The Nuclear Family Reconsidered, A Little Too Late?

NPR’s Michel Martin hosted an interesting story today titled “Enjoying an ‘Empty Nest’? Not So Fast,” that overviewed the growing number of young adults who are moving back in with their parents due to the recession, and the negative stigma that family model carries throughout most parts of the United States.

Not that the recession is insignificant in Hawaii. In fact, it’s been quite harmful. Still, I’ve always thought that some families in Hawaii might have an easier time coping with the recession since it’s far more socially acceptable for extended families to live together here, thereby allowing groups to share expenses and other possible burdens.

Of course during the 19th and 20th centuries, it wasn’t so simple. Capitalists and missionaries worked in tandem (sometimes unknowingly) to divide the extended family, forcing indigenous parents and their immediate children to live in solitude on privatized property, segregated from grandparents, aunties, uncles, cousins, and so on. Laws were even established and enforced that made it impossible for women to leave, let alone divorce, abusive husbands (Merry, 1999).

These forced changes in family dynamics and other colonial impositions notwithstanding, the preponderance of diverse Pacific Islander and Asian settler groups, along with the indigenous population, have kept the idea of an extended family living under one roof alive.

Said one of Martin’s guests, describing the present context in most of the continental U.S. that is causing the nuclear family to "break down" (not her words):

…for a lot of young people, they’re burdened with college debt. The cost of getting your first home is very high, so we’ve actually seen since the 1970s there’s actually been a 50% increase in the number of people…from 18 to their early 30s living with their parents, and so now we have a recession layered on top of that, where we have all these job losses. We’ve lost more than 5 million jobs since this recession began. So you put an existing trend together with the recession, and you’ve got a lot of this…. And then you layer in foreclosures, last year we had more than 3 million foreclosures…

While listening to Martin and her guests, I couldn’t help but think that the western emphasis on a nuclear family is hardly a majority perspective across the globe. Finally, Martin chimed in by saying:

You know, in much of the world this is not considered unusual. In fact our style is considered unusual. It’s considered customary for much of the world to live in intergenerational households until a child gets married off and even after a child gets married…

There's a ton more to unpack regarding Hawaii's colonial history, but sticking to this immediate issue, it kind of makes you wonder, who had it right from the start.

Merry, S.E. (1999). Colonizing Hawaii: The Cultural Power of Law. Princeton Univ Press.

Sac Town, Growing Homelessness, and Potential Intimate Partner Violence

I remember reading John Steinbeck’s novel, The Grapes of Wrath, way back in high school. I hadn’t thought of it in years, but with the economic crisis incessantly hovering in my mind and impacting people’s lives, well, one gets to thinking. Then I saw this story on the rising tent cities spurting up in Sacramento, California. From Richard Gonzales’s story over on NPR:

The tent city, spread over an area the size of several football fields, has local officials scrambling over how to handle the area's homeless crisis.

More than a year ago, a handful of homeless people staked out the site on the northern edge of downtown Sacramento. Now there are more than 100 tents and anywhere between 300 to 400 people living without running water or sanitation. Their only protection from the elements is nylon tents and plastic tarps.

The piece goes on to tell the story of a laid off welder from Colorado who moved west looking for work.

Months went by without work. Cutch lost his house, his car was stolen, his savings ran out. This past August, he took up a friend's invitation to come to California, but that didn't work out, either.

Growing unemployment, moving west, looking for work that isn’t there – sound familiar to the 1930s?

So while Sacramento gears up for a St. Patrick’s Day Parade, the musical lyrics of rap star Lil’ Wayne, and the colliding gloves of mixed martial arts hometown star Nick Diaz, a significant homeless population of “anywhere between 300 to 400 people (is) living without running water or sanitation. Their only protection from the elements is nylon tents and plastic tarps.”

During a time when people are supposedly cutting back on luxury items and entertainment, all I can say is I hope these events will offer a SIGNFICANT portion of their revenue to addressing this and other local social problems.

On a broader level, as tent cities mushroom nation-wide, systems and services will need to be established that cater to the homeless’ social needs. Granted, state monies are scant. However, if accessible shelters for victims are not made available, unseen and under-reported victimization, in particular to women, will rise as fast as the tent cities.

