SOCI 6020

Peoples and Cultures of the Caribbean

Student ID: 811000988

Lecturer: Anand Rampersad
Submission Date: Friday 20th November, 2015
Weighting: 25%
Question: ‘The Afro-Caribbean family evolved
in response to the conditions of slavery in the
Caribbean.’ Discuss.
‘The Afro-Caribbean family evolved in
response to the conditions of slavery in the
Caribbean.’ Discuss.
This paper examines the impact of the slavery system on the structure of the Afro-Caribbean
family with particular emphasis on the institution of marriage, matrifocal families, illegitimacy
and child-rearing using research previously done by historical theorists and in the end bring the
discussion to an informed conclusion.

According to George Peter Murdock in a study entitled Social Structure 1949 (as cited by
Haralambos and Holborn 2008), “The family is a social group characterized by common
residence, economic cooperation and reproduction. It includes adults of both sexes, at least two
of whom maintain a socially approved relationship, and one or more children, own or adapted, of
the sexually cohabiting adults.” However, Haralambos and Holborn (2008) believe that it may be
necessary to redefine the family proposed by Murdock. According to Murdock, the family
includes at least one adult of each sex. They argue that at times both at present and in the past,
children have been raised in households that do not contain adults of both sexes – usually headed
by women (matrifocal homes). They further add that this is exemplified among a large number of
black families in the West Indies and in parts of Central America and the USA today. The reason
for this will be discussed using historical data later on.

While discussing the topic of Afro-Caribbean families, it is necessary to provide a definition of

the Caribbean family. In the Caribbean family life exists within a milieu of cultural, religious,
racial and ethnic differences which cut across the geographical proximities, and shape the
household and family structures (CARICOM 2007, 2011c). The term “family” can stretch to
cover formal and informal unions as well as family and intimate relationships across different
households. General statistics for the Caribbean show that 80% of children are born outside of
marriage and that multiple mating patterns are prevalent (Barrow 1996; CARICOM, 2011c;
Dreher & Hudgins, 2010; St. Bernard, 1997, 2003). These facts align with the high percentage
of female headed households. Complex family relationships can involve previous and current
partners, siblings and half-siblings who do not all live in the same household. There are also
variations on the theme. Marriage rates in Trinidad and Guyana are much higher than the average
for the region, which means that places such as Haiti, Jamaica and the islands of Eastern
Caribbean, skew the region’s averages on non-marital unions similarly to how Guyana and
Trinidad skew the averages for marital unions. Marriage statistics in Trinidad and Guyana show
that marriage is more prevalent among nationals of East-Indian descent than among nationals of
African descent (Gibbons 2015).

It is generally accepted that the precursor of contemporary sociological research and theories on
the Black family is the work of the late Black sociologist, E. Franklin Frazier. Although Frazier’s
investigations of the Black family are centered on American Black families in the twenties, his
works are still considered relevant when discussing the Afro-Caribbean family. Using the natural
history approach, he explained the present condition of the Black family as the culmination of an
evolutionary process, its structure strongly affected by the vestiges of slavery, racism and
economic exploitation. The institution of enslavement and slavery virtually destroyed the cultural
moorings of Blacks and prevented any perpetuation of African Kinship and family relations.
Consequently, the Black Family developed various forms according to the different situations it
encountered (Frazier 1939).

According to Frazier, variations in sex and marital practices grew out of the social heritage of
slavery days; and what slavery began – the pattern of racism and economic deprivation – has
influenced much of the family structure that currently exists in the Caribbean today. The
variations that Frazier spoke of are:
- The matriarchal character of the Black family whereby black males are marginal, ineffective
figures in the family structure
- The instability of marital life resulting from the lack of a legal basis for marriage during the
period of slavery, which meant that marriage never acquired the position of a strong
institution in black life and casual sex and concubinage were the prevailing norm and
- The dissolution – caused by the process of urbanization – of the stability of family life that
had existed among black peasants in an agrarian society (Frazier 1939).
M.G. Smith whose research expanded upon Frazier’s work summed up these characteristics. “In
this region family life is highly unstable, marriage rates are low, especially during the earlier
phases of adult life, and illegitimacy rates have always been high.” (Clarke 1999). The
aforementioned characteristics of Caribbean families were also sighted by Thomas Simey (1946)
who did some work in the Caribbean region. He saw these characteristics as undesirable and his
work contributed greatly to Caribbean family structures being labeled as a ‘social pathology’
(Barrow and Reddock 2001).

