Discourses of legitimation and loss of sons who stay behind

Abstract

The increased exodus of more than one million Ecuadorians in the last decade means greater numbers of families and parents are separated from their loved ones and children. From oral life history interviews with sons, the authors address research on children who stay behind by focusing on the discourse of legitimation that sons of migrant Ecuadorian parents residing in Spain internalize and/or challenge. Utilizing critical discourse analysis (CDA) and more specifically Van Leeuwen’s legitimation strategies framework, the authors argue that while reproducing and rationalizing familial discourses of sacrifice and well-being, these young men’s narratives simultaneously express the language of loss and suffering.

Keywords

Children left behind critical discourse analysis Ecuador gender ideology Latin America legitimation loss meritocracy migration oral life history Spain

Introduction

With the exodus of more than one million Ecuadorians in the last decade, migration has become the most significant phenomenon of the country in the new century (Bonilla and Borrero, 2008; Jokisch and Kyle, 2008; Reher et al., 2009). While Ecuador concomitantly deals with the immigration of citizens of surrounding countries, such as Peru, Bolivia, and Colombia, it must also contend with the fact that it has the largest exodus of its own citizens of the Andean region (Herrera, 2007). Ecuadorian migration is not new. Ecuadorians have migrated to the United States since the early 1930s with a steady 20,000 migrants during the 1970s and 1980s (Bonilla and Borrero, 2008). While migratory flows remained steady during the 1970s and 1980s, economic and social unrest intensified emigration in the 1990s. As Jokisch and Kyle (2008) attest,

after fighting a costly border skirmish with Peru in 1995, Ecuador suffered five presidents in five years (1996–2000) and descended into what may be its worst economic crisis ever … By 1999 poverty had risen to over 40 percent and the GDP fell to the level of the foreign debt. (p. 353)

At the peak of the Ecuadorian economic crisis of the 1990s and dollarization of its currency, migration numbers skyrocketed and the destination changed to include countries in the European Union that favored Latin American immigration and maintained lenient immigration policies prior to the events of 9/11. In 2001, Spain signed bilateral agreements with Ecuador and Colombia in the facilitation of visas and air travel for migrants from those countries. Hidden within these bilateral agreements, however, was a racist agenda attempting to curb Moroccan immigration to Spain as well as xenophobic acts and the forced expulsion of Africans and other immigrants (López de Lera and Oso Casas, 2007; Martín Rojo and Van Dijk, 1997). Census data for 2001 established that 49.4% of those leaving Ecuador during 1996–2001 traveled to Spain, while 26.7% resided in the United States, and 9.9% in Italy (Herrera, 2007).

Societal changes in receiving countries also contributed to the level or type of migratory flow. A declining population of young people in Spain together with its increasing economic ‘boom’ and quality of life in the last part of the 20th century established important migratory trends between Ecuador and Spain (Herrera, 2007; Reher et al., 2009). In addition, a relatively smooth entrance into the labor market for young people, even without authorized documentation and a cultural and linguistic affinity, made Spain Ecuadorian migrants’ preferred host country. In the year 2000 at the height of the financial crisis of the country, for instance, Ecuador experienced an exodus of 175,000 persons who did not return (which did not include individuals who emigrated without authorized documentation; Bonilla and Borrero, 2008):

Led initially by women, thousands of Ecuadorians per month flew to Spain, posing as tourists, and entered the country to look for work. In 1998 it is likely that fewer than 10,000 Ecuadorians lived in Spain. By 2002 as many as 200,000 resided in Spain; the number doubled again in less than three years to reach over 500,000 in 2005. (Jokisch and Kyle, 2008: 353)

Since 2004, with Spain’s economic stagnation and the imposition of strict visa and immigration reform policies such as those of the Schengen Agreement, the emigration of Ecuadorians to the area has dramatically reduced (Guevara Beltrán and Trinidad Galván, 2013; Herrera, 2007). These changes in immigration policy made family reunification one of the few viable options for Ecuadorians wishing to reside in Spain. It is during this time period that greater numbers of children were left behind, with 46% of men and 39% of women leaving children under the age of 20 years (Reher et al., 2009: 133).

Although children are equally affected by migration, migratory experiences are consistently expressed from parents and migrating adults with little known of children’s experiences and understandings. This article focuses on children left behind during the 2000 economic crisis of the country and examines the experiences and understandings of sons who stayed behind. We address the manner in which sons who stayed behind, and have since become young adults, discursively legitimate in their narratives their parents’ migration and residence in Spain. We argue that sons’ efforts to justify their parents’ migration result in two differing and contrasting ideologies on migration – a discourse of legitimation and a discourse of loss. The article addresses the following questions:

How do a group of young men make sense of their parents’ migration and physical absence and in doing so, reproduce and/or challenge familial and societal discourses around migration? And, how do sons who stay behind discursively reconcile their parents’ absence with their own loneliness and loss?

We begin with a discussion of research on children affected by the migration of parents and family members. We continue by presenting the research design informing the study, a description of the young men interviewed, as well as our use of Van Leeuwen’s (2007) four major categories of legitimation. Next, we present two sons’ narratives and illustrate their use of discursive strategies to legitimize and conceal, in varying ways, their reactions to their parents’ migration and decisions to migrate.

Children left behind

Of all the immigrant groups in Spain, Ecuadorian families play the biggest role in the decision-making process, the migratory stream, and the social networks that are required to migrate (e.g. Moroccans, Eastern Europeans, or other Latin American immigrants; Reher et al., 2009). While this might be true, Dreby (2007) suggests that children are powerless and have very little influence on families’ decision-making and eventual decision to migrate. Although research on transnational parenting and children who stay behind is growing more work is needed in this area to clearly explain children’s roles, concerns, and needs (Cole, 2013; Dreby, 2007; Parreñas, 2005a; Pribilsky, 2004; Trinidad Galván, 2008, 2015; Waters, 2002). Children of Global Migration: Transnational Families and Gendered Woes by Rhacel Salazar Parreñas (2005a) provides one of the most comprehensive examinations of the experiences of children who stay behind while parents migrate, and the gender inequities migrating mothers and their daughters and female relatives must negotiate at home. Overall, children’s active participation and agentic roles are missing not only in familial decisions to migrate, but also in the day-to-day functioning of the family at home. She concludes that while the parent and child separation of transnational families can reconfigure gender norms, they are actually kept intact by both traveling parents and children at home. Among children left behind by both parents, Salazar Parreñas (2005a) found more precarious guardianship circumstances and greater resentment and emotional loss than those left with one parent.

