Editorial Board:
Editor:
George H. Conklin,
 North Carolina
 Central University

Board:
Bob Davis,
 North Carolina
 Agricultural and
 Technical State
 University

Richard Dixon,
 UNC-Wilmington

Ken Land,
 Duke University

Miles Simpson,
 North Carolina
 Central University

Ron Wimberley,
 N.C. State University

Robert Wortham,
 North Carolina
 Central University

Editorial Assistant

John W.M. Russell,
 Technical
 Consultant

® 

Volume 6, Number 2
Fall 2008

Fictive Kin and Helping Behavior: A Social Psychological Exploration among Haitian Immigrants, Christian Fundamentalists, and Gang Members

by

Eric K. Shaw 

The University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey – Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Department of Family Medicine

Introduction

    Kinship is an important concept in research on helping behavior with common distinctions made between kin, non-kin, and fictive kin.  Whereas kin relations are typically based on biological and legal connections (e.g., mother-son, or husband-wife), non-kin relationships include connections that have no blood or marriage ties (e.g., neighbor, coworker).  Individuals in either type of relationship usually have the same definition of the relationship based on known and agreed-upon biological, legal, or social markers.  Fictive kin represent a different type of family tie that is based on the subjective definitions of the individuals in the relationship.  As imaginary ties of choice, fictive kin are unrelated by either blood or marriage (Sussman 1976) and employ a standard cultural typology (i.e., likened to blood-ties, socio-legal or marriage ties, and parenthood) to describe these non-kin associations (Gubruim and Buckholdt 1982; Rubenstein et al. 1991).  Unrelated individuals become "adopted" family members who accept the affection, obligations and duties of "real" kin (MacRae 1992).  Understanding more about the subjective nature of fictive kin relations is important for understanding individuals' motivations for engaging in various helping behaviors.

    Extensive research on helping behavior points to family ties as a primary basis for engaging in such behavior.  Helping a family member with "trivial" needs is often seen as commonplace and expected.  Kin are expected to help care for young, sick, or disabled family members, especially when such care covers extensive time periods (Croog et al. 1972; Litwak and Szelenyi 1969; Qureshi and Walker 1989).  And in natural disasters, people's uppermost concern is their family (Drabek et al., 1975; Killian, 1952; Quarantelli, 1960).  Contrariwise, helping someone who is unrelated, particularly if the act results in great personal sacrifice or injury, is viewed as unexpected and worthy of reward (Burnstein et al., 1994).  Researchers have pointed to "a pervasive cultural belief that bio-legal family connections are the most salient and durable bonds between individuals" (Muraco, 2006, p. 1313) and that such connections underlie many helping behaviors.

    A driving force behind the message that kinship is a primary determinant of helping behavior comes from sociobiological and evolutionary biological theories (Burnstein et al. 1994; Dawkins 1976; Hamilton 1964; Wilson 1978).  While there is no single sociobiological theory, a common strand posits that when people are choosing whom to help, natural selection favors a tendency in the helper to discriminate among potential recipients according to their degree of relatedness.  The individual is viewed as a gene's vehicle for making another gene (Dawkins 1976, 1982), and as such, one is likely to engage in helping behavior (even altruistic behavior where personal costs for that act are great) when the recipient can, in some way, ensure the success of the helper's genetic continuation. 

    Using the concept of kin selection, scholars have argued that the self-sacrificing behavior of an individual increases the likelihood of survival (and hence, reproduction) of others who share identical genes by common descent (Hamilton 1964; Wilson, 1978).  If an individual sacrifices its life for its family, it still ensures the continuation of identical genes into the next generation (inclusive fitness).  This perspective suggests that the more genes are shared by individuals, the more likely those individuals will be to engage in altruistic behavior toward each other.  And people will tend to take considerable risks helping others to insure that those who share their genes survive; and the closer the relative, the more risks they will be prepared to take.

    Researchers have made explicit claims regarding the connection between kinship closeness and helping behavior.  Hames (1988) argues that in situations of cooperative labor exchange, brothers tolerate imbalances of reciprocity that would be considered unacceptably exploitative in a friendship not based on kinship.  Others have shown that even in a relatively nonkin-based society such as that of the U.S., people turn to close relatives when in need, and are increasingly likely to do so the greater the imposition or demand (Essock-Vitale and McGuire 1985; Hogan and Eggebeen 1995).

    Some scholarly work has specifically addressed the question of why people help unrelated others.  For example, Trivers' (1971) seminal work on the notion of reciprocal altruism indicates that one may help unrelated others when the helper is likely to be "paid back" by the recipient at a later date.  This body of work has had important implications on psychological analyses of altruism (Bar-Tal 2000; Batson 1991, 1998; Becker 1976; Elster 1990; Hoffman 1981; Krebs 1982; Monroe 1996) and has prompted questions (among others) of how successful actors are in gauging the costs and benefits of a transaction, or the likelihood that a specific other will "repay" the helper (Burnstein et al. 1994).

    In sociobiological theories, little attention is given to the influence that varying individual or cultural definitions of relatedness has on decisions to engage in helping behavior.  In this paper, I challenge a central tenet of sociobiological and evolutionary biological theories that bio-legal kinship connections are, as a basis for one's own reproductive success, paramount for understanding various kinds of helping behaviors.  My argument is straightforward:  a great deal of research points to the importance of kinship ties for explaining helping behavior; therefore, if actors define fictive kin relationships as "real", then they will be "…real in their consequences (Thomas 1928)."  In other words, what we know about why people help kin can and should be applied similarly to those individuals who are subjectively defined as kin, even when there is no genetic or legal basis for the tie.

    I conduct a comparative analysis using ethnographic data from three social contexts -- a Haitian immigrant community, a Christian fundamentalist church, and an urban gang.  I define "helping behavior" broadly in which an actor actively acts for the benefit of another (which could be another person or organization).  For the most part, I relied on the subjects' own determinations for what constitutes a helping behavior.  Each context provides unique aspects of kinship and helping behavior but a common thread runs through each that speaks to the salience of fictive kin designations as a prominent basis for engaging in helping behavior.

    The helping behavior literature is vast, covering instances of help that could be considered "trivial" or everyday favors (Cunningham et al. 1980; Harris et al. 1975; Isen and Levin 1972; Isen et al. 1973; Wilson 1981) to helping victims (and confederates) who have been injured as part of the research experiment or in naturally-occurring situations (Batson et al. 1981, 1983, 1997; Cialdini et al. 1973; Freedman et al. 1967; Harris and Meyer 1973; Ickes and Kidd 1976; Latane and Darley 1970; Mims et al. 1975; Oliner and Oliner 1988; Piliavin and Piliavin 1972; Piliavin et al. 1981).  This research has greatly increased our understandings of why individuals help others by identifying many antecedent variables that impact one's decision to help another; I have elaborated on these studies elsewhere (Shaw 2001).  However, these studies tended not to look at kin/non-kin/fictive kin designations.  I present here two broad areas of helping behavior research that have specifically focused on kin/non-kin/fictive kin relations.

    An extensive body of helping behavior research is based on studies of various African-American communities (Anderson 1976; Aschenbrenner 1973; Chatters et al. 1989; Chatters et al. 1994; Guttman 1976; Liebow 1967; Martin and Martin 1978; McAdoo 1998; Stack 1974; Taylor et al. 2005).  While these studies often showed that kin were more prevalent in one's social support network than non-kin, a consistent finding revealed that fictive kin relationships were an integral component of these networks.  Having flexible definitions of kin meant that many of the rights, responsibilities and obligations usually associated with kinship were accorded to friends, neighbors and acquaintances, and consequently, these ties acted to bind unrelated individuals to each other through reciprocal exchange relations.

    Another area of research comes from studies of caregiver roles (Barer 1992; Barker 2002; Eckhert et al. 1999; Gubrium and Buckholt 1982; Karner 1998; O'Rand and Agree 1993; Piercy 2000).  Homecare work provides a valuable context for understanding the interplay of kinship and helping behavior.  With more and more "professional strangers" entering the homes of the elderly and taking on the custodial tasks that were once the domain of family members, researchers have found it commonplace for participants to develop flexible definitions of kin by using kin terms to describe one's relationship with a non-kin caregiver (Barker, 2002).  Moreover, Karner (1998) describes how the phenomenon of fictive kin is most likely to appear in situations where the bio-legal family has limited involvement with caregiving.  The fictive kin relationship provides the homecare worker with greater job satisfaction, and helps the elderly care recipient feel more comfortable in accepting care from someone outside the family.

    These studies have, in large part, identified various benefits that come with developing subjective fictive kin relationships (e.g., feelings of psychological safety, or increased social capital).  The present research complements and enhances what we currently know about helping behavior and kin relations.  Using several methods to study helping behaviors (and to tap into individuals' reasoning and motivations) and taking a comparative approach across three seemingly dissimilar contexts provides unique empirical findings and insights.  This work also contributes to the theoretical development in this area.  Much of the theoretical work from sociobiology and evolutionary biology takes a positivistic standpoint by emphasizing the "objective" markers such as genes, blood or marriage.  Taking a subjectivist standpoint, I argue that how individuals define their relationships is critical for understanding their choices to help others.

 The data for this analysis are drawn from three ethnographic studies that I completed between 1997 and 2003 to study helping behaviors among three social groups:  Haitian immigrants, Christian fundamentalists, and gang members.  Having documented details of these three contexts and the specific methods employed in each study elsewhere (Shaw 2001), I provide a brief overview here.

    Common to qualitative studies, I engaged in an iterative process of data collection and analysis.  First gaining entry into a fairly well-defined Haitian community in a large New England town (that I call Centretown), I immersed myself into many facets of this community for approximately two years.  By becoming a participant observer in many communal and familial events, and through formal in-depth interviews (n=10), I gained many insights into the helping behaviors occurring during immigration and adaptation experiences.  Additionally, 14 Haitian immigrants kept a diary of their helping behavior over a four-week period.  Each subject kept a record of instances of help received and given on a printed calendar.  Regular discussions with each subject allowed me to probe further into their recordings.  To minimize attrition during this process, subjects were told that they need only write brief accounts.  The total number of helping instances reported among this group is 626.

    Following this initial work, I began a second study of a non-denominational, fundamentalist "megachurch" in the Northeast that I call All are Welcome Ministries (AAWM).  This church espouses a "prosperity theology" which says, in short, "give (financially to the church) and it will come back to you."  For approximately nine months I was a participant-observer during Sunday morning services, Thursday evening services, and a small study group that met in a congregant's home.  Additionally, a convenience sample of thirteen subjects agreed to keep a diary.  Knowing the context of church's prosperity theology, I framed the diary method to reflect this belief and the common language used.  Over a four month period, I asked subjects to document on a printed calendar instances in which they helped others including giving tithes (typically, 10 percent of one's income) to the church.  On the same calendar, subjects would document what they perceived to be receipt of blessings from God.  Regular discussions with these subjects allowed me to probe further into their recordings.  The total number of recordings among this group is 427.

    Dedicated to pursuing a comparative research agenda on helping behaviors, I selected a third site that would allow me to proceed in a more deductive manner.  I purposefully chose an urban gang (that I call the Deuce-Two Posse) given that the often-times violent and deviant nature of gang life should challenge my initial analyses of the Haitian and church groups that had been based on generally positive forms of social behavior.  After facing some initial difficulties in gaining access to the gang, I was eventually able to meet and develop rapport with one older member in the gang, and then using a snowball sampling technique I gained access to additional members (n=16).  In order to increase the likelihood that they would agree to participate in this study, I chose to only collect data through semi-structured interviews (and two questionnaires which are not used in this analysis).  During a single interview session, subjects were asked to recall in as much detail as possible instances of helping (both given and received) from that day, that week, the last month, and within the past year.  The total number of retrospective accounts of helping behavior reported among this group is 166.

    See Tables 1, 2 and 3 for a description of the characteristics of the subjects and data collected on the number of instances of help given/received.

All three research studies were approved by the Rutgers University Institutional Review Board.  All names of individuals, organizations, or locations have been altered to ensure confidentiality.

    All interviews were recorded and then transcribed by me.  Observations and other discussions with subjects were written up in fieldnotes.  Data were organized and managed using QSR NUD*IST qualitative software program to facilitate analysis and categorization of recurring themes.  Coding was iterative and informed by the accumulating data and continuing thematic analysis.  The software was helpful, too, in deciding which interview excerpts to present here.  In general, my aim has been to present the data in such a manner that the informants "speak for themselves" but, for practical reasons, I select quotes that tap into or represent a larger point or recurring theme.

    For Haitians, "family" includes a range of kinship and fictional kinship ties that can be activated for reciprocal support.  As Stepick (1998) writes:

In Haiti, the United States, and Canada, children in the extended family are often raised together either in the same house or in houses within easy walking distance of each other.  Cousins may sleep and eat at their parents' home or at that of their aunts with equal frequency.  In rural areas of Haiti fellow villagers greet each other as cousin assuming some familial link, albeit generations ago, that neither cousin now knows exactly (Laguerre 1984).  In the cities of Haiti and North America, people will call one another cousin to denote good friendship and a sense of equality.  Sometimes people who have simply been good neighbors for a long time will call each other cousin (p. 19).

"We (she and her "cousin") grew up together in [Haiti].  Yeah, and when I found out she lived in (Centretown) I was so happy, cuz I used to play with her all the time…. We just worked it out so we can watch her kids and.... she can watch my kids.  I have to work everyday and she has to work at nights, so it works out good that way…." 

"… when she asked me if I could babysit I knew I should do it because we're family.  I was glad to do it.  After a couple weeks, she came up with the idea that my kids come to her house after school."

"I just think it's common for Haitians to call each other their cousins, like when they feel close with somebody or you grew up together.  You think of them more than just a friend; they're part of your family.  And you treat them that way.  You can count on them and vice versa."

    The following interview excerpt with Monique provides details of how the godparenting relationship undergirds certain expectations about helping (or receiving help from) others.

Interviewer:  "Can you tell me more about... what that will be like?  What kinds of things will you do as the godparent?"

Monique:  "Well, I honestly don't know if I should [accept this responsibility] because I'm still in school [college].  I mean there would be other people who would help.  Like she [the child] would probably stay at my parents' house or [another relative's] house.  But I would be the one, you know, the first person who is expected to take care of [the child] since I am the godparent.  I mean she has two godparents, me and another person.  But he's in Haiti.  He's a priest.  So since I am closer, you know…."

Interviewer:  "So what else are you expected to do as the godparent?"

Monique:  "Well, I already bought [the child] clothes when I found out I was the godparent.  I think, you always give her new things, like, nice things, clothes, toys, whatever.  When it's her birthday or Christmas, I'll give her stuff too…. It doesn't have to be just on holidays… Oh, and I help out [the parents], like I'm the one who took her to the doctor for her checkups and stuff, and her shots.  [The parents] had to work so they asked me.  Plus she sleeps over at my house, my mom's house.  Sometimes she stays with us for the whole weekend."

Interviewer:  "It seems like a lot of responsibility to be a godparent. ...You mentioned that you weren't sure if you should do this since you're still in school.  Why did you end up agreeing to do this?"

Monique:  "Well, I've actually thought about this before.  I mean, when I was in Haiti, I remember always getting stuff from my godfather.  I mean, looking back on it, I don't think, it probably wasn't really very much.  Not like buying new clothes all the time, or toys.  But as a kid I always liked seeing them (her godparents).  I guess that kind of stuck with me… I always wanted to be a godparent someday."

    Another prominent theme from the Haitian data deals with the reliance on family (including fictive kin) during the immigration process.  Often due to the time it takes to apply for and receive a Green Card or Visa and because of financial constraints, it is not uncommon for husbands and wives, and parents and children to be separated for lengthy periods of times during this process.  For example, Noel immigrated to Centretown in 1988.  Her husband came before her and then filed for her to get a special Visa for medical needs.  The entire process for Noel to come to the U.S. took nearly two years.  While she and her husband were in the U.S., their three daughters and one son lived with kin in Haiti.  It took another three years for their children to come to the U.S. and be reunited with their parents.  Based on situational or personal reasons, then, a Haitian husband or wife may immigrate first only to wait (often for years) for their spouse to obtain a Green Card or Visa.  At times, Haitian children are "sent" to the U.S. to live with another Haitian family until the parents arrive.  Other times, the parents arrive first, find work and get settled and then make arrangements for their children to follow.

    Extending help to individuals based on flexible definitions of kin helps to alleviate some of the problems that arise when families "break up" during the immigration process.  Having flexible definitions of family serves as a form of social capital that allows for the creation and maintenance of an expansive web of helping exchange relations.  As one young Haitian man who had many struggles getting to the U.S. explained to me, "...I had a lot of people help me [get to the U.S.].  They give me food, let me sleep in their house, they give me money [for various transportation needs along the way].  I don't even know some of them well.  But my mother knew somebody [in Florida] who said they would help.  They tell me "your mother is very good person.  We do anything to help her... We help you 'cuz you are like a son to us."  This story shows how the mother's social capital extends benefits to her son and he is considered to be "family" by this group of individuals in Florida whom he had never met.  And this relationship was critical in his ability to get to Centretown.

    Having provided examples of helping behavior among fictive kin in this Haitian community, I now present data from their diary recordings. The Haitians who participated in this study by tracking their help given/received in the diaries documented a total of 626 instances of help.  The top categories were giving food (19%), helping with transportation (15%), helping with childcare (15%), giving money to someone (14%), and sending remittances and goods back to people in Haiti (13%). 

    I was unable to find out what the relationship was between a helper/helpee in approximately 10 percent of the total instances recorded.  So of 566 instances of helping behavior, 42 percent (n=238) were between family members (who were confirmed through self-report to have biological or legal ties), 34% (n=192) were between individuals who expressly defined the other in fictive kin terms, and 24% (n=136) were between unrelated individuals.  Subjects' nuclear and extended family members were involved in the greatest number of helping instances.  And subjects routinely helped other family members outside of Centretown, such as Haiti, Florida, New Jersey, and Montreal.  But the high number of helping instances between fictive kin suggests that these relationships are important bases for helping as well.  Many of these fictive kin expressions entailed calling someone "cousin" or elderly Haitian women "mother" or "grandmother."  Several younger Haitian men referred to their male Haitian beneficiaries as "brothers."  While instances of help often went to family members who were spread out geographically, help given to fictive kin or unrelated individuals was predominately based in Centretown. 

    With over 11,000 registered members, AAWM is one of a growing number of megachurches in the United States.  The senior pastor serves not only in a pastoral capacity but also as the "CEO" of its business/ministry endeavors.  Numerous departments are headed with paid staff and under them are volunteers who operate such programs as a teen ministry, a singles ministry, Christian training programs, nursing home and prison ministry.  There is also a Christian school that offers accredited education from kindergarten through sixth grade.  Church services are televised and aired on the radio each week.  Though the senior pastor has an Italian background, he has attracted a very ethnically and racially diverse following.  AAWM has made efforts to attract and maintain a diverse congregation by providing translation services in Spanish and Portuguese for all services.  Attending a service, one will immediately recognize a large black population -- a blend of African Americans, Africans, and Caribbean groups. 

    Previous research has shown how church networks of African Americans often have close parallels to kin-based networks (Taylor et al. 2004).  Church members are frequently described in kinship terms:  one's "church family" and fellow congregants are called "brother" and "sister" (Lincoln and Mamiya, 1990).  This holds true for AAWM despite the fact that there are over 11,000 members.  The following interview excerpt reveals one subjects' perceptions of familial qualities of the church.
 

Interviewer:   "What do you enjoy most about this church?"

Renee:  "I love the preaching.  And I love [the senior pastor].  I realize now, just lately, how much I look up to him as a father figure.  Just because my father, I mean, he's always been there, but not emotionally so… what I see in a man I've gotten from [the pastor]…  Looking at pastor I think how much I love him…  and just the wisdom that I've gotten, you know, like from a father."

Interviewer:  "Have you ever had one-on-one contact with the pastor?"

Renee:  "No...."

    As I have described elsewhere (Shaw 2001), the church leadership at AAWM routinely uses a variety of strategies to teach and promote a prosperity theology.  Rather than reliance on luck or fate, the prosperity message claims a direct connection to the supernatural help of God in all areas of life, and most notably, one's economic well-being.  These strategies prompt congregants to give to the church and to help others with the promise of return blessings.  For example, using upbeat music and singing and enthusiastic shouts from the pulpit excite congregants to give their money (tithes and offerings) during services.  Another common strategy is the use of testimonials.  During Sunday services, as the co-pastor takes the pulpit to announce the time to receive their tithes and offerings, he will often read a letter from a church member who has written to the church about how God has blessed him/her.  The following is an excerpt of one testimonial:

"...I had to pay for our wedding and close on our home at the same time.  We heard Pastor's message (on the prosperity message) and grabbed a hold of it.  We were praying, tithing, and sowing seeds... God turned our pain into rain.  He blessed us with a $5000 check which was just what we needed when we needed it."

    Teachings about how congregants can and should give to others extend beyond just prompting them to give financially to the church.  Examples are often concrete and explicit as the following excerpt from the pastor's Sunday morning sermon reveals:  "…and when you're at a restaurant and the service is good, give your waitress a big, fat tip.  And you know what?  When you give generously, you will reap generously…."

    In addition to using one's own self-interest as a motivation to give to others ("give generously and you will reap generously"), church leaders commonly frame congregants' acts of helping around family ties.  As the pastor preached in one sermon:  "...You never know who you're interacting with.  He just might be a brother in Christ, or a sister in Christ.  You know what I mean?  So bless them!  Give beyond what they would just expect...  You will be blessed!"  These kinds of instructions inform congregants that they should give to an infinite set of sources.  In doing so, one can feel good because they may be helping another Christian and they can expect personal blessings based on the biblical promises of the prosperity message.

    An analysis of the 427 instances of help given/received recorded in the church subjects' diaries reveals several major categories.  Under instances of help given, the vast majority (58 percent) have to do with giving money to the church.  The remaining instances have to do with helping others in need (5 percent), making spiritual propitiations (3 percent), and giving money to other ministries (1 percent).  Under instances of help (or "blessings") received, 27 percent can be categorized as "discounts from God."  For instance, Roberta thanked God for helping her purchase items:  "[I] was able to get a dress suit for 45 percent [off of the] original price.  Praise God!"  For another woman who faithfully gave $71 at every Sunday service, several discounts and free dinners were defined as blessings from God.  Additional instances of help received include receiving unexpected financial increase (5 percent) and one's physical well-being (1 percent). 

    Unlike the Haitian subjects, most of the church subjects did not reference specific individuals as beneficiaries or benefactors.  Rather, the church was the primary recipient of their giving.  Many subjects spoke of this church as their "church family" and trusted that those in leadership will use their money wisely.  As one subject put it:  "...I give [my tithe] almost every week.  If I miss one week, I'll do my best to make it up the next time.... I trust that [the church leaders] will be good stewards of our money.  Pastor just preached about being good stewards.  And I see that happening."  And when subjects received blessings in return, these almost always came from unrelated -- indeed, unknown -- others (e.g., a store clerk who happened to be present when the subject purchased a discounted suit, or an anonymous "donor" who sent the subject much needed money).

    The church context reflects different kinds of helping behaviors (and attending motivations) compared to the Haitian context.  Certainly, the efforts of the church leaders to maintain and bolster congregants' adherence to the prosperity message plays a dominant role in explaining why congregants help the church (by giving money) and others.  Additionally, prompting congregants to define the church in fictive kin terms, and indeed, prompting congregants to consider practically anyone as a potential "brother" or "sister in Christ" vastly expands their helping exchange network.  These fictive kin designations which are intertwined with the principles of the prosperity message are important for understanding why church members give to the church or help others (including situations where one would not expect to find "helping behavior" -- such as giving a waitress a "big, fat tip.")

    Gangs have often been viewed as substitute families and ethnographic research commonly shows gang members describing their fellow gang members in kin terms (Chin 1996; Vigil and Yun 1996).  As Vigil (1988, p. 12) writes: the gang has become "a type of street social control institution by becoming in turn a partial substitute family (providing emotional and social support networks), school (giving instructions on how to think and act), and police (authority and sanctions to enforce adherence to gang norms)."  The ideology of gang as family also serves important functions for gang unity and identity.  Regarding the brotherhood ideology among gangs, Yablonsky (1997) writes:  "…it is of emotional importance and solace to the gangster to believe that their gang is a family haven in the hostile world that surrounds them" (p. 20).

    My research of the Deuce-Two Posse complements these findings.  For example, two gang members made the following statements regarding their gang as family:

Shaun:  "They [other gang members] piss me off all the time.  Yo' family always gonna make you mad sometimes but somehow we always come back together."

Junebug:  "They [other gang members] always gonna be there for you.  That's why I do anything for 'em too 'cuz they more like family to me than my real family."

Tyson:  "Yeah.  From that day I hated my dad.  As I got older..., me and my dad fought….  To this day me and him don't speak to each other…. I got my homies – they my family.  I just don't care about my dad anymore.  I look out for them (the gang) and they look out for me.  That's it.  …I started runnin' away, stayin' away for days.  One day I came home thinkin' everything was cool and me and my dad ended up fightin' and he threw me out of the house.  ...I lived on the streets or staying at my friends' house.  Living on the streets also got me involved with the [Deuce-Two].  I became one of them.  Now I feel like they are my family cuz to this day me and my dad don't speak no more." 

    The most frequent form of help given or received can be categorized as "helping with a minor personal problem (25 percent)."  For instance, Tre described how one of his fellow gang members helped him by returning a video game to the local video rental store (so he wouldn't have to pay a late charge).  Another gang member helped Tre by "covering for him" (telling Tre's mother that Tre was with him) when he snuck out at night to see his girlfriend.  Another gang member, Shaun, described how Damian helped him with his "basketball skills." 

    Gang members also recalled a number of situations that entailed much more serious personal problems (16 percent).  Dante described one night where he and several gang members were rough-housing with each other and he ended up breaking his arm.  The other gang members took him to the hospital and waited there with him while he got a cast put on his arm.  Another gang member, Junebug, spoke in somewhat vague terms about the time when the gang "was there for me" when he was having problems at home.  Similarly, Tyson spoke about how the gang "took him in" when his father became drunk and abusive.  Dante recalled the night he and several other members were "hanging on the corner" and the police started "harassing us."  As Dante described to me, when one of the officers shoved him, another gang member pushed the officer enabling Dante to get up and run away.

    Helping with special events was another common category of responses (16 percent).  Several gang members spoke in general terms about giving and/or receiving gifts at Christmas or one's birthday.  Damian spoke of the time when a number of other gang members helped him out by giving him gifts for his newborn son.  And both K.O. and "Peace" talked about how certain gang members helped them (either financially or emotionally) when they each had a death in the family.

    Other kinds of help included:  giving money (19 percent), helping with transportation (11 percent), helping with school (7 percent), helping with childcare (4 percent), and help finding a job (2 percent). 

    The gang as family maintains relationships of dependence among its members.  In a "traditional" family, children are dependent on their parents for all kinds of developmental needs, spouses depend on one another, siblings depend on one another, etc.  Like a "traditional" family, gang members depend on others in the group to help meet a variety of needs, be they social, economic, or psychological.  These dependencies play a critical role in the overall maintenance of the group.  The Deuce-Two Posse operates on several levels:  as a "business" (by selling drugs), as a social group, as well as a family-type group.  Typically, individuals' sources of dependence extend well beyond one's primary group.  Thus, a person calls the police when in need of protection, gets a job at a factory or company to meet economic needs, joins a bowling league for social enjoyment, etc.  For gang members, however, these various kinds of needs are, to a large degree, fulfilled within the gang.  Indeed, the more outside sources of need-fulfillment are compromised (e.g., police relations become strained, local businesses leave the area), the more gang members are forced to rely upon this primary group to meet these needs.  Not unlike what I found in the Haitian community, helping others within the gang serves to maintain a web of relationships which are critical to one's own well-being and survival. 

    This paper is primarily about why individuals choose to help others.  Extensive research has focused on explaining many variables that contribute to individuals' decisions to help others.  And much research (grounded in sociobiological and evolutionary biological theories) has pointed to the importance of kinship ties for explaining helping behavior.  I have taken the standpoint that if actors define unrelated others in kin terms, then these fictive kin relations should have similar explanatory value for understanding some motivations to help others.  This argument challenges a central tenet of sociobiological theories:  that actors make decisions about helping others based on how likely a potential beneficiary can ensure the success of the helper's genetic continuation.  The mere existence of fictive kin ties suggests that actors will create important bonds with others that are not based on continued genetic survival.  Examining helping behaviors in three social contexts, I have focused on exploring how socially constructed designations of kin, non-kin, and fictive kin bear on individual's helping exchanges.  Through an inductive process of data collection and analysis, I have found that each of the social contexts under study present unique findings regarding helping behaviors and fictive kinship relations.

    Scholarly work on the changes in the role of family ties have commonly shown that in the past, people's existence was embedded in family and kinship relations (Fortes 1970; Giddens 1991; Sahlins 1972, 1976).  Moreover, Giddens (1990) emphasizes that in premodern cultures, kinship "provides a nexus of reliable social connections which, in principle and very commonly in practice, form an organizing medium of trust relations.  Kin people can usually be relied upon to meet a range of obligations more or less regardless of whether they feel personally sympathetic towards the specific individuals involved" (p. 101).  In contrast, modern and postmodern societies are increasingly defined by loosened kinship ties, and one's identity is bounded by the presence of a nation-state, by separate economic, political, and religious institutions, and by the diminished importance of kin relationships (Giddens 1991). 

    Why, then, is there mounting evidence that people socially construct family ties that are not based on biological or legal markers?  I contend that, whether valid or not, there remains a strong cultural belief that family ties represent the most salient, durable bonds between human beings.  Speaking about the perceived "golden age" of family life, Coontz (1992) writes: "Such visions of past family life exert a powerful emotional pull on most Americans, and with good reason, given the fragility of many modern commitments (p. 2)."  As a reference point, then, such cultural conceptualizations about trusting, durable, beneficial family bonds have residual effects on the ways people construct their contemporary relationships.  Calling someone one's "cousin" or "brother" (without there being any biological ties) or referring to one's church (or other organization) as "one big family" carries assumptions about what people believe about family relationships.

    Finkler (2001) describes a useful concept she calls "a 'significant same' group of people who are regarded as family and kin -- who perceive themselves as similar and who consider themselves related on grounds of shared material, be it land, blood, food, saliva, semen, or ideological or affective content.  Most important, membership in a 'significant same' group carries moral obligations and responsibilities (p. 236)."  The three contexts under study could aptly be described as 'significant same' groups.  In the Haitian context, the diary recordings and discussions/interviews (that allowed me to explore their motivations for helping) reveal an extensive helping network that largely arises out of a general orientation to help fellow Haitians in need.  This conclusion is supported by research of other Haitian communities as well (Chierici 1991; Fjellman and Gladwin 1985; Stepick 1998).  For Haitians, expectations about helping are largely bounded by nationality.  This stands in contrast to the gang context where one's 'significant same' group is largely bounded by membership in the gang which exists within a defined geographic area.  A brotherhood ideology amongst gang members helps to create a sense of "we-ness" which then carries obligations to look out for one another.  And the church context represents an altogether different 'significant same' group.  Taking their cues from the church's stock of experts (i.e.., church leaders), congregants are apt to define not only this large organization as their "family" but also complete strangers "out in the world" who may potentially be a "brother" or "sister in Christ."  Evidence that congregants give of their financial resources to the church and help unrelated strangers points to the strength of the prosperity message that is intertwined with family ideology.

    Fictive kin designations allow individuals to rationally justify (if even in their own minds) why they would expend personal resources (often at great personal cost) on others to whom there is no genetic or familial tie and they serve as a basis for creating reciprocal obligations that can, in turn, benefit the helper. 

    There are several study limitations, particularly using the diary recordings.  While this method allowed me to capture actual (self-reported) instances of help given and received over a period of time, how I framed this task for the subjects impacted the kinds of responses I received.  And I had to rely on the gang members' recollections of helping behaviors.  Additionally, I did not observe or study any extreme forms of helping (e.g., life-or-death situations).  Rather, most forms of helping behavior were everyday kinds and some that dealt with varying degrees of serious problems.  My challenges towards sociobiological theories of helping behavior must take this into consideration as genetic explanations may indeed be more relevant for a life-or-death heuristic that has immediate consequences on one's reproductive success. 

Anderson, E. 1976. A Place on the Corner. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Aschenbrenner, J. 1973. "Extended families among Black Americans." Journal of Comparative Family Studies 4: 257-268.

Barer, B.M. 1992. "The Relationship Between Homebound Older People and their Home Care Workers, or 'the pas de deux.'" Journal of Gerontological Social Work 19: 129-147.

Barker, J.D. 2002. "Neighbors, Friends, and Other Nonkin Caregivers of Community-living Dependent Elders." Journal of Gerontology 57: S158-S167.

Batson, C.D., Duncan, B.D., Ackerman, P., Buckley, T., and Birch, K. 1981. "Is Empathic Emotion a Source of Altruistic Motivation?" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40: 290-302.

Batson, C.D., O'Quinn, K., Fultz, J., Vanderplas, N., and Isen, A.M. 1983. "Influence of Self-reported Distress and Empathy on Egoistic versus Altruistic Motivation to Help." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45: 706-718.

Batson, C.D., Sager, K., Garst, E., Kang, M., Rubchinsky, K., and Dawson, K. 1997. "Is Empathy-induced Helping Due to Self-other Merging?" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73: 495-509.

Batson, C.D. 1991. The Altruism Question: Toward a Social-psychological Answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence  Erlbaum Associates.

--------  1998. "Prosocial Behavior and Altruism." In S.T. Fiske, D.T. Gilbert, and G. Lindzey (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology, (pp. 282-316), New York: McGraw-Hill.

Bar-Tal, D. 2000. Shared Beliefs in a Society: Social Psychological Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Becker, G. 1976. "Altruism, Egoism, and Genetic Fitness: Economics and Sociobiology". In G. Becker (Ed.), The Economic Approach to Human Behavior, (pp. 282-294), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Burnstein, E., Crandall, C., and Kitayama, S. 1994. "Some neo-Darwinian Decision Rules for Altruism: Weighing Cues for Inclusive Fitness as a Function of the Biological Importance of the Decision." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67(5): 773-789.

Chatters, L.M., Taylor, R.J., and Jayakody, J.S. 1994. "Fictive Kinship relationships in Black Extended Families." Journal of Comparative Family Studies 25: 297-312.

Chatters, L.M., Taylor, R.J., and Neighbors, H.W. 1989. "Size of Informal Helper Network Mobilized During a Serious Personal Problem among Black Americans." Journal of Marriage and the Family 51: 667-676.

Chierici, RM C. 1991. Demele: "Making It": Migration and Adaptation among Haitian Boat People in the United States. New York: AMS Press, Inc.

Chin, K. 1996. Chinatown Gangs: Extortion, Enterprise, and Ethnicity. New York: Oxford University Press.

Cialdini, R.B., Darby, B.L., and Vincent, J.E. 1973. "Transgression and Altruism: A case for Hedonism." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 9: 502-516.

Coontz, S. 1992. The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. New York: Basic Books.

Croog, S.H., Lipson, A., and Levine, S. 1972. "Help Patterns in Severe Illness: The Roles of Kin Network, Nonfamily Resources, and Institutions." Journal of Marriage and the Family 34: 32-41.

Cunningham, M.R., Steinberg, J., and Grev, R. 1980. "Wanting To and Having to Help: Separate Motivation for Positive Mood and Guilt-induced Helping." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 38: 181-192.

Dawkins, R. 1976. The Selfish Gene. New York: Oxford University Press.

------  1982. The Extended Phenotype: The Gene as the Unit of Selection. New York: Oxford University Press.

Drabek, T.E., Key, W.H., Erickson, P.E. and Crowe, J.L. 1975. "The Impact of Disaster on Kin Relationships." Journal of Marriage and the Family 34: 481-494.

Eckert, J.K., Cox, D., and Morgan, L.A. 1999. "The Meaning of Family-like Care among Operators of Small Board and Care Homes." Journal of Aging Studies 13: 333-347.

Elster, J. 1990. "Selfishness and Altruism." In J.J. Mansbridge (Ed.) Beyond Self-interest, (pp. 44-53), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Essock-Vitale, S., and McQuire, M.T. 1985. "Women's Lives Viewed from an Evolutionary Perspective: II. Patterns of Helping." Ethology and Sociobiology 6: 155-173.

Finkler, K. 2001. "The Kin in the Gene: The Medicalization of Family and Kinship in American Society." Current Anthropology 42(2): 235-249.

Fjellman, S.M. and Gladwin, H. 1985. "Haitian 
Family Patterns of Migration to South Florida." Human Organization 44: 301-312.

Fortes, M. 1970. Kinship and the Social Order. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Freedman, J.L., Wallington, S.A., and Bless, E. 1967. "Compliance Without Pressure: The Effects of Guilt." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 7: 117-124.

Giddens, A. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Standord: Stanford University Press.

--------  1991. Modernity and Self Identity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Gubrium, J.F. and Buckholdt, D.R. 1982. "Fictive Family: Everyday Usage, Analytic, and Human Service Considerations." American Anthropologist 84: 878-885.

Guttman, H.G. 1976. The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom, 1750-1925. New York: Random House.

Hames, R. 1988. "Relatedness and Garden Labor Exchange among the Ye'kwana." Ethology and Sociobiology 8: 354-392.

Hamilton, W.D. 1964. "The Genetical Evolution of Social Behavior, Part 1 and II." Journal of Theoretical Biology 7: 1-52.

Harris, M.B., Benson, S.M., and Hall, C.L. 1975. "The Effects of Confession on Altruism." Journal of Social Psychology 96: 187-192. 

Harris, M.B., and Meyer, F.W. 1973. "Dependency, Threat, and Helping." Journal of Social Psychology 90: 239-242.

Hogan, D.P., and Eggebeen, D.J. 1995. "Sources of Emergency Help and Routine Assistance in Old Age." Social Forces 73: 917-936.

Hoffman, M.L. 1981. "Is Altruism Part of Human Nature?" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40: 121-137.

Ickes, W.J. and Kidd, R.F. 1976. "An Attributional Analysis of Helping Behavior." In J.H. Harvey, W.J. Ickes, and R.F. Kidd (Eds.), New Directions in Attribution Research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Isen, A.M. and Levin, P.F. 1972. "Effect of feeling good on helping: Cookies and kindness." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 21: 384-388.

Isen, A.M., Horn, N., and Rosenhan, D.L. 1973. "Effects of Success and Failure on Children's Generosity." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 27: 239-247.

Johnson, C.L. 1999. "Fictive Kin among Oldest Old African Americans in the San Francisco Bay Area." Journal of Gerontology 54: S368-S375.

Karner, T.X. 1998. "Professional Caring: Homecare Workers as Fictive Kin." Journal of Aging Studies 12: 1.

Killian, L.M. 1952. "The Significance of Multiple-group Membership in Disaster." American Journal of Sociology 57: 309-314.

Krebs, D. 1982. "Altruism -- A Rational Approach." In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), The Development of Prosocial Behavior, (pp. 53-76), New York: Academic Press.

Laguerre, M. 1984. American Odyssey: Haitians in New York City. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Latane, B. and Darley, J.M. 1970. The Unresponsive Bystander: Why Doesn't He Help? New York: Appleton-Crofts.

Liebow, E. 1967. Tally's Corner: A study of Negro Street Corner Men. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.

Lincoln, C.E. and Mamiya, L.H. 1990. The Black Church in the African American Experience. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Litwak, E., and Szelenyi, I. 1969. "Primary Group Structures and their Functions: Kin, Neighbors, and Friends." American Sociological Review 34: 465-481.

MacRae, H. 1992. "Fictive Kin as a Component of the Social Networks of Older People." Research on Aging 14(2): 226-247.

Martin, E.P. and Martin, J. 1978. The Black Extended Family. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

McAdoo, H. 1998. "African American Families: Strengths and Realities." In H.I. McCubbin, E.A. Thompson, A.I. Thompson, and J.A. Futrell (Eds.), Resiliency in African American Families (pp. 17-30). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mims, P.R., Hartnett, J.J., and Nay, W.R. 1975. "Interpersonal Attraction and Help Volunteering as a Function of Physical Attractiveness." Journal of Psychology 89: 125-131.

Monroe, K.R. 1996. The Heart of Altruism: Perceptions of a Common Humanity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Muraco, A. 2006. "Intentional Families: Fictive Kin Ties between Cross-gender, Different Sexual Orientation Friends." Journal of Marriage and Family 68: 1313-1325.

Oliner, S.P., and Oliner, P.M. 1988. The Altruistic Personality: Rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europe. London: Free Press.

O'Rand, A.M. and Agree, E.M. 1993. "Kin Reciprocities, the Familial Corporation, and Other Moral Economies: Workplace, Family and Kin in the Modern Global Context." Annual Review of Gerontology and Geriatrics 13: 75-95.

Piercy, K.W. 2000. "When It is More than a Job: Close Relationships between Home Health Aides and Older Clients." Journal of Aging and Health 12: 362-387.

Piliavin, J.A., and Piliavin, I.M. 1972. "Effect of Blood on Reactions to a Victim." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 23: 353-362.

Piliavin, J.A., Dovidio, J.F., Gaertner, S.L., and Clark, R.D. 1981. Emergency Intervention. New York: Academic Press.

Quarantelli, E.L. 1960. "A Note on the Protective Function of the Family in Disasters." Marriage and Family Living 22: 263-264.

Qureshi, H., and Walker, A. 1989. The Caring Relationship: Elderly People and their Families.  Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Rubenstein, R., Alexander, R., Goodman, M. and Luborsky, M. 1991. "Key Relationships of Never Married, Childless Older Women: A Cultural Analysis." The Journals of Gerontology: Social Sciences 46(5): S270-277.

Sahlins, M. 1972. Stone Age Economics. Chicago: Aldine Atherton, Inc.

------  1976. Culture and Practical Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Shaw, E. 2001.  "Pennies from Heaven: An Integration of Cognitive Dissonance and Spiritual Frames in a Prosperity Church."  Sociological Focus 34(2):213-229.

Stack, C. 1974. All Our Kin. New York: Harper and Row.

Stepick, A. 1998. Pride Against Prejudice: Haitians in the United States. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Sussman, M.B. 1976. "The Family life of Old People."  In R.H. Binstock and E. Shanas (Eds.), Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences, (pp. 218-243). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Taylor, R.J., Chatters, L.M., and Levin, J. 2004. Religion in the Lives of African Americans: Social, Psychological, and Health Perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Taylor, R.J., Lincoln, K.D., and Chatters, L.M. 2005. "Supportive Relationships with Church Members among African Americans." Family Relations 54: 501-511.

Thomas, W.I. and Thomas, D.S. 1928. The Child in America. New York: Alfred Knopf.

Trivers, R. 1971. "The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism." Quarterly Review of Biology 46: 35-57.

Vigil, J.D. 1988. Barrio Gangs: Street Life and Identity in Southern California. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Vigil, J.D. and Yun, S.C. 1996. "Southern California Gangs: Comparative Ethnicity and Social Control." In C.R. Huff (Ed.), Gangs in America, (pp. 139-156). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wilson, D.W. 1981. "Is Helping a Laughing Matter?" Psychology 18: 6-9.

Wilson, E.O. 1978. "The Genetic Evolution of Altruism." In L. Wispe (Ed.), Altruism, Sympathy, and Helping: Psychological and Sociological Principles, (pp. 483-493). New York: Academic Press.

Yablonsky, L. 1997. Gangsters: Fifty Years of Madness, Drugs and Death on the Streets of America. New York: New York University Press.
 
 

 Return to Sociation Today

©2008 by the North Carolina Sociological Association