Introduction

Increasing life expectancy, coupled with an unprecedented decline in fertility, has spawned a substantial body of research relating to population ageing and the nature of elder care provided within families.[1] This research however, captures only a portion of the care-related issues that involve older Chinese and their families. After all, older persons are not only receivers of care. The invaluable contributions made by grandparents, especially grandmothers, to their families by caring for grandchildren in Asia are less explored yet equally important.[2] Chinese grandparents in particular are integral partners in raising children[3] while also providing important contributions to their adult children's household like meal preparation and house cleaning.[4] Yet it is only in recent years that the subject has attracted the attention of the research community. A survey of extant studies shows that researchers tend to frame grandparent provision of care as part of an intergenerational exchange with adult children.[5] Only a few studies attend to grandparents as care providers.[6] At the core of many of the extant studies of intergenerational exchange in Chinese families is the concept of reciprocity. Reciprocity has been utilised by scholars studying this context because of its intuitive relationship to the Confucian value of filial piety that governed family relationships in China for thousands of years. In the Confucian system both the roles and the duties of family members are connected through mutual interdependence over the course of the life cycle.[7] Rather than considering grandparenting as an extra burden or chore, the literature depicts Chinese grandparents as likely to think of caregiving as a way to 'enjoy family happiness' and as something that is willingly exchanged for the help they receive from their children. Studies have reported positive benefits of improved mutual communication and understanding, closer emotional ties, and increased sense of mutual dependence between the generations[8] as well as enhanced health for the grandparents[9] who play the role of caregivers to their adult children's households.

This harmonious picture contradicts an older literature, where intergenerational conflicts in traditional extended Chinese families are well-documented, especially those between mothers-in-law and daughters-in-law.[10] But, little research attention has been paid to the 'conflict face'[11] of relationships between older parents and their adult children in contemporary China. In this paper we address two important but under-studied questions. First, what contributes to the positive and/or negative relational dynamics between the generations when older parents reside under the same roof while caring for their only grandchild? Second, what sustains grandparents in providing childcare and housework assistance to their adult children's households? Logic dictates that relationships are unlikely to be conflict-free when grandparents reside in their adult children's house to help care for their grandchildren and provide much needed domestic help to the household. Although grandparents have long provided informal care for their grandchildren, even in the traditional extended family,[12] the earlier scenario was very different. Grandparents then, especially grandmothers, were regarded as the final authority and expert on raising children.[13] Theirs was the position of power and esteem in the extended family structure. As family power centre has shifted from old to the young,[14] grandparents no longer enjoy the power and status their traditional counterparts once did.

Grandparents as caregivers and shifting norms of filial piety

As we are at a juncture where norms of filial piety are shifting in the face of modernisation, industrialisation and rapid economic growth, studying grandparents as caregivers offers an important opportunity to re-examine families. Although families are still the primary source of old age care, the unique structural features that supported filial piety—patriarchal families, the family-centric economy and the collective dependence of members on the extended family—are disappearing.[15] New research[16] has shown that the rise of individualism[17] has been accompanied by an erosion of filial responsibilities among adult children who would traditionally be responsible for caring for their older parents. Likewise, elders in urban China[18] are less financially dependent on their adult children; many have their own pensions and subsidised medical care. But this is not the way many of these older persons were raised, and despite (or because of) the shifting norms in the practice of filial piety, some feel the need to use strategies to nurture a sense of filial obligation in their adult children and maintain emotional bonds with them. One way of doing so is by providing childcare for their children.[19]

As in many developed countries, Chinese families have become more affluent, and with fewer children in each household the primary value of each child has shifted from economic to emotional.[20] This shift has led family members, including grandparents, to focus their resources on ensuring that the 'only child' receives the best possible care.[21] The cost of providing the best possible care can be a financial burden for families,[22] one that can only be alleviated if both parents are working outside the home. In view of the lack of childcare facilities,[23] especially after-school care, and wide-spread mistrust towards domestic helpers,[24] parents find it easy to insist that the best person to care for their only child is the grandparent. And because Chinese grandparents tend to consider the welfare of the family before their own interests[25] they are often willing to compromise their own lives to help their children. Also, it is common for Chinese adult children, even after forming their own nuclear family unit, to continue their membership in their parental family. The extended family household is viewed as a common enterprise[26] where members from both generations (older parents and adult children) have a vested interest to ensure chuang zong jie dai (pass on the family line).[27] According to the Chinese sociologist Li Yinhe,[28] the Chinese grandparents invest themselves in their children not only for support in old age but even more for the continuity of the family line. This is not a mere extension of one's life, but to ensure the passing down of the family lineage. Thus, grandparents sacrifice themselves for their children because they are driven by this cultural ideal. For the same reason, she asserts, adult children do not feel a sense of shame or guilt in requesting financial or other forms of help from their older parents. Grandparents may or may not receive rewards in return for help rendered, as the supreme importance placed on families to pass on the family line allows adult children to invest in their children (i.e. grandchildren) as a form of repayment to their older parents.[29]