Children left behind exhibit depression, resentment, and misbehavior as well as the benefits of economic resources, additional schooling, social capital, and authorial leniency from adults at home (Coe, 2013; Dreby, 2007; Parreñas, 2003). Indeed, there is no singular way to describe the benefits or drawbacks of children’s transnational relationship to their parents and the social relations they must navigate at home. What is certain is that ultimately migration attempts to address the most basic survival needs of families. Escrivá (2003) states it best when she suggests that ‘the aim of family migration is usually to assure survival and seek the betterment of all household members – especially dependents – even if it means physical separation’ (p. 8). This reality, however, doesn’t leave children unscathed from the loss and separation of family members.

The emotional stress experienced by children left behind and migrating parents’ sacrifices dominates the literature (Coe, 2013; Dreby, 2007; Parreñas, 2003). Parreñas (2003), for instance, suggests that ‘even if they are well-adjusted … children in transnational families still suffer the loss of intimacy. They are often forced to compensate by accepting commodities, rather than affection, as the most tangible reassurance of their parents’ love’ (p. 50). Even when adolescents don’t demonstrate an emotional loss (Dreby, 2007), we need to ask whether their speech, demeanor, and ideologies suggest otherwise, especially from young men socialized to remain dispassionate and emotionless.

Traditionally ascribed gender roles for both parents and children, for instance, mediate roles and responsibilities at home and abroad (Dreby, 2006; Pribilsky, 2004; Trinidad Galván, 2008, 2015). For some children, especially girls, added responsibilities, such as managing remittances, give them a level of authority and control over financial decisions but also a burdensome obligation. Parreñas (2005b) posits that

co-managing bank accounts does not just increase the power of young adult children over adult relatives. It also increases the responsibilities and workload of daughters. Indeed, it seems that eldest daughters feel that they have a story to share about the difficulties of transnational family life. (p. 325)

In addition, mothers – not fathers – are more likely to bear the brunt of the financial, emotional, and social responsibilities if she or both parents are abroad (Parreñas, 2005a, 2005b; Pribilsky, 2004; Trinidad Galván, 2008).

Educational achievement and increased schooling opportunities are also subjects of interest. School performance results are mixed, with children leaving school due to depression, misbehavior, school peer pressure, and lack of academic support (Dreby, 2007), while in other cases, like that of our study, the economic benefits of remittances actually enable young people to stay in school. Here, gender differentiations also exist. Children’s academic performance is more likely to be negatively affected when the mother migrates, even if they are left with female extended family.

Yet not all experiences are negative. In some instances, children’s circumstances or wishes cause parents to return, reunite with their children through migration, or make various accommodations for their children at home (Dreby, 2007). Parents, mostly mothers, also work to create intimacy with children in resourceful ways and circumstances are also more bearable when grandparents or extended family at home support and create a transnational family experience (Dreby, 2006; Parreñas, 2005b). That is, if extended family at home have the ability to support children’s academic and emotional needs, children are more likely to adapt (Coe, 2013; Parreñas, 2001, 2005b).

Research design

The qualitative interview study was part of a Fulbright Scholar’s Grant that Ruth received in 2008 to research the migration phenomenon in Ecuador (Trinidad Galván, 2015). The study took place between January and June 2008 and examined the gendered experiences of men (husbands and sons) who stayed behind while their wives and parents migrated to Europe. In order to provide an in-depth discursive analysis, we spotlight only two of the four sons’ oral life history interviews (Hesse-Biber, 2005).

The four young men included are as follows: Mateo and Lorenzo Torrez, brothers aged 23 and 21 years, respectively; Alberto Lugones, aged 24 years; and Samuel Lozoya who was 23 years old and married with two children (all pseudonyms). All four men grew up and resided in a small community on the outskirts of Ecuador’s capital, Quito. In general, their parents migrated between eight and nine years prior, leaving precisely at the height of the economic crisis in 2000 and while these young men were aged between 13 and 16 years. Except for Samuel, who lived with his wife and children, all of the men lived in their parents’ home with one or more siblings and extended family nearby. All but Alberto (who was interviewed on his college campus) were interviewed in the privacy of their home for 60–90 minutes.

One aspect worth mentioning, but missing even in a discursive analysis, is the tone of many of these interviews. All of the interviews bore a tone of extreme sadness at some point in the interview. It was actually this tone and the sadness that Ruth was left with after every interview that prompted a discursive analysis suitable for deciphering the contradictory messages apparent in the young men’s discourse. The contradictory discursive messages accompanied by the heaviness of the tone marked the need to look beyond a discourse of migration that romanticizes the realities of dislocation and family separation. The unspoken words and tone provide another discursive reading that Fairclough (1995) refers to as absences from text, where ‘what is absent from a text is often just as significant’ and revealing (p. 5).

Conceptual framework: Critical discourse analysis

We chose to use critical discourse analysis (CDA) because, as Fairclough (1995) describes, CDA is ‘a theory and method for studying language in its relation to power and ideology’ (p. 1). Although an initial thematic analysis signaled romantic notions of migration and meritocracy, the heaviness of the interviews marked hidden messages that required a deeper analysis able to uncover nuances in the narratives. As Van Dijk (2001) further suggests, ‘critical discourse analysis (CDA) is a type of discourse analytic research that primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance and inequities are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context’ (p. 352). Hence, texts – as representations of spoken discourse – ‘in their ideational functioning constitute systems of knowledge and belief’ that are always situated within context and power relations such as those between family members (Fairclough, 1995: 6). In addition, discourse

… constitutes situations, objects of knowledge, and the social identities of and relationships between people and groups of people. It is constitutive both in the sense that it helps to sustain and reproduce the social status quo, and in the sense that it contributes to transforming it. (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997: 258)

Representations of the world, social relations between people, and people’s social and personal identities are the ‘three broad domains of social life that may be discursively constituted’ (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997: 273). In the case of these young men’s experiences with migration, all three domains appear in their narratives as they try to understand migratory processes, transnational parenting, and their own positionalities.

