Abstract
In order to understand how changing trends of individualization and pluralization have been affecting personal networks in the three countries, this chapter provides an overview of the core characteristics of personal networks in Portugal, Switzerland, and Lithuania. First, we compare the size and composition of personal networks across the three countries, by highlighting the commonalities and differences. Secondly, we examine how the characteristics of personal networks are shaped by individuals’ birth-cohort, structural conditions, and normative contexts. Findings show that the underlying mechanisms of proximity linked to kinship, friendship, co-residency, long-lasting acquaintanceship, and gender homophily are differently valued in the three countries. These differences are discussed in the light of individuals’ social context, but also according to national historical pathways, welfare regimes, and social-economic conditions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Notes
- 1.
For instance, for each respondent , the salience of kinship ties is calculated by the following ratio: number of kin alters cited/total number of alters (that is, network size ).
- 2.
This category includes female friends and female neighbours.
- 3.
This category includes male friends and male neighbours.
- 4.
For each alter , we computed the ratio between the duration of the relationship with ego and the age of ego [(Ego’s age – Age of ego when he/she met alter)/Ego’s age]. Therefore, we created four categories that represent time shared in years in ego’s life : (1) “very recent acquaintance ”: Alters who shared less than 25% of ego’s life; (2) “recent acquaintance”: alters who shared 26–50% of ego’s life; (3) “old acquaintance”: alters who shared 51–75% of ego’s life; and (4) “very old acquaintance”: alters who shared 76–100% of ego’s life. Finally, we calculated for each respondent , the proportion of alters who are very recent acquaintances, recent acquaintances, old acquaintances, and very old acquaintances. Exceptionally in this case, the average proportions are displayed in percentages.
- 5.
The level of education was recoded in three categories: low (no formal education, pre–primary education, primary education); medium (lower secondary , upper secondary, post–secondary non–tertiary education); high (first and second stages of tertiary education).
References
Akiyama, H., Elliott, K., & Antonucci, T. C. (1996). Same–sex and cross–sex relationships. Journals of Gerontology, 51, 374–382.
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. N., Guerreiro, M. D., Lobo, C., Torres, A., & Wall, K. (1998). Relações familiares: Mudança e diversidade. In J. M. L. Viegas & A. F. da Costa (Eds.), Portugal, que Modernidade? (pp. 45–78). Oeiras: Celta Editora.
Bauman, Z. (2001). Liquid modernity. Cambridge: Polity.
Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage Publications.
Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). Individualization: Institutionalised individualism and its social and political consequences. London: Sage Publications.
Bengston, V., Biblarz, T., & Roberts, R. (2001). How families still matter: A longitudinal study of youth in two generations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bott, E. (1957). Family and social network. London: Tavistock.
Cicirelli, V. G. (1985). The role of siblings as family caregivers. In W. J. Sauer & R. T. Coward (Eds.), Social support networks and the care of the elderly (pp. 93–107). New York: Springer.
Cicirelli, V. G. (1995). Sibling relationships across the life span. New York: Plenum.
Eisenstadt, S. N. (2002). Multiple modernities. New Brunswick: Transactions Publishers.
Elder, G. H., Johnson, M. K., & Crosnoe, R. (2003). The emergence and development of life course theory. In J. Mortimer & M. Shanahan (Eds.), Handbook of the life course (pp. 3–19). New York: Kluwer.
Elias, N. (2001). Society of individuals. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Finch, J., & Mason, J. (1993). Negotiating family responsibilities. London: Routledge.
Fisher, C. S., & Oliker, S. L. (1983). A research note on friendship, gender, and the life cycle. Social Forces, 62(1), 124–133.
Ganjour, O., & Widmer, E. (2016). Patterns of family salience and welfare state regimes: Sociability practices and support norms in a comparative perspective. European Societies, 18(3), 201–220.
Giddens, A. (1992). The transformation of intimacy: Sexuality, love, and eroticism in modern societies. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Godelier, M. (2010). Métamorphoses de la parenté. Paris: Flammarion.
Gouveia, R. (2014). Personal networks in Portuguese society: A configurational and lifecourse approach. Doctoral thesis, Institute of Social Sciences of the University of Lisbon, Lisboa. Available online http://repositorio.ul.pt/handle/10451/15607
Gouveia, R., & Widmer, E. D. (2014). The salience of kinship in personal networks of three cohorts of Portuguese people. Families, Relationships and Societies, 3(3), 355–372.
