Cultural Geography of East Asia

Whosinchargearticle3.pdf

Home >History homework help >World history homework help >Cultural Geography of East Asia

Who’s in Charge?: Coparenting in South and Southeast Asian Families

Rahael Kurrien1,2 and Easter Dawn Vo1

In light of the evolving roles of parents and the involvement of extended family within Asian cultures, the traditionally Western dyadic coparenting construct must be reconceptualized to include not only the coparenting relationship, but also other caregivers within the coparenting network. Theoretical and empirical evidence on coparental systems are discussed and two studies from South and Southeast Asian cultures are presented to highlight subcultural variations in cocaregiving networks. Results indicated that mothers were the primary care- givers across both cultural contexts. Extended family members assumed important coparental responsibilities in both cultural contexts. These findings highlight the need to reconceptualize and expand the dyadic coparental unit to include extended family members. We also discuss the relevance of the broader coparental network in examining the Asian child”s education as well as cognitive and socioemotional development.

KEY WORDS: coparenting; extended families; sub-cultural differences; family roles.

Adults all over the world hold many differ- ent roles, from friend to coworker to spouse, that affect their own development as well as that of their children. One of the most widely researched adult roles is that of “parent.” For instance, Lamb (1995) has examined the evolution of the father role within the United States, and Mirande (1991) has described the traditional parenting roles in Asian families. However, over the past 10 years social- ization researchers (e.g., Belsky, Crnic, & Gable, 1995; McHale, 1995) have given more widespread attention to the processes of coparenting and co- caregiving. McHale (1995) defined coparenting as the amount of support parents provide for one another in raising their children. As the traditional parenting roles have begun to evolve because of urbanization, so too has the process of coparenting.

In the United States, coparenting researchers have focused both on interadult dynamics within

1Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts. 2To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department of Psychology, Clark University, 950 Main Street, Worcester, MassachusettsMA 01601; e-mail: [email protected].

families along dimensions such as support and an- tagonism (Frosch & Mangelsdorf, 2000; Katz & Gottman, 1996; McHale, 1995), and on delineation of household duties and childcare responsibilities between mothers and fathers in nuclear families (Cowan & Cowan, 1992; Deutsch, Lussier, & Servis, 1993). However, at the same time, there has been a growing appreciation among developmental psy- chologists for the fact that millions of the world’s children are growing up with multiple caregiving figures (McHale, Khazan, et al., 2002), and that psy- chology’s stereotypical model of the family in its nuclear two-parent form has little applicability cross- nationally (McHale, Lauretti, Talbot, & Pouquette, 2002). Therefore, this paper will (a) discuss the evo- lution of parenting roles in Asian families and how those changes have necessitated a reconceptualiza- tion of coparenting in South and Southeast Asian families; (b) examine the process by which copar- enting is navigated in two different cultures by pre- senting studies of Indian and Vietnamese families’ parenting beliefs and practices; and (c) present an argument for why coparenting should be studied in other cultures.

207

208 Kurrien and Dawn Vo

Parental Roles

Differences between ideal, perceived, and actual parental roles are significant because such discrepan- cies can affect both the adult’s satisfaction and well- being in the parenting relationship and the child’s adjustment and development in life. For instance, DeVos (1978, cited in Sue & Morishima, 1982) theo- rizes that “the role and structure within the Japanese American family are responsible for the individual’s ability to adapt and adjust” (p. 79). By this he means that each member within a Japanese family has spe- cific, well-defined obligations and functions which they must perform, thereby protecting individuals from juvenile delinquency, mental disorders, and al- coholism, while promoting high rates of academic achievement and income (Sue & Morishima, 1982). Empirical work has supported DeVos’ theory and shown that the way parents view their role is im- portant to their personal mental health (Brody, Flor, & Neubaum, 1998; Sonuga-Barke & Mistry, 2000) and to their child’s development and adjustment (Hackett & Hackett, 1993; Ishii-Kuntz, 1995; Lamb, 1995) across a number of different cultures.

Caregivers do not exist within a vacuum but are part of a broader environmental surround that influences their own and their children’s develop- ment. As will be discussed in further detail shortly, there are prototypical mother and father roles that often vary little across cultures. However, the diver- gent cross-cultural functions of mothers and fathers evolve based on factors such as industrialization, residential living patterns, and roles of other family members. Although traditional and evolved mother– father roles may be relatively similar across cultures, it is other caregiver roles (e.g., grandparent, aunt) and the environment (e.g., the extended family liv- ing) in which a child is raised that may contribute to the diverging pathways toward mental health (Brody et al., 1998; Sonuga-Barke & Mistry, 2000) and child adjustment (Hackett & Hackett, 1993; Ishii-Kuntz, 1995; Lamb, 1995). For instance, parents in many cultures may have the goal of caring and providing for their children, but the context in which they raise their children may be vastly different, thus contribut- ing to different developmental outcomes.

Traditional Roles

Cross-culturally, traditional parental roles often dictate that the mother be doting, emotional provider

with the father as a teacher and main provider of material support (Ho, 1987; Ishii-Kuntz, 1995). In both Asia (Mirande, 1991) and America (Lamb, 1995), the most traditional basic role for mothers has indeed been that of nurturer with fathers as the primary breadwinner. Although times have changed, this basic role division is still at work in both Asian and European American cultures. The contention here is not that parental roles are perceived in the same way across all cultures, but that often the ideal, primary roles of parents are construed in the same manner across cultures and that the ideals evolve as the society develops and grows.

