The Gendered Experience of Family Estrangement in Later Life

Abstract

This qualitative study examined the experiences of 25 parents who were estranged from their adult children in later life. Most participants experienced estrangement as an unanticipated, unchosen, and chronic loss for which they felt ill prepared. Most described a traumatic loss, ambiguous because of its uncertainty and inconclusiveness, and disenfranchised by societal ideologies embedded in constructs of parenting and motherhood as essential, natural, and universal. Many participants said they were subjected to the social stigma associated with tainted or devalued parenthood. In many cases, the gendered stigma accompanying estrangement positioned the female participants precariously for social rejection.

Disagreement, disrespect, and the loss of affection can manifest in physical or emotional estrangement among family members. Physical estrangement is when one or more family members cease all contact—including visits, mail, and telephone calls—with other family members. Emotional estrangement is when family members maintain some perfunctory contact that is characterized by infrequency, discomfort, and dissatisfaction. Emotionally estranged family members do not share intimacy, warmth, or trust and avoid potentially divisive topics. Estrangement appears to result from a number of factors, often intersecting, that increasingly disrupt the relationship until at least one party decides to remove himself or herself emotionally or physically to prevent further hurt or perceived rejection. In other instances, a person may be cast out of the family. Explanations for this phenomenon include excessive closeness or fusion (Bowen, 1978), intrafamilial abuse (Davis, 2002), unrealistic or unfulfilled expectations (LeBey, 2001), perceived betrayal (Leary, 2005), challenges to the family or cultural belief system (Sichel, 2004), and stressors during life stage transitions, such as divorce and death (Sucov, 2006).

This article reports on a qualitative investigation of the experience of 25 parents who were estranged from their adult children in later life. Most participants experienced estrangement as an unanticipated, unexpected, and unchosen loss for which they felt ill prepared. The estrangement was highly stressful and traumatic, and the lack of clarity surrounding it appeared to threaten their well-being and resilience. The participants not only experienced the grief reactions associated with an ambiguous loss but ideologies associated with good parenting, motherhood, and an unbreakable parent–child bond became the grounds for disenfranchised grief. Many were subjected to the social stigma associated with tainted or devalued parenthood, which positioned them precariously for social rejection, which often required adapting interpersonal behaviors. While many participants described a process of learning to live with estrangement, they also described a chronic experience of loss from which there was no escape. This article focuses on the experience of loss, particularly the gendered differences described by the participants.

Review of the Literature

The literature and research on family estrangement and associated concepts, such as cutoff, rejection, and ostracism, are scantily dispersed across various disciplines, including family therapy, social work, sociology, and social psychology. Social psychologists tend to research the effects of interpersonal rejection and social exclusion, while family therapists, clinicians, and social workers tend to focus more on the lived experiences of their clients. Both provide a baseline from which to develop an understanding of the experience of estrangement.

Animal species may actually benefit from the ostracism or exclusion of certain members, which results in “range extension, outbreeding, population density regulation, and the spread of learned traditions” (Raleigh & McGuire, cited in Wilgus, 2003, p. 73). However, the effects on an individual animal may include increased mortality and morbidity, reduced immune function, lowered reproduction, and reduced access to food (Raleigh & McGuire, cited in Wilgus, 2003). In humans, rejection, ostracism, and exclusion threaten a fundamental need to belong, a sense of self-esteem and control, and perceptions of a meaningful existence (Williams & Zadro, 2005). The environment has always been filled with dangers that require social or group behavior to survive. Consequently, humans have retained an innate instinct to recognize and quickly respond to the potential for exclusion (Lakin & Chartrand, 2005). Studies have shown that the experience or threat of exclusion stimulates the physiological system, effectively activating physical defense responses (MacDonald, Kingsbury, & Shaw, 2005).

