Unit 4: Family and Kinship in the Caribbean Overview In this unit we look at family and kinship in the Caribbean.

This area of Caribbean life is as peculiar as the regions culture. We will look at various family forms and their impact on kinship ties. Unit looks at the different family forms in the region to ascertain the influence of retention by the various diasporic groups. Unit two examines the kinship ties in the region and offers an anthropological look at this phenomenon by drawing on the works of MG Smith, RT Smith and M Herskovits. These are anthropological theorists who have done considerable work in the Caribbean. Unit three takes a gendered approach in examining family and kinship in the region. The different role expectations by society of the male and female very much affect the construction of masculinity and femininity. The increasing marginalization of males in Caribbean society is also explored. Structure Session 4.1 Caribbean family forms: African retention or plantation society influence? Session 4.2 Kinship ties in the Caribbean Session 4.4 Caribbean Masculinity and Femininity: Gender in the Caribbean

Unit Objectives At the end of this unit you should be able to: 1. Articulate your understanding of kinship patterns in the Caribbean 2. Explain the different family forms in the region and the reasons for their existence 3. Examine the main issues that are responsible for the increasing proportions of matrifocal family forms in the Caribbean 4. Explain the dialectical arguments given for male marginalization in the region

5. Discuss the main gender issues in the region

6. Readings

Barrow, C. (Ed.) (1996). Family in the Caribbean: Themes and perspectives. Kingston: Ian Randle Publishers. Branche, C. (1995). Men in conflict: Community, gender, identity and sex. In Gender and the Family in the Caribbean, Bailey, W. (ed) (pp. 185-201). Institute of Social and Economic Research, Mona. UWI.

Clarke, E. (1970). My mother who fathered me. London: George Allen Press. Barrow, C., and Reddock, C. (2001).Caribbean sociology: Introductory readings. Kingston: Ian Randle Publishers. Smith, R.T. (1990). Kingship and class in the West Indies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Social and Economic Studies, Vol. 55, No. 4, Dec. 2006.

Introduction
Kinship in the Caribbean is unique and reflects the social development of the region. Many misinterpretations of Caribbean family forms exist alongside misconceptions of the cultural nature and impact of these institutions. Theorists such as M.G. Smith, R.T. Smith and Barrow and Reddock have cited this problem with the literature on Caribbean family patterns and subsequent explanations given for their characteristics. Theorists who write from within the Caribbean and/or are products of its environment have the legacy of cultural interaction and social knowledge to interrogate the different cultural manifestations of Caribbean family kinship and forms. The complex cultural contours of the region have endowed it with social patterns of consanguenal and affinal relationships that are evident in the regions kinship ties and family types. The establishment of family forms that are representative of the Diasporic nature of the Caribbean affects the type of kinship patterns that developed in the region. How, as a people we view and establish our own institutions of family and marriage can be answered historically as well as socially. There are various types of Caribbean family forms. The emergence of the different types was largely due to historical influences that shape Caribbean civilization. Caribbean society has grown into a cosmopolitan mixture of different races and ethnic groups that construct their reality in the Caribbean. This mixture has resulted in a unique social system; plural, polarized, politicised, problematic, but still some what plantation society. This has impacted the type of family units that emerged in the region. The roles expectations by Caribbean society of mother and father coupled with the different socialization of boys and girls have influenced the many structural ways in which families are built and maintained in the Caribbean. This also affects issues related to gender construction in the family. The ever increasing proportion of matrifocal and common law unions are products of history as well as other social trends that are both 3

local and international in scope. Some data on these two family forms for Jamaica will be examined. Male marginalization and the many reasons given for its increase among Caribbean males will also be interrogated. The Indian family forms and kinship ties in the region will also be examined within the context of continued retention and cultural pluralism.

Session 4.1: Caribbean family forms: African retention or plantation society influence? Learning Objectives By the end of the session you will be able to: 1. Identify and explain the different family forms in the Caribbean. 2. Explain the African retention arguments of Melville Herskovits for the existence of the different family forms in the Caribbean. 3. Explain the plantation society arguments of Franklin Frazer, RT Smith and others for the existence of certain family forms in the region. Introduction This session will discuss and present explanations for the existence of the many different family forms in the Caribbean. The two main arguments, African retention and plantation society, as well as the arguments of the theorists involved, will form the basis for our discussion.

Family forms in the Caribbean A family can be defined as a social unit of common residence involving two adults who are in a sexual relationship. Children of either of the adults, from both, or who have been adopted also form part of this family unit. The most popular family forms in the Caribbean are: The family based on common-law union (consensual cohabitation) The nuclear family The family based on a visiting union (extra-residential) The matrifocal family The extended family horizontally and vertically The East Indian family

Other family types are sibling families due largely to migration of parents, and grandparent-headed families. What are the reasons for the existence of the various family forms in the region? Some theorists such as Melville Herskovits (1958) attribute the prevalence of certain types of Caribbean family forms to African society and some of the social institutions and social dynamics of those societies. He noted that:
It goes without saying that the plantation system rendered the survival of African family types impossible, as it did their underlying moral and supernatural sanctions, except in dilute forms. Only where negroes escaped soon after the beginning of their enslavement, and retained their freedom for sufficiently long periods, could institutions of larger scope such as the extended family or the clan persist at all; and even in these situations the mere break-up in personnel made it unlikely that some manifestation of European influence should not be feltYet, on the other

hand, slavery by no means completely suppressed rough approximations of certain forms of African family life. Even in the United States, where Africanisms persisted with greatest difficulty, such family organization as existed during slave times in terms of the relationship between parents and children, and between parents themselves, did not lack African sanctions. Certain obligations of parents to children operative in Africa no less than the European scene, were carried over with all the drives of their emotional content intact. (p. 139)

