“Everybody Takes Care of Everybody”: Care Circulation and Care Relations in Three-Generation Cohabitation

Introduction

Many scholars have asserted that an increase in life expectancy has enabled long-term relationships between more generations (Harwood & Lin, 2000; Matos & Neves, 2012). Consequently, “long-lasting intergenerational relationships across three and even four generations are now a frequent and relevant phenomenon” (Matos & Neves, 2012, p. 204). In our research project, we decided to investigate these relationships in the context of three-generation cohabitations that provide the space for intensive contact between generations. Research on multigenerational households has a long tradition in sociology and family studies (Robertson, 1975). Recent studies, most of which have been quantitative, have focused on advantages and disadvantages of living in multigenerational households (Harrigan, 1992), on the probability of coresidence (Amorim, Dunifon, & Pilkauskas, 2017; Brandon, 2012; Keene & Batson, 2010), on the effect of coresidence on well-being and quality of life for grandparents (Grundy & Murphy, 2018; Kim et al., 2017; Matos & Neves, 2012; Zhang, 2015) and for grandchildren (Tanskanen & Danielsbacka, 2017), on practices of grandparenthood (Albuquerque, 2011), and on caring relations (Keene & Batson, 2010; Leung & McDonald, 2007). The use of qualitative methods in research of three-generation families is less frequent, with some notable exceptions (Easthope, Liu, Burnley, & Judd, 2016; Matos & Neves, 2012).

This article focuses on care relations in the setting of three-generation cohabitation. Drawing on 28 interviews (7 with the generation of grandparents [1G], 8 with parents [2G], and 13 with adult grandchildren [3G]) in altogether 13 three-generation families, the article illuminates how the representatives of the different generations make sense of care and the role of care in family and intergenerational relations. How do they perceive the care they provide to and receive from other family members? What are the means of care? What are the meanings of care for different generations? While answering these questions, the article employs a notion of care circulation that was developed for understanding transnational family practices (Baldassar & Merla, 2014). Baldassar and Merla (2014) argued that caregiving “binds members together in intergenerational networks of reciprocity and obligation, love and trust, that are simultaneously fraught with tension, contest and relations of unequal power” (p. 7). Although this concept of care circulation was developed to understand the caring relations of families who are separated by national borders and who are rarely in face-to-face contact, we see the advantages of employing and further developing this concept in quite a different context—when the family members of three generations intensively meet on a daily basis while sharing one roof.

The concept of care circulation makes it possible to observe the everyday repeated exchanges of care among all family members. It focuses not only on women as the main providers of unpaid care work (see di Leonardo, 1987) but also on the other actors who were previously invisible in the traditional conceptualizations of care exchange (men, children, collateral relatives, fictive kin, etc.). A broader identification of care providers and recipients is interconnected with a broader definition of care. Care is, in this sense, viewed as a permanent process embodied in the everyday practices of “doing family” (see Morgan, 1996).

The aim of this article is to investigate care circulation in three-generation families. We explore the caregiving constellations, arrangements, and distributions across the generations and argue that the care is not unidimensional and unidirectional. Rather, the care circulates among the family members who are at the same time both caregivers and care-receivers. The duties and capacities to provide and receive care change over the life course as they are linked to age-specific requirements (Alber & Drotbohm, 2015). Multigenerational households are an arena in which people in different life stages intensively meet and thereby encounter different generational and gendered expectations about caregiving. We view these households as a perfect place to study (normative) expectations about care, intergenerational mutuality, and the tensions and conflicts surrounding care.

The article is presented in the following structure: First, we outline our theoretical framework and the study design of the research. We then present the findings of our analysis, paying attention to dimensions and directions of care, care relations, and the circulation of care. By putting together three perspectives—of grandparents, parents, and adult grandchildren—the article sheds light on the complexity of caring relations within the intergenerational family triangle (parent–child, parent–grandparent, and grandparent–grandchild relationships; Van Ranst, Verschueren, & Marcoen, 1995). This research strategy, including the perspectives of actors from different generations, enables us to investigate the position of different generations in the process of caring and to view the harmonies and tensions inherent in caregiving and care-receiving. The article contributes to the scholarship on family care and intergenerational care relations in families.

Conceptual Framework: Intergenerational Care in Multigenerational Families

Our article benefits from two axes of family research. The first axis is the research on grandparenthood and intergenerational contact between generations; the second is the conceptualization of care for the maintenance and creation of family ties. These two axes provide a conceptual tool for analyzing the meanings of intergenerational care in multigenerational families.

The research on grandparenthood and intergenerational contact between the generations of grandparents and grandchildren frequently deals with the perspective of grandparents, leaving the perspective of grandchildren outside the research focus. However, as Keck and Saraceno (2008) argued, “grandchildhood has become a longer and more intense life phase as a consequence of demographic and social changes” (p. 157). The figure of the grandchild, consequently, is slowly entering the research on the family. Several recent studies argued that grandchildren are not passive recipients of grandparental care, but rather active agents in grandchild–grandparent relations (Even-Zohar & Sharlin, 2009; Keck & Saraceno, 2008) or even the initiators of intergenerational care (Matos & Neves, 2012). Previous research generally indicated that grandparents and grandchildren view their relationship with each other as important and influential (Hodgson, 1992; Matos & Neves, 2012; Monserud, 2008). Moreover, intergenerational relations are dynamic, reciprocal, and two-way; grandchildren also participate in the socialization of grandparents. The new focus on grandparent–grandchild ties operates with a broader definition of care that is not solely connected with financial help and support during illness, but also with preparing special food, helping with technology, and keeping grandparents open-minded (Matos & Neves, 2012).

In grandchild–grandparent ties, the role of the middle generation is important. In previous studies on intergenerational solidarity, the second generation (parents) were described as mediators or bridges between the grandparents and grandchildren (Mueller & Elder, 2003; Robertson, 1975). Recent studies, however, disrupt the traditional idea of second-generation women as bridges and instead stress the agency of grandchildren and grandparents themselves in creating ties (Ihara, Horio & Tompkins, 2012; Matos & Neves, 2012). However, in the analysis of intergenerational care between grandchildren and grandparents, the presumption prevails that grandchildren learn from their parents’ behavior to care for their grandparents and that parents are the key role models for grandchildren as caregivers (Even-Zohar & Sharlin, 2009; Keene & Batson, 2010).

Even-Zohar and Sharlin (2009) summarize their reflection on the current state of the matter as follows:

Previous qualitative research which explains the involvement of adult grandchildren and the help they provide their parents in caring for grandparents as stemming from their filial duty, which similar to their parents’ derives from feelings of attachment, love, familiarity with family history, loyalty and the wish to repay grandparents who helped to raise them. (pp. 180-181)

Dellmann-Jenkins, Blankemeyer, and Pinkard (2000) report a newly emerging trend of grandchildren becoming primary caregivers for their grandparents. Their study found that there are generational differences in the motivations to become a caregiver for the grandparent: “Grandchildren appeared to be more motivated by feelings of attachment, while children were more apt to report feelings of obligation” (Dellmann-Jenkins et al., 2000, p. 184). Previous research had argued that grandchildren’s relationships to grandparents are shaped by the effort to “repay grandparents for the gift of life and for all the love and attention that their grandparents gave them” (Even-Zohar & Sharlin, 2009, p. 181).

Intergenerational caregiving not only shapes the dyad of grandparent–grandchild ties but is also a key factor in “doing family” (Morgan, 1996) and a mechanism that molds existing kinship ties and creates new ones (Alber & Drotbohm, 2015). Alber and Drotbohm (2015) argue that “care is a particular type of social action performed among people who understand themselves as belonging to each other by kinship and who are performing belonging through care” (p. 7). The significance of caregiving in family life was a research topic in the setting of transnational families. In this setting, the concept of circulation of care, the main conceptual point of departure for our article, was elaborated by Baldassar and Merla (2014). The authors pay particular attention to the exchange of care in families, which according to them is governed by the “norm of generalized reciprocity,” that is “the expectation that the giving of care must ultimately be reciprocated, although it may not be realized” (Baldassar & Merla, 2014, p. 7). This led the authors to address care as “given and returned at different times and to varying degrees across the life course” and so as “circulating among family members over time as well as over distance” (Baldassar & Merla, 2014, p. 7). The circulation of care always includes asymmetries and negotiations among family members. These negotiations include both big caring activities, such as physical care for a dependent person, and little activities that very often go unnoticed, such as picking up something special for dinner, sorting the daily mail, and remembering anniversaries (Carrington, 1999; see also Gabb & Fink, 2018). Carrington (1999) argues that

Decidedly not insignificant, these small matters form the fabric of our daily lives as participants in families. Moreover, the proliferation of these small matters produces a stronger and more pervasive sense of the relationship(s) as a family, both in the eyes of the participants and in the eyes of others. (p. 6)

In our research, we were particularly interested in these small matters. At the same time, we focused on how the expectations, ideals, and ideas about care may change over the life course, as reflected in the remark by Thelen (2015):

An analysis of care must therefore also include the future expectations of the agents equally in terms of their expectations of others. Care expectations are derived from past experiences and from the observed actions of third parties; they require trust in certain relationships and familiarity with certain situations. (p. 507)

We investigated the complex process of caring both in the interviews and in the analysis of the gathered data described in the following section.

Study Design

Academic discussions in the Czech Republic lack information about three-generation cohabitations. In terms of quantitative investigations, the annual variability of the methodologies of the Population Censuses (1921-2011) make it difficult to map basic information about the character and structures of three-generation cohabitations in the Czech Republic. New census results do not present complex and clear data; they are merely a basic introduction to the problematic nature of three-generation cohabitations. However, the recent data indicates that living in three-generation cohabitation is not the most common living model in the Czech Republic. Studies show that this type of living is on the decline (see Český Statistický Úřad, 2014; PPM Factum, 2014). It can be assumed that in most cases the member of the first (and oldest) generation is a woman and that these models of living are found more often in villages than in the cities (Český Statistický Úřad, 2014).

To contextualize the three-generation households and the intergenerational transfer of care, we must consider the particular historical and cultural context of the Czech Republic as a former socialist country. Before the fall of Communism in 1989, Czechoslovak women experienced the highest rates of employment in the industrialized world (Saxonberg & Sirovátka, 2006). Despite the developed network of public nurseries for children younger than 3 years old, grandparents played a key role in the lives of working parents (Možný, 2006). As Možný (1991) argued, the family had become a very important source of solidarity by the early 1970s, compensating for the failures of the state. At the same time, the 1970s was a period of explicit familialism in elder care (Maříková & Plasová, 2012). The fall of Communism in 1989 and the social and economic transformation in the 1990s brought changes in the organization of child care, particularly the prolongation of paid parental leave. As a result, parental care provided by mothers with the assistance of grandmothers became the dominant model of child care in the Czech Republic and “becoming a mother in a climate of strong intergenerational solidarity entails a future commitment to grandparental care” (Souralová, 2019). The family is “a perennial star” in the organization of elder care (Souralová & Šlesingerová, 2018). In other words, there are prevailing expectations that both child care and elder care should be organized within the family circle and these expectations and commitments are negotiated in daily life (Finch & Mason, 1993) and reproduced generationally.

The present study is qualitative. Our research aim was to take a holistic approach to the family and include the perspectives of representatives of each generation (as Mueller & Elder, 2003). This article presents the findings of interview-based research on three-generation cohabitations. Altogether, we conducted 28 interviews. We conducted in-depth semistructured interviews with three generations: 7 grandparents (1G), 8 parents (2G), and 13 adult grandchildren (3G) to capture the “basic intergenerational triangle of the family” (Van Ranst et al., 1995). Our goal to interview members of each generation in three-generation cohabitation was accomplished in six cases. In seven cases, only one or two generations were interviewed. This was mostly because some first-generation members did not want to participate. The interviews were conducted with each representative separately, and no family members were informed about what the others said. We used the snowball method to recruit our research participants (Table 1).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Profiles of the Interviewees and the Households.

Name of family	Generation	Age, years	Sex	Family status
Jedlička family	1G	60	Female	Married
	2G	40	Female	Married
	3G	21	Male	Single
Vrba family	1G	65	Female	Married
	2G	45	Female	Married
	3G	24	Female	Single
	3G	18	Male	Single
Štědřenec family	1G	65	Female	Divorced
	2G	45	Female	Divorced (live with partner)
	3G	22	Female	Single
Platan family	1G	75	Female	Widow
	2G	45	Female	Married
	3G	24	Female	Single
Kaštan family	1G	70	Female	Widow
	2G	45	Female	Married
	3G	22	Male	Single
Višňa family	1G	72	Female	Married
	2G	45	Female	Married
	3G	24	Male	Single
Eben family	1G	70	Female	Married
	3G	18	Male	Single
Borovička family	2G	50	Female	Widow
	3G	26	Male	Single
Švestka family	3G	23	Female	Single
Habr family	3G	22	Female	Single
Katalpa family	3G	25	Male	Single
Dub family	2G	45	Male	Divorced
Pěnišník family	3G	24	Female	Single

Our main and initial interest concerned conducting interviews with people who live together in three-generation cohabitations—both such cohabitations when people share the same living space including the kitchen and bathroom and those sharing the same roof though physically separated in two homes (with shared parts of the house). Overall, we conducted interviews with people who had lived in or near big cities and in large houses. We did not focus on three-generational cohabitation in minority groups; we only interviewed Czech families. The representatives of the third generation were mostly university students.

In this study, we deliberately did not focus on gender. This was not because we think that it is an unimportant category in studies of care and care relations, but because we focused on generational categorizations. We can state that of all the 28 respondents in our project, 20 were women and 8 were men (1 2G; 7 3G). The sex of the participants was not an important criterion for selection. In most cases, we conducted the research along the matriline that defined these three-generation cohabitations. Women were far more willing to participate in interviews than men. For this reason, we conducted interviews only with women in the first generation (only two of them were widows), given the exception of the couple interview with the Vrba family where both woman and man participated. With the second generation, we conducted interviews with only one daughter-in-law and with one man. In the cases of the third generation, the adult grandchildren, we spoke with seven men and six women because the representatives of both sexes in this generation were very open to conversation.

Our research method was based on semistructured interviews and mapped some specific themes: causes or motivations for living in three-generation cohabitation, organizations of these models of living (financial, house structure, shared and unshared areas, authorities, house owners, etc.), everyday living and negotiations of roles, interrelations, intergenerational ties, relationships between 1G-2G, 2G-3G, and 3G-1G and emic categories of care, home, and family. To reveal the meaning of care for the generations, we used two strategies during the interviews. First, we asked interviewees specific questions by the using the terms “care” and “take care”: What do you understand as the concept of care? What does it mean for you? How do you take care of others? and so on. In the second strategy, we mapped the definitions and the frequency of their own usage of the terms “care” and “take care” in the network of the different meanings and connections in the narratives.

In six living cohabitations, we conducted the interviews at the homes of the participants, and we conducted a shared conversation with the second generations of two families. We also mapped the interactions between the members of each generation, the characters and structures of their houses, and their small routines. During our research, we encountered many care patterns; with one exception, none of the family members were dependent on physical care provided by another family member. The only exception was the Katalpa family, where the first generation received care for many years from the second generation. All interviews were recorded and transcribed with the consent of the interviewees. The transcriptions were anonymized and so are the names used in this article.

The analysis was carried out on an ongoing basis. We focused on how the research participants make sense of everyday cohabitation, how they understand what care is and in what capacity they consider themselves to be caregivers. We did not come with any advance precise definition of care; we were interested in the emic conceptualizations of the participants and in how they position themselves in the net of caring relations. Our aim was to see the role of care in the daily lives of the interviewees.

Multiple Dimensions and Directions of Care

The findings for this qualitative interview-based study were guided by two research questions: (1) What are the care constellations, arrangements, and distributions across the generations in three-generation households? and (2) What is the meaning of care for each generation? As we analyzed the data, the interviewees’ accounts of care relations in the household emerged as a key topic in everyday life in the three-generation household. When talking about the daily routines, memories of, experiences with, and future aspirations for multigenerational cohabitation, the stress on care in the reflections on the advantages of three-generation coexistence under one roof surpassed other benefits, including the economic aspect of sharing the cost of living. Ms. Habrová (3G) offered a typical testimony:

I see it [the three-generation cohabitation] as positive, because my childhood was just awesome. In addition, my mother could return to work when I was 4 years old and I was at home with my grandma until I was four, when I started preschool. Plus my mother could study at university because again she had the grandma who was there 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, absolutely available. ( . . . ) Childhood is so great and so nice when you have grandma and grandpa. ( . . . ) And it is also very practical because the older people need some care, or you just want to know that they are doing well, that the grandma keeps things tidied up, that she eats lunch, and you want to have everything under your supervision. I cannot imagine how we would manage it if she [grandma] was alone in an apartment.

This interview excerpt provides a starting point for our characterization of caring relations in three-generation cohabitation. The interviewee here touches several key points that will be elaborated below in more details, particularly the role of care for different generations in different life stages cohabiting in three-generation households, the changing directions of care according to the particular needs, and care commitments that connect the first and third generations when caring grandparenthood turns into caring grandchildhood. The accounts of different actors indicated that differing meanings of care (care for/about whom, what, and when) were negotiated among family members. We focus on two themes that answered our research questions: (1) dimensions and meanings of care and (2) multiple directions of care and expectations of/experiences with care reciprocation.

Dimensions and Meanings of Care

The data analysis shows that care is the key mechanism maintaining and reproducing three-generational cohabitations. This was already apparent in the excerpt from the interview with Ms. Habrová above in which she reflects on the advantages of cohabitation by using almost exclusively the argument of care provision. Many other moments in the interviews also led us to this conclusion. The Katalpa family is an excellent example. Ms. Katalpová (2G) provided care for her parents (1G) for a long time, until her parents’ death. The routine of constant care ended, and this situation was described by her son (3G) who observed these changes in terms like “strange,” “uncertain,” “stress,” and “what should I do next?”

