soc 2301 Indigenous families: who do you call family?

Main research question

How relevant is it to define Indigenous families using non-Indigenous family terms and concepts?

Main argument

The concept of Indigenous family is complex and cannot always be accurately represented using Western institutional definitions based on biology, legal relationships, marriage, or household membership.

Typical Western family definitions

Definitions often rely on marital status, blood relationships, living arrangements, and legal relationships.

Monocultural definitions

Definitions based primarily on one cultural perspective that may fail to capture the complexity of other cultures.

Three major Indigenous groups in Canada

First Nations, Métis, and Inuit.

Why Indigenous family definitions are complex

They are influenced by cultural identity, kinship, language, childrearing practices, mobility, geography, and social relationships.

Statistics Canada family definitions

Statistics Canada uses concepts such as census family and economic family to classify families and households.

Census family

A couple, a couple with child(ren), or one parent living with at least one child, generally based on people living in the same dwelling.

Economic family

A broader category that can include a census family and other people living together who are connected by blood or legal relationships.

Examples of people who may be included in an economic family

Two siblings living together, foster children, or two related census families living together.

Nuclear family

A family structure consisting of two parents and their biological children.

Western normalization of the nuclear family

Western society has often treated the nuclear family as the typical or normal family structure.

Indigenous family structure

May include multiple generations and non-blood-related members who perform roles such as caregiving.

Why census/economic families may not capture Indigenous families

Indigenous families may have larger, multigenerational structures, multiple caregivers, different kinship systems, and greater mobility.

Complex household memberships

Household-based definitions can limit family membership to people living at the same residence even when family relationships extend beyond that household.

Why households may not accurately represent families

Family members may live in multiple households, and non-nuclear households are more common among some Indigenous populations.

Inuit household statistic

Inuit children were approximately twice as likely to live in a household containing more than one family.

Multiple caregivers

Children may be cared for by multiple family and non-family members rather than only their biological parents.

Skip-generation family

A family situation in which grandparents raise grandchildren without the children's parents being present.

Indigenous multiple caregiving

Inuit and First Nation children are more likely to have multiple familial and non-familial caregivers than non-Aboriginal children.

Kinship systems

The systems societies use to define and organize relationships among relatives.

Western bilateral kinship system

A kinship system in which maternal and paternal sides of the family are not differentiated.

Indigenous kinship systems

Some Indigenous kinship systems distinguish relationships according to the maternal or paternal side.

Why different kinship systems matter

Different systems and terminology can lead to misclassification of family relationships when Western definitions are applied.

Mobility

Frequent movement between residences or locations that can influence how family relationships are understood.

Non-random mobility

Frequent movement that may appear random but actually follows social, family, cultural, or other patterns.

Indigenous mobility and family

Indigenous people may move between relatives' homes or locations, making household-based definitions less accurate.

Family boundary ambiguity

The blurring of boundaries between individuals that makes it difficult to determine who belongs to a family.

Causes of family boundary ambiguity

Divorce, stepfamilies, foster or adopted families, mobility, death, absent parents, and multiple caregivers.

Family boundary ambiguity and culture

It is not specific to one culture and does not necessarily have a negative meaning; it describes the complexity of identifying family boundaries.

Study methodology

Grounded theory using qualitative inquiry and inductive analysis.

Grounded theory

A qualitative approach that uses data to develop theoretical concepts through an iterative and inductive process.

Study participants

15 Indigenous and non-Indigenous experts and key stakeholders knowledgeable about Indigenous families.

Purposive sampling

Selecting participants because they have relevant expertise or experience with the topic being studied.

Snowball sampling

Recruiting additional participants through recommendations or connections from existing participants.

Data triangulation

Using different types of participants or sources to cross-reference information and increase validity.

Study interviews

In-depth semi-directive interviews conducted with Indigenous and non-Indigenous experts and stakeholders.

Interview languages

Interviews were conducted in English or French.

Data saturation

The point at which interviews stop producing new information.

Interview data collection

Researchers used field notes rather than computer or audio recordings.

Interview topics

Definitions of family, purposes of defining families, family vs. household, policy implications, cultural influences, changes over time, and factors influencing family change.

Data analysis

Thematic coding conducted by hand.

Descriptive coding

Initially summarizing and coding interview notes according to descriptive categories.

Conceptual ordering

A second stage of coding that grouped descriptive codes into broader themes and subthemes.

Two major study themes

Personal perspectives and institutional perspectives of Indigenous families.

Personal perspective of Indigenous family

Based on social and cultural factors including social relationships, language, childrearing customs, and location of residence.

Institutional perspective of Indigenous family

Based on political and economic purposes including enumeration, legal structure, and temporal change.

Study finding about definitions

60% of participants could not or did not identify a specific definition of an Indigenous family; 20% provided a specific definition; 20% provided a generic definition.

Indigenous family ambiguity

67% of participants indicated that defining an Indigenous family is often ambiguous.

Indigenous family as fluid/transient

60% of participants associated Indigenous families with fluidity and transience.

Culture and Indigenous family

All participants indicated that culture plays an important role in defining family.

