In this study, the author uses the changing practice of geriatric care within transnational Taiwanese families as a case to examine the processes through which a family ideology “travels,” varies, and operates across worlds. Specifically, the author argues that family members across generations reconstruct “rules of reciprocity” to facilitate the application of ethnic traditions regarding aging and geriatric care in the context of family separation and dislocation. Through multi-sited field work in the United Sates and in Taiwan, the author underscores how, given the fact that many Taiwanese immigrants cannot provide physical care for their aging parents halfway around the world, they and their parents place more emphasis on the emotional and symbolic dimension of children’s responsibilities for aging parents. Furthermore, this article highlights how the symbolic hierarchy between Taiwan and the United States complicates the emotional work that Taiwanese immigrants overseas and their parents in the homeland perform from a long distance.
BaldassarL.BaldockC. V.WildingR. (2007). Families caring across borders: Migration, ageing and transnational caregiving. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
2.
BliesznerR.HamonR. (1992). Filial responsibility: Attitudes, obligations, and roles. In DwyerJ.CowardR. (Eds.), Gender, families, and elder care (pp. 105-119). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
3.
BrycesonD.VuorelaU. (2002). Transnational families in the twentieth-first century. In BrycesonD.VuorelaU. (Eds.), The transnational families: New European frontiers and global networks (pp. 3-30). New York, NY: Berg.
4.
CharmazK. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
CheeM. W. L. (2005). Taiwanese American transnational families: Women and kin work. New York, NY: Routledge.
6.
ChenC. (2006). From filial piety to religious piety: Evangelical Christianity reconstructing Taiwanese immigrant families in the United States. International Migration Review, 40, 573-602.
7.
ChenC. (2008). Getting saved in America: Taiwanese immigration and religious experience. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
8.
di LeonardoM. (1987). The female world of cards and holidays: Women, families, and the work of kinship. Signs, 12, 440-453.
9.
DrebyJ. (2010). Divided by borders: Mexican migrants and their children. Berkeley: University of California Press.
10.
EscriváA. (Ed.). (2004). Securing care and welfare of dependants transnationally: Peruvians and Spaniards in Spain. Oxford, England: Oxford Institute of Aging.
11.
EspirituY. L. (2003). Homebound: Filipino American lives across cultures, communities, and countries. Berkeley: University of California Press.
12.
EvergetiV.ZontiniE. (2006). Introduction: Some critical reflections on social capital, migration and transnational families. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 29, 1025-1039.
13.
FombyP. (2005). Mexican migrants and their parental households in Mexico. New York, NY: LFB Scholarly.
14.
FouronG.Glick-SchillerN. (2001). All in the family: Gender, transnational migration, and the nation-state. Identities, 7, 539-582.
15.
GamburdM. R. (2000). The kitchen spoon’s handle: Transnationalism and Sri Lanka’s migrant housemaids. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
16.
GilbertsonG. (2009). Caregiving across generations: Aging, state assistance, and multigenerational ties among immigrants from Dominican Republic. In FonerN. (Ed.), Across generations: Immigrant families in America (pp. 135-159). New York: New York University Press.
17.
GreenhalghS. (1988). Intergenerational contracts: Familial roots of sexual stratification in Taiwan. In DwyerD.BruceJ. (Eds.), A home divided: Women and income in the third world (pp. 39-70). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
18.
GuC.-J. (2006). Mental health among Taiwanese Americans: Gender, immigration, and transnational struggles. New York, NY: LFB Scholarly.
19.
HansenK. V. (2004). The asking rules of reciprocity in networks of care for children. Qualitative Sociology, 27, 421-437.
20.
HansenK. V. (2005). Not-so-nuclear families: Class, gender, and networks of care. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
21.
HirschJ. S. (2003). A courtship after marriage: Sexuality and love in Mexican transnational families. Berkeley: University of California Press.
22.
HochschildA. R. (2002). Love and gold. In EhrenreichB.HochschildA. R. (Eds.), Global woman: Nannies, maids and sex workers in the new economy (pp. 15-30). London, England: Granta Books.
23.
HochschildA. R. (2003). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press.
24.