There is nobody for them to take care of. Now they can only take care of each other. This could be a shock for them when they . . . I do not know . . . maybe when they are 55 years old . . . when they realize that they spent 30 years taking care of my grandparents. So it could have been an internal shock and I think that they were not ready for it. (Mr. Katalpa, 3G)

Care was an essential issue for all three generations and was part of the interviews from the beginning to the end. Care as a routinized everyday practice of family members takes many meanings and dimensions. Our aim in the interviews was to work with a broader conception of care to enable a better clarification of its circulation and make it possible to understand the emic conceptualizations of care as interpreted by the interviewees themselves.

The next section focuses on care dimensions. We present the findings of our analysis, using the categories of care that we encountered during our research. These categories not only help us better understand care relations and care conceptualizations in the narratives but also provide a tool for seeing care as filled with altruism, love, and companionship as well as ambiguities, tensions, and conflicts. These categories are analytical tools; therefore, we do not present them as separate categories with their own meanings and definitions. They are specific views of care that are not separated but interconnected.

Visible Care and Care Hidden in the Details

The first dimension is related to the character of care provision, its intensity (the level of dependence of the care-receiver), and the extent to which it spreads across the everyday life of both caregiver and care-receiver. In some cases, there were provisions of care without which the care-receiver could not live (e.g., the Katalpa family); in others, small caring activities were performed in daily life. Both had the same importance for the concerned actors and they are thus of the same relevance. The Katalpa family were the only example in our sample where the life of the second generation was subject to the caring needs of the first generation, and so—to a certain extent—was the life of the third generation (the 3G interviewee complained that he was unable to take a trip with his parents when he was a child because his parents could not leave his grandparents alone). The subjectification of the second generation to care for the first generation was the leitmotif of an interview with Mr. Katalpa (3G), who reflected on the consequences of this care provision:

Long-term care provision, in the interviewee’s eyes, led both to the health problems of his mother and to her exclusion from the labor market as she started caring for her parents soon after her parental leave. Ms. Katalpová (2G) reportedly encountered a situation similar to one that is extensively described in research on family caregivers whose role brings them greater stress and depression, less time for sleep and hobbies, and more mental and physical illnesses (Barnes, Given, & Given, 1992; Pinquart & Sörensen, 2006; Silverstein, Gans, & Yang, 2006).

The care reportedly performed by Ms. Katalpová (2G) was probably the most visible in our sample as it was care for a dependent person. However, the care circulating in three-generation cohabitation can also be characterized by less visible little tasks that are done on a daily basis. The care was—in each generation—connected with forms of monitoring and controlling (of children or grandparents), with caring for the sick, with financial help (payment of accounts), with housework (cooking, washing, ironing), and with the showing of interest in the well-being of family members with typical questions such as “How are you?” “What did you do today?” and “Do you need anything from the store?” Carrington (1999) refers to little unnoticed forms of care, important in relationships between household members. These little forms of care were articulated especially, though not exclusively, in interviews with the third generation. According to them, they provide care for first generation and second generation by chatting, sitting together, watching television together, listening to the worries of family members, and determining strategies for letting their parents rest. As Ms. Švestková (3G) said, “Maybe in terms of care I do, for example, this: My grandma asks me ‘Where are your parents?’ and I know where they are, but I do not tell her. So my parents can smoke a cigarette.”

Another example of an important form of care was presented in the interview with Ms. Štědřencová (3G). At the beginning of their cohabitation in a new home, her grandmother suffered from depression, and the move to a new environment was a big challenge for her. Ms. Štědřencová (3G) described her role in her grandmother’s adaptation as follows:

I think that I spent a lot of time with my grandma. I visited her often and we talked a lot. We were together. I think that this helped her and that it was better than if no one came to see her. In that time, it maybe was better that I did this for her.

Ms. Štědřencová highlights that the amount of time spent with her grandmother in “only” everyday visits was a significant act of caring. The testimonies of Ms. Štědřencová and Ms. Švestková demonstrate both the little things that constitute care and the active role of the third generation as caregivers. The testimonies of Ms. Štědřencová and many other interviewees also show that grandchildren view themselves as active agents in providing care (Ihara et al., 2012; Matos & Neves, 2012).

We have addressed the caring activities that are done by the family members. However, a big part of the care provided in the setting of three-generation households is what is not done. In the interviews, we asked all of the generations about what cohabitation has taught them. Surprisingly, the third generation was quite univocal in responding “tolerance.” Tolerance was portrayed as an important ability learned through living in three-generation cohabitation and as something that can be used also beyond the borders of the household. Connected with respect, tolerance was interpreted as being sensitive to the needs of others and, above all, sometimes not doing something—in order to not harm others or to not cause conflicts. Such not done activities, thus, were part of the circulation of care within the cohabitation. For example, as a young boy Mr. Kaštan (3G) wanted a dog. This wish was repeatedly referenced at several points in his interview, indicating that this theme is still important for him.

Mr. Kaštan lives in a semidetached house divided for two three-generational families. He shares one part of the house with his parents and grandmother, and his other grandmother, cousin, and aunt and uncle live in the second part. The narrative of Mr. Kaštan, who had a very positive view of the three-generation cohabitation and personally wanted to continue with it in the future, demonstrates how family members compromise and give up some wishes in order to contribute to the harmonic cohabitation and to care for the well-being of other family members. Simply put, emic conceptualizations of care include both the care that subjects one’s life to the needs of another person and the little activities that are done or are not done. In the next section, we will show how the care is negotiated by family members and what kinds of tensions it can cause.

Wanted and Unwanted Forms of Care

The second analytical dimension distinguishes between care that is wanted and care that is unwanted. The wanted practices that individuals attribute to forms of care were associated with the emic notions of advantageous, welcomed, and even requested. In contrast, unwanted care was associated with practices described as undesirable, unsolicited, not contributing, unhelpful, and sometimes annoying. Especially in this dimension, we observed the advantages of the methodological strategy of interviewing the representatives of all three generations. We could listen to—sometimes radically different—descriptions of the same situations from three diverse perspectives. We see in these incongruities the role played by the different generational views shaped by the different positions of the interviewees in the life cycle and their needs and expectations about care provision and reception.

In the narratives, we can map the changes in who is viewed as the agents of (un)wanted care. Most of the interviews portrayed the main advantage of three-generation cohabitation being the possibility of babysitting and child supervision by the grandparents (see the quote from the interview with Ms. Habrová above; cf. Easthope et al., 2016; Harrigan, 1992). Over time, however, the once-welcomed care becomes unwelcome. The original role of the first generation as the provider of advantageous and wanted care and as a significant agent in providing the care that enabled the second generation to work, study, or rest changes into the role of a provider of annoying and unwanted types of care. The grandmothers are not portrayed as unnecessary or unimportant; rather, there are comments about their continuing interventions in contributing to child care and child rearing. The testimony of Ms. Planatová (2G) shows this perspective:

I have a problem with my mom because she tries to interfere with my children’s education. And I tell her, “No, I will teach them.” I listen to her statements, but I am against her taking my place and telling them “Wash your hands!” That doesn’t give me any peace!

This statement demonstrates Ms. Platanová’s dissatisfaction with her mother’s taking over the maternal role. It also presents one form of unwanted care. The forms of unwanted care were also associated with other concerns of everyday life in three-generation cohabitations—with poor loading of the dishwasher, with “unsolicited” preparation of extra meals, with “annoying” questioning after other family members. Most often, the grandmothers were described as the performers of annoying and unwanted care. Frequently, the first-generation grandmothers were portrayed by the second and third generations as authoritative (the third generation often referred to them as “generals”) and (overly) influential agents in the households (for a similar conclusion, see Mueller & Elder, 2003). As we note, the tensions between generational perspectives about care can be mapped in the narratives. On the one hand, during the interviews the second- and third-generation representatives characterized the activities of the first generation as annoying and unwanted; on the other hand, the grandmothers viewed their caring agency as an important and useful contribution to the family. The case of the Platan family shows these tensions the most clearly.

I took care of my grandchildren because my daughter went to work. So I took the girls to kindergarten and got them ready for school. I tried to wash, cook, and bake for them. Now they do not need it. Now they take care of me. But I still try to help them. I wash the dishes, wash the clothes, etc. (Ms. Platanová, 1G)

My grandma has sometimes the feeling that she must be a general and that my mom does not do things right. Grandma sometimes also tells us how much she does here. But it is not true. Or she does unnecessary things. For example, she fills the dishwasher with clean and washed dishes and turns it on, or she washes clothes in the wrong way, or she cooks more lunch than is necessary. Sometimes she could take a break. (Ms. Platanová, 3G)

She [the grandmother] is not able to help as much as before so she is sad about it. And she tries to help in other ways. (Ms. Platanová, 2G)

These three interview excerpts show clearly how the provision of care is perceived differently by each generation. On the part of the first generation, there is a need to provide (or to continue providing) care; on the part of the third generation, there is a rejection of this kind of care. The position of the second generation is somewhere between the first and third generations—both critical of the first generation’s inputs and understanding when recalling the first generation’s previously active role.

The example of the Platan family demonstrates two key issues. First, the above-cited quotations provide a diachronic perspective on care, showing how caregiving roles change over time and the efforts of the first generation to continue as active agents in care provision. The agency of grandmothers is connected with their need to contribute to the households and maintain the feeling that “they are still needed.” This point was evident in most of the interviews with the first generation, such as with Ms. Ebenová (1G):

The second key point here concentrates on the process of care-receiving. Care-receiving is an active process that includes the negotiation of the roles in caring relations, the acceptance of care, the selection of particular types/aspects of care, and also its rejection. Caregivers and care-receivers are both active agents—care-receivers are not passive recipients but active negotiators in the process of caring for other members (see Ms. Platanová 2G above) and themselves (see Mr. Višňa 3G below, see Finch & Mason, 1993). The stress on the necessity/decision to select or reject particular types of care appeared repeatedly in the interviews, especially with the third generation. Mr. Višňa, who now studies in another city and commutes to the three-generation household only for weekends, recalled his last holiday, when he was at home without the presence of his parents and younger brother. He described the communication with his grandmother as follows:

During this week, I did not go to the store a single time, because the moment she heard my footsteps in the apartment, my grandma immediately came to confer with me on what I would eat that day and what about her . . . and it was in no way possible that I would do it for myself. So sometimes it is more intense and I must fight for my position to say that no, now I do that by myself, do not worry about it.

The testimony of Mr. Višňa illustrates the active role required of care-recipients when they interpret the care provided by “self-appointed” caregivers as unwanted or unsolicited. ¹ This kind of care appeared quite frequently in the interviews and so did the strategies of active negotiation of care reception.

Care as a “Consciousness of Copresence” and as a Strategy Against Loneliness

The testimonials presented thus far could be connected with forms of “taking care of,” with direct practices of care provision and its negotiation (care for, Tronto, 1999). In the setting of three-generation cohabitation, another important aspect of care is “caring about,” which is directly connected to the cohabitation itself. This form of care, as illustrated above in the quotes about tolerance, is less focused on directly providing care to specific subjects; rather, in our opinion, it represents knowledge about the members of household and their presence “there” (behind the wall, upstairs, downstairs, etc.). Several interviews illustrate how the care is done by proxy, by listening, hearing, and—in some cases—acting when there is a deviation from the usual habits. For example, Ms. Platanová (2G) stressed in the conversation: “We hear the sounds when someone goes down the stairs. And when I do not hear them, it is strange. ( . . . ) [When] I did not hear the footsteps on the stairs.”

Everyday living in three-generation cohabitations is wrapped in customs that are formed and internalized by the family members. In cases of noncompliance or changes, the members are confronted with uncertainty and the feeling that “something is odd.” Interest in others and their day-to-day schedule is not associated with strong and visible control. Rather, it is interpreted as caring about and being interested in how other family members are doing.