Although the beginning and ending of the above statement seem contracdictory, Herskovits is trying to link some of the cultural behaviour of the African family in the New World to some African retentions and survivals. He went on to note that the relationship between wife and husband in the New World, which presents certain challenges, cannot be resolved by solutions that bear no historical reference to patterns of life in pre-slavery African society. The origin of African families in the Caribbean should be part of the discussion on behaviours and structures of families in the region. To this end, Frazier and Herskovits views conflate in the discussion on common law unions and their origin. Common Law Unions The reference by Herskovits to a study done by S.C. Johnson in 1945 in Macon county, Georgia in the United States is of cultural relevance to the Caribbean region regarding the emergence and continued existence of common law unions. Johnson noted:
Children of common-law relationships are not illegitimate, from the point of view of the community or of their stability, for many of these unions are as stable as legally sanctioned unions. They hold together for twenty or thirty years, in some cases, and lack only the sense of guilt. Again, there are competent self-sufficient women who not only desire children but need them as later aids in the struggle for survival when their strength begins to wane, but who want neither the restriction of formal marriage nor the constant association with a husband. They get their children not so much through weakness as through their own deliberate selection of a father. (Herskovits 1990, p.171)

This description of common law union has resonance with the work of Edith Clarke (1957), M G Smith (1965) and R.T. Smith (1990) [1988]. Herskovits concluded from Johnsons research that:

the common-law relationship is merely a phrase for the recognition of the fact that matings not legally sanctioned may achieve enough stability to receive equal recognition with regularly performed marriages. In Africa and the West Indies where Africanisms persist, marriage is not a matter requiring approval of the state or of any religious body. Only consent of the families concerned is needed, while marriage rites depart from the secular only to the extent that they are directed toward obtaining the benevolent oversight of the ancestors.

(p.171)

This argument was supported by R.T. Smith in his study, the Negro Family in Guiana. He pointed out that the family forms were somewhat diachronic due to the various changes they had experienced over time. Women entered into visiting relationships at an early age, and eventually ended in residential units after the birth of children and depending on the mans improving economic situation, greater maturity and the restiveness of the females parents. For Smith, the transition from common-law union to marriage was considered somewhat meaningless from the perspective of village family relationships. It made no difference to the status of the male or the rights and responsibilities between the couples. M.G. Smith, while agreeing with part of Herskovits argument, went even further to show the influence of African origin and plantation society on the mating patterns of slaves in the 1820s.
In the areas of their origin, permanent mating relationships were established for spouses by their kinship or lineage groups, which vary in type and constitution from one tribe to another, as do the ceremonial procedures and exchange of property by virtue of which marriage is completed. It is obvious that such a heterogeneous collection of individuals, shipped to slavery in the West Indies, would be unable to develop common procedures for establishing marriage since they would lack the lineage and kinship groupings by which the union was sanctioned and given permanence, the spouses controlled, and into which the off-springs were incorporated in fixed descent lines. (p.108)

Smith went on to discuss how the role of the father toward his children varied widely from that of the free section of West Indian society. He noted how some took great pride in their children and tended to their needs. The prevalence of this practice by the patrilineal Ibo tribe was also noted.

Smith, Herskovits and other writers on Caribbean family pointed to the complexity in attributing the origins of Caribbean family forms to a limited topography. Both Africa and the Caribbean influenced the nature of Caribbean family forms. The meanings given to terms such as marriage and family also have environmental and cultural significance which should not be overlooked within the Caribbean context. Different social groupings attached different meanings to socially derived words representing marriage and family. Edith Clarke (1970) [1957] and Christine Barrow (1999) show the reality of how different social classes identify with and attribute meaning to these socially derived institutions. Barrow (p. 10) discussed the futile attempt by Lady Huggins in 1944-5 to marry off consensually cohabitating couples in Jamaica. She noted that above all, the campaign was based on the erroneous notion that because the elite and lower classes employed a single word, marriage, to denote a particular conjugal union, this had identical or similar meanings, value and significance among these social strata. We now know that this view is only superficially correct. (p.10) The plantation society seems to have the greatest influence on the different types of family units prevalent in the Caribbean and many Caribbean theorists attribute the emergence of the various family forms to the plantation system of slavery and its attendant objectives as well as other socio-economic factors. Visiting Unions Using cultural retention arguments, Herskovits (1992) [1941], attributes the promiscuity of Afro-Caribbean males as well as the family based on visiting union to African retention. He posits that due to the prevalence of polygyny in African society where the slaves came from, this retention in the Caribbean transforms itself into a progressive monogamy, in which a single male would have a number of nuclear family units. In these units, he is the male spouse and father of children in those families now headed by a single female. This argument was rebutted by Frazier who showed that the polygamy that was practiced in African society was institutionalized. The father in each polygamous unit was committed to all his wives and children and they generally lived in the same location. This is different from the family unit based on visiting union in which the

