Precarious familismo among Latinas/os/xs: Toward a critical theoretical framework centering queer communities

Abstract

Among the Latina/o/x community, familismo is often deemed as one of the most important institutions of support. Research has consistently demonstrated the various and affirming ways in which the cultural value of familismo is manifested across Latina/o/x familial structures (e.g., unconditional support, acceptance, reciprocity, collectivism, protection, loyalty). Despite such assertions, familismo is not necessarily expressed in the same positive manners toward queer members of the family. After surveying the literature on familial structures and relationships among Latinas/os/xs, including queer individuals, and familismo dimensions, I noted limitations in the ways familismo scholarship is discussed. Consequently, I build on previous conceptions of precarious familismo as a more critical and inclusive theoretical framework of queer Latina/o/x experiences and broader familial relationships.

Keywords

Familismo family relationships family support Latina/o families queer community

Among the Latina/o/Hispanic¹ community, family is regarded as one of the most important institutions of support. In fact, research has repeatedly noted family as a core cultural value (Calzada et al., 2012; Marín & Marín, 1991; Patrón, 2020a; Sabogal et al., 1987) and has demonstrated the various and affirming ways in which familismo is manifested across Latina/o familial structures and relationships (e.g., unconditional support, acceptance, warmth, protection, loyalty). Family and notions of familismo have positively influenced the overall wellbeing of Latinas/os—from educational experiences to psychosocial health (Patrón, 2020a, 2020b; Stein et al., 2014; Valenzuela & Dornbusch, 1994). Sabogal et al. (1987) stated that the Hispanic family (non-white) is an “emotional support system composed of a cohesive group of lineal and collateral relatives in which members can find help on a regular basis and rely on relatives more than on external sources of support” (p. 398).

Due to affirming familial dynamics associated with familismo, a majority of scholarship examining its role among Latinas/os has primarily focused on positive relations and overall influences. It is precisely these positive attributes (e.g., loyalty, collectivism, unconditional support) that, to a certain extent, prevent diverging familial experiences from being considered. While I agree that familismo is in fact a central and constructive value, I also maintain that it is not always manifested in a positive manner. Like Vangelisti’s (2009) work on social support, I agree with and argue that sole focus on positive outcomes in social support research, including familismo, decreases the possibility of examining the interconnections between positive and negative outcomes, ultimately leading to theoretical limitations. As theorized, 1) positive defining characteristics of familismo (e.g., unconditional support, collectivism, reciprocity) do not always uphold for queer² Latinas/os/xs, 2) familismo dimensions overlook key relationships that are important to the queer community and that do not align with traditional or extended family networks, and 3) familismo does not account for systems of oppression, which inadvertently influence negative perceptions and actions toward the queer community. Despite the pervasiveness of homophobia in Latina/o/x families, for example, Latinas/os/xs are not inherently homophobic. Instead, they are socialized and influenced by patriarchal and heterosexist structures (Flowers & Buston, 2001; Patrón, 2020b; Wickens & Sandlin, 2010). Thus, I encourage the reader to not solely think of familial behaviors at an individual level but to instead consider the connections between such behaviors and systemic oppression.

Due to theoretical shortcomings, Patrón (2020b) called for an assessment and possible reconfigurations to familismo in order to more accurately account for sexually marginalized Latinas/os/xs and their familial experiences. As such, this manuscript was especially designed to build and attend to that call. Whereas Patrón’s study particularly focused on notions of familismo among gay Latino men in college, the focus here is on queer Latinas/os/xs as a group more broadly. Due to a consistent increase in the number of “LGBT Hispanics” in the United States (U.S.), they have become the “single race or ethnic group most likely to identify as LGBT,” with an increase from 4.3% in 2012 to 6.1% in 2017 (Newport, 2018, para. 7).³ Thus, it is important to discuss a structure that is critical to their wellbeing.

I begin this manuscript by defining and thoroughly discussing the central role of familismo among Latinas/os/xs, including its three dimensions, which overlook queer identities. Next, I discuss the lives and experiences of queer Latinas/os/xs and their families followed by connections between such experiences and systems of oppression (e.g., patriarchy, heterosexism). This approach then allowed me to explicitly account for theoretical limitations based on the literature, ultimately pointing to the need for a more critical theoretical grounding that is inclusive of queer identities. To exemplify such need, I expand on familismo’s original dimensions through the proposing of precarious familismo (Patrón, 2020b) as a critical theoretical framework. I conclude with research implications.

Familismo defined

Familismo “is a cultural value that involves individuals’ strong identification with and attachment to their nuclear and extended families, and strong feelings of loyalty, reciprocity, and solidarity among members of the same family” (Marín & Marín, 1991, p. 13). According to Calzada et al. (2012), familismo was initially used as a cognitive construct while Landale et al. (2006) stated that early literature on familismo regarded it as an obstruction to socioeconomic advancement in urban societies due to their emphasis on individualism and competition. In the U.S., the studying of familismo was undertaken to make comparisons across familial relationships between people of European and Latina/o backgrounds. With time, however, familismo developed into a larger phenomenon used to include various forms of support (e.g., emotional, financial) across racial/ethnic groups. These forms of support function as protective factors, especially in times of difficulty. For example, familismo protects members of the family against physical and emotional stress through support networks (Marín & Marín, 1991) and suggests a sense of identification, support, and obligation to the family (Valenzuela & Dornbusch, 1994).

