The Extended Family in a Working-Class Area of Hamilton

  • Peter C. Pineo


Earlier writing in sociology held that kinship involvement would not be found in the urban environment. R. E. Park, for example, wrote in 1928: “It is in the cities that old clan and kinship groups are broken up and replaced by social organization based on rational interests and temperamental predilections.”2 It was expected that the household unit —the nuclear family —would be the only kinship structure found in the cities; the social and geographic mobility of an organized society would make contact between related households impossible. Distances would become too great.


Extended Family Family Form Frequent Contact Young Couple Male Household Head 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 2.
    Robert Ezra Park, “Human Migration and the Marginal Man”, American Journal of Sociology, XXXIII, No. 6 (May 1928), p. 890.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    Philippe Gangue, “French Canadian Kinship and Urban Life”, American Anthropologist, LVIII, No. 6 (December 1956), pp. 1090–1101.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    Marvin Sussman and Lee Burchinal have recently summarized the findings of over forty studies, many of which specifically document the existence of the extended family in urban areas. Marvin B. Sussman and Lee Burchinal, “Kin Family Network; Unheralded Structure in Current Conceptualizations of Family Functioning”, Marriage and Family Living, XXIV, No. 3 (August 1962), pp. 231–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 5.
    William J. Goode, “Illegitimacy in the Caribbean”, American Sociological Review, XXV, No. 1 (February 1960), pp. 21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 6.
    E. Franklin Frazier, The Negro Family in the United States (Chicago, 1939).Google Scholar
  6. 9.
    Michael Young and Peter Willmott, Family and Kinship in East London (Glencoe, 1957).Google Scholar
  7. 10.
    Michael Young, “Kinship and Family in East London”, Man, LIV (September 1954), pp. 137–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 11.
    Dorrian Apple Sweetser, “Asymmetry in Intergeneration Family Relationships”, Social Forces, XLI, No. 4 (May 1963), p. 349.Google Scholar
  9. 14.
    Detroit Area Study, The Survey Research Center, A Social Profile of Detroit: 1955 (Ann Arbor, 1956), p. 21.Google Scholar
  10. 17.
    Ibid., p. 23. Somewhat lower figures are reported in two studies conducted in California: Wendell Bell and Marian D. Boat, “Urban Neighborhoods and Informal Social Relations”, American Journal of Sociology, LXII (January 1957), pp. 391–8,CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. and Scott Greer, “Urbanism Reconsidered: a Comparative Study of Local Areas in a Metropolis”, American Sociological Review, XXI (February 1956), pp. 19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 21.
    Paul C. Glick, American Families (New York, 1957) pp. 44–5.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Macmillan Company of Canada Limited 1968

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter C. Pineo

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations