Who to marry? Norwegian-Tamil young adults reflecting on their conditions for partner choice. A narrative approach to intergenerational change processes

Abstract

Family and generational issues are central to research and debate on migration and culture. In this article we combine perspectives on partner choice and marriage with a narrative approach to intergenerational dynamics. More specifically we have invited young adult Norwegian-Tamils to gather in small groups with same gender peers and reflect on topics of partner choice and marriage. The data resulting from these discussions was contextualized by way of Cigdem Kagitcibasi’s theory of family change and analyzed based on Jerome Bruner’s perspectives on narrative and semiosis. Our results show how narrative analysis can capture and elucidate change processes that occur from one generation to the next. Narrative networks develop around contextualized “problems” and new generations interpret and reproduce both the context and the problems in new ways. Kagitcibasi argues that collectivist family patterns will prevail in the form of psychological interdependence when families migrate from traditional to Western socioeconomic contexts. The tendencies in our data both support and nuance this claim.

Introduction

Family and generational issues are central to research and debate on migration. This includes questions about how intergenerational dynamics change when families move from one cultural context to another. In such cases childcare and established routines for socializing young children are set in a new light, as are the expectations families have for the older children and for young adults (Kagitcibasi, 2007; Trommsdorff & Kornadt, 2002; Valsiner, 1997). Children in immigrant families can experience strongly differing cultural expectations from the majority society on the one hand and the minority family group on the other. The way they navigate their affiliations and organize their present and future actions makes them potential agents of societal change.

Cigdem Kagitcibasi has developed a theory about how micro level family patterns coregulate with changes in the broader sociocultural context. The theory is based on empirical studies of values attributed to children by parents, and how values are manifested in parent-child relationships (Kagitcibasi, 2007). Studies on the value of children often address questions of fertility (Dinn & Kagitcibaci, 2010; Hoffman & Hoffman, 1973). However, in this article we will contribute to the literature on the dynamics of family patterns by providing a narrative perspective on aspects of Kagitcibasi’s (2007) theory in the context of migration and intergenerational change processes. Specifically, we will discuss the relationship between parents and children in Tamil families in Norway as it is actualized when the children reach adulthood and start looking for potential life partners. We will use a narrative approach to discuss how the manner in which second generation Tamils in Norway talk about the conditions for partner choice, can shed light on intergenerational change processes.

The article is based on the master’s thesis of the first author who is herself a second-generation Tamil in Norway.

Research context

A theory of family change

Families are social groups that can have different characteristics and functions in different societies. In many societies, parents and children function interdependently with the family as the basic unit. Individual efforts are aimed at ensuring the family group respect, status and economic sustainability. The economic and emotional investment of the family is in the parents. In other societies, resources flow mainly from parents to children, and the family’s goal is to produce individuals who in turn can function economically and emotionally independently of the family and in line with modern welfare societies (Esping-Andersen et al., 2002; Kagitcibasi, 2002). In the latter case, child rearing routines will be characterized by a high degree of emotional communication and verbalization and will contribute to enhanced self-awareness in the child. This contrasts with community-oriented care practices where children are directed to the needs of others and develop desired qualities through participation in, and contributions to, daily routines in close family networks. The values children have for their parents differ in the two family models. The child’s economic value relates to material contributions to the family such as help with housework or financial security for aging parents (Kagitcibasi, 2007). Social and traditional values concern the continuation of the family name and the social status gained from having children. Social value is often expressed by a preference for sons (Dinn & Kagitcibsci, 2010). Psychological value deals with the joy, pride and love one experiences from having children. According to Kagitcibaci (2007) material, social and traditional values are particularly strong in collectivist agricultural societies, while psychological value dominates in individualistic urbanized industrial societies.

In her theory (2002) of family change, Kagitcibasi discusses how a reduction in material dependence of parents on their children affect the relative roles of family members as well as prevailing values. When parents no longer depend on their children to ensure the livelihood of the family, their expectations for obedience decline (Kagitcibasi, 2002). With less requirement for obedience, there will be more room for the child’s own preferences and choices. The orientation of parents becomes less authoritarian and the psychological value of having children increases (Kagitibasi s2002, 2007). Kagitcibasi (2002) notes that when traditional families are urbanized and the economic wealth starts to flow towards the children, the emotional investment is still in parents. This leads to a third form of family where independence in the material sphere combines with emotional interdependence. She calls this a “family model of psychological interdependence” (Kagitcibasi, 2002).

Partner choice and marriage as intergenerational issues

Choosing a partner and getting married are significant events that can address both families’ perceived integrity and the autonomy of individuals involved. When and how decisions about marriage are made vary between different cultures. When young adults in a Western culture settle for a life partner, it usually means that they establish a life independent of their parents (King & Harris, 2007). In the Norwegian majority context, partner choice is understood as something that primarily concerns the two individuals who choose each other. Partner choice is often framed in the context of a romantic love ideal (Elgvin & Grødem, 2011). It is common for both women and men to have explored romantic and sexual dimensions before getting married. If emotions later cool down and the couple decides to part ways, this is not taboo (Bogle, 2008; van de Bongardt et al., 2015).

Many immigrant groups in Norway have in common that parents play a significant role when their children choose a partner for life (Elgvin & Grødem, 2011). Tamils have a long history of endogamous marriages. That is marrying within their own caste and within their own social and ethnic group (Clark-Decès, 2014). Traditionally in Sri Lanka, the choice of spouse is aimed both at safeguarding the respect and status of the family, and at developing social networks. Many Tamil parents consider arranging their children’s marriage as one of their most important tasks (Chapin, 2013). After entering marriage, the Tamil couple will stay close to the extended family (Cowley-Sathiakumar, 2008).

Although South Asian parents are happy to participate in the process of finding a life partner for their children, many of today’s young people want to take an active role and participate in the final decision (Bredal, 2005). A British study (Pande, 2014) on marriages of immigrants from Pakistan, India and Bangladesh showed how both parents’ expectations, and wishes of the young, were safeguarded. In their partner choices the young took into consideration what parents considered appropriate in terms of caste, class and religion. Only after considering their parents' expectations, they went on to invest romantic feelings (Pande, 2014).

For South Asian immigrant families, Western norms of dating and sexuality compete with traditional practices characterized by social control (Zaidi et al., 2016). Activities related to dating and sexuality are considered cultural deviations and a threat to the honor of the family, and involvement in dating can reduce the chances of a good marriage (Alexander et al., 2006). The constant negotiation between adolescents and their parents on topics of peer interaction verge on gender socialization. Young women are expected to maintain the honor of the family and live up to ideals of chastity and purity. When married, they represent both their own family and the husband’s family through being a wife and mother (Chakravarti, 2005; Mandelbaum, 1988; Mosquera, 2013). As mothers they are responsible for passing on cultural values to their children (Kallivayalil, 2004). Honor seems to have an influence on young immigrants both consciously and unconsciously, setting conditions for their freedom of action (Varghese & Jenkins, 2009). Chakravarti (2005) points out that marriages based on love can appear as a direct threat to social, material and cultural factors that form the basis of traditional, honor-based structures of marriage and family.

The social standing of parents in traditional societies is closely related to the children’s actions (Dinn & Kagitcibsci, 2010). When children do well academically and choose suitable, life partners, it strengthens the social status of parents and the family honor. Such children contribute to the good name and reputation of the family and thus have social value (Kagitcibasi, 2002).

Tuli and Chaudhary (2010) are sympathetic to Kagitcibasi’s (2002) general description of the family model of psychological interdependence and how second-generation migrants from traditional to industrialized societies become more autonomous. They point out however, that it is an empirical question whether increasing autonomy is cherished within all domains of life. If the level of control within a domain relates to the significance of this domain in the social community in question, this can nuance why adults are more controlling towards children in some areas than in others. Tuli and Chaudhary (2010) uses the term “elective interdependence” to describe how mothers value and negotiate children’s autonomy in everyday situations in ways that are active, dialogical, contextual and domain driven.

Partner choice among young adults in immigrant families with South Asian backgrounds appears to be an area where parents are still heavily involved and thus an area of high priority for the parent generation. At the same time, research shows that changes are taking place. Second-generation immigrants in Norway and Denmark are more open to dating and marriage across cultures than the parent generation. The statistics show that the age of marriage is going up, and that the proportion of people marrying a partner from their parents’ country of origin is declining (Bråten & Elgvin, 2014). Many second-generation immigrants consider romantic love to be a key ingredient for a successful relationship. A report from an independent Norwegian institute for labour and social research shows that among immigrants who see themselves as autonomous and free to choose their partner, several have married a partner born in Norway (Elgvin & Grødem, 2011). Those who experience themselves as less autonomous, more often marry a partner from the home country of their parents.

By taking a closer look at how young adult second-generation immigrants talk about their conditions for choosing a partner, we can gain insight into how family relationships are negotiated and changed as traditional family patterns adapt to a Western society – in this case Tamil families in Norway.

When the data collection was carried out in 2020, the Norwegian population counted 5.3 million. Among these, 15 737 persons originated from Sri Lanka (SSB, 2020). This includes 6,519 Norwegian-born children. Many Tamils came as refugees to Norway in the 1980s. They reside throughout Norway, but the majority is located in and around the capital city Oslo (Jacobsen, 2005). The Tamils in Norway have been described as an exemplary minority, characterized by being hardworking, well-behaved and successful (Engebritsen & Fuglerud, 2009). Since the Norwegian Tamils have fared well, relatively few young people with family backgrounds from Sri Lanka grow up with poor parents.

