Urbanism and Kinship Bonds: A Test of Four Generalizations

Past research tentatively supports four generalizations: that urbanism (1) retards family completeness, (2) promotes kin dispersion, (3) engenders disregard of kin, and (4) alters functions served by kin. Results of this study's analysis of national survey data provide meager supportfor these generalizations, casting doubt on Wirth's (1938) urban theory as it pertains to kinship bonds. Over fifty years ago Louis Wirth (1938), defining urbanism in terms of community population size, density, and social heterogeneity, described urbanism's mostly negative consequences for personality and social structure. Included among these were weakened bonds of kinship and the declining social significance of the family. Since that time empirical studies, operationalizing urbanism as community population size, have neither persuasively supported nor refuted Wirth's views pertaining to kinship bonds (see the review in Fischer 1984). Only comparative studies can actually test urbanism's effects (Fischer 1972; Guterman 1969), but studies reporting vigorous urban kinship bonds have often made no comparison across various-sized communities (Young & Wilmott 1957 is a well-known example). Results of comparative studies have been mixed. Some support Wirth, showing community size directly related to divorce and inversely related to family size as well as interaction with and proximity to extended kin (Fischer 1982; Goode 1963; Laslett 1973; Plateris 1978; Winch & Greer 1968; Youmans 1977). But others contradict Wirth, showing no adverse impacts of urbanism on interaction with or functions served by kin (Bultena 1969; Glenn & Hill 1977; Kasarda & Janowitz 1974; Key 1968; Palisi & Canning 1983,1986; Palmore, Klein & Marzuki 1970; Reiss 1959; Sampson 1988; Youmans 1977). This murky research record provides little unambiguous evidence of the negative effects of urbanism (Korte 1980), but it does suggest some tentative generalizations consistent with Wirth's assumptions and useful as guidelines for additional research (Fischer 1984). These include (1) urbanism retards the * Direct correspondence to Thomas C Wilson, Department of Sociology, Gannon University, Universitu Sauare, Erie PA 16541. i) The University of North Carolina Press Social Forces, March 1993, 71(3):703-712 This content downloaded from 157.55.39.231 on Wed, 05 Oct 2016 04:14:19 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 704 / Social Forces 71:3, March 1993 completeness of the nuclear family; (2) urbanism promotes the geographic dispersal of kin; (3) urbanism promotes disregard of kin; and (4) urbanism alters and reduces the functions served by kin. Testing the Generalizations NORC's 1986 General Social Survey data (Davis & Smith 1989) along with procedures incorporating some improvements over past studies will be used to test the four generalizations. First, kinship bonds have been narrowly operationalized in the past, often including only face-to-face contact with relatives (Bultena 1969; Glenn & Hill 1977; Palisi & Canning 1983, 1986; Reiss 1959; Youmans 1977; cf. Kasarda & Janowitz 1974 & Palmore, Klein & Marzuki 1970, who address proximity). Other interaction such as phone calls and letters have rarely been considered (an exception is Winch & Greer 1968; the importance of such contact for primary ties is discussed in Litwak & Szelenyi 1969). Only occasionally have immediate and extended kin been distinguished (Fischer 1982; Key 1968; Winch & Greer 1968). And, interaction quality (as opposed to frequency) has been largely ignored, though Wirth viewed quality as particularly likely to decline with urbanism (Guterman 1969; studies addressing quality include Fischer 1982; Winch & Greer 1968). NORC indicators afford a particularly inclusive and detailed operationalization of kinship bonds. Table 1 presents four blocks of indicators corresponding to the four generalizations to be tested. Block one taps nuclear family completeness; block two reflects geographic dispersion of four categories of kin (parents, adult children, adult siblings, and extended kin). Block three taps disregard of kin, what Wirth called "emancipation from kin," and includes frequency of both face-to-face and other contact with the four kin categories. Block four addresses reliance on kin in situations ranging from highly personal or expressive (problems with spouse or partner) to instrumental (advice about a job), reflecting what Winch and Greer (1968) called 'functionality ... the number of categories of service ... received from kinsmen," which they found to decline with urbanism (Cf. Litwak & Szelenyi 1969).1 A second improvement pertains to personal characteristics that must be controlled when testing Wirth's theory (Fischer 1972; Gans 1962). These characteristics, particularly social status, life-cycle stage, and race and ethnicity may be correlated both with urbanism and with urbanism's supposed effects, so their impacts can easily be mistaken for those of urbanism (Tittle 1989). Several studies have lacked controls (Glenn & Hill 1977; Key 1968; Youmans 1977; see also that portion of Fischer's 1982 analysis pertaining to reliance on kin). Others have failed to control for race or life-cycle stage (Kasarda & Janowitz 1974; Palisi & Canning 1983; Reiss 1959; Sampson 1988; Winch & Greer 1968). Still others have included inappropriate controls for variables that may mediate urbanism's impact but do not render it spurious (e.g., respondent's fear of crime, dwelling type, length of residence, and cooperativeness, see Fischer 1982; Kasarda & Janowitz 1974; Palisi & Canning 1983; Sampson 1988). In this study six indicators of respondents' personal characteristics will be controlled. Corresponding to dimensions suggested by Gans (1962), these are This content downloaded from 157.55.39.231 on Wed, 05 Oct 2016 04:14:19 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Urbanism and Kinship Bonds / 705 TABLE 1: Indicators of Kinship Bonds, 1986 NORC Data Completeness of Nuclear Family Presently married (yes/no) Presently divorced/separated (yes/no) Lives with minor children (yes/no) Geographic Dispersion of Kin Parent/adult child/adult sibling/extended kin livesa in household (yes/no) less than 15 minutes away (yes/no) over 1 hour away (yes/no)