Leslie A. Koepke, Ph.D.

Presidential Address

Groves Conference on Marriage and Family

Dublin, Ireland

June 2008

Fintan O’Toole writes, "The old quip - English of course - was that every time the Irish Question was about to be solved, the Irish changed the question. The Irish Peace Process was based on the realization that, in fact, changing the question might not be a bad idea. Eventually, the British and Irish governments and most of the political parties in Northern Ireland came to see that changing the question might actually be the way to answer it….

The old question was about territory: "To whom does Northern Ireland belong –Ireland or Britain?" The old answer was: "To whoever can seize or hold it by force." The new question is about people: "Can Irish people of all persuasions live in the 21^st century without knowing that they belong, once and for all, to a well defined nation?" The peace deal is based on the belief that the answer is "Yes." For if the old question was about what people were prepared to die for, the new one is about what they are prepared to live with. It is about replacing the absolutes of identity, sovereignty, nationhood – all those big, abstract words – with the humbler realities of living with contradictions, ambiguities, and complexities.

Fintan O’Toole (2006) suggests that Northern Ireland and its citizens have defined a new kind of political space. They have, in one sense at least, escaped from ‘nations’- and in another sense, broadened the meaning of ‘identity’ (p.207). Their conflict about belonging has illuminated for the world what difficult words "nation" and "identity" really are. And yet, the Belfast Agreement suggests where "nations" really exist - is in one’s mind. It suggests that if someone feels their place is really on the borders between two national identities, the Agreement acknowledges the rights of those people to be "Irish or British,… or both." I agree with Fintan O’Toole who says "those two little words – or both- seem to me to be among the most radical, and the most delightful, in any international treaty ever signed." (O’Toole, 2006, p.208) Celia Falicov, our 2008 Sussman Award winner would agree; she would say Irish families are similar to transnational families… in that they both live "on the borderlands of identity and belonging."

Our last three Groves Conference themes have reflected upon the issue of "belonging" and "identity." In Oklahoma City, OK we were exposed to the ambiguous losses that community experienced as it emerged from great tragedy, and which ultimately redefined

their sense of belonging and transformed identity. We traveled to one of the few remaining all black cities settled by African Americans who migrated to Boley, Oklahoma after being promised land, livelihood, a new identity, and an unique experience of belonging. Our Borders and Boundaries conference in Tucson, AZ illuminated the range of experiences American citizens and immigrants have as they attempt to gain or retain identity, and/or defend homeland and a sense of belonging.

We saw the effects of migration upon Mexican families, communities, and culture…and upon American families, communities and culture. In Detroit, MI we saw a city divided by racism and poverty, and yet heard stories from people who have a tenacious commitment to their city, and whose identity is further solidified by their struggles. Detroit has experienced migration of a different sort, as white flight has emptied neighborhoods; corporations have migrated to other countries for cheaper labor, and their educational system struggles to retain students who understand all too well the kind of money they can make if they migrate to illegal activities. Finally, this conference has shown that Ireland, once the land of departure for millions of Irish citizens, has now become a place of destination for both Irish citizens and immigrants from nearly every country on earth. Yet Ireland still struggles with significant issues related to identity and belonging. This conference has allowed us to reflect upon our previous conferences, and broadens our understanding of identity and belonging by integrating a global perspective around those issues.

When Groves Conference decided to travel to Ireland, I started reading various writers to better acquaint myself with the people, the island, the culture, the dances. I was struck by the longing of those who moved away – even if they found great success and peace elsewhere, they still yearned for their homeland and were fierce in their determination to retain some sense of Irish identity. Even those who couldn’t wait to leave Ireland and its troubles found they could not leave Ireland entirely. Cesare Pavese states "Having a country means not to be alone, to know that in the people, the plants, the soil, there is something of yours, that even if you are not there, it keeps on waiting for you…" This statement speaks to the need of belonging. If home is where the heart is, and one’s heart is with ones family, language, and country, what happens when your family, language, and culture occupy two different worlds? This has been the reality of Irish citizens (both those who departed, and those who stayed in their country of origin), and this has more or less been the plight of most immigrants in general. The outcome has often been to live with one’s heart divided; to feel one’s belongingness severed.