Just as American fathers were once primarily viewed as breadwinners or moral and gender role guides with mothers’ primary functions viewed as emotional and physical nurturers (Lamb, 1995), roles of Asian parents were construed in this fashion. In a conceptual paper describing traditional Asian parents, Shon and Ja (1992) characterize the father as the unquestioned authority and leader of the family while the mother is the nurturer. Most often, Confucian principles provide the historical basis for Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Southeast Asian parenting roles (Mirande, 1991). This typically implies that the father made most of the decisions, had the responsibility to provide for the family by ensuring its economic welfare, and was the primary disciplinarian. In contrast, the mother’s role was to be emotionally available by listening when the child had difficulties and to be emotionally expressive. Furthermore, the mother’s role was to feed, clothe, and take care of the child. Fathers also had this function, but fulfilled it more instrumentally by providing the economic means to feed, clothe, and take care of the child, whereas mothers were the ones who carried out actual caretaking activities (Ishii-Kuntz, 2000; Shon & Ja, 1992). Kibria’s (1993) findings also support this distinction of parental roles in Vietnamese families. The fathers in Kibria’s (1993) interviews were the primary breadwinners, more physically and emotionally distant than mothers, and the main authority figures who meted out the punishment. Thus, at the most basic level, mothers were the main sources of physical and emotional support while fathers were the primary breadwinners and disciplinarians. Both Asian and Euro-American fathers were less involved than mothers in the daily caretaking activities (i.e., bathing, feeding) of their children, while mothers maintained the primary caregiver role by providing emotional and physical nurturance. However, as times have changed,

Coparenting in South and Southeast Asian Families 209

fathers in both cultures have expanded their primary functions such that they become more involved even at earlier stages of the child’s development.

The Evolving Roles

With urbanization, migration, and acculturation the father’s role has appeared to change more than the mother’s role for both European and Asian Americans. Within the last few decades in America, a “new fatherhood” movement surfaced (Lamb, 1995) in which the fathers’ primary role moved toward being more involved and nurturant toward the chil- dren, although still less so than mothers. The Euro- American fathers moved from an exclusive role as breadwinner and teacher to emphasizing the devel- opment of close affective relationships with their children (Harkness & Super, 1992). Despite urban- ization, the Euro-American mother has remained in the role of primary nurturer and emotional provider although her time spent with the child may be less than before (Lamb, 1995). Similarly, Jankowiak’s (1992) review of Asian societies showed that urban- ization led to a change from fathers’ discouraging emotional display toward a more intimate father– child bond such that fathers can now, within their expected role, display affection. This new role of fathers owes largely to mothers’ employment outside of the home, different sizes of the domestic space (smaller living space forces fathers to be in closer proximity to their children), and the new folk concept of increasing father involvement (Jankowiak, 1992; Lamb, 1995).

Besides engaging in more frequent and active emotional displays, fathers are also beginning to spend more time with their children and participating in child rearing activities. Lamb (1995) would argue that while fathers are still expected to fulfill the primary breadwinner role, they are also becoming a greater indirect source of influence on mothers and are more directly involved with childcare. Fathers in or from Asian countries have likewise become nurturant in the sense that they spend more time interacting with their children. For instance, there is some evidence that Japanese men are making the transition from being absent, workaholic fathers to more nurturant fathers due to karoshi (death by fatigue) and children’s toko kyohi (refusal to at- tend school; Ishii-Kuntz, 1995). These families, then, are becoming less “fatherless” in the physical sense. Correspondingly, in a survey-based qualitative study

that asked about aspects of children’s educational, psychological, and cultural problems and assets, Korean parents indicated that fathers in America are more likely to participate in childcare activities such as changing diapers (Yu & Kim, 1983). They also recognized the need for egalitarian roles between husband and wife. Therefore, in both Asian and Euro-American families, fathers are becoming more nurturant in the sense that they spend more time with their children and are slowly progressing to share more childcare duties.

Because roles have changed and there is more involvement between parents across all domains of parenting, the importance of studying the coordina- tion of these roles on the children’s mental health is extremely important. As Asian families also become more westernized, it becomes important, too, to study how they transition to coordinating roles rather than maintaining strict parenting role boundaries. This sharing of roles requires greater coordination and cooperation between parents. However, beyond the mother–father-coparenting unit, given the in- volvement of extended family in Asian cultures, it is important also to examine the entire coparenting net- work that may include grandparents, aunts, and older siblings. Relatives in Asian cultures may be placed by mothers and fathers in the role of surrogate parent and thus, are afforded the right or has the obligation to provide discipline or moral instruction to the child. Also, many Asian families engage in extended family living such that the influence of nuclear and extended family remains stable and consequential. Thus, how do all the “parents” within the Asian family organize and manage their parental roles and beliefs?

Extended Family Involvement

The functioning cocaregiving unit in many non- Western family units extends beyond mothers and fa- thers to other relatives (e.g., Bharat, 1996; Mirande, 1991) as well as close family friends in some circum- stances (Kibria, 1993). In Asian cultures (Mirande, 1991; Staples & Mirande, 1980; Woods, 1996), as opposed to American society, the extended fam- ily network is an obligation rather than an option. Generally, extended family living is more prevalent among Asian Americans than Euro-Americans. Fur- thermore, Vietnamese families report greater ex- tended family living than any other Asian American groups (U.S. census data, 1990, cited in Ishii-Kuntz, 2000).

210 Kurrien and Dawn Vo

In comparison to the United States, societies in which the extended family plays a more prominent function also have designated family member roles. Although the mother–child dyad has been consid- ered of primary influence on the child’s development and survival, in the extended family living environ- ment the mother’s role becomes less central (Rogoff, Mistry, Goncu, & Mosier, 1991). This is especially true in families who have more than one child, live near or even with relatives, and are involved in a relationship of long-term support and obliga- tion with other community members (Rogoff et al., 1991).

