The Forgotten Ones: A Sociological Study of Anglo and Chicano Retardates 9781477300039

Citation preview

THE FORGOTTEN ONES A Sociological Study of Anglo and Qucano Retardates

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

THE FORGOTTEN ONES A Sociological Study of Anglo and Chicano Retardates

ANNE-MARIE HENSHEL

U N I V E R S I T Y OF T E X A S AUSTIN & LONDON

PRESS

Publication of this book was supported by a grant from the Social and Rehabilitation Service, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Henshel, Anne-Marie, 1940The forgotten ones. Bibliography: p. 1. Mentally handicapped-Texas. I. Title. HV3006.T4H43 362.3Ό9764 72-1580 ISBN 0-292-72403-9 Copyright © 1972 by Anne-Marie Henshel All Rights Reserved Manufactured in the United States of America

CONTENTS

Preface Introduction 1. Design of the Study 2. Selected Cases: Unmarried Individuals 3. Selected Cases: Married Individuals 4. Anglos and Chícanos 5. Marrieds and Singles 6. Men and Women 7. Marriage 8. Conclusions and Recommendations Appendix References Index

vii xi 3 21 47 100 136 158 172 229 251 265 269

TABLES

1. Distribution of Subjects by Ethnicity, Marital Status, Sex, and Age 2. Distribution of IQ's 3. Ethnicity and IQ 4. Ethnicity and Neighborhood 5. Ethnicity and Household Cleanliness 6. Ethnicity and Employment Status at First Interview . . . . 7. Ethnicity and Number of Siblings 8. Ethnicity and Dating 9. Ethnicity and Church Attendance 10. Marital Status by Ethnicity and Sex 11. Marital Status and IQ 12. Marital Status and Attractiveness 13. Marital Status and Illness Incidence 14. Marital Status and Neighborhood 15. Marital Status and Employment Status at First Interview . 16. Sex and Employment Status at First Interview 17. Ethnicity and Expressed Marital Satisfaction 18. Expressed Marital Satisfaction and Length of Courtship . . 19. Number of Children and Ethnicity of Subjects

13 15 101 113 115 116 120 125 132 137 139 141 143 145 148 163 197 209 211

PREFACE

The research in this book is rooted in the intellectual conflicts which emerged from my initiation into the realm of mental retardation. Examination of the literature on the educable retardate had revealed that the majority of studies were conducted from a single perspective, primarily from official files and via the opinions of virtually everyone but the individuals investigated. Parents and psychologists, counselors and teachers—all congregated, in the literature, to explain the retardates' problems, attitudes, and, more rarely, joys. Few studies indeed had extended to the subjects an opportunity to discuss their life experiences from their own point of view. Because of this prevailing methodological orientation, the reader was often left with a strange impression of vacuity, of emptiness, with respect to the Uves and personalities of educable retardates. He was easily engulfed in stereotypes of bungling incompetents, of people without emotions worthy of the label "human," of curios to be looked at beyond the fences of state schools. When not institutionalized, the retardates seemed the calamity of their families, the pity of their neighborhoods, the scapegoats of their classmates. They were inaccessible accidents of nature, with little humanity of their own, few feelings, no joys; with a mountain of problems chaotically heaped upon them, and, especially, upon their weary families. In other words, a species apart. So at least is the impression unwittingly conveyed to the uninitiated, and I was not immune. Fortunately, several works had described retardates as bona fide members of the human fraternity and made a study of their existence within the context of society. I am especially indebted in this respect to Bernard Farber's Mental Retardation and to Robert Edgerton's Cloak of Compe-

PREFACE

Viii

tence.1 To the former because it synthesizes the pertinent literature on mental retardation within a societal framework: Farber thus retains the retardates within the fold of society. To the latter because it permits revelation of the subjects' full human dimension: Edgerton's subjects are presented as human beings and are given a chance to express themselves as such. The present project was initiated while I was a member of the Rehabilitation Research and Training Center in Mental Retardation at the University of Texas at Austin. Windel Dickerson was director of the Center and Andrew Halpern and Walter Berard were directors of research and of training. Andrew Halpern provided much-needed direction at the planning and field work stages. Without the encouragement of these colleagues, this research would have been impossible. Jasper Harvey was chairman of the Department of Special Education and took great interest in the study. I am also grateful for the support given us by Wayne Holtzman and Lorrin Kennamer, deans of the College of Education. I want to acknowledge the magnificent collaboration of the Texas Rehabilitation Commission, especially of James Jackson, assistant director for special programs, John A. Fenoglio, consultant for the severely disabled, and the San Antonio district office staff of the division of vocational rehabilitation of the TRC. I would like also to express my appreciation for the assistance of John Weimer, director of MR services, Austin and Travis County Mental Health-Mental Retardation Center, and Wyatt E. Hall and Charlene Crump, directors of halfway houses for the retardate in Austin. I am especially grateful for the collaboration of Ronald Birkelbach and Adrian Kirkpatrick, interviewers; of Homero Acevedo and Sally Miniel, interviewers and translators; of Karen Carsch, transcriber; of John Salas and Ann Marie Zamarripa, transcribers and translators; of Linda Birkelbach, coder; of Ross Hindman, tracer; of Nancy Henderson, editorial assistant; of Judy Moses, research assistant and transcriber; of Penny Ruhmann, administrative assistant; of Marynelle Bettcher, Kay Deutch, Jennifer Evans, Janet Kaczor, Kathy Martin, Charlotte Moser, and Maria Luisa Sandoval, clerical assistants. I am particularly grateful to colleagues who have commented on the first draft and have made invaluable suggestions. Special thanks therefore go to Clifford Drew, Andrew Halpern, Nina Mendina, Randolph Parker, James Payne, and Martha Williams. 1

Bernard Farber, Mental Retardation-, Robert B. Edgerton, The Cloak of Competence.

PREFACE

IX

This study was sponsored by Grant RT-12, Social and Rehabilitation Service, HEW. The interest and cooperation of Joseph Fenton, chief of the Research and Training Centers Division of the Social and Rehabilitation Service, is gratefully acknowledged. All royalties from this book will be contributed to various agencies for the retardate. Anne-Marie Henshel

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

INTRODUCTION

This study was designed to explore the "subjectivity" of a group of retardates, in contrast to research focusing on their objectification through other people's answers and educated opinions. It will present the individual's story in his own words, bringing the reader at first hand the actual day-to-day impact of being a retardate. For, after all, only the persons concerned can know how they feel: if they do not talk about this particular handicap of theirs, or if they are not aware of it, well, this is still how they feel. This is still reality, their reality. Accompanying this objective, admittedly value-laden in origin, was a practical purpose: to follow up a sample of retardates who had been serviced by, or had come to the attention of, various agencies—in particular, the Texas Rehabilitation Commission. If few studies focusing on the subjects' point of view existed, even fewer follow-ups had been carried out within this context. The research was thus designed to contribute to the humanization of the popularly stereotyped image of the retardate and, at the same time, to provide a certain feedback to the various agencies which had once serviced the subjects. Although analysis of the data focused upon four major areas—ethnicity, marital status, sex of the respondents, and marriage—most other aspects of their everyday lives were covered in detail. The research thus deals with such topics as family of origin, children, friends, neighbors, leisure activities, finances, material environment, employment, and health. The third distinctive feature of the research is its cross-ethnic emphasis. The study was conducted in Texas, where 15 percent of the population is Mexican American—in actual computation, over 1.4 million people. In addition, a large portion of the known retardate population in Austin and

Xll

INTRODUCTION

South Texas cities is Mexican American; hence, it is an anachronism that published research material concerning Chicano retardates is very sparse, especially in terms of the comparison of Anglo and Chicano retardates. A sampling of subjects from both ethnic groups is therefore included for comparative purposes. The composition of the sample studied will be described in detail in the first chapter. Suffice it to say that the IQ's range from 45 to 80. As will often be encountered later, certain diagnosed retardates were performing at a higher level than was indicated by the IQ's found in their records. Thus, a question could be raised: Why study people as retardates if it is believed that some of them are not and may have never been? The answer: It mattered very little whether or not the diagnosis was correct or was still applicable, for this was not to be a study of the relevance of the labels but primarily of people who had been labeled by others. Once an individual is categorized as retarded, his Ufe is channeled into certain areas: he is sent to special classes and is evaluated and advised by vocational counselors; he may work in a sheltered workshop and sojourn at a halfway house; he may be seen by social workers and may even be sterilized and institutionalized. The labeling has its own consequences whether the diagnosis is accurate or inaccurate. While most individuals in the study had been correctly categorized according to the norms of our society, too many had been inappropriately classified. Still, as far as this study was concerned, all these persons were equally interesting, for, once upon a time, they had had problems or had been in the midst of circumstances that had led to this diagnosis and to their being consequently serviced by rehabilitation agencies. What became of these individuals and, at the time of the study, what was their situation in respect to the variables examined in this research? This double question is explored from the respondents' reports, which are therein structured along certain sociological dimensions that we have perceived to be of especial relevance in their Uves.

THE FOR GOTTEN ONES A Sociological Study of Anglo and Chicano Retardates

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

CHAPTER

ONE

Design of the Study

Overview Because this study was designed to investigate the points of view of the subjects involved, it was especially important to formulate procedures flexible enough to mesh with individual idiosyncrasies. With this purpose in mind, semistructured and in-depth interviews patterned along the lines of informal dialogues and conducted in the subjects' homes were adopted as the basis of the research. In order to gain some perspective of the respondents' lives, a sequence of three visits was arranged during a ten-month period so that at least two months would elapse between meetings. The purpose was not exactly to study change: that would have required much more time. It was hoped that, through careful inquiry and observation, an understanding of the problems, failures, adjustments, and victories of the subjects might be attained. By observing boys meeting girls, couples getting married and having babies, a sudden turn to unemployment, the finding of a job, the move from one house to another, we could delineate a life style and then draw relevant conclusions. Although a standard set of questions was used during the sessions, the

4

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

order and phrasing were left to the discretion of the field workers, so that they could adjust to the particular situation at hand and each respondent's personality. The interviewers were to follow along with the individual's comments, probing when answers were vague or unusually significant. They were cautioned to avoid cutting a subject off in mid-conversation or suggesting answers by the phrasing of a query, and the subjects were allowed to make their responses as long and detailed as they wished. Yet, in spite of these considerations, the field workers had somehow to maneuver back to the standard questionnaire. Each visit was tape-recorded, to assure full reliability of reporting and to enable the interviewers, liberated from note taking, to converse in a more relaxed fashion and with greater concentration on more meaningful aspects of the interaction. Everything possible was done to make the subjects feel at ease. In order to minimize the strain and formality of the sessions, the ethnicity, language, and sex of the field workers were matched with those of the respondents. The underlying assumption was that the subjects, especially the Chícanos, would feel freer to confide in someone of their own sex and ethnic group.1 Also, in an attempt to eliminate socioeconomic barriers, the interviewers were requested to wear everyday clothes and simple hair styles. In the case of married subjects, two field workers, a male for the husband and a female for the wife, conducted the sessions simultaneously but separately, using much the same questions for both partners. Although a relative occasionally interrupted a conversation, only the subjects and their spouses were actually interviewed. Thus, all available data—except IQ's—were solicited from the respondents themselves or acquired through field workers' observations. We would have gleaned much more quantitative information had parents, neighbors, employers, and counselors been interviewed, but, while the benefits of such an approach can be fully appreciated, personal methodological and philosophical attitudes toward research led us to assume a more subjective stance. We wanted to avoid unnecessary dehumanization and stigmatization of the persons studied, and recourse to informants would probably have precluded attainment of this goal. If a more nearly human perspective has been achieved, even at the cost of less data, then our aims have been successfully realized. 1

For supportive data demonstrating that the ethnicity of the interviewer can substantially influence the respondents' answers, see Claire Selltiz et al., Research Methods in Social Relations, p. 584

5

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

Interviewing Procedures When contacting the subjects, the field workers told them how their names had been obtained, requested permission to discuss their jobs and their lives in general, and explained that their participation in this project would greatly aid other people then being serviced by the Texas Rehabilitation Commission and related agencies.2 Once the individuals had assented, they signed a paper stating, in very simple terms, that they understood what was asked of them, that all information divulged would be confidential, and that they would remain anonymous. (When respondents lived with parents, the parents' consent was also solicited.) The field workers attempted to begin the first interview immediately, but a few appointments were made in some cases when another date was more convenient for the subject. Second and third interviews were usually scheduled beforehand, since the individuals were by then acquainted with the field workers. When the person had agreed to be questioned, the interviewer set up the tape recorder, saying simply, "I hope you don't object to this. It will make talking to you easier." Two persons objected to the device, so their conversations were not recorded. The respondents were encouraged to converse on a first-name basis from the very beginning, which further contributed to a relaxed, egalitarian relationship. The field workers had to be quite flexible in adapting their vocabulary to each subject's level of understanding; simple sentences were called for in a majority of cases. Although the visits were structured informally, the interviewers tried to be alone with the subjects. As mentioned earlier, husbands and wives were usually questioned simultaneously in separate rooms. There were, however, some exceptions to this rule: at times, the two sessions were conducted separately because a field worker or a respondent was unable to be present at the proper time; or the two conversations occurred at extremities of the same room when the man and wife lived in a very small apartment or with relatives who were occupying the other rooms during the session. This situation did not seem to disturb the spouses, nor did they listen to each other's responses. A couple's very young children often stayed near their parents throughout an entire session. Although their noise created transcription difficulties, these youngsters usually did not interrupt the conversations. Other 2

Sampling and locating procedures will be detailed in a later section.

6

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

relatives, however, often broke into the proceedings, especially during the first encounter. Parents, generally mothers, would monopolize the interchanges, making it extremely difficult to reach the subjects. This situation was corrected at the second meeting, as the field workers returned prepared to avoid such occurrences. Thus, in certain instances, interviews were conducted on porches, in cars and restaurants, or at the office—all for the sake of privacy. As stated earlier, the subjects and interviewers were matched by ethnicity; an important feature of this plan was the lingual relationship. As one-third of the population was Mexican American, it was essential that Spanish be used to put the respondents at ease, to facilitate communication, and to aid in evaluating their level of functioning. However, Spanish was not forced on the Chicano subjects; at the beginning of the first meeting, they were always asked which language they preferred. A few persons proved to have very little knowledge of their mother tongue, and, in some cases, individuals alternated between the two languages, often within the same sentence. At the end of the initial session, the field workers wrote their names, addresses, and phone numbers on a card and left it with the respondents who were encouraged to contact us if they moved, needed assistance, or wanted to talk further. A few persons did, indeed, call; most asked for help, such as a ride to a job interview or to court. The second and third sessions were conducted in the same manner as the first. With the exception of a few individuals who had moved, we now had little trouble locating people; however, a greater number of subjects than had been anticipated were opposed to being reinterviewed. For instance, several individuals made appointments with the field workers which they repeatedly failed to keep. Also, 3 individuals had moved too far away to be reached after the first session, and, in three other cases, a relative prevented further encounters when it was obvious that the subject would have cooperated. As a result, 15 persons (out of 109-subjects and spouses) were not questioned at the time of the second session. When a respondent had rejected or avoided us on this occasion but had agreed to the final (or third) session, the second and third questionnaires were combined in an attempt to glean as much information from that respondent as had been obtained from others. Seven of the 15 persons not interviewed the second time also refused the third. Thus, counting the 3 who had moved after the first meeting, 10 of the 109 were interviewed only once, although further contacts were made with a spouse or close

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

7

relatives in 4 of these cases. In addition, 4 others who had cooperated up to that point refused the third session. Thus, 90 of the 109 respondents (subjects and spouses) accepted on all three occasions. It is our impression that the subjects were much more average in their attitudes toward the interviewing situation than was Edgerton's sample, for instance.3 His subjects appeared to need companionship and conversation much more desperately than ours, who had more alternatives open to them, hence had less need for the interviewers. They knew how to avoid a question when they expected it to be unpleasant; if they did not see any reason to get involved in the later sessions, they simply did not cooperate, and nothing could be done to change their attitudes. They were not afraid to turn us down if they wanted to be left alone. By such actions, they revealed themselves to be relatively independent. It is highly possible that their history of noninstitutionalization had allowed them to develop greater personal freedom than had those in Edgerton's study, who had all been at the Pacific State Hospital for extended periods of time. The Questionnaires As a rule, the least threatening areas of study were explored during the first interview in order to create a relaxed atmosphere; those queries which could inhibit our relationship were included in the final session, when the individuals were then familiar, hence comfortable, with us. Therefore, discussion of employment always constituted the first part of each interview;4 type of position, job situation, training, attitude toward occupation, difficulties, relationship with employers and co-workers, capacity to retain a position, unemployment, and initiative in job hunting were explored. Several of these subtopics were pursued throughout all interviews, while some were covered only once. Marital life was the second area investigated intensively or, more accurately, as far as was feasible. In general, the subjects were very open: in over half of the cases, individuals volunteered information that had not been sought. For instance, we wanted to discuss contraception but decided not to mention sterilization, because of the painful implications of that topic for retardates;5 however, many respondents offered such informa3 On pages 16 and 17 of Robert B. Edgerton's The Cloak of Competence, Edgerton himself marvels at "the ease, with which contacts were made and maintained" with his located sample. 4 See the Appendix for the questionnaires. s Edgerton, The Cloak of Competence, pp. 155, 156.

8

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

tion at the time of the first session. Possibly they felt they were obliged to tell us, and, if this was the case, these facts were not truly "volunteered." The subtopics of marital life were acquaintance and engagement history, daily relationship, companionship, happiness, characteristics liked and disliked in spouse, ideal type of spouse, decision-making, and progeny. As much information as possible was obtained concerning the children, chiefly from the parents' point of view and via the interviewers' evaluation. The children were discussed within the context of their relationship with the respondents: the problems they caused, the subjects' attitude toward them, and the subjects' child-rearing practices. It will be noted that sex (attitudes toward, frequency of coitus, positions used), a matter of great emphasis in current psychological and sociological literature, was not discussed. While such information would certainly have been intriguing, it was not necessary in order to realize the goals of this study. The decision to eliminate this issue was influenced by other considerations. First, the respondents were told that we wanted to know about their work and their general situation, and legitimizing questions about sex would thus have been difficult, especially since several of our other inquiries—such as those covering the gamut of marital involvement—were also tenuously justifiable. Second, sex is a perilous topic, needless to say, and the individuals might have felt that we were prying unnecessarily into their lives had this sanctum been entered. Third, some might have mentioned to others, such as parents and counselors, that we were asking them "indecent" questions, and the resultant uproar can be easily imagined, as outsiders might have felt that we were exploiting these persons because of their vulnerability. All such reactions are understandable, and we therefore shied away from The Topic. Family of origin constituted a third major area of emphasis, whether the respondents were single or married. For instance, we tried to assess the socioeconomic status of the mother and father in order to examine any differentials operative in the individuals' lives as a result of their parents' position. Special attention was also paid to those parents with whom the respondents lived, because their continuous presence allowed them to influence the subjects' existence constantly. We were particularly interested in evaluating the degree of parental dependency exhibited by the sample. A fourth area was leisure: how did the individuals spend their time away from work? This issue was just briefly touched upon in the first and third questionnaires, but an entire section was devoted to it in the second questionnaire. Hobbies, television, movies, and other evening and weekend activities were explored. Thus, the subjects' style of living, hence their

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

9

culture, began to take shape; in evaluating the information garnered, considerable attention was paid to cross-ethnic comparisons. The second interview also investigated interaction with friends and neighbors. We attempted to discern the degree of isolation of the respondents, the type of companions they chose, and the functions, other than purely social and affective, which these people served. The interviewers were instructed to assess the neighborhood, dwelling, and furnishings of the subjects along preset dimensions. The individuals' appearance was also covered; we were especially interested in the evaluation of the respondents' "passability," an indicator of how well they could blend in with the general population and benefit from certain opportunities, especially in the areas of employment and social relationship. Items pertaining to self-perception, along with various indicators of civic adjustment, such as involvement with the police and voting, were scattered throughout all questionnaires. After reading the transcripts of the first interviews, we devised a "personal schedule" for each respondent, to supplement the standard questionnaires, so that field workers could, in later meetings, probe items of individual significance. Questions were thus formulated to suit the particular problems of each person when such items were not already included in the forms. Questions that had been omitted or inadequately answered were also added. The same procedure was followed after the second session with the third and final session in mind. The Interviewers From the beginning, four interviewers took part in the research. Two Anglo field workers were hired at the very beginning of the study. They were in the twenty-three to twenty-five-year-old age bracket, had had some recent interviewing experience, and were graduate students in sociology. Selection of two Mexican American counterparts, especially the male, proved to be an infinitely more difficult task. The female we hired was a twenty-three-year-old senior in biology, chosen solely on the basis of her personality; there was nothing in her background that could have prepared her for the position. A few weeks later, a middle-aged Mexican American gentleman, well versed in the area of mental retardation, was recommended to us. Unfortunately, he had to leave Texas before the third sessions were begun, so the Mexican American female took over the interviewing of his respondents; she was already familiar with these people because she had aided her partner in locating them and had previously met with the wives of the

10

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

married Chícanos. The interviews she conducted were so fruitful that, had sufficient funds been available to carry on additional sessions, we would have purposely matched a female researcher with a male subject and vice versa. The training of this staff consisted of a thorough explanation and discussion of various aspects of the study, along with office rehearsals and trial interviews at a halfway house. The researchers became proficient primarily through field experience and constant feedback, which we were able to provide. During the preparatory period, great emphasis was placed on suitable physical appearance and demeanor, especially for the initial contact with respondents. Data Processing The recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim: no grammatical or syntactical corrections were made; pauses were indicated by explanations enclosed in parentheses. Chicano conversations were translated by two Chicano students and the English version was then checked by the field workers. As a rule, deficient Spanish was converted into deficient English. Upon completion, each transcription was proofread by the person who had originally conducted the interview, as the tape was replayed, so that errors and omissions might be corrected. During this process, the interviewers would often add descriptions of accompanying gestures and facial expressions to the transcripts, which were then typed and coded. Open-ended answers were usually coded either along a five-dimensional scale with global categories or with specific categories. As an example of the former procedure, let us use the question, What opinion do you have of yourself? Answers were rated as follows: entirely negative, mainly negative but with positive elements, half and half, mainly positive but with negative elements, and entirely positive. The same question can serve as an illustration of the latter type of categories used in the coding. For instance, we wanted to know by what criteria the individuals evaluated themselves. Such specific categories as physical characteristics, personality traits, abilities, behavior, and a combination of two or more were thus derived. Twenty percent of the transcripts were, later recoded by another person for intercoder reliability. When more than two intercoder discrepancies existed for an item, we would reexamine it for all interviews and try to arrive at an agreement. Twenty percent of all coding was thus reexamined.

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

11

If no consensus could be reached (5% of the cases), or, if insufficient information was available (10% of the cases), the item was rejected; thus, only those data of near-perfect intercoder reliability were retained. The data were analyzed by means of percentages. No tests of significance were used, as this study was descriptive in nature and hypotheses were not being tested. In addition to statistical material, extensive use was made of the qualitative data in the analysis; once all interviews were completed with an individual, a full case study was written. (See chapters 2 and 3.) Nearly all the data presented in the study have been compiled directly from the subjects' answers. We were aware from the outset of the research that such reports would not be at all times reliable. But we wanted to study the individuals' points of view, so their distortions, when and if they occurred, were considered to be part of their own perspective. At no time did we attempt to check the accuracy of these reports against other sources so as to avoid having recourse to informants. On the other hand, accuracy was very much present in the drafting of the questionnaires and, especially, during the coding. First, questions that would have been answered only with difficulty and with a wide possibility of error were discarded. Second, when the coders found contradictory answers in a protocol, the specific items were rejected, either for one particular individual or, if such unreliability was observed for five individuals, for the entire sample. The Sample The Texas Rehabilitation Commission seemed to offer the best source of subjects for this study, with its numerous clientele and a program already some years old. Once permission was granted to use its files, we began by eliminating all blacks,6 all persons with IQ's outside the 45-80 range,7 all those under nineteen or over forty-five years of age, and all former residents of state schools.8 Thus, 174 names of individuals 6 As more literature exists on black retardates than on Chícanos, and as budgetary considerations imposed restrictions, the former were not included. 7 In many cases, no IQ could be found and only the mental-retardation label could be used as a criterion. 8 Four subjects had been at state schools for a period of time; unfortunately, thenfiles gave no indication of this, so the fact did not surface during the initial screening. However, they were retained, since two had only very casual contacts with the institution, and had already been interviewed once.

12

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

whose last-known addresses had been in Austin and vicinity were selected from the files.9 The cases were then distributed along ethnicity, marital status, sex, and age cross categories and random numbers were drawn within each category. The sample interviewed ultimately consisted of 109 individuals: 79 subjects and 30 spouses. The distribution of those 79 subjects shown in Table 1 only approached the ideal nonproportional stratified randomsample goal formulated earlier; nevertheless, it is a reasonably good approximation, considering the difficulties encountered in locating the respondents. In the original design, the Anglo columns were to have three persons per cell, the Mexican American columns, only one. As it was impossible to obtain persons of certain age-ethnicity-marital status combinations, in order to increase the overall sample, more subjects were added-up to six-to those cells for which individuals were available. The youngest group was the easiest to locate and thus the most numerous: these people had had less time to move since their closure with rehabilitation agencies and, most significantly, they were more numerous because the services had expanded relatively recently. Four months after the sampling had been initiated, only a few of the individuals could be located, but the interviewers had exhausted every possible candidate in all but four cells. (In addition, several persons refused to participate in the study.) Other sources were therefore explored. The collaboration of the Austin Independent School System had been sought earlier, but, unfortunately, their authorization arrived several months after our request. Five referrals from two halfway houses were then included in the sample, as well as two from the Mental Health-Mental Retardation Counseling Service in Austin. By that time, the study was moving along well with respect to singles, with the exception of Anglo females, but it was dangerously deficient in all married categories. Finally, names beginning with A through D were extracted from the files of the San Antonio branch of the Texas Rehabilitation Commission to complete the quota. Again, this proved helpful in acquiring singles, but records all the way through Ζ had to be examined, in the hope that several clients would be married. As a result, the number of married persons grew but still remained meager on the Anglo side; so, in order to bolster the overall sample, additional married Mexican Americans were included. After that stage we had to resign ourselves to abandoning the search for married 9

Our office, the Rehabilitation Research and Training Center in Mental Retardation, was located in Austin.

13

DESIGN OF THE STUDY TABLE 1 Distribution of Subjects by Ethnicity, Marital Status, Sex, and Age Chícanos

Anglos Age

Married

19-24 25-29 30-34 35-plus

M 3 2 1 2

F 5 3 1 0

Totals (79)

8

9

Single

Married

Single

M F 5* 11** 5 6 4 0 2 2*

M 1 5 0 0

F 3 2 0 2

M 4 0 1 1

F 5* 2 0 1*

6

7

6

8

16

19

*Indicates a divorced subject in the subgroup. The 19-24 age bracket is actually a regrouping of two categories.

couples and those singles still missing from the quota, as time was fast slipping away; instead, we moved on to the second interviews with those subjects already questioned. To further complicate matters in terms of sampling, the marital status of two Mexican American females was extremely difficult to assess: they were not married, and each was living with a man and had a child. The unions looked highly unstable and had been consummated only recently; legally, in one instance, it could not even be classified as a common-law marriage. These women could be considered either single or wed, depending on one's definition of marriage and family. Dispensing with the official or legalistic definition of marital status, the operative aspects of the situation became the main criteria. It was thus decided that any woman sharing living quarters with a man would be placed in the married category. To complete this overview of the sample, the IQ distribution is shown in Table 2, with a mean of 67. A young woman who had scored 40, therefore below the assigned limit, was deliberately retained for purposes of comparison because of her greater limitations. Only fifty-four IQ's were obtained, as the TRC files did not usually contain this information on individuals whose cases had been closed more than six years ago.1 ° However, it was soon apparent that quite a few scores were also missing for cases closed relatively recently. 10

The fifty-four IQ's were not necessarily recent. Some were several years old.

14

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

Locating the Subjects Without a doubt, locating the respondents was the biggest problem. Difficulties in this area had been anticipated, but the ordeal itself was beyond our wildest speculation. The obstacles that arose will be explained at some length not only to clarify the sampling procedure but also because there are few studies available that detail fully the problems encountered.11 Most authors mention the complexity of the process and briefly enumerate some pitfalls. But the human magnitude of the experience is lost: no one delineates the exasperation of researchers, the frustration of interviewers, and, finally, the stumbling blocks encountered even by professional tracers. The following, in order of importance, are some obstacles we met while trying to locate the sample: (1) although a person's last-known address was in the files, subsequent addresses could not be found; (2) no accurate address or whereabouts could ever be obtained; (3) the individual was known to have moved from the city; (4) the respondent in question was deceased, hospitalized, or known to be institutionalized. Items 1 and 2 were products of inaccurate records, lack of cooperation from neighbors and others, no knowledge of the married name of a woman, an address which was once part of slums that had been torn down (the residents had been relocated), and the impossibility of distinguishing between two or more persons with the same name. Other major obstacles were the great mobility of some subjects or of their families and neighbors and the relative absence of lasting social ties of any kind. In short, these people moved, leaving behind few acquaintances, if any, who knew their whereabouts; also, the types of jobs they held did not require records of their subsequent addresses. Even the counselors who had serviced them had moved, hence were not available to offer assistance. The only information gleaned from the Texas Rehabilitation Commission files other than vital statistics was a last-known address and the addresses of parents and two people who could be contacted in case of emergency; for an individual whose case had just been closed, the employer's address was at times useful. The field workers were then responsible for locating their respondents with the above information; in addition, they had recourse to the phone book, a crisscross directory, utility company files, court records of marriages, and registered mail. They 11 Vivid descriptions of such problems can be found in Harold M. Skeels, "Adult Status of Children with Contrasting Early Life Experiences," Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, vol. 31, no. 105 (1966).

15

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

TABLE 2 Distribution of IQ's IQ

Ν

%

40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-plus

1 2 4 5 15 5 8 14

2 4 7 9 28 9 15 26

Totals

54

100

concentrated first on the younger subjects: in a forty-hour week an interviewer had found and visited as many as four people, but, actually, this was a record. At times some field workers spent up to two weeks without one successful contact. When the given address was not current, they would exhaust anywhere from two to twenty hours attempting to track down one person, much of that time being wasted driving from one place to the next or from neighbor to relative to subject. For instance, the ultimate discovery of one respondent in Austin (population 250,000) consumed eighty car miles. Imagine the vexation of a harried interviewer, forced to drive up and down country roads, often at night, at times in the rain, trying to find a nonexistent house number. Some houses had been destroyed or relocated; in other instances, not only was the number erroneous but the street itself had never existed. (This was always verified with the tax office as well as with the highway department.) Sometimes, frustrated interviewers would feel that they were close to the goal, but former neighbors would simply refuse to divulge any information. While this protective reaction was easy to understand, it was not easily overcome. More than one field worker was sent to the wrong address by informants; interviewers had to be very careful and ingenious when explaining why they wanted to locate an individual. The physical setting of the neighborhoods often considerably complicated their task: they were used to middle-class surroundings with clearly defined streets, addresses, and houses. The interviewers might not realize for a while that in certain parts of the city some "unofficial" streets existed, that people lived in what might have been a shed in the back yard, and that neighbors were at times unaware of the existence of a dwelling

16

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

way down a country road. Here are some of the interviewers' experiences from their reports. Respondent A no longer lived at the address given in the Texas Rehabilitation Commission files. The neighbors either could not recall A's family or had not resided on the block long enough to have met these people. Thus, they were of no help. There was another lead, however: A's sister's name appeared on the file. Unfortunately, she was no longer at the address given, and, once more, the neighbors could offer no assistance. She was not in the telephone book. I then went to a utility company's files and found the sister's present address. I went to the sister's residence, and, after inquiring as to my purpose, she gave me A's current address. Respondent Β no longer lived in the housing project given as his address in the Texas Rehabilitation Commission files. The next-door neighbors had moved in too recently to be any help. About this time, however, the new telephone directory was issued, and I discovered his name in it: his name had not appeared in the old one. Respondent C was not living at the registered address. The neighbors were suspicious and refused to cooperate. I tried going to her grandparents' address, which appeared in the files, but they also had moved. I talked to the neighbors: the woman living to the right of the grandparents' former home suggested that I contact another neighbor, who had been in the neighborhood for a long time. I went to that address but nobody was home. I returned to the first neighbor's home, to ask her if she knew the other's name. At that point, she asked for more information as to my purpose and requested to see my identification letter. Then she gave me the name of the woman in question and I found her telephone number in the book. I called her every other hour and finally reached her the next day. When she picked up the receiver I said, "Sorry, I have the wrong number," and I hung up. I then hurried to her house so that I could explain the situation face to face. Yes, she remembered the "old lady" (the grandmother) and she thought that the respondent was married. She told me approximately how long ago the subject had married and I moved on to the court records; after four hours, I found someone of the same name and age—fortunately, the bridegroom's name was unusual. I looked for the name in the telephone book, but I could only find a Marc X instead of a Paul X. I called the number, anyway, and the lady who answered told

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

17

me that the respondent was her daughter-in-law and immediately gave me her address. Prospective respondent Y did not reside at the indicated address nor was there any name like hers in the phone book. In fact, no such address existed. I drove up the street, which was a long country road; the numbers seemed randomly distributed. As I was getting nowhere, I went to a telephone booth and called the post office and the highway department; I was informed that the address was part of a series of numbers that had been changed. So, the next day, I returned to look for the suggested address, located farther back on the same road. I could not find it, even though I came upon the others of the same series. I got out of my car and walked for a while. Then I asked a little boy if he knew the Y's: no. But he told me where the address was: it was a small house set far back in a garden, behind another residence. It was abandoned: I learned that later, while talking to an old man who lived in the home in front. Yes, he Said, Y had lived there, but had moved to another section of town. He knew the prospective respondent's father and told me of an intersection, near which I might find him. As I could not locate the streets on my map, I again called the highway department and they told me where they were. Actually, they were unpaved roads. When I reached the indicated intersection, I stopped at the first residence and talked to a lady who was playing with her children. She pointed to a nearby house. Nobody was there. As it was time for me to interview someone else, I left, but I returned the following day. The woman residing there informed me that her daughter, whom I was trying to locate, had married and moved to Colorado two years before. The girl's husband was a sanitation worker, and she told me that the young couple had a baby. So I began searching for the next respondent. After four months of these and additional frustrations, only half of the projected sample had been found and interviewed, even though we had, of course, expected to be finished by that time. At this point, the move to San Antonio was initiated. The services of a graduate student of sociology who had, in the past, done professional tracing were also secured. Most of the married quota was still lacking, so a facet of the tracer's task was to determine who was wed. His degree of accuracy in finding subjects was approximately 65 percent and would have been greater had he had more time and been able to go to other cities to which he believed some individuals had moved.

18

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

Police or welfare files were never utilized; by the time we realized that assistance from these agencies should have been requested, it was too late to go through the long process of obtaining their authorization. It is reasonable to assume that, with more time, greater mobility, and access to the above-mentioned files, at least 95 percent of the original sample would have been located. Representativeness of Sample To what extent were the subjects interviewed representative of the original population? We wondered whether those persons whom we could not locate exhibit specific characteristics of their own. It could be hypothesized, for instance, that the respondents who were easily located led more normal lives and therefore were probably more stable. But the reverse could also be assumed; that is, those whom we were unable to trace had been most successful and had therefore blended in with the general population. Although the question cannot be settled entirely, comparative data on a few variables, such as IQ (when available), status at closure (immediate success with the rehabilitation program), and date of closure, will be presented. Though we often express the belief that even, given a subject's IQ one could not always accurately predict his actual behaviour, there is no a priori reason to reject the applicability of this conviction to those individuals not contacted. In other words, IQ's have the same meaning for both groups. Thus, it is interesting to note that the respondents' average score was 67 and that of remaining subjects with records in the TRC files was 65—these were obviously almost identical. Even more striking were the scoring similarities between the two groups in terms of ethnicity and sex. While a mean of 61 was obtained for Anglo subjects versus 62 for Chícanos, the two ethnic groups within those not located were assessed averages of 68 and 63. Along the same lines, a mean of 66 was obtained for male respondents versus 65 for women, and those not located, when separated by sex, averaged 66 versus 62. Thus, the overall averages and those of the main subcategories were similar. In terms of age, the mean for the respondents was 26.6, whereas it was much lower for the remaining subjects with records on file: 21.8. However, this was not a result of an error in sampling, for the sample was deliberately structured to include both young and old subjects. In view of the discovery that the original cohort was so young, it is not surprising that we were largely unsuccessful at locating older TRC retardates: there were simply too few to fill the quota.

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

19

With respect to their status at the Texas Rehabilitation Commission, the subjects' records exhibited the following peaks: out of thirty-five on whom such information was obtained, seventeen records were marked "closed rehabilitated," and five had not gone beyond the referral point. 12 For those not located, on the basis of ninety-one records, thirty-seven individuals were rehabilitated and twenty-seven had not gone beyond referral. Thus, there was one basic difference: fewer respondents-14 percent versus 29 percent—had not gone past the referral point also called by the Commission the "0" status. In other words, many retardates who were not located had had even briefer contacts with Rehabilitation than the subjects, or no formal contacts at all. This was especially evident among females not traced, who, although less numerous, accounted for half of these "zero" cases. However, the proportion of cases closed after rehabilitation was similar in both groups.13 This latter comparison indicating similarities is more reliable than the former "zero" status comparison; the reasons for a client's never going beyond the referral point are potentially very diverse, whereas "rehabilitated" is a relatively more accurately defined entity. In terms of years since closure, there was a difference between the respondents and the others, but this disparity was small when one takes into consideration the fact that we purposely tried to obtain older subjects—people whose cases would normally have been terminated long ago. The average number of years since closure for the respondents' cases was six, opposed to four for the other cases on record. Thus, although there were some differences between the sample and the other cases in the files—as a result of our trying to obtain a wide age spectrum, and, consequently, a wide range in number of years since closure—the subjects' records were identical to the others with respect to recorded IQ's. One difference, however, was noted: the individuals not located contained a higher proportion of people who had had only minimal contacts with the Texas Rehabilitation Commission. One of the reasons fewer appeared in the research may have been that, since their 12

The "closed rehabilitated" category indicates that a person has successfully gone through the stages the counselor planned for him. It usually implies that the individual has found a job and is doing well at it. With respect to those who did not go beyond the referral point, this usually means that the subject or his parents has refused services, and that, therefore, the case has been closed. 13 Forty-one percent in the original records and 48 percent of our sample. (In both cases, the percentages are based on those individuals on whom such information was available.)

