Unequal Reach: Cyclical and Amplifying Ties Among Agricultural and Oilfield Workers in Texas

What kinds of ties do agricultural and oil and gas workers form in the field, and how do they use them later on? Why do they use them differently? Scholarship highlights how weak ties can link people to valuable information, while strong ties can be critical for day-to-day survival. Yet many mechanisms affect how workers form and use social networks over time and space. Drawing on 60 interviews and observations with agricultural and oilfield workers in Texas, I examine how both groups form strong ties of fictive kinship when living together in the field far from home—pooling resources, sharing reproductive labor, and using the discourse of family to describe these relationships. Then I examine how they use these ties very differently later in practice. Oilfield workers often use their fictive kin ties to move up and around the industry across space, time, and companies: amplifying ties. In contrast, agricultural workers renew the same strong ties for survival from season to season, maintaining cyclical ties. The comparison highlights how industry mobility ladders, tempos, and geographies affect how workers can use their networks in practice. While both agricultural and oilfield workers become fictive kin in situations of intense proximity, structural differences give their networks unequal reach.

Fictive Kin Networks among African Americans, Black Caribbeans, and Non-Latino Whites

Using data from the National Survey of American Life, we investigated the social and demographic correlates of fictive kin network involvement among African Americans, Black Caribbeans, and non-Latino Whites. Specifically, we examined the factors shaping whether respondents have fictive kin, the number of fictive present kin in their networks, and the frequency with which they received support from fictive kin. Overall, 87% of respondents had a fictive kin relationship, the average network size was 7.5, and 61% of participants routinely received fictive kin support. Affective closeness and contact with family, friends, and church members were positively associated with fictive kin relations. Age, region, income, and marital and parental status were related to fictive kin network involvement, though these associations varied by race/ethnicity. Collectively, findings indicate that fictive kin ties extend beyond marginalized communities, and they operate as a means to strengthen family bonds, rather than substitute for family deficits.

The Return of the Tribe

As a part of “Xenophilia: A Symposium on Xenophobia’s Contrary” in Common Knowledge, this essay examines the interest in, affection for, friendship with, and romanticization of Native Americans by Jews in the United States since the 1960s. The affinity is frequent among Jews with “progressive” or “countercultural” inclinations, especially those with strong environmental concerns and those interested in new forms of community and spirituality. For such Jews, Native Americans serve as mirror, prod, role model, projection, and fictive kin. They are regarded as having a holistic and integrated culture and religiosity, an unbroken connection to premodern attitudes and practices, an intimate relationship with the earth and with nonhuman creatures, along with positive feelings toward their own traditions and a simple, honest, and direct way of living. All of these presumed characteristics offer to progressive Jews parallels and contrasts to contemporary Jewishness and Judaism. For some, Native America has become a path back to a reconstructed Jewishness and Judaism; for others, a path away. Each path is assessed in this article with respect to questions of authenticity, psychobiography, family history, theology, and theopolitics.

Negotiating Flexibility with Security in Los Angeles’s In-Home Supportive Services

This chapter focuses on California's In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS). At the labor market level, both the Direct Funding Program (DF) in Ontario and the IHSS gave “consumers” the flexibility to hire their own “providers,” yet in IHSS the state was more involved in the employment relationship because it paid the provider rather than giving funding directly to the consumer. Many elderly IHSS consumers hire family, but when family is not available, immigrant seniors hire others from their language and ethnic group, and this goes for Pilipinx. Like in DF, labor market flexibility shaped negotiations in the labor process, but in IHSS it shaped it differently. While DF self-managers forged and embraced a friendly employment relationship, consumers in the IHSS context of paying family or co-ethnic fictive kin were more ambivalent about their employer role and used family ideals and family-like practices to negotiate possible tensions at the intimate level. The state's reliance on filial duty and ethnic community through IHSS may bolster flexibility and security at the intimate level in terms of mutually respectful negotiations of what is done, when, where, and how. Yet, as suggested in the previous chapter, collective backing is also important if the goal is flexibility with security. Indeed, another difference between DF and IHSS is that IHSS providers have a union.

EXPANDING RELATIONAL BOUNDARIES OF DEMENTIA CARE

Rapid changes in family structures have expanded caregiving boundaries beyond the level of lineal kin to include extended and fictive kin. Guided by stress process and health behavior models, we analyzed semi-structured interviews with 120 family caregivers of persons with dementia (PWD) in rural Appalachia to explore personal/family circumstances that influence the responsibilities nonlineal kin assumed to meet the needs of PwD. Compared to spouse and adult children caregivers, nonlineal caregivers reported that PWD had similar behavioral problems, but greater ADL limitations. They also expressed greater burden, overload and role captivity; yet, they reported higher personal mastery, and perseverance. Although sisters and nieces did not report using any paid services to care for PwD, grandchildren and fictive kin used paid services such as meal delivery, personal care, and respite services. Findings provide new insights into a more elaborated conception of caregiving that considers the transformations occurring in family life today.

RECRUITING COMMUNITY-DWELLING LIVE-ALONE PERSONS WITH DEMENTIA: AN EXPLORATION OF FIVE GATEKEEPER DOMAINS

Although recruiting persons with dementia into research is challenging enough, finding those who live-alone in the community is even more difficult. Consequently, live-alone persons with dementia are often overlooked and/or deliberately excluded from inquiry despite calls for more inclusive approaches to dementia research. Based on enrollment strategies from an interview-based protocol recruiting 120 live-alone persons with dementia, our National Institute on Aging- funded study identified five domains of gatekeepers imperative to gaining access to community-dwelling, live-alone persons with dementia: 1) housing (e.g., service coordinators), 2) data proprietors (e.g., regulatory specialists), 3) institutional (e.g., review boards), 4) kin (including fictive kin), 5) clinical (e.g., medical providers, clinician practices). In addition, gatekeeper domains are multilayered and serve distinct roles in both facilitating and hindering access to and enrollment of this under-researched vulnerable population. Analysis of our recruitment efforts contribute significant insights into how the dementia research community may engage the various domains of community gatekeepers, providing direction for current and future social science research.