(eBook PDF) Canadian Families Today:

New Perspectives 4th Edition

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebooksecure.com/download/ebook-pdf-canadian-families-today-new-perspecti
ves-4th-edition/
Olli> Fourth Edition

Edited by
Patrizia Albanese
 ••
Contributors VII

(forthcoming). She is the recipient of the SSHRC-Joseph-Armand Bombardier Canadian

Doctoral Scholarship (201 5-18).

Karen M. Kobayashi is Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology and the

Centre on Aging at the University of Victoria. H er research interests include the economic
and health dimensions of ethnic inequality in Canada, intergenerational relationships and
social support in mid-to-later life families, and the socio-cultural dimensions of dementia
and personhood. H er current research programs focus on the relation ship between social
isolation and health care utilization among older adults, access to health and social care
among older visible minority immigrants, living-apart-together (LAT) relationships in
adulthood, and an evaluation of quality of care in residential long-term care facilities.
Recent work has been published in the Journal of Aging Studies, Ethnicity and Health,
Canadian Review of Sociology, and the Journal of Aging and Health.

Catherine Krull is Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences and Professor in the
Department of Sociology at the University of Victoria. Prior to her arrival at UVic, she
was a professor at Q ueen's University. She has served as editor of Cuban Studies as well as
editor-in-chief of the Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies. Book
publication s include Cuba in Global Context: International Relations, Internationalism
and Transnationalism (2014); Rereading Women and the Cuban Revolution (with
J. Stubbs, 2011); A Measure of a Revolution: Cuba, 1959-2009 (with S. Castro, 2010)
and New World Coming: T he 1960s and the Shaping of Global Consciousness (with
Dubin sky et al., 2009). She has held research fellowships at the Institute for Advanced
Studies (University of London), the In stitute of Latin American Studies (University of
Florida), the In stitute of Latin American Studies (David Rockefeller Center, H arvard
University), the Department of Sociology (Boston University), and the Centre for
International Studies (London School of Economics). Currently, she is working on
two monographs, one on the C uban Diaspora in Canada and Europe (with J. Stubbs,
University of London), and Entangled US/Cuban Terrains: Memories of Guantanamo
(with A. M cKercher, McMaster University).

Amal Madibbo is Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Calgary. H er

research focuses on im migration , ethnic relations, globalization , and international
development. She has special interest in race and anti-racism, Black francophone
immigration to Canada, and race and ethnicity in sub-Saharan Africa.

Anne Martin-Matthews is Professor of Sociology at the University of British Columbia.

H er current research focuses on two areas of inquiry in the sociology of aging. T he first
examines the provision of health and social care to elderly people, examined from the
perspectives of agency providers, home care workers, elderly clients, and family carers.
H er second area is on widowhood in later life. She is working on CIHR-funded research
on home care in Canada.

Craig McKie is a retired professor of Sociology. He taught at the University of Western

O ntario for several years, spent more than a decade working for Statistics Canada in
viii Contributors

Ottawa, latterly as editor-in-chief of Canadian Social Trends, and most recently, from
1990 until retirement, he taught in the Department of Sociology at Carleton University.

Joseph H. Michalski is Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Sociology,

King's University College at Western University. His current theoretical work and research
focus is on the geometry of social space in relation to behaviours as diverse as intimate
partner violence, welfare, and knowledge production.

Michelle Owen is Associate Professor of Sociology and the Disability Studies Advisory
Committee Chair at the University of Winnipeg. She is the director of the Global College
Institute for Health and Human Potential and was given the 201 1 Marsha Hanen Award
for Excellence in Creating Community Awareness. She is working on two disability-
related research projects: on how Canadian academics with multiple sclerosis negotiate
the workplace, and the experience of intimate partner violence in the lives of women
with disabilities.

Deborah K. van den Hoonaard is Professor of Gerontology and Canada Research

Chair in Qualitative Research and Analysis at St Thomas University in Fredericton, New
Brunswick. She is the author of Qualitative Research in Action: A Canadian Primer (OUP,
2015), By Himself: The Older Man's Experience of Widowhood (UTP, 2010), The Widowed
Self: The Older Woman's Journey Through Widowhood (WLU Press, 2001), and co-author
(with W.C. van den Hoonaard) of Essentials of Thinking Ethically in Qualitative Research
(Left Coast Press, 2013).

Vanessa Watts is Academic Director, Indigenous Studies at McMaster University. She