The usefulness of CDA for this particular interview study lies in the reading of sons’ discursive events in terms of their ideologies and power relations as they are embedded in sociopolitical structures, understood ideologically, and articulated discursively by sons left behind (Fairclough, 1995). A dialectical relationship exists between discourse (in its many forms) and the sociopolitical contexts, institutions, interactions, and relationships in which they are entrenched (Van Leeuwen and Wodak, 1999). For example, asymmetrical power relations are clearly at play between sons and parents. The ideological messages that parents transmit transnationally about their reasons for migrating and leaving children behind constitute and sustain meritocratic ideals about economic, educational, and social progress. We also see the usefulness of CDA in unveiling young men’s use of the ‘orders of discourse’ that are available to them, as they express their own experiences and ideas around migration. That is, the ‘order of discourse’ ‘as the relatively durable social structuring of language which is itself one element of the relatively durable structuring and networking of social practices’ (Fairclough, 2003: 3). At the same time, CDA sheds light on the discourse strategies employed by the interviewees to critique and transform such discourses (Souto-Manning, 2014). We are interested in understanding how these young men make sense of their families’ migratory experiences. One of our guiding questions is how young men left behind in their early teens represent their reality, and in doing so, reproduce and/or challenge familial and societal discourses around migration. We argue that, while reproducing and rationalizing familial discourses of sacrifice and well-being as the main justifications for a painful reality, these young men also struggle with and challenge such discourses from a place of loss. This process is made at an almost unconscious level, since they do not overtly or deliberately critique their experiences with migration.

Discursive strategies of legitimation

Discourse not only constitutes social events, it is also socially constitutive. Van Leeuwen and Wodak (1999) posit at least four ways in which discursive acts are socially constitutive: in the ‘construction of certain social conditions’, justification or legitimation of the status quo, ‘perpetuating and reproducing the status quo’, and dismantling the status quo (p. 92). Our focus rests on discursive acts used to justify or legitimate normative social practices and relations as they are enacted and embedded in transnational parenting relations. Van Leeuwen (2007) elaborates on these discursive strategies of legitimation used to assert, regulate, and normalize power and knowledge. Like Fairclough (2003) and Van Dijk (2001), Van Leeuwen (2007) posits legitimation is a mechanism used to discursively establish systems of authority and to institutionalize and validate beliefs, ideologies, and power structures that organize the social world. Textual analysis is an important resource for examining legitimation, given that individuals consciously or unconsciously disclose through linguistic strategies ideological positionings (Fairclough, 2003). Following this line of reasoning, we use textual analysis centered on semantic relations to expose the ways in which the participants provide explanations, justifications, and rationalization in the discursive construction and/or reproduction of their narrative. Legitimation is one of the various social research issues that can be elucidated by focusing on semantic relations within texts that reveal the discursive strategies young men utilize to legitimate social and familial discourses around migration. In this analysis, we take into consideration Van Leeuwen’s (2007) four discursive legitimation strategies:

Authorization. Legitimation by reference to the authority of tradition, custom, law, and of persons in whom institutional authority of some kind is vested.

Moral evaluation. Legitimation by (often very oblique) reference to value systems.

Rationalization. Legitimation by reference to the goals and uses of institutionalized social action and to the knowledge society has constructed to endow them with cognitive validity.

Mythopoesis. Legitimation conveyed through narratives whose outcomes reward legitimate actions and punish non-legitimate actions (Van Leeuwen, 2007: 92).

In our analysis of two of the young men’s narratives, we see evidence of all four legitimation strategies in their reference, discussion, and rationalization of their parents’ migration while concomitantly expressing loss and sadness. In other words, the use of legitimation strategies as an analytic lens exposed the underlying justification of loss and sadness that initially remained opaque and hidden. CDA reveals in the sons’ narratives their struggle for agency against the institutional structures of family and society. In the following discussion, we provide a close analysis of Alberto and Mateo’s experiences and sense making as sons left behind. Like Martín Rojo and Van Dijk (1997), ‘we focus on the structures and strategies of legitimation and their role’ in sons’ experiences with migration and transnational parenting (p. 524).

Sons’ sense of loss and struggles to legitimize their parents’ migration

It is estimated that in the last decade (post 1999), 60% of migrant Ecuadorians left one or more children behind. Those numbers increased drastically from 17,000 children left behind in 1990 to 150,000 in 2000 (De la Vega, 2007). In an effort to provide a glimpse of the experiences of two sons left behind, we provide an in-depth discursive analysis of Alberto and Mateo’s narratives as they change throughout the interviews and illustrate their use of legitimation strategies that reproduce meritocratic views of migration in their justification of their parents’ departure while expressing sadness and struggle.

In the text of both young men, we show their use of legitimation strategies via

emotions expressed in bold that demonstrate sons’ personal understandings and feelings;

shifts in contrasting discourses, which are represented in bold/underlined ; and

the legitimation strategy, which is underlined.

Alberto

Alberto Lugones was 15 years old when his mother first left to Spain in 2000, followed only six months later by his father. Now at the age of 24 years, his narration utilizes multiple legitimation strategies to justify and understand his parents’ migration, the loss of parental intimacy, and the economic benefits he received from their migration. After providing in his interview a lengthy narration of what happened to their family business and the financial straits that as a family they had to overcome, Alberto almost immediately turns to the emotional trauma that his father’s departure to Spain caused him:

Text 1

… justo esos meses fueron los más críticos, donde más se sufrió. El hecho de acostumbrarse a vivir solo, vivir ya … por este caso, o sea cuando se le despidió a mi papá con una tristeza así grande. Bueno pero se nos explicó [el papá] claramente cuáles eran los motivos, digamos que no se fueron por irse sino se fueron por un motivo, por tener un bienestar acá.