Although familismo was initially studied with adults, it has been utilized in research with younger populations, particularly in relation to psychosocial and educational outcomes (Stein et al., 2014) as well as family obligation and behavior (Fuligni et al., 1999; Telzer et al., 2015), which can vary by location (Yahirun et al., 2015). For instance, Yahirun et al. found that Hispanic youth in North Carolina felt more obligated to help their families in the future than youth in Los Angeles due to demographic composition between groups. Research by Fuligni et al. (1999) noted that adolescents with Latin American backgrounds experienced stronger values and expectations in their duty to assist, respect, and support their families than adolescents with European backgrounds. Researchers contended that youth from families with collectivist traditions tend to retain such values, even within more individualistic societies.

Notions of familismo emphasize reciprocity and interdependence. In a study on Latino men in college, Patrón (2020a) found that ideas of reciprocity (e.g., academic advice, care, role modeling, and motivation and advice) were prevalent in the college aspirations of both Latino men and their families, including extended kin. Other research has found familismo to function as a protective factor against negative mental health outcomes related to discrimination among Latina/o youth and their parents (Ayón et al., 2010). Relatedly, Villatoro et al. (2014) noted that family support with focus on the behavioral tenet, was important in understanding and improving help seeking and actual use of mental health services. Participants with strong familial support were more likely to use informal or religious services as a form of mental health care, highlighting the importance of interdependence among Latinas/os.

Research has shown that although familismo may be important for white nonHispanics/non-Latinas/os (Campos et al., 2016; Sabogal et al., 1987; Yahirun et al., 2015), it is not as strong as that of Latinas/os. This may be due to familial tendencies in which parents socialize their children about the importance of devoting time, money, and resources to the family while also showing loyalty (Yahirun et al., 2015). Such socialization includes spending holidays and other important days together with family, showing respect, and contributing to daily activities that maintain the family afloat. Since children are socialized at a young age, it is expected that such socialization practices remain as they grow older. As children get older, however, expectations and obligations to the family are subject to renegotiation. For instance, financial responsibilities and overall care for members of the family may increase. In reviewing literature, Yahirun et al. (2015) found that adolescents who had strong levels of obligation during high school years were more likely to make financial contributions to the family after graduation.

In the existing body of literature, research has consistently focused on three dimensions of familismo, including attitudinal, behavioral, and structural (Calzada et al., 2012; Sabogal et al., 1987; Valenzuela & Dornbusch, 1994; Yahirun et al., 2015). These dimensions are often manifested within the boundaries of extended families (Valenzuela & Dornbusch, 1994) but do not account for queer identities. Following is a discussion of each dimension.

Attitudinal dimension

According to Sabogal et al. (1987), the attitudinal dimension refers to “the beliefs and attitudes Hispanics share regarding the extended and nuclear families, particularly in terms of feelings of loyalty, solidarity, and reciprocity” (p. 399). While this dimension has been used in studies across disciplines, it was first coined within the sociological literature (Steidel & Contreras, 2003). It is primarily defined by ideas of collectivism and individuals’ commitment to members of the family and the specific relationships that are developed with each of them. Additionally, it is the wellbeing and commitment to the family as a collective unit that is prioritized over that of the individual. Such characteristics have also been found in romantic relationships among Latinos. For example, Campos et al. (2016) found that familismo attributes, such as warmth and priority for the relationship over the individual, were especially important in high quality romantic relationships.

In their study on the development of a familismo scale with particular attention to the attitudinal dimension, Steidel and Contreras (2003) developed additional components based on the literature. First, was the belief that family comes before the individual. This may lead individual members to make self-sacrifices if their needs and desires conflict with those of the family. The second component was familial interconnectedness, which meant that adults in particular had to hold a “strong emotional and physical bond with the family although they may be independent in many aspects of their personal life” (pp. 314–315). This factor can influence individual members’ decisions to live near their families to remain involved. Third, was the belief in familial reciprocity, which was manifested through individuals both providing and receiving any kind of support in times of difficulty. Lastly, the fourth component was the belief in family honor, which meant a responsibility to protect and defend the family name.

Behavioral dimension

While the attitudinal dimension refers to beliefs and attitudes regarding familial networks, the behavioral dimension focuses on behaviors that are associated with those very same feelings (Sabogal et al., 1987) as well as “different degrees of attachment and affinity during contact with family members” (Valenzuela & Dornbusch, 1994, p. 19). It includes activities that family members engage in to fulfill family obligations, including social and economic support (Yahirun et al., 2015). In a qualitative study examining attitudinal and behavioral manifestations with Mexican and Dominican families from low-income urban communities, Calzada et al. (2012) outlined five themes in which familial behaviors were present, including financial support, shared living, shared daily activities, immigration support, and childrearing. For shared daily activities, for example, participants shared that they spent most of their networking time with family in the form of errands and recreational activities. Although there were instances in which certain activities were done out of necessity, participants stated that they preferred the company of family more so than that of nonfamily members. Due to family interdependence, this tenet may also lead Latinas/os to look for help with their mental health within the family instead of from mental health professionals (Villatoro et al., 2014).