20

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

cases could not receive adequate attention, their files did not contain the information which would have aided us in locating them. It may also be that some of these people had moved and thus could not benefit from rehabilitation services—nor could we find them. Or, it can be speculated that the counselors failed in their attempts to relate to some clients who moved around too much to be serviced properly. This was the one possibly important difference ("possibly" because we are not entirely convinced of its importance) between the two groups: even within the context of status at closure, all the other indicators followed the same pattern for the two groups. Thus, we felt that, in terms of available information, the respondents were quite representative of the retardates whose records were originally found in the Texas Rehabilitation Commission files.

CHAPTER

TWO

Selected Cases: Unmarried Individuals

Full-length studies of six respondents are presented here as a supplement to the statistical analysis so the reader can become acquainted with the human beings themselves.1 We have tried to select those cases representative of certain types of individuals encountered in the study, rather than those on which we were able to gather the most information—and that we considered our "best." Each person in this chapter has at least one counterpart in the sample who closely resembles him or her. Clark Spangler, Elisa Ojeda, and Joe Olivarez are well-functioning human beings who lead normal lives and exhibit considerable potential for the future. Helen Walker also shows considerable promise but is presently going through the arduous process of rehabilitation and late maturation with all the inevitable problems. Ron Horton is one of the most dependent males in the study, unemployed and in his parents' charge. Finally, there is Penny Russell, who leads a very limited and dependent life, is a perpetual sheltered-workshop employee, and, at times, has some difficulty differentiating between daydreams and objective reality. 1

All the names are pseudonyms.

22

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

CLARK SPANGLER One of the most independent and self-sufficient subjects, twenty-nine-year-old Clark (IQ: 69) has a regular job and lives alone in an apartment.2 Nothing in his appearance could indicate that he had once been diagnosed as a retardate. He is of average build, neat, and trimly dressed; his brown hair is well cut and his facial expression amiable, though somehow unattractive. Possessing an excellent vocabulary, he explored with us many relatively esoteric topics that would be completely foreign to most individuals in the study. Maintaining a steady dialogue with the interviewer, Clark conversed and responded as an active rather than a passive subject. He was stimulated by the verbal exchange, demonstrating logical precision in his desire to clarify all questions. Before answering, he always sought to pinpoint our exact meaning: "Well, all right, uh, what do you mean, how I felt?" Later, when the field worker asked, "What did you like best in school?" Clark replied, "You mean, what subject?" This sort of exactitude was rarely exhibited by the study group. Further, Clark was cooperative beyond the call of duty in his concern that his answers be satisfactory and helpful; he usually attempted to find out whether he had given the right sort of information: " . . . if that's what you're getting at." He bid good-bye by saying, "Hope I've helped you, answering; I don't know whether I answered the questions like -like you wanted them to." Observant and inquisitive, he was one of the few subjects who investigated and commented on the research methods: "You ask just about the same stuff, you asked me just about the same questions, didn't you?" We then explained the design of the interview schedules, especially the repetition, and the explanations pleased him. When we met Clark, he was comfortably established in a small efficiency apartment—one large room in an old home that had been converted into a rooming house. Although ancient and without air conditioning, the place was not dilapidated. His large hoard of possessions was surprisingly orderly. His "collection" included a television, a monstrous FM radio, several clocks, a phonograph, records, magazines, travel books, and maps. Clark had lived there for four years: the first three in a downstairs apartment with a friend; the fourth, in the upstairs efficiency, his lodgings when we interviewed him. Clark makes a point of knowing the other tenants, both working people and students, but this is sometimes difficult: "I don't 2

The IQ's herein presented were often several years old.

CASES: UNMARRIED INDIVIDUALS

23

know half of them any more. By the time you get to know them, they're gone. Like university students, you know, get a lot of those here. They stay through a semester, then leave, go somewhere else." In the midst of his independence, Clark is a little lonely and wishes he had a family " 'cause, living alone, I just don't take care of myself like I ought to. This living alone, it's, you know, it's just not, I need to be closer to your family, I think." And so he is seriously considering a move to California so that he can be near his thirty-five-year-old sister, the only relative he has besides two aunts living in different cities, whom he sees only a few times a year. One of these aunts is his legal guardian. She adopted fourteen-year-old Clark when his mother died. We know nothing of his deceased father except that he was a railroad clerk. Clark lived in San Antonio with this aunt until he completed the ninth grade in school. It is not clear whether or not he was in Special Education, but Clark himself admitted that he had performed poorly, appearing cognizant of and realistic about his deficiencies: "It was hard, arithmetic would be a hard one [subject]. I couldn't figure very long. I just went as far as I could go. I wasn't capable of, you know, going any further, learning any more." At the close of the ninth grade, Clark moved into a halfway house, then, later, transferred to another. We ruefully admit that he was not questioned further on this topic. However, he described these houses as places where "they train boys and then the ones that can get out and work, well, then they go out on their own." He was one of the few single males interviewed who remembered one of his house counselors as a person to whom he could turn for aid: "He's helped me a lot." But Clark had negative memories of the Rehabilitation Commission personnel. In 1968, "I was out of a job for about four months." The counselors at "Rehabilitation didn't help me out too good then. They promised me things that didn't come true. I mean—I mean—but I mean, I don't hold that against them. 'Cause probably they didn't have nothing at the time." He suspects that some forms which he was required to complete were never even turned in by the agencies responsible. Clark's employment has been somewhat erratic during the past eight years. Of five positions, two lasted only one or two weeks; he stayed at one job for four years, another for three; his present vocation has endured for a year and a half. The halfway house helped him obtain his first position at a furniture company. "I liked it pretty well there, but there was a lot of Spanish people there, and, I don't know, they must have disliked me

24

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

or something 'cause they were always doing something to me." A work injury forced him to quit. He then became a dishwasher at a motel; this lasted one week. His next job, as a busboy at a cafeteria, enjoyed a longer run-three years. For some reason Clark left this place for another cafeteria. Two weeks later he was once again unemployed. "I was too slow, couldn't make it, wasn't fast enough. I guess you could call it laid off, I guess." He obtained his present job as a dishwasher at a retirement home through his long-time acquaintance with the owner, who also owned the halfway house Clark had lived in. He enjoys the work and the people: " . . . they're all real nice and I get along with them." Two minor difficulties: transportation and a hot-tempered supervisor. The first problem was partially resolved when a woman who works with Clark began giving him rides in the morning. However, "I used to take a cab home every night and that was costly." Later that co-worker started taking him home, except on her days off-then Clark would ride the bus. As far as the unpredictable supervisor was concerned, Clark handled the problem coolly. "She's very peculiar to get along with, you know, and every once in a while, I almost had a fight with her, but I cleared it up before that. I mean, she gets mad at the person and then, you know, she'll take it out on everybody and I don't think that's right. Well, she's just that way. I mean, I get along with her the best way I can, you know. I just ignore her, some of the things she does. That's the best way to do it." While he does not despise his work, Clark is not content to remain a dishwasher: "I don't feel like I ought to stay with washing dishes the rest of my life. I don't think there's any future in washing dishes. I mean, there's no advancement. Just washing dishes day after day, and it gets awful tiring." His guardian aunt is more conservative: she thinks he should stay where he is. But Clark, while not unhappy, would value any opportunity to train for a better job. "I am, I am experienced at that, you know, I've done that a lot. So I don't know what else I could get into, unless I could be trained to do it." Fairly competent in managing his own affairs, Clark maintains a savings account but admits that he has a tendency to "spend more money than what I have. [Laughs] And kind of get sort of low, you know, with money and then I have to build myself back up." Clark's guardian disapproves of his spending habits and thinks him too impulsive; while he agrees that he sometimes buys on the spur of the moment, he apparently feels that his aunt's evaluation of this problem is exaggerated. (An example of his im-

CASES: UNMARRIED INDIVIDUALS

25

practicality is the oversized clock radio he bought to perform the functions already fulfilled by his various clocks and radios.) Overall, Clark appears to be financially secure and has never even had to borrow money: "I don't do that. If I don't have it, I just do without." If he were to meet with monetary difficulties, his aunt and sister would help him out. In addition, he has a benefactress whom he met long ago while job hunting. This lady, in her late forties, keeps an eye on Clark, inviting him to dinner, or asking his help with such chores as shopping or taking her dog to the veterinarian. Clark says he visits her at least once a month. "She's been married once, she says she'll never get married again. She is, you know, just a friend, that's all." One minor obstacle in Clark's otherwise competently ordered life is his inability to drive a car. Once, he tried to take the driver's test and failed. But he realizes that cars can be a liability as well as an asset: "Sort of too expensive. Keep up the car and everything. And the way that people drive, I don't know if I could stand it. I'm liable to run into them. Terrible, oh, it's worse out in California. You know, the way they drive out there. They ain't got no sense. They're bumper to bumper on those freeways." Later, forgetting Clark's nondriver status, the interviewer asked if he had ever received a traffic ticket. "No, how could I get any traffic-violation ticket? I never drove a car in my life!" Nor has he ever dated. But lack of experience has never given rise to feelings of inferiority or worries. He describes his situation simply: "I wouldn't know how to act, I guess." He can claim some acquaintances and has several good friends, usually residents of the apartments where he lives. We mentioned that his long-time buddy from the halfway house had shared an apartment with him for three years and now lives downstairs. Clark has considered rooming with this friend again because the two miss each other: "We've been sort of under the same pattern all along. I knew him at Rehabilitation. He needed somebody to talk to. Well, he has trouble spelling, you know. He can't read too good, except somebody like you can talk to him, might be some good; the way I feel about it, you know." At present, Clark often sees both this companion and another close friend who has a car. He and the latter spent a weekend at nearby San Marcos visiting the Wonder Cave. Clark was quite unenthusiastic about that particular scenic spot: "It's not too much, I've been to some better ones than that, just a cave, there was an earthquake, left a cave with a rock formation. Oh, it was all right." But because the interviewer was curious about the caves, he obligingly offered some details. One item of unusual

26

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

excitement was the escape of the crocodiles from the park's floating gardens, following a flood. Clark had seen them reestablished in their pen: "They're nine feet long, big ol' things. Golly! If they're out running around, that would be something to open your back door and find one of those staring at your face. Boy, I tell you!" Apparently feeling a slight lack of companionship and activity in his life, Clark has considered joining a club: "I might meet some new friends, might have a little bit more fun." We asked him if he belonged to a church. "Well, speaking of church, I haven't. I'm a Catholic, but I haven't been to church in quite a while. I've kind of just fallen away and it's bad to do that. I mean, I used to go every Sunday, but, see, this job I have on weekends, well, I can't really go every Sunday. So that kind of messed me up there. I feel like I am, you know, when I do have a weekend, I ought to start going back." When Clark is not visiting friends several times a week, traveling sporadically with them, occasionally accompanying them to movies, he spends his free time alone. His records, television, travel books, and maps keep him occupied. He has an unusually open-minded attitude toward television shows: "They're all good." And his maps are a chief source of delight, although we could not ascertain how well he understood them. "I have more maps, I guess, than anybody. I don't travel that much but if ever I would, I got the stuff to, I wouldn't get lost!" At the time of the last two interviews Clark was making plans to visit his sister in California. She is a secretary, her husband is an engineer. Clark last saw her when he flew out West eight years ago, and both he and she seemed to be happily anticipating this coming reunion. Since he will fly, Clark was energetically budgeting himself so that he would have about two hundred dollars "just for the trip. And then you want some extra spending money when you get there. And it sure goes fast." Beyond the mere delights of a vacation, his visit has a serious purpose: he might move to California and get a job in order to be nearer to these, his only close relatives. Clark's sister had responded to this suggestion by saying that "they would talk about it when I came out." He was realistic: "I might not be able to get a job, but you don't know until you try. That's the way it goes." The prospect of the trip really thrilled him. California and Texas are the only states he has ever explored and, as revealed earlier, traveling is one of his favorite pastimes. Discussing his last visit, he exclaimed, "Oh, words can't describe it. Just go out there and see it. Oh, it's another world."

CASES: UNMARRIED INDIVIDUALS

27

What did he like best about it? "Oh, everything. The mountains, the scenery, just everything. Got some real nice restaurants out there. I went to several places out there. I had two weeks off, you can't see everything in two weeks. You've got to be there about three or four months. Probably still wouldn't see it all then." If he had the money, he would "tour the world. Oh, it would be wonderful!" Clearly, through books, maps, and his own unique imagination, he has opened realms not frequently conceived of by other subjects. Ensconced in a stable and quite independent life style, Clark seems well situated and fairly content. He assesses himself objectively and positively: "Well, I get along with everybody. I make friends. I'm pretty good, I mean, you know. We all have our ways. We have our good ways and bad ways." He does become annoyed by his aunt's constant fear that he will make a poor decision; he has even kept the idea of moving to California from her because he is sure she would fret and worry. She was, at the time of the interviews, nagging him because she thought he was planning to move in with people who "would lead me wrong. But I know that, I ain't going to move in, you know, with the wrong people. I know that." As further testimony to Clark's good sense and easygoing but determined nature, we offer this quote: "I'll listen to an older person, you know, they know better than I do, but I can make my own decisions. I know what's right and what's wrong. Well, they don't see quite like I do, but if I make up my mind to do something I'm going to do it." ELISA

OJEDA

"It's always good to talk to somebody, you know." This was twenty-six-year-old Elisa's attitude toward the interview situation. Pleasant, cooperative, and very talkative, she chattered fluently in both English and Spanish, demonstrating a good—although not above-average—vocabulary and syntax. IQ unknown, Elisa is a homebody, content to live with her family, and she is strongly convinced that she should share their financial burden. Still, her work history is erratic and unimpressive, reflecting her lack of drive and ambition. Comfortably nestled among her loving parents and two younger sisters, Elisa has no pressing reason to achieve in the conventional sense of the word. She has brown hair and tanned, but not dark, skin. Tall, slender, with angular features and narrow lips, she can look quite attractive and younger than her twenty-six years when she is carefully groomed. However, when first interviewed, Elisa was not overly solicitous of her appearance: out of

28

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

work, she was just sitting around the house. Her hair was frizzed; she wore no make-up and was sloppily dressed; her dental plates were out, leaving unappealing gaps between her teeth. By the second session a transformation had occurred; then employed, Elisa was wearing a neat but inexpensive outfit and sported eyeliner and lipstick. The third session found her becomingly decked out in a jaunty, striped knit sweater with a white skirt; again, she had her make-up on, her dental plates in, and her hair set, all of which contributed to her attractiveness. The Ojeda home, although small and modest, is one of the best in their very poor Mexican American neighborhood. This minuscule house, which they own, has crescent-shaped windows and is surrounded by Mrs. Ojeda's flower garden. The living room is sparsely furnished with a chair, a sofa, and a telephone table; a folding chair has been added to accommodate an additional person. Each time we visited, a delicious, hearty aroma of succulent morsels being cooked wafted in from the tiny kitchen. But six people, in such a miniature house, bare as it is, are really too many. Besides, the family keeps chickens, which, like treasured pets, are allowed the run of the house. These several factors considerably challenge the natural cleanliness of the family. The fourth of seven children, Elisa has three older brothers, aged thirtyone, thirty, and twenty-seven, a younger brother, twenty-one, and two younger sisters, twenty-two and eighteen. The brothers have all left home. One, who lives in Chicago, has "a good job" at a factory. Another is a mechanic, still another a butcher. Since the brothers are married, Elisa can count twenty nephews and nieces among her list of relatives. The two sisters are unemployed, although one was working with Elisa at a clothing factory about the time of the second interview. Mr. and Mrs. Ojeda are in their late fifties. We met only the mother, a hugely fat, cheerful woman, always laughing. Realizing that the field worker was not an Anglo (Mrs. Ojeda speaks no English), she came in during the third interview for a long chummy conversation which she thoroughly enjoyed. The discussion centered around Mrs. Ojeda's pride in Elisa and concern, for the health of her cherished flowers. She was eager for tales of Mexico, as she had always yearned to visit her ancestral homeland. However, because she was born on a ranch and was given no birth certificate, Mrs. Ojeda is afraid that if she were to cross the border, she would be condemned as a wetback when she tried to return to the United States. The mother never had any education and the father finished the fifth grade. Mr. Ojeda, a yardman, does most of his work in their immediate

CASES: UNMARRIED INDIVIDUALS

29

neighborhood. The family is well known there, having lived in the same place ever since they and their relatives had a house-raising party twentyfour years ago to build their present home. Still, the family seldom visits or exchanges aid with the neighbors. When Elisa was younger, the family was on welfare several times, but this has not recurred. Their car is another ticket to self-reliance: Mr. Ojeda would drive his two daughters to work at the clothes factory and would usually pick them up in the afternoon; if he could not come, the two girls would take the bus. By working, Elisa hoped to "save as much money as I can," mainly so that she could buy a car for herself and her sisters. "Yeah, I know it's a lot of money but we have to get one to go to work and the store and things." The Ojeda family is, overall, a very attractive group of people. From pictures of Mrs. Ojeda in her youth, we could see that she herself was once a strikingly good-looking woman. The sons' photos also reveal their handsomeness, and, having met the daughters, we can vouch for their charms. Of all the children, it appears that Elisa may be her parents' favorite. "My father is very proud of me because I work and because I give him some of the money I make. Because lots of times children, daughters and sons, live with their parents and don't pay them anything." And Mrs. Ojeda assured us that Elisa is a model daughter. She alone remembered Mrs. Ojeda's birthday, by giving her a greeting card and a tiny handkerchief; all the other children forgot. (Mr. Ojeda has reassured his dejected wife by telling her that the children cared very much for her but were deeply engrossed in their own affairs.) Another indication of the Ojedas' tolerance of Elisa really extends to all their daughters: they seem perfectly content for the young women to remain unemployed and at home. It is probable that Elisa's work history would have been steadier had her parents insisted on it. Elisa, who shares a fond relationship with both parents, is really closest to her mother. She feels that her parents are warmly and supportively affectionate with all her siblings and cited her mother and father as the two people she would always turn to if she were in need. Clearly, when she does marry, her decision will hinge on her fiance's future proximity to her family. She feels that she should become more independent before marriage, however, and would like to work as much as two years while still at home; Elisa judges it unfair to live for such a long time at the expense of one's parents and then to marry and "be well off and leave my family behind."

30

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

As a Special Education student, she enjoyed school, particularly arithmetic: "I was sharp enough with figures." Still, at seventeen, Elisa quit school: "My mother was sick at the time. She had an operation already. And I'm the oldest, you know. I have to take care of the children, you know." She then applied for jobs at several places, but "they didn't call." Looking back, Elisa very much regrets the fact that she did not graduate: "Now you can't get a good job unless you have a high school education. And you can't even talk to people 'cause everybody's smarter than you if you don't have a high school education." About six years after dropping out of school, Elisa landed her first job. Her brother in Chicago found it for her, and she thus journeyed to Chicago by bus, which took three long days. After four months as an assembly-line worker in a plastics factory, she returned home. "I was there by myself and, uh, because it was hard for me and it was so cold there, you know. I'm not used to the weather over there. I'll probably go there this summer, I'm not sure. I like it, but not, only during summer, I mean I'm not used to all that snow, I mean, you know." Returning to San Antonio, Elisa helped in a bakery for six months. While she worked there the owners sold the shop and "the other one was just started, they didn't have enough money to pay me." The next two years were uneventful, jobwise, for Elisa could not find work. At our first meeting, she expressed a strong desire to assist her parents with the household expenses and various payments: "My parents are everything I got and I want to help them out, you know." Three months later, we returned for the second session and found her newly employed in a garment factory. A friend who worked there had tipped Elisa off, and she and her sister applied. After they underwent their required physical examinations, they both learned that they needed glasses; they were hired a week after securing the glasses. Elisa's task was to cut out patterns. She hoped, with the sewing skills acquired from her mother, to graduate one day to the sewing machines. Her co-workers had indicated that this was possible if she was qualified. Although the job was repetitious, Elisa was elated. "Well, I feel different, you know. At least I know something, some job, you know, and so I feel good. I'm going to save as much money as I can." She was earning $1.70 per hour, out of which the company took $3.50 each week for meals and snacks. Elisa heartily approved of this arrangement. "In our lunch break they have us some punch or coffee or, you know, things like sweet rolls and stuff like that, you know. They have, uh, everything prepared for us, you know, and it's real nice so I don't complain about it."

CASES: UNMARRIED INDIVIDUALS

31

Three weeks after the job began, Elisa was fired. She had been placed at a sewing machine and showed up a little late twice within a ten-day period. "When we're not at our machine, well, I guess, they write the number down and then report it." Her sister remained at the company. Elisa was told by her co-workers that she could reapply at the factory after a week's suspension. As she surmised, this plan was the factory's "scare tactics. Maybe other people think if they're late maybe nothing will happen. But if they try it, this way they fire you—then everybody'll be on time." Sorry to have encountered this mishap, Elisa swore that when she reclaimed her job she would never be late again. She seemed doubly concerned about helping her parents financially and was hoping that her other sister would also find work. She expressed a desire to become a beautician but realized that there were several serious obstacles: "I have to go to school and I have to, well, I don't have the money for it or I would like to work where they make wigs, you know, but it's in Houston, I think." In her leisure time, she watches television, especially "romance movies and funny movies," and dates several young men, often doubling with her sisters and their boyfriends. She seems to have a fairly extensive circle of friends-by her count, eleven. These friends are beneficial to each other: "For example, when we don't have money, I borrow from them. When they don't have money, we borrow our clothes most of the time or when they need something, they come to me and I go to them, you know." She usually discusses young men with these girl friends, most of whom are still in their late teens. Elisa explains this age difference by the fact that most of the young women of her age are married, "and so with teen-agers I get along fine." Her companions are of several types: one is still in high school, several are in junior college, others are working girls like herself. When we talked to Elisa the first two times, she was quasi-engaged to a soldier in Vietnam, and they were corresponding frequently. Elisa's evaluation of this relationship: "We're just about the same. I'm quiet, he's quiet, the quiet type. He don't go too much for dances, you know, he's the quiet type. He don't smoke either. I don't smoke and I don't drink. And he got, we get along fine." The young man was scheduled to return in July; we asked her if she would marry him. Highly uncertain, Elisa feared that if she accepted his proposal she would have to leave her family and move to his home in Philadelphia. She therefore commented that matrimony was actually improbable. When she does marry, however, she wants "to have two children, a boy and a girl." One major difference between the two: he was Anglo, Elisa, Mexican

32

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

American. But she felt that this was no barrier, for her parents liked him, and his parents were divorced and so had little to say on the matter. Elisa believed that he loved her, both because he told her so and because of "the way he talks, the way, you know." He had always written frequently. If anyone was lax about communicating, it was Elisa. She knew that she liked him, but was not sure if this feeling amounted to love. Would she fight for him if he forgot her? "No, I'd just let it go. You know, I'm that type. Well, in a way I'd feel bad, but I don't know." Elisa's boyfriend had advised her to take advantage of any and all opportunities to date other young men. Whether he said this in hopes that she would enjoy herself, or find someone else, or react arbitrarily and remain wholly faithful to him is not clear. Elisa took the admonition seriously but probably would have dated others anyway. By the second interview, she was seeing an Iranian Air Force cadet whom she had talked to on the bus, then chanced to meet again downtown. They dated often, but just for fun. At first she refrained from discussing this new diversion with her Vietnam boyfriend: "I don't want to make him feel bad." When she finally told him, his letters suddenly became casual in tone, clearly indicating that the marriage deal was off. She had no regrets: "I'm kind of glad 'cause I don't think I would have wanted to be married to him." Because of this lack of concern, Elisa reasoned that she was probably never in love with this boyfriend or she would have been remorseful. Elisa had never gotten serious about her Iranian date because she knew that he would soon return to his own country. As she had predicted, he left three days before the last interview. While she had not yet found a new beau, Elisa had several male friends whose frequent company she enjoyed. Describing the warm and fun-filled times she had had with her Iranian, she talked of going to the park, the playground, on drives, to HemisFair, and to movies. She had been so enthralled by this young man that she could not even recall the last movie they had seen. Because of her closeness to her family, Elisa's self-description is based upon the concept of being a good daughter, considerate and loving toward her parents. She is not "one of those girls that went around with different men," but "a very good person and I'm not a sinner... I do little sins, not anything big." She jokingly claimed that she would go to heaven. If she could change her life, she would like to have been born rich, because money would make her feel secure, and it would give her a warm feeling to be able to lend money rather than to always borrow it. In addition, she would by now have completed her high school education. Elisa would love to be sixteen instead of twenty-six, but she would

CASES: UNMARRIED INDIVIDUALS

33

want to retain all the knowledge of life which she now has so that she could avoid mistakes. Would she rather be a man? No, because women have easier lives and men bear tremendous responsibilities: "They have to be the ones to work whether they feel sick or not." But men have one advantage that she envies: they can propose marriage. If she could be sixteen again, Elisa would be married "with a family and I wouldn't be here at home." She somewhat fears not getting married for a long time to come. This is especially worrisome, since her relatives will never approve of a single girl-"not in a Mexican family!" Still, Elisa is not about to panic and marry just anyone; her delineation of the ideal husband is very discriminating: "Oh, I would want a rich man that has money to give me everything I want and to treat me nice and to be handsome and to . . . [pause] and to get along with me, especially to love me. It doesn't matter whether I love him, I mean, it does matter, but it matter more whether he loves me." Realistic, as usual, though, Elisa admits that she is painting an exceptional picture and acknowledges that she does not expect to find such a glamorous mate. JOE

OLIVAREZ

Throughout our acquaintance with him, Joe was exceptionally friendly and cooperative. Twenty years old (IQ: 60), he still lives with his parents, but he demonstrates a great deal of self-sufficiency and personal enterprise. He is slightly overweight and quite normal in appearance. Joe conversed reasonably well: he easily understood all of our questions, and although his sentences were choppy, his vocabulary was completely adequate. His family is an ample one: he has two brothers, aged twenty-two and twelve; two sisters, aged fifteen and seven; and a scattering of three halfbrothers and one half-sister who sporadically move in and out of the house. His older brother suffers from "epilepsia" and works for Goodwill Industries; whether or not this brother is retarded we do not know. His eighty-fiveyear-old father is a retired migrant worker who probably had no schooling whatsoever. He was a widower before he married Joe's mother; the halfsiblings are products of this earlier marriage. Mrs. Olivarez, forty-two, is the parent to whom Joe most often turns for advice or conversation, although he has a comfortable relationship with his father and all other members of his family as well. "Well, I have confidence with both of them. My daddy, my daddy's quite old, and, well, I ask him, oh, takes him too long, lasts too long to say, you know, tells me, you know, take about an hour what my mother could tell me in a shorter time." [Laughs]

34

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

The family is settled in a small white house on a rural route far out in the countryside. The neighborhood as a whole is poor; the Olivarez home is one of the shabbiest in the area. But Joe himself paid for it out of his salary, a matter of some pride to him; still, he thinks the Anglo farmers who live farther down the road are better off than his family: "They are farmers, I mean, you know, you know. They're not like us, you know, not that broke." [Laughs] Joe enjoys his rural surroundings. "It's fresher out here than it is in town. . . . Yeah, that's it. [Laughs] I made that up, I made up that one . . . . and you can do a lot more things than you can do in town. For example, you want to raise a hog or something. I'm pretty sure you can't do it or raise it in town." [Laughs] After completing the sixth grade, Joe was placed in Special Education. He enjoyed his classes, especially mathematics, but admits that he did not always do well even though he made passing grades. Because the Olivarezes were migrant laborers, Joe often had to skip school, and he thus lagged behind his fellow students; this problem may have been one reason for his transfer to Special Education. He quit the program because he was dissatisfied both with the school (he felt that he learned nothing) and with the jobs which had been located for him. Now that he is out searching for employment on his own, Joe regrets his lack of education, realizing that it decreases the likelihood of his finding a better position. Although he would like to return to school, the responsibility of supporting his parents is paramount: his father's only source of income is Social Security and an old-age pension. Joe gives his pay check to his mother, and, each week, she gives him ten dollars as an allowance. (Joe's brother and sister also make some contribution to the household expenses.) It has been five years since Joe dropped out of Special Education. During that time he has had several positions, two of which were obtained during our six-month acquaintance with him. Quite resourceful, Joe had ferreted out all of these jobs on his own. His first position as a busboy at a cafeteria lasted about one year; he then worked on an assembly line for a boat company for another year. At that time, the draft board required that he undergo a physical examination; he took it in San Antonio, all the while quite sure that he would be drafted. In fact, Joe volunteered for duty in the Marines; this proved to be unnecessary, as he was disqualified—according to him, he "flunked" the tests. Returning to the boat company seemed out of the question: he was too embarrassed to ask to be rehired and had serious doubts that his request would meet with success even it he did so. Therefore in lieu of reclaiming his old job, Joe began

CASES: UNMARRIED INDIVIDUALS

35

work as a janitor at a car dealer's office. After a year in this position, he was laid off because there was no longer sufficient work, but he felt that "they treated me pretty nice." When we first interviewed Joe, in January, he was employed as a woodworker's helper in a furniture company at $ 1.60 per hour; since he was being trained for the job, he felt that the pay was good. However, by the second interview, he had become somewhat dissatisfied with the position because the salary was "too cheap" and the situation confusing: "You're working on one thing and then they go over there and they change you to another thing and I don't like that, you know, they keep on pushing you back and forth all the time. They say they want, we want, we want you to go over here and help somebody else, go there for me and all kinds of, you know, things like that, so, you know. You have to stop and then you go over there and they get after you for not doing, for not getting it out, you know, in time. That's not the only thing I don't like either." Most of Joe's co-workers were also Chicano; he had established a rapport with them, but his foreman was a slightly different matter. Even though Joe was getting along well with him, the man would become angry at times, " 'cause he want me to do it his way and I can't do it his way." When we met with him again in June, Joe had lost his job at the furniture company because he was late for work one morning. He explained to the foreman that he had had a flat tire on his way; since he did not carry a spare, he had to call home and wait endlessly for his family to bring a tire. The supervisor excused him, telling him to forget about it. The main boss, however, had collected all the punched cards earlier. Upon finding Joe's card missing, he called him in and fired him, saying, "Well, you're not supposed to be working here at all." Joe was not overly perturbed about the situation, although he felt that he had quite adequately explained the problem to his immediate superior. He told us that his parents were not upset about his predicament. After one week of job hunting through an employment office and contacts with various persons, he found a position as—in his terminology again—a hotel porter. His job consists of storing clean linens, mopping, vacuuming, and caring for the swimming pool. He drives to work each day in his own car, taking a lunch prepared by his mother. Joe also runs errands for his family. At the time of the first interview, he owned three Chevrolets: a'55, a'58, and a'60, none of which was insured. By the third session, however, only two cars remained: he had had an accident in one and decided to give it up. No one was injured, but Joe

36

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

received his first traffic ticket in two years; before that he had had two others, one for running a red light and the other when "one of my mufflers had pulled out, I mean, it didn't really pull up; I had a hole in it. It made too much noise." These tickets constitute the only police record he has. Cars allow him a greater range of leisure activities than are enjoyed by most single—and even married—retardates, but he keeps his parents informed of his whereabouts, and his mother rarely worries about him, because she is acquainted with his friends. He takes his dates for rides, attends drive-in movies, goes to dances, and joins his companions for other activities as well. Each Sunday he attends a Catholic church which is seven and a half miles from home. When alone, Joe watches television or helps his little brother make model cars, some of which he himself has purchased for the boy. At the time of the third interview, a friend was living with him for a few days. Joe also has a "gang" of buddies who meet three evenings a week to chat or practice music; they recently created a combo and, not long ago, the little band played for a fiesta and bazaar which was attended, he said, by four to eight hundred persons. That was a proud night for him: Mrs. Olivarez was chosen Mother of the Year. Joe has had special girl friends in the past, but he now sees the latest one only rarely, preferring to date casually. Marriage, in Joe's opinion, can wait until he is well into his twenties. When he does wed, he does not want to have too many children. We had difficulty eliciting a response to this topic. He was especially hesitant when we asked what sort of wife he would like: "Well, I think she'll be pretty nice and, well, uh . . . [pause] I don't know how to tell you. [Laughs] You know, as long as she can do, you know, housework." HELEN

WALKER

At nineteen, Helen is the youngest person we interviewed, and the only one who was still in school during the early part of the study. IQ unknown, she may be the sole subject truly stigmatized by the labels of mental retardation and Special Education; she is fighting these labels and staunchly denies their relevance to her, but it is plain that the stigma affects her, and, of her own volition, she spoke of these problems at great length. Helen underwent another ostracizing experience during the study: she was sent to a halfway house just a week prior to the last

CASES: UNMARRIED INDIVIDUALS

37

interview and was consequently in a state of total rebellion at that time. Although she is not extremely articulate, Helen is quite verbose, and her vocabularly is often varied, reflecting the influence of her high-school subculture. She was very prompt in answering, especially in retorting, and she effortlessly took advantage of some of the questions to tease the interviewer. Her demeanor is characterized by blatant personal opinions and very little respect for authority. On the whole, she is a rather expressive young lady. Her physical appearance is very average, although she could be relatively attractive if her crooked front teeth were straightened. Quite thin, she dresses very neatly, even stylishly, and is somewhat "moddish" with respect to clothing. The first two interviews were conducted in Helen's home; she was then a high schooler in Special Education, living with her parents in a middleclass neighborhood. The house was very clean, and the furniture was of excellent quality; several television sets were available to accommodate the young people in the family. The only girl, Helen is the third of four children. (When the interviewer established her birth order, Helen became a little sarcastic: "You can count to three. Good for you!") Her brothers are twenty-one, twenty, and eighteen years old; all are very handsome young men. Two live at home, and the other one attends a junior college. Her extremely pretty mother treats her as a friend: for instance, she sat in on the first interview, but her presence in no way interfered with the procedure. She is a clerical worker with a tenth-grade education; Helen's father is employed by a liquor store and completed high school. To Helen, high school was far from a blessing: she liked nothing but the friends she made and the gym classes—where she was treated as a normal and was doing well. Almost every other experience was painful, the Special Education classes in particular: "I'd rather be working instead of sitting in there. I'm just wasting my time. She, [the teacher] can't teach me nothing else." Later on, when we saw her at the halfway house, she wished that she were back in school " 'cause I liked my friends. That's the only reason I went. I didn't learn anything, though." Her complaints, we could say, were very much like those of other teen-agers, and this was how Helen struck us: as a typical older but severely stigmatized teen-ager. Her feelings toward Special Education were devastatingly negative. There was also the question of the other "kids" in her class: there were seventeen of them, some of whom were thirteen or fourteen years old; Helen was the oldest, and thus rightfully felt that she was more mature than they. Although she had found a few friends among them, she would

38

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

rather have had companions from regular classes. Her opinion of her classmates was rather low, especially since her reference group was a strictly "normal" one. "Just imagine you are walking down the hall and these kids in Special Ed. standing over there and a boy will say 'hi,' and a boy will go 'hee-hee,' and he may start them all laughing. I'd laugh at them too." She thus judged her classmates from the point of view of the dominant culture in the school: in other words, she wished they were normal and had little sympathy for their handicaps since she was forced to be classified as one of them. The main problem that she encountered, which she belabored throughout the interviews, was that the label "Special Ed." placed her in an unacceptable category. How do other students know who is in Special Education? "They change classes when the bell rings, and they have different classes, you know. And when you go out in the hall and get a drink of water, they can't help but know where you come from. They have one class for us and one class for brain-damaged . . . they know where you come from." The inception of all problems: high visibility. Then the reactions of the other students, that is, the normals: "Someone says, 'Hello, stupid,' and they say, 'See that girl over there, she is Special Ed.' " Not only were they called "Special Ed." and "stupid," but also "mental retardates," a label which she totally rejected. They could have called her anything but that! And the vicious circle kept spinning: "I like Kathy, but all the others, they don't like me. They don't want to be seen with me 'cause 'She is in Special Ed.' or something like that. People, they don't like Special Ed. people, and they don't want to be with them." In addition to the stigma and the rejection, there was also the danger of delinquency. As she explained: "They'll come up and say, 'Hey, Special Ed.' and if they do that, I'll just pop off and hit her." And she went on to detail some fights in which she had been involved. Helen is thus terribly conscious of her problems; extremely lucid, she has figured out all the painful angles. "Do you think that they automatically think that anyone in Special Ed. is stupid?" "Yes!" "They do think that?" "They think you're different. If you can't go to college, then that's the end." Why was she in Special Education? "Because I had an emotional problem." Then later: "I don't know. I guess I was, you know, born that way."

CASES: UNMARRIED INDIVIDUALS

39

And how was she different from the others in Special Education? "I matured more." (Even though she was older.) But the others? "Well, they're, they're, I don't know, there's something wrong with them. I mean, I'm n o t . . . " She meant that she was not like them; there was really nothing wrong with her. At one point, she abruptly asked the field worker if she went to college. "Why do you ask?" "I was just wondering. People don't like . . . I mean, someone who doesn't think people like me are crazy." And at the time of the third interview, when she was living at the halfway house, she spoke of one of her school friends: "Well, she'd tell you . . .what she thinks, you know, that I'm not really retarded." Although Helen often uttered the terrible words "mental retardate," she rejects the relevance of the label for herself: the others may be retardates, but she is not. Obviously, anyone so labeled by fellow students would have doubts; Helen has doubts, too. She wonders... but no. The reality is too terrible to accept. The Rehabilitation Commission sent her to a halfway house, and she had been there for approximately eight days when we last saw her. We found her as yet unadapted to her new environment, very hostile and rebellious; she had made no friends and even talked of running away. She "hated" that place because "it's like a prison"; she felt too restricted. The residents had to ask permission to do almost everything during the first months of their internship and were forced to follow many regulations. For example, they had to get up at certain hours, ask permission to buy soda water or make phone calls, and could smoke only at special times. Another reason she "hated" the place: "You should see the people here. They're retarded. They're just so ignorant." Above all, "Most of the people here are from the state school. A very few are from the state hospital-a very few. That's why I want to get out of here because I don't want to end up there . . . . They're just so stupid!" The ultimate stigma: they had lived at a state school. And, in part, their brand became hers because she was with them in a special institution. In comparing her new "classmates" to those Special Education companions with whom she had earlier refused to be identified, she found her previous crowd "more mature" and wished they were with her: "We would cause a riot." There is comparatively little else that can be said of her sojourn at the halfway house, since she had been there for such a short time.