Studies carried out by Edith Clarke on three communities in Jamaica highlighted the differences
in family structures among social classes. (Barrow and Reddock 2001) in describing the
interpretation of Caribbean family by Clarke’s study stated; “Put simply, these studies
interpreted Caribbean family structure as a functional response to the disorganizing effects of
contemporary socio-economic conditions in Caribbean village communities.”
In examining the statement above, one can uncover a link between the current structure of
Caribbean families and the plantation. If the prevailing socio-economic conditions have impacted
on current family structure, then factors such as socialization, economic stability and traditions
as well as ideology must be taken in account. Among black families in the region, experiences of
previous generations on the plantation would have no doubt influenced the way in which
subsequent generations were socialized.

The plantation system perpetuated the displacement of men from their families. Due to the rigors
of work on the plantation, male slaves, being stronger physically, were given the more physically
strenuous jobs and would suffer harsher punishments if disobedient to masters. For planters,
young male slaves were preferred when purchasing slaves. This brings into light the issue of
male marginalization. Due to constant movement on or across plantations, many fathers were
absent from their families. In today’s society this ‘male absenteeism’ is still evident.

The basis of Frazier’s and Smith’s arguments is to be found in the family structure evident on the
plantation. Both men were adamant that the plantation destroyed stable family patterns. This was
primarily because economic production was the main purpose of the plantation. Workers on the
plantation, especially before the abolition of slavery were treated with scant regard. Thus the
family unit, in particular the ‘conjugal’ pair (mother and father) was often disrupted which gave
rise to the “matriarchal” organization of the black family that is quite prevalent in the Caribbean
today. Frazier found that the bonding of children to their mother was due to the practices of
selling slave children with their mother and giving slave children the status of their mother.
Thus, slave women played a major role in rearing the children, whose father were usually sold
separately. However, the issue of women playing a major role in rearing the children on the
plantation system is debatable and will be discussed in another section. Young male slaves were
also sold separately from other family members, which served to further prevent the males from
playing a central role in supporting their family. (Frazier 1969). Smith reiterated this fact further
by pointing out that the pair of a woman and her children was less targeted in the slave trade. In
essence, the Caribbean family patterns visible in society today are the result of a combination of
factors. The plural society of the plantation is still evident today. Matrifocal homes are also still a
common characteristic of many Caribbean homes.

After the abolition of slavery, freed blacks in most instances, did not have access to land and
other economic resources which were vital to their survival. Therefore the advent of
industrialization created an avenue for blacks and other minorities (men in particular) to migrate
in search of jobs to support their families. The construction of the Panama Canal during the early
twentieth century created such opportunities. During this period several fathers migrated.
Unfortunately, some never returned for varying reasons. In excess of 20,000 workers had died
during the period of construction before it was opened in 1914. This left behind a pattern of
single headed households, usually headed by women. This feature is prevalent
in Caribbean society today. Thus it is plausible
to say that the economic hardships after slavery have also influenced the structure of many lower
class Caribbean households. This shows one of the ways in which the plantation has
influenced Caribbean family structure, post-emancipation.

Within the slave community, however, slaves devised means of sexual cooperation,
acknowledgement of paternity, and a range of family arrangements and marriage customs
(Rawick 1972). Also, in slave communities, family, friends and confidants consoled the grief-
stricken and comforted the sick and the afflicted (Douglass 1968). Parents knew that there were
adult family members present to care for one another’s children on the plantation. Moreover,
parents, grandparents, and extended kin were central to the family and community. They held the
family together when one of their young ran away, was hired out or was at work in the field
(Jacob 1987; Rawick 1972; Douglass 1968; Jones 1985). They were the surrogate family for
orphans and provided a family structure for the numerous young individuals sold or hired away
from home. Even in current society in the Caribbean, the existence of extended families is
prevalent, with grandparents often taking on a central role in the family.

