Dimensión mejora continua

These quotes give no indication that the children of household heads are migrating at the instigation of their parents as part of a deliberately planned strategy - quite the opposite; it is the children who decide to migrate, and the parents who are having to accept their decision. As Diane Wolf (1990) has also noted in relation to the factory employment of daughters in Asia, parents sometimes appear to react and adapt to their children’s decisions rather than direct or orchestrate them. This runs counter to what we have often been led to expect from families in the ‘developing world’. Neither is there any evidence to support the idea that adult children of household heads are migrating of their own volition to extend the income-generating remit of their household. Indeed, as will be seen in the following section, regular remittances from migrant children to parents are uncommon. It should be remembered however, that the independent behaviour of adult children is by no means universal; as previous examples indicate, in some households, the degree of parental control, particularly over daughters, remains undiminished. Whatever the specific situation, sons or daughters’ decisions over whether or not to migrate can hardly be construed as part of a household strategy when major differences of opinion can be observed within households.

Thus far, gender and generation have been depicted as two largely unconnected structures of differentiation. There are however important links between them. I have already alluded to this in suggesting that daughters may be more subject to parental authority than sons. From the cases mentioned, it is clear that both ‘traditional’ and ‘non-traditional’ structures of authority were operating in tandem in the study communities. It may be that where ‘traditional’ gender relations and divisions of labour are adhered to, parental control over children, but particularly over daughters since sons have generally always been allowed more autonomy, is more likely to be maintained. On the other hand where ‘non- traditional’ gender roles are adopted between household heads, generational authority, again especially that over daughters, may be weakened.

For example, Alicia, as stated above, reluctantly moved to Guadalajara on the orders of her husband, while he migrated to the US. She is adamant that her children will not be allowed to migrate.

If my children wanted to go to the US when they were older, I wouldn’t let them because I wouldn’t want them to be so far away and me be left alone without them visiting me. I don’t want to be like my poor mother -

she has half her children living away from her. (Alicia, see page 124)

Herself subject to domination along gender lines by her husband, Alicia is determined to hold on to the generational authority she possesses over her children. This may be because, denied influence in her marital relationship, she needs to feel that she has some influence in her family, but also because of her emotional desire for companionship. It has been observed elsewhere that because a Mexican wife often expects or even anticipates her husband’s emotional desertion, she binds her children more closely to her (Romanucci- Ross, 1973, cited in LeVine, 1993). A sense of companionship is lacking in Alicia’s marriage, not just because her husband is a recurrent migrant who is frequently absent, but also because of the subordinate relation she has to him when he is present. Alicia has seen her mother derive comfort from her children, and then be deprived of it when they moved away from her, and does not want to go through this same experience herself - she is keen to keep her children close to her, both geographically and emotionally.

In contrast, Lupita, who was seen above to be the initiator of her husband’s migration and in charge of most of the major household decisions, does not have the same control over her children.

My biggest problem at the moment is my youngest daughter. She wants to go back [to the US], but she wants to be independent and doesn’t want to live with her brothers and sisters. I can’t accept her decision to go but I know I ’ll have to. I don’t like the fact that my daughter is only 18 but I can’t tell her what to do.

(Lupita, see page 125)

There are also several things in the lives of her other children of which she disapproves, for example one son’s divorce and the neglect of his child, but which she feels powerless to change. This sense of helplessness frustrates Lupita, and is heightened by the contrast with her capability and autonomy in other areas of her life. Lupita has socialised her children to be independent-minded, but in a sense this has now ‘backfired’ on her, as she misses the maternal power which more traditional Mexican mothers may command.

From these two examples it would seem that where the delineation of authority along the lines of gender is reduced, the potential for re-structuring control by generation exists too.

Where gender continues to shape decision-making patterns, generational difference may remain more relevant. Several respondents implicitly recognised this connection, and effectively ‘traded o ff between the two in order to maintain the axis of power which they deemed most important. To expand, if the loyalty and obedience of children is highly valued, it may be seen as worth preserving female to male deference so as also to retain generational control.

Fathers make the decisions in Mexican families. This is the custom, and there has to be someone who makes the decisions. If the couple make decisions between them, the children don’t know who is the boss or who to turn to.

{Clara, 33 year-old mother o f three.)

Conversely, if a woman has strong feelings about her own rights within the household, and is able to negotiate them with her partner, she may perceive this as being more important than having strict domination over her children. This is the situation which Lupita is in, for instance. It is interesting to note that it may be interpreted as the woman’s partner who ‘loses out’ as a result of this arrangement. In a household with relatively egalitarian relations between household members, the male head of household does not dominate his partner, nor can he command the same respect and disciplined compliance from his children as in a more patriarchal household. Yet the men in the study communities who lived in such households seemed not to perceive themselves as ‘hard done by’, which implies that more egalitarian power structures are not beneficial solely to women and children.

Men make decisions, they usually have that responsibility. But in our house we discuss things between us, and if the children are involved they can contribute as well, everyone is involved.

(Pedro, a 46 year-old father o f five, works as a buyer fo r an aerosol company. He worked in a clothes factory in California many years ago, and has some in-laws there now.)

The link between gender-based and generational power may not however be so clear-cut. To elaborate, even where the importance of gender in defining the power relationship between spouses is eroded, the influence of gender may or may not continue in the generational sense. Thus relatively egalitarian or ‘non-traditional’ relations may exist between household heads, but relations between the generations within the household may be either ‘non-traditional’ or ‘traditional’. This is evident in the willingness of some parents to allow their children, both sons and daughters, to make their own migration

decisions, at the same time as others continue to restrict their daughters’ behaviour but permit their sons more flexibility.

This latter situation has been commented upon elsewhere as one that causes friction: ‘that fathers are so suspicious of and punitive towards their daughters and yet do nothing to restrict their sons is a major source of complaint’ (LeVine, 1993:64). The greater autonomy which has ‘traditionally’ been granted to men is clearly evident in the migration situation. The literature depicts a male-dominated migration tradition, often passed from father to son, in rural communities characterised by a rigidly gendered division of activities {e.g. Massey, 1987c; Reichert and Massey, 1979). The different perceptions of male and female mobility could also be observed in the urban study communities.

I wouldn’t let my daughters go to live there alone, but I would let my sons. Well, it’s different for men, and they have lots more opportunities to get ahead.

(Paulina, a 38 year-old mother o f nine, with a sister-in-law in Los Angeles.)

Parental control over daughters may not be explicitly imposed; rather, it may be part of the value system which parents pass on to their children, so that acting counter to it can be construed as immoral and also in a sense disobedient.

My daughter has studied English and she has some American friends, but I know that she wouldn’t want to go to the US alone because I’ve brought her up to respect her parents and our customs. She’s old enough to make her own decisions, but she has a lot of respect for the family and the house; we live very unidos^.

(Pati, a 48 year-old mother o f ten. She works in her own restaurant and has three sons living in Los Angeles.)

Pati’s situation illustrates the double standards, already referred to above, which are often applied to sons and daughters, and the contradictions which can exist between the axes of gender and generation. Pati has three migrant sons, and although she misses them, she does not think less of them as a result of their migration, yet she does prize her daughter’s restraint from following her brothers to the US. This again hints at the almost scandalous associations which the unaccompanied migration of a young woman may evoke, in contrast to the resourcefulness and courage it is often seen as demonstrating when young men migrate. This underlines the social construction of migration as a gendered process.