40

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

Helen spoke constantly of her best friend, Kathy, who is a normal girl-that is, she is not in Special Education. In fact, Kathy has aspirations to become a Special Education teacher, and it is likely that she does not really consider Helen her friend but visits her out of sympathy or because of clinical interest. Kathy can afford to do so, for she is popular at school: she is a cheerleader, for instance. She helps Helen, gives her advice, comforts her, and talks to her in front of the other normal students. She is Helen's ideal, for she knows "everything that a woman needs to know" and is "mature." Kathy even attended the going-away party that Helen's mother gave before Helen left. Besides Kathy, Helen knows few people she would consider real friends, although she mentioned several other names often throughout the interviews. Helen has never dated and seems to know little about how to behave with young men. She said she had a boyfriend, "but he doesn't like me." One boy she admired "was a doctor's son, you know, and he was in Special Ed. He was always nice and was always making jokes," but there were no indications that the appreciation had been reciprocated. While she did not seem to suffer deeply because of her lack of dates when in school, she was upset by her prospects at the halfway house, where boys are allowed only to visit and to attend dances. "If you could see the boys that come here, you wouldn't believe it. They look like monsters. All the good boys, they're all taken. The other ones are out of this world. I'd rather... I'd go for a dog before I'd go for these .. . boys. They're crazy, all of them." Many come from other halfway houses and have a stateschool background; compared to her former classmates, they represented a total downfall. While she exaggerated their lack of attractiveness, it is a fact that they were not very handsome. What kind of person does she think she will marry? "I don't know. No one really knows until it happens." What if she met someone she really loved? "I don't know. Probably kiss him or something like that." On the other hand, she is sure that she would make a good wife "because I know how to cook and everything like that." Helen has never held a full-time position but has worked on weekends at her mother's place of employment; her job consisted of carrying file cards. She does housework at home, especially on weekends. Her main pastime is television, especially the soap operas; her favorite magazine is Life. She loves to read about movie stars and was very annoyed that this type of literature was not used in school. Her idol is Sandra Dee (a teen actress some years ago). When asked if she went to church, Helen laughed

CASES: UNMARRIED INDIVIDUALS

41

and answered, "Are you kidding? I used to go when I was little." Why did you stop? "I don't know. I think I'm tired or something." [Laughs] She should soon begin "working out," returning to the halfway house each evening. This future possibility does not interest her greatly: "And come to this after a hard day's work? You must be crazy! No. Like, like, this isn't home. It's like a prison." Getting out of "that hole" is all Helen can think of; right now she does not contemplate any other projects. During the second interview, however, she mentioned that she would like to be a policewoman because "it looks so nice wearing a hat and walking," and the prospect of giving a traffic ticket to her friend Kathy amused her greatly. Helen liked the field worker, was very cooperative, and often assiduously tried to find appropriate answers. At one point, she even told the interviewer that she wished "more people were as nice as you are"; however, in spite of this, she held fast to her own opinions and never missed a chance to crack a joke or to make fun of her companion. She really was the only respondent who had this kind of vivacious humor; she could also be quite sarcastic, and her repartee became markedly more biting at the time of the third interview, when she was reacting hostilely to her new situation. Helen always exhibited a very quick mind: for instance, when asked for whom she would cast her ballot if she could vote, she replied, "Depends on who's running." One more distinction: she is the only female subject we interviewed who used expressions such as "Hell, no!" When the field worker asked her how she would describe herself to a stranger, Helen again became very sarcastic and lashed out at herself, while simultaneously trying to hold a tight grip on a little corner of self-esteem. First, she said "Stupid!" and the interviewer scolded her a little. Then, "Tall, skinny, puny . . . [pause] brown eyes and brown hair." Later on, "Everyone says I got a great personality and I say, 'Oh, yeah, where is it?' . . . Ah, I don't like myself. 'Cause I am worthless. Nothing I do turns out right." RON

HORTON

The Horton ranch loomed before the interviewer, huge and ramshackle, barely maintaining its existence in this impoverished rural area outside of Austin. It did not include as many buildings as are customarily part of such an enterprise, as if they were swallowed up by the desolation and impermanence of this merely rented place, this home of Ron, his parents, his grandmother. The session itself was equally forlorn:

42

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

stagnant, moribund, Ron waited, machinelike, for the questions to fall on him. He sat cooperatively, letting the field worker push his buttons, never speaking unless spoken to. And, when he did speak, nevermore than two typewritten lines could be said to have come forth from him. Usually there was only yes, no, or I don't know, in response. He was not only apathetic, but he also often had trouble understanding the questions put to him. Ron's behavior left us with the impression that he is probably ordered around by the other members of his family. At twenty-six (IQ: 62), Ron is one of the individuals interviewed who are totally dependent on their parents for shelter, food, and work; he has never been employed anywhere except on their ranch. Tall and robust, he is definitely not attractive although he has no physical deformities. In fact, he is very healthy and has been in the hospital only once, with a broken arm resulting from a bicycle fall. Unkempt in appearance, Ron sports pungently odoriferous laced boots, no socks, and a shirt half in and half out. His fingernails, like the rest of him, are usually dirty, but this may easily be attributed to his ranch work. Mrs. Horton, Ron's mother, is primarily a housewife, but she occasionally does housework for other people. Both she and Ron's grandmother are very deficient intellectually, yet Mrs. Horton said that Ron's younger brother was in a doctoral program in chemistry. The grandmother, when confronted by the interviewer, did not even understand the nature of his visit. We never saw Mr. Horton, but we found out that he was a caretaker at a state school. Mrs. Horton's presence at the sessions more than compensated for her husband's absence. She often interrupted the conversations, taking over a great portion of the first and third interviews. Bullishly barging in, she did not retreat until she herself desired to do so. Yet her domination of Ron did not appear to be negatively oriented. Ron's education and job experience seemed as limited as that of his parents and grandmother. He volunteered the information that he had attended Special Education classes, after which his mother added that he had started this course of instruction in the fourth grade because he had been unable to keep up with his classmates. Ron's assessment followed: "Well, I's in Special Education. I went as far as I could . . . [pause] that ain't regular school." When the topic of work was approached, Mrs. Horton voiced her displeasure with the job counseling that had been offered by Ron's Special Education program, laboriously describing their attempt to place him in a very low paying job. (She was probably referring to a sheltered workshop in the city.) "Like my husband said, if they're just

CASES: UNMARRIED INDIVIDUALS

43

going to give him fifty cents an hour, t h a t . . . that don't pay for us to haul him back and forth. He thinks if he . . . he ought to at least be worth a dollar an hour. He's able-backed boy." The interviewer talked to Ron about the Employment Commission and other agencies and even offered to take him to such places if he was interested. Ron, however, was not very enthusiastic about it. At the beginning of the' first session, we asked him how he would describe his tasks. "Oh, just messing around here on the farm." We asked him what he would like to do. "Well, there ain't too much I can do unless it'd be janitor work, or something." Then his mother contributed her opinion that all he could do would be "common labor . . . . Nowadays, nobody wants to do common labor. Everybody wants an education. Now what are they going to do with all these education people? Somebody's going to have to work, ain't they?" So Ron plods along, with few leisure activities, continuing to perform simple chores on the farm. He does watch television, but, when asked what his favorite programs were, he replied, "Ah, I don't know. They're all about the same, I guess." What else does he do in his spare time? "Oh, not too much of anything." He has tried to learn how to drive, yet, although he has a beginner's license, he has never passed the driver's test. His meager spending money comes from his mother, who gives him a little if he needs it. Ron's single companion outside the family, a dog, goes unnamed. Why? "I don't know. Didn't name him." Ron did have a name for Humphrey, the candidate he voted for in the last presidential election: "the loser." During this discussion, Mrs. Horton asked the interviewer for whom he had voted. He too had chosen Humphrey. "You did? Well, didn't get nowhere. You must be a Democrat. Ain't no better than LBJ, huh? Well, we'll have to get Wallace to run once again." This political commentary could only have come from Ron's mother, as he would never say so much. When asked how he would describe himself, he hedged: "I don't know what to say about that." Later he added, "Oh, I'm all right I guess." After a little probing, however, he stated that he would like to be a "big shot. Oh, I'd like to be a whole lot smarter." But then Ron faltered—he does not know what he would do if he were smarter.

PENNY

RUSSELL

This respondent's simple life is confined within the narrow bounds of her family and the sheltered workshop in which she has

44

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

labored for the past six years. Penny (IQ: 49) is twenty-seven years old and has never led an independent life. She lives with her mother and an eighteen-year-old brother, a normal student. Her father is deceased. The very lovely family home is situated in a fashionable area; in order to maintain it, the mother must have other sources of income besides her salary as a school teacher. Penny is the oldest of four siblings. Of the four, her twentyfour-year-old sister is a high-school teacher and former friend of the interviewer, who described her as extremely brilliant; she is unhappily married to a mechanic and has a two-year-old daughter. Penny's twentyone-year-old brother was soon to graduate from the Naval Academy and Penny was extremely excited about attending his graduation. It is interesting to note that, in speaking of her brother, she used proper terminology such as "being commissioned"; she told us that he is a "pusher" for the Navy, explaining that this means that he recruits, and informed us that he plans to go to flight school eventually. She demonstrates competence in other ways-after telling us that she had voted during the last presidential election, we inquired for whom. Her reply: "The president." When asked' who the president was, she correctly answered "Nixon." She also informed us that she had a savings account. Penny's mother and sister are not at all attractive, and she herself can be described in three words: short, fat, ugly. Her health is generally sound. She was hospitalized twice when rather young: the first time, she had an appendectomy; the second, she underwent eye surgery. Even now one eye does not function well. Penny has no other physical handicap, but she slobbers somewhat as she talks. Expressive in the extreme, she supplements her conversation with a considerable amount of body motion, hand-waving, and giggling. In spite of her lack of charm, Penny is not afflicted with feelings of inferiority or even self-consciousness. On the contrary: "I'd say I was tall and I .. . and I was good, I was pretty, and everything. I would say I was neat, and I was very kind to people, and I like people, and I get along with them real good. I like myself a lot." Is there anything she would like to change in her life? "I'd like to change my hair. I'd love to be a blonde." [Laughs] Is there anything else she is unhappy about? "Nothing, I am a happy child. I . . . I go out and have lots of fun and everything." Is there anything she would like to be? "A movie star." Penny's ego is indeed in extraordinarily good shape; there seems to be nothing one can say to deflate it. The interviewer found this personality trait somewhat surprising in light of Penny's early upbringing: while she was not mistreated, Penny's family kept her out of the way. She had her

CASES: UNMARRIED INDIVIDUALS

45

own room, complete with television set and other personal conveniences. Penny was often shoved aside by the family in other ways and overprotected. When she was about twenty-one years old, she graduated from a private Special Education school, after which she went directly to a sheltered workshop. There is really little else to say about her work history: she is contented, but, when probed, admitted that she might like to find another occupation: "They like me so much, they don't want me to leave, but I'm trying to get another job." Considering her environment and disabilities, Penny's leisure activities are quite varied: she goes bowling every week, attends parties given for retarded young people by several local agencies, never missing their hayrides or amusement programs, and, when on her own, she enjoys the television and radio. She goes to church infrequently, usually attending on special days like Christmas and Easter. In her typical, flippant style, Penny announced that her hobby was "to chase boys." Penny's aforementioned "hobby" is somewhat restricted; her mother has never allowed her to date. Still, "boys" are a topic of particular significance in her life; she not only proclaimed her affection for the opposite sex but also stated quite bluntly that boys return her interest because she knows how to treat them well. During the first interview, she discussed her current love life: "Have you ever dated anybody before?" "No, not yet, but I'm looking. I'm going with a boy. He is, uh, a student, and he is going to be a schoolteacher like my mother. His name is Peter." "How did you meet him?" "We . . . we've been to camp together." "And have you dated him, then?" "No, but I'm trying to get a date with him so long." [Laughs] "Do you think you will?" "Probably." "Do you talk to him?" "He . . . he . . . I try to call him on the phone, but he's too busy and everything else." "Yeah. Right. Right." "I tell you something else. I know he likes me so much that he loves me. I'm sure he wants me to be his wife. And three years from now he's going to graduate, and he wants me to come over and see him." "Do you look forward to getting married?"

46

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

"Yeah, yeah" [Giggles] "What would you like best about it?" "I like his looks. I know, I know the first day I saw him, I fall in love with him." This "boyfriend" happens to be a counselor at the camp which Penny attends for a week each summer. He had simply been civil and polite to her, performing standard acts of courtesy, such as taking her coat-a gesture she fondly remembered. From this, Penny drew long-range conclusions. At the time of the second interview, we asked if anything interesting had happened recently; she said yes, that Peter had married. Apparently, as she learned through one of her co-workers, this young man had been married before and was simply remarrying his original wife. Very happy for him, she showed no regret; her feelings appeared to be completely removed from the reality of the situation, for she could understandably have been heartbroken. Later, during the third session, she discussed a new boyfriend. It was, however, difficult to discern anything about him, although it appeared that this new object of affection was another counselor. The relationship seemed quite nebulous and led the interviewer to comment that "she's not there—not plugged in." Besides these ephemeral boyfriends, Penny counts among her acquaintances one of their neighbors, who occasionally helps out when the family is gone by taking in the newspapers and performing other similar chores. Her best friend is a male co-worker, aged nineteen. "We talk about little things. I don't know what to call it, but it's between boy and girl. We talk about, uh, like I say, anything that's interested." Sometimes she also telephones female co-workers. However, Penny's life centers around her mother, whom she loves very much. According to Penny, the two have established a mutual-aid relationship. What does her mother do to help her? "Well, she fixes my breakfast for me every day and all, and I—she don't-and I put my dress on, and she can zip it." At the second interview, we asked her the same question again; she repeated exactly the same answer, word for word. However she did not seem overly attached to the rest of her family, mentioning them only rarely; she probably talked of her brother at the Naval Academy because she was excited about making the trip to his graduation. On the whole, she seems satisfied with her present existence: "I don't think I have a biggest problem, really."

CHAPTER

THREE

Selected Cases: Married Individuals

The following four couples were chosen because they are representative of some of the dominant trends discovered in the married segment of the sample. For example, Alan and June Post exemplify a relatively happy union between a retarded husband and a nonretarded but emotionally disturbed wife. The McCoys, both once diagnosed as retardates, are one of the study's four interethnic couples, and their conjugal relationship as well as their financial situation is quite similar to that of the other three. Irma Ledesma, a retarded woman, and her husband, Santiago, a normal but not very bright man, exhibit characteristics common to such marriages. They also typify those couples who experience little mutuality. On the other hand, Miguel Soto, a competent retardate, and Diana, his able, intelligent wife, are one of three such pairs in the sample and have the usual attendant problems; their union is also a good example of those which are economically stable and fairly satisfying. ALAN

and J U N E

POST

The Posts had been married a year when we made their acquaintance. June is the more distinctive of the two: unlike her husband, she herself has no record of retardation. Both have been

48

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

serviced by rehabilitation agencies and have lived in halfway houses for the retarded. Twenty-nine-year-old Alan (IQ: 63), now a cafeteria dishwasher, is severely handicapped; in fact, his director at the halfway house felt that his condition was deteriorative, hence strongly doubted that Alan would live much longer. June, a twenty-nine-year-old housewife, could be considered a normal, intellectually speaking. Because of her emotional instability, her IQ scores have fluctuated greatly: the records show a low of 86 and a high of 110. June's intellectual, verbal, and comprehensive superiority are smothered by her emotional handicaps and pitiful physical appearance, the latter being in itself tantamount to a serious disability. Alan is neither tall nor handsome but presents an acceptable appearance. Slim, 5 feet 9 inches in height, he dresses neatly and simply. His hair is thinning, and his whole physique suggests an age of at least thirty-five. His manner would arouse suspicion, for his eyes have the sidelong glance of an untrustworthy fellow. Because of neural malfunction, he must strain to open his jaw properly, an action which makes him seem tense, especially when speaking. In spite of his slightly sinister mien and his touchiness, Alan is a rather pleasant conversationalist. However, his penchant for moralizing can be quite tiresome. Apparently incapable of making a simple statement, he uses every opportunity to bring the Bible, or some other authority, into the discussion. This constant name-dropping makes him seem rather pedantic and insincere. In addition, Alan strongly resents any invasion of privacy and was generally quite wary of our questions. Our first contact with him met hostility and refusal. Only after June had completed her own interview and Alan had requested and received some sample questions did he acquiesce. Toward the end of the session, he began to weary of the ordeal, ignoring the questions and responding to each inquiry with a bored "Huh?" Whether he was being purposely perverse or simply exhibiting a short attention span is hard to evaluate. According to the field worker: "After the interview was completed, Alan more or less came back to reality and June became interested in hearing herself on the recorder. We played back some of her conversation. Alan then wanted to hear himself and I played his tape. They were quite happy about this. They had a great time hearing their own voices." June is short (4 feet 10 inches) and plump. Although not actually obese, she is bloated, probably because of her thyroid condition. She is not ugly, but could easily be described as unattractive. Her brown hair, which she constantly pushes out of her eyes, is cropped short and looks

CASES: MARRIED INDIVIDUALS

49

unkempt: she wears no make-up, is neatly but far from stylishly dressed, and is very midgetlike in appearance and voice. During the conversations, she sat so close to the interviewer as to be almost in her lap, thus rendering unavoidable the unappetizing view of white mucus that perpetually collects in the corners of her mouth. Her drooling and chubbiness make June seem babyish; to further compound this image, she speaks childishly and her mannerisms are amazingly immature, so much so that she could easily pass for a teen-ager. Also, because her eyes jump peculiarly and her mouth contracts sideways as she talks, June looks retarded, although she certainly is not. How can her outrageously childish behavior be explained? She is regularly treated for psychiatric disorders and has been committed to a state hospital several times, but it seems unlikely that these emotional problems alone account for her peculiarities. In spite of the overall inadequacy of her demeanor, there is little doubt that personal relationships concern June and that she is observant and aware of human emotions. In our presence, she demonstrated kindness and a deep sense of empathy. In addition, she possesses a rather extraordinary vocabulary, inserting knowledgeable terminology into every discussion, and her sentences are syntactically correct. Taking full advantage of these abilities, she is a voluminous conversationalist. Like June, Alan has many handicaps. On the minor side, he has hemorrhoids; at' the time of the first interview, he had just returned from the hospital where he had had an operation to alleviate this condition. He said that his physiological troubles began when he was operated on for a brain tumor. He remembers this surgery vividly: it took place on his sixth birthday and he was the sole child in the men's ward. He went to great length to describe the 11/2-inchsquare of chocolate cake, with white icing, which the hospital personnel had presented to him that day. Alan's assertion that his health problems began with the tumor may well be true. Since then, he has often experienced blackouts, which, he recently learned, are actually tiny seizures. During these fainting spells, his jaw becomes fixed and immovable. He takes medication to control the attacks, a preventive measure which led to his recent arrest. While he and June were in a coffee shop, Alan took a pill. A policeman saw the action and, misconstruing it, perhaps because of Alan's strange appearance, arrested him, had him handcuffed, and took him to the police station. June could not convince the officer who had custody of Alan's pills that this was medicine, not dope, and Alan suffered three blackouts at the station. June was apprehensively anticipating a more severe seizure when the Posts

50

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

were rescued by her cousin, also a policeman. When he explained the situation to his fellow officers, June and Alan were released and advised to go to the Mental Health—Mental Retardation Center. June contended that a policeman had hidden drugs on Alan's person during one of his blackouts: "And I told my mother to call the lawyer and the lawyer said it's undoubted that they planted it on him." Like Alan's, June's general health is poor. She has had several operations: at fourteen, she had surgery for the removal of gallstones and intestinal cysts; prior to her marriage she had a hysterectomy; a year ago she, too, had an operation for hemorrhoids. According to June, her thyroid deficiency, dating from childhood, had caused neural damage. A perpetual mental patient, she could be diagnosed as a manic-depressive from the clues gleaned during our six-month acquaintance with her. One week she might phone our staff in an overexcited state; the next week she would be in a desperately black mood, sobbing uncontrollably. Her health is her constant concern, understandably, since illnesses of various sorts have plagued her throughout her life. Well versed in medical terminology from long experience, June knows the scientific designation for all her operations and for the wide assortment of pills she takes for her nerves, thyroid condition, seizures, and myriad other ailments. Then, "When Alan married me, unless I said I'd have a hysterectomy, [they] wouldn't let us get married and another thing is I and he had handicaps and mother was afraid the child might come out epileptic and it would be a hazard to my health." Whether or not Alan has had a vasectomy is not clear, although he once implied that he had been sterilized. June, however, "wants to be 'a mom.' " But she realizes that, "unless a miracle happens," she cannot actually conceive. They have considered adoption, but their present financial status prohibits their carrying out such a plan. They had contemplated adopting a Negro child, but June had second thoughts when she anticipated her stepfather's antagonistic reaction, so she compromised by planning to shelter a foreign youngster. "Because a foreign child does not have a stitch of clothing hardly on his back, doesn't have a mother or father They get killed in the war, he needs loving and attention, he needs food . . . he doesn't get any food, he's starving." Fondness and affection exude from every cranny of the Posts' conversational exchanges. Alan, even more avidly than June, uses all the usual terms of endearment, such as "darling," "honey," "sweetheart." (This constant stream of pet names was at times amusing to the interviewer.)

CASES: MARRIED INDIVIDUALS

51

Their marriage seems to be a happy one. Alan was typically uncommunicative on this topic, but neither expressed any real dissatisfaction with the other and they both agreed that they freely discuss their problems. "Well, most likely as everybody knows, marriage life is a fifty-fifty proposition. Okay. If the man would not talk to the woman getting married, for instance, myself, then you would . . . I wouldn't be a husband, I wouldn't be a husband . . . if I wouldn't talk to her about my problems or talk to her about her problems, either one. We need to talk to each other about our problems or it's just not a marriage at all." When asked what he liked best about being married, Alan answered: "God made man, then saw that he needed a companion so he took a rib to make a woman." Finally, "My wife goes for me, I go for her, we're happy together." He added that he liked being wed and would not want to be single. "Marriage," said he, "trains man and wife." Alan does seem genuinely fond of June, outwardly demonstrating his concern for her. This was readily apparent on one occasion when the two visited Alan's mother. She felt too lazy to cook dinner and suggested that June could have a bar of ice cream instead. Knowing that June needed a solid meal before taking her medicine, Alan insisted that his mother prepare supper, which she then proceeded to do. In addition, Alan visited June frequently when she was in the hospital and missed her greatly. "He couldn't sleep very much, he slept a few hours every night and got up and smoked a full pack of cigarettes a night and drank coffee all night and couldn't sleep while I was gone." June is devoutly religious, and she worries because Alan, for all his moral ardor, does not attend church services. "He's a Christian but something's bothering him and he won't go to church with me, he doesn't like to be pushed. I mean, I don't push him. I talk to him about it and invite him to go with me. He's gone a few times with me but he hasn't gone regularly." Because they are both nervous, as June admits, the two often quarrel. But she accepts most of the blame: "I get nervous and upset and start crying, and it gets him upset and he gets upset and then he starts raising his voice at me, telling me to settle down or he's out fighting or something like that." In the long run, June is the one to give in. Alan may come home from work in an angry mood and take it out on her; but she reacts amiably: "I have to give in. 'Cause he say, 'If you want to talk to me, you come in here.' " [Laughs] What is their biggest problem as a couple? "Well, our biggest problem together has been when I try to do something, to play

52

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

around with him, it used to be that he would let me tickle his spine or tickle his rib or something." Alan is somewhat authoritarian vis-à-vis June and occasionally seems to be put out with her nervousness. Yet he listens with interest to what she says, just as she listens to him. He depends on her to some extent for conversational facility: when he needs a "big word," as he terms it, he requests one and June supplies it. Still, in spite of, or perhaps because of, her verbal superiority, Alan enjoys correcting June's statements. He is diplomatic, however, and every discrepancy that he points out is preceded by the inevitable "But darling,..." It is not known whether Alan dated before he met June, but June said that she had previously been courted by several young men. At their first encounter, the two were attending a halfway house party. June's girl friend saw June dancing with her own boyfriend and, to remove June from the scene, gave her Alan's name. As June explained, "I wasn't trying to take him [the boyfriend] away from her. I just wanted to dance with him. She got the wrong idea." Later on, "I wrote Alan and he wrote back to me. I put the stamp upside down for friendship and he sent [it] back to me. He said, Ί want to meet you,' so we met and went together for two years and then got married." They encountered some difficulties, because Alan was often restricted to the house and consequently could not see June as often as he wished. Then, the marriage proposal was delayed because Alan asked a female friend to sound June out on the matter of marrying him. June's response: "Well, I guess I would." In retrospect, she claims that her reaction was a little more exuberant: she said it was love at first sight. When asked to describe her ideal husband, June immediately replied that Alan was he, then added piously, "The ideal husband is someone who's a Christian, someone who loves and can trust in God, someone that tries to understand you, and tries to help you and tries to understand your handicap-like he has a handicap, too, and I try and accept his." She feels that she is a good wife but would like to be a better one. However, she explained, the surgery she had had several months ago left her weak. There is no doubt in June's mind that she and Alan were chosen for each other: according to her, Alan had two dreams sent by God, prior to his marriage proposal, which told him that June should be his wife. Alan is an only child. His father is deceased and his mother lives in Indiana and visits them at least once a year. Last July, the two went to visit her by Greyhound bus, a tedious twenty-four-hour trip. This journey

CASES: MARRIED INDIVIDUALS

53

excited June tremendously-she called it their honeymoon. She talked of Alan's family, especially his grandfather, exclaiming about their kind treatment of her and the pleasure trips that they all took to the zoo and other points of interest. Alan, as usual, was noncommittal about his family. His response to our query concerning his father: "My father has passed on to meet the Lord." We learned much more about June's relatives. Her parents separated when she was very small, at which point she was "adopted" by her stepfather. She maintains contact with her real father, who calls her and sometimes visits. High-school educated, he is a real-estate agent and drives a Cadillac. Alan added that the father always complains about having no money, a lament Alan finds ludicrous. June's mother only made it through junior high school and is now district manager of a local door-to-door sales firm. The Posts see her once or twice each week, which may be too often for both of them. "My mother has given financial help to us. She loves us, I know, but she seems to have a bossy tendency to kind of make all our decisions for us. Not to let us be cleaved to one another like the Bible says, 'Cleave to your husband and your wife.' " In short, June finds her mother too restrictive. This interference is stridently visited upon June by both parents when she begins to talk of loving everyone, including Negroes. Parental antagonism so stifles June that she has decided to move in with Alan's family if Alan should die before her. "I set my foot down. I said, 'Mother,' said, 'The day the Lord takes my husband away from me, takes him home, I'm moving to Indiana.' " Besides a stepbrother, June has a thirty-year-old full brother. From his pictures, he did not look very appealing, and he was short and pudgy. Also in the picture was his wife, who looked attractive. The view of their house in the background suggested that they were enjoying a comfortable middle-class status. The Posts' life includes little social contact with their various relatives. Family ties seem limited to necessities and convenience. For example, we attended a party at June's home on her birthday; although the mother had ordered the cake and lent several pieces of silverware, she herself never appeared at the celebration. When asked where her mother was, June replied that she was at the lake and had decided not to come, because she felt June would most enjoy being alone with people of her own age. We wondered, after witnessing June's social conduct, if the mother is simply embarrassed by her daughter's behavior.

54

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

The Posts' home is a clapboard duplex which they share with some friends, another retarded couple, the Olsons.1 One of the shoddiest dwellings in their lower middle-class neighborhood, it rents for a modest thirty-five dollars a month plus utilities. The screen door seems to hang by a thread, the main steps are rotten, and the front doors are so riddled with holes that one wonders how the Posts enjoy any privacy. Though airconditioned, the tiny apartment is stale smelling and oppressive. The combination living-dining room has cheap furniture and is always strewn with myriad unrelated articles: quantities of discarded clothes—dirty and clean—leftovers, milk, and sundry household items. June is a totally inept housekeeper-one of the messiest subjects we have met. Her next-door neighbor has tried to teach her to be tidy, apparently to no avail. We learned little of Alan's educational background, but he must have been in Special Education, as it is improbable that he could have handled a regular course load. His halfway house sojourn was known, but Alan's touchiness made discussion of this topic impossible. However, some halfway house lessons with which we ourselves were familiar surfaced through his remarks. The training he received there seemed to have been highly beneficial. June graduated from high school in a regular program, then was sent to a halfway house after she "had a nervous breakdown." She liked school, especially English, speech, music, and home economics, and "according to my health and condition, I was doing pretty well." Concerning the halfway houses, our information is as sparse on June as on Alan. We know three facts: one, June returned home soon after entering the first halfway house because the girls there made fun of her; two, she entered the second halfway house quite late in life, when in her twenties; and three, she met Alan while at this second house. Alan's present job is the only one he has ever held—he has held it for the past seven years. His identification card reads "custodial"; but Alan describes his work as "primarily a dishwasher or just any sort of work that has to be done around the dining area." His supervisor frequently drives Alan home after work and Alan often invites him in to visit for a while. Alan explained that the cafeteria serves students who "determine whether you get a promotion or not. Well, we have to take care of the students. The students are our bread and butter." He made few comments about his 1 The Olsons' case can be found in Chapter 7, below, as well as in this author's monograph, 'The Forgotten Ones: Case Studies of Anglo and Chicano Retardates."

CASES: MARRIED INDIVIDUALS

55

work-he was taciturn about this as well as other areas of discussion-but his attitude seemed to be one of satisfaction. June is proud of his work history and justifiably so: he probably has one of the most stable employment records of all the persons studied. "I think he is an excellent worker. I've been told and I think he does very good work. I'm proud that I have a husband that works hard for me, to make me a living, support me, and take care of me." June herself has held only two jobs, the first at a sheltered workshop and the second as a nurse's aide. The workshop position was probably the product of a halfway house program, hence cannot really be termed regular employment. What sort of tasks did she perform there? "Things that I just didn't get paid enough for. . . that's all." Furthermore, "I'm much too intelligent for a shelteredworkshop job." She clearly would not consider resuming such an occupation. Having greatly enjoyed her six-month training period as a nurse's aide, she constantly talks of going back to work in that capacity. But, because of her childishness and disabilities, it is doubtful that she was successful in this field. Her nervousness, immaturity, and constant chatter—to say nothing of her messy disorganization—would be serious impediments in any hospital setting. True, her kind and generous nature suits the role well, though it probably cannot sufficiently mitigate the negative aspects of her personality. Nevertheless, June would like some sort of solid employment to bolster the family finances; Alan, too, would be happy if she had a job, although he does not push her in that direction. When we cast an eye on the Posts' future, the first obstacle to rear its ugly head is monetary in nature. This is the very problem which most concerns Alan and June—and justifiably so, because they were reduced to living on welfare for three months last spring. What takes the biggest bite out of the budget? "Rent isn't that bad. But doctors' bills, food, medication." After a little thought, Alan stated that taxi fares were an additional expense. Occasionally, when the buses stop running, late at night, he is forced to take a cab home from work. This can gobble up as much as seven dollars a week, no insignificant sum for them. The Posts have tried to set up a budget, but how closely they follow it is not known. Lack of transportation (witness the taxi fares) aggravates their financial difficulties and inhibits their mobility as well. When any of us visited them, June always ended the session by trying to get a ride to the Mental Health—Mental Retardation Center, the church, or elsewhere. Alan has owned cars but has had two wrecks and received several tickets, which, he said, prevents him

56

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

from buying any more automobiles. (He admits fault in one of the collisions but asserts that he was falsely blamed in the other.) Alan's only red friend is their next-door neighbor, Jim Olson; this man's wife is June's closest confidante. However, June is not on good terms with Jim: "He is kind of hard to get along with. He is a peculiar type of guy, but he and I just don't mix very well, but his wife and I do. And Alan and he mix all right." Besides her neighbor, June has another close friend who is a retarded or brain-damaged woman of her age. Then there is a man whom she met at the state hospital: he had been institutionalized for thirteen years. While in the hospital, she maintained a close relationship with him, and he gratefully informed her that she was the only friend he had ever had. According to June, everyone encouraged the friendship because it seemed to do the man a great deal of good. She returned to the hospital several times after her discharge in order to visit with him. Such consideration and generosity are typical of June's loyalty to her friends. Unfortunately, her overeager and awkward social conduct probably repulses many potential companions. The Posts' free time is usually spent watching television. Having no transportation, they rarely go out and never even mentioned attending movies. Alan is even more confined than June: she takes an active part in church activities and owns an organ on which she practices diligently. She is very adept at playing this instrument, a high-school graduation gift from her father. She performed for us on several occasions, usually playing selections of religious music. Watching June play, we were impressed by her serious involvement. As the reader may have gathered by now, June's life revolves to a great extent around religious activities and concepts. She attends church services at least once a week and takes part in Sunday school classes. (Through these activities she met a married couple who often act as benefactors to both of them.) "My interest is working with people who have problems with not knowing how to find Christ as their Savior. I've been criticized for helping, you may say, hippies about their need for Christ on the University campus. I've talked to them and some of them are very nice and some are very eager for help and I've been criticized for it." Sincerely believing that "I was called to be a missionary," June regrets the fact that her handicaps and brain damage inhibit her natural potential. Yet this does not dissuade her from her duty: having decided that she is indeed a better Christian than her uncle, a Methodist preacher, June has determined to go "save him and his family." Why? "Well, God just spoke

CASES: MARRIED INDIVIDUALS

57

to my heart about it. Some of these psychiatrists, they think you're nuts if you get visions and dreams and, if God speaks to you, they think you're absolutely nuts. That's what one of them said and he's a Christian. He's a Catholic but he's a Christian. Doctors like that, they have no more idea what I live for than a peanut in a hole." [Laughs] Later on, on another topic: "If I could be someone else, who would I like to be? Well, let's see, I put myself in Billy Graham's wife [sic] place and see how she feels when he has to go off and be away from the family . . . or Oral Roberts' wife-the same way I'd like to be a pastor's wife but I'd like to go along with my husband and I wouldn't take my children, because the children would be in school... but I'd have to be with them some and be a good mother to my children and be a good wife to my husband. I'd be, uh, I'd have to conform to two different ways. Part time one way, part time another." June evaluates herself positively: "I have respect for my body. I like to be neat and clean and tidy. And that's what I like, to be fresh . . . " There is, however, one major change which she desires—she asks God to help her control her nervous condition. She acknowledges her handicaps, it is true, but only in vague, diffuse terms, such as "brain damage." Freely admitting that she has often been committed to a mental hospital, June even confessed that during her last stay there the nurses "said I was the biggest baby they ever had. I wasn't feeling good and I was disturbed and I was just emotionally unstable for a while." June is very much concerned about people's opinions of her. For example, when the interviewer alluded to the fact that she knew one of her counselors, June promptly asked, "What does she say about me?" The field worker replied, "Nice stuff." "Tell me," probed June. There was nothing else to tell, so June reassuringly answered her own question: "She told you that I had a good mind." And, whenever she felt that she was saying something important, she insisted on being certain that the tape recorder picked it up. Her own comments pleased her so much that she would bounce up and down after each answer, begging, "Oh, ask me the next question." June's sensitivity is reflected by her feeling that people do not give her a fair chance to prove her "great capabilities," a phrase she often uses. "People have not given me the opportunity because they're afraid that my handicap—they're afraid that young people would make fun of me . . . and maybe if I had the education behind me I'd be able to do different." In short, June is convinced that she needs help in getting more training and education so that she can prove herself to be a worthwhile person. But,

58

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

according to June, because her persuasiveness is sadly lacking, she cannot "sell" her attributes to others. Especially proud of her musicianship, she began practicing her singing at the time of the study and called us to say that the next time we met "you'll really have something to look forward." We were never able to enjoy our voice recital: June explained with considerable giggling that she had rehearsed the wrong religious song. How would Alan describe himself? "I would tell about my medication. I'm Alan Post, I'm a natural young man, I do my work. I'm not a hotshot like some of these people are. Like some of these hippies, you have to watch out for. They're okay, b u t . . . we're, of course, we're all the same, there are different looks, different faces, different actions, but we're all the same. I don't think of myself as being better, I'm just natural." As a sort of appendix to this case study, let us add the rather painful details of our special relationship with the Posts, especially June. Getting into a comfortable, familiar friendship with her was quite easy; the tricky part was extricating ourselves. Initially, June seemed to understand our purposes, but she soon lost track of them in her eager rush to include us in her circle of close friends. Following the second session, she began phoning the interviewing team at least once a week, then accelerated her communications until they became a daily routine. June phoned often and at any hour, even during meals and in the early morning. By calling the office, she soon commandeered our secretary as a "phone pal," so to speak. Then she contacted the researcher, initiating an overwhelmingly time-consuming relationship; she called twice a day and each call could last as long as an hour. When we went for the third interview, June was wearing a one-piece playsuit that barely covered her crotch. She sat across from the interviewer with her legs apart or folded beneath her in a most immodest pose. She was, of course, blissfully unaware of the impression she was making. To the further amazement of the interviewer, she would sometimes stand up, put her hands inside the bottom part of her playsuit and rub the playsuit up and down against her body, just as babies sometimes do. The party for June's twenty-ninth birthday was another rather depressing experience. It took place at the Posts' home, long after the last interview; since June herself was supervising the party, we were all invited. Because the field workers were out of town, I went alone to the celebration, taking numerous gifts. There were two categories of guests: four persons, either brain-damaged or retarded, and three others—June's two benefactors from church and myself.

CASES: MARRIED INDIVIDUALS

59

Alan was definitely the more socially competent of the two. He masterfully lit the candles on the cake and advised his wife as to proper protocol. June decided that each of the "younger" ladies in the group should have a rose from the cake. Of course, being a young lady herself, she too took a rose, thus depriving (and amusing) the lone older lady. Alan interrupted, "Honey, that just ain't right. You've got to give what is good to the guests." June would then talk while chewing an overabundance of colored icing; the frosting dribbled out of her mouth, raining down upon her already dirty dress, only to be smeared and rubbed into the cloth as she tried to brush it off. Overly excited, she gestured frantically, flapped her arms, laughed, shouted, and generally wavered on the verge of a manic phase. She ripped open the gifts like a five-year-old child, while Alan reminded her each time to pass the present around. Picking the evening purse given to her by one of us, she exclaimed, "It must be expensive!" then added confidentially, "but you can afford it." A woman arrived late; June greeted her cursorily. Then, "Oh, you've got a gift," she shouted, snatching the box from this new guest's hands. The two benefactors were quite amused. They treated June affectionately but patronizingly. Neither Alan nor the other retardates seemed to be surprised by June's behavior. After an hour of such celebration, however, we were ready to depart. We had anticipated difficulties in removing ourselves from the party, but such was not the case. Dazzled by the thrill of the fête, June hardly noticed our exit, and neither she nor Alan made any significant reply to our good-bye.

