Abstract
The average size of the respondents’ entourage at the time of the survey is seven to eight people. Based on the three indicators – emotional closeness, geographical distance and frequency of contact – the involvement of the cohorts aged 50–70 in the family network still appears strong, even though inter-generational ties have changed significantly in recent decades. Indeed, although the cohorts studied in the survey initiated new family behaviour (non-marital cohabitation, divorce, etc.), the majority have developed different relationships within the family in their mature years. However, these changes should not overshadow the continuity of family ties nor the breakdowns that have occurred in some families. The concept of entourage (family circle) gives a broader view of family relationships than the mere functions of provider of services and money.
This article was originally published in Retraite et sociétés in “Les Nouvelles données démographiques”, 2005, 45, pp. 44–69.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
In 1982 H. Le Bras showed that a 20-year-old had two grandparents on average, compared with only 0.14 in the eighteenth century (Le Bras and Roussel 1982).
- 2.
Proches et parents survey (Close circle and parents), see Bonvalet et al. 1993.
- 3.
Échanges au sein de la parentèle et des ménages complexes survey (Exchanges within the kinship and complex households), see Crenner 1998.
- 4.
Trois générations survey (Three generations), see Attias-Donfut 1995.
- 5.
Which does not mean that these respondents all grew up in a nuclear family; other people (grandparents, uncles, aunts, etc.) may have co-resided in the household.
- 6.
Some 36.9 % had lost their father and 36.3 % had lost both parents, making a total of 73.2 %.
- 7.
The respondents’ parents, adoptive parents, individuals who played a parental role, siblings, current partner and former partners, partners’ parents, children and partners’ children. Grandchildren are excluded from the calculations.
- 8.
The interviewers were instructed to specify that contact could be by telephone, in writing or by other means. We therefore do not know whether contact was face-to-face or not. The open questions were coded ex-post to prevent respondents from standardizing their responses by conforming to the analysis categories.
- 9.
Consequently, in our analysis, the frequency of contact with the mother was used for respondents who reported a different relationship with their father and mother (approximately 50 respondents).
- 10.
When the respondent has a large entourage, the probability that he/she is the child in most frequent contact with the parents is lower than when the respondent has a small entourage.
- 11.
Co-residence, i.e. when the respondent lives under the same roof as his/her father or mother, is rare; it concerns 2.4 % of living parents. In most of these cases, the parent (usually the mother) no longer has a partner. Respondents who co-reside with their parent(s) may accommodate them or be accommodated by them, and in 60 % of cases are themselves separated or widowed. An over-representation of manual workers skews the results, both in terms of the respondents (28 % of co-resident respondents were manual workers) and parents (47 % of fathers or partners of co-resident mothers were manual workers). The proportions appear to be smaller for the total population.
- 12.
They represent three-quarters of the sample.
References
Attias-Donfut, C. (Ed.). (1995). Les solidarités entre générations: vieillesse, familles, État. Paris: Nathan.
Attias-Donfut, C. (1996). Les solidarités centre générations. In Données sociales (pp. 317–323). Paris: INSEE
Attias-Donfut, C., & Segalen, M. (1998). Grands-parents: la famille à travers les générations. Paris: Odile Jacob.
Attias-Donfut, O., Segalen, M., & Lapierre, N. (2002). Le nouvel esprit de famille. Paris: Odile Jacob.
Bengtson, V. L., & Roberts, R. E. L. (1991). Intergenerational solidarity in aging families: An example of formal theory construction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 856–870.
Bengtson, V. L., Olander, E. B., & Haddad, A. A. (1976). The ‘génération gap’ and aging family members: Toward a conceptual model. In J. F. Cubrium (Ed.), Time, roles and self in old age. New York: Human Sciences Press.
Bertaux-Wiame, I. (2007). Work, home and family: An analysis of several residential configurations of persons with independent occupations. In C. Bonvalet, A. Gotman, & Y. Grafmeyer (Eds.), Family, kinship and place in France (pp. 181–202). London: Southern Universities Press.
Bidart, C. (1988). Sociabilités : quelques variables. Revue française de sociologie, 29, 621–648.
Bonvalet, C. (1991). La famille et le marché du logement : une logique cachée ? In M. Segalen (Ed.), Jeux de familles (pp. 57–77). Paris: CNRS Éditions.
Bonvalet, C. (2003). The local family circle. Population, English Edition, 58(1), 9–42.
