Fathering in Cultural Contexts

Developmental and Clinical Issues

Jaipaul Roopnarine, Elif Dede Yildirim

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781315536156
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: History & Theory in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

How do men think about fathering? How does this differ across different regions of the world? And what effect does this have on child development? Fathering in Cultural Contexts: Developmental and Clinical Issues answers these questions by considering a broad range of theoretical and conceptual models on fathering and childhood development, including attachment theory, developmental psychopathology, masculinity and parenting typologies.

Roopnarine and Yildirim provide a comprehensive view of fatherhood and fathering in diverse cultural communities at various stages of economic development, including fathers' involvement in different family structures, from two-parent heterosexual families to community fathering. This book's interdisciplinary approach highlights the changing nature of fathering, drawing connections with child development and well-being, and evaluates the effectiveness of a range of father interventions.

Fathering in Cultural Contexts will appeal to upper level undergraduate and graduate students in human development, psychology, sociology, anthropology, social work, and allied health disciplines, and professionals working with families and children in non-profit and social service agencies across the world.

1
Fathering

The global picture

Simply put, fathers matter to children. Regardless of the cultural community, the physical and psychological presence of fathers can make a significant difference in children’s lives. Fathers provide resources and enable access to health care, offer protection from exploitation, and contribute to children’s overall development. Evidence from different social science and health disciplines points to the importance of optimal levels of developmentally appropriate, sensitively-attuned paternal involvement for advancing the social and cognitive development of children in different family constellations and cultural communities across the world (Cabrera & Tamis-LeMonda, 2013; Gray & Anderson, 2010; Pattnaik, 2013; Roopnarine, 2015; Shwalb, Shwalb, & Lamb, 2013; Sriram, 2019). Fathers too seem to benefit from quality involvement with children; they enjoy greater happiness and appear healthier than other men (Chereji, Gatz, Pedersen & Prescott, 2013; Knoester, Petts, & Eggebeen, 2006).

Regardless of whether they reside with them or not, there are familial and societal expectations that fathers become fully engaged in the multiple aspects of caring for and nurturing their children in responsible ways (Carvalho, Moriera, & Gosso, 2015; Plantin, 2015). Having said that, there is considerable variation in the ways in which men approach fatherhood and fulfill their parenting and other responsibilities toward children. In some cultural communities (e.g., in North America and Europe), fathers have risen to the challenge of becoming more engaged caregivers, whereas in others such as in the Arab, Asian, African, Latin American and Caribbean countries men continue to embrace traditional conceptions of masculinity and most remain perfunctory to the everyday care of children (see Roopnarine, 2015). Our sole purpose in this volume is to capture these wide variations in fathering and their meaning for different dimensions of childhood development in an ever-changing technological and interconnected global community.

The global picture

Noting the complexity of the construct, fathering has received increased attention within different academic disciplines, governmental and non-governmental organizations, civil society groups, and policy think-tanks across the world (Heilman, Levtov, van der Gaag, Hassink, & Barker, 2017; Levtov, van der Gaag, Greene, Kaufman, & Barker, 2015; Yogman & Garfield, the Committee on the Psychological Aspects of Child and Family Health, 2016). For instance, the United Nations (www.un.org/en/index.html), and other international agencies (e.g., Promundo) have emphasized the need to provide support to families in order to make fathers more informed about their responsibilities and roles as caregivers and nurturers to children. For now, promoting the care, social, intellectual, and economic responsibilities of men toward children has become a priority issue for different countries, and a number have devised policies and implemented legislation that defines the responsibilities of men toward children within a rights perspective (Levtov et al., 2015). Related efforts at social policy development can also be seen in the areas of interpartner violence, discrepancies in women’s and men’s wages, and the harsh treatment of children worldwide, all issues affecting fathering (El Feki, Heilman, & Barker, 2017; Levtov et al., 2015).

Accompanying this global push for men to become more involved in their children’s lives is greater recognition of the diverse family configurations in which fathering occurs in different regions of the world. Men become fathers and rear children in marriage, visiting, common-law, co-habiting, male-male, multiple-partner fertility, re-partnered, and other family living arrangements (Anderson & Daley, 2015; Makusha & Richter, 2015). In some of these diverse relationship constellations, non-resident fatherhood and fathering are not uncommon, and employment patterns, educational attainment, relationship with partner/spouse, and economic conditions tend to determine men’s investment and involvement with children. It is prudent to point out that other family members such as uncles and grandfathers in extended family units may assume instrumental roles in rearing children in different family constellations (Clark, Cotton, & Marteleto, 2015; Marlowe, 2005; Shwalb & Hossain, 2018). An advantage is that in the absence of the biological father or limited father care, other male kinship and nonkinship members may serve as surrogate caregivers or community fathers.