Structural dimension

Unlike the behavioral and attitudinal dimensions, less has been written about the structural dimension. In fact, some studies on familismo have merely mentioned it but not used it in framing the arguments (e.g., Steidel & Contreras, 2003) while other investigations have not directly accounted for any of the dimensions (e.g., Campos et al., 2016). According to Valenzuela and Dornbusch (1994), the structural dimension is defined by “the spatial and social boundaries within which behaviors occur and attitudes acquire meaning. These boundaries are delineated by the presence or absence of nuclear and extended family members” (pp. 18–19). Research has measured this dimension by determining the number of adult relatives who live close to one another (Valenzuela & Dornbusch, 1994) as well as family configurations, including size and structure (Landale et al., 2006; Landale & Oropesa, 2007). In regard to structure, examples included households with married couples, extended familial networks, someone living alone, or multi-generations. Overall, the structural and behavioral dimensions focus on showing how values are manifested through people’s actions while the attitudinal dimension indicates how those same values are manifested through people’s beliefs (Landale & Oropesa, 2007).

As viewed here, notions of familismo have primarily remained positive and affirming within the literature. It has also failed to account for queer identities. While I agree that family is a constructive system that positively influences individuals’ lives in a variety of ways, I also sustain that such dynamics do not always play out in the same ways, especially for queer individuals and their respective families.

Queer Latinas/os/xs and family

Positive conceptions of familismo can come into question when involving queer individuals. Patrón (2020b) contended that there could be variations in the way family members understand and behave toward those who are queer, ultimately pointing to adverse incidents. Similarly, Guarnero and Flaskerud (2008) argued that traditional Latino families have negative perceptions of queer individuals while Guzman (2006) regarded Latino families largely as homophobic. In discussing cultural values, family, and sexuality, Duarté-Vélez et al. (2010) noted, “the immediate family context can become a place of intimidation, criticism, and rejection, instead of support and acceptance” (p. 897). This may then have implications across contexts. For instance, Patrón and Rodriguez (2020) found that internalized messages of masculinity learned in the home may transfer to the university setting, affecting the ways gay Latinos connect with faculty and staff. Relatedly, Morales (1989) shared that while family is the “emotional bond for the conscious self and personal psychology” (p. 233), it can jeopardize intra-family relationships for “minority lesbians and gays.” Although familial rejection of sexually marginalized individuals could affect everyone regardless of gender, literature has primarily focused on men (e.g., Eaton & Rios, 2017; Li et al., 2017; Ocampo, 2014).

In a study on family rejecting reactions to sexual orientation and gender expression as predictors of health problems, Ryan et al. (2009) found that Latino men reported the highest number of negative reactions to their sexual orientation. In turn, these were associated with negative health problems. In the same thread, Guarnero (2007) noted that family and community negatively influenced the lives of gay Latinos through stereotypical beliefs of what it meant to be a gay man and through verbal and physical abuse. For instance, participants were devastated and had their masculinity questioned by being labeled as “joto” or “maricon,” which are terms that are often used in derogatory ways when referring to queer people. Negative interactions with family was linked with negative perceptions of self among participants, which may lead to both alienation of the self and disconnection from family (Guarnero, 2007; Wang, 2019). Recurring verbal stigmatization may also lead to self-loathing and social avoidance (Wang, 2019). Consistent with research on verbal and physical abuse, Li et al. (2017) found that microaggressions in the form of microinsults, microassaults, and microinvalidations affected gay and bisexual Latinos’ relationships and caused distress in familial and societal contexts.

Eaton and Rios (2017) also discussed major challenges queer Latino collegians experienced during the coming out process, including loss of relationships and aggression. Queer Latinos had to choose between coming out and being rejected, hiding their sexuality and losing personal authenticity, and commitment to a collectivist value in which group harmony was prioritized over individual needs and desires (Eaton & Rios, 2017). As viewed in the previous section, notions of familismo, and the attitudinal dimension in particular, are known to prioritize family needs and desires over those of the individual. This may lead queer Latinos to put the reputation of their families before their desire to fully embody their sexuality or have same sex partners for fear that their sexuality will hurt their families. In addition, LGBTQ youth have expressed fear for rejection, being kicked out, and losing financial support if their parents learned about their sexuality (Higa et al., 2014). Interestingly, some Latina/o families may be accepting of queer Latinos if the family is financially dependent on the queer individual (Cantú, 2009), further elucidating the complexity and uncertainty in familial support for queer Latinas/os/xs.

In order to prevent familial conflict, some queer individuals may decide to live a double life where they present in one way in front of their families and in another outside of that setting, may be more strategic in the coming out process to family, or decide to keep their sexualities hidden (Acosta, 2008, 2013; Guarnero & Flaskerud, 2008; Ocampo, 2014; Patrón & Rodriguez, 2020). Suppressing their queer identity, however, may be linked with emotional distress. Simply put, familismo may diminish queer Latinos’ sexuality in favor of familial ties (Loughrin, 2015). Guarnero and Flaskerud (2008) contended, “The ordeal of chronic conflict between the gay and family worlds contributes to the mental distress experienced by Latino gay men. In many instances having to juggle two worlds can lead to anger and depression” (p. 668). In the same vein, when the parents of sexually marginalized Latinas were aware of their sexualities, they avoided the topic or asked them to keep their sexualities from others (Acosta, 2008). This, in turn, was injurious to Latinas, as they were caught between the erasure of their sexual identities and the opportunity to maintain relationships with their families.