When rejection, exclusion, and ostracism occur between family members, it is often referred to as family estrangement or cutoff. Bowen family system theorists have suggested that the immediate effect of cutoff is relief from conflict and anxiety in the family system (Bowen, 1978). However, most clinicians have cited shock, anger, hurt, devastation, and numbness as the immediate effects of estrangement (Davis, 2002; LeBey, 2001). Sichel (2004) even likened the aftermath of estrangement to the traumatic shock of “being buried alive” and involving feelings of numbness, detachment, depersonalization, compulsive rumination, and anhedonia within the framework of an acute stress disorder.

Although the reported short-term effects of estrangement may vacillate between relief and traumatic responses, most authors have agreed that unresolved estrangement could contribute to a number of negative long-term consequences. Two commonly cited contributors to and by-products of estrangement are emotional reactivity (Bowen, 1978) and ongoing anxiety and stress (Allen, 2003; Sichel, 2004). Recent investigations have concluded that estrangement may contribute to physiological changes in the individual (Allen, 2003; Friesen, 2003). Significant events in the life cycle, like the birth of a child or retirement, may bring up previously experienced symptoms of trauma as may unrelated traumatic occurrences (Sichel, 2004). Those who are affected can become obsessed with revisiting the events leading to the estrangement and thinking about revenge, while others may imagine paths to reconciliation (Davis, 2002). The lack of rituals and social recognition surrounding estrangement may make it a hidden loss that is difficult to speak about in public (Sucov, 2006).

Family estrangement not only affects the immediate relationship but sets off ripple effects in familial and interpersonal relationships (Friesen, 2003; Sucov, 2006; Titelman, 2003). The most obvious effect of estrangement is isolation from one or more family members, which has implications for associated or secondary estrangement (LeBey, 2001). Sometimes family members may be estranged from a person with a historically attributed “problem status,” although they have no knowledge of the person and have not witnessed the person’s problem behaviors (Titelman, 2003). In other words, they inherit the estrangement. Estrangement from family members may also mean isolation from certain coexisting friends, relationships, associations, and events, resulting in a shrinking of social experiences (Davis, 2002) and fewer people to turn to for emotional support and guidance (Allen, 2003).

Method

The main aim of the study presented here was to explore and understand the lived experiences of older people who are estranged from their adult children. A qualitative methodology grounded in the interpretive constructivist paradigm was used because it was considered the most appropriate for the research questions being posed and possibly the most ethically responsible because of the sensitive nature of the research topic (see Agllias, 2011b, for further details). The topic of family estrangement was complex and relatively unexplored; hence, the method needed to capture the various feelings, thoughts, values, and ideologies that are associated with the experience, rather than search for “universal truths.” Doing so required placing the person who was experiencing the phenomenon at the center of the research, using extended engagement and a flexible research design. Ethical clearance was granted by the University of Newcastle Ethics Committee in December 2008. The committee operates in accordance with the Australian National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research, 2007.

Sampling and Recruitment

I used purposive theoretical sampling to recruit people with direct experience of estrangement from an adult child. Because of the potentially sensitive nature of the topic, invitations to participate were distributed through media outlets, including radio spots and newspapers. Twenty-five participants (18 women and 7 men, including 3 couples, aged 61–80, with a mean age of 71) who were or had been estranged from their adult children were recruited. The participants had a total of 74 children and had experienced 47 estrangements from their adult children over their lives. Of these estrangements, 41 were current at the time of the first and second interviews. These estrangements ranged from 5 months’ to 43 years’ duration at the first interview (with an average duration of 15.5 years).

Data Collection and Analysis

I conducted in-depth interviews with 25 participants initially and 23 of the original participants (16 women and 7 men) approximately 6 months later. The main purpose of the second interview was member checking during which the participants were asked to verify and, if desired, suggest amendments to my interpretations and conclusions. Free-text diaries were offered to the participants who wanted to record additional data between the interviews, and three participants used diaries during this period.

The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using the NVivo software package. I used an interpretive phenomenological analysis to engage with the participants’ detailed interpretations of the estrangement experience and the meanings they associated with it using an adapted version of Smith, Flowers, and Larkin’s (2009) guidelines for interpretative phenomenological analysis and some of Van Manen’s (1990) suggestions for hermeneutic phenomenological inquiry.