G E O R G E and Y O L A N D A

McCOY

The amazing physical contrast between George and Yolanda McCoy certainly supports the old axiom that opposites attract. After five tumultuous years together, they have two sons, Chris and Dave, aged four and three respectively. At twenty-four, George is tall, very thin at 130 pounds, and has a light-skinned rugged face topped by waves of greasy blond hair. His IQ has been assessed as 76 and he is not retarded in appearance. Rather, he personifies the hoodlum of the 1950's, with his rough looks, long slick hair, and the tattoo on his left arm which reads "Born to be hanged." His worn casual clothes were often filthy from working; but, at other times, he was exceptionally clean. Yolanda, twenty-eight, is huge; she is both tall and obese. Although Mexican American, her dark complexion, kinky black hair, and broad

60

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

features suggest possible Negro ancestry and her siblings are indeed unusually dark. The records show an IQ of 72, and she has a history of prolonged state-school residence. Although she does not behave in a retarded fashion, her appearance would most likely peg her as a retardate. Her fleshy homeliness is augmented by a prominent bump on her forehead which has grown over the years and may have to be surgically removed. Yolanda dresses poorly, usually draping her 240 pounds in very dirty smocks. Her size is the main thing she would change about herself: "A doctor told me if I didn't lose weight, I could have a lot of trouble, you know." She tried diet pills prescribed by their family physician. Four months later, however, Yolanda abandoned the idea of using drugs: "I was afraid of them. They're narcotic. It's dope." At the time of the first interview, George was working for a construction company as a laborer while Yolanda was a part-time employee at the same cleaning establishment which had hired her off and on over the past seven years. She was in the process of searching for a new job, since her salary was being depleted paying baby-sitting fees. By the second session, Yolanda had indeed quit, and, a few days later, George was laid off by his boss, who had been remunerating him quite well. So began their progressively deteriorating financial situation which continued throughout our acquaintance with them. "We've been getting lower and lower and lower. It's just too much trouble. We ran out of food, we ran out of money, we're behind in all our payments and everything." George went job hunting for two weeks, then worked as a hospital janitor for two. "That's all they needed me for, just painting and goofing off." By then, the McCoys were in desperate financial straits. No food, no money, no bills paid. Without the aid of their benefactors, their situation would have been hopelessly miserable. One man, probably a representative of the Mental Health-Mental Retardation Center, brought groceries on several occasions, stipulating that the food should be given to the children. He had also located a nursery for Chris, who received transportation to and from school courtesy of a benefactress. The latter assured the McCoys that she would take care of any medical services needed by the children. In addition, the McCoys were aided monetarily and in an advisory capacity by the former state-school girls' supervisor whom they call "Grandmother." And George's father helped out; he paid for three months' rent and bought medicine to heal an infection George had contracted. Between the second and third sessions, after several weeks of unemployment, a counselor at the MHMR Center recommended George for a

CASES: MARRIED INDIVIDUALS

61

position as school custodian. George seemed to enjoy this new occupation although the pay was low and he was sometimes teased by the schoolchildren. "I said, 'If you think you can do the job better, I'll let you have it.' And they said, 'Sure, we can do the job better than you can.' And I said, 'How come you're not working and I am?' and they clammed up." By the third interview, George was searching for a part-time job to supplement his janitorial salary which he counted himself lucky to have. (He was earning only $200.00 a month.) He felt confident that he could handle more work, informing us that he had once held three jobs simultaneously while in another city. George called his old employer at the construction company to check on any possible opportunities, but none of his efforts proved fruitful. Yolanda was alarmed by the meagerness of their income, for by then the family was thirty dollars in arrears on their electricity bill and owed eight dollars on the phone payment. To help them out of this tight situation, we gave them thirty dollars. Still, Yolanda was afraid that their power would be cut off and, as predicted, George called us to borrow more money a couple of weeks later because they had gone two days without electricity and had no food left. The interviewer lent them thirty dollars and, as promised, George sent him a money order for that sum the next weekend. But the difficulties continued. Several more weeks passed—the female field worker received a call from Yolanda requesting that she phone George's father and ask him to give the McCoys some money. George had refused to do this himself, for he desired to appear self-sufficient in his father's eyes, and so Yolanda asked us to tell Mr. McCoy tnat she had made the request. After several attempted long-distance calls the interviewer reached Mr. McCoy. He seemed rather unconcerned, simply stating that George and Yolanda would not budget their money, that he (the father) had given them funds last spring, and that they needed to learn a lesson. George did, in fact, demonstrate very little pragmatism: he insisted on quitting his janitorial job several days later, even though we had suggested he find another position first. In his six years of employment, George has held nine positions and various odd jobs at filling stations. He recognizes the erratic pattern of his record: "Jesus Christ, I've had so many odd jobs it's pitiful!" He first worked as a truck driver in San Antonio, hauling refrigerators, freezers, and furnaces. "I drove a truck for them, which I really didn't have a license for." George obtained this position in a most unusual way. He was out of work, searching for a job. On a trip to San Antonio when they were

62

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

not yet legally married, he and Yolanda passed a lady whose car was stalled on the expressway. George helped her out by walking about six blocks to a filling station to purchase gas. He jocosely related the rest of the story: "And she told me that she was sorry that she took up all my time, and I said, 'Well, I got plenty of time,' and she said, 'Well, you looking for a job?' and I said, 'Yeah,' and she said, 'You got one.' And I didn't even know what it was. So her husband took one look at me, sent me down the street to a barber shop and, man, they gave me a flat. They gave me a flat-top and they shaved me and the whole works, man, just like I was his kid, man, and I just saw him that one day." Later, when Yolanda was due to give birth to their older son, George's father intervened. Ignorant of the impending arrival, he sent George to another city in hopes that he would forget Yolanda. George remained there for two years, employed as a mail handler at the post office. Yolanda again became pregnant and George asked for a transfer to Austin but was refused. He therefore quit and journeyed to Austin, working at a restaurant for a few months, then at a cafeteria for seven. Here he encountered some troubles: "There was Spanish boys, and I used to get into a fight with them every day. Well, anyway, I've had a lot of jobs in Austin since we've been here, and none of them was any good." George then secured another job at a car dealer's for a few months. "When I first got there I was washing cars. After a while I was, uh, a mechanic and they were paying me the same price as I was washing cars and they were doing a bunch of other guys the same way." The eight "mechanics" asked for a raise, were refused, and quit. George then applied for help at an employment agency, which sent him for further vocational training. After a few weeks, he found a position with a construction company, where he stayed for one year. The job adversely affected his health because it demanded that George work in all sorts of weather, and this aggravated his pleurisy, an affliction that has plagued him since childhood. Such sporadic and low-paying employment was certainly not conducive to finding luxurious living quarters. Relatively impoverished, the McCoys' neighborhood is largely populated by blacks. All the houses are set apart by huge yards and it is not a shabby looking environment. The interior of their house is neat, but bare of furniture—especially in the master bedroom. The kitchen is the only room with chairs, so the television resides there. During the summer the field worker helped transport one necessary purchase: old mattresses from a garage sale. Yolanda seemed to

CASES: MARRIED INDIVIDUALS

63

keep the house very tidy. But she herself admitted that she thoroughly prepared for the anticipated visits of the interviewers. "All last week, I'll tell you the truth, I didn't touch this house. I was so tired and I told George, Ί don't feel like cleaning the house.' He said, 'Well, don't clean it.' So I didn't clean for a whole week and I told George, 'Well, she's coming and he's coming and the least I can do is clean up the house.' You know what, this is what makes me mad, I'll tell you. Every time I have company, they come when the house is dirty." Both George and Yolanda were apprehensive about the neighborhood. A week before the last interview, shooting had been heard in their back yard. They had been drinking beer at a neighbor's home at the time. The event was especially upsetting since Chris and David had been left sleeping in the house; Yolanda shrank from considering what could have happened had the children wandered outside. George added: "we usually stay up about, I'd say, at the most twelve o'clock; on the weekends we'll stay up all night because that's when all these little pronto kids, little colored guys, around here start throwing rocks and stuff at the house. And I sit out there on my front porch and watch them . . . first couple weeks we were here, we went to bed and I guess it was about 2:00 in the morning, man, they threw some big rocks at the house. I jumped up, underwear and all, man! I knocked that door down and they were just walking across the street over here. . . . Me and Jackie and Tonto [dogs] were chasing them boys all the way down to the park down there. . . . And boy, don't you think I hit them up side of the head! . . . I knocked them down on the ground.... We just rolled down the hill in the creek, you know, man, it was cold! It was in winter time. But I didn't care. And I just started knocking their heads together and the dogs had the other one up by the park benches, boy, they was biting them up a storm. And so, my wife called the police. And I said, 'What did you call the police for? Here I am half, I just got underwear on and you call the police.' G o l l . . . " But even these disturbances cannot compel the McCoys to move, for they have no money and the house is conveniently located. As George put it, "it may not be the fanciest house in town," but it offers privacy and seven rooms. It does, however, need repairs which the landlord is slow in completing. The McCoys have moved frequently in the past: from San Antonio they journeyed to Houston and then to Austin, where they have inhabited several homes. The latest one prior to this one was in a government housing project which they left because the rent was raised five dollars each

64

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

year they were there. Besides, as George explains, "The walls were about that thin and every time you'd open your mouth, man, they sent cops out there all the time. You can't even sit down and drink a decent beer or have a party or anything without the next-door saying something about it, which they do worse than we do but still they have an excuse to call the cops. And we don't call the cops on nobody. I don't think I've called the cops on anybody in the last three years. The last time I called the cops was when they threw a brick through the window." Besides their deplorable living conditions and grossly inadequate finances, the McCoys have had two cars and, in each instance, ended up in a serious wreck. One accident was George's fault, the other, an unavoidable six-car pile-up. After the last wreck, his license was suspended. George cannot afford to buy a car, anyway, but he is hopeful that his father will pull some strings to get him a temporary driving permit or a motorcyclist's license. As for Yolanda: "I don't drive, I'm scared. You'd be scared, too, if you'd been in as many wrecks as I've been." Although limited in funds and mobility, the McCoys have quite an extensive circle of friends with whom they share their few leisure activities. Many of these people are old companions from state-school or halfway house days. George, in addition, has many intriguing contacts, especially at the police station, where he occasionally serves as an informer in return for favors. And there are friends and acquaintances from his construction and post office work, some of whom have given him inside information on jobs. The McCoys and their friends have established relationships based on mutual aid, helping each other whenever they can. "And so if we need anything or if I need to go somewhere in a hurry or say Sammy would you take me to the hospital or take me to town or something. 'Sure,' and he'll take me. So, and then sometimes when he's in trouble or he needs his car worked on or something like that, say, you know how to fix this and I say, 'Sure.' So I crawl under there and fix it." Both George and Yolanda have sheltered friends. For example, at the time of the first meeting a woman and her baby (and sometimes her boyfriend) were living with the McCoys. George's father, rightly foreseeing trouble, threatened to call the police and have the woman ousted. Many of George's male friends have found refuge, sometimes from their creditors or the police, with the McCoys. To pass the time, they often have friends over for beer. When they do go out, it is usually to drink beer and visit at other people's homes or

CASES: MARRIED INDIVIDUALS

65

"Most of the time we just sit around and watch television or whenever we get a little extra money I guess we'll go to the movies or sometimes we'll take the kids with us." George described playtime at home: "Everybody gets a wet washrag and starts popping each other with it just to have something to do. Really, I was just washing the dishes, something I don't do very often. So she came in here, and she started, 'Oh, look at the little girl we got,' but that's what started it off." Yolanda chimed in, "Well, really, we don't do very much of anything. Our fun is being just a kid. Sometimes all four of us will lay here and start playing and beating each other. You know, we wrestle and, uh, we just play and dance, stuff like that." Yolanda is talented at crocheting. She turned out a neat doily during one particular session and later gave the female interviewer special lessons. But George sees no value in this hobby, dismissing it as "a waste of time." Both George and Yolanda cooperated amiably throughout the interviews, and Yolanda's warm personality was a pleasure. But she did show reticence at the first session—she was in the shower when the field workers arrived, and she remained there, refusing to come out. George acquiesced to the meeting unconcernedly and informed the disappointed female interviewer, "Like I said, I'd drag her out of there if I could." The first field worker was Anglo; the Chicano field worker conducted the second interview and the transformation was wonderful. Yolanda was all smiles and eager to please. "I think that other lady was white. I was washing me, and I didn't want to talk to her. You're not white, are you?" "No, I'm wearing a wig." "You're wearing a wig! I don't believe it. Take it off." [The interviewer complied, revealing her own black hair.] Although both spouses were assessed as retarded, George was to have been the subject of the study because we knew that Yolanda had spent ten or eleven years in a state school. At the end of the second interview, however, we learned that George himself had spent five years at the school, from age thirteen to age eighteen. This sojourn was not one of total institutionalization, for he was often withdrawn by his family. Because of this mitigating factor and because the McCoys are an interesting couple, we decided to retain them in the study. Their past was so enlightening in regard to their present situation that we have chosen to explore this area in some detail.

66

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

Due to the couple's labyrinthine complex of relatives—natural, by marriage, and by adoption-the family picture is especially bewildering. When41/2years old, George was adopted by a college professor who removed him from the orphanage where he had been placed after the death of his parents. George's twin was adopted by others. In addition, George has several stepbrothers from his original parents' family; these boys "were adopted by somebody else and then somebody else got me and the other kids and so on and so forth." Another set of George's stepbrothers and stepsisters may also have been adopted by the father or are perhaps this man's natural children. George's adoptive mother died seven years ago, when he was seventeen, and his adoptive father has since remarried. This new mother has much less education than her husband. After completing high school, she worked as a secretary. George's family has scattered and almost never gets together. George said that his youngest brother would like to visit him and Yolanda but is prohibited from doing so by the father. He also hears little of his twin brother, although the two do correspond. This brother apparently went to college in another state and is now a husband and a new father. When George attended his wedding, this twin was quite surprised to find that George already had a child of his own. The brothers obtain most of their information about each other at second hand, from an aunt who often travels. But, overall, it appears that George is isolated from the bulk of his family, vast and complex as it is. After his adoption, George attended kindergarten and remained in regular school until he was thirteen; although he feels that he was doing well and "was the best speller in the school," he quit in the seventh grade because he was a disciplinary problem. Partially as a result of extensive trouble with the law and meager employment success, George was sent to a state school, where he stayed, off and on, for five years. His attitude toward this experience is one of acquiescence and detached unconcern. "They call it the nut house, but it's real nice. My grandmother [actually a long-time friend and benefactress] happens to be a supervisor for the girls. And we got away with murder." At eighteen, George was sent to a halfway house, where he remained for two years. We know nothing of his opinions on this subject. George and his adoptive brothers were always close while in school, however distant they may be now. In fact, the McCoys were one of four gangs which controlled the school by brawls and terror tactics. For example: "Man, we had a ripsnorting fight one day, man, we went over there

CASES: MARRIED INDIVIDUALS

67

with my sixteen-gauge, my brother had a twenty-gauge, they went over there with a thirty-thirty and you name it, we had it. And we blew that school all to hell." According to George, the school principal started the entire affair. This man accused the McCoys of some misbehavior that "we didn't know anything about 'cause we weren't there that day. But he still accused us the next day when we went to school so I called him a liar, so he kicked me in the teeth and I told him, 'You know what happened to the last man who kicked me in the teeth?' and he says, 'Well, I don't care.' You know, big man, all this mess. So I said, 'All right. You have it your own way, I'll have it mine.' I turned around and walked out; ten minutes later I was back, boy, me and my brothers had those rifles and everything, we blew the door right off his office." The police came and quite a spectacular brawl ensued. George and his brothers were put in jail for three weeks and during that time they proceeded gleefully to disrupt police station routine. Six years later another jail sentence was meted out to George following his departure from the halfway house. The incarceration was the result of a bout with his adoptive father over Yolanda, of whom the father disapproves because she is older than George and, especially, because she is of Mexican American descent. "He got so mad at me one time, and he called her a dirty Mexican and such and such, and it just got to the point where I couldn't take it no more. So I just put a slug in his shoulder. I know where I shoot 'cause I'm an excellent shot. And that's when he took all my guns away from us." Besides George, one of his older brothers was sent to the "pen" three times, for four, two, and three years. The reasons for these convictions are not known. George said of this brother: "He's just a born hoodlum." Yolanda's background is not as violent and bloody but is inherently more pathetic. The youngest of six children, she was only seven years old when her father died. "He wasn't really my father. There were six of us in our family, and all of us from a different daddy. My father was about eighty years old when he married my mother, and my mother was young! She was fifty-six when she died! So then, she went out with other guys and got pregnant but still it carried the name, would claim my father. Everybody carried his name." Yolanda, the only one of the siblings who knows the truth, heard this from her grandmother. At an early age Yolanda learned what it means to be farmed out to foster homes. Although her mother was alive until Yolanda's seventeenth year, the poverty of the family and the mother's erratic life style neces-

68

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

sitated Yolanda's departure. The mother not only neglected the children but also mistreated her aging husband. "My mother didn't feed him hardly, didn't wash his handkerchief. I used to run and do things for him and stuff like that. My mother was pretty mean to my daddy according to my grandmother. And my daddy always knew what she was doing, but there was nothing he could do, he was a very old man. I don't see how he lived to be eighty years old." Yolanda's foster-home sojourns were interspersed with brief stays at the homes of her siblings, especially her older brothers. Recalling the brutality of these brothers, Yolanda relates hair-raising tales of beatings and family brawls: "he whipped the heck out of my sister-in-law, broke her nose, and left the little boy on the floor, blue as he could be. But they couldn't do nothing to him because he wasn't in his right mind." There is even a family rumor that one brother once chased their mother, who was naked, all the way to the railroad tracks: "He almost tried to kill her. And, you see, I don't know if it's true. I don't have the nerve to go and ask." When Yolanda was small, these brothers "beat me to, death, my mouth was always busted 'cause they used to beat me so bad. They are mean, either one way or the other, they have been in the pen. All of them got bad records." As a result of these nightmarish occurrences, Yolanda determined to marry an Anglo man rather than a Mexican American. Somehow she maintained respect and love for the mother and would constantly run away from temporary homes to try to go back to her. But the mother could not support Yolanda. She could not even buy clothes so that the girl could go to school. Finally, when Yolanda was about thirteen, "the last time I ran off, I got married. I married this guy, he was nice, but, you know, if you don't love a man, you can't stay with one." Yolanda said she was married to this man for seven years but rarely saw him and never had intercourse with him. "I wasn't living with him. He was in Houston and I was in Austin. He didn't even file for a divorce." These years were wild ones for Yolanda. She was placed in a juvenile detention home for a few weeks and, at fifteen, was transferred to a state school where she remained for five years and lived off campus on probation for another five. She described herself during this period as a "hellraiser . . . I was mean. I guess because of the way my brothers treated me. I learned not to take nothing from nobody." Her first mention of the state school caused Yolanda some embarrassment, but this soon wore off. "I tell you, for kids that don't have no homes, that's the perfect place to be. It's a very nice place to b e . . . . But, you know, people think I'm crazy when I

CASES: MARRIED INDIVIDUALS

69

say this, but I'm thankful to God that they took me to the state school, I really do. I mean, there's a lot of things I didn't know, that my mother didn't teach me, 'cause she maybe didn't have the time or just couldn't, she didn't know herself. But I learned more things when I went to the school." Away from the state school, Yolanda received no real education. Although she finished the third grade, a terrible accident destroyed her memory and rendered her unable to read or write. She has never been able to relearn these skills but would still like to do so. In this accident, Yolanda was run over by a truck. Since she was under the legal guardianship of her brother, he accepted responsibility for finding a competent lawyer and suing the trucking company. The $28,000 collected was to be deposited in Yolanda's name. (That such poor people should have been awarded so large a settlement is unlikely, and this led us to speculate whether or not the whole story was accurate.) Four thousand dollars was needed for medical expenses and three thousand was expended during her stay at the state school. The fate of the remainder is a mystery. Yolanda suspects her brothers and sisters of forging her name and cashing checks. Someone suggested that she sue both the lawyer in charge and her siblings who squandered the money, but, illiterate and ignorant as she is, Yolanda is confused as to the proper means of solving her problem, hence is resigned to the situation. In addition, she fears the painful reminders of her past which may await her. Memories were dredged up during her last trip there: "They [her brothers] told me things that it hurt, it hurt pretty bad. This man my mother was living with had his own wife, but he had them, both of them together in the same house, and, the way I heard it, he slept with both of them and got both of them in at almost the same t i m e . . . . Or he was slapping her or when he would jump for her, he would take her in the bathroom and leave her all bruised. [This is when the welfare agency found out about the children and decided to take them away from the mother.] And I told George I never wanted to suffer like she did. And I see what he done, 'cause he even tried to rape me, my own father-in-law. No, my mother's husband. [Yolanda sympathetically perceives her mother's problems: afflicted with tuberculosis, the woman could only make a living as a prostitute.] But a lot of people thought, and I thought that she was pretty low, you know, I realized to myself, well, if I think that if I had the kids that she had and no husband and knew I had to keep my kids fed and everything, I think I would have done it too. You realize, you know, what your mother was going through. Now I realize

70

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

what my mother was going through, now that I have the kids. [And Yolanda compares her present poverty to her past despair and counts herself fortunate] : I never had the things I have now... .And I never knew the meaning owning beautiful clothes or even owning a bedspread of my own. And I think I'm pretty lucky. [She fondly touched her brandnew bedspread.] I mean, I have it bad. But at least I got my family and my own husband and someone who cares for me like I care for them." "Lucky" or not, Yolanda has been working ever since she was seventeen. She began by helping out at the state school, caring for the more retarded children. Yolanda added that through this kind of work "you learn about really, actually what's going on there in that school. And, and you meet boys. Some boys are smart, some boys are pretty, kind of, like I say, retarded." At twenty, when Yolanda was placed on probation, she had moved in with a Chicano couple and obtained a position at a cleaning firm, a job located for her by the state school. "They keep me there for six months, and if you prove that you are able to pay your own rent, where you go, go to work and, you know, keep yourself in place, they'll give you your discharge for six months." Kind and helpful, Yolanda's employer trained her and taught her how to deal with money. He was always concerned about Yolanda's well-being, as can be seen in the excerpt below. [Yolanda began the story with a reference to her past.] I didn't even know a single thing about sex. See, my four brothers, they used to bring boys to my house, you know what they used to do to me? They would throw me in the back room and just keep me there until the boys would leave. I never went out with boys. So one time I went out with the wrong company and I got pregnant, and I didn't want the child . . . you said this was confidential? . . . Well, it was my boss [who arranged for an abortion]. It was at first they thought he had done it. And I told them no, I told them what happened. His wife and him got together and told me if I wouldn't tell anybody, nothing would happen. So his wife called her doctor and her doctor said, well, how far out was I gone, and they told him I had just been missing my period that month, so he said, "I think we can help her," and he gave me the pills. And I had a miscarriage. And I was pretty upset. 'Cause, like I said, I never went out with people. And when you go out for the first time, you're out free and you're going to have fun, and my mistake was going out and getting drunk, 'cause when I get drunk I go out. Anyway so after that accident happened, I never went out any more. [This aid is something Yolanda will not soon forget, for she feels that few people would show such concern. Not surprisingly,

CASES: MARRIED INDIVIDUALS

71

she continued to work at the cleaner's for seven years, taking time off only to have her two children.] The McCoys' life may not look rosy, but it must be acknowledged that they have remained together, in support of each other, through years of hardship. They first met at a state school when Yolanda had just been given a probational discharge. She was twenty, George, sixteen. They agreed that "we would see how we would put up with each other. So we learned that we could, you know. Well, at first I [Yolanda] thought it was puppy love, that's what they call it." According to George, Yolanda had been dating his closest friend at the state school. "We had a fight and I wound up with her." George speculates that his involvement with her may have been to show his father that "I can handle myself." But he jokingly claims that he was not really in the market for a wife: "Really it jumped in my back pocket. No joke! I wasn't expecting it, to get hooked when it did." And he added that Yolanda asked him " 'Will you marry me?' I said, 'Yeah.' She said, Okay.' " George stayed at the state school for two more years, then spent two additional years at the halfway house, so he and Yolanda saw each other only rarely, although they had originally planned to test the workability of their relationship. Then his father sent him to another city to forget Yolanda. The two were together for one spectacular weekend when they splurged by staying at a well-known hotel in San Antonio. Yolanda cherishes this as her most luxurious experience. "And we came to know that there was a lot of movie stars there that weekend. Everything was push-button and people. Even in the bathroom. You go in there and they have this beautiful glass on it. And the TV, all you had to do was get this little thing, push-button and change it to any station. Oh, it was so beautiful, I told George I would like to go back there. Just think, that's the place where all the movie stars go! We call that our honeymoon and I think I was just beginning to be pregnant then." Later, while away, George had saved five hundred dollars. He returned to Austin and the two were reunited. By this time Chris was already seven months old; George had never seen his son before. "The baby looks like me, and he [his father] was swearing up and down it was going to be a Mexican. So when he took one look at that baby, man, he just collapsed." George bought clothes for Yolanda and Chris, and the couple settled down to a common-law marriage. A year later they were officially wed. George's father tried to annul the union, without success, for George had been twenty-one at the time of the nuptials.

72

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

Looking back on their three years of real marriage and two years of the common-law arrangement, George and Yolanda remember having had hard times and feeling that the world was against them. But they agree that they both considered the matter fully and knew what they wanted, even though George was so very young and they had had few chances to see each other over a long period of time. Obviously a major problem in the McCoy marriage is George's parents' utter rejection of Yolanda. They discussed this topic at length, although Yolanda was more outspoken than George. Yolanda 's sole visit with the senior McCoys resulted in a huge quarrel. They treated her coldly, making her feel "lower than an animal." While Yolanda acknowledges the monetary assistance given by the McCoys, she laments the lack of familial affection: "I never knew the meaning of having a father or a mother or anything, and he was fortunate to have a father and a mother and a home. I thought that perhaps his parents might give it [love] to me. But they never have." This ill-feeling and estrangement is augmented by Mr. McCoy's frequent weekend visits to his new Austin home. He sees George, ignoring Yolanda and the children. "They come and take George every day, every Saturday and Sunday. My kids and I don't mind it so bad. It's just the way their attitude is toward us. Well, namely me, I'm not quite sure about our kids yet but I know it's me. He calls, Tell George I'll pick him up at 7:30.' Don't ask us if we've got plans or anything like that, you know." The McCoys bring George back late at night. He first tried to make Yolanda think that he had been helping his father, but she knows that "he was out, running around eating at fancy restaurants and driving with them. But me and my kids, we stay here, shut up all day long. And I said, 'Your parents don't even come in to say, "Maybe we can visit here with Yolanda and the kids," but they'll never do that. Or they'll never say, "Well, let's go by and get the kids and Yolanda and take them out to eat supper." ' I believe that George should tell them what he feels . . . but George doesn't and I bawl him out for it. I tell him, I say, 'Well, you ain't a damn man like you say you are, you acting like a kid. You let your daddy boss you around, and you're twenty-four years old.' And, of course, he gets mad and say, 'Well, hell, get out of here if you don't like it.' Then he come back five minutes later and say, 'You know very well I'd be right behind you if you left.' But, you know, I gotta, I hope I'm wrong, I don't know, but when they move here, they'll be moving pretty soon—the end of the summer. Here in Austin. And I told George the other day . . . I said, now I

CASES: MARRIED INDIVIDUALS

73

believe I'll go through it, but if they're going to be taking him out every weekend and all and not giving a hoot about us. I really don't care, it's my kids that count." In spite of their poverty and in-law problems, the McCoys' marriage seemed stable throughout our acquaintance with them. But Yolanda doubts the sincerity of George's feelings for her; she thinks that he may have tired of her within the past year. She senses that both of them, especially George, are less patient now. He has complained to Yolanda of being "henpecked," a term previously unfamiliar to her. The interviewer defined the expression and asked if it accurately described Yolanda's behavior. She admitted that she was restrictive of his going out ("Past five feet from the front door, I won't trust him.") and speculated that this might be contributing to the waning of his feelings. But we observed no decline in the relationship; of course, the two have their ups and downs, yet they always seem to land on their feet. Still, if Yolanda keeps "henpecking," does nothing to improve her appearance, and is unable to compete with the pressure of her hostile in-laws, her apprehensions may well become reality. It is hard to ferret out George's feelings for Yolanda. What does he like best about her? "I can't think of anything offhand. [Laughs] She's all right. Sometimes we have a fuss or fight but, you know, we haven't had a real fuss or squabble in about a year, I guess two years." [Yolanda concurred.] George is grateful that Yolanda is the "one in this whole world that control my temper. Now that's the only thing I can really think of that really got us together. I mean, man, when I get in one of them ripsnorting fits of mine, she was around, and, man, it kept me out of a lot of trouble. I could be in prison for the rest of my life for killing somebody, but she was right there and she talked me out of it and I just calmed down." We then asked George what he liked best about being married. "Good question. Oh, I don't know, I really can't complain. I mean, it's one big headache. But I am in it, and I have to stay in it, so I just work it out the best way I c a n . . . . Really, I can't say that, that's what I don't like about it 'cause I like to see my kids grow up and go to school." What sort of husband does George fancy himself? "A lousy one! A lousy one! Man, I'll tell you that right now! These kids, I can't hardly do anything with them." From our observation, Yolanda directs George in household chores and he seemingly submits. With us, at least, he always appeared jocose and teasing, never hostile or resentful. For instance, he intruded at the end of

74

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

his wife's third interview. She was commenting that men have no worries, such as pregnancy, with which to concern themselves. George threw in, "Just thank the Lord." Yolanda then told the younger child, who was screaming as usual, to go outside and play with his daddy. George: "Why are you so enthusiastic?" Yolanda, laughing: "Go away, I can't talk when you're here." Yolanda would divide their marital problems into three sections: discussions about the children which end in arguments over George's showing favoritism for the younger boy ; Yolanda's jealousy ; George's unfaithfulness. George offered scant comment on these topics, so our only real source of information was Yolanda. Chris and David receive differential treatment from their father. Yolanda's explanation: George first saw Chris at age seven months and accepted him as his own son. But George watched the baby, David, "come out all bloody and dirty so he's loved him ever since he's [been a] baby and showed this to his son. He lets them know he loves David more, and that's wrong. I treat them equally, I treat them, one I treat like the other." With George it is another story: if Chris wants candy from the store, George refuses; if David wants it, George buys it; he then gets something for Chris as an afterthought. "But it's just because David asks for it. When Chris was a baby about seven months old, George used to take care of him for me while I was at work. And every afternoon when I'd get home from work, Chris would be all black and blue and I'd get real mad at him and I'd say, 'Well, why is he so black and blue?' and George would get mad at me and he'd say, 'If you don't trust me with my own son then you take care of him.' " George still gets angry with Chris, sometimes hitting him for something which may be David's fault. This might well explain Chris's poor attitude toward and resentment of his father. We can testify to Chris's outspoken hostility: we heard him yell at George, "I'm going to sock you." Yolanda added, "His daddy will be arguing with me, and Chris will go and say, 'Don't you talk and don't you sass my mummy. I'm going to kill you.' You know, and David would never do anything like that, and that's because Chris knows that he's not treated fairly and that his daddy loves David more." Yolanda spoke of another problem: the jealousy both spouses exhibit. I had a hard time trying to keep him away from other girls. One time he played too hard and he almost didn't have me any more. And the funny part about it was I found out this year! . .. You know, do you ever get the feeling that you think your husband's doing something wrong? Well, I

CASES: MARRIED INDIVIDUALS

75

knew what was going on 'cause this woman lived in my own house, you know. They were in a situation that had two kids and they needed help. My husband agreed to have them in the house and I didn't. It was his idea. . . . And it came to that, he didn't put any attention to me, you know. He was more protective to her and her kids when her husband wasn't there. See? And it came to that, well, they went to bed together. . . . And how, I guess I can understand this, if I go to a bed and strip myself naked, can a man refuse? No. They take advantage of it. All right. When he told me, and he just told me this year, it happened last year, it almost came to a separation, really. Because I told him [mumbled-very softly spoken] : a man can't get too low when it comes to doing it in your own house and in your own bed. And I fussed at him . . .[pause] and I never seen a man cry like he did. I mean, he was pretty sorry and all. And I said, "Well, I guess everybody's entitled to a mistake once in a while." And I just took it, I, well, it had already happened, I couldn't do anything about it. Yolanda refuses to accept this behavior because she herself has had such opportunities but has refrained from temptation, so George's actions seem unfair. "You know, I had a man after me, five dollars just to have an intercourse with him. He knew me, I'd dated him before. But I turned him down and I told him to get out of my house and never come back. I've never seen him. He's never come back. I could have done it, my husband wouldn't have known." And, from her description, George seems at least as jealous as she: "If I dress, if I dress up, you see how I am now, that's how he likes me to go around. [It is? She looked terrible!] If I, if I wear make-up, roll my hair, fix it up, and put on a nice dress, he say, 'Who in the hell do you think you're going to see?' But I really, I got all the make-up, I got everything I need to wear and he says he don't approve of it. 'Cause he says I'm, he calls me good looking. Or sometimes he calls me masota." [A sexy, lusty thing.] In spite of these difficulties, Yolanda still views their marriage positively: "And still people can't understand. . . . 'Cause they told me, you'll never make it, you and that boy'll never make it. Well, we were determined to prove that we will make it and so far we have. Well, you know, the funniest part, people can't understand us because we argue. I mean, we just cuss each other out sometimes, and the next minute we're just hugging and kissing each other. They just can't understand it." Her "ideal husband" is a mixture of George as he is and as she would like him to be. "Well, I would still have to pick a white boy. I would pick

76

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

one of them that I knew would be nice to me, and they would be a little bit wealthy, especially. And I would pick one where the parents could like me. I think, they [Mexicans] are good looking, real nice looking, attractive and everything. But I don't think I'd like to be married to one because I've seen how my brothers treat their wives. They beat on them, and they always go out drinking there with some other women. 'Cause my brother's been married twice. The same time been living with both of them." Yolanda sees herself as a fairly good wife but concentrates her main efforts and attention on being a good mother. It is not likely that she will have any more children, because of George's sterilization. "Do you want more children?" "I can't have no more." [George] "Oh, I see." "You don't want me to explain that do you?" "No. Uh, I, know, right." [Laughs] "I will if you want me to. It's real simple." "No, that says it for itself, I mean, you know." [The interviewer is embarrassed.] Yolanda has mixed feelings about George's sterilization. On the one hand, she would like to have a little girl: "We're thinking of having it opened. But we don't know yet. We haven't made up our minds yet, but . . . " On the other hand, the situation has various advantages; Yolanda recently learned that the woman George slept with last year has just had a baby, and, of course, it cannot belong to George " 'Cause he can't have none." But what of the children they do have? Both boys are handsome. Chris, four, is a thinnish, long-bodied, blue-eyed blond like George. David, three, is also fair, but chubby and rather dull looking. Although sometimes well dressed, they were usually filthy, muddy, with runny noses. David seemed retarded and one of our consultants confirmed that both boys were subnormal. The only set of children disliked by both field workers, Chris and David were unceasingly bratty. They were never satisfied to be quiet, but pestered both parents constantly during interviews, disrupting all of the recordings. They entered, crying, and climbed on George's lap, begging for favors. The interviewers were accosted too; they threw a rock at the male researcher's car and used a hose to "wash" the female field worker's openwindowed auto, then sprayed everyone in the living room through a window. The interviewer took them for a drive, and they scattered the en-

CASES: MARRIED INDIVIDUALS

77

tire contents of the glove compartment all over her station wagon. Back home again, they yanked their poor dog's tail and threw her puppies around unconcernedly. George commands almost no obedience or deference whatsoever, and he admits it: "They mind me but Chris won't mind me too much." Yolanda had to urge Chris not to "sass" George, and we saw him hit his father, although George was more often the aggressor. For example, Chris tried to retrieve an object from a drawer; his father had told him that it was not there. George suddenly jumped up and whacked the child so hard that Chris could have fallen on the corner of the table and hurt himself badly had Yolanda not caught him. This happened suddenly, startling both interviewers. George describes his methods: "I got a bad habit of hitting him on the head. You know, clang like that. But then she comes in here and she jumps on me for hitting him. But she don't baby him, 'cause she just jump me for hitting him on the head. And then she'll spank him on the butt and she'll tell him, 'If you don't mind your daddy, you're going to get a good licking,' and he'll do what I tell him to. But, if it weren't for her, he wouldn't do anything." Yolanda feels that George's brand of punishment is too harsh and inconsistent. "This is the habit that he got, when he gets after them, he spanks them, you know, and then he comes along and pat them. See? And that don't work.... And I don't know why, but both of them mind me better. When I spank them, I don't go along and pat them." And so it is not surprising that, in George's opinion, the hardest part of having children is "keeping them under control." He explained his fierce and unfair treatment of Chris just as Yolanda did: that Chris was already seven months old when father and sonfirstmet. When she was a working mother, Yolanda had to put the children in a nursery recommended by the MHMR Center. She feels that their behavior has worsened since then, for they fight as they never did before. Nevertheless, George and Yolanda are proud of the children, and George does not want his boys to have "the same trouble we went through. I mean, to tell you the actual truth, me and my wife been nothing but pure hell ever since we've been married." (George attributes most of these problems, probably rightly, to the controlling influence of his father.) Yolanda wants the boys to go to college. She feels that David should be "some kind of musical man. He loves singing. Every time we go to a store that has drums and guitars, oh, he just goes crazy. Chris, he's more the type of mechanic. Pretty good with his hands, I tell you." George adds: "They're growing up

78

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

too fast, we got to get something done. My father's going to help us plan a, some kind of savings bond or something like that, 'cause we've got to get something going before it's too late. And the way things going, the prices going up on everything, it's just going to be harder and harder. Just think, when they get up to be in the first grade or grammar school or something like and go into that college, wow, man, when they get into college, man, it's not going to be one hundred dollars a month like it is now, it's going to be two hundred to three hundred a month." Yolanda sees herself in a fairly realistic but quite positive way. Concerned about her physical appearance, she good-naturedly stated that she is "pretty horrible." She has never had confidence in her appearance, for even when younger and less overweight, she could not believe that men enjoyed looking at her. Another facet of Yolanda's desire for change: "I would like to be educated, know how to read, and depend on my own self and nobody else." Nevertheless, Yolanda likes and respects herself "in a certain way." She realizes that she has surmounted many obstacles which could have destroyed her life. For instance, she alone supported her first child, born out of wedlock, and she asserted that this experience had matured her. "If I would have never had Chris, I don't think I would have come out to be what I am now. I'd probably be like other girls-going out, getting drunk, or getting pregnant by anybody. But that boy, got, just kept me in place." Yolanda also recognizes her own latent potential for improvement. She offers as support the fact that her employer once remarked that she would be a success if she had some education. He added that she was sophisticated in spite of her lack of education (she pronounced "sophisticated" as "fistiated" and then "fisticated"), and that "I know more than people give me credit for. And, in other words, they tell me I'm smarter than my husband . . . my little honey [George] here, he don't say nothing—he's always giving me compliments, but not like this. I was shocked when he [the employer] told me that, you know." One of George's prominent traits is his hot temper, which Yolanda explained accordingly: "He's a Jew, you know, he has Jew, Apache, Indian, all kinds mixed in him. And when he was a little boy he got run over by a tractor, and it makes him lose his temper so fast that I mean, you tell him a cross word, and that's a fighting word." Blatantly honest in his self-evaluation, George described himself as "mean and ornery and cantankerous. I know I'm quick tempered." He laughed, then stated that his opinion of himself was pretty low. "Why are you laughing?" queried the interviewer. George replied, "I'm serious. I