Research specifically centered on queer Latinas and their experiences within the context of family is scant (e.g., Acosta, 2008, 2013, 2018; Asencio, 2009). In a study addressing the experiences of Puerto Rican lesbians with gender, sexuality, race, and social economic status through an intersectionality and feminist perspective, Asencio (2009) noted that participants felt constrained with their sexuality in their home countries and familial contexts and therefore wanted to leave their homes. Some participants discussed differences in the socialization of gender roles within their families, which expected women to not only stay close to the home but also help with household chores. In other instances, participants felt familial pressure to engage in heterosexual dating. Similarly, Tarrant (2011) revealed that queer Latinas experienced negative familial interactions related to their gender and sexuality and as a result had to migrate in order to acquire more autonomy. While migrating provided them with more freedom, they were further removed from the positive aspects of familismo.

Despite negative familial experiences among queer Latinas/os, there is a small and growing body of literature that speaks to positive or diverging familial experiences and relationships (Abreu et al., 2019; Acosta, 2013; Patrón, 2020b; Rios & Eaton, 2016). In a qualitative study examining sources of support among gay, bisexual, and queer Hispanic men in college, Rios and Eaton (2016) found that participants experienced support from men in their immediate and extended families. Participants also described receiving familial support from women when it came to the coming out process or related to their physical safety and mental and sexual health. Research by Abreu et al. (2020) noted the importance of Latinx fathers in the lives of their sexually marginalized children. In particular, the fathers expressed that they wanted their children to be happy and live healthy lives. Although there were instances in which cultural factors acted as barriers in the acceptance of their children, the fathers were ultimately able to accept and provide them with unconditional love.

This section provides further insight into the types of experiences that queer individuals undergo within familial structures, which vary from those of Latinas/os/xs more broadly. Although at surface level it may appear as if Latina/o/x families are inherently homophobic, heterosexist, patriarchal, or simply against queer identities, I contend that such negative ideologies and behaviors are intricately connected to systems of oppression.

Systemic oppression

Despite the influence of systems of oppression on Latina/o/x families, conceptions of familismo have overlooked their role. Here, I discuss two of those systems: patriarchy and heterosexism. The centering of these systems is due to their direct and ever-present influence on marginalized sexualities.

Patriarchy

Simply put, patriarchy refers to the systemic domination of women by men (Abalos, 2002). Although men are often perceived as patriarchs within Latina/o families (Loughrin, 2015), patriarchy affects everyone regardless of gender in different ways. Patriarchy is not exclusive to Latinas/os, although literature has used the term machismo when specifically involving Latina/o populations. Machismo and patriarchy are characterized by male dominance and aggression over women and children. In particular, patriarchy may lead Latinas/os to view women primarily as producers of children; women carrying familial honor in their sexuality; women being prohibited from becoming financially autonomous; and women being solely perceived as housewives (Abalos, 2002).

Patriarchy can create challenges for queer Latinas/os/xs through gender role designations. For example, Patrón (2020b) shared, “Latina/o families may expect men to exert masculine behaviors, which generate barriers in the identity development of queer people” (p. 4). Although gay Latinos can engage in masculine behavior, Latinas/os understand queerness as feminine. To this end, Guarnero (2007) stated, “Rigid familial and societal expectations in the form of masculine expectations and language contribute to the marginalization of many Latino gay men, especially those who exhibit effeminate behaviors” (p. 13). Due to such ideologies in Latina/o/x culture, gay men are considered the antithesis of masculinity.

Unfortunately, these ideologies inform familismo dynamics among gay Latinos, who can then be subjected to verbal, physical, or emotional abuse (Ocampo, 2014). In turn, his may be linked with a loss of sense of belonging and detachment from the family. Ocampo (2014) stated that sexual identity deeply shapes whether gay individuals can secure parental support and acceptance. Due to negative perceptions of queer identities, which are interlaced with patriarchal beliefs, Latinas/os have distanced themselves personally and emotionally from family (Acosta, 2008; Ocampo, 2014).

Heterosexism and homophobia

According to Wickens and Sandlin (2010), homophobia is “described as prejudice against individuals based on nonheterosexual orientation, and is characterized as intense fear or hatred of those who desire individuals of the same gender” (p. 652). Homophobic beliefs are often attributed to individual people. Still, Guzman (2006) broadly described Latinas/os as homophobic while Flowers and Buston (2001) stated that homophobia and heterosexism are part of the everyday life of gay and lesbian people and can be manifested in audible and physical ways. In a study examining the influence of homophobia, poverty, and racism on the mental health of gay and bisexual Latino men, Díaz et al. (2001) found that there were three main experiences of homophobia among participants while growing up. They included Latinos hearing that they are not normal people, that they would grow up to be alone, and that their sexuality hurt and embarrassed their families.

Notably, homophobic behaviors are considered byproducts of heterosexism and patriarchy (Patrón, 2020b), which are larger societal structures that may lead to power inequities (Wickens & Sandlin, 2010). Heterosexism is understood as devaluing any identity that is not heterosexual and as a result protecting the power that is attached to such identity (Smith et al., 2008). Because heterosexist and homophobic ideologies inform and delineate appropriate gender behavior and sexual desires, individuals who do not abide by such standards may be subject to oppressive behaviors. For example, prejudice, along with fear and hatred, may lead some families to detach or reject queer individuals instead of providing them with the support found in a familismo framework. While upheld by the family, religious beliefs can reinforce heterosexual norms (Morales, 1989). Due to incongruence between queer identities and heterosexual norms, which reflect broader community standards, queer individuals may be further marginalized in the family. For these reasons, lack of consideration for systems of oppression can be detrimental to notions of familismo. Thus, it is critical to account for conceptual limitations.

