Uncles. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Morgan D (1996) Family Connections. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Morgan D (2010) Acquaintances: The Space between Intimates and Strangers. Maidenhead: Open
University Press.
Morgan D (2011) Rethinking Family Practices. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pahl R and Pevalin DJ (2005) Between family and friends: A longitudinal study of friendship
choice. British Journal of Sociology 56(3): 433–450.
Pahl R and Spencer L (2004) Personal communities: Not simply families of ‘fate’ or ‘choice’.
Current Sociology 52(2): 199–221.
Roseneil S and Budgeon S (2004) Beyond the conventional family: Intimacy, care and community
in the 21st century. Current Sociology 52(2): 135–159.
Rowland R (1997) População, família, sociedade: Portugal, séculos XIX–XX. Oeiras: Celta Editora.
Shulman N (1975) Life cycle variations in patterns of close relationships. Journal of Marriage and
the Family 37: 492–499.
Troll L (1987) Gender differences in cross-generation networks. Sex Roles 17(11/12): 751–766.
Wall K (2005) Famílias em Portugal. Lisboa: Imprenza de Ciências Sociais.
Wall K (2011) A intervenção do Estado: Políticas públicas de família. In: Nunes de Almeida A
(ed.) História da vida privada em Portugal: Os nossos dias. Lisboa: Círculo de Leitores, pp.
340–374.
Wall K and Escobedo A (2009) Portugal and Spain: Two pathways in Southern Europe. In: Moss
P and Kamerman S (eds) The Politics of Parental Leave Policy: Children, Parenting, Gender
and the Labour Market. Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 207–226.
Wall K, Aboim S, Cunha V and Vasconcelos P (2001) Families and support networks in Portugal:
The reproduction of inequality. Journal of European Social Policy 11(3): 213–233.
Weeks J, Heaphy B and Donovan C (2001) Same Sex Intimacies: Families of Choice and Other
Life Experiments. London: Routledge.

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on May 28, 2014

Wall and Gouveia 21

Widmer ED (2010) Family Configurations: A Structural Approach to Family Diversity. London:

Ashgate.
Widmer ED and Jallinoja R (eds) (2008) Beyond the Nuclear Family: Families in a Configurational
Perspective. Bern: Peter Lang.
Williams F (2004) Rethinking Families. London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.

Author biographies
Karin Wall is Director of Research and Professor of Sociology of Families at the Institute for
Social Sciences at the University of Lisbon (ICS-UL). She coordinates the Observatory on Families
and Family Policies at ICS and has worked since 1995 as an expert on family policies for the
European Commission and the Council of Europe. Her research focuses on family and care poli-
cies in Europe, family forms and interactions, family and the life course, immigrant families,
gender and the conjugal divisions of paid and unpaid work. She is currently coordinating a cross-
national study of family trajectories and social networks across three generations, involving both
quantitative and qualitative methods. She is also conducting comparative research on parental
leave policies, men’s changing roles and identities in family life, migrant families and the policies
and practices of care for young children and elderly persons.
Rita Gouveia is a PhD student in Sociology of Family and research fellow at the Institute for
Social Sciences at the University of Lisbon (ICS-UL). She has worked on several research pro-
jects within the fields of social psychology and sociology, and since 2008 she has been collabo-
rating in a cross-national study of family trajectories and social networks. Her main topics of
research are related to the study of family and personal relationships in late modernity through
a life course perspective and a configurational approach. She has been developing her thesis at
the University of Lisbon under the supervision of Karin Wall and at the University of Geneva
under the supervision of Eric Widmer. She is currently a board member of the European Society
of Family Relationships.

Résumé
Les relations personnelles sont aujourd’hui moins dépendantes des liens du mariage
et du sang et assument des engagements qui vont bien au-delà de la famille nucléaire
pour inclure des parents, des individus sans liens familiaux et des ex-parents. Le but de
cet article est d’examiner la signification des liens familiaux en explorant les frontières
mouvantes entre les liens de parenté et un ensemble plus vaste d’affinités dans un pays
de l’Europe du Sud au parcours singulier, le Portugal. Nous commençons par analyser
les liens qui sont considérés comme « de famille » au sein des réseaux personnels
et qui décrivent les principaux types de configurations familiales. Nous examinons
ensuite les critères déterminant l’inclusion des individus sans lien de parenté dans la «
famille » et l’exclusion des parents du réseau familial. Les résultats mettent en évidence
l’importance des relations de parenté et la plus grande fluidité dans la construction des
liens familiaux, notamment par le biais de l’amitié. Les variables de structure, de cycles
de vie et de famille sont des facteurs déterminants mais les effets relationnels, attachés
à la qualité du lien, sont de particulière importance.

Mots-clés
Famille, parenté, relations personnelles, réseaux, parcours de vie

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on May 28, 2014

22 Current Sociology

Resumen
Las relaciones personales, hoy en día, dependen menos del matrimonio y de los lazos
sanguíneos, y los compromisos van mucho más allá de la familia nuclear co-residente,
para incluir parientes, no parientes y ex -parientes. El objetivo de este artículo es
examinar los significados de los lazos familiares mediante la exploración de los límites
cambiantes entre los lazos de parentesco y una gama más amplia de las afinidades en
un país del sur de Europa (Portugal). Comenzamos analizando los vínculos que los
individuos consideran como “ familia “ dentro de sus redes personales y describimos los
principales tipos de configuraciones familiares. Luego examinamos los determinantes
de la inclusión de los no parientes como “familia” y de exclusión de parientes de la red
familiar. Los resultados ponen de manifiesto la relevancia de los lazos de parentesco, así
como una mayor fluidez en la construcción social de los lazos familiares, particularmente
a través de la amistad. Las variables estructurales, de etapas vitales y de familia son
factores definitorios, pero los efectos relacionales, vinculados a la calidad del lazo, son
de particular importancia.
Palabras clave
Familia, parentesco, relaciones personales, redes, ciclo vital

Downloaded from csi.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on May 28, 2014