This familial tension in caring responsibilities between the grandparents' generation and their adult children is situated in the changing social, cultural and economic context of the country. For more than three decades, rapid urbanisation, economic development and state regulated family planning have disrupted the traditional practice of filial piety and value of intergenerational harmony. In recognition of the rising risk of elderly being exploited and uncared for by the younger generation, the Chinese government has been promoting the vision of a Harmonious Society in the past ten years, boosting social security, health and community services for the elderly, in providing more formal support for them in addition to the filial obligations from their children.[30] But challenges remain. Since the mid-1980s, the government has attempted to institutionalise family support for the elderly through jiating shanyang xieyi (Family Support Agreement (FSA)), which is a voluntary contract between older parents and adult children on providing support to parents.[31] However, the success of FSA is uncertain as there are many operational difficulties in enforcing the agreement, and institutionalising familial support that inherently, entwined with close relationships, counters the fundamental value and assumptions of filial piety. Familial relationships cannot be based on contracts or agreements alone, rather more on mutual trust, emotional bonding and unspoken expectations.

To answer the two research questions, in this paper we utilise a framework based on 'symbolic or communicative value,'[32] and the significance of 'regard'[33] in reciprocity as a lens of inquiry into the mechanism that influences the experiences of caregiving by grandparents. Methodologically, it is our belief that survey measures employed in the extant studies mentioned above were not effective in capturing the full range of relational dynamics. Instead, we employed mixed methods of survey and ethnography, to illuminate these subtle emotional nuances between generations.

Conceptualising reciprocity

According to Linda Molm,[34] all forms of social exchange occur within structures of mutual dependence. An exchange can be either direct (an immediate exchange between two actors) or indirect (the recipient of the benefit does not return the benefit directly to the giver but to another actor in the social circle). Family exchanges are typically non-negotiated forms of both direct and indirect reciprocity. Molm posits that the different structures of reciprocity have important implications for the bonds between the exchange partners through four mechanisms:35 1) trust (the belief that exchange partners will not exploit one another); 2) affective regard (mutual positive feelings for and evaluations of the exchange partner); 3) relational solidarity (perception of the relationship between exchange partners as a single social unit with actors united in purpose and interest); and 4) interactional fairness (perceptions of fair interpersonal treatment between exchange partners).

Molm argues that the structure of reciprocity affects the quality of bonds through three causal mechanisms: the structural risk of non-reciprocity, the expressive value of voluntary acts of reciprocity, and the relative salience of the cooperative or conflict 'faces' of exchange. In the case of structural risk of non-reciprocity, risk is linked to the development of trust in the relations between giver and recipient. When an actor has both the incentive and opportunity to exploit another actor but acted benignly, then trust is established between the two. The expressive value of voluntary acts of reciprocity can be defined as the symbolic or communicative value attached to the act of reciprocity itself over and above any instrumental value produced by the exchange partner's reciprocity. As such, it communicates regard for the partner and the relationship,[36] acknowledging and conveying appreciation for benefits received as well as enhancing feelings of relational solidarity and perceptions of interactional fairness. Finally, she points to the relative salience of the cooperative or conflict 'faces' of exchange, where the greater the relative salience of the conflictual aspect of exchange, the weaker the bonds that develop will be.

In this framework, two types of emotion arise from the causal mechanisms and have direct influence on the bonds of the exchange partners. In a context of risk, a voluntary, reciprocal act communicates regard for the exchange partner and the willingness to invest in the relationship. Receiving another's expression of regard and relationship investment should prompt positive emotions of pleasure and satisfaction which in turn enhance trust and promote the perception of fair dealings by the recipient. Displeasure, on the other hand, arises when conflictual aspects of exchange become salient and actors are likely to perceive exchange partners as unfair. The severity of felt injustices increases the likelihood that disadvantaged actors will protest or take action to restore equity.

From an anthropological perspective, acts of reciprocity are culturally embedded. In this case, it is important to reflect on how Molm's framework on social exchanges intersects with the Chinese concept of guanxi (relationship). The meaning of guanxi is highly dependent on the people and context involved. There are direct as well as indirect elements in guanxi. As in Molm's structures of reciprocity, relationships are established with mechanisms of feelings or ganqing, and human obligations or renqing which is closely tied to reciprocity in social interactions.[37] The concept of 'face' is central in the social exchange mechanism that expresses honour or respect to the other. This is often connected to gift giving and exchange of favours.[38] In the context of intergenerational relations in the family, this involves more non-negotiated exchanges. In the relationship between older parents and their adult children, face can be subtle and nuanced, especially in the reciprocal acts of filial piety from children to parents. Despite the fast changing social landscape in China and shifting demographics in its rural and urban development, guanxi remains an important concept in understanding familial relations[39] and shall be taken into consideration in our discussion.