is Mohawk and Anishinaabe and is of the Bear C lan. She is currently in the process of
completing her PhD in Sociology at Queen's University. Her undergraduate degree is
from Trent University in Native Studies and her Master's Degree was in the Indigenous
Governance Program at the University of Victoria.
Pre ace
The fourth edition of Canadian Families Today is an introduction to the sociology of
fami ly life that draws on a wide range of materials. In 16 chapters, 20 experts in the field
cover a wide range of topics that introduce you to families in a Canadian context. Several
important updates for this edition reflect the real-word changes experienced by Canadian
fami lies, and the way that focuses of study within the sociology of family life h ave adapted
and shifted in turn. Chapters throughout the text have been updated wherever possible
with the latest Statistics Canada data the results of the 2016 Census. Several new au-
thors have been added, including Vanessa Watts, who authors an entirely new chapter on
Indigenous families, reviewing the topic in a broad way through the lens of assimilationist
state objectives towards the absorption of Indigenous families in Canada.
The book is organized into four parts, reflecting its main themes. Part 1 contains the
introductory chapter by Patrizia Albanese, which discusses the diversity of fami ly forms
existing in Can ada today, reviews different definitions of the family, and considers how
the changing definition of this concept h as had policy implications for access to programs
and privileges or status within society. In Chapter 2, Cynthia Cornacchio reviews the
major changes and continuities in the history of Canadian families over the past two cen-
turies. In C h apter 3, Doreen Furnia discusses same-sex marriage in Canada and changes
in marriage law in the form of Bill C-38 the Civil Marriages Act. She explores how
concepts of "normal'' and "abnormal'' sexuality continue to demarcate relationships and
thus persist in relegating many Canadians to a position as ''other."
Part 2 provides information about various stages and events in the life course. In
Chapter 4, Melanie Heath focuses on how people form relationships. Heath discusses
technological innovations that have been affecting dating and sexual relationships in
recent years. Amber Gazso, in Chapter 5, focuses on becoming and being a parent of
youn g children. Sh e outlin es some of the activities of parenting, with emphasis on how
everyday practices of parenting are textured by ideological discourses in our society.
In Chapter 6, Craig McKie focuses on how families fragment through separation
or divorce, but often reformulate within the context of a new union. McKie discusses
post-separation hardships, but also concludes that these must be weighed against the real
risks of physical and emotional trauma in relationships that are full of conflict, risks that
are greatly diminished by separation.
Middle age and "old age," two other stages of the life course, are considered in Chap-
ter 7. Karen Kobayashi and Anne Martin-Matthews focus on the transitions that mark
middle age (e.g., the "empty nest," caregiving) that are triggered by life events in families
including adult children leaving home or care for aging parents. Chapter 7 also highlights
the central role that fami lies play in the lives of older adults.
Part 3 of Canadian Families Today focuses on some of the many challenges, deci-
sions, and strategies that families face in light of the shifting social, economic, and polit-
ical contexts. In Chapter 8 Deborah K. van den Hoonaard fo cuses special attention on the
rituals associated with marriage and death. She considers how rituals have evolved over
time, and notes that individuals now exercise greater scope in their choices about how
to conduct rituals. In C h apter 9, Andrea Doucet describes patterns of paid and unpaid
x Preface

work in families by looking at the relationship between gender and paid work. Doucet also
examines the relationship between state policies and paid and unpaid work.
Don Kerr and Joseph H. Michalski, in C hapter 10, focus on recent poverty trends af-
fecting families today, while also considering some of the broader structural shifts in the
Canadian economy and in government policies. T hey examine the high rates of poverty
among female-headed lone-parent families and among recent immigrants, and discuss
the coping strategies that these families use to survive. In C hapter 11 , Amal Madibbo
and James Frideres discuss the pre- and post-migration experiences of refugee fam ilies.
Among other things, they explore the social and economic position of visible minority
refugee families in Canadian society and its impact on family structure and family ex-
periences. Michelle Watts, in Chapter 12, presents past and recent trends in fam ily life
among Indigenous people in Canada. She traces the impact of devastating colonial poli-
cies on family life and the resilience that has come to characterize many Indigenous
fam ilies. In C hapter 13, Michelle Owen writes about the impact that disability has on
fam ilies. She begins by discussing the problem of defining disability, and then aims to
show that disabled Canadians and their families, like racialized families discussed in
C hapter 11, continue to be marginalized in our society.
Finally, Part 4 of the book looks at issues that, if not unique to families, are often
central and those with which many contemporary families must grapple: violence, shifts
in public policy, and questions regarding the future. C hapter 14, by Catherine Holtm ann,
analyzes how power differences in the family can lead to mental, physical, or sexual abuse.
At the same time, she argues that the powerlessness and dependency cycles in families
that make children, women, and aged persons vulnerable can be broken. Catherine Krull
and Mushira Mohsin Khan , in C hapter 15, discuss government policies affecting families
in Canada, which they believe have a great impact on family life. The authors point out
that Canada lacks a comprehensive national family policy, unlike some other countries
around the world. In the concluding chapter, Margrit Eichler discusses the extensive
history of prediction s for and about the future of the family, pointing out that in the past
there have been a number of spectacular misprognoses about the future of fam ilies. She
concludes with predictions of her own.

Acknowledgments
Statistics Canada inform ation is used with the permission of Statistics Canada. Users
are forbidden to copy the data and disseminate them, in original or modified form , for
commercial purposes, without permission from Statistics Canada. Information on the
availability of the wide range of data from Statistics Canada can be obtained from www
.statcan .gc.ca.
Patrizia Albanese
January, 201 7
 / ,/
I
I

PART I I
I

I
- --
• • • • ......

-
I
-

he first three chapters of this book provide an introduction to the study of family life in
Canada. They present some of the changes in the study of families, with a special focus on
Canada, while presenting an overview of historical diversity in family life. Multiple perspectives
on understanding families are presented, and the complexity of family life is stressed.
In Chapter 1, Patrizia Albanese discusses the diversity of family forms existing in Canada
today, reviews different definitions of the family, and considers how the changing definition
of this concept has had policy implications for access to programs and privileges or status
within society. Albanese also introduces some of the different theories of family life and
discusses the influence that theoretical assumptions have on ways of seeing the world. She
examines recent changes in family life in Canada and concludes the chapter by noting that
today, as in the past, Canadian families take on a number of diverse forms. The changing
definition of family simply reflects a reality that change has been, and continues to be, a
normal part of family life.
In Chapter 2, Cynthia Cornacchio reviews the major changes and continuities in the history
of Canadian families over the past two centuries. She discusses how in the past, as is the case
today, "the family" as a social construct is an idealization that reinforces hierarchies of class,
"race," gender, and age. Throughout the chapter, she underscores the fact that, despite pre-
vailing ideas about what properly constitutes "the family" at various points in time, Canadian
fa mi lies are and have been in constant flux. Cornacchio makes it clear that the importance of
fa mi lies to both individuals and to society is a constant, both in ideal and in practice; at the
same time, the form and experience of actual families have always been diverse.
Chapter 3, by Doreen M. Furnia, examines same-sex marriage in Canada. She walks us
through changes in marriage law in Canada in the form of Bill C-38 the Civil Marriages
Act which shifted the definitions about which couples could legally marry. She argues that
while social acceptance of this change is ongoing, social stigmas remain. She goes on to
present two arguments: one that advocates for the inclusion of same-sex couples into the
institution of marriage, as an avenue towards equal rights and full citizenship participation.
The other argument insists that the institution of marriage is still exclusionary and calls for its
total dismantling. Through this debate, she challenges readers to decide for themselves who
marriage is for.
 I
j