79

CASES: MARRIED INDIVIDUALS

really can't say because, well, it's like a person with a split personality. One minute . . . well, I guess it's the way things go around here, kind of splits you in half." George freely acknowledges his limitations, often requesting information and verbal assistance. Still, rationalizing that life has dealt him many an unjust blow, he rejects any guilt he might feel for his shortcomings and his past record. He says that he is often frustrated by his own ignorance in a given situation (primarily vocational and financial), for he does not comprehend all facets of a matter until it is too late to rectify mistakes or snatch opportunities. Yet he will not accept aid as a retardate and seems to shun the label and all its connotations. For example, speaking of the MHMR Center:"She [the counselor] wants us to join that thing, she said, oh, retarded people, do this, that . . . And I said, well, don't ask me any more 'cause I'm going to tell you right now, I'm not interested. I'll make my own way if people like it or not. I mean, I may act kind of funny at times or stupid, or something like that, that's besides the point. I'm making a living, I've got a family, and I'm going to take care of them. Whatever people think about that, that's their business. See what I mean?" IRMA

and

SANTIAGO

LEDESMA

Twenty-three-year-old Irma Ledesma is a housewife and her husband, Santiago, also twenty-three, is a truck driver. They have three little ones of their own so far, two boys and a girl. The Ledesmas' home is filled to overflowing with, all told, twelve members of Irma's family. To say that they were hard to interview is a gross understatement. The number of trips necessary for even minimal communication with them, plus the conversations themselves, were extremely discouraging. Santiago was questioned only twice; he refused to cooperate at the second session, standing the field worker up on several occasions. So we decided to desist for a while and planned to court him more assiduously for the final session. Meanwhile, a Chicano interviewer had taken over all of the Chicano subjects. Although she found Irma very easy to locate, as she was always at home, her dealings with Santiago were a caballo of a different color—he obviously did not want to be bothered, yet he would never say so directly. Instead, he chose to be absent on the evenings—four of them—that had been scheduled; on three other occasions, his wife told the field worker that he was not in when, in reality, he was. We made an unprecedented total of ten pilgrimages to the Ledesma home

80

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

at the time of the third interview in order to converse with Santiago, who, ironically, was very friendly and cooperative as soon as the session had begun. This is not meant to imply that he was at all talkative or informativefar from it. While Santiago, unlike his wife, has no recorded history of mental retardation, he is definitely dull witted, although, admittedly, not so dull witted as Irma. He spoke in complete, if short, sentences, and his English was adequate; his wife usually expressed herself in two-word phrases. Her amiability did not make up for her inability to articulate adequately in either English or Spanish. Irma's obviously deficient intellect, at one time registered as 62, coupled with her meager vocabulary, meant that understanding the questions was almost impossible for her. In addition, the interviews were wasted in terms of factual data because she was highly suggestible, changing her mind several times on a given topic within a few minutes. Her answers augmented this intolerably boring situation by being bereft of any significance. Question: what are you going to have for supper tonight? "I don't know. We'll eat food." Still, the dearth of Irma's conversation was more than compensated for by the overflowing abundance of her laughter, loud, raucous, and jovial. She responded thus to almost anything the interviewer said, as if from nervousness, yet she was relatively calm throughout the sessions. On the whole, Irma came across as behaving very childishly. Even amidst all these difficulties, we were nevertheless able to gather a certain amount of information on the Ledesmas, but the whole procedure was very tedious, and the results, we feel, were lackluster and moribund. Married only five years, Irma is distinguished by one inescapable characteristic-she is extremely obese. Standing only 5 feet 1 inch off the ground, she weighs between 250 and 300 pounds. Her body is enormous, and the size of her arms, each at least 30 inches in diameter, defies the imagination. She rarely shifts her position—instead of turning her head, she allows her eyes to roam from side to side in order that she may observe what is going on around her. Because of her corpulence, she may very well be more vulnerable to the heat than mortals of average size; therefore she stays as cool as possible by moving as little as necessary. She keeps her black hair tied back; although clean, she is sloppy in appearance and usually wears smocks. Yet if Irma were less fat, her pleasing features would make her rather pretty. In sharp contrast to this wife, Santiago, 5 feet 7 inches, has a medium build. Dark and ordinary in appearance, he is nevertheless becoming more

CASES: MARRIED INDIVIDUALS

81

striking as his moustache lengthens. With the exception of this camouflage on his upper Up, he is always clean shaven and he dresses immaculately. His facial hair contributes to his distinctiveness, which, in turn, increases his resemblance to the type who would appeal to females of his ethnosocioeconomic status, even though he is not particularly handsome. Santiago is in excellent health and has never been ill in his entire life, a statement he makes with great pride. Amazingly, considering her obesity, Irma has rarely been sick. She does complain of frequent headaches, perhaps attributable to "I think, I look, I look too much TV, and I need glasses." She also alluded to gall-bladder difficulties and was waiting to get more money in order to have X-rays taken. She has been in the hospital only twice, once when she had a baby, the second time for an appendectomy, an extremely unpleasant experience because "They don't let you go to sleep and rest." The Ledesmas may be in better physical condition than their three children: two boys, aged four and three, and a little girl, aged eight months, all very emaciated, dark, and scrawny, yet giggly. The oldest definitely looks very dull, if not retarded-in spite of his age, he can express himself only by guttural sounds. His mother understands these odd noises, so they are able to communicate. The other children appear normal enough, although the baby is too young for an assessment to be made. Both spouses had very little to say about the children, a fact particularly noteworthy in Irma's case because mothers usually expounded upon their children at greater length than did fathers. During the third interview, Santiago took the youngest child, who had a severe cough and cold, on his lap, after having locked the door to prevent the other offspring from coming in. The infant was red all over, probably from fever, and was crying incessantly. Irma did not exhibit much concern, although she had gone to a doctor a few days prior to the session and had been given some medicine. This apathy is apparent in most of her dealings with her progeny, though she is somewhat worried about the children's getting into fights and playing in the street. The main administrator of punishment, Irma says that she spanks them when they sneak off to this forbidden place. Both spouses agree on what kind of future they want for their little ones-they hope all three will receive an education, at least by finishing high school. In fact, when we asked Santiago what he and Irma discuss most often, he replied, "about kids and their going to school and all that-go to school and get a good education." Irma also mentioned that

82

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

she objects to their getting married but has no explanation of why she holds this opinion. Their feelings on the subjects of education and marriage seem somehow oriented toward their desire that the children eventually obtain lucrative positions. According to Irma, "When they don't work, they won't get money though. I want they get a good job." The couple had evidently discussed this to some extent, as they concurred. How the two of them ever manage to talk about this or anything else in peace and quiet remains a mystery, for, in addition to the three infants, they live with Irma's parents, one of her brothers, her sister, an uncle, and two cousins. Retardation appears to be thriving among these people, as it is in Irma and her oldest child. For instance, the brother, a tall, dark, skinny seventeen-year-old, attends Special Education classes and definitely looks dull. A little four-year-old cousin, who sat at Irma's feet throughout the second interview, shows strong signs, by his appearance and demeanor, of being a retardate. Irma is the oldest of three children. Her father is a construction worker, and her mother is occasionally employed as a maid. The latter never had any education, while the father probably completed only a few grades. A tall, moustached, normal man, he was very entertaining: he wanted to talk into the tape recorder, never having seen one before. Irma's sister, who was ironing when we saw her, was thin, but did not have as pretty features as her obese sibling. Santiago is the fourth of thirteen children, one of whom, an older sister, died while still in infancy. His parents, who formerly resided in a small town north of Austin, now live in Austin. His father, like Irma's, is a construction worker. Both Santiago and Irma have relatives throughout the city and in several other Texas towns. The crowd living with Santiago and Irma, all twelve of them, are packed into a single house—the only one in the block made of stone—which contains seven or eight rooms. The entire squad of kin was always in the process of cleaning and sweeping the rooms whenever we were there, yet, in spite of valiant efforts, the place is so old that dirt remains triumphant. The house, which looks as if it had been put together by hand, has very small rooms and is obviously extremely crowded. It belongs to Irma's father and Irma has lived in it since birth. The family is, without a doubt, impoverished, but, in view of the fact that Irma's parents, her sister, her uncle, and her own husband work, they are definitely not at the rocky bottom of the poverty scale. They own a shiny '64 Pontiac, decorated inside with all kinds of trinkets.

CASES: MARRIED INDIVIDUALS

83

Neither Santiago nor Irma has had much education. Santiago made it through the seventh grade. "I didn't like school at first. Now I wish I was in school. I'm gonna try and make them [the children] go." Nor did Irma greatly enjoy school, especially since, as she asserted in her own faltering way, "Well, I don't know how, you know, to speak English very well." She implied that she had attended Special Education classes yet did not seem to understand the full meaning of such placement. Like her husband, Irma went through seven grades, and, from her description of what she had studied, we are convinced that she was in a Special Education program. Irma's work history is even more limited than her education-she has never been employed. Contradicting herself as usual, she first stated that she would like to get a job and later that she would not. Both Irma and her husband accept her unemployment without question, for she has, as she pointed out, three children to take care of. However, according to Santiago, if necessary, he would have no objection to his wife's working; still, he definitely seems to believe, as his father did, that women should stay at home and look after their progeny. Santiago has been a truck driver since he started working five years ago when he came to Austin. During that period he has driven for three different companies, having remained an average of almost two years with each. He has been with his present employer since 1968 and is satisfied with his job. He is paid by the hour, and his duties often take him as far as Waco, halfway between Austin and Dallas. "I deliver panel, plywood, sheetrock, shingles." His transactions are made by word of mouth in the sense that no paper has to be signed or checklist filled out as proof of purchase. He works five days a week from 7:30 to 5:00, sometimes later, in which case he is paid for overtime. He and his co-workers are unionized and enjoy the benefits of group insurance. At the time of the third interview, he had broken a leg falling from his fender onto a rock and was, as a result, receiving disability pay: while out of work for six weeks, he would draw approximately half of his regular salary. Although Santiago seems to do very little thinking about the future, he expressed a hope that two things might come about: first, that he would someday buy his own, preferably ready-made, home, since he and his family are so crowded in his in-laws' house, and, second, that he could, somehow, eventually be selfemployed, "own a beer joint." These goals, plus the day-to-day necessities, require money-of paramount importance to the Ledesmas. Irma considers the lack of it her primary problem: "Well, I don't have too much money to buy

84

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

what I want to." While Santiago also recognizes that their tight finances are a dilemma, he made it clear that they are not deprived. His salary, considering that it must support a family of five, is relatively low, yet he drinks about eight dollars' worth of beer each week with friends. When the interviewer commented that Santiago's imbibing must drain them financially, since he visits the bar on a daily basis, Irma responded, with her own brand of logic, that his boozing is a minor expense, not because Santiago has a lot of money, but because, she said, "He got credit in there." In addition, from time to time he lends money and his car to various buddies who will, in turn, do the same for him. His friends can look to Santiago for help, while Irma must evidently turn to her parents when she is in need. Irma has little opportunity to spend money, for she is trapped inside her home. Her recognition of this dilemma was a dominant theme of our dialogue. She is rarely able to visit her friends because she cannot drive and Santiago is not willing to chauffeur her. He does, in fact, prefer that she remain confined to the house. When asked what she likes best about being married, Irma gave the answer of a caged person: "Nothing. [Laughs] Stay home all day, every week, you know." Her resignation is apparent, yet, at times, a tiny trickle of rebellion surfaces. Santiago is so restrictive that he does not allow her to leave the house without asking his permission; this marital regulation obviously peeves Irma more than anything else. Over and over she voiced this resentment, as during the third interview when we asked her what she would most like to change about her life. "I don't like me to stay here all day. Stay home." Santiago's attitude toward Irma's activities reinforced our assumptions concerning her domestic confinement—he makes sure, for example, that if she does leave home she will be back in time to fix supper. What if she is not? "She knows better. Next time she won't get to go out." Irma has little to do with her spouse's social life, but she did say that they share some friends, originally Santiago's, and she has her own small group of female companions. Most of Santiago's buddies are still single. He meets them five evenings a week at a beer joint, and, after drinking for a while, they often troop to baseball practice. In sharp contrast, Irma rarely has the opportunity to go out even once a week, a disparity so pronounced that, in spite of her restricted upbringing, she is definitely resentful. Santiago, however, sees absolutely nothing wrong with such a double standard. Obviously, then, he maintains a much fuller schedule of recreational

CASES: MARRIED INDIVIDUALS

85

pursuits on his hours off than does Irma, her days and nights included. First, there are his frequent beer bouts. Do you get drunk every day? "No, not every day." A few times a week? "Several times a week." He also plays baseball with the boys several evenings each week and occasionally watches a long film, his viewing preference on television. He also shoots pool—rather than for money, they "just play for beer." Whoever comes forth triumphant wins a free beer. Santiago rarely goes to the cinema; he took Irma to one drive-in movie two months prior to the first interview. Together, they sometimes, according to Irma, go driving or dancing and visit her mother-in-law or her grandmother. She watches television constantly in the afternoon and continues doing so into the evening. Evidently her domestic chores provide an outlet for her: "I like to sweep, clean up the house and things like that, I like to cook." But, since Irma contradicts herself every other minute, this pronouncement may be taken with a liberal sprinkling of salt. Although she states, for example, that she barely sets foot outside her home, she is acquainted with several neighbors; but this is not surprising, considering she was born in the selfsame place. So, in view of their lack of companionship, the Ledesmas' marriage is one of the worst we have studied, an arrangement marked by few shared activities and few friends, very little conversation, practically no affection, and even less sex. So how or why did it ever happen? Santiago and Irma were married only six months after Santiago moved to Austin. According to Irma, they eloped and were united by a judge because they were too poor to pay for a big wedding; but she later explained that, perhaps, more to the point, her parents disapproved of the marriage because she was already pregnant at the time, an admission that evoked no embarrassment. In fact, in spite of their having become parents soon after they wed, both would still like to have more children. Irma wants another girl, Santiago, two more, a boy and a girl. Yet Irma does not want this to come about any time soon. Still, "I don't like the [birth-control] pills. It's dangerous." Who told you that? "I don't know." The radio? Irma took the easy way out by assenting to the interviewer's suggestion. The fact that she does not like her husband to touch her very often certainly simplifies the situation, but, nevertheless, she resignedly said that if she were ever to get pregnant, she would "just have the baby." Although their marriage seems to be missing many such basic ingredients as sex, Santiago appears, superficially at least, to be pleased with the union and has very little to say about it. Because he is reasonably satisfied with her talents as wife, cook, and mother, he would, if he could relive his

86

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

life, marry Irma again. Santiago did, however, acknowledge that they sometimes argue: "Well, I stay out too late." Oh, you're staying out too late with your friends? "Yeah, male friends." [Laughs] His wife is unreasonably jealous of him, he feels, due to the fact that she may suspect that he is with women instead of men. Yet Santiago always, strongly denied any such activities on his part even though the interviewer at one point went so far as to imply that nearly all the men she knew were "doing it." He was so adamant, in fact, that he stated, "I think neither of them should have any [sex relationships on the side]." One of his reasons for denying any extramarital contact was "I don't trust women that much." But later Santiago admitted that he sometimes thought about finding a girl friend even though he would never actually do so. "I would if I wouldn't get caught, though." While he feels that Irma should certainly not resent his indiscretions, he heartily disapproves of her taking a man on the side. Santiago put his marital feelings in a nutshell, stating, when asked what he likes best about being wed, that he most appreciates "having kids of my own." Irma has more to say about her own marriage than does Santiago—her satisfactions are few, her complaints many. Such as: her husband does not allow her to go out often enough; he does not give her enough money to buy dresses and other accessories (we can vouch for her tattered appearance); he stays out too long and comes home too late; some of his friends are objectionable because they drink too much; and, last but not least, she admits that she is somewhat jealous, that she wonders whether or not he has taken a lover or lovers. During the first interview, when this touchy subject surfaced, she first said that she did not and would not care if he had girl friends. Yet, obviously, the very idea of such activities on his part is extremely repugnant to her. Although he never strikes her, Irma confesses that they quarrel frequently over the issues just described. "I just get mad with him . . . [pause] like yesterday I got mad with him, see, 'cause he don't like me to go with my friends to schools. I went with a cousin of mine to town and then, uh, he got mad. I don't know, he don't, he don't trust me. They think I go out, you know, seeing some other men." Do you? "No." Would you like to? "No." At the time of the second interview, she desperately wanted to visit her grandmother, but Santiago would not take her. What reason did he give you? "That he don't have time and he's going to a beer joint, you know." These disagreements have culminated in Irma's telling him that she

87

CASES: MARRIED INDIVIDUALS

would like to leave him and will do so in the future: "But I don't mean it." Sometimes she has tried to talk to him about the fact that he is gone so often, but pitifully little happens as a result—Santiago only "gets mad and go." When he is home, the two of them rarely make love. "I don't like him to touch me. Makes me nervous. I, I have enough with these three." She lets him "touch me not too often, not much." Anyway, "when I'm mad, I don't want anybody to touch me." Yet, in spite of the distance between them, Irma feels that she would be no happier separated from her husband, because, "uh, you know, my children need their father." Even Santiago says that the thought of a divorce has never occurred to him. Getting at how they perceive themselves is as difficult as talking to them about each other, for they are neither talkative nor introspective. They cannot even describe what they would change about their lives if they were given the chance. Irma thinks that she is somewhat "mean" but cannot explain why. She envisions "a lot of things" that she would like to have, such as, "I want to get skinny. Go anywhere without asking. When I want to go anywhere, I get scolded." What she does not like about herself is, obviously, that "I—I—I'm so big." Santiago views himself as a man whom women find attractive: "That's what I heard." Initially, he could not think of anything else to say about himself: "Nothing, just that I go out and get drunk." Then, "really I think I'm a good worker, I do anything they tell me to do." Santiago indicated that he is very popular with his friends although he asserted that he has a "hot temper, but not as bad as some of them." Only his age seems worth changing: "I'm twenty-three, but I . . ." He would like to return to the time when he was seventeen "when I got married. Start all over again"-with Irma. MIGUEL

and

DIANA

SOTO

The major, perhaps the only, problem in the marriage of Miguel and Diana Soto is Miguel's inability to read and write. Diana, his normal wife, refused to let us meet with him a second time, on the grounds that Miguel did not want to have anything to do with us. According to her, he felt that we were prying into his private life and were not helping him by doing so. Our impression, however, was that Diana did not want her husband to be interviewed, fearing, perhaps, that he might make a fool of himself, for she realizes that Miguel is less competent than she. Diana finally consented to be questioned all three times and was always very cooperative. Shortly before we attempted to converse with Miguel for the second time, the field worker ran into him at a shopping

88

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

center; he was greeted cordially by Miguel who was obviously happy to see him-the two men thereupon struck up an amiable conversation. Yet, when the interviewer returned to their home for the session, Diana informed him of her husband's wishes. Hence, she dominates the subsequent study of the Sotos: Miguel, Diana, and their five-year-old son, Mike. Miguel is a clean-cut young man of twenty-six with an IQ of 71. He always wore immaculate work clothes and was extremely friendly and amenable to the interviewing situation. With his strong, clear voice, he expressed himself relatively well, especially after he got over his apprehension and relaxed. Diana, a very intelligent young woman of twenty-four, gives the impression of being more than high-school educated. She is extremely neat, quite thin, dresses nicely, and her hair is always elaborately styled. Although Diana is Mexican American, she speaks like an Anglo-most of her friends are, in fact, Anglos. Fluent in both English and Spanish, she is extraordinarily resourceful, shows a considerable amount of initiative, and seems to be very well adjusted, all of which is obvious throughout this case study. Their five-year-old son, Mike, is a bright little boy, and although he has never attended school or kindergarten, he already knows how to read and to print several letters. He is a rather attractive child, and he is carefully groomed. His clean slacks and shirts always match. He and his mother are very close and, although he has a tendency to show off, as an only child he might be much more spoiled than he is. Well trained and obedient, Mike manifested his interest in the interviewer by giving her several small gifts. This little family of three has far surpassed its own beginnings, financially and otherwise. Much of their success is due to the fact that both spouses are employed. Miguel has been working for a printing company for six years, and Diana has been a receptionist-typist with the highway department for the past three. Their upwardly mobile situation is symbolized by their small home, filled with painstakingly chosen "Mediterranean" furniture of fine quality and comfortably situated in a middleclass Anglo neighborhood. Diana and Miguel crown their married life with numerous activities and responsibilities. Miguel sometimes works at his father's upholstery shop on his hours off and he also helps Diana around the house. Diana carries the main burden of her own family's affairs as well as Miguel's, all this amid a whirlwind of friends, dancing, and movies. They have been married for six years; they met at a carnival when Diana was sixteen, Miguel, eighteen. According to Diana, they dated for one year and were engaged for another, facts disputed by her husband who

CASES: MARRIED INDIVIDUALS

89

says they got married three months after their engagement. Either memory failed one or both of them or their definitions of "engagement" do not coincide. At any rate, they got together, as Diana puts it, because "actually I was chasing him." She and some of her girl friends were attending a carnival and met a group of boys, Miguel being one of them. Although Diana noticed how "cute" he was, Miguel, who was very shy, wandered away from the group-that is, until the other boys, telling him of Diana's interest, dragged him back. "We started talking and walked around and had a date for the next night and that was it." Seeing each other was not quite as simple as failing in love, because, at the time, Diana lived out of town, which limited their dates to once a week. This did, however, lend drama to their courtship or, at least, Miguel responded that way. "He was always accusing me of going out on him and said, 'You just don't love me' and Ί can't live without you' and all this. I guess stuff that you'd say when you're madly in love." Since both sets of parents were strict, the two were forced to date only in the company of a diverse assortment of brothers, sisters, or other couples. "So actually we talk, yet, but if anything personal, stuff like that, we never did really. Until a couple of months we were married, but then who wanted to talk!" [Laughs] Therefore, Diana was not aware of Miguel's handicap until after they were married. While they were dating and engaged, he used to tell her that he had "this problem" but could not come right out and define it. That a person of his age could not read or write had, understandably, never occurred to her. "It just seemed like every time that something came up about reading or writing he would get out of it some way. I was living in the country and I wrote to him, and of course, I thought that he was writing to me, but it was somebody else that was writing the letters for him. And of course then we were married, and if it hadn't made any difference before it couldn't then because we were married and I wasn't, I couldn't, I couldn't think of any reason why I could leave him, you know, I loved him." Diana is not sure, however, if she would still have married him had she learned this beforehand. "But since we were married in '64 there was nothing I could do about it, that wasn't a very good reason for divorce. No, I just, I just lived with it, you know, I, I've done my best." This problem is definitely the only thing Diana is really dissatisfied with as far as her marriage is concerned; it is the cause of most of her headaches, for she feels trapped into having to run the household with very little intellectual assistance. "I wish that I was able just to work, and come home and

90

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

take care of the kitchen and housekeeping and stuff like that and forget about the rest of it. I'm a housekeeper and a lover and a mother and a bookkeeper and everything, and I wish that Miguel was able to take care of the bills to where I wouldn't have to worry about it." They worry most about being placed in a situation, such as with banking matters, where they will possibly have to fill out some forms: "Any time anything comes up course it goes to the man first." Required writing means covering up for Miguel's incompetence. He usually waits until she can be with him and lets her prepare the papers under the pretext that she likes to figure things out by herself, or, better yet, he will bring the forms to her whenever he can. Miguel is capable only of signing his name, address, telephone number, and date of birth. After they were married, when Diana learned of Miguel's handicap, she tried ingeniously but in vain to teach him how to read: "I cut out cards for him, you know, like you do in elementary." But it never worked. Apparently he has a mental block against reading and writing, for he becomes too nervous, panics, and then more or less "freezes." But "if you said 'there, Miguel, I want you to do this, and I want you to do that, and then do this and do that,' he'll do it. I don't—I just don't know what it is." [He may suffer from a specific learning disability, such as dyslexia.] It is somewhat ironic that he is in the printing business in spite of the fact that he can neither read nor write, so we asked Diana how he managed. According to her, they tell him exactly what to do and how to do it. At times, his employers are displeased with him, and she speculates that he may make mistakes that he does not reveal to her. In spite of the fact that Miguel is fairly resourceful for a person with such disabilities, Diana's burdens are heavy: in addition to making all their decisions, she has to take care of the household finances. The repercussions for Miguel are there: he is cursed with continually feeling his own inadequacies as a husband who cannot offer his wife the intellectual, financial, and moral support she so greatly desires. Yet, on the brighter side, both spouses agree that they get along very well, and, when they quarrel, it is only over minor issues. This may very well be because Diana is the one who really makes all the decisions, as both spouses recognize that she is the more knowledgeable of the two. Thus Miguel's very inability may indirectly create harmony in their relationship. And, because of the fact that Diana has taken it upon herself to make all the decisions, Miguel helps her a great deal around the house, doing his fair share of cleaning and other related chores. Not only does he take her to buy the groceries, for

CASES: MARRIED INDIVIDUALS

91

example, but he also runs many errands for her on his own. When she does the washing, he is usually the one who goes to dry the clothes at the laundromat. Not surprisingly, therefore, Miguel fits, in every respect save one, Diana's concept of the ideal husband. I don't think I could have done a better job to pick a man like Miguel, other than, you know, not being able to read and write. . . . We agree on the same things; of course, there is some times we disagree and he more or less gives in, you know, because he feels that I know more than he does. He brings his pay check straight to me, makes sure that I get it. And I know where it's going to and stuff like that. I've never had any problem with him, I don't think that I will, he's not that person who would cheat on me or do anything wrong behind my back. Nowadays, it's very hard to understand, most of the men do it. He never beat my child up, he's never really done anything to us, so he's a normal man. I have nothing to complain about. And Diana also feels that Miguel "spoils" or overindulges her by letting her buy just about everything she wants, to the point that her sister's husband takes it upon himself to say, "No, you can't have that dress, you bought one last week." But, when pressed, Diana can find a few things to complain about-what does she like least about Miguel? That he just thinks very low of himself because he doesn't know how to read. He feels because I know how to read and how to work things out, he feels that I'm just a little better than he does. And we'll start talking about it and he says, "Well, I'm just dumb" and all this and he does think very low of himself. He feels just that much less of a man. I can understand, if I didn't know how to read or write, I imagine I'd feel that less a woman because, like he was saying, because like what he says, a woman really does run a home and I would have to go by what he says and what he said would have to be right and I would just feel like, well, like I'm here, you know, and that's it. Then Miguel often teases her, especially in the morning, if she does something wrong while she is preparing breakfast—instead of helping her clean up the mess, he giggles. "Oh, that burns me up." When they were first married, he used to make fun of her cooking by insisting that she was poisoning him. But this gibe belongs to the far-distant past, for now Miguel extols her culinary virtues. "He claims I'm the best cook." Obviously, Diana sees a tremendous amount of good in her husband and, on the whole, enjoys his company and their shared activities, even though his limitations are a burden. Diana also seems to need the institu-

92

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

tion of marriage. "There is not so much. Let me see. What do I like best about being married? For one thing, I don't have to worry about myself." Because she is somewhat "old-fashioned," she is convinced that she could never make it if she were single. Miguel is, in fact, the only boyfriend she has ever had. As he explained it, "She really didn't, wasn't able to go out 'cause her father was still there and he was pretty strict with her when she was young. And before she started really going out she met me and so we got married before she really started going out." Miguel would like to keep Diana to himself always. His biggest disappointment and the reason for his jealousy stem from the fact that "she works with all those men there . . . and we have arguments from that, about that." But Miguel is probably adamant, hence argumentative, about very few issues, since he thinks he is a failure as a husband. Only learning two of the three R's will rectify his situation. "I think if I could—could know how to read and write-I think I could find a better job so I could really give her what she wants." We asked him if Diana was satisfied with his career choice. "Well, I guess she's have to take it because, after all, if I tried to apply for another job I don't think I could get it." Miguel can easily sum up their dilemma: "Our problem is just, is, I don't really know how to read." Miguel and Diana have, however, other problems and other responsibilities outside the immediacy of their relationship. Although both of them are generally healthy, for example, Miguel suffers from a bad back and, at the time of the second session, needed to see a doctor for treatments. Diana reported this and also informed us that she herself has some kidney trouble because "I drink too much Cokes, not enough water, too much coffee." They seek remedies for these difficulties efficiently and promptly-Mike has a regular pediatrician, Miguel goes to a chiropractor, and Diana sees her own gynecologist. While Diana would like to have another baby, preferably a daughter, she feels that the financial burden and the additional responsibilities would be more than she could bear. So she turned to birth-control pills, and, when they made her sick, she had an intra-uterine device inserted "in my bladder" two years ago. Thus far, it has not presented any problems. The Sotos' two-bedroom frame house is extremely well kept, equipped with furniture that they buy piece by piece whenever they have any surplus money. Their collection of furnishings is still incomplete and Diana wants to obtain more. Much of the beauty of these fixtures is attributable to Miguel's upholstering talents. Their material goals do not end with the

CASES: MARRIED INDIVIDUALS

93

house, for they want to buy another car and open a savings account " 'cause he hates it when something comes up and we have to go pay it and then we're broke for the rest of the week." Miguel and Diana will, most likely, achieve all their goals because they demonstrate considerable initiative in planning ahead. Three years ago, for instance, they started a trust fund for their son. "It will be money for his education in college. If he is eighteen and wants to go to college he use the money for that but if he doesn't go to college then he'll have to wait to be twenty-one years old before he can get it." Not only can they not afford to have another baby—Diana would have to quit her job, depriving them of one income, and the child would be very expensive-but she also stated that they cannot afford Mike. [If he had fewer material possessions, we might add, this would not be so.] "If only they would do away with Mattel toys, I just wouldn't have any problems. But Mike sees them advertising a new Mattel toy and he has to have it and those are so expensive. Their toys all [seem to] start at twenty-thirty dollars." Apparently the little boy always gets a small gift whenever his parents go to the store, even if only for groceries. Indications of their indulgence are his three huge piggy banks, which Mike showed us, all so stuffed with money that he could barely hold them up. And his continual monthly growth perpetually requires that he be outfitted in new clothes. Diana may be motivated to lavish material possessions on Mike because she is deeply scarred by her own childhood poverty and obviously wants to save him from such an experience. "I never had a new dress or anything. Like the first doll I recall ever having was when I was twelve and I remember in school when I was in the first grade, I remember after school running home and changing clothes and going in the fields to pick cotton." She would then give all her money to her parents for food. "Maybe once a month we would get a nickel to buy candy or ice cream or something." She fully realizes, however, that even if she were to have another child and abandon her job, their finances could never reach as abysmal a level as did her family's. While Diana's mother is only forty-five, her father is eighty-four years old—he suffers from advanced arteriosclerosis and is almost blind. Because he exhibits the childishness that severe senility often brings, he has been placed in a rest home. He had been refusing to eat and, at times "he would cut the wires with the scissors or a knife. He'd turn a stove off, [but] not completely, where you'd be smelling gas." Diana is the only member of the family who arranged, during her week of vacation, to find a rest home

94

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

for her father, in spite of opposition from all of her relatives. "A typical Spanish person is very prejudiced, you know. Nobody wanted to put my daddy in a rest home and he needs nursing care. Now they agree with me. But of course I had to put myself in a position where I had to do it. Now if anything goes wrong, it would have been my fault." Diana's sense of responsibility has demanded that she assume the burden of managing her mother's affairs. "My Ma doesn't know how to read or write English and she doesn't know how to speak it either so I run my home and I run their home also." She is the oldest child of her parents' marriage, and she has an eighteen-year-old brother who is a high-school student and a younger sister. Being the eldest means taking matters into her own hands-she spoke of a time when, because her brother got drunk, she sent him to the police station: "I told them just, to, pardon my expression, to give him hell, and they did and I don't think he wants to go back in there." Diana's parents had both been wed before marrying each other, and, as a result, Diana has several older siblings. Her father had two sons and one daughter by his former wife; her mother, two daughters. Most of them live in Austin, and this enables Diana to visit them frequently. She finds their proximity very reassuring, for she gets along with them extremely well; hence she receives considerable moral support from that direction. If she were to become ill or if Mike needed to be cared for, Diana knows that she could turn to any one of them or to her mother. When asked how her family feels about her husband, Diana at first answered, "Well, they accepted him," and chuckled. At the time of the second interview, however, she elaborated by commenting that they liked him very much, that her mother always wanted to prepare food for Miguel. Yet she has never told either the siblings or her parents that her husband can neither read nor write. On Miguel's insistence, she has kept this secret; and, further, Diana does not want her sisters to feel sorry for her. According to her, they "bawl out" too easily, and this results in a flood of commiseration she certainly can do without. Much less is known about Miguel's family. The sixth of seven children, he has only one brother. His father, although elderly, is still the active owner of the upholstering shop where Miguel works from time to time. Miguel feels that Diana does not hit it off well with his mother, a housewife, but that she and his father are very compatible. He places the blame squarely on his mother: "Sometimes she'll like to feel nice to you and then later she'll tell you off." But Miguel then mentioned that Diana did not get along well with his

CASES: MARRIED INDIVIDUALS

95

sisters either. When asked about her relationship with the senior Sotos, Diana, at first hesitant, said, "You know, most mother-in-laws, but I get along all right." Later she asserted very good-naturedly that harmony reigns among the Soto women. Amid the complex goings-on of these prolific families, there is still Mike's relationship with his parents to consider. Miguel admitted to us that he did not relate to his son as a father should. "Well, I do try to play with him. Most of the time we wind up fighting. He comes in here and sits with his mother." [Laughs] We were often able to see Diana in the company of Mike; their mutual warmth is marked by overt expressions of affectionaddressing him as "darling," Diana treats her son like a respected individual rather than like a child to be ordered around. Perhaps subconsciously afraid that he will end up like his father, unable to read or write, she is extremely concerned about Mike's future. This may be why, at the age of five, Mike is already in the process of acquiring these skills. When not involved in such serious pursuits, Mike enjoys watching television and playing with his friends. He has no companions on his own street, but Diana takes him to play with some of her co-workers' children once or twice a week. While she is at work, he is taken care of by his materna grandmother, and, when his young aunt comes home from school, she plays school with him—she is the teacher and he is the pupil learning how to read and write. Because Diana's mother does not speak English, Mike is exposed to another, less formal kind of education; he picks up Spanish from her, and English, his parents' language, at home. As far as punishment is concerned, both parents are usually involved, although the one who has been annoyed by the child's behavior is the disciplinarian. But here, as elsewhere, Diana takes the dominant role. "My husband's very lenient, except once in a while, he'll get on him. We hardly ever spank him. I prefer talking before I take any action. First, I'll tell him to be quiet and then if he doesn't, I have to use either my shoe or the belt." Diana has very few complaints about Mike, a fact she revealed to the interviewer in front of him. "I never had trouble with him as far as messing up the house. If he'd take out some toys, he'd go put them back up." She also pointed out that, contrary to what takes place in most families, their son disobeys his father more often than his mother, a problem Diana rationalizes by saying that Mike is "with me a lot more than he is with Miguel." Also, according to her, Miguel spoils Mike by buying him whatever he requests. The reason for Mike's attitude toward his father may be more involved, for Diana spoke freely of Miguel's handicaps in front of the

96

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

child, and, needless to say, Mike could not have helped noticing who is the more capable parent. Diana herself fears that she may fail Mike as a parent when he starts school, if she is not able to find time to help him with his homeworkobviously she is very concerned about the additional burden. When asked what she thinks is the hardest aspect of having children, Diana said that raising, as opposed to bearing, a child is difficult. "It is bringing up the child the way you were brought up, especially in this day and time; things are changing so much that it is hard to teach your child what's wrong and what's right because you don't know now if what you'll tell them they'll do." Since Mike will not be six until October, he will not be able to attend regular classes until the following September. Because Diana feels that he will be ready for school before that, she will probably place him in kindergarten. Though she has yet to explore the various possibilities and prices, she is already considering sending him to a Catholic school so that he may be taught religion there as well, thus eliminating one more responsibility for her to bear. (While the Sotos usually go to church on Sunday, they think little of missing services once in a while.) Diana does feel that Mike's education is of the utmost importance, for it is the means whereby he may become a professional-perhaps a teacher or a doctor. In spite of her strong convictions on the subject, however, she will never force anything on him—any occupation will do provided he is happy and does not have to shift constantly from job to job. Diana is very sure that her husband concurs in this attitude and that he will therefore fervently urge Mike to complete college. In contrast to their dreams of the future for Mike, the Sotos themselves have had very little formal education. Miguel obtained his present position at a printing company while he was still attending Special Education classes, since finding a job was then a prerequisite for graduation. Miguel likes his work very much and obviously has very little intention of making a change. He could easily, for example, be doing upholstering: "that pays me more than I would be getting here, but I like my trade. I like printing." Miguel is fond of the people he works with, his supervisor, and "especially the company. They give you what you really deserve." He states that, all things considered, Diana is amenable to his remaining there because it is a lucrative position. Still, he acknowledges that she sees drawbacks: "She don't like the way I dress, but it's the only way to work over there." [Laughs] During the month of December, Miguel was moon-

CASES: MARRIED INDIVIDUALS

97

lighting at his father's upholstery shop, helping with the accelerated preChristmas work load. Since he could "use the extra money" and his father needed him, the arrangement was satisfactory for both parties. Miguel has held only one other position, at a sheltered workshop where he had originally been placed through his Special Education program-he stayed a paltry two weeks. His salary was only fifteen cents an hour, "and I didn't want that, 'cause I could be working at my father and be making more than that 'cause I knew my trade there." While still in school he submitted an application to the printing company, and, with the help of his supervisors, obtained the job. Diana finished high school through evening classes while working during the day: because her parents were living on Social Security at the time, they could not support her any longer. She has been a typist-receptionist with the highway department for the past three years, and evidently holds a very responsible position. Diana obtained this job, which she enjoys, because a friend expounded upon how much she liked working for a state agency and advised Diana to submit an application. Mike was then two years old, and "there was no reason for me to stay home. You know, about ten o'clock my house is clean and at about two years a child is trained and everything." Diana gets along excellently with each and every one of her numerous supervisors, and especially well with her co-workers, several of whom have since become friends. Miguel has taken the tack of neither objecting to her working nor forcing her to keep it up. "Maybe I didn't want her to go to work. At the time that we, she went to work, we needed, really needed to get some money, so because she wanted to buy something so, I told her if she wanted to go ahead and work, we were doing all right." If Diana ever decides to quit, Miguel will sanction the move, although he feels that, without the additional income, he really cannot afford to give her everything she may want. Diana sometimes senses that Miguel disapproves of her arduous schedule, and she admits that she works herself "to death" while insisting she is used to it. Diana has held only two other jobs in addition to her present one-for a year, while still in high school, she was a part-time salesgirl. Before leaving to attend night school, she was employed by a collection agency for six months, at which point she left to get married. Diana's dream is to become a teacher, even though, in order to do so, she would have to go to college. "I love work in an office and I would love to teach some day, any kind of office work." As she herself realizes, such an endeavor at this time would be incredibly difficult financially. A more extensive education, she feels,

98

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

would enable her to get more involved in the world around her and, in doing so, to help others. Already Diana has a penchant for offering assistance, to girls at work as well as to her parents. Additional training means learning "to express myself better and be willing to help people. I wish I did have the money to where I didn't have to work; I would like to do volunteer work, help people." Given their varied social life, Diana's fitting college in seems highly unlikely. They go dancing at least once a month, but, sometimes, they "go overboard," stepping out as often as once a week; according to Diana, Miguel is a "fantastic" dancer. They frequently go to movies, but they take Mike less often now, for Diana feels that today's films tend to be too realistic—when the action oozes with violence, he has nightmares. As far as love stories are concerned, Diana believes that these also are too explicit and even she is embarrassed to watch them. But ironically, her favorite movies are those with a lot of excitement: "It's got a lot of shooting. I like shooting. I like a lot of action. I'd much rather sit there and watch a Western than watch some love scene or something." They watch television, too, while their less sedentary pursuits include going to the park, playing volleyball, and throwing the frisbee. On the more serious side, even though she is not overly concerned, Diana never misses an opportunity to vote a straight Democratic ticket. We do not know Miguel's opinions on the subject since he was interviewed only once. Unlike most individuals in the sample, the Sotos spend much of their leisure time with other people, either members of Diana's family— especially her sisters and brothers-in-law-or some of her friends. More typically, most of their relationships have apparently been initiated and maintained by Diana herself. On his own Miguel does not seem to make friends, although he readily accepts and gets along with those of his wife. Diana's one close female companion used to be a co-worker but now stays home with her two small children. This friend usually calls Diana at work daily and they see each other at least once a week. The ritual of their getting together progresses thus: around lunch time, Diana calls her friend, asking her what she has for lunch. Then she goes to the woman's home, where a meal is prepared for her. Sometimes the ceremony is reversed and Diana cooks for her friend. Also, Diana occasionally babysits for her. The list of friends does not end here, for Diana frequently spoke of other co-workers, always Anglos, whom she and Miguel go out with on weekends—they invite them to their home, eat with them, go to movies and go dancing with them. They have a much more extensive social life than

CASES: MARRIED INDIVIDUALS

99

almost anyone else in the sample. More notably, Miguel owns a car and this enables them to enjoy so many diversions-thus, he is one of the very few retardates in our study who have cars and driver's licenses. At the time of the second interview, Miguel had gone to register his car and have it inspected, feats that very few subjects coula perform. In this one small area, Diana comes off second best, having been stopped twice by a policeman, once for speeding and once for passing a red light. Fortunately for her, the policeman who stopped her both times was a friend. Owning and operating an automobile evidently does little to enhance Miguel's self-image, however, for, even though we know little about him in this respect, he obviously suffers because he cannot read or write. Diana, in contrast, has no such cause to agonize, hence views herself favorably. Over and over again she emphasizes how proud she is of her accomplishments: her night-school education, her good work record, her son, and her marriage, their financially sound situation, and the help she gives to friends and family alike. Diana also describes herself as talkative, certainly a truism. A fellow employee told her, "You sound like a drunk parakeet. Don't you ever get tired?" But even such comments do not faze her. "I don't care, I might be among strangers and I want to talk." [Laughs] Diana chats on and on: she perceives herself as a friendly, outgoing person whom people generally like, a "good kid," a woman with luck on her side. Luck to Diana means having a nice home and giving her son so much that she never had when she was a child. But the same sad refrain must inevitably repeat itself—if only Miguel could read and write.