However, just as the Belfast Agreement has allowed Northern Irish citizens to claim belonging to and identity with both Ireland and England if they wish, globalization has constructed a dual sense of belonging and identity for many immigrants. Transnationalism, which is defined as living in one or more cultures and maintaining connection to both, is an increasingly common way of belonging. Events, communities,

and individual’s lives are increasingly linked across borders. The families, who frequently move back and forth (both emotionally and physically) between communities of origin and destination, have been defined as transnational families. "I’m here, but I’m there"; … I’m 100% American and 100% Mexican"; …. "Two hearts live, ache, in my breast", are statements offered by transnational individuals and they articulate the reality of having lives, relations, and identities that are linked across national borders.

Transnational immigrants have personal stories, views of reality, and adaptive behaviors which are anchored in the lived experience of their race, ethnicity, or social class and belong within their national contexts. As such, Marris (1980) suggests that perhaps the most fundamental dislocation of migration… is the uprooting that occurs from known structures of cultural meanings, which are tied to those national contexts. These structures of meanings and beliefs have been likened to the roots that sustain and nourish a plant. Even when immigration occurs by choice, the uprooting of established meaning systems and exposure to new cultural expectations have been linked to various type of psychological distress for immigrants, including culture shock, marginality, social alienation, and psychological conflict (Falicov, 2005, p.41-42).

The kinds of loss experienced by transnational immigrants may be best captured by the theory of ambiguous loss. Celia Falicov writes: "Migration is a stressful event that brings with it losses of all kinds: gone is the support of family, friends and community; gone is the ease of the native language, the customs, the foods, and the multiple connections with one’s own country itself. These physical absences are real, yet unlike the losses of death, with migration it is always possible to fantasize an eventual return or a forthcoming reunion with loved ones. Immigrants also hope that the added burdens will be lifted when their hard work is rewarded with improved economic or educational conditions or new political or cultural freedoms" (2003, p. 42). The contradictory elements of "being here, and yet there" create a persistent mix of emotions which make grieving incomplete or postponed. Ambiguity becomes inscribed in immigrants’ lives, an ambiguity with which they must constantly learn to live. Groves Conference has seen this ambiguity in those who lost loved ones in the Oklahoma City bombing; we saw it in the lives of those who cross the borders to live in the U.S.; we saw it in those choosing to stay in Detroit while experiencing the daily loss of loved ones, financial security and sense of community….and we have certainly heard it in the words of the Irish people with whom we have spoken this past week.

Some argue that transnationalism is nothing new…that immigration has a long history, and earlier generations of immigrants also displayed strong connections to their homelands. Others acknowledge that ties to homeland and family among the first generation are strong, but predict they will quickly weaken among the second and succeeding generations due to the seductive call of acculturation by the adopted homeland. However, Acculturation Theory – a theory that which assumes immigrants gradually shed their original culture and language in favor of a better "fit" with mainstream culture – has been challenged recently. (This theory was initially based on the idea that there is only one place that one can call "home.") Several studies indicate that immigrants who try to "Americanize" or assimilate, actually have more psychological problems and drug use than those who retain their language, cultural ties

and rituals, at least partially (Portes and Rumbaut, 1990). Furthermore, social ills such as drugs, alcohol, teen pregnancy, domestic violence, gangs, and AIDS, which affect discriminated groups, appear more frequently in the second and third generations than in the first (Padilla, 1994), presumably because the protection of a firm cultural and family identity was still intact in the immigrant generation (Falicov, 2003, p.43).

