In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

c h a p t e r 8 112 v In this essay I probe the hesitation—that considered pause—before requesting help. The social tensions between obligation, perception, and need reveal the complex ways that people interpret and negotiate reciprocity. The unspoken but observed conventions reveal a disjuncture between what people feel they need and what they think they can acceptably ask. Understanding Arlie Hochschild’s concept of “feeling rules” is helpful in understanding the dynamic (1983). She defines feelings rules as those notions that “guide emotion work by establishing the sense of entitlement or obligation that governs emotional exchanges” (1983, 56). Hochschild zeroes in “on the pinch between ‘what I do feel’ and ‘what I should feel’” (57). Following from this insight, asking rules specify the conditions under which a person can ask for help in the context of assessed need and capacity . The self-imposed hesitation that accompanies asking rules makes a person pause and consider the trade-offs. The networks that I have studied are constructed to help employed parents care for their school-age children (Hansen 2005). Relations within a network of care for children operate via a culturally specific logic of reciprocity, which is premised on trust, obligation, and mutuality. Building on Margaret Nelson’s (2000) earlier work, I argue that the features of reciprocity change depending on relational context and economic location. In contrast, I am interested in reciprocity in the context of networks of many people rather than dyadic, romantic relationships. By studying networks in different class locations, I seek to analyze the ways in which social location and kinship mediate reciprocity and people’s interpretations of it. When and under what conditions do people decide they can ask for a favor or help with their childrearing? And what cultural values guide them in their decision making? Within sociology, the concept of reciprocity generally refers to mutual giving and receiving (Hogan, Eggebeen and Clogg 1993; Nelson 2000; Weinberg 1994). However, the nature of reciprocity has been the subject of ongoing debate. Social The Asking Rules of Reciprocity Karen V. Hansen exchange theory, the dominant approach to networks and reciprocity in sociology , primarily analyzes exchange dynamics from a utilitarian perspective (Blau 1964; Coleman 1988; Homans 1958). The economic model assumes a scarcity of resources and zero sum outcomes (Nelson 1993). I argue that because the networks I study center on children, reciprocity is more compelling. Not only do children represent the next generation of a kin group, caring for them can be fun and satisfying. A child is a person with whom to have a relationship, as well as someone who needs adult attention and supervision (Ruddick 1998; Thorne 2001). As the symbolic center of these networks, the child can be the invaluable gift that an anchor, the person at the center of the childrearing project, gives back to network members (Hansen 2005; Nelson 2000). And while that gift can include emotional attachment and playfulness, rationality and instrumentalism can also motivate reciprocal relations. Parents construct networks because they need help. That which is given and taken in reciprocal actions is not self-evident or easily measured. Sociologically, it is not just what people count that is interesting, but how they count it. People’s perceptions of being a part of a network and the relations with the parent and the child shape their sense of reward and their assessment of the cost of obligation. Method of Inquiry My method, which is to approach each network as a case study, is motivated by my desire to analyze particular networks in their entirety and to get a fuller picture, from multiple vantage points, of caring for children and supporting parents. This case study approach enables me to analyze the interactive process of reciprocity. The networks in this study achieve some form of balanced reciprocity that has unfolded in the context of ongoing relationships. By studying connected individuals , it is possible to observe the relational context of a particular act of help and analyze the ripple effects on multiple members of the network. In studying reciprocity in a broader context of community and kin, the process of trading and paying back unfolds, spills over, and incorporates relationships outside of the original exchange. In adult networks structured around the care of children, most exchanges involve at least a triangle in considering obligations, costs of involvement, and payback. This research is based on a larger study of forty open-ended, qualitative interviews that I conducted in...

Share