fathers were very marginal to each family unit, and the units were sometimes spread over wide geographical areas. Rubenstein, quoted in Barrow (1999), noted some of the characteristics of extra-residential mating from his research in a peasant community called Leeward Village in St Vincent: Most extra-residential unions are short-lived while some last for several years. They can be terminated when either party wishes to do so. Being non-legal and not involving any material obligation associated with it, it appeals to males in the lower class. They permit sexual gratification and the gaining of prestige (if a number of partners are involved simultaneously or consecutively) without the need to enter a legal or consensual union in which the economic expectations may be difficult or impossible to meet. Various types of behaviours are expected; i) some women regularly wash and cook for their non-resident boyfriend while others never do so; ii) some unions are very intimate, while others are formal and confined to sexual release. Some unions involve constant visits between households, while others are based on brief encounters in desired spots or in the home of a third party. Some units require considerable economic assistance from the male, while others are characterized by small or infrequent gifts. There is a measure of male sexual exclusiveness in certain unions. Some unions show promise of being a prelude to marriage, while others are simply fleeting affairs soon to be terminated. (Barrow, 1999, p. 86). The acknowledgement that contemporary Caribbean society is witnessing an increasing number of women exercising their choice in preference for a visiting relationship, that is

child bearing, is worth mentioning. With the increased economic independence of some women, due largely to increased levels of education and labour force participation, a resident male in their conjugal relationship becomes marginal. Matrifocal Union The emergence and functioning of African slave families was inimical to the objectives of the plantation. Family units of the slaves were very often broken up and males were often sold to other plantations far away while the mother and her child was left to survive as a unit. This would no doubt contribute to the emergence of matrifocal families as well as visiting unions. There are other factors, however, which contributed to matrifocality in the contemporary Caribbean. These include migration, imprisonment of males, crime, and male marginalization. On the issue of male marginalization; the male on the plantation could not own property and had no family rights. Hence the marginalization of the male in the Afro-Caribbean family started on the plantation and was further influenced by the aforementioned factors in the modern era. The prevalence of the matrifocal family type will be discussed in subsequent sessions in this unit. Frazier (1966)[1939], positioned his plantation theory as a counter argument to Herskovits, and argued that the re-socialization process necessitated by the plantation system, robbed the black man of his African culture, leaving him no other option than to adopt the values and attitudes of the planter. M.G. Smith, supporting Edith Clarke, believed that family formation in the Caribbean reflected class differences in household structures and union states. Her position was that the family form was a result of community organization that was influenced by the economic conditions of the community. She tested this hypothesis in a study of three different communities. The results were that the community with stable economic output and relatively high income embraced the nuclear married family (Orange Grove), while the stable but poor economic community of Mocca embraced a common-law family form and Sugar Town, with seasonal economic arrangements, reflected the visiting type of union. Thus the family forms found in a particular community were a function of the economic arrangements of that community.

10

Nuclear Union The concept of a nuclear family is a European concept that was forced onto the slaves by the white plantation owners. This more neatly fit the definition of the family by sociologist George Peter Murdoch. Gaspard-Richards et al (2005) defined the nuclear family as the smallest family unit. It is the officially accepted type of family in modern Western societies consisting of a father, mother and their child or children who live in the same household. This type of family unit did not fit well with the socio-economic conditions that existed and still exist in the Caribbean as shown by Edith Clarke and Christine Barrow. Clarke (1957) showed the alien nature of the nuclear family structure to our social setting and the emergence of its replacement by the family based on common-law union. Session Activity 1.0 1. Plantation or African retention, which best explain Caribbean family types? 2. The economic functions of the family will influence the type that is developed. Do you agree with this statement? Why?

11

Session 4.2: Kinship ties in the Caribbean Learning Objectives After completing this session, you should be able to: 1. Explain the difficulties in trying to ascertain a standard explanation of kinship in the Caribbean 2. Define and identify some of the kinship patterns in the Caribbean 3. Identify the cultural reasons for the existence of these kinship patterns Introduction Kinship patterns in the Caribbean, although showing some consistency, vary from society to society. The relationship between members of a household and between the household and the wider community construct the kinship patterns that are indigenous to a particular community with some links to the country as a whole. The cosmopolitan nature of the Caribbean with its different ethnic groups and races along with retentions from the various lands of origin of the people who came into the region, resulted in many kinship patterns existing in the Caribbean. Interpretations and definitions of kinship concepts in different localities complicate the situation regarding kinship in the region. This session will examine the kinship patterns existing in the region. A discussion on East Indian kinship will form a separate session. Kinship: Problems of Definition and Interpretation The many different family forms in the Caribbean points to the difficulty in assessing family forms in the region from a predetermined standpoint. Issues of kinship will vary from one part of the region to another. Definitions of kinship ties and the strength of the ties will also vary from one part of the region to another. Kinship patterns are influenced by class, race and colour. Although these socially derived concepts bear some similarities and configuration in different parts of the region, the resulting kinship patterns do not conform to this uniformity. (Smith, 1990) 12

There are some pre-determined assumptions about the widespread existence and stability of the nuclear family in the Caribbean. Schneider (1965; 1984) quoted in Smith (1990, p. 24), presents the Europeans narrow definition of kinship in a way that extracts some level of humor from the reader:
It has been assumed, complains Schneider, that for the whole human race kinship is just what it is for Europeans a matter of blood and marriage (consanguenal and affinal). This is because anthropologists have failed to pay attention to the precise statements of their informants, carelessly translating them into familiar terms of European kinship. The European assumption that kinship arises from biology is just a belief system like any other, with no more claim to scientific validity than the belief in ghosts.