Familismo limitations

By first reviewing relevant bodies of research on familismo, queer Latinas/os/xs, and systems of oppression, I was able to note limitations in familismo’s applicability. Limitations include the following: 1) positive defining characteristics of familismo (e.g., unconditional support, collectivism, reciprocity) do not uphold for queer Latinas/os/xs, 2) familismo dimensions overlook key relationships that are important to the queer community and that do not fit within the traditional or extended family network, 3) and familismo does not account for systems of oppression, which inadvertently influence negative perceptions and actions toward the queer community. Consequently, Patrón (2020b) suggested for research to “explicitly account for each of the aforementioned dimensions and note limitations, contributions, and opportunities for modifications when specifically working with sexually minoritized Latinas/os” (p. 16). To this end, I contest and question the applicability of familismo tenets. Although I agree that each of the tenets are important, and therefore are included in precarious familismo, I also find that they need to be expanded upon.

The attitudinal dimension, for example, is about feelings of loyalty, solidarity, and reciprocity. It requires a commitment to members of the family, which can be manifested through providing and receiving support in times of difficulty. However, it appears that queer individuals may be subjected to quite the contrary when their sexuality is disclosed. Instead of experiencing loyalty and solidarity, they may undergo feelings of detachment that derive from homophobic beliefs. As a result, this dimension needs to more explicitly account for divergent experiences and familial attitudes informed by systems of oppression. Overlapping with the attitudinal dimension, the behavioral tenet is challenged through lack of actions and involvement in mitigating the challenges underwent by queer individuals upon coming out. Overall, familial like behaviors can include financial support, shared living, and shared daily activities. However, the likelihood of queer Latinas/os/xs experiencing those benefits are diminished upon coming out. Instead, the possibility of losing financial support and being kicked out of their home may increase. Consequently, some may choose to remain in the closet, as they do not want to suffer from loss of resources. Again, the pervasiveness but often covert influence from systemic oppression are what influence the prejudicial behaviors from family that can result in negative experiences for queer Latinas/os/xs within the behavioral dimension.

Finally, the structural dimension has to do with family configurations, such as size and structure, and the presence or absence of nuclear and extended family. Perhaps, here lies the most significant limitation, as it “overlooks key and complex relationships that do not fit the traditional family or extended family network” (Patrón, 2020b). This dimension fails to account for the presence and role of family of choice and strong peer networks that resemble traditional families. Family of choice often replaces the absence of nuclear family for queer individuals (e.g., Acosta, 2013, 2018; Higa et al., 2014; Parra et al., 2018). Parra et al. (2018) suggested, “support provided by peers of LGB young adults protects against the adverse effects of experiencing rejection and victimization” (p. 861). Similarly, Acosta (2008) pointed to the importance of families of choice for queer Latinas, especially when it came to embracing their sexuality, “When among their “families of choice” they are lesbianas, but among their families of origin they often are not” (p. 647). Acosta continued, “They maintain two separate worlds: one that they share in the borderlands with their partners and another that they nurture through transnational ties with their families of origin” (p. 647). Furthermore, Acosta (2018) noted that incorporating nonbiological family into the family of origin unit serves as a survival strategy for Latinx families, as they can help with things such as poverty and racism. Acosta then called for inclusion of sexually nonconforming Latinas within such practice. Since immediate and extended families may not always be supportive, the role of families of choice and peer networks that possess familismo like qualities may be a critical source of care, thereby complicating what constitutes as family within the structural dimension. Thus, this tenet needs to account for familial relationships beyond its traditional conceptions.

A final limitation discussed here is the lack of consideration for systems of oppression within a familismo framework. In reviewing literature, I found that there was rarely any mention of the ways patriarchy and heterosexism affected familial relationships. This is likely due to the lack of discussion on queer Latinas/os/xs within familismo scholarship. Moving forward, it is critical to account for such systems, and others, when working with sexually marginalized people. To this end, I argue for the use of precarious familismo. Not only does it account for the aforementioned limitations but it importantly centers queer communities.

Precarious familismo: A revised perspective

In order to more accurately capture the experiences of queer Latinas/os/xs, I propose the utilization of precarious familismo, building on the work of Patrón (2020b). Although Patrón offered precarious familismo as a way of capturing adverse, supportive, and disparate familial dynamics, the empirical study was specifically with gay Latino men in college and called for a broader utilization of the framework. Here, the work is extended to Latinas/os/xs more broadly.

Precarious familismo is a core cultural value encompassing varying levels of support, such as emotional, social, personal, and financial among Latinas/os/xs, albeit it is not always manifested accordingly. It is informed by notions of loyalty and acceptance, reciprocity, collectivism, safeness and protection, (un)conditional support,⁴ and rejection across familial networks, including immediate and extended families as well as families of choice. Although not blood related, families of choice can provide similar types of support as that of immediate families. For instance, they can provide queer individuals with safe spaces where they can develop their identities, people who look like them, role models, and overall emotional support and acceptance. For queer individuals, acceptance from and positive relationships with members of the family can be especially important to their general health, self-esteem, and can serve as a protective factor against things such as depression (Abreu et al., 2020; Acosta, 2018; Guarnero, 2007; Olson et al., 2016). On the other hand, queer individuals without this support can experience a range of negative outcomes. McConnell et al. (2016), through a longitudinal study examining social support and mental health among “LGBT youth,” concluded that youth who lacked support experienced more distress through their adolescence and young adulthood than those who received support.