/,

I /
I
( \ I '(
\ I

Introduction to Diversity
in Canada's Families
variations in Forms, Definitions, and Theories
PATR IZIA ALBANESE

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

• To gain an overview of some chang ing Canadian demog raphic trends

• To discover that Ca nadian famili es have t aken, and continue to take, diverse forms

• To see t hat defi nitions of family have changed over t ime, and cont inue to evolve

• To recognize the implications of defi ning family in certa in ways restricti ng who has
access t o programs, polici es, and privileges and who does not

• To learn about some of the theories that guide our understanding of fami lies

• To understand that theoretica l orientations guide what we study and how we study it

Introduction
On August 23, 2016, about 200 Indigenous people gathered in Toronto to protest the
Sixties Scoop, a period in the 1960s and 1970s during which Indigenous children were
removed from their families as part of the work of ''child protection services'' and placed
''in care'' with non-Indigenous families. The demonstration by surviving family members
took place outside of a courthouse in Toronto where a judge was hearing a class action
lawsuit against the federal government over the practice. Among the 200 were Thomas
Norton and his sister Karen Rae, who he had just met for the first time. They explained
that Karen had been taken from their parents' home on the Sagueen First Nation before
Thomas was born. Decades later, as adults, this family was reunited. Thomas Norton
shared with the media that he "had no idea what she was doing in her life and she had no
idea what I was doing." He added, "you need to build the relationship and gather strength
from that as a family'' (CBC News 2016: online).
This case reminds us of the meaning, vulnerability, tenacity, and importance of family
ties that many in Canada experience, and that some of us, at times, take for granted. It
hints at just how diverse in form and experience Canadian families are, and at some of the
 1 I Albanese: Introduction to Diversity in Canada's Families 3

government policies and practices that shape and constrain who and what a family has
been allowed to include or involve. Above all, it reminds us of how powerful and deeply
rooted our family ties are to our sense of self and our sense of belonging.
We begin this chapter with an overview of some recent trends in family life as they
are captured by broad-sweeping national statistics. We will see that Statistics Canada
data capture a considerable amount of change and diversity in family forms, though we
must keep in mind that the data may actually mask variations, fluctuations, and ''oddities''
that encompass everyday life for the millions of people who make up families in Canada
today.
Following a review of recent trends in family forms, we assess various definitions of
family, to determine which ones, if any, reflect the diversity that we see and experience
around us. Following that, we review theories used to help us understand and explain
what is happening to, with, and in family life. We see, through the trends, definitions, and
theories covered in this chapter, that change and diversity are the norm when it comes to
understanding families. We will throughout this chapter and the rest of the book see
that Statistics Canada data, while they offer evidence of change to family structures over
time, fail to accurately depict the full breadth of complex, lived experiences of Canadians.

Changing Trends in the Diversity of Family Forms

In 2016 there were 9,519,945 families in Canada, up from 9,389,700 only five years before
(Statistics Canada 20 l 2a; Statistics Canada 20 l 7a). According to Canadian Census data,
today, there are proportionally fewer households than in the past composed of a ''mother,
father and children''; with more people living alone, as couples without children, or as
multi-generational families. The 2016 Census revealed that married couples remained
the dominant family form, but as in past Census years, this number is declining over
time in relation to other family forms. For example, since the 2006 Census, the number
of common-law couples has risen, as has the number of lone-parent families and indi-
viduals living alone (Statistics Canada 2017b). The growth in the number of individuals
living alone 28.2 percent of households in Canada was especially striking (Statistics
Canada 2017b).
In 2016, there were 72,880 same-sex couples in Canada, representing 0.9 per cent
of all couples. One-third, or 33 .4 per cent of these same-sex couples were married, with
the rest living common-law. About 12 percent of all same-sex couples that were counted
had children living with them at the time of the 2016 Census, (Statistics Canada 2017c).
Those numbers reflect a long journey after decades of political mobilizing and many
legal battles, same-sex families in Canada have gone from a time when homosexuality
was illegal, to being invisible, to fully recognized marriages and families for the first
1
time in the 2006 Canadian census (see Chapter 3). Increasingly, we
also have come to acknowledge the existence, reality, and complexity of For more on legal changes
to same-sex marriage in
trans families and families with transgender members of all ages (see Canada, see "Passing Bill
Box 1.1). Clearly, as a result of social change, including changes in the c-38: The civil Marriage
way we define and count families, Canadian families today come in a Act" in Chapter 3,
plurality of forms, with no one family portrait capturing the incredibly pp. 58-9.
rich diversity.
4 PART I Conceptualizing Families, Past and Present