Bonvalet, C., & Lelièvre, É. (1995). Du concept de ménage à celui d’entourage : une redéfinition de l’espace familial. Sociologie et societes, 27(2), 177–190.
Bonvalet, C., & Lelièvre, É. (2005). Les lieux de la famille. Espaces et sociétés, La famille dans tous ses espaces, 1–2(2005), 99–122.
Bonvalet, C., & Maison, D. (2007). The family circle: Spatial proximity and personal affinity. In C. Bonvalet, A. Gotman, & Y. Grafmeyer (Eds.), Family, kinship and place in France (pp. 27–68). London: Southern Universities Press.
Bonvalet, C., Maison, D., Le Bras, H., & Charles, L. (1993). Proches et parents. Population, 48(1), 83–110.
Coenen-Hutter, J., Kellerhals, J., & Von Allmen, M. (1994). Les réseaux de solidarité dans la famille. Lausanne: Éditions Réalités sociales.
Collectif. (1975). Finie la famille ? Traditions et nouveaux rôles (n°3, 191 p.). Paris: Autrement.
Cooper, D. (1970). The death of the family. New York: Pantheon Books. 145 p.
Crenner, E. (1998). La parenté : un réseau de sociabilité actif mais concentré. Insee Première, 600.
de Singly, F. (1993). Comment définir la famille contemporaine ? Études statistiques, 4, 31–39.
de Singly, F. (1994). Sociologie de la famille contemporaine. Paris: Nathan.
Delbès, C., & Gaymu, J. (2003). More unions surviving after 60? Population and Societies, INED, 389.
Désesquelles, A., & Brouard, N. (2003). The family networks of people aged 60 and over living at home or in an institution. Population, 58(2), 181–206.
Forsé, M. (1993). La fréquence des relations de sociabilité : typologie et évolutions. L’Année sociologique, 43, 189–212.
Gokalp, C. (1978). Le réseau familial. Population, 33(6), 1077–1094.
Gotman, A. (2007). Family geographies, migrations and generations. In C. Bonvalet, A. Gotman, & Y. Grafmeyer (Eds.), Family, kinship and place in France (pp. 69–133). London: Southern Universities Press.
Grafmeyer, Y. (1991). Habiter Lyon. Milieux et quartiers du centre-ville. Paris/Lyon: Éditions du CNRS/Presses universitaires de Lyon/PPSH.
Guillemard, A.-M. (Ed.). (1991). La retraite en mutation, rapport Centre d’étude des mouvements sociaux. Paris: FEN.
Hammer, R., Burton-Jeangros, C., & Kellerhals, J. (2001). Le lien de parenté dans les Jeunes générations suisses : lignées, structure et fonctions. Population, 56(4), 515–537.
Héran, F. (1988). La sociabilité, une pratique culturelle. Économie et Statistique, 216, 3–22.
Imbert, C. (2005). Ancrage et proximités familiales dans les villes nouvelles franciliennes : une approche comparative. Espaces et sociétés, 119, 159–176.
Le Bras, H., & Roussel, L. (1982). Retard ou refus du mariage : l’évolution récente de la première nuptialité en France et sa prévision. Population, 37(6), 1009–1044.
Lelièvre, É., & Imbert, C. (2003). L’entourage des Franciliens de 50 à 70 ans s’étend au-delà des limites de la région. In laurif, Atlas des Franciliens (Vol. 3, pp. 44–45). Paris, INSEE.
Lelièvre, É., & Vivier, G. (2001). Évaluation d’une collecte à la croisée du quantitatif et du qualitatif, l’enquête Biographies et entourage. Population, 56(6), 1043–1074.
Lelièvre, É., Bonvalet, C., & Bry, X. (1998). Event history analysis of groups. The findings of an on-going research project. Population, an English Selection, 10(1), 11–37.
Monnier, A., & Pennec, S. (2003). Three per cent of under-21s are parentless in France. Population and Societies, INED, 396.
Roussel, L. (1976). La famille après le mariage des enfants : les relations entre générations. Population, 31(6), 1195–1206.
Young, M., & Willmott, P. (1957). Family and kinship in East London. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bonvalet, C., Lelièvre, É. (2016). Family Relationships of Older People. In: Bonvalet, C., Lelièvre, E. (eds) Family Beyond Household and Kin. INED Population Studies. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24684-0_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24684-0_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-24682-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-24684-0
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)