Common-law unions and illegitimacy were seen as failed attempts to imitate white norms
(Frazier 1966 as cited in Barrow and Reddock 2001). As slaves had little or no knowledge or
opportunity of legal marriage. It was felt that the strength and power of the marriage union
would offer a threat to the plantation system. Concubinage was encouraged as it was believed
that this frail type of union would keep the Negroes humble and complacent (Stewart 2005).
Such features common to the plantation are still evident in Caribbean society today. In addition
male slaves were used as ‘studs’ in ‘breeding’ slaves of high quality. The “stockman” was rented
to a slaveholder who possessed young female slaves as a method of impregnating women. The
stockman was put in the same room with a woman to impregnate her. The fee his owner received
was one of four of the children born of these unions (Escott 1979, 45). A former slave
corroborated this practice: “ ( My father had many children) Dat am right – close to fifty chillum,
cause my mammy done told me its disaway; my pappy am de breedin’ nigger” ( Jones 1988,
149) and this is the process through which the single parent, female headed household became a
dominant feature in the Caribbean.

Despite the fact that the traits of the plantation are still present today, one cannot dismiss the
arguments of Herskovits who did some work in the Caribbean (Herskovits and Herskovits 1947).
Contrary to Frazier (and Smith) Herskovits argued that the origin of the Negro family was to be
found in its ancestral heritage which survived the disruptive impact of slavery, although not fully
intact. He suggested that aspects of African culture were retained but that some modifications
were made. In one of his examples, Herskovits made reference to the African custom of
polygamy. He suggested that rather than having simultaneous relationships, a transformation was
made to ‘progressive monogamy’ or multiple successive relationships (Barrow and Reddock
2001). In our society today, it is not uncommon to find men who boost about the number of
children they have to show off their virility.

While there is evidence here of polygamy, was this a practice retained from previous African
cultural practices? Or was it, transcended through the plantation setup? For Herskovits it was as a
result of African Retention but Smith’s plantation hypothesis could well be justified. As
mentioned earlier in this paper, the way in which male slaves were used on the plantation for
reproductive purposes as put forward by M.G. Smith could have well set the framework for the
current Caribbean family situation.

Another aspect of the family which was influenced by the conditions of slavery is child-rearing.
Childhood offered no respite from the hardships of slavery as they were seen to be just as
profitable as adults and maybe even more so. Being “put at the hoe”, a heavily labour intensive
duty was a “rite of passage” into adulthood. Although children (e.g. ages 5 to 11) were deemed
too young for heavy field work, planters had the legal right, the economic incentives and the
discretion to force slaves into their adolescence (12 to 17) to assume adult production and
reproductive roles. In such instance, these slaves were more readily subjected to arbitrary
plantation authority, punishments and separations which made them grow “old before their time”
(King 1995).

Children were reared for work not idleness. “It had never occurred to me” Brooker T.
Washington wrote, “that there was no period of my life that was devoted to play. From the time
that I can remember anything, almost every minute of my life has been occupied in some kind of
labour…” (Franklin 1965, 31). Before being assigned as field hands, children were made to run
errands, fan their white masters in the heat of the day, supplied firewood to warm their nights,
waited on tables, became personal servants to the white children and assisted watching small
children of field hands. (Douglass 1968, 43).

Parental authority in slave families was undermined by the compulsory rules and demands of the
plantation. Parents could not protect their unborn nor their children from the exploitative labor
system of plantation life. Also, planters, overseers, drivers, slave patrols, and other whites, had
legal rights to punish slave children and their parents, thus undermining parental authority among
slave families. In summary, slave-rearing was the legal right of planters and not parents. Quite
often the productive and reproductive labour of slaves was in conflict with the profitable
management of the plantation. Parental authority suffered when slave children were put to work,
hired to learn trades and punished in spite of parental wishes.

When discussing Black Family life, it is important as well to observe another large scale theory
of Black family, the Moynihan Report by Daniel Moynihan (1965). While Frazier’s work
examined a pattern of Black family life in the antebellum period (before World War II),
Moynihan’s research focused on Black family life as it existed in the sixties (postbellum). In a
sense, Moynihan attempted to confirm statistically Frazier’s theory that the Black family was
disorganized as a result of slavery, urbanization and economic deprivation. But he added a new
dimension to Frazier’s theory: “At the heart of the deterioration of the fabric of Negro society is
the deterioration of the Negro family” (Moynihan, 1965:5). Using census data, he cited statistics
on the dissolution of Black marriages, the high rate of Black illegitimate births, the prevalence of
female headed households in the Black community and how the deterioration of the Black family
had led to a shocking increase in welfare dependency (Moynihan, 1965). However, Moynihan’s
theory received a largely critical response from members of the Black community as in essence,
he had made a negative generalized indictment of all Black families. Although he had cited the
antecedents of slavery and high unemployment as historically important variables, he shifted the
burden of Black deprivation onto the Black family rather than the social structure of the United
States. (Staples 1994).