Theory

Jerome Bruner is one of the nestors who has taught us how culture and mind are interrelated. A key point is how our experiences are organized “mainly in the form of narrative” (Bruner, 1991, p. 4). By this he means that experiences are organized and reorganized as a series of events as in stories, myths, explanations, and excuses. Narratives usually involve some form of violation of social expectations which make them worth telling or in need of an explanation or excuse. When, in the flow of everyday talk, we make sense of our experiences, we are drawn between a desire for coherent and linear explanations on the one hand, and a desire to capture complexity and authenticity on the other (Ochs & Capps 2001). We voice our experiences and judge different versions of unresolved life events, and in this process narratives emerge as interactional achievements (Ochs & Capps 2001). Continuous dynamics are thus created between intra- and interindividual perspectives (Valsiner, 2001). Narratives characterize the discourses we participate in as well as our thoughts, and narratives both represent and constitute reality. Personal narratives are embedded in surrounding narratives and in traditions and cultures. Tensions between coherence and complexity in personal narratives involve a moral stance of protagonists and tellers, and expected standards for roles and practices. The narrative infrastructure constitutes a framework for human agency and contains dynamic collective experiential positions such as gender and generational roles (Ochs & Capps 2001). William Corsaro (1992) has pointed out how children always have a different experiential position than their parents and how same age peers collectively reinterpret and reproduce existing networks of meaning and make secondary generational adjustments.

Concepts like tellership, authorial voice, linearity and moral stance are suited to examine narrative expressions and activity. Tellership refers to the teller of the story and to conversational partners who may act as co-tellers. The teller of the story is not the same as the author. Stories can have multiple tellers as well as co-authors. If the tellers quote other voices or assimilate absent voices in their recounting of an incident, these are considered as authorial voices. Events in personal narratives unfold in terms of cause and effect and a more or less linear time-line, and they are a medium for holding people accountable for their actions and for expressing a moral ideology of the course of life events (Ochs & Capps 2001). Linear narratives, with a certain and constant moral standing, follow a generalized pattern. On the other hand, complex and open-ended narratives are indeterminate and without a generalized pattern. Narratives re- co- and pre-present personal experiences and thus constitute a central part of semiosis. In semiosis, signs are generalized and when sufficiently abstract they can be recontextualized and specified in different contexts (Valsiner, 2001).

The aim of the present study was to explore the narratively structured field in which young Tamil women and men talk about partner choice, and shed light on generational change processes taking place in Tamil communities in Norway.

Methods

Participants were recruited through e-mails sent to various Tamil student groups in Norway. In the invitation they were asked to join a group of peers to discuss issues concerning partner choice. The participants consisted of 18 second-generation Tamils between the ages of 18 and 26; nine men and nine women. They were all born in Norway and living in two different university towns. Some of the participants were students, while some had graduated. Thirteen participants were still single, three had regular girlfriends or boyfriends, one was engaged to be married and one was married. Among the latter five, some had Tamil partners and some not. The data was collected through four focus group interviews in two male groups with four and five participants, and two female groups with four and five participants. In one of the male groups and in one of the female groups, some of the participants knew each other from before. Due to the outbreak of COVID-19 one of the groups was conducted online in a secure video chat. The other ones took place as physical meetings in two different towns. The discussions were framed by the leading question “which qualities do you value when searching for a life partner?” and by statements concerning the conditions for partner choice, such as “a non-Tamil partner will never feel at home in the Tamil community” or “your choice of partner will impact your parents and your future children”. In the discussions the participants shared a range of personal experiences in an open ended and involved manner as part of the process of reflecting on conditions for, and possible consequences of, partner choice. The focus group sessions lasted from 90 minutes to 2 hours. The audio recordings amounted to 5 hours and 45 minutes and were transcribed verbatim. We started out with a thematic reading of the group conversations followed by a focus on narrative infrastructure and activity. We were guided by Bruner (1987, 1990, 1991, 2001, 2008) and by Ochs and Capps (2001) who use the terms tellership, linearity and moral stance to examine some of the dimensions of narrative expressions and activity.

Ethical considerations included voluntary participation, informed consent, respectful conduct and safeguarding the informants’ anonymity. The project was approved by the Norwegian Data Protection Official for research.