Data and analytical approach

In this paper we combine data from a survey of parents of children who attended thirty-nine different primary schools (N=1627) in Xiamen with participant-observation data from five three-generation families over a period of six months. Data was collected from the intimate interactions and interviews with all the grandchildren (N=6), adult children (N=8) and older parents (N=8) of five three-generation-under-one roof family units. Data which stemmed from interviews with grandchildren is however, not included in the analysis of this paper owing to space constraints. It is worth noting that our analysis illustrates ways in which qualitative data can be used to access nuances of behaviour that are not available in our quantitative findings and so brings to the fore deeper insights into relationship dynamics in three-generation families.

Family Survey

Participants. This paper draws in part from a larger survey undertaken by Esther Goh. The survey involved a non-random sample drawn from thirty-nine primary schools located in two zones of Xiamen Island that was conducted in December 2006 and January 2007.[40] The age range of the students involved in the survey was between six and twelve years. A total of 1743 questionnaires was distributed and 1657 were returned. The response rate was about 95 per cent. After invalid and suspicious forms were excluded the total sample was 1627.

Instrument. A thirty-item questionnaire was designed to collect demographic data on the families as well as the collaboration between parents and grandparents as joint caregivers. The items were all closed questions with a nominal scale. The questions addressed: demographic profiles including age, income and gender of the various generations (nine items); living arrangements and childcare provided by grandparents (five items); role division between grandparents and parents (four items); past and the anticipated future duration of care by grandparents (two items), advantages and disadvantages of the collaborations (six items); and the relationships between the 'only-children' and their caregivers (three items). Finally two items concerned parents' perception of grandparents' help as voluntary or obligatory, and the types of rewards they gave to grandparents for helping with childcare.

Procedures. Teachers from the thirty-nine participating primary schools distributed the questionnaires to their students who took them home for their parents to complete. After the teachers collected the forms from the students, a research assistant went to the thirty-nine schools to check and collect the forms. All the valid questionnaires were coded, and two paid persons helped to key in the data. Cross auditing was performed to check for possible errors in data entry.

Ethnography of Five Families

Goh (the researcher) made two field visits to Xiamen and conducted pilot studies in 2004 and 2005. To collect in-depth ethnographic data, she stayed in the field and followed five families over six months from March to September 2006.

Recruitment of five participating families. The criteria for selecting five families for intensive participant observation and interviewing were keyed to the various types of grandparental involvement in providing childcare found in the family survey. These variations included lineage and living arrangements. In the Kong family, the paternal grandmother co-resided under the same roof to take care of the grandson and provide help with housework. This case corresponded to the survey results which showed that 49 per cent of paternal grandmothers caring for grandchildren and assisting in housework on their own (without paternal grandfathers) co-resided in three-generation families. The Xie family had grandmothers from both sides of the lineage helping with childcare and housework. One of the grandmothers co-resided with the family while the other stayed close by. This type of arrangement matched 58 per cent of the surveyed households where both grandmothers were providing childcare and housework assistance to their adult children. In the Song family both maternal grandparents co-resided with the family periodically to provide childcare and perform housework on an ad hoc basis. The survey found that 17 per cent of maternal grandparents were involved in this way. The Cheng family had only a maternal grandmother co-residing to provide long-term childcare and help in housework. This living arrangement was consistent with 31 per cent of those surveyed. This family is somewhat different from the first three families because the adult daughter was recently divorced. The Guan family was a migrant family where paternal grandparents acted as informal custodial parents to their two grandsons. Their adult son had divorced three years earlier and could not afford to care for the two boys. The case was included as an outlier or deviant sample[41] to contrast with the other cases since this is the only family where an adult son was only marginally involved in caring for the children.

On average, thirteen visits/contacts lasting sixty-ninety minutes each were made with each family over the six month period. After each contact the researcher logged a contact summary which recorded the nature of the encounter and salient points of observation.

Analytical strategies for ethnographic data. The field notes and memos collected over the six months, together with the transcripts of interviews with all the members of the five participating families, were analysed carefully by first reading them through thoroughly several times. The data regarding interactions across adult children and their older parents were categorised with the aid of the qualitative software Nvivo.