Few would question that the changes in women’s roles across societies have also had significant influences on men’s involvement with children. Although it should come as no surprise that most women still assume major responsibility in caring for young children around the world, maternal employment in economic systems with different modes of production has forced men to re-examine their roles as husbands/partners and as fathers (El Feki et al., 2017; Roopnarine, 2015). As traditional masculine ideologies are being revised in the context of gender equality, the nexus of work and family life is in a state of constant flux. Because gender equality remains elusive in most cultural communities, especially in the developing world, the work–caregiving balance can be tenuous for most couples/partners. Achieving such a balance becomes more difficult to accomplish when men shirk caregiving and economic responsibilities toward children and eschew morally intelligible fathering. For responsible fathering to flourish, childrearing and caring for offspring must be on equal footing with work responsibilities (see Bjork, 2013).

To encourage men to be more involved in care work, a number of societies have introduced paternal leave policies. There are active campaigns in the developed countries for men to take advantage of these opportunities so that they can become more involved in their children’s cognitive and social lives (Heilman et al., 2017; Levtov et al., 2015; Plantin, 2015). These policies explicitly acknowledge the importance of fathers in the family socialization equation and are meant to stimulate change in traditional patterns of paternal investment and involvement in meeting children’s needs. Nowhere are the paternal leave policies more prevalent than in the European countries (e.g., Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Norway; see Chapter 7). So far they have met with mixed success but some changes have been documented in fathers’ attitudes toward caregiving and in their physical and emotional availability to their children in Europe and North America. By comparison, patriarchal traditions prevail in developing countries and traditional gender ideologies continue to impede attempts to usher in new approaches to the equitable and fair distribution of childcare and household responsibilities (Anderson & Daley, 2015; Promundo, 2015; Roopnarine, Krishnakumar, & Vadgama, 2013). Though modest, signs of change in developing countries are visible in men’s internal working models about masculinity and in their involvement with children.

As stated already, perhaps the most compelling reason for the increased focus on fathers across cultural communities is that their presence and quality of involvement matters for the health and safety, the nutritional status, and the socio-emotional and cognitive development of children. Paternal involvement matters from the time of conception and may have lasting effects over different periods of the life cycle (Caragata & Miller, 2008). From both developed and developing societies, there is a rich and growing body of scientific work on fathers in diverse family constellations (e.g., monocare fathers, visiting unions, same-sex, and dual-earner) across the world. As examples, studies have documented men’s involvement in such diverse areas as prenatal care, pregnancy and labor, basic caregiving, joint cognitive and social activities, family rituals, schooling and school-related activities, and have also determined the salience of these different modes of involvement and engagement for the overall development and well-being of children. On a related front, there is increased emphasis on the benefits of paternal intervention programs for fathers’ intra-personal and inter-personal functioning and different aspects of children’s development.

This volume documents the diverse roles of men as fathers within different family constellations, taking into account the changing dynamics of childrearing patterns and the ethos of childhood across cultural communities. Fathering is broadly conceived as any male or males, committed to providing consistent and reliable care with the goal of enhancing the welfare and development of children, irrespective of biological relationship, union status, and residential pattern. These male caregivers can be biological fathers, grandfathers, mother’s/father’s partner, or male surrogates in the community (Yogman & Garfield, the Committee on the Psychological Aspects of Child and Family Health, 2016). Drawing on research conducted in the fields of psychology, human development and family science, sociology, social work, anthropology, demography, pediatrics, nursing, ethnic studies, early childhood education, and other adjacent disciplines, we attempt to construct a portrait of the different modes of paternal involvement and their connections to childhood development across cultural communities. Throughout this volume we use the term paternal involvement to reflect basic care offered to children as well as the qualitative aspects of engagement (e.g., warmth and sensitivity, cognitive and social activities) with children (see Pleck 2010, chapter 2).

