To identify perspectives on the roles of extended family and fictive kin, the authors conducted a qualitative analysis of in-depth interviews with 45 older adults diverse in gender, race, and class. Five strategies of kin reinterpretation were found. Kin promotion defined a distant blood relative as a closer blood relative. Kin exchange reclassified a parent–child tie as a sibling tie or vice versa. Nonkin conversion created fictive kin by turning friends and colleagues into family-like members. Kin retention kept an ex-in-law in the extended family network following divorce. Kin loss identified the meaning of losing physical or psychological contact with a once-valued kin member. The findings reveal that older adults from both mainstream and marginalized families expanded kin reinterpretation practices as a means of adapting to impermanence in family ties. These alterations helped ensure closeness and mutual reliance, thus providing a bridge to connect the old and new social landscape.
AllanG. (2008). Flexibility, friendship, and family. Personal Relationships, 15, 1-16.
2.
AmatoP. R. (2010). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 650-666.
3.
ArberS. (2004). Gender, marital status, and ageing: Linking material, health, and social resources. Journal of Aging Studies, 18, 91-108.
4.
BallD. (1972). The “family” as a sociological problem: Conceptualization of the taken-for-granted as prologue to social problem analysis. Social Problems, 19, 295-307.
5.
BedfordV. H.BliesznerR. (2000). Personal relationships in later life families. In MilardoR. M.DuckS. (Eds.), Families as relationships (pp. 157-174). New York, NY: Wiley.
6.
BengtsonV. L. (2001). Beyond the nuclear family: The increasing importance of multigenerational bonds. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 1-16.
7.
BianchiS. M.MilkieM. A. (2010). Work and family research in the first decade of the 21st century. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 705-725.
8.
BogdanR. C.BiklenS. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
9.
ChattersL. M.TaylorR. J.JayakodyR. (1994). Fictive kinship relations in black extended families. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 25, 297-312.
10.
CherlinA. J. (2009). The marriage-go-round: The state of marriage and the family in America today. New York, NY: Vintage.
11.
ConnidisI. A. (2010). Family ties & aging (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
12.
CrottyM. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. London, England: SAGE.
13.
DalyK. (2003). Family theory versus the theories families live by. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 771-784.
14.
GoldbergA. E. (2010). Lesbian and gay parents and their children: Research on the family life cycle. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
15.
GubriumJ. F.HolsteinJ. A. (1990). What is family?Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
16.
HanssonR. O.CarpenterB. N. (1994). Relationships in old age. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
17.
HolsteinJ. A.GubriumJ. F. (1995). Deprivatization and the construction of domestic life. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 894-908.
18.
JeuneB.ChristensenK. (2005). Biodemography and epidemiology of longevity. In JohnsonM. L. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of age and ageing (pp. 85-94). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
19.
JohnsonC. L. (1988). Ex familia: Grandparents, parents, and children adjust to divorce. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
20.
JohnsonC. L. (1999). Fictive kin among oldest old African Americans in the San Francisco Bay area. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 54B, S368-S375.
21.
JohnsonC. L. (2000). Perspectives on American kinship in the later 1990s. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 623-639.
22.
LowensteinA. (2005). Global ageing and challenges to families. In JohnsonM. L. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of age and ageing (pp. 403-412). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
23.
MacRaeH. (1992). Fictive kin as a component of the social networks of older people. Research on Aging, 14, 226-247.
24.
MuracoA. (2006). Intentional families: Fictive kin ties between cross-gender, different sexual orientation friends. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 1313-1325.
25.
NelsonM. (2006). Single mothers “do” family. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 781-795.
26.
NewmanK. S. (2003). A different shade of gray: Midlife and beyond in the inner city. New York, NY: New Press.
27.
PykeK. (2000). “The normal American family” as an interpretive structure of family life among grown children of Korean and Vietnamese immigrants. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 240-255.
28.
RobertoK. A.AllenK. R.BliesznerR. (2001). Older adults’ preferences for future care: Formal plans and family support. Applied Developmental Sciences, 5, 112-120.
29.
SchmeeckleM.GiarrussoR.FengD.BengtsonV. L. (2006). What makes someone family? Adult children’s perceptions of current and former stepparents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 595-610.
30.
SmithD. E. (1993). The Standard North American Family: SNAF as an ideological code. Journal of Family Issues, 14, 50-65.
31.
StaceyJ. (1990). Brave new families: Stories of domestic upheaval in late twentieth century America. New York, NY: Basic Books.
32.
StackC. B. (1974). All our kin. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
33.
TownsendP. (1957). The family life of old people. London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
34.
UmbersonD.PudrovskaT.ReczekC. (2010). Parenthood, childlessness, and well-being: A life course perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 612-629.
35.
WengerG. C.ScottA.PattersonN. (2000). How important is parenthood? Childlessness and support in old age in England. Ageing and Society, 20, 161-182.
