Technologies of Re-familization

  • Sakari TaipaleEmail author


In this chapter, the notion of re-familization is introduced, to allow for a better grasp of the cohesive impact of digital technologies in the context of extended and geographically distributed families. In the field of social policy, the notion of re-familization implies a reversal of the politics of de-familization that once was the hallmark of the golden-era welfare state. The argument is made that family-initiated uses of digital media and communication technology in response to (older) family members’ daily help and care needs resonate well with the idea behind re-familization. In conclusion, the chapter presents several ways in which re-familization manifests itself in the everyday life of digital families.


Care and help needs De-familization Digital media ICT Re-familization Social policy 


  1. Bambra, C. (2007). Defamilisation and welfare state regimes: A cluster analysis. International Journal of Social Welfare, 16(4), 326–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cao, X. (2013). Connecting families across time zones. In C. Neustaedter, S. Harrison, & A. Sellen (Eds.), Connecting families: The impact of new communication (pp. 127–139). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Castells, M. (2010). Rise of the network society. The information age: Economy, society, and culture I (2nd ed.). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  4. Daly, M. (2011). What adult worker model? A critical look at recent social policy reform in Europe from a gender and family perspective. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 18(1), 1–23.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. den Dulk, L., Peper, B., Černigoj-Sadar, N., Lewis, S., Smithson, J., & Van Doorne-Huiskes, A. (2011). Work, family, and managerial attitudes and practices in the European workplace: Comparing Dutch, British, and Slovenian financial sector managers. Social Politics, 18(2), 300–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Esping-Andersen, G. (1999). Social foundations of postindustrial economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. European Commission, EC. (2017). Growing the Silver Economy in Europe. Retrieved from
  8. European Commission, EC. (2018). Digital single market. European Commission. Retrieved from
  9. Fortunati, L., & Taipale, S. (2012). Women’s emotions towards the mobile phone. Feminist Media Studies, 12(4), 538–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hänninen, R., Taipale, S., & Korhonen, A. (2018). Re-familization in the broadband society. The effects of ICTs on family solidarity in Finland. Journal of Family Studies. Advance online publication.
  11. Hjorth, L., & Lim, S. S. (2012). Mobile intimacy in an age of affective mobile media. Feminist Media Studies, 12(4), 477–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kanjuo-Mrčela, A., & Černigoj-Sadar, N. (2011). Social policies related to parenthood and capabilities of Slovenian parents. Social Politics, 18(2), 199–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kröger, T., & Bagnato, A. (2017). Care for older people in early twenty-first century Europe. In F. Martinelli, A. Anttonen, & M. Mätzke (Eds.), Social services disrupted (pp. 201–218). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Leira, A. (2002). Working parents and the welfare state: Family change and policy reform in Scandinavia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Ling, R., & Lai, C. H. (2016). Microcoordination 2.0: Social coordination in the age of smartphones and messaging apps. Journal of Communication, 66(5), 834–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ministry of Finance. (2018). Digitalisation. Retrieved from
  17. Nelson, E. A., & Dannefer, D. (1992). Aged heterogeneity: Fact or fiction? The fate of diversity in gerontological research. The Gerontologist, 32(1), 17–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Neustaedter, C., Harrison, T., & Sellen, A. (Eds.). (2013). Connecting families: The impact of new communication technologies on domestic life. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Olsson, T. & Viscovi, D. (2018, November) Warm experts for elderly users: Who are they and what do they do? Human Technology, 14(3), 324–342.Google Scholar
  20. Peng, S., Silverstein, M., Suitor, J. J., Gilligan, M., Hwang, W., Nam, S., et al. (2018). Use of communication technology to maintain intergenerational contact: Toward an understanding of ‘digital solidarity’. In B. B. Neves & C. Casimiro (Eds.), Connecting families? Communication Technologies, generations, and the life course (pp. 159–180). Bristol: Polity.Google Scholar
  21. Petrovčič, A., Fortunati, L., Vehovar, V., Kavčič, M., & Dolničar, V. (2015). Mobile phone communication in social support networks of older adults in Slovenia. Telematics and Informatics, 32(4), 642–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rainie, L., & Wellman, B. (2012). Networked: the new social operating system. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rakow, L. F., & Navarro, V. (1993). Remote mothering and the parallel shift: Women meet the cellular telephone. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 10(2), 144–157.Google Scholar
  24. Ranci, C., & Sabatinelli, S. (2014). Long-term and child care policies in Italy between familism and privatisation. In M. Leon (Ed.), The transformation of care in European societies (pp. 233–255). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  25. Sawchuk, K., & Crow, B. (2012). “I’m G-Mom on the Phone”: Remote grandmothering, cell phones and inter-generational dis/connections. Feminist Media Studies, 12(4), 496–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schofield Clark, L., & Sywyj, L. (2012). Mobile intimacies in the USA among refugee and recent immigrant teens and their parents. Feminist Media Studies, 12(4), 485–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Starke, P. (2006). The politics of welfare state retrenchment: A literature review. Social Policy & Administration, 40(1), 104–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ter Meulen, R., & Wright, K. (2012). Family solidarity and informal care: The case of care for people with dementia. Bioethics, 26(7), 361–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tsai, H. H., Tsai, Y. F., Wang, H. H., Chang, Y. C., & Chu, H. H. (2010). Videoconference program enhances social support, loneliness, and depressive status of elderly nursing home residents. Aging and Mental Health, 14(8), 947–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Urry, J., & Elliott, A. (2010). Mobile lives. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Viken, A. (2008). The Svalbard transit scene. In J. O. Barenholdt & B. Granas (Eds.), Mobility and place: Enacting northern peripheries (pp. 139–154). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations