Added: Stanford Noguera - Date: 01.09.2021 07:03 - Views: 44567 - Clicks: 766
NCBI Bookshelf. Hispanics and the Future of America.
Nancy S. LandaleR. Salvador Oropesaand Christina Bradatan. The last decades of the 20th century were a period of ificant change in family life in the United States. Among the well-documented changes are a rising age at marriage, an increase in cohabitation, and a dramatic shift in the proportion of children born outside marriage Bramlett and Mosher, ; Casper and Bianchi, ; Wu and Wolfe, Coupled with a high divorce rate, these trends have led to high rates of female family hehip and a growing share of children with restricted access to their fathers' resources.
These changes in family patterns have taken place alongside rapid growth in immigration and concomitant changes in the racial and ethnic composition of the U. The average annual inflow of immigrants more than doubled between the s and s, and the share of immigrants from Latin America increased at the same time Martin and Midgley, Thus, the Hispanic population grew from 5 percent of the total U. Furthermore, population projections suggest that Hispanics will comprise 20 percent of the U. This chapter addresses the intersection of these two domains of rapidly changing demographic behavior. Specifically, we analyze the family patterns Attention single married white or latino women Hispanics, focusing on several key issues.
First, to place the present in a larger context, we document trends in several indicators of family change. Comparisons between Hispanic subgroups, non-Hispanic whites, and non-Hispanic blacks provide information on the extent to which Hispanics have shared in the general shifts in family configurations that took place during the past several decades.
This issue is fundamental to understanding the nature of family life among Hispanics as well as links between changing family processes and family members' access to social and economic resources. As noted by Vegap. A second issue addressed in the chapter is generational variation in family patterns within Hispanic subgroups. Hispanics, one would expect it to reduce the erosion of traditional family patterns or to contribute to new family forms in which family support remains high. However, it is possible that the process of assimilation reduces familism and encourages the individualism that some have argued is at the heart of recent changes in family behavior.
Our comparisons of the family patterns of the first generation foreign-bornthe second generation native-born of foreign parentageand the third or higher generations native-born of native parentage will shed light on the dynamics of assimilation with respect to family patterns. Intermarriage is a long-standing theme in the study of assimilation. It has been considered both an indicator of assimilation and a means by which assimilation is achieved Gordon, ; Lieberson and Waters, According to the classic assimilation theory, intermarriage between an immigrant group and the dominant population reduces social boundaries and eventually le to a reduction in the salience of an ethnic identity.
Because the offspring of intermarried couples may opt out of defining themselves as members of an ethnic group, intermarriage may affect the future size and shape of an ethnic population. Thus, we examine ethnic endogamy and exogamy among Hispanics in both marriage and cohabitation. It is now widely recognized that Hispanic national-origin groups differ markedly with respect to their histories of immigration, settlement patterns, socioeconomic position, and other circumstances Bean and Tienda, ; Oropesa and Landale, ; Portes and Rumbaut, Several broad conclusions are supported by our analyses.
However, they are also participating in the general changes in family life that are under way in the United States.
Second, analyses conducted separately by national origin suggest declining familism across generations with some exceptions. Third, all Hispanic subgroups exhibit substantial declines in ethnic endogamy across generations. Nonetheless, the Mexican-origin population stands out for its high levels of ethnic endogamy in marriage, cohabitation, and parenthood. One of the most ificant changes in family behavior that occurred during the past several decades is the retreat from marriage. Although most individuals marry eventually, a declining percentage of men and women are entering marriage in their teens and early 20s Ventura and Bachrach, At the same time, most young people begin having sex in their mid-to late teens Alan Guttmacher Institute,and cohabitation has become so widespread that it has largely offset the decline in marriage Bumpass and Lu, Thus, the process of union formation has changed substantially.
In addition, divorce rates remain high, although they have declined slightly since their peak around Casper and Bianchi, The growing proportion of women who are unmarried but sexually active and often cohabitingincreasing birth rates among unmarried women, and decreasing birth rates among married women have all contributed to a striking increase in the proportion of births occurring outside marriage Wu et al.
Table summarizes information on trends in several family-related behaviors from to The top panel shows the percentage married among females ages 20 to At each time point, Mexican-origin females were the most likely to be married and non-Hispanic black females were the least likely to be married.