Brody et al. (1998) speculate that the ex- tended kin network provides strength to the African American family so that children, despite chronic problems such as poverty, can often develop into “emotionally, healthy competent people” (p. 232). Also, Hackett and Hackett (1993) attributed greater well-being of Asian children to structural features of the traditional Asian family. Particularly, they found that extended family involvement promotes psycho- logical well-being in children. On the other hand, when the extended family does not provide tangible and emotional assistance, there is also risk for ten- sion to arise. Disagreements and conflicts between different caregivers (not just parents) often send the child the message of instability and may adversely affect the child’s outcome (Brody et al., 1998). Thus, it can be speculated that when one person infringes on the perceived role boundaries or does not meet the actual role, conflict may ensue and create disad- vantages in a child’s development.

In other related work, Roopnarine, Lu, and Ahmeduzzaman (1989) have shown that in the Kuching (a Chinese Malyasian society) and in Asian Indian societies, the extended family network is actu- ally preferred over the nuclear family unit. In modern society, it is difficult to maintain the extended family structure because of the more common dual-earner unit and other means of childcare (i.e., nonrelated caregivers). However, the father–son ties help to maintain the extended family network. Also, in these societies, adults may drop in to visit friends and relatives without first giving notification or having an invitation—an act that is usually construed as intrusive in American society. If the families are able to visit anytime, are they also allowed to give their opinions and participate in child rearing? In- deed, Roopnarine et al. (1989) suggest that in Indian families, extended family members contribute to the socialization of infants and young children because

most of the early childhood is spent in an extended family environment.

For refugees such as the Vietnamese, the struc- ture of extended families is even more multifaceted. After the Vietnam War, it was far too common to find young Vietnamese children in the United States without their parents or Vietnamese hus- bands without their wives; so as a coping mech- anism, Vietnamese Americans worked hard to re- build family ties in the United States by altering and broadening the inclusion criteria of “family” (Kibria, 1993). Therefore, friends and distant relatives who had been only marginally involved in the family in Vietnam became part of the active circle of kin net- work in the United States (Kibria, 1993). Histori- cally, Vietnamese families used Confucianism as a set of ideal standards for kin relations, but they also had a less strict model that included bilateral and distant kin (Kibria, 1993). This has perhaps enabled them more flexibility to include friends and extended fam- ily members into the immediate family network once in the United States. Vietnamese Americans endeav- ored not only to implement the traditional family system, but also to expand upon it for emotional and economic gains in the United States (Kibria, 1993).

Given the fact that extended family involvement and living is an obligation rather than an option in many Asian cultures (Staples & Mirande, 1980; Woods, 1996), we present data from two studies about cocaregiving roles and family structure within Asian cultures to further McHale’s argument that the construct of coparenting must be reconceptualized for these families in order to accurately encapsulate their family processes. Specifically, we will examine studies of Indian and Vietnamese families to exem- plify the need for reconceptualization. Coparenting has been defined as the degree of support parents provide for one another in raising their children (McHale, 1995). In light of our argument above about the evolution of parenting roles as well as the obligation of extended family involvement, what does the process of coparenting in other cultures look like?

Coparental Systems in Asian Cultures

The complexities of family systems and process in Asian families makes the study of coparenting in these cultures particularly relevant because it offers a comparative view of contemporary child rearing

Coparenting in South and Southeast Asian Families 211

and caregiving arrangements. In addition, in exam- ining cocaregiving in Asian cultures, it is particularly important to take into account the growing influence of westernization and urbanization on Asian families that have led to both structural and cultural changes in family networks, child rearing beliefs, and child- care arrangements.

Although there have been numerous conceptual and ethnographic reports on family life in Asian families (Kibria, 1993; Zhou & Bankston, 1998) there have been relatively few empirical studies on par- enting and family dynamics. With regards to par- enting, research in Asia has broadly focused on the themes of familial interdependence and parenting styles (Chao & Tseng, 2002). In India, for exam- ple, the ties between family members and relatives are characterized by a strong sense of duty, familial expectations, roles and obligations, irrespective of the proximity of residence (Sekaran, 1992). Family researchers in India have examined the associations between maternal employment and gender role ide- ologies on paternal and extrafamilial involvement in childcare with somewhat contradictory results. Al- though Ramu (1987) reported that in middle-class Indian families, maternal employment did not have a significant effect on men’s involvement in child- care tasks, Suppal, Roopnarine, Buesig, and Bennett (1996) nearly a decade later asserted that families in which women were primarily homemakers were more likely to hold a traditional orientation with respect to the gendered division of family roles. Sub- cultural differences in socioeconomic status family structure and living circumstances (urban/rural) have also been examined with relation to the division of childcare responsibilities in Indian families. Al- though these studies across the board have indicated that mothers remain the primary caregiver, it is im- portant to note interesting subgroup differences. In nuclear families, mothers relied on fathers and do- mestic servants to share in caregiving tasks whereas in joint families, mothers sought assistance from ex- tended family members (e.g., grandmothers, aunts) who often assumed significant roles in other aspects of child rearing. In addition, in socioeconomically disadvantaged families in which mothers worked out- side the home, caretaking responsibilities were di- vided among other family members (Seymour, 1993, 1999). In a study of rural caregiving arrangements in India, rural mothers, irrespective of employment status, relied on female family members and older siblings for cocaregiving (Desai & Jain, 1994; Sriram & Ganapathy, 1997).