Precisely those months were the most critical, where there was the most suffering. The fact that we had to get used to living alone, live … in this circumstance, that is when we said goodbye to our father it was with great sadness. But well it was clearly explained to us [by his father] what the reasons were, that is, that they didn’t leave just to leave, but rather they left for a reason, to have a good life here.

Text 1 is characterized by the struggle to legitimize migration as beneficial through the use of Authorization and the authorial voice of Alberto’s father (Van Leeuwen, 2007). The struggle is evident in the contrasting ideas in the text and the use of the father’s personal authority to justify his decision to migrate and the unintended suffering it caused Alberto. That is, utilizing a causal semantic relation, Alberto expresses the very sad feelings caused by his father’s migration, followed by the reasons his father had to cause such pain. In the text above, the actions expressed in the phrases ‘suffer’ (se sufrió) and ‘say goodbye with great sadness’ (se le despidió a mi papá con una tristeza así grande) are expressed in passive constructions, thus concealing the agent who experiences such distress. Nonetheless, the implication is that Alberto said goodbye to his father and experienced great sadness. This is a way to undermine the negative tone and expression of sadness caused by the father’s goodbye. The explanation or the reason for such sadness to exist is apparent when Alberto acknowledges an understanding of the reasons, that is, he believes that the sadness was not caused intentionally. His understanding of ‘unintentionality’, however, is transmitted through the authorial voice of the father. Again, he uses a passive voice to express that ‘It was clearly explained to us’ (the reasons for migrating), suppressing the agent who provides the explanation. Indirectly, Alberto makes reference to the paternal authority to legitimate the discourse on migration as beneficial, despite the sadness evoked by his father’s departure (Van Leeuwen, 2007; Van Leeuwen and Wodak, 1999). The ‘personal authority’ of the father is clearly evident here as the person who provides the ‘why’ of things (‘to have a good life’). According to Van Leeuwen (2007), ‘such authorities then need not invoke any justification for what they require others to do [or understand] other than a mere “because I say so,” although in practice they may of course choose to provide reasons and arguments’ (p. 94).

While migrant parents learn to negotiate stories and reasons for migrating, especially for spouses who remain (Trinidad Galván, 2008), children aren’t usually included in the decision-making process or endowed with the power to negotiate transnational arrangements and roles (Dreby, 2007). What Alberto’s narrative offers is a reflexive and informed analysis of what he was told (by the authorial voice of his father), what he felt at the time (sadness and suffering), and how he currently understands his father’s migration (to have a good life). Pribilsky’s (2004) study of an Ecuadorian transnational couple, for instance, reports that while the husband ‘was spared his children’s anxiety’ during his departure, the children ‘nonetheless had difficulty understanding why their father had left’ (p. 329). Even when mothers are left to broker the sadness children express upon a father’s departure – especially if mothers take on the traditional role of caregiver – it is unclear how children internalize and process the separation. Alberto struggles, as seen from his use of several legitimation strategies, to describe how an action that caused so much pain was ultimately beneficial and clearly not caused intentionally. He continues that same narrative of pain in text 2:

Text 2

Y dentro de eso creo que, bueno por esa parte no me siento tan dolido con esa explicación … esa si fue la peor situación de nuestra vida con mi hermana nos quedamos, fue una de las peores, como digamos un trauma que me quede o sea me quede vacío por dentro, porque o sea bueno por esta parte creo que hemos sido un poco dependientes. Creo que por eso fue la situación de que nos hizo feo, nos hizo recontrafeo y los seis primeros meses fueron los mas agobiantes, hubo problemas con mi mamá, mi papá, que estaban en una situación casi de divorcio.

And within that I think, well for that part I do not feel so hurt with that explanation … that was indeed the worst situation of our life with my sister we were left, it was one of the worst, how should we say, traumas that I was left with, that is that left me empty inside, because, well for this part I think we have been a bit dependent. So I think that is why the situation seemed ugly. It felt super ugly and the first six months were the most overwhelming, there were problems with my mom, my dad who were in a situation of near divorce.

In text 2, Alberto turns from the positive (I do not feel so hurt) to the negative (the worst situation in our life) in just one sentence. The dramatic turn reveals again the interpolation of two contradictory ideological positionings, making this statement almost a paradox. The layers of textual analysis in this example include the semantic relations between clauses. The authorial voice of the father is present again (in the first underlined phrase) as Alberto alludes to the explanations given by the father about his migration. Although Alberto expresses clear feelings of loss immediately preceding and following the underlined text, they are overridden by the father’s explanation. The father’s text is powerfully interlaced and essentially erases Alberto’s strong pervasive emotions (i.e. hurt, trauma, worst, empty, and ugly) with just the stroke of an explanation and essentially providing the ‘why’ of things (Van Leeuwen, 2007).

In order to legitimize the loss and dismiss his emotions, Alberto resorts to elaboration and reason as the most salient relations to represent the distress caused by migration. Alberto elaborates in order to explain the negative emotional effects that he and his sister experienced. However, part of his elaboration includes a rationalization of the negative feelings being caused by his dependency and not solely by the father’s departure. When Alberto says ‘I think we have been a bit dependent. So I think that is why the situation seemed ugly’, he is making a value ‘assumption of what is good or desirable’ (Fairclough, 2003: 55). Alberto’s negotiation of the contrastive discourses implies that if he and his sister had not been so dependent, they could have been spared the sadness. Independence is presupposed as a desirable trait, one that would have somehow prevented the suffering. The causal relationship between the differing voices also shows that moral evaluation legitimizes the discourse that favors migration. The ‘ugly situation’ is caused by the lack of independence, not by the fact that the parents migrated and left Alberto and his sister behind. This also reveals the strategies of rationalization and moral evaluation based on the knowledge claim and familiar value that children should develop independence from the parents.