A more recent theory, Alternation Theory, is based on a different assumption. This assumption (which is very similar to the one that is the foundation for the Belfast Agreement) acknowledges that it is possible to know two languages and two cultures and to appropriately use this knowledge for different contexts without giving up one for the other. Not surprisingly, our transformation in communication technology has reinforced this ability…and many of us have used this technology during the past week. The very same technology which allows us to talk with or email anyone in the world at any time of the day, also makes it possible for immigrants to have a two home, trans-continent lifestyle and identity. For transnationals, being able to maintain close relationships, values, and language across borders expands their "cultural "fit," rather than limiting it. Transnational individuals develop a "cultural bifocality" - which is unknown to those of us born in and residing within one country. Cultural bifocality is the capacity to see the world through at least two different value lenses. Due to advances in communication technology, transnational individuals are able to maintain their language and ethnic values, while also learning and using English and American values when dealing with larger systems. DuBois recognized the ability to live with two value lenses when he described his theory of "double consciousness" in 1903. He aptly described "double consciousness" as the awareness African Americans experience about who they really are in their own group, in contrast with the ways (often prejudicial) in which they are seen by others. He was describing the feelings and experiences of living in two worlds.

But what about the following generations – the children of transnationals? Immigration is not an experience that belongs solely to those who leave their country of origin.

As Falicov writes: "The cast of characters in the migration play include those who leave, those who stay, and those who come and go for generations to come. Children of transnationals, often having never visited their parent’s country of origin, create objective and subjective ties to their ancestral home….These relationships include the presence of the here and the there, and the real and the imagined" (2005, p. 400). Transnational children’s attachment to their ancestry is a borrowed one – that which is colored by the memories and stories of their parents and grandparents. Wolf (2002) calls these children "emotional transmigrants", since their cultural attachments are the legacy of their parents emotional ties. Some research suggests that second generation children, rather than participating in a cultural and emotional "cut-off", benefit instead from having parents who recreate familiar patterns and perpetuate customs. This helps instill a sense of connectedness that binds together distant countries, cultures, and generations (Troya and Rosenberg, 1999).

However, the question remains: will Acculturation Theory eventually lay claim to the children from transnational parents, or will their identity and belonging be influenced by Alternation Theory ? In one of the most comprehensive studies of second generation youth in America, Portes and Rumbaut (2001) document three different paths of accommodation among the youth: dissonant, consonant, and selective acculturation. Dissonant acculturation occurs when young people quickly adapt to American culture and values while their parents do not. This is the pattern we talk about with concern in our classes: where young second generation children serve as translators for their parents, leading to role reversal and shifts in parental power and dependence. Consonant acculturation occurs when parents and children learn the new language and cultural expectations at relatively the same pace, and abandon the old one with similar timing. This seems to occur most often in the homes of middle class transnational families. Finally, selective acculturation is ascribed to those children who grow up in a co-ethnic community supportive of their parent’s original language and customs, and where the rapid acquisition of American values and norms is cushioned and accommodated. An outcome of selection acculturation is the "cultural bifocality" I spoke of earlier. It is a lived example of Alternation Theory, which is an identity "characterized by a lack of intergenerational conflict, the presence of co-ethnics as friends, and full bilingualism in the second generation" (Levitt &Waters, 2002, p.17). It allows for identity and belonging to more than one home; more than one country. This "selective acculturation" is exactly what the Irish hope to attain, as stated in the Belfast Agreement.

Although it’s clear the Irish have not yet achieved "cultural bifocality"…it seems they have recognized the importance of recognizing two languages, and two cultures.

Quoting O’Toole: "The Belfast Agreement …was not a statement of the status quo, but a map of a landscape whose lineaments have yet to emerge from the fog of war. It placed a flag on a hill, and asked a political system to march toward it without worrying too much about the swamps and bogs that have to be crossed in order to get there, Just because we seem to be slogging forever through the swamp, however, we should not lose sight of the hill that has already, in the imagination at least, been climbed. (O’Toole, p.208)