Findings

The Push and Pull of Family Estrangement

The participants described a number of factors that “pushed and pulled” their emotions, actions, and lifestyles across time. Although these effects lessened and triggers for pain became less frequent, they never fully dissipated. When the participants first realized they had been estranged, they often felt they had been “cast out” or pushed away from their adult children (and their children’s families). As an initial response, most participants continued reaching out to their children in an effort to see or reconnect with them. As time passed, the majority remained emotionally drawn or pulled toward the children, and there continued to be events and triggers that actively pulled the participants toward a desire to reconnect with the children. Despite remaining emotionally pulled toward their children and reaching out in a number of ways, the majority continued to be pushed away. This tension or back and forth of emotions, particularly the emotional persistence required to remain open to the relationship, was exhausting for many participants. In addition, the female participants often felt a “societal push”—either a perceived judgment or actual social rejection that changed their relationships with others, often resulting in social isolation. While most participants cited some long-term strategies they developed to live with the estrangement, this article focuses on the persistent triggers and experiences they described.

Pushed Away: The Estrangement Is Realized

The first push of estrangement became evident in one of the four ways:

1. The adult children or their spouses contacted the participants, by telephone, letter, or face to face, and told them they did not want to have further contact. This was most commonly an unexpected event, unrelated to overt conflict, and the parent was accused of wrongdoing.

2. The adult children stopped contact without explanation, usually after an event, such as the parents’ divorce or a parent–child conflict.

3. The adult children started to contact the participants less frequently or left all contact up to the participants. They continued to meet with their parents, but these often-tense encounters became more and more uncomfortable for the parents and occurred less often over time.

4. The estrangement was established in childhood or adolescence, usually after the children’s parents divorced, and continued into adulthood (see Agllias, 2011a, for a further exploration of the causes of estrangement).

Reaching Out: Efforts to Reconnect

After the estrangement was realized, the participants described a number of ways in which they continued to reach out to their estranged children. The majority of participants continued to mark occasions, such as birthdays and Christmases, by sending cards and presents to the estranged children (and their families). Some participants continued to do so for more than a decade. They would often choose items with much more care than they would for their nonestranged children or grandchildren. As Betty noted, “I’ve persevered, I’ve sent birthday and Christmas presents every year. I always make sure the cards have granddaughter [or] grandson on them, to try to keep me in their mind, but they wouldn’t know me” (Interview 1).

The participants also often sent cards, e-mail messages, and texts and made telephone calls as an olive branch in the initial and even the later stages of the estrangement. Some said they invited their child to events, such as Christmas, but they kept these invitations informal or tentative. Regardless, most cards and presents were never acknowledged, and many said their gifts went into a “vacuum.” Some presents were returned unopened. Most participants said that texts and telephone calls went unanswered or were returned only after they had left a number of messages.

Pulled Toward: Triggers for Estrangement-Related Emotions

The participants also spoke about a number of events and processes that continued to “pull them toward” their estranged adult children and remind them of the estrangement. Many participants mentioned “triggers” that pulled them back to their children and the reality of the estrangement. Attachment-related triggers, such as seeing family photographs and videos, were particularly painful for some. Others found it difficult when they were doing something special with, or for, their other adult children or grandchildren because this activity tended to highlight the absence of the estranged children and their families.

Many spoke about bumping into old acquaintances or friends of their estranged children and how questions about the children brought pain and embarrassment. Other triggers cited were particular events in time or time itself. Lois wrote:

Dear Lawrence … . My worst time is your birthday. I start thinking of it about the same time as Colin’s, as I know I only have a couple of weeks and then it will be yours. This year I sent SMS messages to your brothers to share the importance of the day with them. I usually spend the day quiet and withdrawn, trying to connect with you in some way. (diary entry)

Most participants, even those who had complete physical estrangements, had experienced some contact with their adult children after the estrangement was realized. This contact might have been a family occasion, such as a wedding; a letter; or a text message. Upcoming family occasions were often experienced by the participants as potentially stressful, but were also sources of hope for contact or reconnection with their adult children. However, family events often resulted in a further rebuff from the adult children and disappointment at the outcome. Carol spoke about being invited to her granddaughter’s christening. She believed that things had changed for the better until she spoke to her daughter-in-law on the day and realized that the invitation was designed to “keep up appearances”: “And she said to me … , ‘Don’t think anything has changed, it hasn’t; everything will still stay the same’” (Interview 1).