In the following we communicate the results as a narrative about changing perspectives and emerging agency and authorship. As authors of this article, we are tellers of this story. We draw upon the authorial voices of Jerome Bruner, Eleanor Ochs and narrative theory and present the study participants as protagonists of the story. Our narrative rests on the stories co-told by the participants in the course of the interviews. In the interviews they drew upon the authorial voices of their parental generation. We start by presenting hegemonic and organizing narratives identified as parental authorial voices. Throughout their childhood, participants’ own actions were framed within such hegemonic parental narrative constructions and measured against parental values and norms. The personal narratives of the children were dominated by the authorial voices of their parents. We then go on to present tensions experienced by the participants between linear parental narratives and their more complex and open-ended experiences outside the family context. In the course of group conversations, it became clear that these tensions amounted to moral dilemmas which made available to the participants a perspectival shift. As part of this shift, the study participants started to question the values held by their parents. In our narrative about emerging authorship this amounts to a turning point. The perspectival shift involved hermeneutic alertness as the study participants reinterpreted particular explanations. This reinterpretation challenged the coherence of established stories and left their personal experiences more open ended. Ultimately new narratives emerged casting the parents as main characters. The co-telling of stories about parents by the study participants amounted to an authorial voicing of values, motives and experiences of the second generation.

Results

Two linear narratives co-authored by the participants’ parents, stood out. One provided a rationale for why parents wanted their children to be obedient. The other placed marriage as a core event in a normative life trajectory

Hegemonic narrative 1 - parents must protect their children against taking a wrong path

The young Norwegian-Tamils had been raised to respect and obey their parents. Majoran attributed this to his parent’s concern for his development. “(…) while I was growing up (…) they were simply afraid that something would happen and I would become a bad kid, so they were extra strict.” Majoran noted that parents were particularly worried that children would care less about their studies if they initiated romantic relationships. “And especially then, about girlfriends, there may be a fear then that for one reason or another the relationship will take the focus away from education (…).” Rajini, a representative of one female focus group noted that; “I feel that my parents think that if it happens too soon, it will just go wrong (…) like if you have a boyfriend and like that very early in primary school.”

All interaction with opposite sex friends was considered suspicious by the parents whether it took place at school or outside of school. “I remember when I was much younger, I talked a little with a boy in class. Then it was like “why are you playing with him” or “why are you talking to him”?” (Sruthi). Social control was particularly strict for girls. Ramya quoted her mother:

“Mum was always like that “Ramya sit tight, you're not a boy”, “Ramya clean your room, you're not a boy”. Proper girls, they are tidy, they do this, they do that, Ramya, don't come home late. You're not a boy, you can't stay out late”. Talked like that a lot. I think it influenced me a lot”.

Several of the women had experienced that small episodes such as meeting a friend for a cup of coffee could be exaggerated and reframed as romantic episodes by other Tamils.

Ramya: Yes, because. It happened to me, and then my mother was called by an aunty (…) and mom asked her like “hey, what’s going on?” And then she said that “your daughter is out on the town with a boy”, and it was daytime, so it was like three or four o’clock in the day and my mother asked me when I came home (…)

This episode points to the impact of gossip and the notion of “honor”. Honor became a topic in all the group discussions.

Sahana: There was one thing my sister said that I thought was funny (…) She said “only what I have learned since modalavuthu vahoppo (first grade) in Tamil school, is that manam (honor) is so important, that if it goes, you must die”. *laughs*

Sruthi: *laughs* and she is the next generation!

Ramya noted that her father had tried to avoid the gossip; “my father tried to keep us away from that Tamil community all his life because he is afraid of all these rumors, but no matter what you do, you somehow get dragged in.” Sons, on the other hand, were granted somewhat more freedom compared to daughters. (…) “I’m the one who does the opposite of my sister. My sister is in a way the nalla pillai (“the good child”) there” (Mano). If sons violated family rules it was often considered as part of their boyish character.

Arul: (…) Now imagine that the boy and girl were seen drunk by other Tamils. How do you think that reaction would have been in the Tamil community? Because I can, or I personally imagine that if a boy is caught drunk of course

Arjun: a kind of a boyish streak

Arul: Yes, but I think the reaction is stronger if it had been a girl. And I base that on personal experiences.

Narratives are organized around a plot; a difficult situation (Bruner, 1991). In this case, and as interpreted by second-generation Tamils co-telling their story, the main difficulty facing their parents was how to control the interaction of their adolescent children with opposite sex peers. The parents were portrayed as strict for the sake of their children to protect them from their own actions as well as gossip. According to Bruner (1991) an event is storylike and worth telling only when it involves a canonical script that has been “breached, violated or deviated from” (p. 11). Particulate stories about alcohol in late parties or possible secret boyfriends had confirmed to the parents that rigor was needed to take care of the children’s best interests.

The manner in which narratives are communicated, we call genre (Bakhtin, 1986; Bruner, 1991). Genre shapes and guides our ways of thinking and predisposes our attention. Gossip can be understood as a narrative genre; in this case a culture-specific way of representing the children’s breach with parents’ expectations by adding sensation and secrecy to the interaction between opposite sex youth and thereby contributing to the impression that the actions being talked about violate norms.