Assumptions such as these tend to guide empirical investigations about kinship patterns in the Caribbean resulting in data that lack social relevance to the reality of the people of the region. Smith (1990, p. 22), in quoting Parsons (1949) extended this point, we must not only observe what people do, but must also understand what they intend their actions to be. This brings us to the role expectations of different individuals within the family in the Caribbean. The concept of a mother in Jamaican and some other Caribbean societies is not stable over geographic regions, even where the regions are contiguous. Mother could be referring to your biological mother, while it could also be extended to a woman who has no children of her own but who is seen as being a mother to all children in the community due to her care and generosity. There are many individuals who are given the label of mother due to roles that they play in other peoples lives as well as sometimes the roles played in their community. A mother with a dominant personality and who also becomes the reference point in a family is called a matriarch. People within a district will call her mother as a mark of respect for how she has looked after and provided for her family, in addition to the rest of the community. Smith (1990) uses Schneiders explanation of cultural symbols to explain why these symbols should be understood in relationship to other symbols in the social system. This

13

points to the integrative nature of the social system and its organic nature. According to Smith (1990),
Schneider thinks of culture as a system of symbols and meanings with its own logic and mode of integration, distinct from any problem of social order and indeed distinct from any part it might play in social action. The meaning of each unit in a system of cultural symbols derives from its relation to other symbols in the system, and from the way it is used in the give and take of everyday life. (p. 24)

Using the theoretical explanation of Schneider we can then understand the Caribbeans many different interpretations of the concept of mother. Each interpretation is related to the context in which the term mother is integrated into the social fabric of that society. This would be associated with long established norms of that society and the accompanying expected roles of a mother as perceived by that society. This role of a mother may change slightly from generation to generation in the same society, with the resulting composite definition reflecting the additional expectations that modern complex society places on mothers. Indian kinship patterns in the Caribbean requires an in-depth analysis if we are to understand their familial survivals that have persisted in the Caribbean. Looking at Indian families in the region from a demographic/quantitative perspective would not provide much information for an understanding of the mating patterns and living arrangements of Indians in the Caribbean. Even where anthropologists are utilized in the extraction and gathering of data on Indian kinship patterns, very little understanding of the reasons behind this composite structure would be possible without close examination of the meaning of the actions behind what is reported by informants. Kinship patterns in the Caribbean Caribbean families are considered to be characterized by loosely held patterns of family relations while maintaining strong kinship ties (Smith, 1990). This paradox is best understood from the point of view of the Caribbean persons concept of kin. This bond of kinship is very strong and has persisted over many generations. In spite of the ethnocentric attempts by European slave owners to dismantle slave families during 14

slavery, kinship ties that eventually developed among ex-slave families remained strong in the Caribbean. The community of dwellers that emerged among the ex-slaves contributed to this strength of the bond of kinship. These communities share strong kinship bonds within but not so much across each other. M G. Smith (1974) states:
Since the majority of community members who remain within their local group tend to mate therein, it follows that ties of kinship and affinity ramify (branch out in various directions) widely among them, and these ties provide a broad acceptable basis for mutual visiting. Children certainly make much of these opportunities, and because of their frequent movement between homes, they come to know and be known to their neighbours increasingly as they mature. The intimate knowledge of one another from childhood that is typical of persons who are members of the same community develops on this basis, and distinguishes them as a unit from the local groups on their boundaries who do not know them extensively or intensively, and of whom they also know little. (p.182)

Smith goes on to list some institutions that serve as community foci that bind household units together into a distinctive group. This list includes government agencies such as schools, post offices, and medical facilities. The sharing of common leadership at the church and political level in the community as well as at places of work provide the basis for strong communities, which could lead to long lasting bonds of kinship being formed within these areas. The question of who is your kin or who you consider to be a part of your kinship bond, leads to many different responses in the Caribbean. The responses may involve anecdotal statements in response to research questions that were designed to get information about kinship patterns. The responses will vary from district to district, community to community and country to country. The responses obtained will depend on the construction of family patterns as well as the family type to which the respondent belongs. The strength of the kinship bond existing in the particular family will also affect the nature and comprehensiveness of the response. R.T. Smith (1990) gave part of a dialogue from research done by Millicent Ayube that shows the complication that is involved in trying to ascertain information on kinship in the Caribbean (A = Ayube, I= Informant). He quoted:

15

A: Could you list for me all the people you consider to be related to you? I: You mean all the people related to me? That will take me till next week and a day because of all the people. What a lot; what a lot. Theres my husband you want names too? What a lot? My husband and seven children, mother, father you mean those alive? A: However you want to do it. I: Those who are near to me or what? Relatives or friends or what? Sisters and brothers? There are so many . . . its a very big family.

Smith also noted that such expressions of hopelessness at the enormity of the task were common. The nature of kinship relations in the region is further complicated by the level of intra-regional migration that has taken place. Migration, especially in the Eastern Caribbean, has spread the net of kinship bonds far afield, incorporating different cultures and geographical areas. Migration also adds to the myriad interpretations of concepts relating to kinship as different social environments develop their own symbols and meanings of kinship. Smith (1990 p.34) noted the case of Mrs Jewel Green (case number 601) from his research:
In another case, Mrs Jewel Green started by listing her mother, grandfather, and her mothers brothers and sisters. She then gives her fathers name, saying Me have grandparents by the father now; Esther and Joshua Williams, and then listing uncle by my father and several aunts. Things began to get more complicated as it turned out that Mrs Greens mother had children by four different men and was married to none of them. Mrs Green and her six brothers and sisters had four fathers between them, with a corresponding array of paternal grandparents. Mrs Green knew something about each of them, and often a great deal. In addition, she had at least one brother by her father, listed in the initial interview. The same pattern is repeated throughout the genealogy as grand parents, aunts, uncles and cousins each have multiple unions and sets of children by each one. Little wonder then that it was Mrs Green who said You know Jamaica is like one family.