Those who think excessive levels of intimate partner violence are limited to developing countries and only stand as exceptions in the U.S. (Rihanna-Chris Brown) need only look at Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath for a reality check. The fact is, rapid displacement, poverty, isolation and a lack of services skyrocket women’s victimization, even within our borders.

From the Clarion Ledger (thanks to Poverty in America for the heads up), noting a study conducted from 2006-07:

Women living in emergency trailer parks in Mississippi after Hurricane Katrina were three times more likely to become victims of domestic or sexual violence than they were prior to the storm, according to a new study published by the American Medical Association.

Dr. Lynn Lawry, the lead author of the report published Monday in the journal Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, said the level of violence found in the survey is comparable to similar studies performed in camps for displaced people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone and other war-torn countries.

Let’s read that again: “…the level of violence found in the survey is comparable to similar studies performed in camps for displaced people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone and other war-torn countries.” Prevention needs to start, right now.

***************
Update from Sacramento's ABC affiliate (thanks Ta'aca for the heads up)...

Looks like tensions are emerging as the city and homeless residents attempt to tease out what is best for this situation. From the television news story:

"I don't like having a third world country inside the city," said Mayor Kevin Johnson.

Johnson wants to close the homeless camp and possibly open a city-sanctioned homeless safe zone with running water and toilets.

"We can't ignore our homeless. We have a moral obligation to help," said Johnson.

But tent city residents don't want to move. One resident resorted to violence and attacked a News10 cameraman covering the story on Wednesday. No one was hurt.

"Where are we supposed to go?" said tent city resident Luis.

(Photo courtesy of NPR).

Will Racial Stereotypes in the Media Intensify as Recession Worsens?

So a good friend of mine suggested I watch American Movie Classic’s (AMC) original drama series, Breaking Bad, which airs every Sunday night. Season one already concluded, but season two just began this past Sunday (3/8/2009). “About the Show” from the AMC website:

Breaking Bad follows protagonist Walter White (Bryan Cranston), a chemistry teacher who lives in New Mexico with his wife (Anna Gunn) and teenage son (RJ Mitte) who has cerebral palsy. White is diagnosed with Stage III cancer and given a prognosis of two years left to live. With a new sense of fearlessness based on his medical prognosis, and a desire to secure his family's financial security, White chooses to enter a dangerous world of drugs and crime and ascends to power in this world. The series explores how a fatal diagnosis such as White's releases a typical man from the daily concerns and constraints of normal society and follows his transformation from mild family man to a kingpin of the drug trade.

In addition to the above description, the drama highlights the fact that White’s annual salary as a school teacher only stands at about $43,000. Moreover, his wife is pregnant, meaning heavier expenses are on the way, and to add more complex, engaging plot twists, his brother in law is a DEA agent. Ahh, a perfect storm of engaging drama!

It should also be noted that the specific drug market he enters is the volatile world of crystal methamphetamine trafficking, and as a producer of this highly addictive substance, his chemistry background is crucial. He even enlists a former chemistry student of his, “Jesse,” to help him in his budding entrepreneurial business.

Having only seen one episode myself, White (played by actor Bryan Cranston) appears the very sympathetic character who has altruistic justification for entering the drug market – providing for his family in the wake of financial and physical despair. And perhaps his last name is no coincidence – White.

White lives in a peaceful suburban New Mexico town and lived a model citizen before falling victim to his physical ailment, his mortgage, the future cost of his son attending college, a baby on the way, and a fairly limited salary. His financial anxieties resonate immensely with the current unease America (and much of the world) feels, furthering our tendency to sympathize with his character.

On the other side of the drug market is the seller, named “Tuco,” who purchases White’s products. Tuco, not surprisingly, is Mexican and extraordinarily violent. From AMC's recap of Season Two, episode one:

After buying meth from Walt at an auto junkyard, Tuco violently attacks No-Doze for presuming to speak for him. Afterwards, he drives away, leaving Walt and Jesse to ponder the danger of their situation. “$737,000,” Walt says, estimating how much he’ll need to provide for his family’s future. In other words: “Eleven more drug deals.”

Moments later Tuco roars back to the junkyard, ordering Walt to perform CPR on an unconscious No-Doze – who dies as a result of the brutal attack. Gonzo, Tuco's other henchman, says they should give his buddy a proper burial, but Tuco orders him to stash the body underneath a stack of old cars.