Incidental meetings also occurred when the participants saw their estranged adult children in a local shopping center or on the street. On most occasions, these children avoided speaking to the participants by deliberately ignoring them or disappearing into the crowd.

Pulled Toward: Aging as a Primary Trigger

Aging also had an effect on the way most participants thought about or experienced the estrangement with their adult children. The participants often thought that periods of critical illness or the death of a family member would pull these adult children back into the family unit, but, in most cases, these events actually emphasized the estrangement between the parties. Carol remembered the time her husband was critically ill and her unfulfilled expectation that her estranged son would visit:

So he [my husband] was in intensive care. He was very, very ill. But they never came up and saw him. I rang him [my son] again. I said, “Timothy, he’s in intensive care”—and I might have even spoken to her—and I said, “He’s extremely ill.” And then flowers came … but they never came. They never came. (Interview 1)

This was a common experience for the participants and, in most cases, the estranged adult children’s secondary “push” was experienced as unexpected, extremely painful, and disappointing. For many, the children’s refusal to come or acknowledge the event emphasized the lack of emotional connection, and for others, it was the final signal that the estrangement was unlikely to be resolved.

The Effects of the Estrangement Tug-of-War

The participants suggested that the push and pull of estrangement, just described, was like being in an emotional tug-of-war, and there were a number of negative experiences that resulted.

Pushed Away: The Impact on Emotions

Regardless of the way the estrangement was realized, the participants described an initial shock, disbelief, and devastation at being pushed away from their adult children. Most participants simply did not expect the estrangement to occur: As Carol stated, “He said to me, ‘You may never see us again.’ Well, to me, that was the most devastating thing I’ve ever heard because I’d never envisage that in my whole life ever happening to me” (Interview 2). Some spoke about being distraught, desperate, hysterical, and wounded. They often spoke about this initial pain as an assault on the body. As Joyce put it,

There [are] probably two phrases that I use. One is the stab in the heart which never goes away. It might close, but inside that wound goes deeper … then there’s the bruising that comes out. And I know I say I retreat like a wild animal back to its den. I have to do that occasionally. That’s when it gets really bad. (Interview 2)

Frequent crying was a commonly reported response to the estrangement in the early stages. Betty said that she cried for the first year after her daughter-in-law instructed her that she was no longer to contact her son.

Pushed Away: Losing Family

The participants said estrangement significantly diminished their experience of being a family. For many, losing their adult children dramatically affected their perceived or actual ability to fulfill their role as parents and grandparents. The absence of Mother’s Day and Father’s Day cards and someone to help fix the computer emphasized this loss for some, as did the lack of physical and emotional affection. Some focused on the things they could not do for their adult children or grandchildren. For example, Joyce was concerned that she could not help her estranged daughter when she had cancer. By far, the most acute loss cited by some participants was the loss of grandchildren and being unable to be a grandparent. Some spoke about being unable to attend school events or to teach their grandchildren to sew or knit. Janelle noted:

The thing I miss more than anything are the kids. I’ve missed all their growing up, and apparently the eldest is very good at soccer, and I wouldn’t miss being dragged out at seven o’clock on a cold winter’s morning on a Saturday morning, but I’d do it. (Interview 1)

In addition, the value of motherhood was particularly high for some of the women, who stated they always wanted to be a mother or that motherhood was their primary goal in life. Jean said, “And that’s all I ever wanted to be was a good mother and a good grandmother. I didn’t care how I got to be a mother, couldn’t have cared less, you know” (Interview 1). Dianne also stated, “I always wanted to be a good mother. I thought that not being a good mother was the worst thing that could happen, but not to be a mother is the worst thing ever” (Interview 2).