A similar pattern of dependence on family mem- bers for childcare was noted among dual-earner Sin- gaporean families (Yuen & Lim, 1992). According to a 1986 National Survey of Working Mothers (cited in Yuen & Lim, 1992), more than half of all working mothers sought assistance from relatives, particularly grandmothers, for caregiving of their pre-school-age children. About 40% of these women lived in ex- tended family situations. The employment of domes- tic servants to help out with both household work and childcare is common among upper class dual-earner families. The foster care of children, particularly infants, is still a common caregiving arrangement among the more traditional of dual-earner Singa- porean families. The formal childcare system, which primarily caters to pre-school-age children, is slowly gaining popularity among educated working mothers in Singapore (Yuen & Lim, 1992). Lu, Maume, and Bellas (2000) in an analysis of the 1991 Household Survey of the China Health and Nutrition Study re- ported interesting urban–rural differences in the pre- dictors of paternal involvement in household labor and childcare in Chinese families. In urban house- holds, maternal employment and men’s higher edu- cation levels were associated with greater paternal engagement in household work and childcare. Con- versely, the greater the disparity between spouses’ income levels, the lower urban men’s participation was in household labor and caregiving. On the other hand, in rural families, maternal employment status, men’s higher educational status, and the egalitarian balance of decision-making powers between spouses positively influenced the amount of time that men spent in household labor and caregiving. Although across both urban and rural settings, mothers were primarily responsible for housework and childcare, in rural families in which there was a daughter-in-law, men’s involvement in household chores and caregiv- ing decreased.

In summary, in light of the evidence on parent- ing in Asian cultures which indicate that female fam- ily members (e.g., grandmothers and aunts), older siblings, and neighbors are central cocaretaking fig- ures, there is a need to reconceptualize the tradi- tional Western dyadic coparenting construct in order to accurately portray and describe the complexities of caregiving arrangements in contemporary Asian families. Although structural aspects such as family composition are important considerations in the con- ceptualization of coparenting in Asian families, inter- familial functional relationships (e.g., the nature and extent of social interaction, communication) have

212 Kurrien and Dawn Vo

also been recently emphasized in cross-cultural stud- ies of the family (Georgas et al., 2001). The question of functional relationships is particularly pertinent to Asian families wherein gender role ideologies shape interactions and expectations within the family.

RECONCEPTUALIZING COPARENTING IN SOUTH AND SOUTHEAST ASIAN CULTURES

The significance of extended family members and other informal childcare figures (such as neigh- bors) has been emphasized in many reports of par- enting and role-sharing (Desai & Jain, 1994; Lu et al., 2000; Sinha, 1996; Verma, 1995) in South Asian cultures. We contend that applying the dyadic, pre- dominantly Western, conceptualization of the copar- enting construct to studying coparenting dynamics and family systems in South and Southeast Asian cultures would be erroneous and would negate the influence of important multiple caregivers in the child’s environment. Understanding the variability in the composition of caregiving networks is also crucial in accurately describing the functional complexities of coparenting systems within these cultures. We will examine the relevance of the Western dyadic coparenting construct, and highlight the need for a broader reconceptualization of the construct in cross- cultural family studies by presenting data from two studies on cocaregiving arrangements in Vietnamese American and Indian families. These studies under- score the importance of developing indigenous the- oretical frameworks in order to reliably understand and portray Asian family system.

Study 1: The Indian Family Context

The first study was a quantitative analysis of the variability in cocaregiving arrangements as a function of socioeconomic status and family structure in con- temporary urban and rural Indian families. The sam- ple comprised of three subgroups of 15 Hindu moth- ers, each with a pre-school-age child. Fifteen families lived in an urban socioeconomically disadvantaged area of Pune, another 15 in upper-middle class neigh- borhoods in Pune, and the last group of mothers in a neighboring poor rural area. Each subgroup had families with nuclear and joint/extended family structures. We designed a caregiving responsibility interview schedule in which mothers identified all the child’s caregivers in the family and then reported on

the weekly distribution of nine caregiving activities among the identified caretakers. The nine activities included brushing teeth, toileting, bathing, dressing, feeding breakfast, taking to preschool center, bring- ing back home from preschool center, feeding lunch, feeding dinner, and putting to bed. Mothers reported on the number of days in the week that different family members carried out each of the nine caregiv- ing activities. We initially calculated each caregiver’s total weekly involvement with the preschooler across all nine activities and then examined the patterns of caregiving as a function of family structure and living circumstance.

Across the patterns of family structure and liv- ing circumstance, we noted that mothers assumed the role of primary caregiver of their pre-school- age children. Of note is the significant interaction between family structure and living circumstance for parental involvement in childcare; F (2.45) = 4.27, p = .02. Follow-up analyses using the Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons indicated that in middle-class urban families, regardless of whether family structure was nuclear (Fig. 1) or joint (Fig. 2) fathers were more involved in caregiving than were fathers in urban and rural disadvantaged families. Across nuclear families, fathers in upper-middle class families (M = 14.56, SD = 3.84) were more engaged in caregiving activities than fathers from urban so- cioeconomically disadvantaged families (M = 5.00, SD = 1.41; t = 6.21, df = 14, p = .00) and those from rural socioeconomically disadvantaged households (M = 5.20, SD = 0.48; t = 5.16, df = 12, p = .00). Across joint families, paternal involvement in child- care in upper-middle class households (M = 8.83, SD = 2.31) was greater than involvement in both urban poor (M = 3.75, SD = 1.04; t = 5.57, df = 12, p = .00) and rural socioeconomically disadvantaged families (M = 2.80, SD = 0.79; t = 7.68, df = 14, p = .00). Follow-up analyses indicated no significant dif- ferences in paternal involvement in caregiving be- tween the urban and rural socioeconomically disad- vantaged fathers.

Of note was the compelling degree of variability in caregiving structures and practices among contemporary Indian families. Overall, in both urban and rural residences, fathers in nuclear families were more engaged in caregiving activities than those in joint families. In joint families, coparenting respon- sibilities were shared among other female family members. In upper-middle class joint families, grand- mothers were identified as the only nonparental coparenting source of support, whereas in both

Coparenting in South and Southeast Asian Families 213

Fig. 1. Engagement with child as a function of family structure and living circumstance: Nuclear Indian families.

Fig. 2. Engagement with child as a function of family structure and living circumstance: Joint Indian families.

