Scholars examining kin and community care have often sought to identify the relative importance of structural and cultural factors on the use and availability of these networks, but research has yielded unclear results in the case of child care. Cultural theories focus on how values, beliefs, and practices lead to differences in kin and community care; structural theories focus on how educational attainment, income, inherited power or inequality, and family structure lead to such differences. Using interviews with 60 African American middle- and upper-middle-class mothers, the author examines their preferences for kin and community members’ assistance in caring for their children. Although participants often had the resources to hire child care providers from the market, they also had access to, and preferred, kin and community networks of care. By examining participants’ accounts of their child care choices, the author identified four factors that influenced their orientations to kin: (1) participants’ experiences growing up with kin and community networks, (2) the current availability of these networks, (3) concerns about racial bias among market-based child care providers, and (4) the cost and benefits that came from using these networks. Although using kin and community care is often associated with structural factors, these data reveal a more complicated relationship between structure and culture.
The relationship between where people start out in life (class origin) and where they are likely to end up (class destination) is central to any question about the fairness of contemporary society. Yet we often don’t have a good picture—literally or metaphorically—of the contours of that relationship. Further, work on class mobility in the United States often glosses over the large differences between white and Black Americans’ class positions and mobility trajectories. This visualization, based on data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, shows the association between occupational class origin and destination for Black and white employed Americans ages 25 to 69. Stark racial inequality, produced by the legacy and ongoing operation of white supremacy, is evident in each aspect of these figures.
Can a crowd of individuals who are motivated by a range of issues related to racial identity, class, gender and sexuality mobilize around a shared issue, and, if so, how does this process work in practice? To date, limited research has explored intersectionality as a mobilization tool for social movements. This paper expands recent work on how intersectional motivations influence the constituencies at protest events by comparing across some of the largest events that have taken place in Washington, DC since the Resistance began. We explore patterns of motivations of participants in marches over the first year of the Trump Presidency. Our analyses demonstrate how individuals’ motivations to participate represented an intersectional set of issues and how patterns of issues emerge. However, when we look across the marches, we find that the patterns are not durable, indicating the limitations of interpretations of the Resistance as a unified intersectional movement.
Abstract This introductory essay situates this special issue within the context of antiracism and social justice for family scholars. The editors underscore the political and social context that led the National Council on Family Relations' three flagship journals— Journal of Family Theory & Review (JFTR), Family Relations (FR), and Journal of Marriage and Family (JMF) to collectively invite submissions for separate special issues on Transformative Family Scholarship: Theory, Practice, and Research at the Intersection of Families, Race, and Social Justice. This special issue focuses on scholarship using cutting‐edge theory, research, and practices to investigate racial injustice and confront white supremacy within the context of the family. The guest editors synthesize the dominant themes cross‐cutting the 13 articles, including parenting, racial stratification, health and economic well‐being, and racial identity. The guest editors explain how these articles contribute to a more robust analysis of structural racism within families. The introduction closes with an invitation to scholars doing scholarship using critical theoretical approaches to continue their efforts and consider the Journal of Marriage and Family as a potential publication outlet for their research.