Reaching Out, Pushed Away: Feeling Silenced and Powerless

One of the most significant issues or effects that the participants referred to was the idea of being silenced and made powerless by the estrangement. Both physical and emotional estrangements seemed to sustain themselves by silencing those who wanted to bring another perspective to the fore. Many participants stated they would like to make things right or apologize, but they had never been given the opportunity to meet with their estranged adult children, and some said they had never been told why the estrangement occurred in the first place. The estranged children seemed to have control over the flow of information by stopping, minimizing, or delaying the participants’ input. In the case of physical estrangements, the participants did not receive any response to the input they provided, but in the case of emotional estrangement, delaying or minimizing responses were common. As Carol put it:

So I rang him up—oh, so this was before Christmas— … and said, “I will come down, will we make a time?” And he said, “No, no, I can’t talk now, I’m going to a meeting; I cannot talk a minute, you’ll have to ring back.” I said, “When would I ring back?” He said, “Oh, a couple of days.” I rang back in a couple of days—“Can’t talk, I’m too busy; you’ll have to ring again.” [I] rang up again, [and] he said, “Can’t make it before Christmas now; you’ll have to make it after Christmas.” (Interview 1)

The Social Push: When the Estranged Anticipate and Receive Judgment

Estrangement had an impact on social interaction. While some participants relied on friendships and social intercourse as a way of coping with the estrangement, most suggested that estrangement narrowed the number of people with whom they interacted or the topics about which they were able to speak:

Yes, I tend to stay out of it … . You tend to become reclusive because it’s easier. People, on the whole, just wouldn’t understand, couldn’t believe that that sort of thing could happen. (Betty, Interview 1)

I felt ashamed, secretive. I did not want people to know I did not see him. (Shirley, Interview 1)

Many participants believed that others would not be able to understand the notion of estrangement and feared that they would be judged about their parenting skills and even about their adult children’s behavior. Some participants were guarded about who they told about the estrangement and never mentioned it at social occasions. Some said they avoided the topic of children and grandchildren in social situations by changing the subject, asking questions of others, or referring only to the adult children and grandchildren from whom they were not estranged.

For some, shame and embarrassment had been experienced or reinforced in social situations. Joyce spoke about being judged and isolated by members of her church: “One of the things that I did learn was that, after all the children had left and I was struggling and battling, [the] majority of the Catholics couldn’t understand how a mother could desert her children in a way. There was an invisible line out there. They never came” (Interview 1). Helen dreaded questions about family in medical situations, saying:

They say, ‘Who’s your next of kin?’ and I give them the phone number, you know. And they sort of look at it and say, ‘Well, haven’t you got an address?’ And I say, ‘No.’ It’s embarrassing. (Interview 1)

The issue of social isolation, particularly the shame and embarrassment associated with estrangement, was most pressing for the female participants. As Joyce stated:

For men who are estranged or who go off, it is accepted as being OK. There is some reason for it. But for women who are estranged from their children, there is something wrong with [them] … and that’s, I think, [of] everyone that I’ve talked to is how people treat us. When initially it happens—in my case and in others that I’ve talked to—you can nearly draw a circle around as to how far people get in touch with you; there’s that line out there; they don’t cross it because there’s something wrong with us. (Interview 2)

The women were often asked to give details about family members in social situations. Betty put it this way:

You can get very embarrassed in company … . And everybody has their grandkids on school holidays and the like; that’s when people start saying, “Your grandchildren never come to see you.” Well, [I say] usually “They’re overseas. Their mum’s from overseas, and they’ve probably gone home to see [their] grandmother.” (Interview 2)

The men, on the other hand, tended to be asked basic questions about their adult children and grandchildren, questions they could answer easily without alluding to the estrangement and to feel less embarrassed or ashamed of discussing the estrangement, as in the following comments:

I’ve been asked “what do my children do?” I answer the question what they do, but I don’t say they’re estranged. (Charles, Interview 2)… It never came up, and I would have spoken—it’s like men speaking about prostate cancer. I would tell anybody. I would have spoken to anybody about it, but nobody asked me. (Robert, Interview 2)

Most participants told their close friends and relatives about the estrangement, but they were often guarded about the extent to which they discussed it or burdened others. They sometimes felt they should not speak to their estranged children’s siblings about the estrangement for fear of upsetting them or putting them between the two parties. One participant said that her husband never wanted to discuss the estrangement and asked her to refrain from bringing it up.

