1. Sociol 322: A sociology of relational life
Distance and Proximity

2. Today’s readings Readings:
Beck, Ulrich, and Elisabeth Beck-Gernsheim Globalisation of love and intimacy: The rise of world families. In Distant love: Personal life in the global age. (pp. 4-19) Translated by R. Livingstone. Cambridge: Polity.
&
Reynolds, Tracey, and Elisabetta Zontini Bringing transnational families from the margins to the centre of family studies in Britain. Families, Relationships and Societies 3 (2):

3. Expectations By the end of this week I expect that you will:
Appreciate the role played by proximity in our cultural imaginary of relational life
Grasp that the meaning attributed to intimate relations lived at a distance is not only mediated by norms about relational life, but is also mediated by gender norms, including norms about relationships of care
Be able to discuss the relevance of individualisation and relationism to relational forms premised on distance [eg transnational families or LAT relationships if you prefer ]

4. Cultural Imaginary Family = household

5. “Intimacy is usually assumed to require physical proximity
“Intimacy is usually assumed to require physical proximity. The word close is a synonym for intimate, and literal closeness is often assumed to be essential for familiarity and commitment.”
[Valentine 2006, 367]. 

6. Some forms of family mobility have been and are legally circumscribed
IS THIS A gendered issue?

7. Culturally defined as an immobile grouping
sedentarist lens   
Culturally defined as an immobile grouping

8. ‘Mobility can challenge family life (for example, decisions to relocate may have different impacts on individual family members), sustain family life (the challenges of meeting individual needs can be sustained through complex mobility practices) or, in contrast, family practices may reduce opportunities for individual mobility (that is, meeting collective family needs may reduce individual opportunities for mobility).’    Holdsworth 2013

9. Living at a distance – historically gendered

10. “New Zealand is synonymous with population exchange…
“New Zealand is synonymous with population exchange…. One would guess that the percentage of the New Zealand population with no current overseas transnational family connection is likely to be fairly low and to remain low”
[Lunt et al, 2006, p. 37]

11. Transnational families
Families  that live some or most of the time separated from each other, yet hold together and create something that can be seen as a feeling of collective welfare and unity, namely ‘familihood’, even across national borders (Bryceson and Vuorela 2002: 3).  

12. Nature of connections
Given connections
Latent connections  
Acquired

13. Individualization detraditionalization

14. “Mobility is imagined as a centrifugal force that drives us away from each other and one that undermines how we value both familial and informal connections with those we encounter in our everyday lives.”
[Holdsworth 146]

15. The decision to migrate – moving out
Living away – keeping in touch
The decision to return – coming back
Individualisation and the mobility of polish young people – a useful theoretical apporach?
Botterill 2014

16. Globalisation and transnational families

17. Family adaptive strategy
“In deploying those family members with the best labor potential, families survive by engaging in productive activities where the return on labor is high and by keeping most consumptive activities where the cost of living is low”
[Dreby & Adkins 2010, 677]

18. relationism rather than individualism?
Holdsworth
‘mobilities are not just about the meeting of individual needs [i.e. individualism] but can be brought about through relationships with others and are not always intended’ [2013, 9]   
relationism rather than individualism?

19. Holdsworth
“Mobility is not necessarily an act of choice,  and the degree to which the mobile subject is autonomous will vary greatly. Consider the teenager kicked out of the family home, the trafficked woman forced into marriage with a stranger, or family visits embarked on out of obligation. These relational mobilities are not necessarily chosen but may be forced, be embarked on out of a sense of duty or in order to be able to care for others.”  

20. Gender and transnational families

21. Gender differences and transnational families
gendered moralities   
Gender differences and transnational families

22. Reynolds & Zontini 2014
How does a focus on transnational families change our understandings of family life? What does it bring into view?
What is meant by frontiering and relativizing?
What practices are associated with them?
How do immigration laws impact on frontiering and relativizing?
How can these concepts be made use of to understand transnational family life? [Think about this in relation to your map of geographic dispersal of kin]

23. Beck and Beck-Gernsheim 2014
What are world families?
What are the characteristics of the two types of world families they identify?
How and in what way do world families challenge our preconceptions about families?
Are the qualities of relationships characteristic of world families different from those of one-nation families? If so in what way?
Would you say you belong to a world family? How do you experience and feel about this?