214 Kurrien and Dawn Vo

Table I. Demographic Information for Vietnamese American Families

Number of Number of Children’s age Residence in the family members children (in years) US (in years)

Family 01 7 1 2.5 20 Family 02 5 3 9, 6, and 1 2 Family 03 7 3 8, 5, 3 months 13 Family 04 6 4 15, 10, 7, 9 months 3 Family 05 3 2 6, 9 months 10

urban and rural socioeconomically disadvantaged families, caregiving responsibilities were distributed among other female relatives such as aunts and older siblings. Part of this may be due to the fact that our sample of upper-middle class families has fewer children, and even in families in which there were older siblings, they were not called upon or expected to share in caregiving activities. Noteworthy is our finding that in none of the 24 joint families were fathers more involved in child care activities than were grandmothers or other female extended family members who provided the major source of caregiving support to the mother. This can be most prudently explained by the accessibility of other family members for cocaregiving support and by the pressure in joint families to subscribe to more conventional gendered family roles and child rearing practices than in nuclear families. Findings from this study support McHale and colleagues’ contention that narrow conceptualizations of coparenting as a family process shared by married partners are clearly irrelevant for many Indian families. Moreover, they also highlight the important socioeconomic subcultural differences in Indian families’ functional cocaregiving arrangements.

Study 2: The Vietnamese American Family Context

The second study was a qualitative analysis of the Vietnamese American parents’ perception of parental roles and how they evolved or were main- tained postimmigration. Participants were five intact Vietnamese American immigrant families from an urban New England community of 180,000 people. The average age for mothers was 33.4 and for fathers it was 37.6. The average number of children in the household was three, with the ages ranging from 3 months to 15 years. On average, the families had been in the United States for 9.4 years (Table I).

Perceptions regarding actual and traditional par- enting roles as well as expectations of parenting were

obtained through the semistructured Parenting Roles Interview developed specifically for the study. The interview consisted of eight questions regarding per- ceptions of parenting roles, parenting in Vietnam, and expectations before starting a family. There were a subset of questions regarding other caregiver roles (e.g., grandparents) and instances of cooperation or tension that were only asked if the family indicated on the demographics questionnaire that other indi- viduals, aside from mother and father, had parental or caregiving roles in their children’s lives. Two sce- narios, one depicting a discipline situation and the other a feeding scenario, were developed to elicit reactions from parents regarding a relative and a close friend participating in unsolicited caretaking duties of their children.

Extended family members, from the parents’ perceptions, had supportive, complementary roles, but did not assume any responsibilities that the parents did not otherwise perform. In other words, extended family members did not have a unique role. For instance, mother 05 presented the maternal grandparent role as

taking care of feeding, sleeping, clothing, and taking them to school for me, and watching over them at home so that I can go to work. . . almost equivalent to the mother’s role because the maternal grandpar- ents love their grandchildren so they worry about them a lot.

Similarly, mother 03 considered herself and the maternal grandmother as having the same functions: “to give the grandchild the bottle, sit and play with each other. [laughs] So, if she can help me with anything, she does then.”

Family 01 parents viewed the maternal grand- parents as a support system as well as providing knowledge about Vietnamese culture to the child. Mother 01 said that if there is

something I don’t understand I ask my mom. Some- thing that I’m not familiar with and she’s [the child] sick and it was different and it doesn’t seem like something that would harm her, I would ask her

Coparenting in South and Southeast Asian Families 215

how to do this, you know Asian remedies, like dau. . . that’s her role to support and my father too.

The father viewed the grandparents’ roles more as educators of the child than as parent supporters. Specifically, the maternal grandparents

teach her a more religious side of it, which is bringing up the Catholic/Christian value and uh, and um, more the cultural education, which we can’t give her because we’re basically, Americanized. So we’ll teach her what we’ve experienced but also we can offset that by what her parents [the maternal grand- parents] give her [the child] of the old culture, so it’s a very. . . it’s a very delicate balance.

In the Vietnamese child’s life, extended fam- ily members are typically present within the same household and depending on the parents’ beliefs, these family members may have a role that extends beyond babysitting. These Vietnamese parents per- ceive their extended family members as having roles that include teaching and nurturing. Thus, the Viet- namese child’s social and emotional development is influenced by input from both the parents and other family members.

In accordance with DeVos’ theory, these Vietnamese parents maintain stability through im- plementation of strict role guidelines that outline what others have the right to participate in. Further- more, in the interest of constancy, extended family members’ roles are not generally unique from that of mothers and fathers. Parents, grandparents, aunts, and uncles all feed, teach, and play with children. Although what is taught to the child may be different, the common denominator is being a teacher. The ab- sence of a unique role provides further support that other caregivers do influence the child and are enti- tled to participate in caregiving tasks. If the individ- ual had only babysitting rights, the influence would be more limited. In the case of Vietnamese families, though, evidence to date has indicated that extended family members can be considered “parents” as well. Most importantly, everyone must function within and not traverse across the role boundaries.

Of particular note is that although none of the families reported having nonfamilial members in- volved in the parenting tasks, they did endorse a friend’s involvement in the hypothetical scenarios. In terms of a close friend’s unsolicited participation, 9 of 16 responses were accepting of a friend’s in- volvement. The differences here reflected a division between mothers and fathers. In terms of discipline, only mothers said that a close friend did not have the

right (01) or that it was only the mother’s job (05). Mother 04 initially did not understand the question and, given her mental status, said that when the friend scolds the child and “I’m sick then I’ll yell back at my close friend. I’ll yell really loudly. I get very agitated.” Fathers, however, found a friend’s discipline of their child acceptable. For instance, fa- ther 04 said, “I wouldn’t be mad because they love my child. They would. . . if the child does misbehave then scolding them a little is a good thing.” Similarly, father 01 “expected it from them because although I don’t believe in punishment, I do believe in scolding her and uh, set an example of what is right and wrong. So I do expect them to scold her.” Father 02 also did not believe in scolding, but thought that adults must “teach them through love and care.” Therefore, if a friend were to “teach” the child, the father would “be happy” about that.