In addition, bringing up the subject with family members and friends sometimes met with unsatisfactory responses, such as unwanted advice, awkwardness, or the lack of genuine acknowledgment. As John put it:

Some people say to me, “Just shrug it off, forget it, don’t worry about them. If they don’t want anything to do with you, don’t worry about them.” But I can’t do that … I often think when people say that to me, … “I wonder how you would react if it were your children treating you this way.” (Interview 1)

Many felt isolated by this unanticipated experience, which made them feel different from others:

You get this card from friends; they’re writing about their children in it and how they’re just one big happy family, and we love one another, the children are beautiful, and I think well, how does that be? … we are the only people that have the estranged child. (Carol, Interview 2)

Discussion

The Grief and Loss of Family Estrangement

Most participants experienced estrangement as a significant loss. They spoke about it as a psychosocial death, in which they perceived that their personalities or essences were dead, but their adult children were still alive. Mostly participants described a rollercoaster of grief symptoms after they had realized their adult children were estranged from them. Initial responses included emotions of shock and anxiety; protest behaviors, such as crying; and cognitions, such as disbelief. These responses were interspersed with, and sometimes succeeded by, emotions of anger, sadness, frustration, and disappointment; protest behaviors like contacting, searching, and looking out for the adult children; and cognitions, such as preoccupation with the estrangement.

The participants spoke about their emotional pain as if it were a physical sensation, which is consistent with social psychological and psychoanalytic theories that suggest that rejection triggers physiological defense mechanisms or threat responses associated with physical pain (MacDonald et al., 2005). Estrangement was most commonly described as provoked and often sustained by feelings of hurt associated with unexpected events that the participants found difficult to understand. It was a loss that the participants strongly associated with the lack of preparation and choice: two factors that have been shown to increase initial grief responses (Machin, 2009). The majority of the participants described estrangement as a unique and prolonged loss that posed considerable challenges compared to other losses they had experienced, such as divorce or the death of a close relative. They conceptualized grieving as an intrapersonal and interpersonal process that had no predetermined outcomes or end points.

Estrangement as an Ambiguous Loss: The Personal Experience

In estrangement, the physically estranged adult children were physically absent but psychologically present in the participants’ lives because of the parental attachment bond and memories of the children, as well as social reminders of the children’s existence. The emotionally estranged adult children were often physically absent from the participants’ lives, but psychologically present in their minds. When the parties met, the participants also spoke about the adult children as psychologically absent, changed, or unreachable.

Family estrangement may be seen as a type of ambiguous loss: “a situation of unclear loss resulting from not knowing whether a loved one is dead or alive, absent or present” (Carroll, Olson, & Buckmiller, 2007, p. 223). The cause, duration, and potential for reconciliation were often ambiguous in estrangement. The loss remained ambiguous since the person was caught in the tension between two opposing ideas simultaneously: The estranged person might or might not come back (Boss, 2006). The uncertainty about the state of the relationship might lead to role ambiguity, in which family members and friends were unsure about who was “in” or “out” of the family system, and they were likely to be “perplexed about whether to express sympathy or maintain a solid sense of normalcy and/or hope” (Walter & McCoyd, 2009, p. 20). Ambiguity might also prevent the participants from taking on new roles and identities because they did not know whether the adult children would return: “Without an overt death in the first case, it seems premature and even cruel to grieve in socially sanctioned ways; in the second, to begin to grieve would remove the hope of return of the lost one to the social milieu” (Walter & McCoyd, 2009, p. 20). Widely accepted in the literature on ambiguous loss is the idea of successful or healthy mourning involving the reorganization or reorientation of one’s world without the deceased or absent person, but the nature of estrangement altered this trajectory.