Although the proposing of precarious familismo partly stems from a lack of consideration for sexually marginalized people within normative familial structures, it is not specific to one gender or sexual identity group. Instead, it is meant to capture and better understand familial dynamics across Latinas/os/xs (e.g., gay Latino men, sexually nonconforming Latinas, gender non-conforming individuals). It indicates moments of uncertainty, as queer Latinas/os/xs, for example, may not know if notions of reciprocity, acceptance, and love will always persist (Patrón, 2020b), especially upon disclosing and being open with their sexuality or gender. Utilizing precarious familismo as a theoretical lens does not mean that queer Latinas/os/xs’ experiences will be positive. Instead, it serves as a framework to more accurately account for instances of familial rejection, acceptance, and perhaps acceptance and rejection at the same time, or what Patrón (2020b) called disparate experiences. Disparate experiences capture times when individuals may be rejected from some family members due to their sexuality while simultaneously being accepted and supported by others. Precarious familismo is not a dichotomous construct where Latinas/os/xs experience either positive or negative encounters. On the contrary, it is a more nuanced construct that is open to multiple possibilities.

Lastly, in understanding Latina/o/x familial experiences, I contend that systems of oppression need to be accounted for. Latinas/os/xs are not born with prejudice against queer individuals. Instead, they are socialized to believe in the superiority of one group over another. To illustrate what precarious familismo looks like, I offer Figure 1. In the model of precarious familismo among Latinas/os/xs, notions of loyalty and acceptance, reciprocity, collectivism, safeness and protection, (un)conditional support, and rejection inform and make up precarious familismo. The “Precarious Familismo” circle in Figure 1 encompasses immediate and extended families, as well as families of choice. The rectangles on the right side of the figure (e.g., adverse, supportive, and disparate experiences) indicate possible outcomes within the framework. The bullet points under each outcome merely serve as examples of what the outcome can look like and can be substituted according to the scope of a given study. Here, the focus is with queer people. Due to the role of systems of oppression, the outer layer is indicative of that.

Figure 1.

Precarious familismo among Latinas/os/xs (Adapted from Patrón, 2020b).

Research implications

Through the proposing of precarious familismo as a more critical and holistic framework, there are ample opportunities for future research. Due to its inclusivity and centering of LGBTQ identities, it is important to investigate familial experiences for those that identify as transgender or beyond the female-male gender binary. Although research has found that transgender Latinas, for example, expressed worry about acceptance from family and friends after their gender transition (Rhodes et al., 2015), such finding was a theme and not the central focus of the study. It would be noteworthy to explore familial dynamics pre and post gender transition with precarious familismo as a guiding framework and see if the proposed conceptualization and model is applicable or requires modifications. In the same thread, it would be important to investigate gender differences between Latinas and Latinos across sexualities within familial contexts, including extended and families of choice. Due to gender role expectations related to patriarchal beliefs within the Latina/o/x community, there may be divergent understandings across members of the family, which can also result in changes to the proposed model.

Since most of the literature discussed in this manuscript is related to Latinas/os/xs as a group, it is important to investigate familial relations between specific ethnic groups. Despite overlap in the importance placed on families across Latina/o/x ethnic groups, differences in culture, traditions, histories, and overall belief systems, may lead to variations for queer individuals. This may alter precarious familismo. Equally important is consideration of other intersecting identities with sexuality, race, and gender. For instance, age, generation, socioeconomic status, and immigration status may influence familial structures and experiences for queer Latinas/os/xs and therefore requires further exploration. As briefly touched upon in this review, age may determine family obligations and responsibilities to the family. Perhaps, the centering of sexuality in tandem with age may lead to additions or variations to the model presented here. Furthermore, because precarious famlismo is, for the most part, based on literature that is U.S. based, it would be important to explore how familial dynamics may alter for Latina/o/x ethnic groups in Central or South American countries. Lastly, there is a need for more assets-based research that highlights the role of marginalized sexualities as sources of resilience (Patrón & Garcia, 2016) within familial structures as well as positive manifestations of familismo dimensions for queer communities.

Conclusions

Support through the construct of familismo plays a key role in social relationships among Latinas/os/xs. However, after surveying the literature on familial structures, including queer individuals, and familismo dimensions, I noted several limitations. Thus, this study addresses some of those gaps through precarious familismo. To be clear, this is not a rejection of familismo but instead a way of constructively building on the framework. This manuscript is aligned with recent literature calling for more critical approaches to the studying of families (e.g., Acosta, 2018; Few-Demo et al., 2016; Robinson, 2018; Vangelisti, 2009). In particular, Robinson (2018) proposed the use of conditional families as a way of understanding how poverty and family instability influence family rejection of LGBTQ youth gender and sexuality. Comparable to arguments brought forth here, Robinson moved away from pathologizing families to instead focus on the role of poverty and instability.