Daily Life for a 12-year-old Transgender Girl

Alexis Knox was assigned male at birth, but at 12 years old, identifies as a transgender girl.
She came out to her parents, Amanda and Mark Knox, and her two brothers, in 2014, start-
ing with an email to her father.
Alexis told CBC journalist, Hallie Cotnam, on the Ottawa Morning show:
"I was pretty scared. I didn't know what to say, or what to do."
"With email, you can type out and erase, and you can type it out in a new way. You can
just kind of get it all out in the perfect way. I just didn't know what else to do. I knew I didn't
want to live my life that way."
Her father, Mark Knox, sa id that when he received the email he was shocked, but not
surprised, recalling:
"She says, 'More than anything, I feel like a girl. I want to be a girl."'
"After I got over the initial reaction to it, it was a special day. We gained a daughter."
Since the email, the family has made some adjustments. Alexis is on puberty blocking
medication and is being home-schooled while she adjusts to her new life.
Alexis described the year since coming out to her family as "defin itely more challen-
ging," but she notes that it is better than it used to be:
"I'm happier. I'm not just sitting in my room playing Minecraft eight hours a day, every
day. II

The family's next challenge has been to prepare for the reactions of others as people
outside their close circle begin to see and understand the transition Alexis has been going
through. As part of this, in a post on her blog, Amanda Knox introduced her readers to her
daughter Alexis.
Alexis wants to be more public and to advocate for herself.
Source: CBC News. "Family of transgender girl, 12, opens up about first year." Apr 14, 2015. CBC Licensing.

Questions for Critical Thought

Imagine that a beloved member of your family is transgender. What kinds of chal-
lenges do you expect they would encounter? What could you do to support your loved
one through some of the challenges?

With time, official measures like the Canadian Census have evolved to capture more
of the diversity that makes up everyday life. Blended families, often called "stepfamilies,"
are those consisting of parents and their children from this and any previous relationships,
and are increasingly common. It's only recently, since the 201 1 Census, that they have
been officially counted. But even before official counting, we have known that following
divorces and other break-ups, many second and subsequent unions take place, in the form
of remarriages and common-law unions. Not surprising then, to capture changing reality,
 1 I Al banese: Introduction to Diversity in Canada's Fami lies 5

for the first time in 20 11 the Census was changed to include and count stepfamilies. The
2016 Census found that among the 5.8 million children under the age of 14, 69.7 per
cent were living with both of their biological or adoptive parents, and no step-siblings or
half-siblings; while 30 per cent were living in a lone-parent family, in a stepfamily; or in a
family without their parents but with grandparents, with other relatives or as foster chil-
dren (Statistics C anada, 2017 d). This is increased from the 12.6 per cent of all families in
C anada that were stepfamilies in 201 1 (Statistics Canada 2012a). In 2016, 62.8 per cent of
children in stepfamilies were living with one of their biological or adoptive parents and a
step-parent. Just over half of these children had no half-siblings or step-siblings (were in a
simple stepfamily). Just under half were in complex stepfamilies where they lived with at
least one half-sibling or step-sibling (Statistics Canada 2017d). In 201 6, 62.8 per cent of
children in stepfamilies were living with one of their biological or adoptive parents and a
step-parent. Just over half of these children had no half-siblings or step-siblings (were in
a simple stepfamily). Just under half were in complex stepfamilies where they lived with
at least one half-sibling or step-sibling (Statistics Canada 2017d). The other 37.2 per cent
of children in stepfamilies (3.6 per cent of all children aged O to 14) had both of their
biological or adoptive parents present. Children in this situation had at least one brother
or sister with whom they had only one parent in common: a half-sibling.
Many step-parents face a number of unique challenges and experiences. At the same
time, they have much in common with some other families today.
Other types of families we recognize today include transnational families, which have
been around a long time, certainly, but have been invisible to most . Recent years have
seen an increase in interest, research, and information on transnational, multi-local
families (Beiser et al. 2014; Bernhard et al. 2006; Burholt 2004; Dhar 201 1; Waters
2001). Interest in transnational families has been sparked by the growing awareness of
some of the challenges faced by immigrant families, refugee claimants, foreign domestic

Table 1.1 Distribution (Number and Percentage) and Percentage Change of

Census Families by Family Structure, Canada, 2001-2011
Census fam ily 2001 2006 2011 Percentage change
Tot al census fami lies 8,37 1,020 8,896,840 9,389,700 5.5

Coup le fam ilies 7,059,830 7,482,775 7,861,860 5 .1

(84.3 °/o) (84.1 °/o) (83 .7o/o)

Married 5,90 1,420 6,105,9 10 6,293,950 3 .1

(70.5%) (68.6%) (67 .0°/o)

Common-law 1, 158,410 1,376,865 1,567,910 13 .9

(13 .8°/o) (15.5%) (16.7%)

Lone-pa rent fami lies 1,31 1,190 1,4 14,060 1,527,840 8 .0

(15 .7%) (15.9%) (16.3 %)

Female parents 1,065,360 1, 132,290 1,200,295 6 .0

(12 .7°/o) (12.7°/o) (12 .8°/o)

Ma le pa rents 245,825 28 1,775 327,545 16 .2

(2 .9%) (3.2°/o) (3 .5%)

Source: Statistics Canada, 2017 and 2012a, p. 5 (Table 1), ava ilable at (www12.statcan .gc.ca/census-recensement /201 1I
as-sa/98-312-x/98-3 12-x201 1001-eng.pdf).
6 PART I Conceptualizing Families, Past and Present

Total private households

14,072,080 (100.0%)

Non-census-fam ily Census family

households households
4,552,135 (32.3 %) 9,519,945 (67.7 %)

Non-census-family
One-person Couples w ithout Couples with Lone-parent
households of two
households ch ildren children families
or more persons
3,969,795 (28.2 %) 3,627, 185 (25.8% ) 3,728,375 (26.5 %) 1,250,190 (8.9 %)
582,345 (4.1 % )