Our interest in understanding the subtle emotional nuances experienced by grandparents led us to create as many open codes as were required to capture the slight differences in meaning that emerged from the data. A total of forty-seven open codes were created to capture the negative aspects of grandparents' helping experience, and five open codes for positive emotional nuances. The emerging similarities were checked and adjusted by rereading the data. The second phase of coding, axial coding, involved a process of relating codes (categories and properties) to each other, using a recursive process of inductive and deductive inference known as constant comparison.[42] It became apparent that negative open codes outweighed positive ones (refer to Appendix 1 for details). Selective coding was the final phase of the analytic process, and we used it to integrate and refine central themes.[43] Three axial codes namely: conflict episodes with adult children; lack of expression of appreciation (tangible or intangible) from adult children; and felt treated like domestic helpers by adult children were subsumed under the selective code of 'taken for granted.' While two axial codes namely: felt appreciated and positive relationships with adult children were subsumed under the select code of 'satisfied.' Attention was paid to contradictory data in order to avoid selective analysis and presentation of data where one finds what one wishes to find. In addition, paying attention to contradictory data served to illuminate the different viewpoints of the adult children and their older parents and unpack the dialectical nature of intergenerational interactions.

Findings

Out of the 1627 surveyed, almost half (N=738) of the adult children had grandparents rendering assistance in housework and childcare. The survey shows grandparents have strong commitment to supporting their adult children's households by providing different types of domestic services over a long period. The findings also reveal that slightly more than half of the adult children did not often reciprocate for services received.

Grandparents' commitment in helping adult children

Most of the grandparents that helped tended to do so for a long period of time. About 44 per cent of them had helped for between seven to ten years or more. Another 26 per cent of them had helped for between four and less than six years and the rest (30 per cent) between one and three years. On anticipated duration of care, 39 per cent of the respondents stated that the grandparents would be extending their services indefinitely, 36 per cent of them were not sure and another 17.4 per cent of them had stated between two and six years. Regardless of duration of care, it is evident that paternal grandparents are involved more often (N=536) than maternal grandparents (N=407), and that grandmothers are twice as involved in care (N=624) as grandfathers (N=319). This suggests that grandparenting is a gendered endeavour, both in terms of who provides grandparental care (grandmother/grandfather), and whether it is provided through the matriline or the patriline (maternal or paternal grandparents).

Note: PGF=Paternal Grandfather; PGM=Paternal Grandmother;
MGF=Maternal Grandmother; MGM=Maternal Grandmother

Table 1. Duration of Care

Childcare and housework load distribution between parents and grandparents

Half of the middle generation did not reciprocate for services received

Grandparents providing services in five families

I thought to myself, this [burden] will certainly fall on me. So I came over to help. Engaging a domestic helper is very costly. Besides, they [son and daughter-in-law] are still paying the instalments [housing mortgag…so I should come over.

Absence of regards

They were taking advantage of me when I first came to help. To be honest, I felt like a domestic helper. In actual fact my life here is exactly like a domestic helper. I should not feel this way because I am helping my own son and grandson. I stay with them, do everything for them, and they do nothing to help me. Another mother-in-law would have walked out.

To be honest, there is no clear division of work. Of course I will not push everything to her and go out to enjoy myself. But I will let her do the simple tasks. I am lazy sometimes and let her do such chores as doing the dishes, so I hardly do it. But things concerning the child, I will do more.

Lack of conveyance of regard for help received

The child [the ten-year-old granddaughter] loves to eat fried chicken, so they sometimes take us along to eat at the school canteen. However, they do not make a deliberate effort to take us out for dinner.

Conflict and tension

Positive regards

To be honest, when my mother first came to help, we were busy and lao ren jia (old person – grandmother) had to do most of the housework. Only when my mother expressed her unhappiness later on did I realise that it was not right of me to do that. She is here to help us and we pushed too many [house chores] to her. I reflected on this matter and did some redistribution of work.

My parents lighten my load…both financial and practical burdens; they have helped me a lot. My parents are very understanding. My sisters also help me. Without all this support…the pressure will be too great for me to bear.

No, I don't feel sorry for them. In fact I will affirm that grandpa did the right thing in front of the kids. Children need to be disciplined. Sometimes they need to be beaten or reprimanded. Other times we need to reward them [children].

I am usually respectful towards lao ren jia (old people). To me, having grandparents staying with me [or near me] is a great help to me. At least they relieve my worries, especially when I need to go travel for work. I know my child is in good hands.

Recently my daughter-in-law bought a new pair of shoes for me, she spent more than 100RMB on them because she knew I have a problem walking. I know this is her xin yi (token of appreciation). She also asked me about my impending surgery and talked about helping to pay for part of the medical bill. In recent years she seemed to realise how much I have helped her and now she is showing some signs of caring for me. As long as they show me some respect, I will be very happy.

Concluding discussion

Structural risk of non-reciprocity exists

The symbolic value of voluntary acts of regard

Salience of the conflict 'faces' of exchange

The role of pleasure and displeasure on intergenerational bonds

The honour and burden of Chinese grandmothers

Concluding remarks

Appendix1

Notes