In summary, both studies depart from the traditional two-parent nuclear family research that has been conducted in European American cultures. Our data revealed that in both Indian and Vietnamese American families, others play active roles in the cocaregiving of children. Apart from the child’s biological parents, the coparenting figures in his/her environment are most typically extended family members. In rarer instances, they may be close nonfamilial friends, who may or may not be given “fictive” status as uncles or aunts. This broader coparenting family system in both Indian and Vietnamese families stands in contrast to the narrow conceptualization of the two-parent nuclear marital/coparenting unit in European American families. Even though the method in both studies differed, the similarity in findings across the two cultural groups provide clear support for McHale’s call to recast the Western coparenting construct so that it more accurately captures the realities of family life in contemporary South Asian families.

WHY STUDY COPARENTING IN ASIAN CULTURES?

We have seen how studying coparenting in other cultures will require expanding the definitions of coparenting, but what relevance does this construct have in Asian cultures at all? Rather than merely instilling a Western-defined construct on Asian cul- tures, we must examine what value it holds for individuals and family development within those cultures. Typically, the impetus and importance of

216 Kurrien and Dawn Vo

studying coparenting in the United States has been to study the mechanisms influencing generally, child development, and specifically, psychopathology. As emphasized earlier, there has been a dearth of studies investigating the influence of this larger coparenting network on the child’s developmental trajectory in Asian families. We will review some of the studies that have underscored the impact of the broader co- parental system on child outcomes such as academic performance, cognitive development, social adjust- ment, and overall mental health in Asian cultures.

First, we propose that the expanded view of coparenting to include other cocaregiving figures is important to Asian families because of the impact cohesive coparenting networks may have on the ed- ucation of children developing within these systems. Ethnic differences in cultural values and beliefs may affect children’s academic performance through such socialization practices as parental discipline (Blair, Blair, & Madamba, 1999). In relation to coparenting, if an Asian child living within a household is disci- plined by many different cocaregivers, this pattern of discipline must be cohesive between the copar- enting network in order for it to be effective and thus, influencing educational achievement. Availabil- ity of parents has also been associated with academic performance with single parent status, divorce, or employment status having the most impact (Astone & McLanahan, 1991). For Asian families, there may be more adult, parental figures around who assume cocaregiving roles and may be able to buffer the effects of parents who may have to work outside of the home. Again, it is important that these cocaregiv- ing figures share congruent perspectives on parent- ing rather than exhibiting conflict around parenting roles. In one study of racial and ethnic differences in academic performance, Blair et al. (1999) found that Asian American students’ performance was most affected by socioeconomic status. Asian families who have extended family living arrangements and are able to coordinate finances as well as caregiving du- ties may be more likely to have children who are pro- vided adequate resources (e.g., finances, attention) to perform better in school than their Euro-American counterparts.

Second, many studies have examined the impor- tance of coordinated efforts between members of the coparental network on cognitive and social develop- ment as well as overall mental health. For example, Hackett and Hackett (1993) attributed greater well- being of Asian children to structural features of the traditional Asian family. Particularly, they found that

extended family involvement promotes psychologi- cal well-being in children. On the other hand, when the extended family does not provide tangible and emotional assistance, there is also risk for tension to arise. Disagreements and conflicts between different caregivers (not just parents) often send the child the message of instability and may adversely affect the child’s outcome (Brody et al., 1998).

Also, maternal perception of both concrete and emotional support from extended family members in urban socioeconomically disadvantaged Indian families was related to a child’s cognitive and social development (Naug, 2000). Children from contemporary Indian joint families that were cohesive were found to be better socioemotionally adjusted than those from nuclear families indicating that apart from family size, the functional aspects of familial relationships are crucial in determining the child’s developmental outcomes (Chakrabatri, Biswas, Chattopadhyay, & Saha, 1998). Studies on children at risk have highlighted the role of the extended family system in supporting child rearing, buffering against adversity, and enhancing the child’s resiliency in the face of difficult circumstances (Sharma, 2000). The larger coparental system in India also has significant positive implications for children’s mental health outcomes, which suggests that the child’s experience in families with extended support systems alleviates sources of stress, and mitigates the effect of potential mental disorders.

Further, Sonuga-Barke and Mistry (2000) found that when Hindu and Muslim mothers perceived grandmother support as intrusive or overbearing there were sometimes detrimental effects on the child’s development. In their study of intergenera- tional living, the children and grandmothers exhib- ited fewer adjustment problems (assessed through teachers’ completion of the Rutter Scale) than the mothers, who often suffered from depression and anxiety. Others (i.e., Cooley & Unger, 1991) have reported evidence that grandmothers may influence children indirectly through their support of teenage mothers, but Sonuga-Barke and Mistry’s (2000) data reveal that grandmothers can also have a direct effect on children through practical care, moral guidance, and cognitive and emotional instruction.

Beyond any direct benefits to the child, grand- mothers are also in a position to fulfill the tradi- tional role of care provider and guide. Unfortunately, the benefits accrued by grandmothers and children may come at a cost to the whole family if moth- ers are saddled with the larger burden of being

Coparenting in South and Southeast Asian Families 217

simultaneously a good mother, wife, and daughter- in-law (Sonuga-Barke & Mistry, 2000). Of course, this tension only creates problems when the role of the grandmother conflicts with the role of the mother. Indeed, when there were disagreements be- tween mothers and grandmothers, mothers are at a heightened risk for depression and anxiety (Sonuga- Barke & Mistry, 2000). The authors, Sonuga-Barke and Mistry, speculate that “mothers may lose a sense of agency and develop feelings of helplessness in the presence of overbearing and intrusive grandmothers with whom they disagree over child care” (p. 138). Therefore, it is important to underscore the influ- ence of the functional aspects of coparental networks on children’s cognitive and socioemotional develop- ment over and above the structural aspects of Asian families.