CHAPTER

FOUR

Anglos and Chícanos

Approximately 15 percent of the population in Texas, or over 1.4 million people, are Mexican Americans. In addition, as Joan W. Moore points out, in 1960 California and Texas accounted for "82 percent of the entire Southwestern Mexican population."1 Such statistics cry for a closer look at Chicano problems, one of which is, as for Anglos, retardation. While there is a substantial accumulation of information on Anglo retardates, relatively little is known about Mexican Americans. Still less exists in terms of comprehensive investigation of differences and similarities between Chicano and Anglo retardates. This chapter is therefore of great immediacy. Before we proceed with the comparison of the two subsamples, a few words can be said about the general structure of this book. The analysis of research results has pinpointed three variables which were dominant in the study: ethnicity, marital status, and the sex of the respondents. Therefore, one chapter is devoted to each. (Age is not included, for there were too few subjects in certain age categories to analyze this variable meaning1

Joan W. Moore with Alfred Cuellar, Mexican Americans, p. 53.

ANGLOS AND CHICANOS

101

fully.) Because so little literature on the marital lives of retardates is available, it was decided that some of the pertinent results would be presented in an additional chapter. The three sections focusing on ethnicity, sex, and marital status are uniformly structured, with independent variables organized under general headings, starting with personal characteristics, which will be presented shortly. Only the data pertaining to the subjects is presented in Chapters 4, 5, and 6—spouses are considered in Chapter 7.

TABLE 3 Ethnicity and IQ Anglos

Chícanos

IQ

Ν

%

Ν

%

40-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-plus

3 5 7 4 6 13

8 13 18 11 16 34

4 0 8 1 2 1

25 0 50 6 13 6

Totals

38

100

16

100

Note: Unless otherwise indicated, the tables contain data pertaining to subjects only, their spouses excluded.

The demographic composition of the sample will be briefly examined before more detailed comparisons of the two ethnic groups are discussed. Over one-third of the subjects involved were Mexican American and both ethnic groups contained a slightly greater proportion of women. Fortyeight percent of the Mexican Americans were married, in contrast to only 33 percent of the Anglos. In terms of age, Anglos clustered between twenty-two and thirty-seven, whereas a larger percentage of Mexican Americans were situated in the younger (less than twenty-two) and the older (over thirty-seven) categories. Thus, not only were there proportionally more young Mexican Americans and more who were married, but, also, there were more who were both young and married.

102

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

Personal Characteristics This section is especially important because it deals with relatively long-lasting aspects of personality. Most crucial, due to its labeling function and ensuing consequences, was the subjects' intelligence quotient: Mexican Americans' IQ's were lower. As seen in Table 3, more had very low IQ's and fewer had higher ones. From another perspective, 75 percent of the Chicano sample scored below 65 as opposed to only 39 percent of the Anglos. Again, while the largest Anglo percentage, 34 percent, was at the 75-plus point, the largest Mexican American percentage, 50 percent, was in the 60-64 category. Even though some IQ's, especially those of Mexican Americans, were missing from the subjects' files, we believe that the scores in our possession were representative as well of those that were unavailable: when the case studies were examined, nothing suggested that a difference existed between the individuals whose IQ's were known and the rest of the sample. Also, the scores found in the files were, at times, several years old; this factor might have contributed significantly to the lack of relationship between the IQ and the level of functioning of many subjects. (This consideration would apply to both ethnic groups.) So, from the standpoint of recorded IQ, Mexican American subjects did indeed have lower scores than Anglos. While the level of functioning of quite a few Anglos was inaccurately reflected in their scores, IQ's misrepresented Chícanos' behavior even more frequently. We suspect, and we are not the first to do so, that the language barrier was the main culprit. Indeed, most of the subjects, especially the older ones, were tested in English. Such a procedure would be desirable if it were not for the fact that the Mexican American subjects were definitely deficient in their mastery of the English language and even lagged behind the Anglo sample in this respect. Inevitably, this handicap must have artificially depressed their scores. It is also possible that the IQ of more than one subject was lowered because he was unfamiliar with testing situations in general and, consequently, although unavoidably, lacked motivation; these factors would have been even more likely to affect those with very little assimilated formal education, a dilemma prevalent to a greater extent among Chícanos, especially those who were older.2 But we do not want to lean too 2

We emphasize "assimilated" because, as will be seen later, there was little difference between the two ethnic groups in terms of the number of years they had attended school. It thus becomes a question of classroom performance and socialization rather than of the presence or absence of formal schooling.

ANGLOS AND CHICANOS

103

heavily on hypothesizing a lack of incentive, for no evidence indicated that Chícanos suffered more than Anglos in this respect. However, Mexican American subjects did strike us as being generally more resigned to their fate, although this impression could not be substantiated and might have resulted from our lack of familiarity with certain facets of the subculture of the Chícanos. Whether this alleged characteristic could have affected the testing situation is another question, but, admittedly, not a farfetched proposition. The ethnicity, thus the attitude, of the examiner may also have biased the outcome. The fact that most Spanish-speaking retardates were tested by Anglos could have inhibited their performance further, because the subjects felt apprehensive and insecure, or because the tester's preconceptions inclined him to believe, a priori, that the person would fail. There is ample literature supporting these hypotheses.3 Moreover, Chícanos are generally more strenuously inculcated with respect for authority and are therefore less willing to risk themselves when dealing with an authority figure. This could be relevant to the frightening testing situation.4 In addition, some of the subjects might have been classified as retardates after being administered only one section of an IQ schedule, such as the digit span.5 Or perhaps the individual was declared retarded without being tested at all, simply because he or she disrupted the classroom routine. Due to the alienation that these Chícanos probably experienced at school, they may, indeed, have been more unruly or unresponsive. Or prejudiced teachers may have been less tolerant of the Chicano pupils, hence allowed them less leeway for delinquent behavior. Still others might have been declared retarded simply on the basis of their inability to func3 For instance, two-year-old Negroes were verbally inhibited when tested by a white (Benjamin Pasamanick and Hilda Knobloch, "Early Language Behavior in Negro Cnildren and the Testing of Intelligence," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 50 [1955]: 401-402). Similar findings were made with adult Negroes and reported in Thomas F. Pettigrew, A Profile of the Negro American (p. 116). With regard to testers' preconceptions and testing outcome see Lane K. Conn et al., "Perception of Emotion and Response to Teacher's Expectancy by Elementary School Children," Psychological Reports 22 (1968): 27-34; Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson, Pygmalion in the Classroom: Teacher Expectation and Pupils' Intellectual Development. 4 We are grateful to Nina Mendina for this insight. 5 We were recently informed that, at times, part of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) has been given and thought sufficient to categorize individuals. (All but two of the subjects for whom an IQ score was available had taken the WAIS.)

104

THE F O R G O T T E N ONES

tion well academically. This would surely have happened more often, if ever, to Mexican Americans; as will be seen later, they felt that they had done poorly while in school. In addition, several of these subjects actually, if not officially, had attended classes only erratically as they had to follow parents who were migrant workers. Since their parents were uneducated and, at the time (in contrast to the present), saw very little reason to urge their offspring onward scholastically, the subjects, when children, must surely have lacked motivation. It may be true that they were unable to acquire reading and writing skills as children, but this could have been mainly due to their lack of proficiency in the English language and their anxious response to academic material. To presuppose that they were retardates is quite another story. In spite of the fact that most Mexican American subjects seemed to be more intelligent than their IQ's indicated, and that this misrepresentation was more often their lot, more Chícanos than Anglos looked retarded (37% versus 25%)? The indicators used to make this value-laden judgment were facial expressions (faces exhibiting little lively interest, characterized by dim eyes and, often, sagging mouths), such habits as tics, and such defects as protruding teeth.7 This sort of rating procedure was somewhat subjective, but we intended to accomplish nothing else. We attempted to assess the individuals as they would be assessed by "normals," by anyone with whom they might come into contact. Cues which the average person would probably use in making a similar judgment were therefore utilized. Granted, these assessments were not charitable-nor is life.8 In seeking jobs, in looking for housing, even in moving toward marriage, the subjects were affected by other people's perceptions of them. First impressions are especially important; hence, they alone were taken into account as a basis for these judgments. For instance, on several occasions we felt that a 6

All percentages, unless otherwise indicated, are based on the total number of individuals on whom we obtained the information under discussion. When the information was gathered for less than 75 percent of the sample, indication can be found within the text. But, in most cases, it can be safely assumed that the results are applicable also to those subjects for whom data were not obtained. 7 These criteria were not quite synonymous with those of general attractiveness, as several respondents were rated dull looking yet "average" by those standards. Still, no one rated dull was also judged to be above average in overall attractiveness. 8 See the introduction to the monograph, "The Forgotten Ones: Case Studies of Anglo and Chicano Retardates," for a more elaborate discussion of the reasons behind this approach.

ANGLOS AND CHICANOS

105

person was normal looking-until he opened his mouth. But this additional datum was not considered in the statistics, which means that many more individuals might have seemed "abnormal" or "retarded" after they had come into prolonged verbal contact with others, even though we did not diagnose them as such, from their appearance. By the same token, extensive interaction will frequently force people to abandon their first impressions in view of the obvious competence of some individuals. This is exactly what happened to us-only rarely did we eventually judge a person to be more retarded than the initial impression had indicated. Significantly, the assessment of a retarded appearance was made by people of the same ethnic group as the subjects themselves. Also, although all interviewers were members of the upper middle class, this bias was at play in the evaluation of the members of both ethnic groups. At any rate, it is interesting to note that more Mexican Americans were rated dull looking in spite of the fact that we believed their "real" intelligence quotient to be higher than was recorded. Also, for the overall sample, as the IQ scale was ascended, fewer people, Mexican or Anglo, looked dull. (This result, it should be emphasized, was not contaminated by the raters' prior knowledge of their subjects' scores.) Thus, a peculiar dilemma arose: a dull appearance was related to a low score; Mexican Americans had lower IQ's and were proportionately less intelligent looking, yet, evidently, the recorded scores did not do them justice. Now, how can the greater likelihood of their being dull looking be explained? It cannot be attributed to the raters' personalities because, although an occasional subjective judgment may have been made, the interviewers had been provided with a set of specific guidelines, as described earlier. (That the guidelines were subjective is, however, certainly true, but only inasmuch as we tried to utilize criteria that the average population subjectively uses in making such assessments.) Interviewers' idiosyncrasies could only remotely account for this higher incidence, for the disparity held not only across ethnicity, but also across marital status, and to some extent across recorded IQ, while being nonexistent across sex. It has already been emphasized that, often, a subject rated as dull in appearance did not behave, talk, or, most importantly, reason as if he were dull. It is thus quite possible that many individuals exhibiting visible retardation were reared in environments which reinforced this aspect of their outer appearance and, at the same time, deprived them of the attributes required to "pass" the IQ tests. This would surely have happened more often to Chícanos. It is easier to grow up looking listless, rather than bright

106

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

and cheerful, when one is locked in poverty, trapped in overcrowded housing, suffering from malnutrition, and acquainted primarily with other dull-looking children in Special Education programs.9 Theirs could almost be called the "culture of dull appearance." This line of reasoning was further substantiated when we calculated the contrasting proportions of married people in both ethnic groups while controlling for retarded appearance. In order to analyze the following information adequately, one has to remember that marriage is a status as highly valued in both groups as in society at large. And, as will be seen later on, few individuals who exhibited pronouncedly retarded characteristics had married. However, this finding was slightly more obvious among Anglos: 30 percent of the married Chícanos looked dull to some extent, in contrast to only 12 percent of the married Anglos. One may conclude that quite a few of the dull-looking Mexican Americans possessed highly valued traits which enabled them to function well. They were more intelligent and competent than their appearance indicated. Since, at the time of the study, the Chicano subculture placed less emphasis on professional and educational success, two areas conventionally associated with intelligence and obvious signs of intelligence, this could also explain why Chicano retardates who looked dull could find spouses with less difficulty than Anglos similarly handicapped. However, at least one other conclusion could be drawn; namely, that Anglos placed a greater value on "normal" appearance, or defined it more rigorously, and thus the deviants would be more stringently penalized—in this case, by being deprived of the opportunity to marry. Respondents were also rated on a five-point scale in terms of general attractiveness: ugly; below average; average; above average; very handsome. Again, these assessments were made by interviewers specifically instructed to differentiate between this and retardation-related judgments. Twice as many Chícanos were thought to be average (62% versus 30%). However, Anglos were more often rated as below average and handsome, and 50 percent of the Anglos versus 25 percent of the Chícanos were placed at the "least comely" end. Thus, in spite of the fact that the Chícanos were initially evaluated as more frequently exhibiting visible characteristics of retardation, they were far less often believed to be unattractive.

9

Almost all the Chicano subjects had attended such classes (92% as opposed to 68% of the Anglos).

ANGLOS AND CHICANOS

107

Also, it was discovered that Mexican Americans more often evaluated themselves positively (74% as opposed to 48% of the Anglos), even though, as we will see later on, they had more frequently been plagued by adversity.10 From the standpoint of relative deprivation, they had more reason to be happy with their lot than Anglos had. For instance, they definitely led more normal lives, according to the standards of their subculture; in contrast, Anglos rarely experienced the joys that they were brought up to believe were their due. Moreover, Mexican Americans received more support from their own ethnic group—via an extended kin system and a network of friendships. Anglos were virtually unique in perceiving themselves, when they did go through the evaluative process, as different from others in the American society at large. Most women my age are mostly married and have children. . . . And they have had at least a high-school education and more than likely working on their college degree. Okay. I've only gone to the fifth grade. . . . I'm just now learning the questions that normal girls ask at sixteen. . . . And I'm twenty-three years old. Never go out, never got no place to go, like other guys. My left side doesn't function to my right side as easily as the other way. . . . I feel like I'm losing out on a lot of things that other people are doing. Regarding educational background, nearly all Mexican Americans less than thirty years of age on whom we were able to gather such information had attended Special Education classes, against only 68 percent of the Anglos. The quality of teaching to which Anglos had been exposed was probably superior, not only because more Chícanos had been in Special Education, but also because it is a well-established fact that schools catering primarily to minority groups are often inadequate. Surprisingly, on the whole, there was no great difference between Chicano and Anglo subjects with respect to number of years of schooling; on the average, the former went through the eighth grade, the latter, through the tenth. The backgrounds, scholastic and otherwise, of the parents of Anglo versus those of Chicano subjects were so divergent that one would have expected the pattern to repeat itself among the respondents. In addition, as was re10

Such questions as, What opinion do you have of yourself? (or, if the subject did not understand: What do you think of yourself?) and How would you describe yourself to a stranger? served as indicators.

108

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

ported in the 1960 census, the median number of years in attendance for Mexican Americans was 4.8 as opposed to 11.5 for Anglos. It should be added, however, that, for our younger Mexican American subjects, the dropout rate was probably lower than that of many of their normal Chicano classmates—in some Texas towns, for example, there was an estimated student departure of 75 percent at the sixth-grade level.11 "In the Southwest, the average Chicano child has only a 7th grade education." 12 Thus, interestingly enough, Mexican American subjects, although their school exposure was of the Special Education variety, seemingly remained in class much longer than many of their normal counterparts. There might therefore have been a relationship between placement in Special Education and academic perseverance among Chicano retardates. Several explanations are plausible: the special programs possibly offered the students more individual attention, hence more encouragement; or only these pupils, our respondents, may have been singled out for further training because they were assumed to be the most likely candidates for occupational success—hence, because of this selection factor, Chícanos in the sample would have been more likely to perform well and, in fact, did. But Anglos were far superior to Mexican Americans scholastically, even though both had attended classes for approximately the same number of years. Indeed, several of the Anglos not only went to regular classes but also even graduated in a normal high-school program—this in spite of their relatively low IQ's. Proportionally fewer Mexican Americans believed that they had performed well academically: only 20 percent of the Chícanos said that they felt they had definitely done well, against 34 percent of the Anglos. Yet .Mexican Americans viewed their years in school more positively. Although the difference was very slight, they, more often than Anglos, recalled having enjoyed their education (53% versus 49%). This may be related to the fact that Mexican Americans seemed to have suffered far less than Anglos from their Special Education classes. It can perhaps be hypothesized that, since Mexican Americans in general had less formal education, they were less affected by the popular stigma attached to Special Education. No Chicano was ever heard to complain about this 11

Arthur J. Rubel, Across the Tracks. From the National Advisory Committee on Mexican American Education of the U.S. Office of Education, as quoted by Stan Steiner in La Raza: The Mexican Americans, p. 215. 12

ANGLOS AND CHICANOS

109

type of placement whereas some Anglos had only painful memories to relate. Witness Helen Walker's comments in chapter 2. Adrienne Ponce had very similar memories: "We'd be sitting in a room doing different work from what the other kids would be doing. And then they wouldn't say anything until we go out of there to go to another class. And they'd say, 'Oh, look at them, they're dummies,' or something... I used to come home and cry to my mother." Significantly, members of both ethnic groups, especially those who had dropped out before graduation, sorely regretted their lack of education. We never made inquiries into this area; rather, comments were spontaneous. While there were no ethnic differences, fewer women volunteered such information. Although obviously sincere, not all would have jumped at the chance had they been offered the opportunity for educational recycling. Still, several mentioned that they wished this were possible. Another difference between the two groups which illustrated the Chícanos' educational deprivation was that, while several of the Anglos would discourse on social, political, religious, and academic matters, nothing remotely comparable ever occurred during our encounters with Chícanos. The orientation of the American culture at large was more deeply internalized by Anglos. I try to keep up with what's going on. I listen to the TV, listen to the radio, read magazines and newspapers. I keep up with what's going on here in Austin and in the world. That's my source of education, keeping up, besides these encyclopedias I've got. It [his birthday] was the second month . . . of 1948. Three years after the Second, uh, World War II. I'm not talking about some archeologist digging up some cotton-picking bones. Man, America's in for a big, big surprise . . . [the] Old Roman Empire over there. You keep an eye on it. Southeast Asia, Asia Minor. . . things are shaping up, are climactic. . . . See, the Arabs over there are half brothers to Judah . . . it's a high explosive. And another thing, Russia is watching the wealth of that country and so is the U.S. In terms of health, no difference existed between Anglos and Mexican Americans with regard to reported incidence of illness during the past year. But Mexican Americans less often suffered from chronic diseases (heart disease, epilepsy, pneumonia, diabetes) and were not as frequently

110

THE F O R G O T T E N ONES

plagued by flu, depression, and similar ailments.13 Not surprisingly, Anglos had been hospitalized more often (68% versus 57%). This phenomenon might also be a reflection of a greater knowledge of the field of medicine among Anglos and, also, a greater preoccupation with their health. Indeed, when perusing the case studies, we discovered several Anglos who were thoroughly acquainted with their ailments and the related medication. In fact, while Chícanos barely broached the topic of health, several Anglos entered into very involved discussions concerning their medical problems, about which, obviously, they were extremely concerned. In contrast, most Mexican Americans shrugged their illnesses aside, definitely giving the impression of being much more stoic. 14 As a final indicator of the health status of the two groups, Mexican Americans more frequently complained of headaches. This could have been a somatization of an anguish they very rarely expressed; such repression was especially noteworthy in view of all the problems that beset them. We have ruled out the possibility that their greater frequency of headaches was due to the fact that they worked harder, for their jobs were no more demanding than those of their Anglo counterparts. However, we wondered if their diet could have been in any way related to this phenomenon—Chícanos definitely consumed a far larger quantity of starch and alcohol than Anglos. Still, their comments concerning headaches surprised us, since, as we observed earlier, Mexican Americans were found 13 Although the bulk of the literature presents a different picture, we found at least one reference in harmony with our results. "A California survey taken in 1954 and 1955 showed, surprisingly, that Mexican Americans reported suffering from less chronic disease than either Negroes or Anglos" (Moore and Cuellar, Mexican Americans, p. 74). 14 In 1959, Margaret Clark discusses the Mexican population in a Los Angeles barrio: " 'giving in' to illness with the first appearance of symptoms" is regarded "as an admission of weakness or lack of stamina" (p. 195). She offers several explanations why Mexican Americans may not consult a doctor, and, if they do, may not always follow his orders. For example, she states on pp. 213-214 that, while the Spanish-speaking people of the barrio respect authority, it is not a paradox if they do not always follow the doctor's instructions, for he is regarded as an outsider with no right to give orders, only the privilege to suggest. She refers to curers: "Curers may advise, but they may not dictate. Medical advice may be followed only if it is sanctioned by members of the patient's social group." Later, she explains how the informal and direct (hurried) bedside manner of a physician may alienate Chicano clients. (Margaret Clark, Health in the Mexican-American Culture). We do not know to what extent these conclusions drawn in Los Angeles in 1959 apply in San Antonio and Austin in 1971. Nevertheless, they seem to be much to the point.

ANGLOS AND CHICANOS

111

to be more resilient than Anglos and less preoccupied with matters of health. Material Conditions The content of this subsection could have been easily predicted from the start: Mexican Americans are poorer than Anglos. Furthermore, they are often depressingly poor. The neighborhoods (and the houses) in which these subjects lived were rated along a tridimensional subdivision: above average; average; below average (which included the impoverished).15 The first category can be defined as "suburbia": relatively large, expensive brick or frame houses, well-kept and spacious lawns. "Average" meant smaller frame houses (or those made of adobe), usually with lawns, all of which reflect a definitely more modest price tag than the above. (High-rises were not included, for Austin and San Antonio had few of these and none of the subjects lived in one.) Finally, there is the category of poverty. Houses were not only very cheap, but dilapidated, terribly small, and usually overcrowded. The yards were, in general, strewn with junk. In addition, these neighborhoods were, for the most part, dirty, although this was obviously not a perquisite of indigence. Some federal housing projects for low-income families fell within this classification: all of the dwellings, even the staircases, were made of cement; they were bare of luxuries but teeming with people; they were thinly walled and noisy ; in brief, the picture of desolation which the mass media often convey when describing such places is more than accurate. Residences of five subjects are presented as illustrations. The first residence will be that of an upper-middle-class family, the second, of a lower-middle-class family, the third, of penurious but self-sufficient Mexican Americans, and the fourth of a very poor family. Finally, the fifth will describe a decrepit federal housing project. Judy White lives with her upper-middle-class family in a very comfortable home. It is a large, two-story brick house, nestled among trees and manicured lawns, complemented by expensive automobiles in the drive. The visitor enters a wide hall and proceeds into a large living room. The furniture is of the finest quality, the overall effect that of a cover photo of 15 However, in the following analysis, only the ratings related to the neighborhoods will be discussed, for only rarely were respondents' homes significantly different from nearby houses.

112

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

an interior-design magazine. Carefully chosen hangings adorn the walls and even the smallest bibelot seems both expensive and tasteful. Caude Maxwell and his parents live in a lower-middle-class, well-preserved neighborhood composed of rows of neatly kept small houses, mostly frame. A few sport an imitation brick finish. The dwellings are surrounded by small lawns, some of which are neglected, with trash—especially old cars-abandoned in the back yard. The interior of the Maxwells' home is somewhat bare, and the various pieces of furniture give the impression of having been purchased on separate occasions. On the walls are reproductions of traditional American scenes in pale wood frames. There is a calendar hanging in the small hall; in some rooms the walls and even the floors are bare. The linoleum in the living room is half covered with a small, worn throw rug. The Medina home is far superior to the surrounding Mexican American houses. In spite of the family's poverty, the house is charming and well kept, a small stone dwelling in a garden, engulfed in flowers and surrounded by a wire fence. Inside, the minuscule rooms are spotless and pleasant, although quite bare. The few pieces of furniture are well cared for and of fairly good quality. The walls are bare, save for a crucifix, and so are the floors. Susan Mason's home is the worst we found among those belonging to Anglos: it consists of one main room containing two beds which serve in lieu of armchairs and couch; the kitchen is in the back. The floors are bare wood, and the whole place is extremely desolate, dirty, and ramshackle. In spite of its lack of furniture, it is cluttered, crowded with people and much-used household items. From the outside, it gives the impression of being nothing more than a tool shed or, perhaps, a chicken coop. Sylvia Ramirez's present apartment is located in a two-story building within a noisy public-housing project. It is dark and gloomy because little light can enter. The entire dwelling is concrete: "The cement... And it's cement upstairs too. It's cold floor." Downstairs the living room is curtainless and has only one sofa, one chair. In the kitchen a small icebox waits uselessly, for it is generally empty; there is a stove, plus a card table with two folding chairs for dining. The upstairs consists of a bath and two bedrooms, each containing only two beds with a sole sheet covering each

ANGLOS

AND

113

CHICANOS

mattress. A trunk in Sylvia's room serves as her only receptacle for clothing; she has no dresser or any other item for that purpose. TABLE 4 Ethnicity and Neighborhood Anglos

Chícanos

Neighborhood

Ν

%

Ν

%

Poor Average Above average

10 32 6

20 67 13

18 8 0

69 31 0

48

100

26

100

Totals

In Table 4 it is obvious that the Anglo sample was predominantly "average" in composition, somewhere between lower middle class and middle middle class. The 67 percent in this "average" bracket would certainly have risen to 70 percent had we included all Anglo subjects. Because several were interviewed at work (in sheltered workshops), we never had the opportunity to visit their homes. However, via conversations with them, we gathered that their housing situation was generally "average." Most striking of all, over two-thirds of the Mexican Americans were categorized as poor—and that usually meant poorer than impoverished Anglos. Of those who were rated lower middle class ("average"), three were married subjects who had obviously ascended the social ladder. Although no Mexican American interviewed was in the above-average category, the name of one such individual was obtained from the files, but he could not be included, as his family was well acquainted with the field worker. Not only were the impoverished Chícanos more indigent than their Anglo congeners, but, also, they often seemed poorer than the Negro population of the two cities in which the study was conducted.16 In fact, 16

This impression is corroborated in Moore and Cuellar, Mexican Americans, p. 72. "In terms of dilapidated housing, the Mexicans were worse off than non-whites in California, Texas, and Colorado." They point out, for instance, that in Texas Chícanos lived in crowded quarters nearly twice as often as did Negroes. While 34.6 percent "of the Mexican families lived in overcrowded housing in 1960," less than 8

114

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

the stark misery of some Mexican American neighborhoods in San Antonio was a disgrace. They were composed of masses of shoddily constructed shacks with tin roofs, leaning against each other amid heaps of garbage alongside dirt roads, dusty, fly infested, and teeming with lifehuman and animal. Fortunately, relatively few subjects had been tossed into such a dismal pit of human adversity. They were definitely poor, but most had escaped the terrible fate endured by so many members of their ethnic group. We often wondered what had become of the retardates who should also have been living there. Why were so few subjects products of this environment when, there, of all places, deprivation and educational deficiency must reach their peak? Were the Chícanos pressed into these miserable neighborhoods never diagnosed? Or was it that, once diagnosed, they were not or could not be helped? Perhaps their cultural background clashed too harshly with that of the counselors and rehabilitation establishments. Perhaps, partly because of that incompatibility, the subjects themselves refused the services offered to them; or the situation might never have been explained to them adequately, so that they could see the purpose of it all; thus they were not motivated toward establishing a relationship with the agency. It is also quite likely that the rehabilitation personnel were too few and therefore concentrated their efforts on those people whom they felt could be reached—that is, those whose values had at least a semblance of community with theirs. All cogitation in this area is disturbing. How did the sample compare with Chícanos in general in terms of financial status? Many Mexican American subjects were living in overcrowded quarters, most subsisted below or barely at the poverty level in terms of salary, and over two-thirds had parents who were functional illiterates. All employed Mexican American subjects and their parents held service, manual labor, and migrant farm jobs. In comparison, in 1960, 40 percent of the Mexican American population held similar employment. The sample was thus definitely disadvantaged as compared to the Chicano aggregate. In terms of salary, probably half of our Chicano families (those who did not include two wage earners) brought in less than three thousand dollars per year whereas "about 35% of the Spanish-surname families" were so situated in 1960. 17 Again, the sample was, in comparison, disadvantaged. The same held true when overcrowding was examined. Howpercent of the Anglo families and 22 percent of the nonwhites were so unfortunate (Ibid., p. 71) 1Ί Ibid., p. 60. Here inflation is not being taken into consideration.

ANGLOS AND CHICANOS

115

ever, only two families lived in the stereotypical shacks so often associated with Chicano neighborhoods. Although Chicano subjects were usually poor, cramped for space, and had low-paying jobs, few were out of work; this contrasted sharply with the usually high Mexican American rate of unemployment-often double that of Anglos. Thus, on the one hand, the Chicano subjects, although there were several exceptions, were more economically disadvantaged than their ethnic group at large; yet, only two lived in deplorable housing situations and few were jobless. TABLE 5 Ethnicity and Household Cleanliness Anglos

Chícanos

Household Cleanliness

Ν

%

Ν

%

Dirty Average Clean

9 12 25

20 26 54

2 19 5

8 73 19

46

100

26

100

Totals

In spite of the often stark poverty of the Mexican American subsample, their dwellings could be called average in terms of cleanliness; in contrast, more Anglos lived in spotless houses, or in really dirty ones (see Table 5). Mexican Americans moved less often than Anglos even though crowding accounted for much of their often miserable plight and though proportionally more were married. (The married subsample tended to be more mobile.) Perhaps they were so impoverished that they clung to their poor dwellings because they would have had difficulty finding cheaper quarters elsewhere. Anglos were less constrained by such financial limitations. Then, too, Chícanos had to worry about segregation, although discrimination against them was not so strongly enforced as it was against blacks. It was also indicative of the material situation of the two ethnic groups that fewer Chícanos had savings, although the difference was not as great as one might suspect (36% versus 45%). Yet the finding that slightly more Mexican Americans had health insurance (71% versus 64%) was unanticipated. However, welfare dependency was more of a Mexican American than an Anglo characteristic: 50 percent of the Chícanos versus

116

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

only 19 percent of the Anglos admitted having been supported by welfare agencies. Not only was the Chicano sample poorer, but also its families were more prolific; in addition, the Anglos demonstrated a greater reluctance to appeal to a welfare service in time of need. Anglo subjects did not mind admitting that they were financially dependent when such "degradation" had been visited upon them; but, had we questioned their parents instead, it is likely that a few would have hidden the shameful truth from us. We received the following reaction from more than one Anglo respondent when we inquired about welfare: they did not even know what we were talking about, although, once an explanation was given, they quickly understood. TABLE 6 Ethnicity and Employment Status at First Interview Anglos

Chícanos

Ν

%

Ν

%

8 Unemployed 33 Employed 2 Employed and housewife 7 Housewife 2 Others*

15 63 4 14 4

5 13 5 4 0

19 48 19 14 0

52

100

27

100

Employment Status

Totals**

*In school or newly transferred to a halfway house. **No substantial difference was discernible between the first and third interviews.

Employment Closely related to the material situation of any individual is what he or she does for a living. As most employed subjects (except for the predominantly Anglo sheltered-workshop cases) held similar working-class types of jobs, it is more instructive to look at the employment status than at the various positions themselves.18 In spite of 18

Because of unreliability of subjects' reports, the topic of salary will not be discussed. However, from the check stubs we were able to see, there appeared to be no difference between the two ethnic groups when the same type of job was being considered. In fact, more Anglos (those working at sheltered workshops) were paid very low salaries.

ANGLOS AND CHICANOS

117

the fact that slightly more Mexican Americans were out of work, their overall rate of employment was the same as that of Anglos but with some characteristics of its own (see Table 6). When only the category "employed" is examined, an important number of subjects who, in reality, had two jobs are overlooked: the Chicano housewives who also worked outside the home. Probably, because of greater necessity, more Mexican American housewives were active members of the labor force and, as such, did proportionally more work than their Anglo counterparts. Thus, when these housewives were included among employed subjects both ethnic groups exhibited the same overall rate of employment. But, let us remember, twelve Anglo singles were at sheltered workshops, and some of them, were it not for this protective environment, could not have held down a job. In a way, these subjects lowered the true employment rate of Anglos. Only similarities existed between the two ethnic groups in the context of type of job held, in flagrant contradiction to the enormous disparity found between the two with respect to their fathers' occupations. The subjects held jobs as follows: thirteen were employed by sheltered workshops (twelve of these were Anglos); thirteen were unskilled manual laborers, primarily assistants in various trades; ten worked at cafeterias and restaurants as busboys, busgirls, and general table helpers; two were truck drivers; two worked in laundries; and, finally, one functioned in each of the following capacities: porter, janitor, typist, filling-station attendant, barber, truck maintainer, and other, related work. Except for the sheltered-workshop category, a similar proportion of each ethnic group was employed in these jobs. The subjects' explanations for leaving previous jobs were also studied, but categorization was difficult, as respondents changed occupations for a great many reasons. The general pattern was as follows: more Anglos were fired for inefficiency or incompatibility; more Mexican Americans left their jobs because of illness, mobility, and not liking their work; more Anglos were searching for better salaries and had problems with coworkers. In terms of feelings toward one's job, no difference was discernible at the negative pole; 11 percent of each group were dissatisfied. However, Mexican Americans more often displayed average attitudes, as they more frequently manifested a mixture of positive and negative feelings (28% as opposed to 11% of the Anglos); more Anglos reacted completely positively (77% versus 61%). But one is tempted to wonder if this greater middle-of-

118

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

the-road posture of Chícanos was not primarily a product of a more pervasive complex of overt attitudes; it was frequently our impression that Mexican American subjects tended to respond less emotionally to certain topics, and employment may well have been simply one of many. How the respondents located their jobs should also be examined. Not surprisingly, in view of Mexican Americans' extensive family ties, 24 percent had been tipped off or otherwise helped by relatives, excluding parents, by whom both groups were assisted equally; in contrast, no Anglo had benefited from such aid. For example, some subjects, both Chicano and Anglo, worked in hotels and restaurants. While Chícanos were aided considerably in finding such employment by veritable networks of relatives well established in similar positions, Anglos had to scrounge on their own via more remote sources. In general, Anglo respondents more often obtained jobs through acquaintances, especially counselors, or through employment offices. Several Mexican American subjects had secured their current positions with the help of the latter and were also assisted, but less often than the Anglos, by acquaintances and counselors. Therefore, ferreting out available positions usually entailed greater effort on the part of the Anglos because they were more often forced to establish outside contacts. We also encountered several Anglos who, at one time or another during the study, were looking for employment by diligently perusing the want ads. However, no Mexican American subject mentioned using this method. On the whole, we do not believe that the Anglo segment demonstrated much more initiative in finding jobs, because, proportionally speaking, the incidence of sheltered cases within that group decreased the overall vigor manifested. It is quite possible that the employment rate of Mexican Americans was greatly enhanced by the comparative ease with which, in certain cases, they could locate jobs through relatives. Family of Origin With regard to parents' schooling, only twenty-six respondents were able to give us information concerning their fathers, twenty-nine about their mothers. Nevertheless, the trends described in these small frequencies were extremely clear-cut, fully corresponding to what was known about the parents. No Mexican American parent had gone to high school. Only 10 percent of the fathers had gone beyond the sixth grade, and none of the mothers

ANGLOS AND CHICANOS

119

had made it that far. In fact, 60 percent of the fathers and 69 percent of the mothers had never gone to school. In contrast, no Anglo parent was totally deprived of an education, and only 6 percent had left school before the sixth grade. The largest concentration of Anglo fathers had graduated from high school, whereas most Anglo mothers had quit somewhere between the seventh and the eleventh grades. By American middle-class standards, this did not represent much formal education. But we found that both the mother and the father in 19 percent of all Anglo families had attended college, whereas another 19 percent had baccalaureate degrees at least. Only three Anglo fathers were professionals: one was a minister and two were college professors. It is also interesting to compare the education of the parents of the Anglo and Chicano sample to that of the members of their ethnic groups at large. In Texas, in 1950, people with Spanish surnames had stayed in school for a median of 3.5 years. 19 In comparison, the median for Chicano subjects' parents was only a few months (sporadically), or, more likely, none at all. 20 In the same year, the Texas white median was 10.3 years, approximately that of the Anglo subjects' parents—slightly higher for fathers, slightly lower for mothers. Thus, from an educational point of view, there was little disparity between each parental category and its ethnic group as a whole. Obviously, considering their parents' educational background, the majority of Chicano subjects were at a disadvantage from the start, terribly deprived even in comparison to other retardates. A very high percentage of Chicano respondents—and their spouses—had histories of migrant labor. Most were offspring of parents who had, at one time or another, done this type of work, and several subjects had toiled in the fields alongside all other members of their families. Migrant labor usually provides a very secluded and limited world for a child: deficient nutrition and poor living conditions, exposure to inferior language skills even in Spanish, a paucity of training for city jobs, and, especially, erratic schooling, or none at all. Another interesting feature of the familial background of the respond19

We refer to the 1950 census because this period can be more easily associated with these parents, given their age. See also Moore and Cuellar, Mexican Americans p. 66. 20 That many parents were illiterate was often corroborated by the interviewers' observations.