Mu ltigenerationa I Other fami ly

households households
403,810 (2.9 %) 510,380 (3.6 %)

Figure 1.1 overview of Household Types, Canada, 2016

Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Population, 2016.

workers from the Caribbean and Philippines, migrant workers, visa students, and individ-
uals and families with "less-than-full'' legal status.
Thousands of people living in Canada currently find themselves tem-
For more on the challenges
porarily separated from their children and spouses as part of a strategy to
refugee families face,
see "Family Issues" in
secure a better economic future and opportunities for their family. Some
Chapter 11, pp. 231-3. have been called satellite familie s or satellite children, a term first used
in the 1980s to describe Chinese children whose parents immigrated to
North America, usually from Hong Kong or Taiwan, but returned to their country of
origin leaving children, and sometimes spouses, in Canada (Newendorp 2008; Tsang
et al. 2003). Researchers studying transnational families have been documenting the
changes and challenges that arise from parent-child separations (for more on parenting,
see Chapter 5), long-distance relationships, extended family networks providing child
care, and the often emotionally charged reunifications that follow from multi-local family
arrangements (Beiser et al. 2014; Bernhard et al. 2006a; Burholt 2004; Dhar 201 1; Tsang
et al. 2003; Waters 2001).
In 2011, just over 7.2 million people living in Canada (22.0 per cent of the popula-
tion) were first generation, born in one of over 200 countries around the globe (Dobson ,
Maheux, and Chui 2013). Nearly half of them arrived in Canada after 1985. In 2014
alone, 260,404 people arrived as permanent residents (CIC 2015).
 1 I Albanese: Introduction to Diversity in Canada's Fami lies 7

Most newcomers, like other Canadians, lived in nuclear families; however, family sizes
tended to be larger for immigrant families (Belanger 2006). Partners in recent-immigrant
households were more likely to be legally married, rather than living common-law.
Recent-immigrant families were also less likely to be headed by single-parents compared
to other Canadian families, and were more likely than others to live in overcrowded hous-
ing (CIC 2007).
Newcomers today are much more likely than earlier immigrants or those who are
Canadian-born to live in families with incomes below the median family income in
Canada (income that falls in the middle of the income range or spectrum in a society).
Recent reports reveal that racialized immigrants make up 54 per cent
of all immigrants in Canada. However, they make up 71 per cent of all im- For more on family poverty,
migrants living in poverty (National Council of Welfare 2013). Further- see "Economic Well-being
more, 90 per cent of racialized persons living in poverty are first-generation Among Indigenous and
immigrants (National Council of Welfare 2013). The factors behind these Racialized Communities"
in Chapter 10, p. 214.
rates include an over-representation of racialized groups in low-paying
jobs, labour market fai lure to recognize international work experience/
credentials, and "racial'' discrimination in employment (Campaign 2000 2007). In con-
trast, children of immigrants who came to Canada before 1981 and had below-average
earnings in the first generation were found to have surpassed their parents in the second
generation, and were more educated and earned more on average than Canadians of
similar age whose parents were born in Canada (Statistics Canada 2005). A great many
factors have changed the social and economic landscape affecting immigrant families
more recently, as they have affected all Canadian families (see Duffy, Corman, and Pupo
2015). For example, because of economic shifts, many younger Canadians today find
themselves increasingly unable to leave their parental homes and establish independent
households.
In 1981, about 28 per cent of Canadians between the ages of 20 to 29 lived with their
parents. By 2011, this increased to 41 per cent (Beaujot 2004; Milan 2016). In 2011, four
in 10 young people either remained in or returned to live in their parental home (Milan
2016). Because of changing economic circumstances and difficulty finding stable, long-
term, decent-paying work, coupled with an increasing demand for post-secondary edu-
cation and large debt loads, researchers have seen the postponement of home-leaving or
delayed child launch. Linked with this trend is an increase in the number of "boomerang
children'' or "velcro kids" (Beaupre, Turcotte, and Milan 2006; Milan
For more on work and
2016; Mitchell 1998a; Mitchell 1998b; Tyyska 2001) young adults who
families, see "The Rise of
leave their parental homes for work or school, only to return due to large Non-standard Employment"
debt loads, shifting employment prospects, or changing marital status (for in Chapter 9, pp. 185-6.
more on unions and breakups, see Chapter 4 and Chapter 6).
While many young people today don't expect to live with their parents or in-laws into
their thirties and forties (though, as mentioned above, increasingly many will turn out
to be wrong about that), for many new immigrants to Canada (as noted
For more on aging families,
above), older Canadians, or Canadians with disabilities, the extended
see Chapter 7; for more on
family model and the pooling of family resources in multi-generational living with disabilities, see
households is nothing new, unexpected, or alarming (Che-Alford and Chapter 13.
Hamm 1999; Milan, Laflamme, and Wong 2015; Sun 2008).
8 PART I Conceptualizing Families, Past and Present

Table 1.2 Counting Census Families

Census Family type, number,
year and/or per cent Historica l context; changes in census enumeration
1921 1.8 million Census f amilies First World War; large number of war widows; first Census to distingu ish
between households and fam ilies

1931 86.4 °/o married; Great Depression; marriage and fertility rates decli ne; reference to food,
13.6°/o lone parent shared tables, and housekeeping are dropped f rom Census, eradicating
hints of women's domestic labour (Bradbury 2000); single-parent heads of
households counted for the f irst time

1941 87 .8 °/o married; Second World War; women at work in factories; 1942 Dominion-Provincial
12 .2 °/o lone parent Wartime Day Nurseries Agreement, fund ing daycare services in Ontario,
Quebec, and Alberta