…

Jesse is outside his house. "What the hell are you doing here?" Walt says as he approaches Jesse’s car. Then he realizes Tuco is crouched in the back seat with a handgun.

"Get in," Tuco orders.

Visually, Tuco’s attack on No-Doze is indeed extremely violent, rendering his character, as an antagonist to White, very easy to despise. Whereas White is “forced” to enter the crystal meth trade due to his financial crunch and to provide for his family, Tuco is quite simply cast as a viciously sadistic, self-centered dealer, oh, who just happens to be Mexican (I would guess Chicano). At worst, White engages in deviant behaviors, and some might even define his actions as noble.

Conversely, the Mexican Tuco is straight up criminal. The racialized portrayals in Breaking Bad could not play off one another more blatantly. Not that these racist characterizations are anything new (ever see the movie Training Day?), but it is important to keep a pulse on how media-based racism interplays with our ongoing economic woes.

The reality is that most men and women, irrespective of race, who enter the underground economy at the lower levels, including the drug market, do so for the same reasons as Walter White. Philippe Bourgois’s classic ethnography, In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio, vividly illustrates the financial constraints people of color encounter before turning to the underground economy as a means to survive, that are very much in line with Walter White’s situation in Breaking Bad.

We just wouldn’t know it based off what we see on TV.

(Photos courtesy of AMCTV.com)

Economic Insecurity, Male Mental Health, and Violence

One can almost feel Emile Durkheim’s supernatural presence in this story on Reuters.com, “Economic gloom hits men harder than women: study.” Actually I’ve seen conflicting reports on whether the current economic crisis is generating greater job losses among men or women. One NPR story indicates that in the U.S. “Eight out of 10 layoffs in the past year have affected men…”

This story, on the other hand, states that over in the United Kingdom, more women than men have recently lost their jobs. Okay, that’s not really the point, but I would like to know the accurate trends. I can’t imagine they would differ so much based on these locales. Moving on.

As the authors of the Reuters story indicate, men’s attachment to work defines their identities much more so than women. Hence, the sociological fallout of an increasingly shaky economy can be seen in men’s mental health, or lack thereof.

As the economic slowdown wears on, the effects of job insecurity will take a greater toll on men's health than that of their female counterparts, the study found.

"In part there is a macho issue about men being the breadwinner," said Dr Brendan Burchell from the University of Cambridge's sociology department, who compiled the study.

"Men, unlike women, have few positive ways of defining themselves outside of the workplace between when they leave school and when they retire."

Ah, the rigid boundaries of hegemonic masculinity. The “perfect” male = rich, employed, educated, big, strong, desired, computer savvy, white ... you get the picture. And when one of the key components of this hegemonic masculine ideal fades away or appears likely to fade away, it’s time to panic. For those men who place heavy personal emphasis on occupational success/failure, looming unemployment can really fiddle with their sensibilities.

And it’s not just about having or not having a job at present time. It’s also about the ongoing uncertainty of losing a job. The anxious mental state that tends to accompany occupational ambiguity, even in times of employment, have significantly different effects on men and women.

The study cited a Populus poll released earlier this year which showed that women, more than men, say they are worried about the possibility of losing their jobs.

But the Cambridge study found that while men may put on a braver face, job insecurity causes more symptoms of anxiety and depression in men than in women.
Analyzing data from 300 current British employees, combined with a survey of thousands of people by the Economic and Social Research Council charting the effects of social and economic change since 1991, it found that when unemployed men move into insecure jobs, they showed no improvement in psychological health.

For unemployed women, even finding an insecure job helped to restore psychological health.

Very interesting commentary regarding the public nature of men not wanting to show they were worried, and therefore putting on the “braver face.” Gender is largely performed. But when it comes down to it, occupational instability still had more deleterious effects on men’s mental health than women’s.

Additional commentary needs to address how too many men, after becoming unemployed, feel the need to reassert their sense of masculinity through violence. Furthermore, as this Orlando Sentinel story explains, during economic slumps, it is substantially more difficult for women to exit violent relationships.