With the aforementioned in mind, the six chapters that follow focus on: theoretical perspectives and models that have been employed in constructing fathering research; mating and marital systems in which fatherhood is realized and fathering takes place; conceptions of men’s roles as fathers; the levels and quality of different dimensions of fathers’ involvement with young children; connections between paternal involvement and children’s cognitive and social-emotional development; primary and secondary intervention programs for fathers; and social policies for fathers. It is our hope that the material covered in these chapters will lead to a broad appreciation for the diverse ways in which men contribute to childrearing and childhood development, and will simultaneously serve as a springboard to more general discussions about research and policy issues regarding men as caregivers across the world.

Overview of chapters and organization of the volume

Following this brief introduction to the volume, Chapter 2 lays bare some of the tenets of prominent theories and models that have guided much of the work on father involvement with children to date. In most instances, early research on father–child relationships was mainly grounded in established sociological (e.g., structural-functional) and psychological theories (e.g., ethological theory of attachment, psychodynamic). These established theories held mother-centric views of childhood development that relegated fathers to a minimal role in caregiving or described them as secondary caregivers. The impact of father involvement on children’s development was inferred from what men did not do in families and by their peripheral role as caregivers. To be fair, thinking about fathers’ roles within and external to the family matched traditional sociological norms about family structure and functions that existed during most of the last century. It was not until the 1970s that researchers began in earnest to systematically document fathers’ actual involvement with children. Prior to this time, models of father absence dominated the limited fathering literature. Men were pathologized more than they were recognized for their contributions to rearing children.

Both established theories and parenting frameworks that have been utilized to explore fathering across cultures are featured in Chapter 2. Three that are discussed include attachment theory that emphasizes the quality of the emotional bond between fathers and children, Baumrind’s typologies of authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting that articulate levels of warmth and demandingness and control, and interpersonal acceptance-rejection theory that considers paternal acceptance and rejection along a care continuum (Ainsworth, 1989; Baumrind, 1967, 1996; Bowlby, 1969; Lamb, 2010; Rohner & Khaleque, 2005). Together, these frameworks stress the underlying function of parental warmth and sensitivity for optimal childhood development across cultural communities.

A popular model of paternal involvement developed by Lamb and his colleagues focuses on fathers’ engagement, accessibility, and responsibility to children (Lamb, Pleck, Charnov, & Levine, 1985; Pleck, 2010). This model dominated research in the 1980s and 1990s and continues to be a force in fathering research. During these two decades, there was tremendous fervor to demonstrate that men were actually involved in caregiving. Father time investment studies were popular and researchers quickly established the obvious, that men did far less caregiving than women. Pleck (2010) later revised this model to include the qualitative aspects of engagement patterns by fathers. Unquestionably, other frameworks such as generative fathering, men as resource providers, masculine identity, and co-parenting gained traction in research on fathering, but the Lamb model had broad appeal to researchers across academic disciplines. It was not until the latter part of the 1990s that conceptual models on fathering began to explore the associations between father involvement and childhood outcomes and factors that mediate and moderate the associations between paternal involvement and childhood development. Process models of human development along with the biosocial perspective, cultural ecological models, individualism and collectivism, developmental psychopathology, and perspectives on immigrant adjustment are considered as well in Chapter 2.

In Chapter 3, discussion turns to the diverse family constellations within which fatherhood is realized and in which men share responsibilities in providing and caring for children. Whereas marriage is a basis for becoming parents in most cultural communities, men become fathers in diverse family configurations, such as non-marital heterosexual and same-sex relationships, visiting, and common-law unions. In visiting and temporary common-law unions and in part-time cohabiting relationships, it is often difficult for men to engage in optimal levels of caregiving. Likewise, multiple-partner fertility presents unique challenges for men who leave children behind to enter other nonmarital relationships in which they have new off-spring. These diverse relationship configurations are evident in the developed and developing societies and are often described as fragile (Carlson & McLanahan, 2010; Makusha & Richter, 2015; Roopnarine & Jin, 2016). Besides the transient nature of these non-marital relationships that can result in nonresidential fatherhood, other potential barriers to engaged fathering include interpersonal difficulties with previous and current partners, gendered ideologies, and economic instability. Men may also become estranged from prior families when they repartner or migrate to find employment within country or externally from their home country for extended periods.