120

THE FORGOTTEN ONES TABLE 7 Ethnicity and Number of Siblings Anglos

Chícanos

Number of !Siblings

Ν

%

Ν

%

0-1 2 3 4-5 6 or more

19 11 4 9 3

41 24 9 20 6

7 2 5 2 10

27 8 19 8 38

46

100

26

100

Totals

ents was the number of siblings. As illustrated in Table 7, while most Anglos clustered at the one- and two-child level, nearly half of the Mexican Americans had four siblings or more. In 1960, 32.9 percent of the Chicano families had four children or more, as compared to 15.5 percent of the Anglo families.21 This means that within both ethnic groups there were proportionally more oversized families than among the American population generally. Nevertheless, a substantial number of Chicano subjects came from relatively small families. The large Spanish-speaking families were definitely at a disadvantage economically, even if only because of their size, and probably educationally as well—findings that have been made cross-culturally demonstrate that children reared in large families perform less adequately in school and frequently exhibit lower IQ's. 22 In addition, this occurred even more frequently among the working class, the milieu of every Chicano family.23 Nevertheless, these large Mexican American families fulfilled several often grossly neglected functions at the social and affective level, sometimes acting as employment agencies as well. Information on the marital status of the subjects' parents was also gathered. In the event that one or both parents were deceased, their conjugal status at the time of the first death was recorded. More Anglo 21

Celia S. Heller, Mexican American Youth, p. 18. For reviews of the literature on the topic, see Anne Anastasi, "Intelligence and Family Size," Psychological Bulletin 53 (1956): 183-209; and J. McV. Hunt, Intelligence and Experience. 23 J.W.B. Douglas, The Home and the School. 22

ANGLOS AND CHICANOS

121

families were legally intact (83% versus 65%). 24 This higher incidence of parental separation contributed to the related finding that only five Mexican American subjects lived with both parents as opposed to twenty-two Anglos, primarily singles. Fifty-three percent of the single Anglos versus 33 percent of the single Chícanos resided with one or both parents, a situation that was reversed when married couples were taken into account. While only one Anglo couple shared a dwelling with a spouse's parents, four among the Mexican Americans did so (three were patrilocal). Also, four single Anglos, as against one Mexican American, lived by themselves: the lone Chicano female was a twenty-six-year-old cafeteria worker who was one of the most financially secure of the Spanish-speaking subjects. Among the four Anglo singles living independently was a girl who married at the end of the study; all of these Anglos were very successful from every possible point of view and their parents would have sheltered them had they chosen to abandon their independence. Another interesting facet of the situation of the respondents was that only two women, both Mexican Americans, lived by themselves with their children, that is, sans spouse or relatives. In terms of help-financial, psychological, advisory—received from the subjects' mothers, differences were relatively minor. Only a slightly greater proportion of Mexican Americans received no assistance, but, at the other extreme, proportionally more Mexican Americans (three versus five) were totally dependent upon their mothers. However, a few more Anglos received from relatively little to extensive maternal aid. Very rare were subjects who functioned wholly without parental assistance. We discovered that the determining factor involved the interaction of two variables, marital status and ethnicity—more single Anglos and more married Chícanos coped well on their own. We were able to examine the occupational categories of the mothers of fifty-seven subjects. Following the traditional Mexican American pattern—and perhaps because of their larger families—59 percent of the Chicano mothers, as opposed to only 33 percent of the Anglos, were housewives with no outside occupation. Within the employed category, three differences were noticeable: (1) six Anglo mothers were teachers, no Mexican American was; (2) four mothers, two from each group, were 24

The proportion of broken families among Chícanos in the sample was double the 16 percent for 1960 quoted in Moore and Cuellar, Mexican Americans (p. 59). On the other hand, 17 percent of the Anglo parents were similarly estranged, a figure somewhat short of the "one out of every four marriages" heralded today.

122

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

maids; proportionally, however, this means 12 percent of the Mexican Americans and 5 percent of the Anglos; (3) two Mexican American mothers worked in laundries, no Anglo mother did such work. We have not categorized paternal occupations similarly, as they were extremely varied, thus precluding any grouping into meaningful categories, considering the small number of people involved. Three Anglo fathers were professionals, several were intermediate-level managers, and three were farmers—while none of the Mexican American fathers had such jobs. On the other hand, seven Chicano fathers were porters and restaurant workers, while only two Anglo fathers could be so labeled. These classifications were merely a reflection of the comparative socioeconomic situation of the two ethnic groups. Interestingly enough, in spite of the wide variety of paternal employment, the subjects, regardless of ethnicity, occupied very similar positions, as has been previously discussed. Leisure and Social Activities One of the most striking differences between the two cultures came to light when we examined how and with whom members of each group spent their free time. The entire Mexican American sample engaged in a very diversified pattern of social activities, whereas the majority of Anglos were woefully limited in this respect. However, a few Anglos had interests or hobbies far surpassing those of their Chicano counterparts in uniqueness. How did the subjects in each ethnic group occupy themselves when not working? In terms of similarities, members of both groups watched a considerable amount of television. With one exception, their tastes were almost identical: they all loved cowboy shows, action movies, and Western music. They enjoyed Johnny Cash, laughed at such programs as Hee Haw, and admired John Wayne's manly prowess. They found romantic movies and social commentary exceptionally distasteful. They strongly disapproved of "skin flicks" and were even sometimes embarrassed to discuss them with us. A few Anglos kept abreast of the daily news and avidly followed televised religious revivals. All female subjects were found of soap operas, or novelas. The main difference: most Mexican Americans preferred Mexican programs broadcast from the Spanish-language station in San Antonio, especially when long movies were the available fare. In terms of amount of time spent in front of the set, no variance was detected. For some, television was the only accessible distraction. Anglos, particularly singles who had little mobility and few friends, were more

ANGLOS AND CHICANOS

123

often dependent upon this medium. Hence, they usually spent the entire evening in front of the television set. Most Mexican Americans went to a movie at least once a month. Those rare individuals who did not were usually married, had children, and, in addition, were employed outside; they were either too tired to go anywhere or simply did not want to "waste" their precious free time in this fashion. Characteristic of Chícanos was their penchant for viewing films solely at the drive-in. The drive-in, compared to a movie theater, has several advantages. First and foremost, some cater solely to Chicano audiences by offering movies in Spanish. Then, poorly dressed Mexican Americans do not suffer by comparison as they would if surrounded by more well-to-do patrons at a regular cinema. Also, the Spanish drive-in is cheaper than a movie house, as groups are generally charged per car rather than per person. This means that parents can take their children along, and, confined to an automobile, the youngsters are less likely to disturb those around them. Last, but not least, the element of social interaction among a carload is important. In contrast, the Anglo respondents, especially the singles, rarely attended movies. Those who did indulge also favored drive-ins. (However, when accompanied by their parents, they went to regular theaters.) And here again, as with television, all favored Westerns and would frequently subject themselves to such horror shows as The Night of the Living Dead and Dracula's Blood. Upon leaving the realm of television and cinema, we are deserting the subjects', especially the Anglos', major source of distraction and moving into more interesting contrasts between the two ethnic groups. First, as has already been pointed out, Mexican Americans engaged in more social leisure activities than Anglos. What did the Chícanos do for fun? In Austin, a great many went to dances, usually at the Coliseum, where weekly bailes were attended by many other members of their socioeconomic group. Nearly all single males but no single women went. The latter were customarily more restricted, and, when they did have the opportunity to dance, it was usually at a nearby fiesta, at a wedding, or with friends. In addition to the single Mexican American males, a sizable number of couples also patronized such events. They generally went together, although two common-law wives attended without their spouses, as did their husbands—at times with other women. By contrast, dances were almost never mentioned in the Anglo sample. The only individuals who enjoyed this pastime were three girls living at a halfway house where such socializing took place on a weekly

124

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

basis, and three normal-looking couples—all composed of a retarded wife and a normal husband. Four Mexican Americans and three of their spouses played the guitar, whereas only one Anglo did. (Among Anglos, there were two piano-organ players, both intellectually normal but physically handicapped spouses.) On the other hand, many more Anglos listened to records. A few even owned tape recorders, and transistor radios were a must among singles. In fact, two or three Anglo males spent a great deal of time browsing around in electronics stores all over town and loved to tinker with cheap equipment which they bought for that very purpose. A Mexican American did not tinker except when repairing his own car or a relative's. In addition, several Anglos spent a great deal of leisure time improving their homes or adding to them. Again, any do-it-yourself activity seemed absent as a source of distraction in the Mexican American segment, although such tasks were often a necessary part of their daily routine. Chícanos simply did not have enough money to putter around. Besides, manual labor was the lot of so many in their ethnic group that such an activity was neither a mark of prestige nor a reason for rejoicing. The Anglos were definitely full subscribers to consumerism. In both groups, a few subjects alluded to driving around as a pastime, but only Anglos made extensive trips as tourists. During the study, one couple went to Las Vegas, another toured a faraway state with relatives, a third honeymooned at Big Bend National Park; a single male visited San Marcos, Texas, and was planning a second auto trip to California; still another bachelor was busy arranging for his third trek to California. Chícanos did travel, but their trips were usually dictated by familial ties: visiting relatives, attending a wedding, caring for a sick aunt. In spite of their constant swirl of activities, Mexican Americans were far surpassed by Anglos in terms of variety. Anglos often had hobbies, unlike their Chicano congeners. Besides home repair work mentioned earlier, Anglos immersed themselves in many individualistic pastimes: a man married to a normal woman built miniature models of houses; his wife scaled the plans down and he constructed each little home out of balsa wood; he also taught Sunday school. A young, independent, single man collected maps and travel books. One fellow was a boy scout leader; he also went hunting, fishing, camping, and sailing. A young man had recently enrolled in an adult education program and was spending nearly all of his time studying and doing his homework. A seriously retarded male made model airplanes, sharing his fondness for this hobby with a

ANGLOS AND CHICANOS

125

thirteen-year-old boy; two paint-by-the-number pictures.

married

men

were

busy

with

TABLE 8 Ethnicity and Dating Anglos

Chícanos

Dating

Ν

%

Ν

%

Yes No

7 28

20 80

7 7

50 50

Totals

35

100

14

100

Mexican American subjects passed the time socializing, in contrast to the more solitary life styles of their Anglo counterparts. This was corroborated by the dating pattern among singles. As shown in Table 8, half of the unmarried Mexican Americans went out, in contrast to only 20 percent of the Anglos. In addition, those Mexican Americans who dated did so more often and more regularly; only Anglos who were engaged to or serious about a special person had a more extensive social life in that respect.25 Chicano females were avid participants in the conventional dating game, whereas their male counterparts joined in only erratically. It is the "dating" pattern of these few Mexican Americans which is so strikingly different. At the time of the study, none was attached to a specific female, and all were enthusiastically playing the field via friends' parties. These subjects did not claim to be courting. They were, according to their own description, boozing, fighting, and sleeping around. Ramy Portillo, for one, described his most recent party. See, there were some guys and then they brought some girls out there to this house so we stay out there and drink about four days. . . . The first time, that day when I went up there and picked her up, you know, I had about thirty bucks. So we went up there and bought some beer and started drinking. So I passed out and I still had about twenty bucks. I get up in the morning, look at my wallet, I had ten bucks. Jesus! She took my money! [He accused her of the theft, but she would not admit to it and suggested: "Well, let's go buy some more beer." Ramy agreed.] Then we got real drunk, and I got my ten bucks back. [Laughs] 25

Further analysis of courtship can be found in a section of chapter 7.

126

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

In contrast, the Anglos who did date focused their energies more rapidly on the romantic conclusion. As will be discussed at greater length in the chapter on marriage, Anglos were much more amorously inclined than Mexican Americans. Romance was definitely not the essence of the Chicano males' relationships with their women, especially in the connubial state. The women these men went out with were clearly not the ones they would eventually marry; these subjects categorized females as either "good" or "bad." The "bad girls" were for pleasure, and the "good" functioned as tickets to adulthood through marriage and, particularly, procreation. Indeed, if "nice girls" existed for purposes of marriage, marriage existed specifically for the purpose of procreation. So, Chicano respondents had more females in their lives and more of a certain kind—the "bad girl." They also did more drinking: one or two only sobered up on the job. In the context of this capacity for liquid absorption, the Anglos appeared to be figures straight out of the prohibition era. But it would have been difficult for the majority of single Anglos to drink heavily, for their parents would surely have objected. Nevertheless, the dry state did not seem to be something imposed on them: they obviously sincerely believed in restraint when confronting the bottle. Then, although no distinction could be made between the two groups in terms of the incidence of reported friends, when the matter was examined more closely, the differences were glaringly apparent. First, let us observe the comparative age of their friends, a very revealing indicator. The frequencies were very small, yet the trends were clear-cut. While two-thirds of the Anglos' friends were either older (30%) or younger (33%), almost all companions of Mexican Americans were the same age as the subjects (86%), plus or minus two years. Assuming anyone would have more in common with his contemporaries, it can be concluded that an individual would also be able to participate in more activities with friends when they are of the same age. Indeed, examination of case studies indicated that young male Chícanos have more close companions and share more recreational pursuits with them than do their Anglo counterparts. They visit each other, go together to movies, dances, beer joints, parties, and fiestas. In addition, they frequently help one another out, although this latter function is usually reserved for the Chicano family system. Many Anglo subjects, especially the singles, used the term "friend" very loosely and actually, by their own implied definitions, meant acquaintances. Nevertheless, a few singles and even more marrieds had real

ANGLOS AND CHICANOS

127

companions with whom they shared activities. Some went hunting, driving, or shopping with friends. Others visited with them, played cards, and, occasionally, went to dances or movies. But these were unusually sociable individuals; such amenities occurred only infrequently among the rest of the Anglo sample. Chícanos also spent much time visiting with relatives. Very rarely did they fail to pay such calls at least once a week. Not uncommon were those who made a point of being with a family member on a daily basis. Visiting with kinsmen and, in particular, with parents was considered a treat by a greater number of Mexican Americans than Anglos, since 53 percent of the latter lived with their parents, in contrast to only 33 percent of the former.26 Therefore, parents were often sources of pleasurable distraction for Mexican Americans. Also, some evidence indicated that relations between subjects and parents were generally more cordial among Chícanos. (This, however, applied only to those Chícanos who still had their parents, for three subjects and three spouses were orphans or had been taken away from their parents. In all these cases, gross parental neglect and strife were present, in one, sadistic beatings.) Since Mexican American families were so much larger, more frequent events took place within their fold. Therefore, Chícanos could look forward to a larger quantity of such diversions as relatives' weddings, for instance. These were often mentioned by the respondents, who seemed to anticipate them with glee, probably because of the wealth of opportunities for socializing and entertainment they offered. Finally, another difference in the social life of the two groups was a product of the neighborhood. As has already been demonstrated, Anglos were much more mobile than Chícanos. It had therefore been correctly predicted that the latter would maintain closer, or, at least, more numerous ties with their neighbors. Let us first look at how much the subjects knew about some of those living in their locality. It turned out that most respondents, especially the Anglos, knew very little about their neighbors. Although the disparity was not great, more Mexican Americans had gleaned "something" about their neighbors (77% versus 63%), and fewer Mexican Americans had no information to offer (18% versus 28%). With respect to contacts with neighbors, 18 percent of the Mexican Americans had "frequent" contacts as against a mere 8 percent of the Anglos. While there was little difference at the "some" level, contrasts were sharper again at the "none" level: only 18 percent of the Chícanos 26

These percentages include both married and single individuals.

128

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

never associated with nearby residents, but 30 percent of the Anglos were totally isolated in this respect. However, Chícanos did not exhibit what might have been expected, namely a great barrio spirit. While they had more contacts with their neighbors, they did not often maintain relations for the purpose of offering or receiving aid, sharing chores and activities, and so on. For this, the subjects relied on their families. Since the kin systems were large and abundantly filled with adults in various professions, families seemed to fare well enough as independent units; they functioned without recourse to neighbors for assistance or socializing. This does not mean, however, that the barrio spirit was totally lacking—while definitely stronger than an equivalent sentiment among Anglos, it did not reach the intensity usually experienced by Chicano residents of a small, cohesive town. The Mexican American subjects and their families cleaved to a Gemeinschaft tradition within their own kin groups but maintained a greater distance with respect to their neighbors. Relations with Outsiders It is not enough to study the two groups solely with respect to people with whom they can interact on a personal basis. The subjects' lives were crucially affected by various agencies and institutions, as well as by formal contacts with people whom they usually kept at arm's length regarding private matters. Via these more structured relationships, we can add to the picture of the independence and success of certain people as compared to others. First, there is a subject's consultation with a regular medical doctor to consider. As reported earlier, more chronic ailments, a higher hospitalization rate, and related greater "scientific" awareness of medical matters were found among Anglos. Thus, more Anglos should have had personal physicians, but, surprisingly, no such inequality existed. On the other hand, examination of the case studies revealed that those Anglos who had their own practitioners visited them with greater frequency. In fact, most Anglos never hesitated to seek out consultations, whereas Chícanos exhibited no such eagerness. As was previously stated, at least half the Mexican American subjects, but only 20 percent of the Anglos, had had recourse to welfare during the past five years, a true reflection of each group's economic condition. Thus, from a taxpayer's point of view as well as from that of the welfare case load, Mexican Americans were less successful than Anglos. But Chícanos

ANGLOS AND CHICANOS

129

who had been on welfare were poorer than Anglos who were forced to turn to the same alternative. No difference could be discovered between the two ethnic groups in terms of their relationships with the Rehabilitation Commission. However, fewer Mexican Americans had previously been placed in sheltered workshops and, especially, at halfway houses. In fact, only two Chícanos were ever sent to halfway houses, as opposed to sixteen Anglos. This may very well be because a larger portion of Mexican Americans was more competent in some areas. Or, perhaps the halfway house placement presupposed a certain counselor-client relationship, one which Anglo advisers were more inclined to establish with their Anglo clients. Counselors may also have believed that the large Mexican American family system was better equipped to take care of its retardates, an assumption that was probably accurate. (In fact, the two Chícanos who lived in the halfway houses had no families.) Finally, while Chicano parents wanted their offspring to benefit from training, fewer were willing to place them outside the home, even at a halfway house. There was no difference between the two ethnic groups with respect to the number of years which had lapsed since the subjects' cases had been closed. Some distinctions did surface in terms of status at closure. Chícanos seemed to have been proportionately more successful, for 60 percent of their cases were "closed rehabilitated" in comparison to 44 percent of the Anglos' cases. In addition, while 20 percent of the latter had refused the agency's services, none of the Mexican Americans on whom we had such information had done so. A related fact is that four Anglo cases had been "closed after plan initiated," but no Chicano situation was so labeled. Why the difference in favor of Chícanos? Is it because rehabilitation personnel were more willing to take on every suitable Anglo case while they chose or reached only the potentially more successful Chícanos? If this supposition is correct, it could provide an answer to the question raised earlier—namely, why only two Chícanos whom we interviewed lived in those woefully decrepit neighborhoods all too often inhabited by members of their own minority group. With respect to subjects' encounters with law-enforcement officials, we found that Anglos were less successful in evading apprehension by the police for reasons other than traffic violations. Of the fifty-seven cases on which we were able to acquire the necessary data, a staggering nine Anglos, as against only one Mexican American, admitted having had brushes with

130

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

the law. 27 Of the nine Anglos, however, four were erroneously arrested—which again indicates how relatively incompetent these persons were at "passing" for law-abiding citizens. The remaining five had had fairly serious contacts with the police. Let us now examine the circumstances surrounding the subjects' avowed legal problems, beginning with the Anglos. (This list does not include spouses.) Roy Polk, forty-nine, had been accosted by the police several times while hitchhiking, but "nothing went o n . . . " They just "asked me questions."28 Gene Nettle, thirty, married, had been in jail several times ten years before because of inebriety, while still a minor. Alan Post, twenty-nine, married, was once arrested and taken to the police station when an officer thought that he had taken hard drugs. Alan's abnormal behavior led the policeman to assume that he was a dope addict. He was soon released after the misunderstanding had been clarified. George McCoy, twenty-four, married, was first arrested at the age of thirteen while still in junior high school; he had been participating in a school brawl during which he fired a shotgun. When between eighteen and twenty, he shot his father in the shoulder after the man called George's wife a "dirty Mexican." Again, he was put in jail. Paul Peters, twenty-seven, was charged with rape and sent to a ranch for boys. According to him, he was wrongly accused and the authorities had accepted the girl's story. Rocky Presley, twenty-one, single, had been in jail several times for brawling and drunkenness in public places; he was also incarcerated after a practical joker dropped "acid" in his beer. However, his mother bailed him out following this latter incident, since he was not at fault. 27 It is pertinent to emphasize here that these statistics, like all others, are based on the individuals' own remarks. Since police involvement is something one frequently tries to hide, caution is particularly necessary in interpreting these figures. It is even possible that one ethnic group more often concealed such problems from us. But, if this were the case, there would be no way of ascertaining which was the more evasive; each could have had its own unique reasons for avoiding the subject. 28 Roy Polk is presented only for illustrative purposes, as he is not included in the statistics.

ANGLOS AND CHICANOS

131

Wanda Miller, thirty-three, was in jail for three days after suffering an acute breakdown during which she threatened to commit suicide. Apparently her father was the one who had turned to the police. Upon her release, she was committed to a state hospital. Clara Houston, fifty, twice divorced, was once erroneously arrested while trapped in a crowd of milling sailors. (One of her ex-husbands was in the Merchant Marine.) Ivan Spaw, twenty-four, divorced, was imprisoned twice, once for passing hot checks, the second time (during the study), for unknown reasons-he probably violated the conditions of his parole. Ramiro Portillo, twenty-one,was arrested several times for driving while under the influence of alcohol. (In addition, he had been in two car wrecks and had consequently had his license suspended for one year.) Because minority group members often live in an environment conducive to violence and because police officers have been known to be prompter in arresting those minority group members who are delinquent, as compared to majority group members,29 we certainly expected the Chícanos to have been apprehended more often, and, in particular, unjustly.30 Yet the Mexican American sample, especially the younger men and women, had not been involved in certain crimes for which Chicano youths are frequently arrested: those related to gang activities and narcotic offenses. However, this absence of certain violations may be due in part to the fact that there were no teen-agers in the sample. Also, while more than one foul act was performed by a particular Mexican American subject, police suspicions were never directed toward him. Since minority group members prone to such behavior more often commit violent acts against others within their own subculture,31 police intervene less often, although 29

Edwin M. Lemert and Judy Rosberg, 'The Administration of Justice to Minority Groups in Los Angeles County," University of California Publications in Culture and Society 2 (1948): 1-28; also, Sidney S. Axelrad, "Negro and White Male Institutionalized Delinquents," A menean Journal of Sociology 57(1952): 569-574. 30 Steiner quotes extensively from Dr. Hector P. Garcia, a United States civil rights commissioner, concerning the ways in which law-enforcement officials often discriminate against Mexican Americans. (Steiner, in La Raza, p. 167.) See also, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (1970), Mexican-Americans and the Administration of Justice in the Southwest. 31 D. R. Cressey and D. A. Ward, eds., Delinquency, Crime, and Social Process, pp. 46-47.

132

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

it cannot be said that this is necessarily applicable to the sample. (Of the five spouses who had had police problems, three were Mexican American and two of these had come close to committing murder. But, oddly enough, they were accused of perpetrating minor offenses, rather than of "intent to murder.") Mexican Americans were not so lucky or so successful in avoiding arrest for traffic violations. Indeed, 55 percent of the Chicano drivers (again, this statistic does not include spouses) had received one or more traffic tickets, as opposed to 30 percent of the Anglos. If the Mexican American subjects were so often apprehended for traffic violations, it is partially because some frequently drove while under the influence of alcohol. In contrast, not only were the Anglos generally sober, but, during the interviews, they often concernedly discussed infractions of the law and road accidents. In short, they definitely gave us the impression of being much more careful than their Chicano counterparts. Joan W. Moore says that "there are so many fatal motor vehicle accidents among youthful Mexicans (43 percent of all deaths in the age group 16 to 25) that they become a matter of concern." 32 In a footnote on the same page, she paraphrases Moustafa and Weiss in regard to the possible reasons for such a high rate: "Older automobiles, poorer equipment, and lack of adequate training " 3 3 We agree, but would suggest that inebriation might also be considered a strong contributing factor in the sample, since several of the Chicano respondents received tickets or were involved in an accident while they or the drivers were under the influence of alcohol, and, in one case, were drinking at the wheel. TABLE 9 Ethnicity and Church Attendance Anglos Ν

%

Ν

%

Regular to frequent Rare to none

21 18

54 46

5 13

28 72

Totals

39

100

18

100

Church Attendance

32

Chícanos

Moore and Cuellar, Mexican Americans, p. 73. A. Taher Moustafa and Gertrude Weiss, Health Status and Practices of Mexican Americans, Advance Report II, p. 7. 33

ANGLOS AND CHICANOS

133

A striking and somewhat unexpected finding with regard to religion was that nearly three-fourths of the Mexican Americans rarely went to church, whereas the Anglos were relatively frequent churchgoers (see Table 9). In addition, those Anglos who actively, participated in religious activities, especially Bible classes, were not in the minority. Indeed, very few recalcitrant Anglos were encountered, but one individual with such sentiments said: "I get more letters from the church than I know what to do with t h e m . . . . They come begging me . . . They're asking for money all the time." Anglos were much more religion oriented, for even those who did not attend church services were ardent believers. Also, several volunteered information, often extensive, concerning their convictions. For Alan and June Post's comments, see chapter 3 above. Another example: "The Bible is the one thing, and the one source, that you can be assured of, if they're living right, if they're doing what's right, this within itself has its own reward." Another couched his self-disgust in religious terms: "In other words, God didn't turn against me; I turned against Him." In contrast, most Mexican Americans never broached the topic on their own. When we brought it up, they responded noncomittally, often indifferently, although, of course, there were exceptions. Some were fervently pious, while, at the other extreme, there were those who were avowedly irreverent. Ramy Portillo's aunt and sisters deplored his religious apathy: he had not been in church since his first communion. "I told my aunt, if I got to church on one Sunday it might rain or storm, you know." [Laughs] When we inquired whether he believed in the Catholic precept that if you do not go to church in this world, you may go to hell in the next, he laughed, and replied: "When you die, you don't know where you're going. And even if you go down, down, still they're going to bury you down there." Once more in Moore and Cuellar, we find an interesting perspective emerges: "The new immigrants were probably as unused to American Catholicism (with its heavy and rather ascetic Irish influence) as was the average Protestant. Moreover, many immigrants fresh from the revolutionary church-baiting of Mexico were anticlerical. The immigrants appear, indeed, to have come from precisely that population group in Mexico among whom Catholic influence was the weakest." 34 We are not implying that our subjects were of immigrant parentage. Quite the 34

Moore and Cuellar, Mexican Americans, p. 86.

134

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

contrary: only two sets of parents were reported to have come from Mexico. Nevertheless, inasmuch as there is and was a certain cultural unity and, especially, diffusion manifest among the various Mexican and Mexican American segments, Moore's proposition may be applicable in the context of this study. Although most Mexican Americans were of Catholic origin, several were Baptist, a fact perhaps attributable to their (or their parents') having lived in an orphanage for Chicano destitutes sponsored by Baptists. But, in spite of the fact that some were of Protestant faiths, Catholicism still seemed to be exercising its cultural influence over them in the form of beliefs often mixed with ancestral ritual and personified by a proliferation of statues, candles, holy water, and religious pictures. Formal allegiance to any Protestant faith appeared to be somewhat out of place in this environment, an uncomfortable innovation not yet assimilated. No difference between the two groups surfaced in terms of incidence of voting: approximately 20 percent of the subjects of both categories exercised this right. In a way, we might have expected a higher proportion of Anglos than of Chícanos to cast their ballots, as the latter could have been intimidated by the formal atmosphere of the polls and, in particular, by the language barrier. A final "outside contact" to be examined is the relationship between the field workers and the subjects, with emphasis upon the subjects' attitude toward the interviewing situation. When we returned for the second session, nearly all Mexican Americans then contacted were fairly accessible. Twenty-four percent of the Anglos interviewed showed some reticence, but only 6 percent of the Mexican Americans did. All other subjects were uniformly very open during the sessions. By the third meeting, the proportions altered somewhat, but only on the Mexican American side. While Chícanos generally remained more accessible, 10 percent by then exhibited a little restraint (due mainly to the inclusion of those hard-to-reach cases temporarily dropped at the time of the second interview). This lowered the percentage of those who had initially shown no resistance from 94 to 86 percent. So, while Anglos were more reticent during the first meeting, Chícanos became more so from encounter to encounter. It should be pointed out that such hesitancy displayed by both groups was usually manifested only at the time of our entrance and rarely extended into the interviews themselves.

ANGLOS AND CHICANOS

135 Conclusion

Ethnicity is one of the three most important classification variables in this study; the others, marital status and sex, will be examined later. Usually the lives of the subjects were dependent upon which ethnic group they belonged to; this was especially true in areas such as economic background, family of origin, employment experiences, certain aspects of self-perception, and, especially, leisure and marital patterns (the latter to be discussed in chapter 7). These ethnic differences also surfaced whenever we were able to compare, via the available literature, Chicano normals to Anglo normals. In other words, the contrasts between the two groups of subjects were related to ethnicity rather than to retardation, or, in certain cases, were the product of an interplay of ethnicity and retardation. Sometimes, on the other hand, retardation and its implications appeared to supplant ethnicity in importance; the subjects became more like one another than like the members of their own ethnic group. This seemed to be true in regard to formal schooling, type of employment, and salary.

CHAPTER

FIVE

Marrieds and Singles

Which subjects married and which remained single! In other words, were those who married originally more competent? This question will be carefully explored under the assumption that in our society, marriage is a more valued state than bachelorhood and, consequently, is to some extent an achievement. In addition, the discernible differences between married and single respondents will be examined.1 (The marital relationship itself will be investigated separately in a subsequent chapter.) But these topics cannot be meaningfully discussed without first presenting basic data on marital status by ethnicity and sex. The married/single interethnic ratios illustrated in Table 10 are not representative of those of the entire Texas Rehabilitation Commission retardate population, but resulted from our attempt and failure to secure an equal number of persons within these two marital-status categories. However, at the time, it had also been our intention to maintain a one-to1

The separated-divorced category will be considered only briefly because of its limited frequency. Married subjects' spouses are not included in this chapter.

137

MARRIEDS AND SINGLES TABLE 10 Marital Status by Ethnicity and Sex Married Ethnicity Chicano Anglo Subtotals Totals

Single

Divorced

M

F

M

F

M

F

6 8

8 9

6 15

6 16

0 1

2 3

14

16

21

22

1

5

30

43

6

three quota with respect to ethnicity. It is because of this failure to locate a sufficient number of Anglo couples that we included all the married Chícanos we could find in the TRC files in order to increase sample size. This difficulty in finding couples was a reflection of the real marital-status ratios in the retardate population at large, as other studies have already documented.2 In terms of ethnicity, the sample was 66 percent Anglo and 34 percent Mexican American. Yet only 33 percent of the Anglos were married, whereas 48 percent of the Chícanos were. These statistics indicate not only that it was somewhat easier to find married Mexican Americans but also that TRC's Mexican American retardates were indeed more likely to wed.3 Why was this so? Because the overall Chicano population in Texas had less formal education and fewer vocational opportunities than the Anglo population, Chicano retardates could more easily blend in with the rest of their ethnic group; they did not become outcasts as often as Anglo subjects, who were 2

See Elizabeth W. Reed and Sheldon C. Reed, Mental Retardation: A Family Study. On page 40, the Reeds indicate that only 56 percent of the 1,350 noninstitutionalized retardates in their sample had been married. Peck and Stephens came to a similar conclusion while studying a sample of 125 male retardates: only 16 had ever married. (John R. Peck and Will Beth Stephens, "Marriage of Young Adult Male Retardates,"AmericanJournal of Mental Deficiency 69 [1965] : 818-827.) 3 Also, as explained in chapter 1, many additional Chícanos whose names were in the Texas Rehabilitation Commission files were classified there as married, but they could not be located, whereas very few Anglos, either those located or those not located, were classified as married.

138

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

at a serious disadvantage in comparison to other Anglos. A mental retardate is usually poor, is relatively unschooled, and remains at the bottom of the prestige hierarchy in terms of employment. Similarly, a disproportionately large number of Chícanos were poor, were illiterate, and occupied a minority status. The situation of those Mexican American retardates in the sample was thus not very different from that of their normal congeners at the same socioeconomic level. Therefore, a retarded Mexican American probably had more opportunity than an Anglo to consort with a normal woman, or any woman, of similar ethnic origin. It is possible that, as the Mexican American minority is given a chance to catch up with the majority in the realms of education and employment, the Chicano retardate will find himself at a growing disadvantage within his ethnic group; his position will increasingly resemble that of his Anglo counterpart, and he will be less likely to marry. A related explanation for the apparently higher incidence of marriage among Mexican American retardates is that, because of their more complete assimilation into their group, parents and relatives probably raised fewer obstacles when they expressed a desire to marry. Anglo parents were definitely more protective and, in particular, more fearful of the consequences of marriage, especially of the birth of children. In addition, Anglo subjects lived in more socially isolated units and thus had fewer chances to meet individuals of the opposite sex. Chícanos had larger kin groups and circles of friends, which provided them with more opportunities for social contacts with members of both sexes. Also in Table 10, we see that five out of the six separated-divorced subjects were females. This statistic seemed quite representative of the sex ratio of divorced retardates in the TRC population—in fact, we had thought that these women were all single, with the exception of one, when their names were first obtained.4

4 Charles followed up 127 subjects studied by Bailer (W. R. Bailer, "A Study of the Present Social Status of a Group of Adults Who, When They Were in Elementary Schools, Were Classified As Mentally Deficient," Genetic Psychology Monographs 18, [1936] : 164-244) and found that, while 63 percent of the male retardates who had married were still living with their first wives, only 44 percent of the married females were still living with their first husbands (D. C. Charles, "Ability and Accomplishment of Persons Earlier Judged Mentally Deficient," Genetic Psychology Monographs 47, [1953]: 3-71).

139

MARRIEDS AND SINGLES

Personal Characteristics Because personal characteristics are more enduring than such other factors as, say, salary, it is in this realm that we can best speculate whether any difference in favor of the marrieds existed at the time of marriageability. Most personal characteristics observed in the course of the study can be presumed to have been present at the time of marital eligibility. T A B L E 11 Marital Status and IQ IQ 40-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-plus Totals

Married Single Divorced 0 1 6 2 3 4

7 4 6 3 4 9

0 0 3 0 1 1

16

33

5

It may be inferred from Table 11 that a certain level of recorded intelligence was a requisite for marriage—or for the freedom to wed. Indeed, no subject with an IQ lower than 55 was married and only one person with less than 60 was. This observation was reinforced by three related phenomena. First, the scores of once-married individuals followed the same pattern: none was below 60. Second, although ratings for only three of the known retarded spouses were available, all three were above 70. Third, a few of the singles were, according to all indications, to marry within two years following the study. All these prospective marital partners were in the highest IQ brackets in the study, usually 70 and above. Plausible explanations for the fact that low-scoring subjects were apparently less likely to marry will now be examined. Most single individuals in the sample, especially those who functioned less adequately, lived under the close scrutiny and protection of their families. In the majority of cases, the parents saw to it that these subjects did not maintain any prolonged relationships with members of the opposite sex. In a few instances, the respondents were, in fact, fully aware of these parental prohibitions, although they were never able to explain

140

THE F O R G O T T E N ONES

the rationale behind them. Prissy McFarley mentioned that her mother did not allow her to date, " 'cause she said she thinks I'll ask her too many questions." However, she had no idea whatsoever of the possible nature of such questions, and, upon further probing, she finally ventured "because I'm too young." (She was twenty-four.) In addition, whenever there was the possibility that such contacts might blossom, as at the sheltered workshops, for example, the chosen or available person's handicaps were frequently so severe that they alone were sufficient to create panic in any parental mind—even though one's own child may have been in no better shape. This is not to imply that all individuals so employed were hopelessly deficient, for several of our subjects (including several marrieds) had been hired by workshops and were later able to graduate to independent employment. So, respondents with low IQ's had little opportunity and no encouragement to get acquainted with members of the opposite sex. In addition, they often simply did not possess the necessary initiative or skill. Some obviously were not familiar with rules of conduct concerning interaction with a girl or boyfriend. "I wouldn't know how to go out with a girl anyhow, what to act or what to do." In addition, statistics indicated that those individuals with lower scores more frequently looked retarded. (For a discussion of the rating procedure for this characteristic, see chapter 4.) For instance, 55 percent of the individuals who did not look retarded were in a high IQ bracket—70 and above—and, while no retarded-looking subject had scored that high, 86 percent had scored lower than 65. This relationship may in turn be indirectly reflected in the fact that relatively few married subjects looked retarded, whereas a larger number of singles did (20% versus 35%).5 However, it is interesting to note that, when sex was taken into consideration, fewer males than females who had married looked retarded, whereas the contrary surfaced when attractiveness was considered: fewer unattractive females had wed. It is possible that, since an adequate performance is more often required of the males in our society, a retarded-looking man is at a greater disadvantage on the marriage market than a woman similarly handicapped (especially if she has a modicum of 5 Had we eliminated those six individuals who were most likely to marry soon after the study, the relationship would have been even stronger. (All these singles were successfully dating at that time.) Although not included in the above percentages, most of the few divorced individuals, like the marrieds, did not look retarded-only two out of six did.