Discursively, however, we can see how the language of loss and suffering textures Alberto’s narrative. Describing his situation as ‘the worst situation of our life’, that it ‘left me empty inside’, and was ‘the most overwhelming’ is reminiscent of emotional loss and familial intimacy (Parreñas, 2001). Of the few studies on children left behind, authors posit that faraway parents’ commodities, material security, or educational opportunities could not replenish children’s emotional strain and loss of intimacy (Parreñas, 2001, 2003). Even when children try to legitimize the migration of their parents, the emotional loss remains evident in their narration. Their expression of loss in the face of a poignant favorable migratory narrative persists as a struggle for agency and meaning (Souto-Manning, 2014).

Alberto ends his interview trying to recapture and legitimize the benefits of migration and the need for sacrifices:

Text 3

Bueno, yo diría que hay bastantes beneficios y una de las peores desventajas que hay, como todo, creo que los beneficios fue una mejor situación económica, tener una situación estable creo que ya para poderse formar algo aquí. Porque también como yo conversé con mis papas con lo del proyecto que me van a ayudar para ponerme aquí una microempresa. A veces desde ese punto de vista creo que ha sido genial no, por este punto de vista y dentro del otro punto de vista creo que hay sus desventajas. El no tenerles a ellos, eso es lo más crítico, creo que eso es una de las mayores desventajas y de las más caóticas.

Well, I’d say that there are several benefits and one of the worse disadvantages there is, like everything, I think that the benefits were a better economic situation, to have a stable situation I think, to be able to form something here. Because like I talked with my parents about the project that they are going to help me start my own small business here. Sometimes from that point of view I think that it has been ideal no, from that point of view and from the other point of view I believe there are disadvantages. To not have them, that is the most critical, I believe that is one of the biggest disadvantages and the most chaotic.

Again, in text 3, conflicting discourses are present struggling to gain legitimacy. In the unfinished first sentence, Alberto interrupts himself to attend to the positive migratory voice and text to foreground ideas of stability and economic advancement. The authorial voice of the parents interferes again as both an overlapping text baiting for power and as the authority vested in justifying the change in family structure (i.e. to help start a business; Van Leeuwen, 2007).

One more time the strategy of Authorization by reference to the parents is present (in the underlined sentence). One ‘point of view’ or discourse is that of the parents’ rationalization of migration as beneficial for the family. Examples of rationalization of the discourse of migration as beneficial in this text are as follows: better economic situation, to have a stable situation, to be able to form something here, and to help me start my own business. These examples clearly reveal rationalization as a legitimation strategy by reference to the utility or function of specific practices or actions quite common in the literature (Parreñas, 2003, 2005a; Pribilsky, 2004).

The notion of sacrifice is common and serves to legitimize parents’ decisions to leave as well as legitimize children’s conflict and loss. For instance, Parreñas (2003) suggests that

Many children resolve the emotional insecurity of being left by their parents … by viewing migration as a sacrifice to be repaid by adult children. Children who believe that their migrant mothers are struggling for the sake of the family’s collective mobility, rather than leaving to live the ‘good life’, are less likely to feel abandoned and more likely to accept their mothers’ efforts to sustain close relationships from a distance. (p. 47)

Indeed, this is evident throughout Alberto’s narrative as a moral evaluation ‘for the good of the family’. Parents provide a discourse of sacrifice that children replicate in their attempts at understanding and explaining the loss of their parents. While even young children (Parreñas, 2001) recognize the material gains of their parents’ migration, the gains don’t outweigh the emotional loss (Trinidad Galván, 2008). Alberto, consequently, struggled with both the idea that his parents would ‘help him start his own small business’ and the emotional trauma; as he states, ‘To not have them, that is the most critical, I believe that is one of the biggest disadvantages and the most chaotic’. The discursive struggle of two differing and contrasting ideas on migration is the salient characteristic of Alberto’s texts.

Even though Alberto is one of the interviewees who spoke more openly about the negative effects of migration (in the affective realm), he reveals a tendency to blame himself or justify the benefits (Dreby, 2007). Textual analyses unveiling legitimation strategies help to explain the contradictions in Alberto’s text. The agent in all the sentences expressing distress is Alberto himself; the agent of the counter idea of migration as beneficial is the father. Sometimes this agent is implied (e.g. in text 1, ‘it was clearly explained to us’, in text 2, ‘with that explanation’; other times the agent is indirectly stated as in text 3, ‘I talked to my father’). The presence of two agents and two differing voices in Alberto’s text underscores the importance of understanding texts in reference to their context and in reference to the voices present within the text. As Mayer and Wodak (2009) assert, ‘in texts, discursive differences are negotiated’, and ‘texts are often sites of struggle in that they show traces of differing discourses and ideologies contending and struggling for dominance’ (p. 10). Even for adult sons, like Alberto, the ‘disposition of children in transnational families [is that] they hunger for emotional bonds with absentee parents and wish for the intimacies of everyday interactions’ (Parreñas, 2001: 377).

Mateo

Mateo Torrez was also single and had lived with an older and younger brother since the migration of his father to Valencia, Spain, in 2000 and shortly thereafter of his mother and youngest brother. Mateo was also 15 years old when his father migrated and, while less blunt than Alberto about the adverse effects of migration, he also demonstrates discursive contradictory patterns and power struggles in his narration. Mateo’s discursive ‘event’ begins strictly with a legitimation and acknowledgment of the benefits of his parents’ migration. ‘To give us’ is a common discursive theme in his interview:

Text 4

Mi mamá me ha dicho que mi papá ha mandado en cuenta decir de que él no se va de gusto para allá sino que siempre él se va a trabajar por darme la educación mejor y superior para mí y para mis hermanos. Pero sino que yo si he notado que aquí en mi casa ha cambiado algo diferente cuando no ha estado mi papá, a veces cambió mi carácter o cambió el carácter de mis hermanos. Pero siempre estaba a veces con mi mamá y siempre a veces cuando venia del colegio no sabía verle a mi papá, pero siempre me recordaba de que mi papá se fue a trabajar en el extranjero por mi bien y por el bien de mis hermanos.