First, escalating unemployment and foreclosure rates add an extra strain on relationships that already may be volatile. One of the leading risk factors for violence, according to national research, is whether the batterer is jobless.

Second, once victims do make the decision to leave their abuser, they often can't find a job so they can move out of the shelter and start a new life.

And, third, donations for domestic-violence programs are down, leaving shelters with fewer resources to help their rising caseloads.

Of course in low-income, developing countries, the multiple layers of gender stratification are that much more severe, and unfortunately, we can expect to see intimate partner violence escalate even more so in those areas if preventative actions are not soon implemented.

Gluttonous Sports Teams Now "Hurting" for Cash

So now the Cowboys, Yankees, and Mets are hurting for spectators to roll in and dish up exorbitant amounts of money to watch games. And I use the word "games" deliberately. Hey, I'm as big a sports fan as many, but let's remember, they're just games. Well, games that are apparently worth more than most people's monthly mortgages. From the Wall St. Journal describing the lavish new Yankees Stadium (kudos to ESPN Sports Radio host, Colin Cowherd):

Luxury suite-holders can access a separate deal-room for conducting business. In the sleek, exclusive "Legends Club," the high-definition screens are so ubiquitous they're even set into the lavatory mirrors. For spectators in the premium section's teak-armed seats, waiters will bring brick-oven pizza to anyone able to shell out $2,500 a ticket to watch a ballgame in the midst of the worst recession in a generation.

The story mentions that the Yankees' stadium cost $1.5 billion to build. And they're not the only sports team "hurting" for business because they spent big a few years back. The Dallas Cowboys' new stadium set them back $1.1 billion, and the New York Mets also built a new stadium that exceeded the $1 billion mark.

How does the Cowboys' stadium compare for those who live the lifestyles of the rich and famous?

Top-level ticket holders can actually park inside the stadium building, then relax in the more than 200,000 square feet of clubs and lounges.

And why spend so liberally on such excessive perks?

When the Yankees broke ground on the new Yankee Stadium in August 2006, home prices were still rising, stocks were still climbing and Lehman Brothers was still a pillar of the Wall Street establishment. Back then, selling 4,300 premium seats to 81 home games a season seemed like a reasonable objective.

Look, I don't care if business was booming in 2006. Luxury tickets at $2,500 a pop are never warranted, for anyone. Can someone please say social stratification … and social indifference?

In an ironic turn of events, the Mets' stadium has been named "Citi Field," after you guessed it, Citigroup (dare I say a now deviant association).

Citigroup, which has received billions of dollars of federal aid, has been forced to defend its $400 million marketing deal with the Mets that includes the right to name the park Citi Field. The Mets have endured weeks of jokes about renaming their field "Taxpayer Stadium" or "Bailout Park," but the deal with Citigroup looks safe for now. A Citigroup spokesman says no taxpayer money will be used for the marketing deal.

One Yankees fan summed up the team's economic gluttony best, saying, "Literally, my words were, 'Are you f- kidding me?'"

Ditto that.

(Photo courtesy of The Wall St. Journal)

Shouldn't We All Be So Lucky?

So when a company gets so powerful that it can literally leverage the U.S. government into bailing it out, don't we have problems? From Reuters.com:

American International Group Inc had warned of turmoil around the globe if the government allowed the insurer to fail when it appealed to U.S. regulators for its latest rescue...

AIG needed immediate help from the Federal Reserve and Treasury to prevent a "catastrophic" collapse that would be worse for markets than the demise of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc, according to the 21-page draft AIG presentation circulated among federal and state regulators, the agency reported...

AIG warned its failure could cripple money-market funds, force European banks to raise capital, cause competing life insurers to fail and wipe out the taxpayers' stake in the firm, the agency said.

I'm no economist, but couldn't demographers and financial wizards who track the country's fiscal health see this coming? Prevention, as opposed to intervention, anyone?

And while the global implications of not bailing AIG out may have been catastrophic, it's not as if our country dishing out more money to save companies does not have deleterious ramifications in its own right.

Borrowing so much money from China puts us in quite the subservient position. Our national debt as a whole, and specifically that to China, has mushroomed to such an extent that we don't have the power to call them on their own human rights violations.

Ugh, I've written enough on this already. It's too early on a Monday morning to gripe about this anymore right now.