Hagestad, G. (1984). The continuous bond: A dynamic multigenerational perspective on parent–child relations between adults. In M. Perlmutter (Ed.), The Minnesota symposium on child psychology. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. E. (2000). Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65(1), 19–51.
Inglehart, R., & Norris, P. (2003). Rising tide: Gender equality and cultural change around the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jamieson, L. (1998). Intimacy: Personal relationships in modern societies. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Lüscher, K. (2002). Intergenerational ambivalence: Further steps in theory and research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(3), 585–593.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Brashears, M. E. (2006). Social isolation in America: Changes in core discussion networks over two decades. American Sociological Review, 71(3), 353–375.
Mesch, G., & Talmud, I. (2006). The quality of online and offline relationships: The role of multiplexity and duration. The Information Society, 22(3), 137–148.
Morgan, D. H. J. (1996). Family connections: An introduction to family studies. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Pahl, R., & Spencer, L. (2004). Personal communities: Not simply families of “fate” or “choice”. Current Sociology, 52(2), 199–221.
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Ramos, V. (2015). Percurso de vida em Portugal: o impacto das desigualdades e dos contextos sociais nas trajectórias profissionais e familiares. Doctoral thesis in Sociology (Sociology of Inequalities, Minorities and Social Movements), University of Lisbon, Institute of Social Sciences (ICS/UL).
Ramos, V., Gouveia, R., & Wall, K. (2017). Coresidence as a mechanism of relational proximity: The impact of household trajectories on the diversification of personal networks. In V. Cesnuityté, D. Lück, & E. D. Widmer (Eds.), Family continuity and change: Contemporary European perspectives (pp. 187–210). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rittenour, C. E., Myers, S., & Brann, M. (2007). Commitment and emotional closeness in the sibling relationship. Southern Communication Journal, 72(2), 169–183.
Ruggles, S. (2007). The decline of intergenerational co-residence in the United States, 1850 to 2000. American Sociological Review, 72(6), 964–989.
Smart, C., & Shipman, B. (2004). Vision in monochrome: Families, marriage and the individualization thesis. British Journal of Sociology, 55(4), 491–509.
Sobotka, T. (2008). Overview chapter 6: The diverse faces of the second demographic transition in Europe. Demographic Research, 19(8), 171–224.
Surkyn, J., & Lesthaeghe, R. (2004). Value orientations and the second demographic transition (SDT) in Northern, Western and Southern Europe: An update. Demographic Research, 3(3), 45–86.
Wall, K., & Gouveia, R. (2014). Changing meanings of family in personal relationships. Current Sociology, 62(3), 352–373.
Wall, C., Aboim, S., Cunha, V., & Vasconcelos, P. (2001). Families and informal support networks in Portugal: The reproduction of inequality. Journal of European Social Policy, 11, 213–233.
Widmer, E. D. (2016). Family configurations: A structural approach to family diversity. London: Routledge.
Widmer, E. D., & Ganjour, O. (2017). Family salience across nations: Configurations of morphological conditions. In V. Česnuitytė, D. Lück, & E. D. Widmer (Eds.), Family continuity and change (pp. 35–59). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Willson, A. E., Shuey, K. M., & Elder, G. H. (2003). Ambivalence in the relationship of adult to aging parents and in-laws. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 1055–1072.
Acknowledgement
The authors of the chapter wish to acknowledge sponsors that made it possible to carry out this investigation, the results of which are presented in the chapter. In Switzerland , the research was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation and the Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research LIVES Overcoming Vulnerability: Life-Course Perspectives. In Portugal , the research was carried out within the national survey , “Family Trajectories and Social Networks”, coordinated by Professor K. Wall from the Institute of Social Sciences (ICS) from the University of Lisbon. In Lithuania , the research was carried out based on data collected within the research project , “Trajectories of Family Models and Personal Networks: Intergenerational Perspective”, coordinated by V. Kanopiené from Mykolas Romeris University (Lithuania) and funded by Research Council of Lithuania.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gouveia, R., Aeby, G., Česnuitytė, V. (2018). A First Portrait of Personal Networks in a Comparative Perspective. In: Wall, K., Widmer, E., Gauthier, J., Česnuitytė, V., Gouveia, R. (eds) Families and Personal Networks . Palgrave Macmillan Studies in Family and Intimate Life. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95263-2_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95263-2_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-95262-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-95263-2
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)