Hegemonic narrative 2. Parents must secure a successful marriage for their children

The male participants noted that there was a change in the way their fathers communicated with them after they moved out from home to begin their studies.

Majoran: (…) this fear of dad was more real before (…) I don't know if the rest of you have felt it, but they are quick to state that “I'm your father, this is my house, this is my roof, that's my food” thing.

Mano: I feel (…) it is now that we start talking a little more. Before then it was more like, “no, you are a child, you don't have to worry about such things”.

Mohan: It makes it much easier to have moved out, it makes it much easier to talk about things when I'm back.

All participants experienced a shift in their parent’s focus when their studies came to an end. Now partner choice and marriage emerged as the hot topic. “Because they don’t talk about it when we’re younger, at the time it’s like “don’t have a boyfriend” and then suddenly, when we’re older, oh “why don’t you have a boyfriend”?” (Rajini). Several mentioned that the parents were constantly asked by relatives and other Tamils whether they were looking for a partner for their offspring and when a potential marriage would take place. Adi noted that the tradition of arranged marriage stood strong. “(…) Arranged marriage, then, is a typical norm, almost a rule, almost written down (…).” He continued by reflecting on the relative standing of men and women when parents propose to them a possible partner; “both men and women have the same amount of power (…) have the same right to say no if your parents make a proposal”. However, when it comes to the freedom of falling in love Adi noticed gender differences. “When it comes to falling in love with someone, then we have an image that it might be difficult for women”. Arjun reflected on his own situation compared to that of his sister.

Arjun: Yes, when she came home with a boyfriend the first question was like “Where is he from?” “Which caste?”

Adi: Yes?

Arjun: I don't think they would have done that to me, or I don't know

Adi: You don’t think they had asked you that?

Arjun: they had probably asked, but they hadn't

Ajith: Not given it so much weight?

Arjun: I think she was more stressed about coming home than I would have been

As Arjun, Reva also noted the weight parents give caste and social status. Her sister’s boyfriend “(…) hasn’t been accepted because he is not in the correct study program or the caste is wrong (…).” She also humorously pointed out that the reality can be much “worse” than expected by the parents: “then I just think what the hell is going to happen when I bring one from Africa?” In discussions about suitable partners, the parents had communicated clearly that Norwegians were not in favor. One reason was the fear of divorce.

Ramya: “Because in Sri Lanka divorce is not that common because people think that it is a shame, and for Norwegians it is very common (…) and that is why my mother thinks I should find a Tamil, because then she knows that I will be happier in the long run.”

The participants also reflected on prejudice in the Tamil community against certain groups.

Sangeetha: “It's a bit sad to say, but Tamils are, there are some specific, not races, but there are some specific people who are not, Norwegian ones are ok, but there are some specific people whom we do not accept.”

The “window” to get married is quite narrow, especially for women. For parents struggling to find an acceptable partner for their daughter, her age soon becomes a problem. For them it is “(...) a relief to marry off your daughter rather than keeping her until she’s 30. If you get her married off to a good person, they feel that a burden is over” (Sruthi).

In quoting their parents the young Norwegian-Tamils collectively conveyed that getting your children, and in particular your daughters, well married soon after graduation was a “difficult situation” facing first generation Tamils. The risks of choosing an unsuitable partner, or not finding a partner at all, were the violations that confirmed the norm that the partner choice must take place within certain established frameworks.

Network of narratives

Interwoven hegemonic narratives both constitute and constrain space for individual actions. Such space includes models of “normal” life cycles (Bruner, 1987). Normalized descriptions of life cycles embedded in narrative networks have become what Bruner (2008) calls institutionalized. The family is also an example of an institutionalized system that regulates interpersonal interaction. Within the family, signs of care and respect are exchanged in normalized patterns, and life cycle expectations are shaped (Bruner, 2008). We have highlighted two narratives that show the regulatory function of the family and the chronology of Tamil lives. Until graduation, children and youth are expected to be obedient and respectful in their conduct and serious in their studies. After graduation, they are expected to marry a well-chosen partner and live with him or her in close unity with the extended family. Sangeetha pointed out that “(…) Tamils have such a linear timeline that you have to follow, and for everyone who manages to follow it, education by then, married by then.” Such an established course of specific and clearly separate life phases and defined patterns of relationships is different from the contemporary Norwegian way of life in which the aforementioned life events often overlap or occur in a different order and in the context of an independent family model. If Norwegian-Tamils follow a Norwegian way of life, there will necessarily be a breach with expectations in traditional Tamil families.

