Advertisement

Mapping the Plurality of Personal Configurations

  • Gaëlle Aeby
  • Eric D. Widmer
  • Vida Česnuitytė
  • Rita Gouveia
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Macmillan Studies in Family and Intimate Life book series (PSFL)

Abstract

The aim of this chapter is to map the variety of personal configurations by focusing on personal ties regarded as important. The configurational perspective emphasizes the inclusion of different kinds of close ties that go beyond kin, co-residence, and genealogical proximity in personal relationships. In order to identify the diversity of arrangements, we present a typology of personal configurations and compare their importance across three different countries, controlling for individuals’ position in social and family structures. Results show that while the family of procreation and parents are important overall, there are different patterns of sociability across countries: more inclusive of extended kin in Portugal, more inclusive of non-kin (friends) in Switzerland, and more focused on the nuclear family in Lithuania.

Keywords

Personal configurations Personal relationships Family Kinship Non-kin Friendship Comparative analysis Portugal Switzerland Lithuania 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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.

References

  1. Adams, B. (1970). Isolation, function, and beyond: American kinship in the 1960s. Journal of Marriage and Family, 32(4), 575–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aeby, G., Widmer, E. D., & Carlo, I. D. (2014). Bonding and bridging social capital in step- and first-timefamilies and the issue of family boundaries. Interpersona: An International Journal on Personal Relationships, 8(1), 51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allan, G. (2008). Flexibility, friendship, and family. Personal Relationships, 15(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amato, P. R. (2010). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 650–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Attias-Donfut, C. (Ed.). (1995). Les solidarités entre générations: vieillesse, familles, Etat. Paris: Nathan.Google Scholar
  6. Bellotti, E. (2008). What are friends for? Elective communities of single people. Social Networks, 30(4), 318–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boase, J., & Ikeda, K. (2012). Core discussion networks in Japan and America. Human Communication Research, 38(1), 95–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonvalet, C., & Ogg, J. (Eds.). (2007). Measuring family support in Europe. London: Southern Universities Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bourdieu, P. (1979). La distinction: critique sociale du jugement. Paris: Éditions de Minuit.Google Scholar
  10. Carsten, J. (2004). After kinship. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Coenen-Huther, J., Kellerhals, J., von Allmen, M., Hagmann, H.-M., Jeannerat, F., & Widmer, E. D. (1994). Les Réseaux de solidarité dans la famille. Lausanne: Réalités sociales.Google Scholar
  12. De Carlo, I., Aeby, G., & Widmer, E. D. (2014). La variété des configurations familiales après une recomposition: choix et contraintes. Revue suisse de sociologie, 40(1), 9–27.Google Scholar
  13. Elias, N. (1978). What is sociology? New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Elias, N. (1983). The court society. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  15. Everitt, B. S., Landau, S., Leese, M., & Stahl, D. (2011). Cluster analysis (5th ed.). Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Feld, S. L. (1981). The focused organization of social ties. American Journal of Sociology, 86(5), 1015–1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fischer, C. S., & Shavit, Y. (1995). National differences in network density: Israel and the United States. Social Networks, 17(2), 129–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ganjour, O., & Widmer, E. D. (2016). Patterns of family salience and welfare state regimes: Sociability practices and support norms in a comparative perspective. European Societies, 18(3), 201–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hagestad, G. O. (1992). Assigning rights and duties: Age, duration and gender in social institutions. In W. R. Heinz (Ed.), Theoretical advances in life course research, Status passages, institutions and gate keeping (Vol. III, pp. 261–279). Weinheim: Deutscher Studien Verlag.Google Scholar
  20. Höllinger, F., & Haller, M. (1990). Kinship and social networks in modern societies: A cross–cultural comparison among seven nations. European Sociological Review, 6(2), 103–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johnson, C. L. (2000). Perspectives on American kinship in the later 1990s. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(3), 623–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kahn, R. L., & Antonucci, T. C. (1980). Convoys over the life course: Attachment, roles, and social support. In B. P. Baltes & O. B. Brim (Eds.), Life–span, development, and behavior (pp. 254–283). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  23. Lévi-Strauss, C. (2002 [1949]). Les structures élémentaires de la parenté. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  24. Levy, R. (2013). Analysis of life courses – A theoretical sketch. In R. Levy & E. D. Widmer (Eds.), Gendered life courses between standardization and individualization: A European approach applied to Switzerland (pp. 13–36). Wien: LIT Verlag.Google Scholar
  25. McDonald, S., & Mair, C. A. (2010). Social capital across the life course: Age and gendered patterns of network resources. Sociological Forum, 25(2), 335–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pahl, R., & Spencer, L. (2004). Personal communities: Not simply families of “fate” or “choice”. Current Sociology, 52(2), 199–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Riley, M. W. (1983). The family in an aging society. A matrix of latent relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 4(3), 439–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rossi, P. H., & Rossi, A. (1990). Of human bonding: Parent–child relations across the life course. New York: Aldine Transaction.Google Scholar
  30. Simmel, G. (2010). Sociologie: étude sur les formes de la socialisation. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  31. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins College.Google Scholar
  32. Viry, G. (2012). Residential mobility and the spatial dispersion of personal networks: Effects on social support. Social Networks, 34(1), 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wall, K., & Gouveia, R. (2014). Changing meanings of family in personal relationships. Current Sociology, 62(3), 352–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ward, J. H. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58(301), 236–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Weeks, J., Heaphy, B., & Donovan, C. (2001). Same sex intimacies: Families of choice and other life experiments. London/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wellman, B. (1970). The community question: The intimate networks of East Yorkers. American Journal of Sociology, 84(5), 1201–1231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wellman, B. (1999). Networks in the global village. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  38. Wellman, B., & Hogan, B. (2006). Connected lives: The project. In P. Purcell (Ed.), Networked neighbourhoods: The connected community in context (pp. 157–211). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  39. Wellman, B., Wong, R. Y., Tindall, D., & Nazer, N. (1997). A decade of network change: Turnover, persistence and stability in personal communities. Social Networks, 19(1), 27–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Weston, K. (1997). Families we choose: Lesbians, gays, kinship. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Widmer, E. D. (2010). Family configurations: A structural approach to family diversity. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  42. Widmer, E. D., & Jallinoja, R. (Eds.). (2008). Beyond the nuclear family: Families in a configurational perspective. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  43. Widmer, E. D., & Sapin, M. (2008). Families on the move: Insights on family configurations of individuals undergoing psychotherapy. In E. D. Widmer & R. Jallinoja (Eds.), Beyond the nuclear family: Families in a configurational perspective (pp. 279–302). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  44. Widmer, E. D., Favez, N., Aeby, G., De Carlo, I., & Doan, M.-T. (2012). Capital social et coparentage dans les familles recomposées et de première union (Vol. Sociograph no. 13). Genève: Université de Genève.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gaëlle Aeby
    • 1
  • Eric D. Widmer
    • 2
  • Vida Česnuitytė
    • 3
  • Rita Gouveia
    • 4
  1. 1.Life Course and Inequality Research CentreUniversity of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of SociologyUniversity of GenevaGenevaSwitzerland
  3. 3.Sociological Research LaboratoryMykolas Romeris UniversityVilniusLithuania
  4. 4.Institute of Social Sciences (ICS)University of GenevaLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations