Indigenous household, kinship and family: some findings from Panama, Bolivia and Chile for improving

1
Indigenous household, kinship and family some
findings from Panama, Bolivia and Chile for
improving census data.
IAOS Satélite MeetingNew Zealand 14-15 April
2005
Ana María Oyarce Fabiana Del Popolo CELADE-Di
visión de Población

2
Rationale

• Since the 80s it has been an increasing demand
  to develop statistics to identify indigenous
  people in Latin America.
  
• It has been estimated that exists around 400
  indigenous groups with near to 40 millions people
  
  
• The data available, although fragmented, shows
  more poverty, less income and schooling, minor
  life expectancy, more child and maternal
  mortality, as well as less access to safe and
  clean water.
• The challenge is to develop culturally
  appropriate statistics to characterize indigenous
  population in general and household / family in
  particular (criteria, definitions, heterogeneity,
  bias)
• Important to consider is that indigenous
  households and kinship are impacted by
  acculturation, displacement and globalization, as
  well as by ethnic resistance, revitalization and
  inter ethnic marriage a dynamic and
  heterogeneous situation

3
Objectives

• To explore the census strength and weakness for
  capturing indigenous household and family in
  Panama, Bolivia and Chile
  
• To propose a mixed methodology, which could
  combines the census with a qualitative approach
  for improving census on indigenous household,
  kinship and family

4
Basic census definitions

• House a building, which is structurally
  separated or united, with an independent
  entrance, and that has been built or arranged for
  temporary or permanent lodging, or as any class
  of fixed or movable shelter.
• Household depends on the arrangements adopted by
  the people (individually or in groups) for the
  supplying of foods and other essential articles
  for their living ( people eat together, share a
  fireplace, or needs are satisfied from a common
  budget)
• Family is reconstructed through the relations
  (by blood, adoption or marriage) with a person
  categorized as a household head.
  
• It can be more than 1 household in one house, and
  1 family in a I household
  
• But a family cannot have more than 1 house, nor a
  household can have more than 1 house

5
A sociocultural perspective on indigenous
household, kinship and family.

• Kinship is a basic organization principle
  presents in all societies.
  
• Each culture has developed an enormous kinship
  diversity according rules of marriage,
  descendence, and residence.
  
• There are many types of kinship and family, with
  many different meanings.
  
• The problem of defining household and family
  clearly illustrates the need to get at meaning
  (Scrimshaw, 1991, pp 243)

6
Western/ Indigenous models

• Family is one among other social organizations,
  which conform the social structure.
  
• Its role has been dismissed by the domination of
  the market economy and the state provision of
  social services (education and health, among
  others).
• Marriage one woman and one man

• Kinship and family units are the social
  organization and the social structure.
  
• They have a wide range of functions and works as
  basic unit of production, political and religious
  representation
  
• Marriage alliance
• between groups

7
Table 1Marriage, descendence, residence, and
family
8
Figure 1Western - indigenous models

• Nuclear household
• 1 household 1 house
• 1 family 1 house

• Extended household
• 1 household 2 or more houses?
• 1 family 2 or more households?

9
Methodological discussion

• There are at least, two important limitations in
  the census for capturing indigenous households,
  kinship and family
  
• The ethnocentric bias the assumption that the
  western family is an universal category and could
  be applied to any population all over the world
  
• The dichotomous and static nature of the
  household and family definitions with no room for
  a dynamic approach, necessary in a multicultural
  and connected world.

10
Methodological discussion

• The statistical reconstruction of indigenous
  households
  
• Indigenous household is a constructed category by
  the ethnic condition of the household head.
  
• The household head ethnic condition is captured
  by an individual question
  
• Examples
• Bolivia (census 2001) a combination of the three
  criteria spoken language, maternal language and
  self- identification as indigenous.
  
• Chile (census 2002) and Panama (census 2000)
  self-identification.

11
Table 2Bolivia. Chile, PanamaTotal population,
indigenous populations and percentages of urban
population, by ethnic condition (2000 round
censuses)
Source special data processing on the 2000
censuses.

12
Population, household head and other members
ethnic conditions trends and heterogeneity

• In most of the cases the household head ethnic
  conditions agrees with the other members ethnic
  identification
  
• Chile and Bolivia are more mixed 11 and 37.5
  of the non-indigenous population resides in
  indigenous headed-households
  
• Panama, the household head ethnic condition is
  coincident with the spouse ethnic condition
  (93)
  
• In Bolivia and Chile these inter ethnic union are
  more frequent,
  
• Bolivia 15 of non-indigenous households head
  are united to a native person.
  