My mom has told me that my father has sent to say that he does not leave for pure joy, but rather that he always leaves to work to give me the best and most superior education for me and for my brothers. But rather I have noticed that here in my house something has changed differently since my dad has not been here, sometimes my personality changed or the personality of my brothers changed. But always I was sometimes with my mom and always at times when I’d come from school and did not see my father, but I was always reminded that my dad went to work abroad for my sake and for the sake of my brothers.

Because Mateo’s narration tries to legitimize the migration of his parents, his use of contrastive terms (but; but rather) is a consistent form of rationalization. Hence, in spite of the fact that he does not see his father and that things have changed (including his personality), an apparent reason and benefit exists for these changes (‘for the best superior education; for my sake and the sake of my brothers’). From his narrative, we might question whether Mateo and other young men’s legitimation are remnants of a parental discourse authenticating the ‘need to leave’ that children internalize, or whether Mateo himself must legitimize his familial reality and loss of parents. Mateo’s use of authorial or rationalization discursive strategies allow him to downplay his own reading of the situation (Fairclough, 2003). By referring to the personal authorial voice of his mother, he distances himself from the narrative and can legitimize his father’s absence.

A personal authorization discursive strategy is evident in Mateo’s reference to ‘My mother has told me’, and although we don’t know who does the reminding in his speech (‘I was always reminded’), an authorial voice appears to legitimize his father’s migration as not an action that ‘he does for pure joy’. In the first sentence, ‘My mother told me that my father has sent to say’, a family hierarchy is apparent in the authorial voices providing the reasons for migration and painting family separation as necessary and beneficial. The father carries the leading voice, and the mother serves as a messenger to Mateo. The appearance of the authorial voice of the mother and father both directly and indirectly demonstrate the power of parents’ discourse in shaping sons’ understandings of their experiences, personalities, and emotions. Interestingly, the layered texts are expressed from and through varying voices. For instance, Mateo’s text draws on the mother’s enunciation of the father’s voice in: ‘my mom has told me that my father has sent to say he does not leave for pure joy’. Indeed, Martín Rojo and Van Dijk (1997) suggest that legitimating discourses about asymmetrical familial, social, and institutional relations ‘are typically described as beneficial for the group or society as a whole’ (p. 528). In other words, those with less power like sons are led to believe that parents’ decisions are beneficial to the entire family structure:

Text 5

… mi papi lo que nos ha dicho a nosotros, nos ha dado un consejo moral, un apoyo y nos ha dicho que sigamos adelante. Y que el cuando era niño tenía sus sueños pero no le apoyó nadie; y la mejor herencia que nos podía dar era el estudio; y que sigamos adelante; y que no le defraudemos; y que el todo lo hace por nosotros; y que se fue para allá para darnos una mejor educación a nosotros.

… my daddy has told us, he’s given us a moral advice, support and told us to get ahead. And that as a child he had dreams but nobody supported him; and the best legacy that he could give us was an education; and that we move forward and not disappoint him; and that he does everything for us; and that he we went over there to give us a better education.

The strategy of rationalization, that is, legitimization by reference to the utility or purpose of particular actions or practices, is present in text 5 as well as in text 4. However, in text 5, we see a more evident interrelation of the strategies of rationalization and moral evaluation. Rationalization, as Fairclough (2003) states, ‘overlaps with Moral Evaluation, in the sense that the reasons and purposes given for the procedures evoke the value systems which are taken for granted and constitute the “generalized” motives …’ (p. 99). This is evident in the moral advice that Mateo received from his father ‘move forward’, ‘not disappoint him’, because ‘he does everything’ for them. While the father is providing the moral advice as an authorial voice, it is the father’s use of moral values rather than the imposition of his personal authority that legitimizes his choice to migrate in order to advance himself and his children (Van Leeuwen, 2007). Mateo’s father in addition uses a specific form of moral evaluation referred to by Van Leeuwen (2007) as ‘analogies’ that imply a discourse comparison with ‘another activity which is associated with positive values’ (p. 99). The use of a moral analogy is evident in the father’s comparison with his childhood dreams and the lack of support he received to make them a reality. Hence, the moral of the story entails comparing the loss of childhood dreams of the past with the educational opportunities of the present.

Another strategy at work in text 5 is legitimation through mythopoesis, which includes the telling of stories or narrative style representations to provide evidence of acceptable behavior or to privilege an idea or practice (Van Leeuwen, 2007). In text 5, the story that Mateo is re-telling about his father’s dreams is clearly impinged with moral evaluation by making reference to various value systems that support the idea of meritocracy and sacrifice, both by parents and by children. The father’s sacrifice is to depart in order to provide the children with the education that will help them advance in life; the children’s sacrifice is to obey the parental authority and not disappoint the parents, by ‘moving forward’ through education. As discussed by Van Leeuwen and Wodak (1999), in ‘moral tales the hero or heroes follow socially legitimate practices and are rewarded for this with a happy ending’ in much the same way as Mateo’s father’s story suggests the fulfillment of the immigrant dream of ‘getting ahead’ (p. 110).

Text 6

Le hemos dicho (a su hermano) que nunca se dé por vencido y que vuelva a estudiar porque el estudio que mi papá les ha dado ahorita es lo mejor que nuestros padres nos pueden dar la herencia mejor […] … Mucha gente dice que las herencias, como dice mi licenciado, me aconsejaba diciendo que la herencia no es la casa, el carro, dinero y mucho más, es el estudio donde puede uno como decir defenderse. Y mi papá me aconsejaba también que el estudio es donde vale todo el dinero. Donde quiera que vaya puedo con mi título seguir triunfando en miles de carreras que yo quiera, eso es lo que me he propuesto yo … Sino que a veces me siento deprimido porque no tengo a mis papas, pero siempre mis papas me han dicho que tengo que tener ánimo. Adelante, y yo también tengo que darle gracias a Dios.