For example, in roughly half of Mexican females ages 20 to 24 were married compared with one-fourth of their non-Hispanic black counterparts. The figures for non-Hispanic whites 45 percentCubans 40 percentand Puerto Ricans 38 percent are intermediate between those for Mexicans and non-Hispanic blacks. The second through fourth panels of the table focus on various aspects of fertility.
Despite the long-term trend toward lower fertility, the TFR increased between and for all groups except non-Hispanic blacks. The TFR rose by 11 percent for non-Hispanic whites from 1. The generally greater increase in fertility among Hispanics compared with non-Hispanic whites resulted in more diversity in fertility in than in Currently, the average Mexican, Puerto Rican, and other Hispanic woman can expect to have about one more child than the average non-Hispanic white woman. The third panel presents figures on nonmarital childbearing.
Inthe percentage of births to unmarried women was more than twice as high for each Hispanic subgroup except Cubans as it was for non-Hispanic whites 10 percent. The figures range from 20 percent for Mexicans to 46 percent for Puerto Ricans. Over the subsequent 20 years, all groups experienced a substantial increase in nonmarital childbearing. The two groups that showed less growth over the year period Puerto Ricans and non-Hispanic blacks had relatively high Attention single married white or latino women of nonmarital births at the first point in time 46 and 57 percent, respectively.
Overall, these figures indicate that each Hispanic subgroup has experienced the trend toward nonmarital childbearing that has been documented for the general U. Non-Hispanic whites 22 percent and non-Hispanic blacks 69 percent fall at the two extremes of the distribution. The fourth panel sheds light on differences and similarities in the timing of entry into motherhood across the groups. The figures were slightly higher for other Hispanics 7 percent and Mexicans 8 percentand substantially higher for Puerto Ricans 10 percent and non-Hispanic blacks 13 percent.
Consistent with the well-established decline in teenage childbearing in the United States, the trend from to shows a substantial decrease in the percentage of births to young teen mothers for almost all groups. However, the decline has not been as great for most Hispanic subgroups as it has been for non-Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic blacks.
The figures for the former groups are more similar to that for non-Hispanic blacks 7 percentwhile those for the latter are similar to that for non-Hispanic whites 2 percent. The last panel of the table focuses on the structure of family households.
Available data for show that whites 12 percent and Mexicans 15 percent had relatively low levels of female family hehip, but Puerto Ricans 38 percent and non-Hispanic blacks 40 percent had substantially higher levels. An increase in the percentage of female householders is evident for three of the four groups for which complete data are shown non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic blacks, and Mexicans. Puerto Ricans are the exception, showing a slight decline in the percentatge of family households with a female head over the two-decade period. Inthe various Hispanic subgroups fall between the extremes occupied by non-Hispanic whites and blacks with respect to family structure.
About 14 percent of white families had a female householder, compared with about 20 percent of Mexican and Cuban families, 25 percent of Central and South American families, 36 percent of Puerto Rican families, and 45 percent of non-Hispanic black families.
In summary, Table shows that trends for each dimension of family life are generally similar for Hispanic subgroups and the non-Hispanic majority. However, consistent with differences in their histories and social locations see Chapter 2there are substantial differences across Hispanic subgroups—and between Hispanic subgroups and non-Hispanics—in specific aspects of family behavior. Moreover, there are a few instances of divergence i. For example, the — increase in fertility as measured by the TFR was somewhat greater for Hispanic groups than for non-Hispanic whites.
In addition, there was a weaker decline in teenage childbearing among Hispanics compared with non-Hispanics. The growing divergence between Hispanic and non-Hispanic fertility patterns is undoubtedly linked to the relatively rapid growth of the immigrant population Suro and Passel, Since Latin American immigrants have higher fertility and tend to bear their children earlier than native-born Hispanics, a shift in the generational composition of the Hispanic population would contribute to such a pattern.