Here’s where I make a metaphorical leap about the issues of identity and belonging in Irish families and transnational families, and talk about how it all applies to Groves Conference families. Bear with me! As we look to Groves Conference 2009 and develop plans to celebrate our 75^th anniversary as a professional organization, it is incumbent upon us to look back at our professional identity as well as look forward to who and what we want to be 75 years from now. Due to our recent by-law change that allows graduate students to be considered for membership in this organization, we have the opportunity to examine our organizational identity and consider even more closely the issue of what it means to "belong to Groves." Groves has always enjoyed having an "organizational culture" where we discuss leading edge issues with seasoned researchers, educators and therapists. How will that change, now that we have the option of adding a new generation and new cultural discussion to our professional family conversations? We may want to borrow the example set by the Belfast Agreement - where Northern Irish citizens can choose "or both" as their identity. We have seen that Northern Ireland remains a small space shared by people who can’t agree about what nation they belong to or what identity they accept. Its people are in an extraordinary position – free to be anything they can agree to become. I want Groves Conference to be like Northern Ireland - free to be anything we can agree to become. And just as the Belfast Agreement allows Irish citizens to claim they belong to "both" countries and both cultures - Groves may need to continue to discuss if we can accommodate "both" cultures in our future membership. And as we have our discussions, we may also want to borrow a page from the research on transnational families. Thirty years of research with transnational family members has resulted in the realization that severing all ties with former rituals, practices and meanings causes loss, discontinuity, and physical and psychological disorders to immigrant family members. Just as immigrant family members are encouraged to preserve their empowering cultural narratives and continued connection with ones past for overall well being, Groves Conference needs to retain our cultural narratives as an organization as we build our professional future identity. As Celia Falicov writes, "transnational practices may provide a sense of narrative coherence that gives meaning to the experience of migration, maintains social and cultural capital, and expands hyphenated cultural identities for future generations." Just as Northern Ireland has decided to recognize the identities of Ireland, Britain, or both – Groves Conference will want to remember our past heritage as we create our future identity.

Dubois, W.E.B. (1903). The souls of black folk. Chicago: McClurg.

Falicov, C.J. (2003). Culture in family therapy: New variations on a fundamental theme. In T.L. Sexton, G.R. Weeks, & M.S. Robbins (Eds.), The Handbook of Family Therapy (pp. 37-55).

Falicov, C.J. (2005). Emotional transnationalism and family identities. Family Process, 44, (4), 399- 406.

Falicov, C.J. (2007). Working with transnational immigrants: Expanding meanings of family, community and culture. Family Process, 46, (2), 157-171.

Foster, R. (2006). Re-Inventing the past. In A.H. Wyndham (Ed.), Re-Imagining Ireland (pp. 186-190). University of Virginia Press.

Levitt, P. & Waters, M.C. (2002). The changing face of home: The transnational lives of the second generation. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Marris, P. (1980). The uprooting of meaning. In G. V.Coelho & P.I. Ahmed (Eds.), Uprooting and development: Dilemmas of coping and modernization. New York: Plenum Place.

O’Toole, F. (2006). The peace process. In A.H. Wyndham (Ed.), Re-Imagining Ireland (pp. 206-208). University of Virginia Press.

Padilla, A.M. (1994). Bicultural development: a theoretical and empirical examination. In R.G. Malgady & O. Rodriguez (Eds.), Theoretical and conceptual issues in Hispanic mental health. Melbourne, FL: Krieger.

Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R.G. (1990). A foreign world: Immigration, mental health and acculturation. In Immigrant America: A portrait. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R.G. (2001) Legacies: The story of the new second generation. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Troya, E., & Rosenberg, F. (1999). "Nos fueron" a Mexico: Que nos paso a los jovenes exiliados conosurenos? ("They sent us to Mexico: What happened to us, young exiles from South America?"): Sistemas Familiares, 15, (3), 79-91.

Wolf, D.L. (2002). There is no place like "home": Emotional transnationalism and the struggles of second generation Filipinos. In P. Levitt & M.C. Waters (Eds.), The Changing Face of Home: The transnational Lives of the second generation (pp.255-294). New York: Russell Sage.