1951 90.1 °/o married; Baby Boom (1946- 65); fertil ity rates increase; f irst Census to clearly allow
9.9°/o lone parent f or single parents with children living w ith other fam ilies to be separately
counted

1956 91 .4 °/o married; High marriage rates; high fertility rates; low death rates; rates of sing le
8.6°/o lone parent parenthood at their lowest

1961 91 .6°/o married; High marriage rates; high fertility rates; low death rates; rates of single
8.4°/o lone parent parenthood rema in low

1966 91 .8°/o married; Mass marketing of birth control pi ll ; contraception is legalized in 1969;
8.2 °/o lone parent changes in Divorce Act, 1968

1971 90.6°/o married; II

Last Census year in which f ertil ity was at replacement level
II
of 2: 1; lone
9.4°/o lone parent parents due to divorce now outnumber those due to w idowhood

1976 90.2 o/o married; Mass (re)entry of women into labour force
9.8°/o lone parent
1981 83 .1 °/o married; Common-law unions f irst enumerated
5.6°/o common-law;
11 .3°/o lone parent
1986 80.2 % married; Changes to Divorce Act; d ivorce rates peak in 1987
7.2°/o common-law;
12 .7°/o lone parent
1991 77 .3 °/o married; Married-couple famil ies make up an increasing ly smaller proportion of all
9.8°/o common-law; f amilies in Canada
13 °/o lone parent
1996 73 .7°/o married; Number of stepfamil ies sharply on the rise; number of hours spent doing
11 .7°/o common-law; unpaid housework asked for the f irst t ime
14.5°/o lone parent
2001 70.5°/o married; Same-sex common-law unions enumerated for the f irst t ime; parental
13.8°/o common-law; leave extended
15.7°/o lone parent
2006 68.6% married; Same-sex marriages enumerated for the first time
15.5°/o common-law;
15.9°/o lone parent
2011 67 .0°/o married; Stepfam il ies and foster children enumerated for the f irst t ime
16.7°/o common-law;
16.3°/o lone parent
 1 I Albanese: Introduction to Diversity in Canada's Families 9

Table 1.2 (Continued)

Census Fami ly type, number,
year and/or per cent Historica l context; changes in census enumeration
2016 28.2 o/o One-person households
25 .8% Couples w ithout ch ildren
26.5 °/o Couples w ith children
8.9% lone-parent fami lies
2.9 % mu ltigenerational
households
3.6% other f am ily households

Outlining the recent historical evolution of the Canadian Census fam ily (wh ich masks more than it reveals) shows that what we
know better reflects how, what, and when we counted, as opposed to exactly who and what we were.
Source: Bradbury 2000, 201 1; Statistics Canada 2012b; Statistics Canada 2017a.

A considerable amount of pooling of resources and care work happens across genera-
tions, households, even continents, especially by women, in a complex web of exchanges
and support (Connidis and Kemp 2008; Dhar 2011; Eichler and Albanese 2007; Lang-
ford, Prentice and Albanese 2017). And while how some of this care work happens (for
example, over the internet) may be different, what is done, by whom, and for whom, may
not actually be new. In fact, many of Canada's "new" family forms have always existed,
if in the margins, in the shadows, or during specific historical and economic contexts.
For example, lone-parent families and stepfamilies/remarriages are not new on the
Canadian landscape (see Figure 1.2). Nor are same-sex families or transnational families,

Never ma rri ed Divorced or separated 1 W idowed

100

90

80

70

CL> 60
O'>
cu
+-'
cCL> 50
u
I,..
CL>
a.. 40

30

20

10

0
1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 200 1 2006 201 1
Yea r

Figure 1.2 Distribution (in percentage) of the Legal Marital Status of Lone Parents,
Canada, 1961 to 2011
Note: 1. Divorced or separat ed category includes " married, spouse absent."
Source: Statistics Canada, 2012b, p. 3
10 PART I Conceptualizing Families, Past and Present

for that matter. M any of these family forms simply went uncounted (Bradbury 2000; see
Table 1.2). While diversity seems to best characterize Canadian families today, diversity,
adaptability, conflict, and change have always past and present been a fact of life for
C anadian families.

contemporary Canadian Family studies

Studying Canadian families requires students and researchers to stay on top of legal, pol-
itical, social, and economic changes at the community, sub-national/provincial, national,
and international levels. As you will see throughout this book, studying Canadian fam-
ilies often includes understanding and studying aspects of the Canadian economy,
policy shifts, changes to health care and longevity, the internet, poverty, immigration ,
environmental issues, globalization , war/genocide/ethnic conflict, violence, taxation , legal
changes, and human rights issues. And much of this has been sparked by wh at some
have called the "big bang'' (Che al 1991) in family theorizing. Before exploring the "big
bang'' let us first turn to what we mean by family and how the changing definition of this
concept has had profound implication s on access to program s, policies, and privilege in
this country.

