Single Mothers and Social Support - Book Report/Review Example

 Single Mothers and Social Support Introduction There have been an increasing numbers of single parent families in United States as well as other regions in the world. It is no exception in Vermont. The traditional family setup was the norm in the past, but with years the social fabric has continued to disintegrate and has continued to be the norm in the 90s and 20 century[Nel00]. The disintegrated families live with single mothers who more often are left under the care of the children. In most of the cases, these women need support either from their peers or the extended families. The nature of support requires reciprocity at another time. The nature and form of this reciprocity have been partly under-investigated with substantial number of research focusing on urban single-headed families. The researcher set out to research on the nature of reciprocity that is commonly observed in the relationships dealing with single mothers. To guide her research, the researcher set out the following research questions. According to the available data, in 1990, 12.3 % of families in Vermont consisted of single mothers and 43 percent of state data for those living below average income consisted of single mothers[Nel00]. It has been of interest learning about single mothers who almost from close to having of the population of poor and an increasing number in every sector of society how they obtain help to support the families. A substantial data of research offers a clue to the system of reciprocity observed among social support groups with most of the research done leaning more on the urban settings in disregard of the rural settings. The current research pays particular attention to the rural settings to understand the issue of reciprocity in the social support groups. To help the researcher unravel the mystery involved in the social support groups, research questions were framed to guide the researcher in the data collection and analysis of the phenomena from the data collected. The research questions were: i. The degree to which single mothers in the rural set up requires reciprocity. ii. The logic of reciprocity that underlies their giving support and receiving support in their set up. iii. The work involved in establishing social support groups. Methodology The study involved the use of the interview to gain an insight into the research questions. The respondents were thirty-nine single mothers with at least one child under the age of 18 years old. The researcher had to use a snowball sampling process to locate the respondents as it were easier to identify the women within the same social network of support. The women were then asked a series of questions in an interview that lasted at least two hours. These questions involved educational background, marital status, sources of income and current living conditions[Nel00]. After the interview, the research asked follow-up questions about receiving help and sense of obligations to return a hand to those who gave them assistance. The researcher also asked them about time they needed help and failed to request. In addition, the respondents were asked to illustrate the kind of relationship they have with those who were supporting their support network. Results and Discussions The research shows that just as in other areas, single mothers living in rural areas need a social support network. The logic of reciprocity is, however, perceived the situation of the giver. Among the women who were in the social support network and fell in the same situation, there was a need to give some form of reciprocity within a relatively short time frame. For others, as much as theoretical writing refers to reciprocity, there are some instances exchanges can be repaid through mere gratitude, loyalty, and emotional support. This is particularly the case to those identified as more fortunate than themselves. Further, the researcher found out that maintaining social support network whether balanced or not is challenging to maintain. The women described that they had to live with shame and humiliation and that learning these skills required complex skills. When substantial kind of help were given in any situation, the single mothers withdrew as they could not maintain the relationship mostly because they were thrust out of relationship as it would be hard to live with such kind of sustained dependence[Nel00]. Having described the logic that arises in reciprocity, four major issues arise out of the study. The current data suggest that single mothers can be roughly be classified according to their access to social and material resources in creating the different groupings. The theory and research suggest that the kind of reciprocity that is common to all kind of groups observed is found mostly among those people who have social resources but low material resources. From the finding, this seemed largely untrue. A particular case in the finding indicated it all boiled down to the bonding between the two parties. It is not a matter of material endowment or social status but rather the relationship between the two parties. The second finding illustrated that the family has a special place in the matrix of reciprocity in that the normative obligations of kinship can aid sustain a generalized reciprocity for a long period. It is, therefore, not possible to classify the relationship of reciprocity without considering the family ties the respondents might have within the social support groups. Thirdly, the findings showed that the logic of reciprocity is highly influenced by separate policies applied for different people when it comes to the social network group. In most of the observed cases, the single mothers require with those they deem as equal in terms of financial strength with them and strive to extend reciprocity with equal measures and they also take different measures in terms of reciprocity to those they believe they are better placed in the societal hierarchy than them. The latter category, from the findings, shows to require both the rules of balanced reciprocity and some elements of strategic explanation. This is because, there must be some form of reciprocity to the part of the giver and the single mothers receiving the help might not be able to match the magnitude of the support given. Lastly, as earlier observed much of this form of research has taken place at the urban setting more than the rural areas. There is an observed phenomenon of variance depending on the geographical phenomena. Unlike women staying close to each other, it is observed from the study that there is a high possibility of the women to keep resources to themselves and hide from others whenever there are better placed financially. Arguably, there is an issue of honesty that is most likely to occur. There is a reason to believe that secrecy about the incomes and earning has a bigger influence in their lives or hoarding goods so that they do not share. The key observation here is that the isolation that is experienced in the rural settings holds much towards hiding incomes and earning[Nel00]. While the proximity and social status of those living in urban centers allows them to share their resources with much ease, it is particularly difficult for those living in rural settings to see and help each other with much ease. From the findings, the author points out major differences as observed from those living in urban lifestyle and those living in rural settings. The model of reciprocity can never be generalized. Additionally, there are always those perceived ideas from the party involved in helping each others. While the ‘hard economic’ times urban centers and the nature of relationships allows people to mingle and socialize freely, there is an observed difficulty in the rural settings for this to flow like it does in the urban settings. Every study involved in social network support find some observed complexity in this process of reciprocity and gives it possible solutions towards such problem. In this current study, there is an observed phenomenon in the rural settings that I tend to agree with. One, the social settings of the rural areas is far much distinct from that of the urban settings. The game is played by different rules altogether, and I agree with the author remarks on the same. It is easier for people to mingle easily and share what they have. The hard urban life has taught them to live as the day comes. In converse, the rural setting indicates of a dissimilar scenario whereby people would be interested more in their security of their well-fare. It means, when they are well-off, chances are that they will not be involved in the social network groups or partly will do that in a way that shows that reciprocity as per normalcy. There is one particular observation I tend argue against. The setting of the rural settings and urban settings cannot be compared but sometimes, issues such as reciprocity in the social groups set up depend highly on the individual’s perspective. Some have gone through a rough stretch of life, and the issue of giving and receiving is not solely determined by the environmental settings. They have learned the art through their life processes and may have behaviors that are deviant from their counterparts in the local settings. Therefore, it will be erroneous to argue that there might be some discrepancy in behaviors solely depending on the environmental setting of these individuals[Nel00]. Normally, even in other case of unbalanced relationships, some people might break down the fear factors and rely on those fortunate members for their success in life. Some cases have pointed this to be true whereby even the fortunate members feel obligated to offer a hand continuously to those in need. Therefore, generalizations about these observed cases are good for research but they do not exclusively describe every relationship that has been observed whether in the rural settings or the urban settings. Bibliography Nel00: , (Nelson, 2000), Read More