Estrangement as Disenfranchised Grief: The Social Experience

The participants described estrangement as a loss that is rarely recognized by others. The perceived stigma associated with having an estranged child contributed to a “social silence” and the participants’ reluctance to disclose their loss. It appeared that society’s vehement endorsement of the parent–child bond, particularly the relationship between the mother and child, became the grounds for disenfranchisement. The female participants were particularly vulnerable to perceived stigma, which modified and limited their social experiences.

“Every society has norms that frame grieving” (Doka, 2002, p. 6) and govern how people feel, express, and think about grief and loss. However, some losses are “not openly acknowledged, socially validated, or publicly observed” (Doka, 2002, p. 5). Disenfranchised grief results from one or more of the following conditions: The relationship between the person and the bereaved is not recognized; the loss is not recognized; the griever is not recognized; the circumstances surrounding the loss cause embarrassment, shame, or stigma; or the person expresses his or her grief in ways that are not sanctioned by society (Walter & McCoyd, 2009). The participants said that their loss was not recognized, they were not recognized, and they often felt associated shame and guilt.

Estrangement as a Spoiled Identity: Stigma and Gender

The participants were also subjected to the social stigma associated with devalued parenthood. The female participants regularly spoke about internalized pressures to conform to dominant ideologies. They married and raised children in a period of significant social conformity, when marriage and childbirth were social expectations. Most of them defined themselves primarily as mothers, effectively making their success in motherhood as the main yardstick on which to pass judgment. Since these women were primarily exposed to the mothering ideologies of the 1940s to 1960s and were often limited in their choices outside motherhood, it was likely that many of them “made home and the family into a vehicle for … power and control, status, and self-realization” (Friedan, 1981, p. 92).

In many cases, the stigma associated with estrangement positioned the participants precariously for additional rejection, and they had to take active steps to manage this situation. Many spoke about perceived or actual experiences of devaluation or stigmatization because of the estrangement from their adult children and grandchildren. This was particularly evident in the women’s stories in which motherhood was central to their life narratives. However, the participants rarely used the words stigmatized or discriminated against; rather, they appeared to internalize the experience as personal shame and embarrassment. They were constantly vigilant lest questions threatening to expose the estrangement might force them to be untruthful to keep it hidden.

The relationships and bonds between parents and their children are often portrayed as foundational and unbreakable, and family role divisions are often depicted as essential and universal (Connidis & Walker, 2009). The social construction of “motherhood as natural” appeared to fuel many participants’ beliefs that estrangement was unnatural by comparison. Indeed, for Connidis and Walker (2009), once aspects of family were regarded as essential, people were less likely to view them critically, and variances, such as divorce and estrangement, were then more likely to be perceived as threats to traditional family life. Frequently, these ideals have served as yardsticks to evaluate parents’ success in performing their “natural” roles and functions, particularly for women whose biological ties to children tend to substantiate these normative expectations (Bowden & Mummery, 2009). These social norms constitute cultural scripts that are inculcated through socialization early in life and lead to expectations or well-ingrained ideas about the consequences of failing to live up to them. Once internalized, these norms constitute a stigmatized consciousness that is intolerant of family estrangement. In the study, the women were particularly vigilant about not disclosing or talking about the estrangement for fear of stigmatization, judgment, or rejection. As Remennick (2000, p. 823) said, “Stigma as a psychological state is only possible when its carriers adopt the mainstream social definitions of the norm … . The more a woman identifies with the universal expectation of motherhood, the deeper her perception of stigma in case she cannot meet this norm.”

Most of the women in the study actively promoted and endorsed society’s construction of, and the importance attributed to, motherhood as the primary and most important role a woman can perform. These women viewed estrangement as incompatible with a normal existence and normal family and their sound reputation as mothers or parents.

According to Remennick (2000), the ability to resist stigmatization is determined by one’s capacity to assume a critical stance about dominant ideologies and disconnect from the mainstream discourse. The male participants seemed less affected by such ideologies. Although similarly affected by the estrangement, they seemed better able to talk about it in social settings, cited fewer instances of perceived stigma, and described less shame and embarrassment than the female participants. In addition, a few of the women, whose identities were firmly career associated, described less shame and guilt about the estrangement.