Kinship bonds are not only divided along lines of consanguenal and affinal relations, but also along residency lines. Relatives who share the same yaard or geographic space may have similar meanings of kinship bonds and also share similar kinship patterns. This also

16

leads to some complication regarding interpretations of who is the father and who is the mother. An aunt sharing a co-residence with a young child may end up being called the mother of that child although she is biologically the aunt of the child. The childs biological mother may be residing in another town or parish but is not referred to as the mother of the child except for official purposes. In some instances, the aunt also adopts the child to lend some permanence to the kinship bond between her and the child. The horizontal Indian family pays much attention to co-residency in kinship patterns, though in a manner different from the Afro-Caribbean families. The affinal relationship among Indians has some Indian retentions that are part of the strong patriarchal family culture of India. Even where Afro-Caribbean families share co-residency, the kinship patterns are different from that of Indians. The Afro-Caribbean family will not be extended horizontally for any period of time except for economic reasons. They prefer separate residences, except where the land is family owned and was bequeathed to all the children. If the land is not large enough to allow each a separate plot for house construction then some will sell their holdings to other siblings. Additionally, kinship patterns are affected by interpretation of the importance of affinal ties, whether to the male or the female side of the family. Clarke (1957), quoted in Smith (1990), noted that rights to land may be inherited through the blood passing through females and the name through males. In some marital relationships the wife is sometimes reminded that she acquired the name by marriage while the children did so by blood. This gives the children more rights to the legacy of the father than the wife. While paradoxically, on the other hand, children have more identification with their mother since she represents the bloodline. In Jamaica we say that the mother cannot deny the lineage of her children, while the father can have reasons to do so. The increasing matrifocality of Caribbean families has made the mother-children bond much stronger. The status of the child is not derived from the status of the parents. The child is valued in his or her own right. There is no legitimacy or illegitimacy regarding the child. Blood is a mark of permanence. Blood principle also works with paternity; when a child is born of an unmarried couple, the relatives of the father may visit to determine if the child

17

belongs to the father. It is said that one-third of the paternity tests done in Jamaica resulted in the particular male not being the named father of the child. Kinship patterns in the Caribbean are not fixed nor predetermined based on definitions derived from other regions. The patterns in the Caribbean are unique and are as diverse as the cultural contours of the region. The East Indian Family The East Indian family units which are prevalent in Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago are also the result of plantation society and the introduction of indentureship at the end of the slavery period. These family units are horizontally extended as the East Indians seek to maintain their sense of community and kinship bonds that are influenced by their religion. East Indians maintained, initially, most of their family traditions. Over time, some of these traditions have been creolized while some have changed alongside social changes being pursued in post-colonial Indian societies. Endogamy still persists as well as some forms of horizontal family forms. However, these are changing as the strong traditions of colonial India lose their grip on some Indo-Caribbean social institutions. The movement away from the extended family household by the younger generation of East Indians will also affect other Indian institutions over time. Some changes in other social institutions will be done concomitantly. According to Nevadomsky, quoted in Barrow and Reddock (2001),
one important difference between past and present patterns resulting from this social and economic transformation is that nowadays the ideal household is the nuclear one and in villages like Amity and Boodram, actual domestic arrangements reflect this ideal. About 70 percent of the households in Amity, for example are two-generational units. Although most yound married couples live with the husbands parents for a year or two it is generally recognized that this arrangement is a sojourn.

The patriarchal nature of East Indian families is also under threat of being re-gendered. More equity in decision making in the household is being pursued by East Indian women. (Nevadomsky, 2001). This would be a radical break from traditions that were reinforced

18

religiously. The East Indian family still validates the boy child over the female child. The importance of a patriarch in the household for stability and protection still persists in contemporary India but is in danger of being eroded. Nevadomsky (2001) provides some comparison between some family and kinship patterns in early post indenture in Trinidad and similar ones in contemporary Trinidad. Some excerpts are shown below:

Early Post Indenture Trinidad

1. Joint family ideal but seldom realized in practice

Contemporary Trinidad
1. 2. Nuclear family is both ideal & statistical norm. Kinship traced bilaterally for the most part. Parental bond subordinate to conjugal one Daughter-in-law in conflict with husbands family in many cases; where daughter-in-law is educated or employed, she is treated with respect and deference. 5. Sons and daughters valued; slight preference for sons. Divorce easy; maintenance payment available for woman and her children

2.

Patriline important. Interaction with fictive, matrilateral and affinal kin. 3. 4.

3. 4.

Conjugal bond subordinate to parental bond Daughter-in-law expected to play role of domestic servant in husbands household.

5. 6.

Emphasis on having sons 6. Scarcity of women during indenture made divorce easy. The only real sanction was the husbands cutlass. Despite more equal sex ratio after indenture period divorce still relatively easy and frequent.

B, please go through this. Do it as two separate lists and I will do the table

19

Session Activity
1. Discuss how kinship patterns are maintained in your country/parish/district 2. Distinguish between kinship and family. 3. Compare the Indo-Caribbean kinship ties to those of the Afro-Caribbean.

Session 4.3: Caribbean Masculinity and Femininity: Gender in the Caribbean Learning Objectives At the end of this session you should be able to: 1. Explain how gender is constructed in the Caribbean 2. Discuss the position of women in the Caribbean workplace and explain the continued dominance of men in the workplace 3. Give reasons for male marginalization in the Caribbean Introduction Gender is a social construct. In the Caribbean, there are many factors that affect the construction of masculinity and femininity. These will be examined along with the continued dominance of patriarchy. The dominance of men within the world of work provides proof for the continuation of patriarchy. Male marginalization will also be examined for answers to this pervasive trend in Caribbean society.