Tensions between hegemonic narratives and second-generation experiences

The study participants described traditional Tamil culture as in many ways strict and conservative, with narrow frames for how to act, and with clear gender roles. Adolescence peer interaction was a particularly sensitive topic among family members. When they compared their own situation with that of Norwegian peers, they experienced huge differences, for instance in terms of alcohol consumption and gender roles. “(…) If you go to Norwegian parties (…) then it’s a completely different framework. (…) and there you drink regardless of gender (Adi).” The female participants noted that unlike them, their Norwegian peers were free to interact with friends of both sexes and to have boyfriends or girlfriends. “(…) All my Norwegian friends are allowed to have a boyfriend, and they are allowed to take him home, and they travel together, and they do so much together, but I could never do that with a guy (Ramya).” For these peers, it was difficult to understand why their Norwegian-Tamil friends did not participate socially.

Ramya: “My Norwegian friends, their boyfriends have stayed overnight, and when I explain my situation, they don't understand because they can't get into my mindset or what it's like, and that makes it difficult to talk to Norwegians about such things.”

These differences contributed to the Norwegian-Tamil girls in particular experiencing a distance from their Norwegian school mates. As Reva noted: “It is like you are a bit white for them (parents), but then you are a bit black for them (Norwegian friends), so you kind of live something like that, in between.”

Experiences from outside the family context suggested that friendships are possible regardless of sex, that it is both possible and common to do something other than start a family after graduation, that some people actually choose to have children before they graduate, and in some cases people divorce rather than stay in a bad marriage. Such experiences and reflections made the life course taken for granted by their parents seem far less obvious to the young adults; “(…) I know several Tamil parents who are together just because they don’t want to divorce because society expects them to be together. But they don’t talk to each other (Arul).” As students, some of the women got the chance to develop new kinds of relationships without the constraints of gossip and social control. For them the concept of “friendship” could be recontextualized to apply to relationships with both women and men. Others still found themselves caught up in parental narratives.

Sumathy: “I still don't have any boys for friends, I can be comfortable and talk to boys, but I can't befriend them, it just doesn't work for me (…) mum comments that I don't have many boys for friends and then I say “whose fault is that then?”

Bruner (1991) says that as a hearer begins to doubt the facts of a story or the narrator’s motives, he or she becomes “hermeneutically alert” (p. 10) and may begin to question the conditions surrounding the narrative. For example, why, when and how it is told. Some of the women who had followed their parents’ guidance now expressed bitterness about missed opportunities. Several pointed out that the cost of being a “good girl” was that they had lost the chance to explore how young people in Norway live and interact. They found themselves short of social networks as well as social competencies.

Sruthi: “What annoys me now (…) They always said, “you have to be careful, behave, don't get a boyfriend”. But now they ask “can't you find one yourself?” The whole family asks. But where should I go? You have set these strict limits and I have stayed within these limits. The people I know are you guys, and then I have one friend who is a girl, and that's it.”

The women were concerned that such shortcomings would limit their possibilities and restrict their future participation in Norwegian society. “Yes it’s actually true. (…) my social environment is in a way isolated (…) (Sahana).” In particular, they felt a lack of confidence about initiating contact with a man or establishing a romantic relationship. Without social networks or the tools to find a partner by themselves the women had to turn to their parents for assistance, even as adults.

As individuals and in the context of hegemonic narratives, young Norwegian-Tamils may appear to their parents and to themselves as more or less “good” sons and daughters. The men in general seemed less burdened by their parents’ expectations than the women. Most of them did not take advice from their parents about matters of everyday life or their choice of romantic partner. “(…) I have more freedom than what my sister has (…) as it were, expectations differ for boys and girls. I think most people here would probably agree with that (Arul).”

However, almost all had, in one way or another, struggled to comply with the parents’ strict social codes for appropriate behavior. Taken together, the stories co-told by the young adults amounted to a generational perspective (Corsaro 1992). Their voices conveyed a sense of their collective experiential position as second-generation Tamils in Norway and an emerging reinterpretation of established narrative structures.

Shifting perspectives

While they questioned established narratives and parental motives, the young Norwegian-Tamils also acknowledged the sacrifices their parents had made. “Think about how much they have gone through, without knowing the language, having felt powerless, unable to talk back, not knowing how to react to injustice” (Sruthi). Reva differentiated between her own situation and that of the parental generation; “the gossip, it doesn’t affect me because I have a life outside of that social context but the fact that it harms the parents that is the sad thing”. Through such utterances the sacrifice and hardship of being a first-generation minority emerged as an explanation for the parents’ actions; “I think our parents would have been a little more open minded if we had lived in Sri Lanka (...) because everyone around is Tamil anyway, so it is not threatening if a person marries a Norwegian (Mano).”