The important feeling that “there is always somebody in the house” was constructed not only in the narratives of the oldest generation (with associated fears of loneliness, see below) but also in the narratives of the second and (in some cases) third generation. It was reported by Ms. Vrbová (2G) and Mr. Višňa (3G) who think that it is one of the main advantages of living in three-generation cohabitations:

We know about each other. You are never alone in the house. When I stay at home and my husband and my children are not here, I know that my parents are still on the first floor. There is always someone nearby. (Ms. Vrbová)

We take care of each other. We love each other. We do not have any strong conflict between us. We have the certainty that we do not do anything wrong to each other. That we help each other in cases of emergency. (Mr. Višňa)

Although the emphasis on the consciousness of copresence was present in the interviews with all of the generations, it was especially important for the first generation. It takes two directions. It emphasizes the care reception from the second and third generation and at the same time it stresses the intergenerational contact. The interview with Ms. Štědřencová (1G) illustrates the first emphasis:

If I was alone in the apartment, I would be more depressed than now, I would feel lonely and that nobody is around. Now I am alone but they are on the other side of the door. ( . . . ) I am not afraid of being alone. I can drive, prepare food, I manage everything. But the feeling of safety when I do not have a partner, the feeling of safety that somebody is behind the door and that they will not leave me out in the cold.

As in the findings of Hortová and Souralová (2019), our analysis of interviews with the first generation demonstrates the appreciation of the simple fact that they are not alone in the house and that there is somebody who would help them if they need it. This need is constructed as something that will come in the future with the growing dependence on other people but it is also needed here and now if something suddenly happens to the currently independent first-generation family member.

The second aspect of the copresence focuses on the intergenerational contact and the intergenerational care provided by the first generation. All of the participants from the first generation were grandmothers who referred to their fear of the loneliness and noted that they would really miss contact with their (grand-)children if they did not live together (see also Harrigan, 1992). Loneliness was seen as an undesirable situation. The interview with Ms. Ebenová (1G) shows this point:

Avoiding the loneliness of the first generation was mentioned in the interviews with the second and third generations who reported that living together was also motivated by an effort to not leave the first generation alone. The struggle against the loneliness of the first generation did not end once the family were living together. Rather, it was something that had to be fought on a daily basis, in day-to-day contact. For example, Ms. Švestková reported that her grandmother always asked about obvious facts or she kept the door of her room open just to attract the attention of other family members. Ms. Švestková portrays her grandmother as a clown who needs attention, who does not like loneliness, and who usurps the privacy of other family members. The lack of privacy was another issue in the interviews that is closely connected with the copresence.

Mutual closeness and the advantages of knowing that “there is always somebody in the house” do not have purely positive associations, and may even turn into the biggest disadvantages of cohabitation that lead to tension and dissatisfaction, as the testimonies of Ms. Vrbová (2G) and Mr. Višňa (3G) above suggest. Their examples show the ambiguities in balancing the advantages and disadvantages of constant copresence:

Summarizing our findings about the dimensions of care, care acquires many meanings and has a key role in the formation and maintenance of three-generation cohabitations. Care is not connected only with the most visible forms (babysitting, financial help, cooking, etc.) but is present in the little daily activities that coliving people “just do” and in the activities that they purposely do not do. When care circulates in three-generation cohabitations, taking several dimensions, it is actively given, received, and reciprocated. The issue of reciprocation will be further elaborated in the next section.

They for Me, I for Them: Multiple Directions of Care and Care Reciprocations

The previous section illuminated the multiple dimensions of care as they are perceived by the members of different generations. This section will follow what has been said so far and show how care (with its diverse dimensions and meanings) is distributed and circulates among the members of multigenerational households. As the previous section also made evident, care was one of the key issues for members of multigenerational families—it appeared as part of their past, present, and future lives in the form of recollections (especially care for the third generation), current descriptions and interpretations, and anticipation (as anticipated care for the first generation).

Our analysis of the interviews led us to three key findings: (1) Care in three-generation families is described as multidirectional and mutual—everybody is a caregiver and care receiver at the same time; (2) expectations about caregiving change over the life course and past, present, and future care provisions are interconnected—past, present, and future care enables and conditions each member through the mechanism of the (expected) reciprocity and the experience of care commitments; and (3) intergenerational care commitments are negotiated and problematized by some family members and are not necessarily adopted/embodied by the generations (both caregivers and care-receivers).

First, we address the multidirectional and mutual character of care in three-generation cohabitations. The findings of our analysis clearly show that, given the wide definition of caregiving and care-receiving, care circulates among family members, taking several directions at the same time, in the same place. In the group interview with the second-generation representatives of the Platan and Kaštan families, one interviewee (G2) replied to our question about care relations and caregiving as follows:

[Care is directed] to everybody. Here the spectrum is so wide that it [care] is pervasive. It is not that there would be one center, e.g., the oldest generation, and everybody would be attached only to him or her. No. Here it pervades, it is permeable.

This is a reflection of decentered care—caring here is not unilineal, going from one caregiver to one care-receiver. Rather, it is fragmented into small pieces—the little everyday activities—that everybody shares in as caregiver and care-receiver. Care is portrayed as a net of caring relations where everybody is connected to everybody, and everybody contributes to care equilibrium in the family while doing what they consider the care to be (see previous section). However, the circulation of care here is filled with gendered and generational asymmetries. If we argue that everybody is a caregiver and care-receiver at the same time, we must also add that the intensity of the role of caregiver is shaped by the normative (gendered and generational) expectations, cultures of care, and family-based arrangements about who should be responsible for what tasks. Apparently, it is the second-generation women, sometimes called the “sandwich generation” who do the most. Regarding the Platan family, Ms. Platanová (2G) said in the interview: “Then you get to know that you cannot only care for others . . . that you need to set aside the time for yourself and you must think of yourself.” In the interviews with the second generation, we were interested in how the interviewees reflect on the term “sandwich generation,” whether they experience demands for care from both the first and third generations. Although the interviewees, including Ms. Platanová, did not consider their situation in these terms, they nevertheless felt that they do the most work in the household. Their reflections were not marked by complaints; rather, they saw this situation as a natural outcome of the cohabitation and this particular phase of the life cycle.