20

Gender Construction in the Caribbean Masculinity is constructed around notions of what it means to be a man. The masculine and feminine roles are determined by the whole society. What is mans work versus womans work is an area of demarcation in gender construction. Males are usually assigned outdoor chores tending to cows, goats, mowing the lawn, painting the house and other duties involving physical exertion. Girls/female roles consist of more indoor domestic chores. This rigid pattern of socialization of children does not always follow as cultural differences, ethnicity and the composition of the family, will affect the way this process is carried out. But in most societies, work within the domestic environment is divided along gender lines with females being restricted to jobs on the inside while males are allowed to explore outdoor frontiers. This process of socialization where the female is called upon to be disciplined and diligent in her household chores while the male is allowed to be lax in his duties later affects issues of male marginalization as proposed by Figueroa (1996). The male must not be a maama man i.e., he must not be domesticated. According to Figueroa (1996), domestication worked to the advantage of the female. The girl is socialized into being disciplined while males lacked the discipline to do well in school. The role expectation of both the male and female child will later be reflected in the behaviour pattern of adult males in their relationship with adult females. According to Anderson (2007):
The qualities which fathers sought to encourage in their children reflected broad cultural values, with a strong emphasis on honesty and responsibility for self. There were also genderdifferentiated ideals, as boys were expected to be tough and girls to be ladylike. However, fathers stressed the need for girls to grow up to be independent and self-directing. This may in fact reflect the images of women which prevail in the society, and with which they also associate their own mothers. In child-rearing, fathers expressed the view that they needed to toughen their sons so that they could deal with life, and this was reflected in the much harsher punishments which they meted out to younger boys, when compared with their younger daughters. Nonetheless, Jamaican men emphasized the importance of showing love as an essential part of being a good father, and of being there for their children. Their characterizations of themselves, and of their own fathers, emphasized being loving and caring, cheerful and positive. (p. i)

21

Sexuality is related to the differences in how the genders are supposed to behave. A woman is expected to be pursued, while the man is expected to go after a woman. Please rephrase this is written like notes. This manifestation of sexuality is socialized in the child and reinforced by other social institutions in society. Men are expected to be hunters without using force in an effort to win the female. Women use many symbols, both overt and covert ones, to attract the male suitor. The female is expected to resist the first advance of the male even if she is madly in love with him. She is not to present herself as being easy. The female body presents the most visible sexual image to the male. The bodily contours are aesthetically covered to reveal just enough of the anatomy to serve as a teaser to the male who must decide whether the sight of the female body and how she is dressed says enough about the womans sexuality. It is taboo to ask sexually explicit questions on first meeting the female. This would suggest a lack of affection and romance on the part of the male. He may also appear to be crude and lacking in social graces. How the female is dressed conveys messages about her independence and confidence. The type of, and length of dress and hair are styled to match her feminine confidence. Not just confidence in self, but also confidence in winning the approving glance/stare of the male. Dress and hair go a far way in the construction of femininity in the Caribbean female. Many females are moving away from the Eurocentric stereotype of feminine construction that influenced gender identity in the early days after independence in the 1960s. Women in contemporary Caribbean society dress to show defiance and confidence. Their increased participation in the labour force gives them greater purchasing power parity (PPP) and allows them to be independent of males in the society. They no longer have to depend on the male for the construction of their femininity and economic progress. Chevannes (1995) noted that man must be tough According to UNICEF males are the disadvantaged gender. Abused and exposed to hardship. A family facing poverty will protect the females sexuality in terms of dress and the provision of basic necessities to prevent her dependence on outside males while the male will be left to manage on his own. Men are the providers and much emphasis is placed on this role by society.

22

Men are socialized to be risk takers. Games of chance and sports are ways of socializing men to be risk takers. Games of strategy such as chess are seen as good for the development of the male. Unfortunately, the role of risk taker by males is also shown in the crime statistics by the large scale involvement of young males in violent crimes as well as in deviant behaviour involving risk.

Masculinity is about the acquisition of power. Without money, the male cannot play his role as provider. Money provides the man with power. If you cannot provide for your children you are denied access to them. According to Chevannes (2001), men nurture but are generally not credited for it. Women provide but are not normally credited for it. This is not what society expects. There is a redefinition of the role of father in relation to the role of nurturing. There is nothing new regarding this nurturing role. Men always nurtured but never claimed the credit for it. In fact, they were sometimes seen as being feminine if they displayed too much nurturing skills. A number of structural things are now taking place that allow men to claim the role of nurturing. Society is changing its expectations of the male and the male is not only expected to provide but also to with the nurturing of the children. This could be due in part to the increased participation of females in the labour force. The increase in the amount of time spent by the female outside the household, at work, results in the need for the male to participate more in the domestic sphere of the family. As the role of the female changes in society it is accompanied by concomitant changes in the expectation of the male. Gender Stratification and Patriarchy The issue of gender stratification in the Caribbean has been the subject of many theories. The issue, however, lacks some of the dialectical discussions that are associated with other bases of stratification such as class, race, colour and ethnicity. Gender issues, generally, do not get the prominence they deserve. This is similar to how the issues are treated in society. The sexual division of labour is very prominent in society. The patriarchal nature of Caribbean society validates the contribution of men while ignoring the special conditions of women and their levels of exploitation both in the home and the workplace. The treatment of feminine gender issues are de-centered due to the strong