In the process of differentiating between their own generation and that of the parents and recognizing the complexity of the parents’ situation, the participants positioned themselves psychologically detached from the context. According to Bruner such detachment helps to reconnect the past, present and future in new ways. New light is shed on past experiences and the space for potential actions is widened with some space for violation of conventions (Bruner, 1990, 2001). Narratives are organized around a plot; a difficult situation (Bruner, 1991). The young Tamils raised in Norway had moved from respecting and fearing their parents to perceiving their parents as powerless and vulnerable. They had moved from telling stories about their own childhood experiences within the constraints of strict parental rules, to describing future oriented and open-ended scenarios where parents figured as protagonists. They had taken a step towards a narrative consciousness distanced from what was previously taken for granted and had reached a turning point.

Arjun: “And the new friends mum and dad will make will be through us in the future, most likely the parents of the girlfriend, and it will be a circle of friends they have not been able to socialize with, so it will be difficult for them, it is a barrier for them that may be difficult to break.”

In Sruthi’s words: “it’s like it’s up to us now. That we slowly but surely start at a pace, in a manner that is safe for our parents, start to change things a little.”

New narratives

In our analysis, established narratives have proven context sensitive and open to negotiation as Bruner (2001) pointed out. When narratives about good girl/boy or family honor no longer constrain young adult’s future choices or immediate actions like before, new patterns and plots can emerge. In the interview transcripts we found traces of intergenerational themes and partner choice.

Emerging narrative 1. Collectively, new generations can teach parents to adapt

The ideal future described by the participants was one where freedom of choice prevailed. “You cannot live someone else’s life for them, I think that’s the challenge facing our parents (Sruthi).” It became clear that the oldest children in the family have a special role in terms of intergenerational change processes. Some of the male participants who were first born, realized that they themselves had broken barriers and opened doors for younger siblings. Others, like Arul, realized that they themselves had gained more freedom of choice because their older brothers had paved new paths; “the fact that my brother broke that barrier by marrying a Norwegian has led to me having much more freedom and has led to my sister having more freedom”. Among the firstborn women the experience was different. Sumathy noted that the pressure on her to follow her parents’ advice had been demanding and Sahana agreed: “It’s true, you had more pressure (…) but it’s probably because you’re the mootha mahal (eldest daughter), isn’t it?” The firstborn women had worried that controversial actions on their part might have negative consequences for younger siblings. Rajini found that her good behavior had made life easier for her sister: “I don’t feel that my parents have the same high expectations of my sister. Because it is, now they’re like “Uma can do what she wants”. She does things earlier than I sort of did”. Thus, even though the oldest children in the family have a special role, this role was different for men and women. Across gender the participants expressed a strong sense of community both among siblings and among same age peers in terms of contributing to the intergenerational change process. They reflected on how the fact that parents seem to be stricter with their first born may indicate that parents change and develop in step with their children. “I feel that most parents may have gotten a bit used to the fact that it is possible to marry someone else (Radha).”

While the study participants were concerned about bringing the parental generation along in the change process, they also made projections to future generations. “I also sort of think that when I get older and have children and stuff like that then I am concerned that they should know about the Tamil culture, they should go to Sri Lanka (Reva).” Several of the women mentioned that in the future they hoped to be emotionally closer to their own children than their parents had been with them. They expected that their own experiences of growing up in Norway would make it easier for them to better understand their children.

Sumathy: Which generation are we? Second generation Tamils in Norway? Second generation Norwegian-Tamils? Let's take some responsibility guys!

*Everyone laughs*

Sahana: That’s messy *laughs*

Sangeetha: Just let's clean up the mess

Sahana: Let's make new rules

Sumathy: Let's support each other

Sahana: We take it from the start where we have both our culture and

Sruthi: Blank sheets. Tabula rasa!

Emerging narrative 2. Romance and tradition can unite

Although the young Norwegian-Tamils wanted to be able to follow their heart in choosing a partner, most expressed that their ideal life partner should have a similar background to themselves.

Radha: on my part, culture and religion are important (…) I kind of feel that if I'm going to share my whole life with someone, then it should be someone who I can fully open up to and then it will be someone with whom I can speak Tamil if I want to or go to the temple with (…)

A shared sense of humor was a topic several informants addressed as an important aspect of a good partnership.

Arul: “I would prefer a Norwegian-Tamil partner (…) in any case I like Tamil food, I like Tamil films, I also have a form of humor that I find difficult for Norwegians to understand based on both language and upbringing.”

The participants also mentioned that having a partner with Tamil background would ensure that close family ties could be maintained and that they would receive support from the family in the upbringing of children. “Something that I have found is important to me is that my children should be able to be, or my parents should be able to take a large part in the lives of their grandchildren (Ajith).”