Similarly, Few-Demo et al. (2016) called for a more critical account of thinking about and using family theories that are inclusive of LGBT parent families. Among their recommendations for a transformative pedagogy, Few-Demo et al. suggested for instructors to employ a “social justice frame that is inclusive of different ways of thinking about families and theorization” while highlighting the importance of critical frameworks (p. 87). This manuscript is a step in that direction, as precarious familismo provides a critical theoretical frame that is inclusive of sexually marginalized people. Through precarious familismo, I hope that future research on Latina/o/x families and relationships is considerate of more complex familial structures and social identities.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Oscar E. Patrón

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the author has provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data used in the research are not available (there was no primary empirical data collected by the author). The materials used in the research are not available (there were no additional materials used).

Notes

References

Abalos

D. T.

(2002). The Latino male: A radical redefinition. Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Abreu

R. L.

Gonzalez

K. A.

Rosario

C. C.

Pulice-Farrow

Rodríguez

M. M. D.

(2020). “Latinos have a stronger attachment to the family”: Latinx fathers’ acceptance of their sexual minority children. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 16(2), 192–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/1550428X.2019.1672232

Acosta

K. L.

(2008). Lesbianas in the borderlands: Shifting identities and imagined communities. Gender & Society, 22(5), 639–659. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243208321169

Acosta

K. L.

(2013). Amigas y Amantes: Sexually nonconforming Latinas negotiate family. Rutgers University Press.

Acosta

K. L.

(2018). Queering family scholarship: Theorizing from the borderlands. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 10(2), 406–418. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12263

Asencio

(2009). Migrant Puerto Rican lesbians negotiating gender, sexuality, and ethnonationality. NWSA Journal, 21(3), 1–23.

Ayón

Marsiglia

F. F.

Bermudez-Parsai

(2010). Latino family mental health: Exploring the role of discrimination and familismo. Journal of Community Psychology, 38(6), 742–756. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20392

Calzada

E. J.

Tamis-Lemonda

C. S.

Yoshikawa

(2012). Familismo in Mexican and Dominican families from low-income urban communities. Journal of Family Issues, 34(12), 1696–1724. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X12460218

Campos

Perez

O. F. R.

Guardino

(2016). Familism: A cultural value with implications for romantic relationship quality in U.S. Latinos. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33(1), 81–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407514562564

10.

Cantú

Jr (2009). The sexuality of migration: Border crossings and Mexican immigrant men. In Naples

N. A.

Vidal-Ortiz

, (Eds.). New York University Press.

11.

Díaz

R. M.

Ayala

Bein

Henne

Marín

B. V.

(2001). The impact of homophobia, poverty, and racism on the mental health of gay and bisexual Latino men: Findings from 3 U.S. cities. American Journal of Public Health, 91(6), 927–932. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.9127

12.

Duarté-Vélez

Bernal

Bonilla

(2010). Culturally adapted cognitive-behavioral therapy: Integrating sexual, spiritual, and family identities in an evidence-based treatment of a depressed Latino adolescent. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 66(8), 895–906. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20710

13.

Eaton

Rios

(2017). Social challenges faced by queer Latino college men: Navigating negative responses to coming out in a double minority sample of emerging adults. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 23(4), 457–467. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000134

14.

Few-Demo

A. L.

Humble

A. M.

Curran

M. A.

Lloyd

S. A.

(2016). Queer theory, intersectionality, and LGBT-parent families: Transformative critical pedagogy in family theory. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 8(1), 74–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12127

15.

Flowers

Buston

(2001). “I was terrified of being different”: Exploring gay men’s accounts of growing-up in a heterosexist society. Journal of Adolescence, 24(1), 51–65. https://doi.org/ 10.1006/jado.2000.0362

16.

Fuligni

A. J.

Tseng

Lam

(1999). Attitudes toward family obligations among American adolescents with Asian, Latin American, and European backgrounds. Child Development, 70(4), 1030–1044. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00075

17.

Guarnero

P. A.

(2007). Family and community influences on the social and sexual lives of Latino gay men. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 18(1), 12–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043659606294195

18.

Guarnero

P. A.

Flaskerud

J. H.

(2008). Latino gay men and depression. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 29(6), 667–670. https://doi.org/10.1080/01612840802048949

19.

Guzman

(2006). Gay hegemony/Latino homosexualities. Routledge.

20.

Higa

Hoppe

M. J.

Lindhorst

Mincer

Beadnell

Morrison

D. M.

Wells

E. A.

Todd

Mountz

(2014). Negative and positive factors associated with the well-being of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQ) youth. Youth & Society, 46(5), 663–687. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X12449630

21.

Kumashiro

K. K.

(1999). Supplementing normalcy and otherness: Queer Asian American men reflect on stereotypes, identity, and oppression. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 12(5), 491–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/095183999235917

22.

Landale

N. S.

Oropesa

R. S.

(2007). Hispanic families: Stability and change. Annual Review of Sociology, 33(1), 381–405. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.33.040406.131655

23.

Landale

N. S.

Oropesa

Bradatan

(2006). Hispanic families in the United States: Family structure and process in an era of family change. In Tienda

Mitchell

(Eds.), Hispanics and the future of America (pp. 138–178). National Academies Press.

24.

M. J.

Thing

J. P.

Galvan

F. H.

Gonzalez

K. D.

Bluthenthal

R. N.

(2017). Contextualising family microaggressions and strategies of resilience among young gay and bisexual men of Latino heritage. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 19(1), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2016.1208273

25.