Indigenous identity and family

47% of participants directly linked Indigenous identity to the definition of Indigenous family.

Colonization and Indigenous family

33% of participants discussed the negative effects of colonization on Indigenous families, values, and identity.

Differences among Indigenous groups

53% of participants noted differences among First Nations, Inuit, and Métis families.

Indigenous vs. non-Indigenous families

87% of participants discussed differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous families.

Nuclear family as a norm

Some participants noted that the nuclear family has been treated as the normal family structure despite the diversity of actual family types.

No typical family type

The study challenges the idea that there is one typical or normal family structure.

Social ties and Indigenous family

Strong relationships with extended family and community members contribute to how Indigenous families are defined.

Community as family

In some Indigenous communities, strong community relationships may mean that many community members are considered family.

Collective family perception

Immediate, extended, and non-blood-related members may all be perceived as part of the same family rather than being sharply differentiated.

Language and family

Language influences how family and kinship relationships are understood and categorized.

Indigenous family terminology

Some Indigenous languages use different terms for kinship relationships than Western languages.

Inuit example of kinship terminology

The term for uncle in one Inuit community may be used broadly for many people rather than only a biological uncle.

Languages without a word for family

Some Indigenous languages do not have a single word equivalent to the Western concept of “family.”

Relationship-based language

Some Indigenous cultures describe family through specific relationships rather than using one general term for family.

Childrearing customs

Indigenous children may be raised by multiple caregivers across multiple generations.

Customary adoption

A practice in some Inuit communities where a child is raised by someone other than their biological parents, often grandparents or another relative.

Inuit customary adoption

Participants described customary adoption as common in some Inuit families, including situations where first-born children are raised by grandparents.

Difference between customary adoption and Western adoption

Customary adoption may involve another person taking on parenting responsibilities while biological parents may gradually regain parenting responsibilities as the child ages.

Household vs. family

Household refers more to the physical environment, while family can refer to the broader social environment.

Why household membership can be misleading

Indigenous family membership can change because of mobility, multiple caregivers, and relationships extending beyond a single residence.

Mobility and Indigenous family

67% of participants identified mobility as an important factor in understanding Indigenous family.

Mobility and family ties

Moving together for activities such as traditional harvesting can build and strengthen family relationships.

Geography and family

Family perceptions may differ depending on whether people live in urban, remote, or rural locations.

Institutional definition of family

Definitions created for specific institutional purposes such as statistics, law, taxation, healthcare, and social programs.

Purpose of institutional family definitions

To establish clear boundaries and eligibility criteria for specific goals.

Enumeration

Counting and classifying families for demographic or statistical purposes.

Why household-based enumeration is useful

It creates consistency and allows demographic comparisons and projections over time.

Legal purposes of family definitions

Family definitions may determine eligibility for taxes, health insurance, inheritance, property ownership, social assistance, and child welfare.

Problem with institutional family definitions

They may prioritize nuclear family structures and fail to recognize multigenerational families or multiple caregivers.

Institutional family definitions and exclusion

People who are considered family personally may not be recognized as family institutionally, potentially limiting access to services and resources.

Temporal change in family definitions

Institutional definitions of family change as societal views, laws, family roles, and family types change.

Examples of changing family definitions

Same-sex marriage legislation and living-apart-together couples.

Lag in institutional definitions

Institutional definitions may change more slowly than people's actual perceptions and family practices.

Personal vs. institutional perspective

Personal definitions emphasize culture, social ties, relationships, childrearing, language, geography, and fluidity; institutional definitions emphasize legal, demographic, and economic purposes.

Key difference between personal and institutional family definitions

Personal definitions are culturally and socially based, while institutional definitions rely more on biological ties, legal status, and household membership.

Family as an open system

Family can include individuals connected through flexible or semi-permeable boundaries rather than a fixed structure.

Semi-permeable family boundaries

Boundaries that allow relationships and membership to extend beyond a clearly defined household or family unit.

Why institutional definitions reduce ambiguity

Clear eligibility criteria make it easier to classify families for specific institutional purposes.

Problem with reducing family ambiguity

Although institutional definitions create clear categories, they may not reflect the reality of Indigenous family situations.

Common theme between personal and institutional perspectives

Location of residence and household membership were relevant to both perspectives, although they were interpreted differently.

Social household

A household understood through social relationships, responsibilities, and connections rather than only physical residence.

Physical household

A household defined primarily by who lives in the same physical residence.

Family as social environment

The idea that family is defined by social relationships, responsibilities, and connections.

Household as physical environment

The idea that household is defined primarily by physical living arrangements.

Misclassification of Indigenous families

Using institutional household definitions can incorrectly categorize who belongs to an Indigenous family.

Inclusive Indigenous family concept

Indigenous family may be understood as a changing network of social ties rather than a separate, bounded household unit.

Importance of belonging

A strong sense of belonging and social connection is important in understanding Indigenous families.

Problem with discrete family units

Separating Indigenous families into fixed units for census purposes may fail to reflect their interconnected relationships.

Nodal network model

A way of understanding Indigenous families as networks of relationships rather than separate household units.