CONCLUSION

It is clear that within Asian families, the copar- enting construct is in fact important and relevant to the child’s development because mothers and fathers are both involved in parenting tasks rather than being divided in their roles in the family as nur- turer and breadwinner, respectively. The processes of “coparenting” defined as the degree to which par- ents support one another, certainly is a part of Asian family functioning. However, as argued extensively in this paper, the Western construct of coparenting in its current form, while relevant to Asian families, must be reconceptualized to entirely encapsulate the Asian family system. Specifically, extended family members as evidenced through the two studies of Indian and Vietnamese families, are not mere fig- ureheads or “babysitters,” but they are cocaregivers in the lives of Indian and Vietnamese children. As evidenced in the Indian family study, the subcultural variation between socioeconomic statuses plays a larger role in the determination of the coparental network. Also, the subcultural differences between Vietnamese immigrants also factors into whether rel- atives and/or nonfamilial friends are included into coparenting system.

The significance of extended family members and other informal childcare figures (such as neigh- bors) has been emphasized in numerous reports of parenting and role-sharing (Desai & Jain, 1994; Lu et al., 2000; Verma, 1995) in Asian cultures. These findings clearly highlight the inadequacy of concep- tualizing coparenting processes as a subset of mar-

ital relations. Assuming that the biological parents are the only essential coparenting figures in South and Southeast Asian families ignores the reality that there are multiple important caregivers functioning in the child’s everyday environment. Understanding subcultural variabilities in the composition of care- giving networks is crucial in accurately describing the functional complexities of coparenting systems within these cultures. It is also relevant in examining the influence and benefits of the larger coparenting network on the child’s developmental trajectory and parents’ mental health in Asian families.

We recommend that future coparenting studies with similar populations use observational measures as well as narrative reports to assess the division of caregiving responsibilities in such families. Further research is also needed to assess mothers’ and fa- thers’ ideological beliefs about cocaregiving in Asian families. This is particularly relevant in urban–middle class families, which are being increasingly influenced by westernization (Roopnarine & Hossain, 1992). It would be instructive to assess whether there looks to be a shift in such families from conventional cultural beliefs to more nontraditional views regarding family practices within the broader coparenting structure.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Work on this paper and the results reported herein was made possible in part by National Insti- tutes of Health grant supplement HD37172 awarded to James P. McHale, supporting the scholarly work of Easter Dawn Vo. The authors acknowledge the helpful comments of Dr McHale, Department of Psy- chology, University of South Florida, St. Petersburg; Dr Prerna Mohite, Department of Human Devel- opment and Family Studies, Maharaja Sayaaji Rao University, India; and Dr Neerja Sharma, Depart- ment of Child Development, Lady Irwin College, Delhi, on earlier drafts of this paper. The authors also thank the anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments.

REFERENCES

Astone, N. M., & McLanahan, S. (1991). Family structure, parental practices and high school completion. American Sociological Review, 56(3), 309–320.

Belsky, J., Crnic, K., & Gable, S. (1995). The development of coparenting in families with toddler boys: Spousal difficulties and daily hassles. Child Development, 66, 629–642.

218 Kurrien and Dawn Vo

Bharat, S. (1996). Family measurement in India. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Blair, S., Blair, M., & Madamba, A. (1999). Racial/ethnic differ- ences in high school students’ academic performance: Un- derstanding the interweave of social class and ethnicity in the family context. Journal of Comaparative Family Studies, 30(3), 539–555.

Brody, G., Flor, D., & Neubaum, E. (1998). Coparenting pro- cesses and child competence among rural African American families. In M. Lewis & C. Feiring (Eds.), Families, risk, and competence (pp. 227–243). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Chakrabatri, S., Biswas, D., Chattopadhyay, P. K., & Saha, S. (1998). Family size and emotional adjustment in India. Social Science International, 14(1–2), 11–18.

Chao, R., & Tseng, V. (2002). Parenting of Asians. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Social conditions and applied parenting (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Cooley, M. L., & Unger, D. G. (1991). The role of family support in determining developmental outcomes in children of teen mothers. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 21, 217– 234.

Cowan, C. P., & Cowan, P. A. (1992). When partners become parents: Thebig life cycle change for couples. New York: Basic Books.

Desai, S., & Jain, D. (1994). Maternal employment and changes in family dynamics: The social context of women’s work in rural South India. Population and Development Review, 20(1), 115– 136.

Deutsch, F. M., Lussier, J. B., & Servis, L. J. (1993). Husbands at home: Predictors of paternal participation in childcare and housework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(6), 1154–1166.

Frosch, C. A., & Mangelsdorf, S. C. (2000). Temperament and at- tachment: One construct or two. In R. Hayne (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (pp. 181–220). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Georgas, J., Mylonas, K., Bafiti, T., Poortinga, Y., Christakapoulou, S., Cigdem, K., et al. (2001). Functional relationships in the nuclear and extended family: A 16-culture study. International Journal of Psychology, 36(5), 289–300.

Hackett, L., & Hackett, R. (1993). Parental ideas of normal and deviant child behavior: A comparison of two ethnic groups. British Journal of Psychiatry, 32, 851–856.

Harkness, S., & Super, C. (1992). The cultural foundations of fathers’ roles: Evidence from Kenya and the United States. In B. S. Hewlett (Ed.), Father–child relations: Cultural and bioso- cial contexts (pp. 191–211). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Ho, D. (1987). Fatherhood in Chinese culture. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The father’s role: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 227– 245). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ishii-Kuntz, M. (1995). Paternal involvement and perception to- wards fathers’ roles. In W. Marsiglio (Ed.), Fatherhood: Con- temporary theory, research and social policy (pp. 102–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ishii-Kuntz, M. (2000). Diversity within Asian American families. In D. H. Demo, K. R. Allen, & M. A. Fine (Eds.). Handbook of family diversity (pp. 274–292). New York: Oxford Univer- sity Press.