23

influence of patriarchy which places more emphasis on the domination of all spheres by male. The ideology of patriarchy is entrenched at this early stage as the boy learns his dominance over the female by the roles he is expected to play outside of the family. The prevalence of female-headed households in many Caribbean societies does very little to address the problem. The absence of a male figure in the home allows more freedom for the male child who soon learns to ignore the commands of the female who is seen as the weaker sex in the wider society. Men still control the highest paying jobs and remain firmly rooted in the echelons of power in most Caribbean organizations. The sexual division of labour at the workplace is not only manifested in an impervious glass ceiling that females find very difficult to break through, but also in the various jobs assigned to males and females. Studies done by Dennis Brown, Roslyn Lynch, Keith Hart and others, point to how the Caribbean countries of Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica and Barbados have rigidly enforced the sexual division of labour in many occupations. In spite of the large proportion of women relative to men leaving tertiary institutions, their presence in the board rooms is still noticeably minimal. Gender stratification is not as rigid as caste stratification, which is seen as a closed stratification system. But, very little movement is allowed for women in spite of them acquiring education and training, to benefit from upward social mobility. The special role of women as the bearers of children has impacted this. Women generally have to interrupt their careers to attend to family including children, while men can continue pursuing their careers uninterrupted even while having two families. Male Marginalization This area of study has been pursued with much vigour due to the long-term implications of the current demographic trends. But the term is much wider in scope than the parameters to which some scholars have limited the dialogue. Some discussions on the

24

issue seem to focus on the disproportionate ratio of male to female that are leaving tertiary institutions. While this phenomenon has far-reaching implications, this is just one way in which male marginalization is manifested in Caribbean society. The discussion also involves proponents who do not see male marginalization as a serious problem in Caribbean society. What they are seeing are women being able to shake off some of the shackles of patriarchy and claim their rightful place in society. Some radical feminist theorists believe that this is yet another attempt by males to draw attention to themselves at the expense of the daily exploitation of women that continues unabated and is sometimes sanctioned by some social institutions. This is in keeping with radical feminist theory as, according to Mohammed and Rowley (2005, p. 46):
Radical feminists insist that the roots of womens oppression are buried deep in patriarchys sex/gender system. One of the first radical feminists to say this was Kate Millet in Sexual Politics [1970]. Millet argues that male control of both the public and private worlds is what constitutes patriarchy and thus must be eliminated in both spheres if women are to be liberated. To eliminate male control, men and women have to do away with the sexual status, role, and temperament attributed to each sex at present and replace these with non-hierarchical forms.

The discourse on male marginalization follows the trajectory of most discussions on gender issues. There are sharp divides on both sides of the dialectic, with the line of demarcation being drawn along gender/sex lines. Whatever the theoretical reasons given for this trend, what is clear is a need to address the issue objectively, given the implications for the development of the region as well as the long-term implication for either sex as well as Caribbean family forms. Male marginalization is attributed to many causes.
Christine Barrow (2001) explains that, structural functionalists stereotyped the man in the family as marginal that is, he associates relatively infrequently with the other members of the group, and is on the fringe of the effective ties which bind the group togetherIn the circumstances of job insecurity, high unemployment and migration among men and low social and racial status, black, lower-class men were unable to fulfill their functions as husbands and fathers. (p.424)

The essence of male marginalization is captured in the above quotation. However, this statement does not give the reasons for the recent upsurge in the various behaviours

25

mentioned. Some of the reasons are historical, while others are the result of years of gender socialization that is now being manifested in the behaviour of our males in contemporary Caribbean society. Historically, plantation life did not accommodate the male slave as having much agency in the direction of affairs in his family. He was never in control of his family unit even if it was allowed to exist. The separation of the male from the family unit, leaving mother and children, began the Afro-Caribbean process of male marginalization. The family had to learn to exist without the presence of a male. This resulted in greater authority being accorded the females in the environment of the home, which would in the long run have implications for the socialization of the male child. The continued separation of the male from the family unit was further compounded by the lack of financial resources of the male. The lack of economic resources on the part of the male would adversely affect his ability to carry out his role as father and husband. This would also affect his identity construction as provider in the family unit. The absence or inability of the male slave to carry out basic roles in the family marginalized him from the family unit. The feeding of his family was the responsibility of the slave owner or his proxy. This denied the male of motivating factors to construct a positive identity in regard to his role as father. After the end of slavery many other social factors continued to affect the ability of the black male to properly look after his family. The many disadvantageous labour schemes that were tried by the slave owners further marginalized the black ex-slave from his family. The poor wages, which were tied to sub-human accommodation, would serve to denigrate the pride and ambition of the male within the household. This same problem finds currency in contemporary Caribbean society. The lack of employment opportunities among lower-class males in the population has resulted in many males leaving the home due to their lack of ability to provide for the family. This effectively marginalizes them from the family and establishes the framework for certain deviant behaviours in areas where the male thinks he can get some recognition and respect using his strength and virility.

26

Anderson (2006), in her study of three different income communities in Jamaica, noted the importance accorded by her male respondents to being able to provide economic support. In her fieldwork she asked men: If you think of the word FATHER, and you had to explain to someone what this means, what would you say? Responses are shown in the table below.