Changing Definitions of Family

The definition of family is in a constant state of flux (Holtzman 201 1) (see Box 1.1)
and even judicial uses of family definition s which we would assume to be the most
comprehensive tend to ''be inconsistent, unpredictable . .." and not always "effective''
(Holtzman 201 1:620). Today we would have a difficult time identifying a single overarch-
ing definition of family accepted within and across academic research and disciplines,
and formal or informal organizations. This is why we so often use adjectives to qualify
family, adjectives that allow us to more easily focus in on different incarnations of the
family. For example, most agree on the definition of a nuclear family, which typically
includes a couple and their children, sharing the same household, but may also define
one parent and his/her child(ren) (Ambert 2006). Today, with divorce and remarriages,
we are also seeing an increase in the number of bi-nuclear familie s where children of
divorced parents move and live across households. For children, the family they "belong
to" or originate in is called their "family of origin'' or ''orientation'' (Ambert 2006). There is
also the extended family, mentioned briefly above, in which several generations or sets
of kin grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins share a household. This has also come to
be called a multi-generational household. Similarly, terms like household, a set of related
and unrelated individuals who share a dwelling, are also relatively easily defined.
At the individual level, there are likely as many definitions of family as there are fam-
ilies in this country, because the lived reality of ''the family" is quite different from the re-
ality privileged through Canadian law and social policy. At the same time, individual level
explanations, like some more formal definitions such as the ones in Box 1.1, tend to stress
the structural or compositional definition of the family (Eichler 1983; Gazso 2009). These
 1 I Albanese: Introduction to Diversity in Canada's Fami lies 11

Box 1.1
What Is a Family? Evolving Definitions of Family Is
Everyone Accounted For?
Do any of the following definitions exclude your own family? Who else is excluded from the
following definitions? Can you spot any other similarities, differences, or problems with these
definitions?

Murdock (1949): ... a social group characterized by common residence, economic

co-operation, and reproduction. It includes adults of both sexes, at least two of whom
maintain a socially approved sexual relationship, and one or more children, own or
adopted, of the sexually cohabiting adults.
Stephens (1963): ... a social arrangement based on marriage and the marriage
contract, including recognition of the rights and duties of parents, common residence
for husband, wife, and children and reciprocal economic obligations between husband
and wife.
Coser (1974): ... a group manifesting the following organizational attributes: it
finds its origin in marriage; it consists of husband, wife, and children born in their wed-
lock, though other relatives may find their place close to this nuclear group, and the
group is united by moral, legal, economic, religious, and social rights and obligations.
Eichler (1983): A family is a social group which may or may not include adults of both
sexes (e.g., lone-parent families), may or may not include one or more children (e.g.,
childless couples), who may or may not have been born in their wedlock (e.g., adopted
children, or children by one adult partner of a previous union). The relationship of the
adults may or may not have its origin in marriage (e.g., common-law couples), they may
or may not share a common residence (e.g., commuting couples). The adults may or may
not cohabit sexually, and the relationship may or may not involve such socially patterned
feelings as love, attraction, and awe.
Goode (1995): Doubtless the following list is not comprehensive, but it [family] in-
cludes most of those relationships: (1) At least two adult persons of opposite sex reside
together. (2) They engage in some kind of division of labor; that is, they do not both per-
form exactly the same tasks. (3) They engage in many types of economic and social ex-
changes; that is, they do things for one another. (4) They share many things in common,
such as food, sex, residence, and both goods and social activities. (5) The adults have
parental relations with their children, as their children have filial relations with them;
the parents have some authority over children, and share with one another, while also
assuming some obligations for protection, co-operation, and nurturance. (6) There are
sibling relations among the children themselves, with, once more, a range of obligations
to share, protect, and help one another.
Census Family (1996): Refers to a now-married couple (with or without never-
married sons and/or daughters of either or both spouses), a couple living common-law
(with or without never-married sons and/or daughters of either or both partners), or a

continued
12 PART I Conceptualizing Families, Past and Present

lone parent of any marital status, with at least one never-married son or daughter living
in the same dwelling.
Mandell and Duffy (2000): ... a social ideal, generally referring to a unit of eco-
nomic co-operation, typically thought to include only those related by blood, but re-
vised by feminists to include those forming an economically co-operative, residential
unit bound by feelings of common ties and strong emotions.
Census Family (2001): Refers to a married couple (with or without children of either
or both spouses), a couple living common-law (with or without children of either or
both partners), or a lone parent of any marital status with at least one child living in the
same dwelling. A couple living common-law may be of opposite or same sex. "Chil -
dren" in a census family include grandchildren living with their grandparent(s) but with
no parents present.
Census Family (2006): Refers to a married couple (with or without children of either
or both spouses), a couple living common-law (with or without children of either or
both partners) or a lone parent of any marital status, with at least one child living in the
same dwelling. A couple may be of opposite or same sex. "Ch ildren " in a census family
include grandchildren living with their grandparent(s) but with no parents present.
Census Family (2011): ... is composed of a married or common-law couple, with or
without children, or of a lone parent living with at least one child in the same dwelling.
Vanier Institute of the Family (20 12): ... any combination of two or more persons
who are bound together over time by ties of mutual consent, birth and/or adoption or
placement and who, together, assume responsibilities for variant combinations of some
of the following:

• Physical maintenance and care of group members;

• Addition of new members through procreation or adoption;
• Socialization of children;
• Social control of members;
• Production, consumption, distribution of goods and services; and
• Affective nurturance love.

Census Family (20 16). "Census family" is defined as a married couple and the chil-
dren, if any, of either and/or both spouses; a couple living common law and the children,
if any, of either and/or both partners; or a lone parent of any marital status with at least
one child living in the same dwelling and that child or those children. All members of
a particular census family live in the same dwelling. A couple may be of opposite or
same sex. Children may be children by birth, marriage, common-law union, or adoption
regardless of their age or marital status as long as they live in the dwelling and do not
have their own married spouse, common-law partner, or child living in the dwelling.
Grandchildren living with their grandparent(s) but with no parents present also consti-
tute a census family.