Jankowiak, W. (1992). Father–child relations in urban china. In B. S. Hewlett (Ed.), Father–child relations: Cultural and bioso- cial contexts (pp. 345–363). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Katz, L., & Gottman, J. (1996). Spillover effects of marital con- flict: In search of parenting and coparenting mechanisms. In J. McHale & P. Cowan (Eds.), Understanding how family- level dynamics affect children’s development: Studies of two- parent families. New Directions for Child Development, 74, 57–76.

Kibria, N. (1993). Family tightrope: Thechanging lives of Viet- namese Americans. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Lamb, M. (1995). The changing roles of fathers. In J. L. Shapiro, M. J. Diamond, & M. Greenberg (Eds.), Becoming a father: Contemporary, social, developmental, and clinical perspectives (pp. 18–35). New York: Springer.

Lu, Z., Maume, D., & Bellas, M. (2000). Chinese husbands’ par- ticipation in household labor. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 31(2), 191–215.

McHale, J. (1995). Coparenting and triadic interactions during infancy: The roles of marital distress and child gender. De- velopmental Psychology, 31, 985–996.

McHale, J., Khazan, I., Rotman, T., DeCourcey, W., Erera, P., & McConnell, M. (2002). Coparenting in diverse family stories. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

McHale, J. P., Lauretti, A., Talbot, J., & Pouquette, C. (2002). Ret- rospect and prospect in the psychological study of coparenting and family group dynamics. In J. McHale & W. Grolnick (Eds.), Retrospect and prospect in thepsychological study of families. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Mirande, A. (1991). Ethnicity and fatherhood. In F. W. Bozett & S. Hanson (Eds.), Fatherhood and families in cultural context (pp. 53–82). New York: Springer.

Naug, K. (2000). Maternal social network in an urban slum and its impact on cognitive and social development in children. Journal of Personality and Clinical Studies, 16(1), 53–62.

Ramu, G. (1987). Indian husbands: Their role perceptions and performance in single and dual-earner families. Journal of Marriage and theFamily, 49, 903–915.

Rogoff, B., Mistry, J., Goncu, A., & Mosier, C. (1991). Cultural variation in the role relations of toddlers and their families. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Cultural approaches to parenting (pp. 173–183). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Roopnarine, J. L., Lu, M. W., & Ahmeduzzaman, M. (1989). Parental reports of early patterns of caregiving, play and discipline in India and Malaysia. Early Child Development and Care, 30, 109–120.

Roopnarine, J., & Hossain, Z. (1992). Parent-child interactions in urban Indian families: Are they changing? In J. Roopnarine & D. Carter (Eds.), Parent-child socialization in diverse cultures. New Jersey: Norwood.

Sekaran, U. (1992). Middle-class dual-earner families in urban India. In S. Lewis & D. Nundi (Eds.), Dual earner fami- lies: International perspectives (pp. 46–61). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Seymour, S. (1993). Sociocultural contexts: Examining sibling roles in South Asia. In C. W. Nuckolls (Ed.), Siblings in South Asia: Brothers and sisters in cultural context (pp. 45–69). New York: Guilford Press.

Seymour, S. (1999). Women, family and child care in India: world in transition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sharma, D. (2000). Children’s sociocultural and familial worlds: Pathways and risks through the demographic transition. In A. L. Comunian & U. P. Gielen (Eds.), International per- spectives on human development (pp. 195–210). Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Science.

Shon, S., & Ja, D. (1992). Asian families. In A. S. Skolnick & J. H. Skolnick (Eds.), Family in transition: Rethinking marriage, sexuality, child rearing, and family organization (pp. 472–490). New York: HarperCollins.

Sinha, D. (1996). Cross-cultural psychology: The Asian scenario. In J. Pandey & D. Sinha (Eds.), Asian contributions to cross- cultural psychology (pp. 20–41). Beverly Hils, CA: Sage.

Sonuga-Barke, E., & Mistry, M. (2000). The effect of extended family living on the mental health of three generations within two Asian communities. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39, 129–141.

Sriram, R., & Ganapathy, H. (1997). The unresolved dilemma: Child care options in agricultural contexts. Economic and Political Weekly, 32, 64–72.

Coparenting in South and Southeast Asian Families 219

Staples, R., & Mirande, A. (1980). Racial and cultural variations among American families: A decennial review of the litera- ture on minority families. Journal of Marriage and theFamily, 42(4), 887–903.

Sue, S., & Morishima, J. K. (1982). Themental health of Asian Americans. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Suppal, P., Roopnarine, J., Buesig, T., & Bennett, A. (1996). Ideological beliefs about family practices: Contemporary perspectives among North-Indian families. International Jour- nal of Psychology, 21(1), 29–37.

Verma, J. (1995). Transformation of women’s social roles in India. In J. Valsiner (Ed.), Comparative cultural and constructivist perspectives (pp. 138–163). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.

Woods, R. D. (1996). Grandmother roles: A cross cultural view. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 23(4), 286–292.

Yu, K. H., & Kim, L. (1983). The growth and development of Korean-American children (pp. 147–158). In G. Powell (Ed.), Thepsychosocial development of minority group chil- dren. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Yuen, E. C., & Lim, V. (1992). Dual-earner families in Singapore: Issues and challenges. In S. Lewis & D. Nundi (Eds.), Dual earner families: International perspectives (pp. 46–61). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Zhou, M., & Bankston, C. (1998). Growing up American: How Vietnamese children adapt to life in theUnited States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.