Definitions Provide economic support Give attention and emotional support

Percentage (%) 59 26

Show Love Be responsible Provide Guidance Set an example

20 17 12 8

This shows the importance attached by males to being able to provide for their family. The importance of this role to masculinity suggests some level of identification with the requirements or being able to fulfill the role of provider in the family. The societal importance attached to this role shapes the way boys from certain income groups are socialized in ways that lead to male marginalization. Branche, quoted in Bailey (1998) noted that:
In the socialization of the boys the direction is explicitly and implicitly, outside of the household and the domestic arena. Boys are allowed to roam and it is taken that that is how it should be in the nature of things One of the ironies of the socialization of males involves the early initiation into street life and thereafter the struggle within the family over the street influences. It appeared that the street influences are particularly telling in the transitional period to adulthood, especially

27

when the young male had not performed particularly well in school and had very few decent jobs or vocational options. In such circumstances the street provides the basis for his identity and there would be at the early teenage period a transformation in boys, who would now move entirely out of the domestic, family sphere and in many typical adolescent fashion, accentuates many of the styles of the street on the basis of securing what is imagined to be an adult masculine identity. The need to hustle on the street to acquire financial resources in an effort to fulfill their roles as provider propels the young male out of the home as well as out of the path of attaining further education. This is shown in the figures of the disproportionate amount of boys entering tertiary institutions. Figueroa (2000), quoted in Cheesman, Simpson and Wint (2006) shares the similar importance of the street in contributing to underperformance of males. Using research data Figueroa showed that male students generally underachieve relative to females with the gap widening at the higher levels. He also noted that the mismatch between male gender identity and the educational system has grown. He further commented that compounding this issue is the fact that boys are less subject to community controls and would eventually acquire street skills, which, along with the role models they meet and the media, are detrimental to the schooling process.

The lack of proper schooling, or early curtailment of their education by males, leads to their later marginalization from the home. Many other factors are given by various theorists explaining the reasons for male marginalization in the Caribbean. Miller (1986) suggested that the change in the educational system during the latter two decades of the nineteenth century resulted in a shift of the education system from masculine to feminine. The fear of the black male by the white planter class fuelled this shift in which the male was marginalized from the school system. He proposed many factors that motivated this behaviour. Some of these factors included the neutralizing of the potential of black men who may become militant and pose a threat the dominance of the planter class. The relegation of men to being a cheap source of agricultural labour while elevating the status of women to being socially equal were also among his reasons for this action by the planters. These factors are debatable and will draw strong responses from feminist theorists. Barrow (1998), drawing on the work of other theorists, asserts that:

28

it is biological and not social fathering that enhances masculinity. The man is satisfied by proof of his virility and does not necessarily accept any of the obligation and duties of parenthood, there is no public censure if he does not acknowledge or fulfill them (Clarke 1957: 96). It follows that unemployment and lack of economic support has less effect on ones status as a man. Masculinity does not depend on work performance; it is demonstrated by manly activities with other men, by sexual conquest of many girlfriends, and having children all about (Smith (1988: 147). Men give priority to friendship over family relationships (Wilson 1971:21-23) ostentatious spending in peer group activity reduces family income; irresponsible uncivilized sexual indulgence (Alexander 1977:377) threatens marital stability, mobility and migration take men away from home; and the reproduction of children all about detracts from the social role of fathering. In other words, men are not merely marginal to the family, they are anti-family.

The many different reasons postulated by Barrow and the mentioned theorists serve to widen the discussion on the many factors that are contributing to male marginalization. The discussion is ongoing as the region searches for solutions to this threatening problem to Caribbean development. The absence of any portion of the adult population (irrespective of gender) from formal tertiary education, the world of work and, most importantly, the institution of the family, must be a major concern to policy makers in the region. Many intervention programmes and further research are currently being undertaken to address this issue of male marginalization in the Caribbean.

Session Activity
1. Can you think of ways in which norms, folkways, culture, and religion contribute to the continued sexual division of labour in the Caribbean and in the process perpetuate gender stratification in the region? 2. Has societal expectations, coupled with the socialization of boys contributed to male marginalization in the Caribbean? 3. Do you think the construction of femininity and masculinity is same across the region? Why?

29

References Barrow, C. (Ed.). (1998). Caribbean masculinity and family: Revisiting marginality and reputation. In Caribbean Portraits: Essays on Gender Ideologies and Identity. Kingston: Ian Randle. ------------- (1996). Family in the Caribbean: Themes and perspectives. Kingston: Ian Randle Publishers. Branche, C. (1995). Men in conflict: Community, gender, identity and sex. In Gender and the Family in the Caribbean, Bailey, W. (ed) (pp. 185-201). Institute of Social and Economic Research, Mona. UWI. Brown, J. & Chevannes, B (1995). Why man stay so, why women stay so? : Findings of the gender socialization project. Mona: CCDC,UWI. Cheesman, Jennifer et al. (2006). Determinants of student performance at university: Reflections from the Caribbean. Research project, UWI , Mona Strategic Transformation Team. Chevannes, B. (1993). Caribbean family. (Paper prepared for the ECLAC regional meeting for the international year of the family, Cartegna, August 1013.) Chevannes, B. (2001), Learning to be a man: Culture socialization and gender identity in five Caribbean communities. Kingston: the University of the West Indies Press. Clarke, E. (1970). My mother who fathered me. London: George Allen Press.

Herskovits, M.J. (1990). The myth of the Negro past. Boston: Beacon press

30

Mohammed, P. & Rowley, M. (2005). Feminist theorizing: The connection between theory and practice. Center for gender and development studies. UWI, Mona, Jamaica.

Nevadomsky, J., (2001) Changes over time and space in the East Indian family in rural Trinidad. In Barrow, C., and Reddock, C. (2001).Caribbean sociology: Introductory readings. Kingston: Ian Randle Publishers.

Smith, M. G. (1974). The plural society in the British West Indies. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Smith, R.T. (1990). Kingship and class in the West Indies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Please put the readings for this unit at the front

31