For years, the work of Frazier had been accepted as the definitive history of Black families and
posited as a casual explanation of their contemporary condition. However, Frazier’s theories
have been opposed by many. The first historian to challenge this thesis was Blassingame (1972)
whose use of slave narratives indicated that in the slave quarters Black families did exist as
functioning institutions and role models for others. Moreover, strong family ties persisted in face
of the frequent breakups deriving from the slave trade. To further counteract Frazier’s thesis on
the Black Family, Fogel and Engerman (1974) used elaborative quantitative methods to
document that slave owners did not separate a majority of the slave families because the
capitalistic efficiency of the slave system necessitated the existence of intact families to ensure a
profitable agricultural economy. Their contention, also controversial, was that capitalistic
efficiency of the slave system meant it was more practical to keep slave families intact.
However, Kenneth Stampp (1956) insists that the great majority of slave-owners chose business
over sentiment and broke up families when under financial pressure.

Gutman (1976), utilizing data from birth records and marital applications for a number of cities
between 1880 and 1925, concluded that
1. The two-parent household was the dominant form
2. Most black households (70 to 90 percent) had a husband or father present and two or more
members of a nuclear family unit and
3. The presence of female-headed households was partly due to a higher mortality rate of black
males or husbands than wives on the plantation.

According to Staples (1994, 3), “More important than Gutman’s compelling evidence that
slavery did not destroy the black family was his contention that their family form in the past era
had evolved from family and kinship patterns that originated under slavery.” From recent
evidence, it appears that the black family was a stable unit during slavery and in the immediate
post slavery years and the rise of marital disruption, teen pregnancy, female-headed households
and other problems in the black families resulted from the development of the black urban
ghetto. (Staples, 1994; Meier and Rudwick, 1970). According to Rainwater (1966, 179), “In the
hundred years since the Emancipation Proclamation, blacks in rural areas were able to maintain
full nuclear families almost as well as their white counterparts and that the move to the urban
areas resulted in the very high proportion of female-headed households.” Claims to these theories
warrant further investigation as research indicates a closer association to Frazer and supporting
data.

Using traditional historical methods based on plantation records and slave owner testimony,
Frazier reached the conclusion that slave families were characterized by such conditions as
marital and familial instability, frequent separation of husband-wife and kin network, the
prevalence of matriarchal familial units, and the lack of authority of the fathers.
Though Caribbean society is ever changing, the culture which was present on the plantation has
somehow been passed from generation to generation. This is evident specifically in the ideology
of the people. It seems that the culture of Caribbean families has been impacted in a large way by
life on the plantation and the conditions of slavery. Though there are indeed aspects of African
culture that have been retained within the Caribbean family, such as such as the practice of
polygamy, the findings are minor in comparison to those that support the plantation as the major
defining factor in the structure of Caribbean families. There is overwhelming evidence that
suggests that E. Franklyn Frazier was right; Caribbean families today, are indeed the product of
the plantation.
References
Barrow, Christine and Reddock, Rhoda (Eds.) 2001. Caribbean Sociology:
IntroductoryReadings. Kingston: Ian Randle Publishers.

Barrow, Christine, 1996 Family in the Caribbean: Themes and Perspectives. Jamaica, Ian
Randle Publishers.

Brooks, Sadeke 2008, August 27. The Jamaica Star - Entertainment [Electronic Copy].Retrieved
April 08,2009, from
http://www.jamaica-star.com/thestar/20080827/ent/ent2.html

Clarke, Edith (Eds.) 1999. My Mother Who Fathered Me (with Introduction by Smith, Michael
G.); The PRESS University of the West Indies.

Haralambos, Michael and Holborn, Martin 2008, Sociology, Themes and Perspectives: Harper
Collins Publishers Ltd.

Roopnarine, Jaipaul L. and Brown, Janet 1997. Caribbean families: Diversity Among Ethnic
Groups; Advances in Developmental Psychology.

Mention extended family ( pg 81)