Hondagneu-SoteloP.AvilaE. (1997). “I’m here, but I am there”: The meanings of Latina transnational motherhood. Gender & Society, 11, 548-571.
25.
KibriaN. (2002). Becoming Asian Americans: Second-generation Chinese and Korean American identities. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
26.
LambS. (2009). Aging and Indian diaspora: Cosmopolitan families in India and abroad. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
27.
LanP.-C. (2002). Subcontracting filial piety: Elder care in ethnic chinese immigrant families in California. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 812-835.
28.
LanP.-C. (2006). Global Cinderella: Migrant domestics and newly rich employers in Taiwan. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
29.
LareauA. (2004). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
30.
LevittP.WatersM. (2002). Introduction. In LevittP.WatersM. C. (Eds.), The changing face of home: The transnational lives of the second generation (pp. 1-30). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
31.
LieberE.NihiraK.MinkI. T. (2004). Filial piety, modernization, and the challenges of raising children for Chinese immigrants: Quantitative and qualitative evidence. Ethos, 32, 324-347.
32.
MazzucatoV. (2007). Transnational reciprocity: Ghanaian migrants and the care of their parents back home. In AlberE.van der GeestS.WhyteS. R. (Eds.), Generations in Africa: Connections and conflicts (pp. 91-109). Münster, Germany: LIT Verlag.
33.
NelsonM. K. (2000). Single mothers and social support: The commitment to, and retreat from, reciprocity. Qualitative Sociology, 23, 291-317.
34.
NelsonM. K. (2005). The social economy of single motherhood: Raising children in rural America. New York, NY: Routledge.
35.
OlwigK. F. (1999). Narratives of the children left behind: Home and identity in globalized Caribbean families. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 25, 267-284.
36.
OngA. (1999). Flexible citizenship: The cultural logics of transnationality. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
37.
ParrenasR. S. (2000). Migrant Filipina domestic workers and the international division of reproductive labor. Gender & Society, 14, 560-581.
38.
ParrenasR. S. (2001). Mothering from a distance: Emotions, gender, and intergenerational relations in Filipino transnational families. Feminist Studies, 27, 361-387.
39.
ParrenasR. S. (2005). Children of globalization: Transnational families and gendered woes. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
40.
ParrenasR. S. (2008). Transnational fathering: Gendered conflicts, distant disciplining, emotional gaps. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 34, 1057-1072.
41.
PykeK. (1999). The micropolitics of care in relationships between aging parents and adult children: Individualism, collectivism, and power. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 661-672.
42.
PykeK.BengtsonV. L. (1996). Caring more or less: Individualistic and collectivist systems of family eldercare. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 379-392.
43.
ShihK. Y.PykeK. (2010). Power, resistance, and emotional economies in women’s relationships with mothers-in-law in Chinese immigrant families. Journal of Family Issues, 31, 333-357.
44.
SinghS.CabraalA.RobertsonS. (2010). Remittances as a currency of care: A focus on “twice migrants” among the Indian diaspora in Australia. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 41, 245-263.
45.
SmithR. C. (2006). Mexican New York: Transnational lives of new immigrants. Berkeley: University of California Press.
46.
ThomasC. (1993). Deconstructing concepts of care. Sociology, 27, 649-669.
47.
TsengY.-F. (1995). Beyond “Little Taipei”: The development of Taiwanese immigrant businesses in Los Angeles. International Migration Review, 29, 33-58.
48.
TsuiE. Y.-l. (1987). Are married daughters “spilled water”? A study of working women in urban Taiwan (Monograph 4, Vol. 4, pp. 56-64). Taipei: Women’s Research Program, Population Studies Center, National Taiwan University.
49.
YeohB.HuangS.LamT. (2005). Transnationalizing the “Asian” family: Imaginaries, intimacies and strategic intents. Global Networks, 5, 307-315.
50.
ZhouM. (1998). “Parachute kids” in Southern California: The educational experience of Chinese children in transnational families. Educational Policy, 12, 682-704.
51.
ZhouM.KimS. S. (2006). Community forces, social capital, and educational achievement: The case of supplementary education in the Chinese and Korean immigrant communities. Harvard Educational Review, 76, 1-29.