Census Family Sources: Statistics Canada, at www.statcan.ca, Census Dictionary 1996, Census Dictionary 2001;
Statistics Canada 2010, Census Dictionary 2006; and Statistics Canada 2012c; Statistics Canada, 2017a.
 1 I Al banese: Introduction to Diversity in Canada's Fami lies 13

definitions do little more than answer the question: "who makes up a/the/your family''?
Family researchers, beginning with key feminists like M argrit Eichler (1983), have long
stressed the importance of rethinking our definitions of "the family," to instead focus on
questions like "what makes a family?" And the Vanier Institute of the Family definition ,
above, tries to do some of this.
Gazso (2009:157), like Eichler, h as highlighted the importance of including
''process-based approaches'' to ''doing family'' (much like West and Zimmerman's "doing
gender," which assumes gender is ''performative''). This type of approach stresses the rela-
tions, processes, and activities that individuals share and do together the totality of sets of
fluid practices that make them a family (also see M cDaniel and Tepperman 2007; Morgan
1996). This can and likely often does include parenting, intimacy, sharing resources, div-
iding household work and care work, making important decisions, etc. Similarly, Widmer
(2010) treats families as dynamic systems of interdependencies that exist in shifting re-
lational contexts. This allows for the analysis of ever-present tensions and conflicts, and
recognizes the fluxes and flows in who is seen to make up a family at any given time.
Gazso (2009) explains that these process-based approaches to defining and under-
standing families ('' doing family'') offer the potential to transcend heteronormative, patri-
archal, and Eurocentric assumptions about family life, and help capture the diversity and
structural constraints embedded in cultural expectations. That said, she recognizes some
of the shortcomings of this approach, noting that this approach runs ''the risk of embra-
cing individualism and agency to the point of neglecting to consider how agentic choices
are shaped by social structure" (Gazso 2009: 158). She also reminds us that the structural/
compositional definitions of the family, for better and worse, continue to inform eligibility
and administration of social policies and programs, and service delivery (Gazso 2009: 158).
Eichler, writing on the definition of family, noted that ''who is included in the defin-
ition of family is an issue of great importance as well as great consequence," because who
we include in our definition will determine who is eligible to claim tax benefits, spon-
sor family members in immigration , claim insurance benefits, claim Indian status, etc.
Eichler challenges us to move beyond "who" definitions of family, which focus on group
membership and family structure (a mom and a dad and their children , for example), to-
wards a "what'' definition of family, which focuses on the services and supports provided
by various members. In accepting a "what'' definition of family, we would then recognize,
reward, and legitimize families for what they do together and for each other, rather than
recognize and privilege only those who take the "proper'' form, regardless of what happens
behind closed doors.
All this said, there remains a disconnect between how individuals them selves,
family sociologists, and social policies and policy makers define the idea of family. It also
reminds us that legal/formal definitions, like the Census family, social definitions found
within different organizations and social groups, and personal definitions of families have
been created for different purposes and in different contexts, and so typically remain far
apart and distinct.
How we define family has profound implications for who is actually counted as a family.
Census data, for example, reflect and are constrained by which families are measured and
how. As a result, we only know about the types of families we have legally accepted, de-
fined, asked about, and counted. Quantitative studies typically mask the actual existence
of all other family forms that inevitably exist (see Case in Point box, p. 14).
14 PART I Conceptualizing Families, Past and Present

In sum, when we try to define the idea of family, what is clear and constant is the
variability of definitions. This tells us that family is a changing social construct that re-
flects variations in how states, institutions, and individuals understand, experience, and
interact within it. Cheal (2008: 14) noted that family is ''a term whose relevance is defined
in social interaction and its referents vary according to the nature of that interaction."
Social scientific definitions of family change about as rapidly as other definitions, and
often reflect both formal and informal or subjective uses of the term (see Cheal 2008). As
you will see, each of the social scientific and theoretical approaches that follow adopts a
somewhat different definition and set of assumptions about families, which in turn shape
our understanding of it.

CASE IN POINT

Diversity as the Norm? Mixed Unions in Canada

In July 2014, Maclean's magazine featured an editorial with the title "Canada is leading the
pack in mixed unions Why we're setting the global standard for mu lticultural acceptance and
integration." The article boastfully noted that "Our country ... is a Metis nation and getting
more so" (Maclean's 2014). The editorial was reporting on the release of data from the 2011
National Household Survey that showed that just over 360,000 couples reported that they
were in a mixed union or in a relationship where one partner is "a member of a visible minor-
ity" (a term that continues to be used by Statistics Canada) or racia lized, wh ile the other is not,
or reported being in a relationship where the partners are from different racia lized groups.
Maclean's noted that the numbers reveal continued growth in this trend . Statistics
Canada (2014) reported a steady trend upwards, with the proportion of mixed unions in-
creas ing from 2.6 per cent of all couples in 1991, to 3. 1 per cent in 2001, to 4.6 per cent
in 2011. The Nationa l Household Survey (Stat istics Canada 2014) also found that most mixed
un ions involved partners who were born in different countries. About 20 per cent were
un ions where both partners were foreign-born, from different countries. Almost half of all
mixed coup les had one partner who was born in Canada and the other born outside Canada
(Statistics Canada 20 14).
Interestingly, just over ha lf of mixed unions (52 .8 per cent) involved partners from the
same religious background for example, both partners reported being Christian or both
were Musl im. Just over 20 per cent of mixed un ions reported having no re lig ious affi liation
and just over a quarter were of different religious affi liations (com pared w ith on ly 9.8 per
cent of all other couples in Canada; Statistics Canada 2014).
Maclean's (20 14) reminded us that mixed unions "a re no longer unusua l, nor an excuse
for cultural conflict or bigotry." They are instead "a commonplace feature of life as it is lived
in Canada."
The magazine claimed that we are "setting the global standard for multicu ltural accept-
ance and integration." Do you agree?
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
back
back
back
back
back
back
back
back
back
back