The importance of care for the interviewed family members was articulated throughout the interviews with all the generations. Moreover, care was portrayed as an activity that both comes from and goes to the interviewee. The logic of giving and getting encompassed the description of mutuality of care. Two aspects shaping the mutual character of care were present in the interviews, especially in the interview with Ms. Ebenová (see below). The first is the comprehension of caregiving as a need—the need to be needed, the need to provide care. Such giving in itself includes receiving because it fills the person with satisfaction and happiness. The second aspect was a reference to mutuality, suggesting the perception of caring relations as based on the two-way transfer of care between the family members. Both of these aspects of mutuality are apparent in the narratives with Ms. Ebenová and her grandson:

We need each other. I need them psychologically and they need me because who would weed the garden and conserve and prepare food. I have spoiled them all a lot. So that is how we need each other. (Ms. Ebenová, 1G)

I would very much miss the everyday meetings with my grandma and grandpa . . . these little 5-minute chats. I would miss this terribly. And the feeling that they are there for me any time I need them. ( . . . ) I have always had a wonderful relationship with my grandma and grandpa. And it always meant for me that I am here now to be cared for by them and then one day I could give it all back to them. For me, in the role of grandson the most important thing is to be able to give them back the care and concern. (Mr. Eben, 3G)

Besides the mutuality and the synchronic stress on need that appears in these two excerpts, there are two key points in what the Eben family says: the emphasis on the little shared activities and the importance of “being there.” Appreciation for the little shared activities that are done spontaneously on a daily basis was articulated by all three generations. Carrington (1999) argues that these simple activities usually go unnoticed, though they are essential for constitution of love and care. In our research, these activities included drinking coffee together each day after work, having a cigarette together, saying hello or asking “How are you today?” Although the interviewees, including Mr. Eben, also described the big occasions when the family meets (birthday celebrations, Christmas, garden parties and barbecues, etc.), his narrative shows that the small everyday interactions were given a higher value. Another significant point in Mr. Eben’s narrative—the appreciation that his grandparents “are there for me” and that he as a grandson “is there for them”—is another aspect of the mutuality of circulating care and it further strengthens the argument about care as a consciousness of presence.

Second, care appears in the interviews as something that must/should be reciprocated. This point is crucial in Mr. Eben’s testimony when he articulates the importance of repaying the gift of care to his grandparents. In his interpretation, the care commitment appears as both a moral obligation and a pleasure and suggests the future role reversal from caring grandparenthood to caring grandchildhood. The literature on (adult) grandchildren caring for grandparents highlights the key role of parents as models for caregiver behavior (e.g., Even-Zohar & Sharlin, 2009, p. 180). Such arguments are in accordance with a more general view on the key role of the second generation in mediating the contact between older and younger generations (Ihara et al., 2012; Matos & Neves, 2012). Our research, however, shows that children create their ties with grandparents independently of their parents. The direct link between grandchildren and grandparents may be caused by the cohabitation of generations, as Ms. Habrová (3G) suggests when contrasting her involvement in the care for her grandfathers:

I cannot imagine I would do for my grandfather [with whom I do not live] the same as I did for my grandpa at home. When a person is dying, you just do things that are not pleasant, like injections. And it is such hard work, terribly hard work that you do 24 hours a day. And I cannot imagine I would sacrifice this for my grandfather [with whom I do not live]. I would find him the best care possible but I could not be probably as engaged as I was for my grandpa. I know it can sound ugly but I feel it like this. And I think it is not anything that anybody can push you to do.

The testimony of Ms. Habrová clearly shows that the grandchildhood commitment to provide care can be embodied differently toward grandparents due to the fact of cohabitation. At the same time, however, it does not mean that physical closeness in everyday life necessarily leads to emotional closeness in the grandparent–grandchild relationship. In contrast to the experience of Ms. Habrová, in some cases, adult grandchildren prefer the grandparents with whom they do not live. This was the case of Ms. Vrbová (3G) and Mr. Višňa (3G). For Ms. Vrbová, turning to the not coresiding grandparents is motivated, inter alia, by the nonaccordance with the care that her coresiding grandmother provided to her. This interviewee was the most critical of the three-generation coresidence as well as about her grandmother. She perceived her not coresiding grandmother as being outside the family cycle; this motivated her to spend time with her, to compensate for the lack of contact with other family members. Mr. Višňa described his relationship with his paternal grandfather who had passed away a few years ago. He expressed admiration for this man whom he respected thanks to his knowledge, experiences, and overall view. In a very reflected way, Mr. Višňa said that probably he idealizes his grandfather:

He was a person for me that I looked up to, and it was not that mundane for me. It was more . . . that I go to my grandpa to chat with him and . . . it was not that I meet him in the kitchen in the morning.

Both for Mr. Višňa and for Ms. Vrbová, the coresidence with their grandparents together with the grandparents’ characteristics affected how they viewed the relationships that developed between both the coresiding and not coresiding grandparents. Their examples clearly show that coresidence does not necessarily lead to close intergenerational ties and the embodiment of care commitments toward the older generation.

Third, the idea of reciprocity of caregiving and care-receiving thus shapes the intergenerational care commitments that are highly problematized in the interviews with the third generation (see Ms. Vrbová) and also with the first generation. Here the care commitments appear either in the form of expectations, hopes, and wishes for the future or in the form of the rejection of care commitments of the ascendants once the care is too demanding and turning the cohabitation with the first generation into a burden. The first view is clearly articulated in the interview with Ms. Jedličková (1G). Although she stresses her present independence from care, she also expresses the demands for care in the future.

I did not have to provide intense care, it was just the care for the kids and I did not see it as difficult. It was just a natural thing to do. ( . . . ) I wanted them [2G] to entertain, go out somewhere, so when they wanted to go somewhere, I looked after the kids. And when they went to work, I took the children to or from [kindergarten, school] and was with them until their parents came. ( . . . ) I hope that once we need it [care], they will offer it to us and we will welcome it. But now we are self-sufficient so we do not need any care from them yet.