We have told (his brother) to never give up and to return to study because the education that my dad has given them right now is the best thing, that our parents can give us is the best inheritance […] … Many people say that inheritances, as my mentor advised me, saying that the inheritance is not the house, car, money and a lot more, it is an education where one can how do you say defend yourself. And my dad also advised me that an education is where all the money is worth it. Wherever I go with my degree I can continue succeeding in thousands of careers I want, that’s what I planned for myself … Rather sometimes I feel depressed because I don’t have my parents, but always my parents have told me to stay encouraged. Go forward, and I also have to be grateful to God.

In a form of legitimation, referred by Van Leeuwen (2007) as role model authority, we see how Mateo draws on the authority of others (‘many people say’; ‘as my mentor advised me’; ‘my dad also advised me’; ‘my parents have told me’) to legitimate his parents’ migration in spite of his depression and their absence. Role model authority is significant because legitimation is gained by the mere support or adoption of certain behaviors or opinions by peer models. In addition, the inclusion of numerous voices adds further legitimacy to what at the end of his narrative are negative emotions (e.g. ‘I feel depressed’; ‘I don’t have my parents’). Mateo uses the contrastive use of the word – but – in text 6 to legitimize (rationalize) that although he is depressed and alone, the authorial voice of his parents and God are legitimation enough to remain encouraged and to move forward on his own.

It is also apparent that Mateo utilizes the strategy of Mythopoesis. In this strategy, the advantages and benefits of migration are realized through a narrative plot that brings forward notions of meritocracy and the idea of education as advancement: education is the ‘best legacy’. Mateo represents this plot in the following: ‘an education is where all the money is worth it. Wherever I go with my degree I can continue succeeding in thousands of careers I want …’. Evident in his narrative is the meritocratic notion that education is the great equalizer and available to him as a result of his parents’ migration. Even though Mateo is not telling stories, he is utilizing moral tales about education based on shared beliefs scripted like stories commonly heard in the family, the school, and other dominant social institutions. This is the story Mateo has heard around him and is now repeating to himself and his brother as his own resolution.

Mateo’s stories are presented like fables that enclose a moral lesson. This reveals the utilization of all legitimation strategies (Van Leeuwen, 2007). Mateo uses Authorization in the form of role model authority by referring to individuals who are vested with authority (e.g. the parents, mentor, and ‘many people’) or symbolic representations of authority (e.g. God). He uses Rationalization by referring to the utility, benefits, and purposes of migration (e.g. an education; getting ahead). At the same time, his use of Rationalization is intricately related to Moral Evaluation by making reference to value systems such as moral advice imparted by role models (e.g. parents and mentor). Finally, Mateo’s representation of authorization, moral evaluation, and rationalization through narrativization reveals the use of Mythopoesis. Interestingly enough, all of these discursive strategies are utilized in the backdrop of great sadness and depression.

Conclusion

In this article, we have examined how regardless of the reasoning or discourse of benefit given to children by migrating parents, young people struggle with the emotional cost of those material or educational benefits. Utilizing CDA, we explored the oral histories of Mateo and Alberto for discourses of legitimation used to reason with, justify, and excuse their parents’ decisions while struggling with loss and pain. We show that through the use of Van Leeuwen’s (2007) legitimation strategies of rationalization, authorization, moral evaluation, and mythopoesis, sons who are left behind do not fully accept their parents’ migratory discourse. Not only are children not consulted about their parents’ decision to migrate – an apparent power struggle evident in their narratives – they ultimately cannot reconcile their reality (Dreby, 2007).

We found that the young men’s narratives gravitated toward notions of family unity within geographic separation; sacrifice for and obedience to parents; and the exchange of material well-being as a legitimation for the emotional distress and sadness of family separation. Within the young men’s discourses of legitimation, we underscored how their narratives of loss conflict with their parents’ meritocratic discourse of ‘educational and economic opportunity’. Their accounts reveal efforts to justify and thus legitimate migration as a source of personal, familial, and social benefits as well as economic improvement; yet their words express sadness, pain, and struggle. It is precisely in the contradiction where the critique and transformation reside (Souto-Manning, 2014). Their experiences and feelings around their families’ migration and their life after their parents’ departure are purported as a ‘sacrifice’ their parents have chosen; however, this sacrifice also surfaces as an imposition placed upon them, as expressed by the language of loss. It is in the expression of despair and the impositions placed on children where power struggles are at play between parents and sons (Martín Rojo and Van Dijk, 1997).

So, how do we meet the needs of children and young people left behind? It certainly entails more than requiring or expecting parents forced to migrate to change the circumstances that led to their migration in the first place. Addressing the needs of children back home requires familial, collective, and transnational efforts and support. Hence, we must begin by acknowledging that these families exist and constitute new forms of familial relations and circumstances (Parreñas, 2005a). Just recognizing the existence and realities of transnational families may advance the establishment of support groups and networks in receiving and native communities. Parents, for instance, can be guided and supported in ways to communicate and maintain strong transnational ties via unfamiliar or untapped networks or technological systems.

Internationally, greater pressure must be exerted on countries to provide both employment opportunities at home, and family reunification options in the host country.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The author(s) received a Fulbright Scholar’s Grant to conduct the research for this article.

Author biographies

Ruth Trinidad Galván is Associate Professor in the Language, Literacy and Sociocultural Studies Department at the University of New Mexico. She is a twice recipient of the prestigious Fulbright Scholar’s Grant for research and teaching in Ecuador (2008) and Mexico (2015–2016). She is author of Women who stay behind: Pedagogies of survival in rural transmigrant Mexico (University of Arizona Press, 2015) and co-editor of the Handbook of Latinos and Education, which received the Critics Choice Award in 2010 from the American Educational Studies Association (AESA). She has served as Associate Editor of the Journal of Latinos and Education since 2005.

Maria Teresa Guevara Beltrán is a doctoral candidate in the Language, Literacy and Sociocultural Studies Department at the University of New Mexico. She currently serves as education director for a community-based educational organization for Spanish-speaking adult immigrants. Her research foci include migration, grassroots organizing, and the intersections of race, nationality, culture, gender, and socioeconomic factors in language learning in the context of immigration.