Across marital and mating systems, men express multiple views about what it means to be a man and father. Beliefs or internal working models about masculinity range from the traditional hegemonic orientations in Islamic-based Arab and non-Arab societies and in other traditionally-based patriarchal societies such as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Indonesia that are steeped in religious belief systems (e.g., Adat, Laws of Manu; Islamic laws) and the biological basis of father-hood, to more egalitarian views of men’s and women’s roles in socially engineered developed societies (e.g., Sweden, Finland, Norway, Iceland). Intergenerational shifts in men’s conceptions about traditional roles are discussed in terms of change and continuity, negotiations within families, and institutional structures across cultures. It is not unusual for change and continuity in men’s mental scripts about roles in the family to occupy the same psychological and cultural space, and this can present interesting paradoxes for fathers. Children’s views about fathers are introduced in Chapter 3.

After a discussion of different mating and marital systems and men’s conceptions of fatherhood and fathering, Chapter 4 provides select accounts of what we know about the levels and quality of different dimensions of fathers’ involvement with children: prenatal care and pregnancy, the birthing process, feeding and holding, warmth and affection, discipline, playing, and cognitive, educational, and technological activities. Data from a wide spectrum of societies and cultural groups form the basis of this discussion: North America and Europe, Middle Eastern societies, Asian societies, foraging and indigenous groups, and countries in Africa, the Latin American and Caribbean regions, and immigrant groups in developed societies. Where possible both fathers’ and children’s accounts of paternal involvement are provided. This is in keeping with the child’s rights perspective to encourage discourses regarding the necessity for engaged fathering.

In the developed world, fathers have increased their time investment and quality of involvement with children. The numbers of primary caregiver, stay-at-home dads, and “hands on” fathers have also inched up a bit. With the exception of groups of fathers in communities in Europe and North America, paternal involvement in caregiving and in social and cognitive activities with children lags noticeably behind those of mothers across the world. What fathers should do “in principle” does not match what they claim to do and what they actually do in terms of childcare and household work. Nevertheless, there is some indication that the affectional distance between fathers and children in some developing societies may be narrowing and that men across developed and developing societies are less likely to be seen primarily as playmates to young children.

Factors that influence men’s involvement with children are woven into Chapter 4. Economic resources, educational attainment, gender ideologies, the availability of other caregivers in the family, social support, family structural arrangements, residential patterns, personal and interpersonal functioning, parenting competence, and how men were fathered, among a host of other factors, seem to influence paternal involvement with children. Among these, income and education, men’s personal functioning, their relationship with the spouse/partner and ex-partner, gendered ideologies, family structural arrangements, and residential patterns seem key in influencing the levels and quality of fathers’ involvement with children and, as such, they are given more attention in our discussion than other factors (Cabrera, Fitzgerald, Bradley, & Roggman, 2007; Roopnarine & Jin, 2016).

How do fathers’ diverse levels and quality of involvement influence childhood development across cultural communities? Chapter 5 outlines some of what we know about the connections between paternal involvement and children’s cognitive and social-emotional development. Although much of the work in this area is based on data collected on European and European-heritage families, studies on childhood outcomes in other recently developed societies (e.g., China), Islamic-based societies in the Middle East (Egypt, Saudi Arabia), and developing societies in Africa, and Latin America and the Caribbean help to punctuate the importance of paternal involvement and to ascertain the local and particular from pan-cultural trends on fathering and childhood outcomes. Depending on the purpose of the study, care is taken to delineate direct and indirect associations between paternal involvement and childhood outcomes in different family constellations.

It will become readily apparent that there are similar patterns of associations between paternal involvement and childhood cognitive and social outcomes in the developed societies, with less consistent associations in the developing ones. This may be attributed, in part, to the lower levels of paternal involvement with children in the developing world when compared to developed societies. Furthermore, a lacuna exists on systematic assessments of the qualitative aspects of paternal involvement in developing societies, which makes it difficult to make inferences about the associations between fathering and childhood development in many of the most populated countries in the world (e.g., India, Indonesia).

...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title
• Copyright
• CONTENTS
• List of illustrations
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Fathering: the global picture
• 2 Theories and conceptual models
• 3 The many faces of fathering: structural arrangements and internal working models
• 4 Levels and quality of paternal involvement
• 5 Father involvement and childhood outcomes
• 6 Fathering intervention programs
• 7 Social policies and fathering
• References
• Index