• Chile 48 of indigenous household head are
  united with a non-indigenous person
  
• Little is known about the arrangements, relation,
  interactions and ethnic negotiations within these
  households

13
Contribution of qualitative emic approach for
strengthening the census data

• Taking into account the emic indigenous point
  of view could strength the census in three
  aspects
  
• Defining appropriate units of analysis, that is
  with meaning for the subjects,
  
• Clarifying the nature of the wrong answer and
  wrong question bias
  
• Capturing the dynamic perspective of the kinship
  and family.

14
Figure 2 Latin America (three countries) house
hold distribution according type and household
head ethnic conditions. 2000 censuses
15
Family typologies and ethnocentric bias

• The censuses show an heterogeneous situation
• It is possible to identify a trend extended
  family in indigenous population and nuclear
  family in non-indigenous people
  
• Extended family could correspond, more or less,
  to the old lineages, present in the traditional
  social organization
  
• They are more prevalent in Panama (57) and less
  in Bolivia and Chile (28 and 24).
  
• In Chile and Bolivia, nuclear family are almost
  50 in indigenous and non indigenous population
  
• Because of ethnocentric bias, we do not know to
  what extended the nuclear households respond to a
  changing process or are artifacts of the census
  instrument

16
Validating indigenous local kinship and household
definitions Ngöbe and Kuna people

• We carried out workshops with indigenous leaders,
  to understand local categories, get at meaning
  and make sense of the census results
  
• Household is the space where we all gather,
  receive information of what has happened during
  the day, receive historical information. Before
  sleeping our grandparents spoke, our grandmothers
  start talking, we are asleep but we are listening
  to the message of those who talk about our
  stories, about our behavior, and it is part of
  the educational process, ... I would say that the
  cultural issue is extremely important (Kuna
  woman)
• The Ngöbe kinship Ngöbe and family are wide, our
  culture has a polygamy base for preservation...
  my kinship and family has two hundred members,
  its ties of blood we value big families, it is
  a selfish person one who wants to have only one
  child and wants to give all to that child (Ngöbe
  woman)
• The other important thing for us is the matter of
  collectively and solidarity that is why it is so
  hard for us , indigenous people, to separate
  Ngöbe woman)
• How does the census represent and how it could
  incorporate these emic definitions?

17
Female headed-household
18
Female household head clarifying the wrong
question bias

• The census data for Bolivia and Chile show that a
  30 of households head are women
  
• In Panama, the female household head among the
  indigenous is 17 compared with 25 in non-
  indigenous.
  
• Besides, in the ethnic group Ngöbe is 24
  compared with 17 among the Kuna people
  
• However, these findings seem contradictory
  because Kuna people are bilateral and matrilocal
  and Ngöbe patrilocal and patrilineal
  

19
Validating Kuna female household head

• The importance of the right question in the
  native language
  
• When interpreted in Kuna when translating to
  Kuna the census question about head of
  household... the Kuna language refers to man,
  its not possible an interpretation in Kuna that
  it is a womanso she is going to say that its
  her son or her husband or her father ( Kuna
  woman)
• Nowadays its women who carry the lead, as you
  would say, but I think this happens the
  important numbers of male household head because
  of the simple fact that in indigenous households
  when researchers ask who is the head of the
  kinship and family? People answer The eldest,
  that means the father or the grandfather, so I
  imagine that is why it comes out like that...,
  but in real life its not quite like that (Kuna
  woman).

20
Findings/methodological proposition
21
Final discussion

• The census strength resides in its national
  coverage, and that it allows to develop
  households typologies
  
• Panama, Bolivia and Chile censuses reveal inter
  and intra ethnic variation
  
• among household members
• However, because of the ethnocentric bias and
  fixed definitions based on structural
  characteristics, the census is limited to capture
  the functional and dynamic nature of the
  indigenous households and family
• .
• Combining census with a qualitative approach
  could highlight a dynamical and social
  perspective on indigenous households, which in
  fact is the indigenous household and family
  meaning
• Also it could explain how family members confront
  to global economy ( displacement, demographic
  pressure over land and discrimination) and
  respond by ethnic revitalization, self
  determination and resilience
• The challenge is how to design culturally
  appropriate measurement to describe indigenous
  households inequalities and risk factors
  capturing at the same time some protective
  factors like solidarity, reciprocity, and
  cooperation, which exist within them