Loughrin

S. M.

(2015). Queer Chicano families: The importance of converging literature on queer families, Chicano families, and Chicano queers. Sociology Compass, 9(3), 224–234. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12244

26.

Marín

B. V.

(1991). Research with Hispanic populations. SAGE.

27.

McConnell

E. A.

Birkett

Mustanski

(2016). Families matter: Social support and mental health trajectories among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 59(6), 674–680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.07.026

28.

Morales

E. S.

(1989). Ethnic minority families and minority gays and lesbians. Marriage and Family Review, 14(3–4), 217–239.

29.

Newport

(2018, May 22). In U.S., estimate of LGBT population rises to 4.5%. GALLUP. https://news.gallup.com/poll/234863/estimate-lgbt-population-rises.aspx

30.

Ocampo

A. C.

(2014). The gay second generation: Sexual identity and family relations of Filipino and Latino gay men. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 40(1), 155–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2013.849567

31.

Olson

K. R.

Durwood

DeMeules

McLaughlin

K. A.

(2016). Mental health of transgender children who are supported in their identities. Pediatrics, 137(3), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-3223

32.

Parra

L. A.

Bell

T. S.

Benibgui

Helm

J. L.

Hastings

P. D.

(2018). The buffering effect of peer support on the links between family rejection and psychosocial adjustment in LGB emerging adults. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(6), 854–871. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517699713

33.

Patrón

O. E.

(2020a). “The revolution begins at home”: Exploring educational aspirations through a reciprocity of relationships between Latino collegians and their families. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 33(4), 446–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2019.1681545

34.

Patrón

O. E.

(2020b). Complicating traditional understandings of familismo: Precariousness in the lives of queer Latino men in college. Journal of GLBT Family Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/1550428X.2020.1711838

35.

Patrón

O. E.

Garcia

G. A.

(2016). The convergence of social identities and environmental contexts in facilitating Latino male resilience. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 38(4), 523–545. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986316669496

36.

Patrón

O. E.

Rodriguez

(2020). Exploring the tensions between masculinities and connections with faculty and staff among gay Latino collegians. Men and Masculinities. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X20971023

37.

Rhodes

S. D.

Alonzo

Mann

L. M.

Simán

Garcia

Abraham

Sun

C. J.

(2015). Using photovoice, Latina transgender women identify priorities in a new immigrant-destination state. International Journal of Transgenderism, 16(2), 80–96.

38.

Rios

Eaton

(2016). Perceived social support in the lives of gay, bisexual and queer Hispanic college men. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 18(10), 1093–1106. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2016.1150516

39.

Robinson

B. A.

(2018). Conditional families and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer youth homelessness: Gender, sexuality, family instability, and rejection. Journal of Marriage and Family, 80(2), 383–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12466

40.

Ryan

Huebner

Diaz

R. M.

Sanchez

(2009). Family rejection as a predictor of negative health outcomes in white and Latino lesbian, gay, and bisexual young adults. Pediatrics, 123(1), 346–352. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2007-3524

41.

Sabogal

Marín

Otero-Sabogal

Marín

B. V.

Perez-Stable

E. J.

(1987). Hispanic familism and acculturation: What changes and what doesn’t? Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9(4), 397–412. https://doi.org/10.11.77/07399863870094003

42.

Smith

Foley

P. F.

Chaney

M. P.

(2008). Addressing classism, ableism, and heterosexism in counselor education. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86(3), 303–309. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2008.tb00513.x

43.

Steidel

A. G. L.

Contreras

J. M.

(2003). A new familism scale for use with Latino populations. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25(3), 312–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986303256912

44.

Stein

G. L.

Cupito

A. M.

Mendez

J. L.

Prandoni

Huq

Westerberg

(2014). Familism through a developmental lens. Journal of Latina/o Psychology, 2(4), 224–250. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/lat0000025

45.

Tarrant

(2011). The role of queer identity among cross-national Latinas [Unpublished undergraduate thesis]. The Ohio State University.

46.

Telzer

E. H.

Tsai

K. M.

Gonzales

Fuligni

A. J.

(2015). Mexican American adolescents’ family obligation values and behaviors: Links to internalizing symptoms across time and context. Developmental Psychology, 51(1), 75–86. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/a0038434

47.

Valenzuela

Dornbusch

S. M.

(1994). Familism and social capital in the academic achievement of Mexican origin and Anglo adolescents. Social Science Quarterly, 75(1), 18–36.

48.

Vangelisti

A. L.

(2009). Challenges in conceptualizing social support. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26(1), 39–51. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1177/0265407509105520

49.

Villatoro

A. P.

Morales

E. S.

Mays

V. M.

(2014). Family culture in mental health help seeking and utilization in a nationally representative sample of Latinos in the United States: The NLAAS. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 84(4), 353–363. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0099844

50.

Wang

(2019). Verbal stigmatization from family: How does that affect Latino men who have sex with men? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517718388

51.

Wickens

C. M.

Sandlin

J. A.

(2010). Homophobia and heterosexism in a college of education: A culture of fear, a culture of silence. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 23(6), 651–670. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390903551035

52.

Yahirun

J. J.

Perreira

K. M.

Fuligni

A. J.

(2015). Family obligation across contexts Hispanic youth in North Carolina and Southern California. Journal of Family Issues, 36(10), 1296–1323. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X13501664