From these expressed preferences we can infer that the disagreement with parents is not so much who to marry as how the choice of partner is motivated and carried out.

Discussion

The topic of this article is how young Norwegian-Tamils address intergenerational issues when they talk about partner choice. We have contextualized our research within Kagitcibasi’s (2002) theory of how family relationships change as traditional family patterns adapt to a Western society. Based on interdisciplinary research in different cultural contexts, Kagitcibasi (2002) argues that collectivist family patterns will prevail in the form of psychological interdependence even in a Western socioeconomic context. Unlike Kagitcibasi, who based her analyzes on how the parental generation reports about their appreciation of having children, we have looked at how young adults talk about the relationship with their parents within a given context.

Our main aim was to show how narrative analysis can capture and elucidate change processes. In the results section we demonstrated how narrative networks contain contextualized “problems” and their associated roles, positions, possible actions and available interpretations. We have made visible how a new generation can reinterpret both the context and the problems, and how new narrative plots and structures can emerge as part of new collective experiential positions.

Kagicibasi adopts a systemic approach to family change and gives primacy to culture and to the living conditions of families (Kagitcibasi, 2007 p 134). However, she does not specifically discuss the situation of immigrants or address whether change processes may develop differently in different domains of family life. Furthermore, she focuses mainly on the economic and psychological value of children to parents, and less on the social value.

The families to which the young adults in this study belong are part of a relatively small diaspora in Norway. They have experienced a transition from a traditional Sri Lankan society to a modern Western welfare state. The children in these families are now adults and on the verge of starting their own families. The parents fare well economically. They have adapted to a Norwegian model where aging citizens are cared for through the welfare system. We can thus assume that the economic value of having children is moderate.

Growing up, the participants had lived by strict rules set by their parents. This may indicate that parents were relatively unaffected by the Norwegian sociocultural context and practiced authoritarian parenting in line with the interdependent family model. If the parents were strict mainly in order to prevent their children from initiating romantic relations, it may also align with the point made by Tuli and Chaudary (2010), that the level of control in any domain relates to the significance of this domain. How people form alliances and reproduce is of demographic importance in any society. Taken the relatively sparse population of Norwegian-Tamils, the bringing in of new members through marriage may have a huge effect on how the community develops and on the lives of the parental generation. Some researchers have suggested that honor sets conditions for young immigrants’ freedom of action (Varghese & Jenkins, 2009). In our analysis the power of gossip together with parents’ need for a social network stand out as possible factors constraining parental orientation. If the social lives of first-generation Tamils in Norway mainly take place within Tamil social networks, it is fair to assume that the actions of their children hold significant social value. In the context of marriage and reproduction this interpretation links social to material value.

The young Norwegian-Tamils empathize with how their parents may suffer from gossip and from being socially excluded and they want to spare them and support them. This may be an expression of emotional investment in parents. They are, however, aware of the sacrifices made by their parents in the process of settling in a new country and their empathy may partly stem from indebtedness and gratitude. From the second-generation perspective the parents seem more concerned with their children’s behavior than with their well-being at school or among friends. The participants explicitly state that the parents do not empathize with their situation and that they have experienced psychological distance to their parents. Taken face value this indicates that the emotional involvement at the individual level goes mainly from child to parent. Again, this fits well with the interdependent family model as described by Kagitcibasi. This is also supported by the impression that the social value of children to parents is the “new” material value.

In contrast to how they perceive their parents’ emotional engagement, the female participants express that when the time comes, they want to feel more emotionally close to their own children. If they invest emotionally in their own parents as well as in their own children, the participants materialize the relational pattern described by Kagitcibasi as the family model of psychological interdependence. Communication with a focus on the personal emotions of the child is typical of Western childcare practices aimed at producing independent selves. When the Norwegian-Tamil young women want to empathize with their children to be, this may orient their children towards a relational pattern close to that of the Norwegian majority population. With less demands for obedience, more room for individual choice, and with a focus on emotional closeness, child rearing practices become more individualizing. Over time patterns of psychological interdependence may thus be replaced with patterns of independence.

In changing patterns of emotional closeness, we can see the dynamics of intergenerational transmission of values. When and if the social and material value of children is replaced by psychological value in Norwegian-Tamil families it remains to reflect on whether the family patterns are still collectivist in line with Kagitcibasi’s descriptions. The psychological interdependent family model could turn out ambiguous as psychological value is associated with individualized selves while interdependence indicates blurred boundaries between selves. Our data indicates a vivid presence of communal values and a very strong sense of community among the second-generation Tamils in Norway. Emerging narratives where young adults act on communal values, share the joy of cultural expressions, and feel empathy and emotional responsibility for aging parents, do seem to hold a potential to handle this ambiguity at a communal rather than individual level.