Also noteworthy is the considerably greater increase in female family hehip among Mexican Americans compared with non-Hispanic whites and blacks. Recent scholarship on current family patterns among Hispanics emphasizes several distinct themes, which can be broadly classified as stressing either the structural conditions in which Hispanics live or the role of Attention single married white or latino women in shaping values and behavior. We discuss each in turn. One recurrent theme in the study of Hispanic families is the impact of socioeconomic disadvantage on family life Baca Zinn and Wells, ; Massey, Zambrana, and Bell, ; Oropesa and Landale, ; Vega, Due to a complex set of factors, including the hardships of immigration, low levels of human capital, racial discrimination, and settlement patterns, Hispanic poverty rates remain high.
Inabout 22 percent of Hispanics were poor, a figure roughly comparable to that for blacks 24 percent and almost three times that for non-Hispanic whites 8 percent Proktor and Dallaker, An issue that has received attention is whether links between poverty and family processes among Hispanics can be understood using frameworks developed to study the experience of other disadvantaged groups i. Massey et al. First, consistent with Bean and Tienda's seminal workthey contend that Hispanics cannot be understood as a single group; analyses must be conducted separately for each Hispanic subgroup because of differences in their histories and current situations.
Second, Hispanics are heterogeneous with respect to race, while blacks are relatively homogeneous. Furthermore, foreign-born Hispanics experience a marked disjuncture between the way race is viewed in Latin America and the racial dynamics they encounter in the United States. Third, related to their diverse racial features, Hispanics experience more varied levels of segregation and consequently, more varied opportunities than do non-Hispanic blacks, but this is changing.
Fourth, the Hispanic experience remains bound up with immigration. This requires attention to the complexities of international migration e. Finally, Hispanics differ from blacks in that their experience is influenced by their use of the Spanish language. Given these differences, Massey and colleagues argue that studies of Hispanic families cannot simply adopt theories developed to explain the experience of other disadvantaged groups. Although socioeconomic disadvantage is central to the Hispanic experience, its effects on family patterns must be understood in the context of more complex frameworks that simultaneously consider the aforementioned issues.
Another theme that is widespread in studies of Hispanic families is the idea that Hispanics are characterized by familism or a strong commitment to family life that is qualitatively distinct from that of non-Hispanic whites Vega, The concept of familism can be found in the sociological literature as early as the mids Burgess and Locke, ; Ch'Eng-K'Un, Although it has been used in somewhat varied ways since that time, there is general agreement that familism entails the subordination of individual interests to those of the family group.
Some authors have stressed the attitudinal foundations of familism Bean, Curtis, and Marcum, ; Burgess and Locke, ; Gaines et al. The structural dimension is evident in such family configurations as family size, family structure including the presence or absence of nuclear and Attention single married white or latino women kinand fertility patterns. The behavioral dimension includes behaviors that indicate the fulfillment of family role obligations, such as the sharing of economic resources, mutual assistance and social support, and frequent contact among family members. The attitudinal or normative dimension entails values that emphasize the importance of the family and prescribe loyalty, reciprocity, and solidarity among family members Sabogal et al.
Early scholarship often regarded familism as an impediment to socioeconomic advancement in urban industrial societies because such societies emphasize individualism, competition, and geographic mobility.
For example, some studies argued that familism hindered the socioeconomic success of Mexican Americans Valenzuela and Dornbusch, More recently, however, this view has been turned on its head and familism is generally viewed as a protective factor. Studies of a variety of outcomes e. Thus, recent scholarship regards familism as a positive attribute of Hispanic families that may decline with acculturation to U. Although a comprehensive assessment of the three dimensions of familism is beyond the scope of this chapter, we focus on the structural dimension in Tables through Based on weighted data from the — March Current Population Surveys pooled across yearswe provide descriptive information on the characteristics of Hispanic families and the living arrangements of individuals in different age groups.
Table addresses a fundamental question: What percentage of all households are family households? The U. Census Bureau defines a family household as a household maintained by a householder who is in a family; a family is a group of two or more people one of whom is the householder who are related by birth, marriage, or adoption and reside together U. Census Bureau, Given the growing role of cohabitation in U.
Thus, we depart from the Census Bureau's definition of a family household by treating cohabitation as a family status. Households in which the householder is cohabiting with a partner are therefore included as family households in Tables andAttention single married white or latino women
email: [email protected] - phone:(222) 646-5009 x 2426
Married and Poor