References

Bonilla

Borrero

(2008) Ecuador: La migración internacional en cifras [Ecuador: International migration in numbers. Quito, Ecuador: FLACSO/United Nations Population Fund]. Quito, Ecuador: FLACSO/Fondo de Población de la Naciones Unidas.

Coe

(2013) The Scattered Family: Parenting, African Migrants, and Inequality. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

De la Vega

(2007) Migración irregular: Politicas públicas y derechos de los niños, niñas y adolescents [Irregular migration: Public policies and boys, girls, and adolescent rights. In: Salazar

(ed.) Migration: Myths, proposals and challenges]. In: Salazar

(ed.) Migración: Mitos, propuestas y desafíos. Quito, Ecuador: IOM – Esquel, pp. 99–111.

Dreby

(2006) Honor and virtue: Mexican parenting in the transnational context. Gender & Society 20(1): 32–59.

Dreby

(2007) Children and power in Mexican transnational families. Journal of Marriage and Family 69: 1050–1064.

Escrivá

(2003) Peruvian families between Peru and Spain. In: Latin American Studies Association Conference, Dallas, TX, 27–29 March.

Fairclough

(1995) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. New York: Longman/Pearson.

Fairclough

(2003) Analyzing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. New York: Routledge.

Fairclough

Wodak

(1997) Critical discourse analysis. In: Van Dijk

(ed.) Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, Vol. 2: Discourse as Social Interaction. London: Allen Lane, pp. 258–284.

10.

Guevara Beltrán

Trinidad Galván

(2013) Undocumented workers. In: Mason

(ed.) Encyclopedia of Race and Racism, 2nd edn. Detroit, MI: Macmillan Library Reference, pp. 207–213.

11.

Herrera

(2007) Ecuatorianos/as en Europa: De la vertiginosa salida a la construccion de espacios transnacionales [Ecuadorians in Europe: From an unsteady exodus to the construction of transnational spaces. In: Yépez del Castillo

Herrera

(eds) New Latin American migrations to Europe: Balances and challenges]. In: Yépez del Castillo

Herrera

(eds) Nuevas migraciones latinoamericanas a Europa: Balances y desafios. Quito, Ecuador: FLACSO, pp. 189–216.

12.

Hesse-Biber

(2005) Oral history: A collaborative method of (auto)biography interview. In: Hesse-Biber

Leavy

(eds) The Practice of Qualitative Research. New York: SAGE, pp. 149–194.

13.

Jokisch

Kyle

(2008) Ecuadorian international migration. In: de la Torre

Striffler

(eds) The Ecuador Reader: History, Culture, Politics. London: Duke University Press, pp. 350–358.

14.

López de Lera

Oso Casas

(2007) La inmigración latinoamericana en España: Tendencias y estado de la cuestion [Latin American immigration in Spain: Tendencies and state of the issue. In: Yépez del Castillo

Herrera

(eds) New Latin American migrations to Europe: Balances and challenges]. In: Yépez del Castillo

Herrera

(eds) Nuevas migraciones latinoamericanas a Europa: Balances y desafios. Quito, Ecuador: FLACSO, pp. 31–68.

15.

Martín Rojo

Van Dijk

(1997) ‘There was a problem, and it was solved!’: Legitimating the expulsion of ‘illegal’ migrants in Spanish parliamentary discourse. Discourse & Society 8(4): 523–566.

16.

Mayer

Wodak

(2009) Methods for Critical Discourse Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

17.

Parreñas

(2001) Mothering from a distance: Emotions, gender, and intergenerational relations in Filipino transnational families. Feminist Studies 27(2): 361–390.

18.

Parreñas

(2003) The care crisis in the Philippines: Children and transnational families in the new global economy. In: Ehrenreich

Hochschild

(eds) Global Woman: Nannies, Maids, and Sex Workers in the New Economy. New York: Metropolitan Books, pp. 39–54.

19.

Parreñas

(2005a) Children of Global Migration: Transnational Families and Gendered Woes. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

20.

Parreñas

(2005b) Long distance intimacy: Class, gender and intergenerational relations between mothers and children in Filipino transnational families. Global Networks 5(4): 317–336.

21.

Pribilsky

(2004) ‘Aprendemos a convivir’: Conjugal relations, co-parenting, and family life among Ecuadorian transnational migrants in New York City and the Ecuadorian Andes. Global Networks 4(3): 313–334.

22.

Reher

Requena

Rosero-Bixby

(2009) Ecuatorianos en España [Ecuadorians in Spain]. In: Reher

Requena

(eds) Las múltiples caras de la inmigración en España. Madrid: Editorial Alianza, pp. 117–152.

23.

Souto-Manning

(2014) Critical for whom? Theoretical and methodological dilemmas in critical approaches to language research. In: Paris

Winn

(eds) Humanizing Research: Decolonizing Qualitative Inquiry with Youth and Communities. New York: SAGE, pp. 201–222.

24.

Trinidad Galván

(2008) Global restructuring, transmigration and Mexican rural women who stay behind: Accommodating, contesting and transcending ideologies. Globalizations 5(4): 523–540.

25.

Trinidad Galván

(2015) Women Who Stay Behind: Pedagogies of Survival in Rural Transmigrant Mexico. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.

26.

Trinidad Galván

(2015) Changing the gender script: Ecuadorian young sons’ increased responsibilities and emotive response to transnational mothering. In: Green

Pelletier

(eds) Men, Mothers and Mothering. Bradford, ON, Canada: Demeter Press, pp. 110–128.

27.

Van Dijk

(2001) Critical discourse analysis. In: Schiffrin

Tannen

Hamilton

(eds) The Handbook of Critical Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp. 352–371.

28.

Van Leeuwen

(2007) Legitimation in discourse and communication. Discourse & Communication 1(1): 91–112.

29.

Van Leeuwen

Wodak

(1999) Legitimizing immigration control: A discourse-historical analysis. Discourse Studies 1(1): 83–118.

30.

Waters

(2002) Flexible families? ‘Astronaut’ household and the experiences of lone mothers in Vancouver, British Columbia. Social & Cultural Geography 3(2): 117–134.