Limitations of the Study

The study focused on the experience of older persons to gather rich data, so the estranged adult children were not interviewed, and one side of the story is missing. The consent and interview requirements might have prevented some people from participating, particularly those with limited literacy and privacy and those who felt particularly stressed or overwhelmed by the estrangement experience at the time when research participants were called for. The retrospective collection of data might have made it susceptible to the participants’ lapses of memory and prosocial reporting of personal choices and actions.

Recommendations

The study found that it is important to view the nature, experience, and factors associated with the development of estrangement in the historical and sociopolitical milieu. Indeed, the gendered nature of the findings highlighted the connected and interdependent aspects of the macro- and microspheres and suggested the utility of critical, particularly feminist, perspectives in the development, conduct, and interpretation of future estrangement-related research. Feminism assumes a critical stance on ideologies and practices that differentiate, value, and privilege people on the basis of sex and suggests “that structures and processes at work in the larger social arena have [an] impact on relations in intimate environments and vice versa” (Fox & Murry, 2000, p. 1160). Such a position has considerable bearing on the interpretation of the findings and the translation of the findings into guidelines for social work practice.

Indeed, family estrangement appeared to be subject to the same social processes and social disapproval as issues such as divorce, abortion, and homosexuality. These phenomena have existed throughout recorded history with various degrees of tolerance, including periods of vehement nonacceptance in modern Western societies. During these periods, legislative, moral, and religious condemnation labeled these practices as deviant, effectively shaming and silencing many of those who were affected and often leading to concealment from mainstream society. At the core of these marginalizing and stigmatizing processes were social understandings that suggested that these conditions posed threats to procreation and the subsequent dissolution of the “natural and normal” family configuration. Human rights—particularly women’s rights—movements effectively challenged these concepts and led to significant social and policy changes across time. However, family estrangement appeared to remain in “social and political darkness” and, compared to the aforementioned issues, was a reality not yet ready to be unveiled or discussed in mainstream society.

There is a significant role for the social work profession to play in researching and disseminating findings to raise social and political consciousness about family estrangement. Evidence of the existence, rates, contributing factors, and experience of family estrangement would contribute to the education of practitioners, policy makers, and society, as well as establish a foundation to advocate for those who are negatively affected by this experience. Social workers could challenge the stigma associated with family estrangement by drawing attention to, and normalizing, this phenomenon and challenging and deconstructing the taken-for-granted cultural beliefs about parenthood and motherhood that are inherent in its construction.

Family estrangement has broad implications for families and the provision of services to older people in a policy context of independence and self-reliance. Social workers are often involved in the assessment of older people when they come into contact with health and support services. However, this study found that many participants felt they were the only persons or families experiencing estrangement and were embarrassed if they had to disclose their estrangement from their adult children, resulting in concealment. This situation is potentially problematic for older persons, who may not be offered adequate services and support because of the presumption of family support. Therefore, social workers cannot assume that family estrangement does not exist and need to use assessment tools and questions to determine if it does. Shame, stigma, and the capacity to conceal estrangement indicate the need for social workers to ask about estranged family members when conducting assessments or completing genograms.

Conclusion

This article described some of the experiences of 25 parents who were estranged from their adult children in later life. Most participants experienced estrangement as a significant unanticipated, unexpected, and chronic loss for which they felt ill prepared. The lack of clarity surrounding the estrangement appeared to prolong a loss that violated multiple and long-held assumptions and ambitions about parenthood. The participants not only experienced the grief reactions associated with an ambiguous loss but were subjected to disenfranchised grief and the social stigma associated with devalued parenthood. This situation was particularly pertinent for the female participants who placed a significant value on the concept of motherhood, who stated that they always wanted to be mothers or for whom motherhood was the primary goal in life. The findings suggest a significant role for social work in raising social and political awareness about family estrangement and demystifying the often-gendered constructs that contribute to its stigmatized status.