The expectation that past care provided by grandparents would lead to reciprocal future care provided to grandparents was the most apparent in the interview with Ms. Jedličková. Ms. Jedličková made an explicit link between the past and the future; in other interviews with the first generation, the expectation of getting back the care provided in past was more implicit. Although the three-generation coresidence is not created exclusively to enable care for the youngest or older generations, it is expected that the coresiding family members will provide care to each other. The assumption that only the family members who are coresiding will provide care for the first generation was problematized in the interviews. For example, Mr. Katalpa (3G) reported that the fact that his mother cared for her coresiding parents enabled other relatives not to care. He saw injustice in the fact that all of the care for his grandparents was on the shoulders of his mother, excusing his aunts from any regular care provision. Another example illustrating the rejection of becoming a care-receiver dependent on the younger generations was the example of Ms. Štědřencová (1G), who had her own experience of providing 24/7 care for her mother. Ms. Štědřencová’s daughter offered to build a new house where they could coreside. At first, the interviewee did not want this coresidence. Then her other daughter told her that she would never provide her with any care. At this moment, Ms. Štědřencová decided to agree to cohabitate with the first daughter. However, at the same time, she highlighted in the interview that she did not want to be dependent on her and that as soon as she needed intensive care, she would prefer to move to an institution to save her daughter from the burden of elder care.

Care takes several directions in a three-generation setting. It appears as a decentered, mutual activity that family members provide to each other. Given the past, present, and future nature of care, there are some dominant directions—typically to the first or third generations—that change during the life course of the family members. The past experiences with care provision and reception are directly connected with the future prospects of care provision and reception, driven by the mechanism of reciprocity and the idea of care commitment and repaying the gift of care. As care has several dimensions and includes many daily activities that the interviewees find important parts of caring relations, we can conclude here that everybody takes care of everybody and that each person is a caregiver and a care-receiver at the same time.

Concluding Remarks

This article focused on the meanings and directions of care in three-generation cohabitation. It drew on interviews conducted with representatives of three cohabiting generations. The qualitative and holistic approach to the multigenerational cohabitations provided important insights into the generational perspectives on care provision and reception and enabled us to illuminate the clashing definitions and meanings of care that may lead to family tension, dissatisfaction, and conflicts. From the beginning of our interviews, we saw that care is a key concept in multigenerational living and everyday lives. The concept of care circulation provided a useful tool for exploring the everyday repeated exchanges of care among all family members and the care-giving constellations, arrangements, and distributions across the generations. In conclusion, our analysis produced three key findings that contribute to the scholarship on family care, intergenerational coliving, and family relations in general.

First, care means many things for the representatives of the different generations. Although we did not deal with the generational differences in making sense of what care is, the focus on the practices of care in everyday life suggests that the perception of caregiving and care receiving differs according to the life cycle of the interviewees. We have argued that care includes both doings and not-doings. In other words, the actors contribute to the caring relations with both what they do (taking care of, caring about, talking, visiting, etc.) and what they do not (they do not buy dogs, do not listen to music too loudly, etc.). Although the not-doings require compromise and sacrifice on the side of caregivers/not-doers, these activities that are purposely not done are as important as those that are done and contribute to maintaining the functioning of three-generation cohabitation.

Second, everybody is a caregiver and care-receiver at the same time and all concerned actors are active agents of care. This conclusion that has appeared in the feminist literature on care in the 1970s is particularly important in the conceptualization of grandchild–grandparent ties and grandchildhood. Arguing that care in three-generation cohabitation is mutual and multidirectional leads to the acknowledgement of the active role of grandchildren in providing care. The emphasis on the care commitments and the idea of repaying the gift of care to grandparents are the main issues that suggest that there might be a link between caring grandparenthood and caring grandchildhood. This link should be explored more in future research, with a focus on a broad definition of care that would include all that grandchildren do on a daily basis and that they interpret as care for others. Our analysis supports the findings of previous research that grandchildren are not passive recipients of care but active agents of it (see, e.g., Keck & Saraceno, 2008).

Third, care-receiving is an active process that requires negotiating the role of care-receiver and selecting what care to accept, reject, or reciprocate, as the previous studies have demonstrated (Finch & Mason, 1993, Tronto, 1999). We are brought to this argument through the analysis of “unwanted care” that circulates in the three-generation setting. We observed that changes in the life cycle of both caregiver and care-receiver lead to radical changes in the emic perception of wanted and unwanted care—previously wanted and needed care turns into care that is interpreted as unsolicited, unwanted, and disturbing. At this moment, the reception of care is not passive and matter of fact but becomes an issue of daily negotiations, frequently leading to tensions or conflicts (see also Finch & Mason, 1993).

Fourth, the use of the concept of care circulation for research on multigenerational living illuminates several key aspects of this circulation and the proximity. The care circulation framework was partly designed to destigmatize geographically distant families and show that care can be exchanged and performed beyond physical copresence. First, thanks to cohabitation, people often expect to give and receive care just because there are people around and these people are both physically and emotionally close. Second, the consciousness of copresence is essential for the care circulation within multigenerational families. Our article shows that the presence itself and its outcome in the form of the knowledge of each other importantly shapes the consciousness of being cared for and cared about. In other words, family members do not have to physically provide care; their presence itself on the other side of the wall or downstairs/upstairs contributes to the well-being of cohabitants. Third, the reciprocity in the context of daily copresence appears in two main forms—as a direct exchange, in cases of caring grandparenthood and caring grandchildhood, and indirectly when the care may be reciprocated by someone else—for example, when the grandmother caring for grandchildren expects that the mother of her grandchildren will repay her gift of care in the form of elder care.

In summary, in the context of three-generational households, as anywhere else, there are normative expectations about how the care should be provided and by whom. The focus on the daily—often little and unnoticed—activities of care and its circulation among the family members uncovers the negotiations of the roles of caregivers and care-receiver. Care is neither given nor received unintentionally; rather, it requires agency on both sides. Working with a broad definition of care and listening to the emic interpretations of interviewees opens a space for the reformulation of the concept of care.