141

MARRIEDS AND SINGLES

good looks); a dull appearance is strongly suggestive of a subnormal mentality, which in turn is suggestive of inferior functioning. We then attempted to ascertain which of the two was a more important factor in relation to marital status-IQ or appearance. Because the frequencies were relatively small, we can only report a tentative trend rather than a clear-cut relationship. Apparently, while the two variables could not be dissociated for single individuals (there was a near-perfect overlap between visible retarded characteristics and low IQ), IQ was slightly more important than appearance in the case of those who eventually married. Inasmuch as IQ is related to the level of functioning, one could tentatively infer that, if low-scoring individuals were unlikely to marry, it is because many did not have the necessary capabilities. TABLE 12 Marital Status and Attractiveness

Attractiveness Below Average Average Above Average

Married

Single

Ν

Ν

%

%

9 30 12 40 9 30

23 54 16 37 4 9

Totals 30 100

43 100

When physical appearance was examined in terms of attractiveness, married persons again had the advantage, as they were, on the whole, more attractive than singles. Table 12 clearly demonstrates that more than half of the singles were definitely considered to be unattractive. Moreover, the "above average" category included the "very handsome" and, while 13 percent of the married persons were placed in the latter subdivision, no single was. There is thus strong evidence that one's attractiveness is related to one's chances for marriage. Perhaps this factor is even more important among retardates, as good looks would indeed be the major quality that other people most readily observe and appreciate. We could tentatively conclude here that when a retardate can conceivably marry, and wishes to do so, considerable counseling time should be devoted to improving the individual's appearance in order to enhance his or her chances. Retardates, although often impressively warm and kind, frequently have nothing tangible going

142

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

for them; hence, their unattractiveness forces them to retreat humbly from Ufe. Were it not for their bad dentition, for instance, many subjects would be good looking. More than a reasonable number of persons were encountered who had glaringly protruding or crooked teeth, often dangerously decayed. Another physical drawback, obesity, was common, primarily among female respondents. In fact, the slimness of a very few greatly helped their overall appearance, while the corpulence, often the sloppiness, of others only accentuated their abnormalities. We often wondered if these women were suffering from glandular difficulties. But how many simply overate, or had excessively rich and starch-filled diets? (Here, the omnipresent tortillas of the Mexican American respondents played a prominent part.) There may be no easy solution, but if these individuals were followed up, even once a year, a case worker could very well sound the alarm when confronted with a subject who was rapidly gaining weight and could advise her right then or send her to a doctor. Also, the hairdos of many females were often an added detriment. In fact, women needed improving more than men, which is not surprising in view of the greater complexity of a female's appearance. It goes without saying that a haircut, a change of style, or even a shampoo would have miraculously transformed quite a few women. But that would only be the beginning, for clothing must also be considered. These subjects were usually so poor that they could not afford new garments, and creeping obesity made such purchases even more difficult. Still, the sight of dresses hanging way below the knees in an era of minis was jarring. As for the males, sloppiness was a problem-along with miserable dentition and often unbearable halitosis. Some could have "passed" had they been neater, tucked their shirts in, occasionally shined their shoes, and, in a few cases, cleaned their nails. However, on the whole, they were well scrubbed, while those who needed improvement needed it badly. Another crucial area is health. Here again, those who were married had a slight advantage over singles: while 11 percent of the marrieds were judged to be in poor health, 20 percent of the singles were so assessed. This trend was more than amply substantiated by several indicators. The first indicator was the incidence of sickness during the previous year, excluding minor colds and pregnancies. The singles were ill surprisingly often, as illustrated in Table 13. When past hospitalization for reasons other than birth was examined, more singles were found to have been hospitalized, although the margin was narrow: 69 percent of the singles as

MARRIEDS

AND

SINGLES

143

T A B L E 13 Marital Status and Illness Incidence Married

Single

111 Last Year

Ν

%

Ν

%

Yes No

9 18

33 67

21 13

62 38

27

100

34

100

Totals

against 60 percent of the marrieds. A final indicator was the presence of headaches. Here, since headaches can also be related to emotional wellbeing or the lack thereof, we fully expected the married subjects to suffer more frequently as a result of their overwhelming marital and parental responsibilities. (While discussing psychosomatization, we can add that the stress of not being married when one would like to be might have been a contributing factor among singles. Any explanation via psychosomatic indicators is a double-edged sword.) In any case, the margin was extremely slight, but singles continued to dominate the poor-health category: 47 percent often had headaches versus 44 percent of the marrieds-both high percentages. We are somewhat uncertain concerning the place of health in this analysis: it is certainly not so stable an indicator as IQ, or appearance, and, therefore, probably does not significantly enter into the cluster of characteristics which may have distinguished those who eventually married from those who did not. In fact, a person's physiology generally changes with the passage of time, although many individuals are blessed with strong constitutions or perpetually cursed with weak ones. That change is commonly the rule is indicated by the fact that while 88 percent of the youngest subjects were in good health, only 50 percent of the oldest subjects were. In spite of the fact that married individuals had the advantage over singles in terms of IQ, appearance, and health, more perceived themselves negatively (29% versus 5%), whereas more singles viewed themselves positively (70% versus 50%). Once again, to the credit of the married segment, only six did not come up with answers on this topic, as opposed to twenty-three singles. There was no difference in IQ between those from whom such information was gathered and those from whom it was not.

144

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

But it is difficult to explain why the seemingly physiologically and intellectually more successful marrieds exhibited a higher rate of self-negativism. It may be that the conjugal relationship had sharpened the respondents' introspection and that this factor contributed to make them more aware of their failings. Also, since they had achieved more socially, they perhaps expected more. Or, the responsibilities of marriage may have weighed so heavily that their self-concepts were deflated. Another personal characteristic under consideration was formal education, which did not prove to be consistently related to either of the marital categories. Almost two-thirds of all the subjects had attended Special Education classes. But, as with self-perception, riiore singles thought they had performed adequately in school (64% versus 49% of the marrieds) and, in addition, more claimed to have enjoyed their education (68% versus only 24%). It is nevertheless interesting to note that, in spite of having generally lower IQ's, more singles thought that they had performed well. Quite possibly this was so, for the range of scores explored could not, by itself, be unilinearly related to achievement. In fact, when we cross-tabulated IQ with the subjects' perceptions of how they had done in school, a relationship was evident only at the two polar extremities: most of the brightest professed to have done well, whereas most of those with very low IQ's professed to have performed poorly. This section can be concluded by a statement that the subjects apparently had to meet certain prerequisites if they were to marry: a minimal IQ level, a normal appearance, and a modicum of good looks. Health was also a factor distinguishing one marital category from another, although probably not a sine qua non for either. A superior school performance and a positive self-perception, on the other hand, were not at all characteristic of those who had eventually married. Material Conditions With respect to the living conditions of each group, the most comprehensive criteria were the subjects' neighborhoods. The singles' surroundings were, in the main, those of their parents, in spite of the fact that they held drastically less prestigious and lucrative jobs; in contrast, the neighborhoods in which marrieds resided were commensurate with their generally low income. As seen in Table 14, the differences between the two groups were certainly not marked at the highest socioeconomic level—the situation of only the very few. But, while half of the married respondents still managed to live in a middle-class neighborhood (albeit

145

MARRIEDS AND SINGLES T A B L E 14 Marital Status and Neighborhood Married

Single

Neighborhood

Ν

%

Ν

%

Poor Average Above average

14 15 1

47 50 3

11 23 4

29 61 10

30

100

38

100

Totals

lower middle class), an almost identical proportion lived in impoverished parts of town, while only 29 percent of the singles were in this latter predicament. Moreover, all indications were that no difference existed between married and single respondents in terms of their parents' socioeconomic situation-provided ethnicity was controlled for. What is even more interesting is that, while married Anglos either remained at their parents' level or, more often, went down the status ladder, a few Mexican Americans were upwardly mobile; this usually occurred when the spouse was normal. Another difference was that while 61 percent of the singles who provided us with such information had been living at the same location for as long as they could remember, only 7 percent of the marrieds had had so stable an existence. In addition, 57 percent of the mobile marrieds had moved once or twice, and 36 percent had relocated three times or more. Twenty-six percent of the singles who had changed residences had done so once or twice, only 13 percent, more often. These statistics should not be interpreted as meaning that married individuals were highly mobile because they were inherently unstable. In reality, they moved because they had to: at least half of them wed sometime during the five years preceding the study, and most of them had moved out of their parents' homes or a halfway house at that time. Then, married subjects were definitely poorer (witness the socioeconomic level illustrated by their housing), and thus several were constantly on the lookout for homes with cheaper rents. In this context, it is noticeable that those subjects married to normals moved less frequently, perhaps a reflection of their greater material security which can be observed via the case studies. Third, they had growing families, hence, required ever-increasing space. The higher mobility of the wedded individuals was therefore not surprising, and it reflected the fact that

146

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

they had more problems, especially financial, to cope with. As for the singles, since the majority lived in halfway houses or with their parents, who frequently owned their homes, their geographical stability was also dictated by circumstances rather than by personal stability. A further indication of the lower socioeconomic status of the marrieds was that they owned less furniture, and whatever they did have was of lower quality. Forty-three percent had "few" furnishings as against only 19 percent of the singles. In terms of quality, the difference was not so great at the "low" level but was fairly evident at the highest level where fine pieces were found in the homes of only two married persons, but of six singles. We should add here that what we labeled "low quality" and "small quantity" should not be evaluated by upper-middle-class standards. As has been noted in chapter 4, many of the subjects were dismally poor. In these cases, "little" furniture usually meant no more than a chair, a couch, and, perhaps, a television stand or phone table in the living room, with bare walls, bare floors, and even curtainless windows. The bedrooms usually contained bunks (sometimes without blankets) and no receptacles for personal possessions. We drew a clear line between the physical misery of a home and its upkeep. Several of the poorest houses were the tidiest—poverty never correlated with slovenliness in any systematic way. But, again, and not unexpectedly, the singles' homes were by far the cleanest. While there was little manifest difference at the "dirty" level, most (63%) of the marrieds' homes were judged to be "average." But 57 percent of the singles' dwellings (usually taken care of by their parents) were rated above average and spotless, as against only 23 percent of the marrieds' homes. Proportionately more of the employed housewives' homes tended to be superior in terms of cleanliness, whereas those of the other housewives were more frequently only average. We speculated that the former were simply more competent at managing certain aspects of their lives, including domestic chores. Among the retarded wives, there was a greater incidence of sloppy housekeeping than among normals-and this held true for retarded women who were subjects of the study as well as those who were married to our subjects. Nevertheless, these women were, on the whole, managing well with household tasks, considering their handicaps and the poverty of some. Other indicators further confirm that married subjects had a harder lot than singles, materially speaking. Not only were their lodgings poorer, but they also had less money. For instance, singles were much more likely to

MARRIEDS AND SINGLES

147

have savings (53% versus 29%), although nothing is known about the size of the sums tucked away—probably a matter of a few hundred dollars or less in most cases. But the majority of singles, although their average salary was probably lower because of the large numbers employed by low-paying sheltered workshops, enjoyed certain benefits to which few of the marrieds had access. These advantages may be traced to the fact that nearly all lived with their parents. Although the subjects themselves often contributed to such familial overhead as rent and groceries, they probably consumed more at their families' expense than at their own. This living arrangement offered them inexpensive meals and lodgings plus, in many cases, transportation to and from work. In contrast, marrieds had to support their own families. Another advantage for singles: their parents greatly encouraged them to save money and supervised any costly purchases (such as a car). Proportionally more singles reported benefiting from the security of health insurance (79% versus 68%). Some were still under the legal guardianship of their parents, who simply included them in their familial insurance plans. In addition, more married individuals had been on welfare (32% versus 21%). It is possible, however, that the overall figures for both groups were higher, as some subjects may have had lapses of memory. During the course of the study, we encountered only one single, as against half-a-dozen conjugal units, then on welfare, and some marrieds had even been assisted for prolonged periods of time. Employment There were few significant differences between married and single individuals in the area of employment. Nevertheless, the two existing distinctions were very important. The first is illustrated in Table 15: many more singles were jobless, in spite of the fact that, of the thirty employed singles, twelve were at sheltered workshops, as against only one married subject.6 Only two marrieds were unemployed. We should not, however, be misled by the low percentage of marrieds in the "employed" category, for an additional 23 percent were wives working outside the home. Married individuals and, perhaps, married females in particular, demonstrated a greater degree of vocational competence than singles. Seven of the sixteen married female subjects had two positions: they were 6

Here there was, of course, a slight relationship with IQ but only insofar as the four people scoring lowest were concerned: all four were unemployed and totally dependent.

148

THE FORGOTTEN ONES TABLE 15 Marital Status and Employment Status at First Interview Married

Single

Employment Status

Ν

Ν

Unemployed Employed Employed and housewife Housewife Other Totals

2 7 12 40 7 23 9 30 0 0 30 100

%

%

11 26 30 70 0 0 0 0 2 4 43 100

both housewives and active members of the labor force. It might be pointed out that 62 percent of the married females were only housewives and, had they been single, might not have been able to hold jobs. This is a logical assumption but one that was not supported by the trends exhibited in the sample, for most of the unemployed married females had children to care for, which made outside work virtually impossible. In addition, their case studies provided more than ample evidence that they could be gainfully employed were they unattached. Of the eleven jobless singles, five were males, six, females. Of these, only three men and two women had been previously employed, but by all indications these five could have worked at the time of the study, if they had been forced to, or if they could have found positions. Thus, six apparently unemployable singles remained. But the 70 percent figure denoting singles who were employed was somewhat inflated because twelve of these thirty job holders were at sheltered workshops and several seemed incapable of ever holding "real" jobs. Outside of this crucial difference, the types of positions occupied by marrieds and singles were identical. For an enumeration of these, see chapter 4. How many positions per individual had these two groups held in the past? While the majority of the marrieds were clustered around two, three, and four jobs, the singles covered a wider range on the continuum. Thus, more singles than marrieds had never worked (six as against one), and a larger number of singles had held five jobs and more (26% versus 14%). So, not only were more marrieds employed, but they also had more stable work histories. This difference was not related to the length of time these

MARRIEDS AND SINGLES

149

individuals had been on the labor market, for here no real disparity between the two groups was discernible. Also of interest is the fact that employed single subjects were evidently in greater danger of being laid off than were marrieds. When the reasons behind leaving or losing previous jobs were examined, it was revealed that 23 percent of the singles had been laid off, as opposed to 5 percent of the marrieds. . . . They didn't seem to need me any more. I think they didn't have enough money. They laid me off. They . . . they . . . [pause] laid, laid me off. No, they had plenty of work, they just didn't want me no more. . . . I don't know why. Also, more marrieds quit because they did not like their work or because they wanted better salaries. But, on the whole, it was very difficult to obtain meaningful answers to this question. Thus, in spite of the fact that individuals in both marital categories held the same types of jobs, excluding singles in workshops, those who were unmarried ran a greater risk of being laid off. Was this due to the fact that they performed poorly at times? Were they less competent? Or, did their not having families to support provide their employers with an excuse to treat them more ruthlessly? Whatever the reason, singles were probably more often forced to look for jobs, which, in turn, increased the number of positions they had already held. In spite of this fact, when we inquired about their feelings toward their work, very little difference was discernible—we had expected singles to respond more negatively. In reality, they reacted slightly more positively. Perhaps, since they did not have families to support on very meager salaries, they had less reason to be dissatisfied. We then asked the subjects if they had received aid in locating new jobs. There were several contrasts, but the only important one was that 20 percent of the singles had been assisted by siblings in this area, whereas no married individual had been similarly helped. A proportionate number of people in the two groups had found positions through counselors. Family of Origin In terms of the socioeconomic level of their families, while nearly all of the Mexican American subjects came from the relatively poor working class, only 20 percent of the Anglos did. The rest of the Anglos were middle class, often lower middle class, and 13 percent were upper

150

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

middle class. But, within each ethnic group, the only variation evident between married and single individuals was that four singles came from upper-middle-class families as against only two marrieds—all Anglos. Yet, after proportions were taken into consideration, this difference vanished. How did the respondents feel about their parents? Relatively few gave detailed answers. Most singles, especially males, were positive, but several females were at times annoyed by their parents' strictness, defined by one girl as a generation gap—she was a middle-class subject. "Well, they don't understand. They don't understand our generation . . . like, the wild things that we like to do . . . " Since so many singles still resided at home, it was felt that they would inevitably experience more conflicts with their parents than would the more independent married individuals. But, from the case studies, we perceived that a special kind of strain sometimes existed between parents and married respondents; for instance, reproduction was one source of strife—parents worried that young couples would be unable to survive with this additional responsibility; and they were afraid of having abnormal grandchildren. Then, some married individuals believed that their parents could offer them more help. To further aggravate matters, obvious disagreements arose when the choice of spouses was the issue: some parents either entirely disapproved of any match or did not care for the mate selected, especially when an Anglo had chosen to wed a Mexican American, as in the case of the McCoys (see chapter 3). That many of these parental-offspring conflicts reported by married individuals began when they decided to marry could have been forecast by the following statistics. Out of twenty-two married subjects who answered the question concerning their parents' reactions at the time of the wedding, 36 percent felt that the parental response had been entirely negative, 18 percent that it had been mixed, and 46 percent that it had been favorable. Thus, over half (54%) of the subjects perceived that their parents had been none too pleased with their decisions, although few entirely disagreed with their parents' rationales; many claimed to understand their attitudes, while still being pained by them. It is possible that dissatisfaction with parents or with life at home with them unconsciously led some subjects down the conjugal path sooner. If this were so, then some of the disharmony between children and parents which was at times encountered among the married segment would have been a preexistent phenomenon. All those who had been orphaned, abandoned, or mistreated by one or both parents—subjects and retarded spouses—had married. Married interviewees were products of familial dis-

MARRIEDS AND SINGLES

151

organization much more than singles (40% versus 12%). However, when we controlled for ethnicity, this only held for Anglos, because, in contrast, more single Chícanos had been deserted by their parents or were products of broken homes. Leisure and Social Activities As leisure and social activities were covered at great length in the previous chapter, only general aspects will be outlined in this section. One striking impression: the recreational pursuits of single subjects were limited, often acutely so; marrieds were usually less deprived in this respect. The singles' main source of distraction was television. Although the viewing fare they avidly followed did not differ from that which was preferred by marrieds (all favored Westerns), singles turned to this medium more frequently and for longer periods of time. In addition, the programs had a greater impact on them, as they seemed to take certain television personalities more seriously-this was especially evident among a few single females, two of whom incorporated celebrities into their everyday lives to the extent of verbally asserting that these entertainers loved them. An additional diversion for marrieds was visiting with their parents. This they obviously considered a leisure activity; singles, on the other hand, usually lived with their parents and therefore perceived such contacts as only one aspect of their daily routine. Another facet of the leisure configuration was that a total of eighteen couples owned automobiles, but only eight singles, all men, owned or had regular access to a car. Nearly every nonretarded husband had one, as well as a few married male subjects. In regard to the diversity and quantity of activities, there was a tremendous disparity between those who did and did not have cars. The former had an advantage. The contrast was even greater among singles than it was between the unmarried and the married, since an automobile was often the only source of distraction for singles, whereas this was not necessarily true of marrieds. Another difference between the two groups was that, while singles more frequently claimed to have friends (94% versus 74%), marrieds were in touch with their friends more frequently and shared more activities with them. With only a few exceptions, primarily among Mexican Americans, singles usually did not go dancing, to movies, or to parties with friends, as did some of the married subjects. It seemed that, while so many singles claimed to have friends, in reality, very few actually did.

152

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

"Now who's the girl friend you want to go to California with you?" "I don't know her name." "Does she go to work here?" "Uh Uh. She goes to Park Town High School." "Where did you meet her?" "I haven't met her yet." "Oh. Okay. How did you know about her then?" "I see her. I have her picture at home." "How is that if you haven't met her?" [Very impatiently] "Oh, I've seen her." To Jeff, the definition of "friend" was, at best, a nebulous one. How many friends did he have? "Oh . . .[pause] about four or five, four or five,... a whole . . . I'm trying to think now." When we probed the identity of these friends, only casual acquaintances surfaced. Thus, many used the term "friend" very loosely; to them it implied a person they sometimes talked to at work but never saw off the job or, in some cases, an erstwhile fellow employee who, at the time of the interview, almost never contacted the subject, or vice versa. Cathy had only one friend, a twenty-year-old girl, whom she would not phone, on the grounds that, since this friend had begun working at some location unknown to her, she might not be at home if Cathy called. So she could only sit and wait for the telephone to ring. She had met this companion at the workshop where the girl had previously been employed. When questioned, however, Cathy indicated that she knew very little about her friend and did absolutely nothing with her. So we asked her why she thought they were intimates. "Well, we're just friends. If we weren't friends, she wouldn't be calling me." A revealing facet of the often ephemeral friendship pattern of singles surfaced when the age of these "friends" was examined. While most married individuals had companions of their own age (plus or minus two years), the companions of singles were often either older or, as was usually the case, younger than themselves. This may partially explain why singles shared relatively few diversions with their "friends." Age is thus one of the factors which convinced us that many singles used the word inappropriately-perhaps as an unconcious, face-saving device while talking to the interviewers, for is not social popularity very important? However, again, the ethnic factor must be considered, since the majority of single Chícanos had indeed formed lasting relationships, whereas the same could not be said of their Anglo congeners, who were, as a rule, extremely isolated.

MARRIEDS AND SINGLES

153

Off the job, Esther seemed to have little contact with her co-workers-she mentioned only that she had visited one in the hospital. There was a friend she could talk about, a woman who had long since moved away, and Esther admitted being delinquent in writing to her. In all of her relationships with others, as well as in her dedication to various causes, a pattern was apparent: Esther's involvements were one-way streets, demanding that she give a great deal in order to receive pitifully little. Another indicator of the singles' greater social isolation: more acknowledged rarely having contact with their neighbors. "We don't, we don't associate with our neighbors. We stay away little—we see as little as possible of them. In fact, we hardly even get around them. Better to stay away from your neighbors. The less they know, the better." Similarly, even fewer knew anything at all about these neighbors—this, in spite of the fact that, as a rule, singles seldom moved and therefore had been rooted in their environs for a longer period of time. Although marrieds were far more mobile, they still managed to become better acquainted with their neighbors. Only a small number, however, were intimate with them or saw them frequently. We speculated that their children could have contributed to this neighborliness, but there did not seem to be any marked distinction between the couples with and without progeny. Whatever the explanation, the data once more demonstrated that married individuals found it easier to interact than did the often less socially adept singles. The general paucity of leisure activities experienced by the subjects, especially the singles, was distressing; unmarried Anglos were the most deprived of all. The latter had no recreational alternatives whatsoever, and several were articulate and introspective enough to comment on the dreadfully boring routine that was their daily existence. When I get home, I just stay home. I don't have no pleasure to get out and do like some people who, you know, change clothes and go out. . . I'm just, I'm stuck at home. I, I, when I come in, I'm just there, I'm stuck. I like to get out of town just once or twice a week—just get out of Austin—just get out of it. [Very emphatic] Many others were simply incapable of entertaining such thoughts or were pitifully resigned to a situation they could—or felt they could—do little about. "What's the use of daydreaming and wishing? You know it won't come true." Because they wholeheartedly subscribed to the American ethos of fun, popularity, and consumerism, they were certainly missing out on much that life had to offer.

154

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

Relations with Outsiders Very little difference was discernible between marrieds and singles in terms of access to a regular physician. Several couples had more than one doctor, for most wives consulted gynecologists. Singles' parents probably saw to it that their offspring had doctors, especially in view of the fact that quite a few were physically handicapped. Some singles were so dependent on their parents for major necessities that they might not have been aware that their families turned to physicians whenever they were ill. We were, on the whole, agreeably impressed by the quantity of medical assistance received by the entire sample. We had expected the subjects to fare miserably, as they were poor and, by common standards, ignorant. Most of the subjects were residents of relatively small cities where the medical profession may have been fairly accessible in terms of geographic location and thus more visible. Several of the respondents benefited from medical care at the municipal hospital's clinic and seemed to take full advantage of it. In addition, it was common practice for the Rehabilitation Commission to refer clients to selected physicians when necessary. In an earlier section, it was observed that married subjects, more often than singles, had recourse to welfare (32% versus 21%), a resultant of their disadvantaged socioeconomic situation and of their more numerous responsibilities. From a societal perspective, retardates' marriages are probably more costly than bachelorhood: not only is more welfare money siphoned in the direction of married individuals, but, more importantly, a staggering number of their offspring are themselves born handicapped. This should not, however, be taken as a condemnation of the subjects' right to marry, for, on the whole, we certainly did not find marrieds to be unhappier than singles-quite the contrary. Another agency nearly all of the subjects have been associated with is the Rehabilitation Commission. One trend was pervasive: few remembered much about the contact(s), few had been marked by it in any way, and few had any comments to make or thought they had learned anything from the experience. Although there was no major age difference between the subjects belonging to either the single or the married category, married respondents whose Rehabilitation Commission files contained this information tended to have been serviced long before their single counterparts. Only 16 percent of the marrieds had been serviced four years ago or less as compared to 48 percent of the singles. Because twelve unmarried subjects were still employed by sheltered workshops, their cases had probably been closed relatively recently.

MARRIEDS AND SINGLES

155

The rehabilitation status of respondents at the time of their case closure was also examined, but little information was available in the files: only two marrieds had been classified as "closed, rehabilitated" as opposed to fifteen singles. Further, service had been terminated for more marrieds because they or their parents had refused the agency's help (22% versus 12%). In the context of these precarious statistics, it seemed that singles had been assessed as more successful and had been given more rehabilitative attention. While we are unable to explain the success differential, it can be hypothesized that more singles had accepted service because more were multiply handicapped. But, then, since marrieds had generally been serviced at an earlier period in the Rehabilitation Commission's history, it is possible that their relative lack of "successful" closure was in part related to the functioning of the agency at the time. Respondents' relations with the police were examined via two indicators: contact for an offense other than a traffic violation and traffic violations themselves. Here again, although the frequencies were limited, some trends were apparent in favor of the singles. Of the fifty-seven persons who discussed such incidents with us, five marrieds, two respondents who were divorced, and three singles had experienced police difficulties other than those involving traffic violations. Violations of the law might have been more prevalent among the marrieds because, being less constrained by their environment and less closely supervised by their parents, they certainly had more opportunities to commit illegal acts. Also, two of these marrieds were individually prone to violence. It is interesting to note that, of the four divorced subjects from whom we managed to gather such data, two had had police problems—although one, a woman, had merely been unwillingly trapped in a crowd of milling sailors and was arrested along with them.7 (Other respondents, both marrieds and singles, had also been erroneously arrested.) Traffic violations were another matter: seven singles out of eight who drove had received tickets for traffic violations, and three had even had their driver's licenses suspended. In contrast, only five of the eleven married drivers had received traffic tickets. These figures suggest that marrieds were either more competent drivers or more adept at avoiding police surveillance. Another formal organization of importance is the church. Fifty-two percent of the singles attended church services frequently and regularly, in 7 For more details concerning the types of offenses committed by the subjects, see chapter 4, "Anglos and Chícanos."

156

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

contrast to 39 percent of the marrieds. In spite of this difference in religious practice, there did not seem to be any distinction within each ethnic group between the beliefs of the singles and those of the marrieds. More singles than marrieds voted—surely another consequence of the fact that they usually lived with their parents, hence probably accompanied their families to the polls. (Ethnicity was not a factor here.) Whenever we had the occasion to converse with parents on these matters, it was obvious that their children's political views were markedly similar to theirs. Naturally, the singles would emulate their parents in this, as in other areas. The marrieds were more independent, especially since they no longer had the omnipresent parental example to follow. Here the subjects' attitudes toward the interviewers could also be included if we consider the latter to be "outside" agents. The reticence of each individual with regard to being interviewed for the second and third sessions was recorded. Our overall impression was that married subjects became more aloof and singles less so as we progressed from one interview to the next. At the second session, a slightly larger number of marrieds were initially recalcitrant. Then, for the third interview, the trend sharpened abruptly: 30 percent of the marrieds were extremely reticent when we contacted them, as opposed to only 9 percent of the singles. Many singles had worked at various sheltered workshops or lived at halfway houses; hence, for them, the interviewing situation was routine, a process they were accustomed to. But the marrieds had less frequently been employed by sheltered workshops, and it was longer ago that they had received an agency's counseling services. They were thus less familiar with interviewing procedures and therefore more often viewed them as abnormal. In spite of this greater initial reluctance, few maintained an uncommunicative stance once embroiled in the interview itself, and the marrieds subsequently were more verbose—this may generally be attributed to the fact that they had more to talk about, that is, children. Conclusion The results demonstrated that married respondents were, on the whole, more competent and independent than their single congeners: they were better looking, physically; they had become more successful, from a vocational standpoint; and they were healthier. Some of these factors had probably contributed to the respondents' marriageability in the first place, later allowing them to cope reasonably well with the increased responsibilities inherent in marriage; also, in spite of these responsibilities,

MARRIEDS AND SINGLES

157

marrieds were often able to continue surpassing the singles in several areas of everyday life by virtue of the attributes just mentioned. There were thus basic differences between retardates who remained single and those who eventually married. As stated earlier, several singles— and, significantly enough, they were the most successful subjects in that category-would inevitably marry within two years following the study. In fact, two females wed during our acquaintance with them, and both were successfully employed, were very good looking, and had IQ's above 70. A third probably married a few months later, and she exhibited the same traits: she was primarily handicapped by past emotional problems and the outrageous way in which she had been spoiled by her parents. None of the single males was about to marry, but several were bound to do so; again, all followed the pattern described earlier. In fact, none of the low-IQ subjects, for instance, ever dated. The trend was thus very clear cut and, in terms of marriageability, seemed to illustrate that the fittest—according to the values enforced by our society—were the most successful.

CHAPTER

SIX

Men and Women

I n the context of the chosen variables, sex-linked differences were not as numerous or as frequently significant as those related to ethnicity and marital status. Nevertheless, since sex is a basic demographic characteristic, the study would not be complete without a discussion of pertinent findings concerning this variable. Additionally, this chapter will summarize, when relevant, those differences related to ethnicity and marital status and contrast them with those which were a function of sex. But it would be appropriate to recall first the composition of the sample in terms of sex. It consisted of thirty-six males: twenty-four Anglos and twelve Chícanos; and forty-three females: twenty-eight Anglos and fifteen Chícanos. Personal Characteristics Unlike marital status and ethnicity, there was no consistent difference between the sexes with respect to IQ. Although oscillations occurred from one level to another, there was no concentration of a particular sex at one extreme or another of the IQ spectrum.

MEN AND WOMEN

159

Nor was sex crucially related to visible characteristics of retardation, as were marital status and ethnicity: 72 percent of both males and females looked normal. However, the subdivision of the retarded-looking category into those with noticeably retarded features and those with only mildly retarded features revealed a slight variation: more males looked very retarded (19% versus 11%). Strong differences were discernible in terms of attractiveness. A greater proportion of females were definitely rated "above average" (23% versus only 8% of the males), while males clustered at the "average" level (50% versus 33% of the females). On the other hand, of those individuals assessed as "below average," though only 3 percent of the men were plainly ugly, 9 percent of the women were thought to be so. Interestingly enough, it was definitely more difficult to judge the physical appearance of the males; hence, we probably relied more heavily upon the adjective "average." Attractiveness is a more elastic term when applied to men, and, unlike women, they are very rarely assessed on that basis alone: other characteristics related to personality are usually included for consideration, while certain physical defects may even be shrugged aside. When controlling for marital status, another relationship between sex and attractiveness emerged: 43 percent of the married women were rated "above average," as opposed to only 14 percent of the single women. But only 14 percent of the married men were rated "above average," as opposed to 4 percent of the single men. In the sample, as well as in society at large, both marriage and good looks are highly valued, especially in relation to women. Therefore, it is not surprising that the females were more likely to wed if they were attractive; here, however, it is not implied that a causative relationship existed between the two variables. It is also pertinent to recall a finding already discussed in chapter 5. Fewer married men looked retarded, as compared to both single men and married women. For the men, appearing competent, rather than good looking, was crucial in terms of marriageability. This was, again, a reflection of sex-role norms. In the realm of health, females consistently had a slight advantage, an edge of approximately 4 to 6 percent. This held for general health, morbidity, and the incidence of hospitalization for reasons other than pregnancy. As for the fourth health indicator, headaches, while 80 percent of the males with whom we discussed this topic reported having frequent headaches, only 39 percent of the females did. This may have been a reflection of nervousness, mental problems, or stress; there was also the pos-

160

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

sibility that the male respondents' work was more arduous; finally, three males suffered from epilepsy, an affliction perhaps entailing frequent headaches. With regard to self-perception, proportionately more men viewed themselves very positively (67% versus 25%); females usually responded more ambivalently (31% versus 17%); and there was no difference between the two sexes at the very negative end of the spectrum. It is possible that the males sought to present themselves to the interviewers in a better light. On the other hand, females' self-perceptions may have been more unfavorable because more females tended to consider themselves in terms of physical attributes (32% versus 14% for the men). Also, more stressed that, above all else, they would like to change their external appearance (28% versus 15% for the men). Obviously less well endowed physically than other women, they predictably did not think very highly of themselves in this respect, since appearance is such an important element in a woman's life— and such a burden, evidently. It is thus not surprising that self-perception was more closely related to sex than to marital status. Examples of the ways in which men described themselves are now presented. The women's self-perceptions will follow.1 I just got dark brown eyes, brown hair, 5 feet 4 inches, weighs 125 pounds. That's about all I know about myself. Wear a hearing aid . . . just like anybody else, just try work, make a living for myself, take care of myself, take my own responsibility. I try to get along with everybody, just the easiest way I can. [I'm] tall, dark, and handsome. And I'm crazy about women. Well, never have thought of it, really. Oh, I ain't unhappy all the time. I'm a good human. Always I get up and go. I'm a good guy, I guess. I think I'm pretty low myself. You know, I shouldn't do things I do. For instance, like if I go out and get drunk. Now a sample of comments made by women: . . . short and fat with black hair, brown eyes, big mouth, rotten teeth . . . 1

The questions which elicited the following answers were, first, How would you describe yourself to a stranger? and, second, something like What do you think of yourself? or What opinion do you have of yourself?

MEN AND WOMEN

161

. . . not too tall and kind of fat, long hair, black, brown eyes; yes, that does it. I don't know, friendly personality. I'm sweet and pretty and nice. . . . because what I say is really, is not the real Carla, it's a different kind of Carla. And I don't want to describe that other Carla. If I think hard about me, I go into these fits and get mad at myself... I don't like the way I dress and I don't like the way I act. I think a lot of myself right now. I'm trying to better myself and everything like that. School background was the last personal characteristic to be considered. More males than females had histories of Special Education (90% versus 72%). However, ethnicity per se was an even more important factor in this respect, for more Mexican Americans, both males and females, had been enrolled in Special Education programs. In other words, while a greater number of males had been so channeled in both ethnic groups, more Chicano males and females, especially the former, had attended such classes. It is possible that the women had done better in school in spite of the fact that no specific pattern of recorded intellectual difference between the two groups was discernible. Or, since tradition dictates that a lack of scholastic success is less noticeable and reprehensible among females, girls might have been less often or only tardily diagnosed as Special Education material. The literature offers strong evidence in support of this contention. Then, "It will come as no surprise to the reader familiar with urban education to learn that the major basis for special class placement was misbehavior in the regular class."2 Since males more frequently disrupt classroom routine, this may have contributed to their higher rate of Special Education placement. When we asked the respondents if they thought that they had done well in school, 44 percent of the women versus only 15 percent of the men said, "definitely yes." This finding seems to be in accord with the lower incidence of exposure to Special Education among females, and thus with their allegedly superior achievement. From another perspective, perhaps the females were not better pupils—the men could have appraised themselves less positively simply because they had been derided or reprimanded more often for functioning at the same level. In view of the above results, it may not come as a surprise that women more often remembered having 2

Seymour B. Sarason and John Doris, Psychological Problems in Mental Deficiency, p. 54.

162

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

liked school (55% versus 45% for the men). This may indicate that girls benefited more from the Special Education curriculum because their attitudes toward school were, in general, more positive. Material Conditions The most comprehensive indicator was the respondents' housing situation. In the context of this criterion, only one difference surfaced: proportionately more women lived in upper-middle-class neighborhoods (13% versus 3%); all were single and resided with their parents. Thus, in this study, aside from the above difference, the two factors most closely related to a subject's housing were ethnicity and marital status, not sex. In addition, contrary to the findings when ethnicity and marital status were examined, there was no difference between the sexes in terms of geographic mobility, especially during the year previous to the study. Another facet of the housing situation is a subject's fellow residents. There were only three differences: more males lived with only one parent (19% versus 12%), because more (especially among Chícanos) came from families where divorce had occurred or where one parent, usually the father, was deceased (the latter was more common among Anglos). Then, while no male resided with his children or with relatives, two females were living with their children, two with relatives. This fact was partly related to another finding already discussed, namely, that more women were divorced. From the perspective of such other economic indicators as savings and health insurance, men came out ahead. Thirty-six percent of the females and 50 percent of the males had savings, and 58 percent versus 81 percent were covered by health insurance. It is possible that some females were covered by insurance but were unaware of it, a reflection of the fact that women usually tend to be less well informed about financial matters. A final economic indicator was welfare dependency: no difference between sexes was discovered. To summarize, in terms of general socioeconomic conditions, differences were not as substantial and consistent between sexes as they were between ethnic groups and between marrieds and singles. Employment The area of employment could not be fruitfully studied if only types of employment were taken into account, for men and women rarely hold the same jobs at the working-class level—with the exception of those

163

MEN AND WOMEN

in restaurant work. This generalization also applied to retardates. Therefore, sex, much more than ethnicity, was an all-encompassing determining factor within the context of employment, no matter which ethnic group was studied. But it was not more so than marital status, because of the sheltered-workshop cases, where all except one were single. TABLE 16 Sex and Employment Status at First Interview Men %

Women

Employment Status

Ν

Ν

%

Unemployed Employed Employed and housewife Housewife Other

7 19 29 81 0 0 0 0 0 0

6 14 17 40 7 16 11 26 2 4

Totals 36 100

43 100

As illustrated in Table 16, even when working wives were included, the employment rate of males was much higher. However, married females had an advantage with regard to the reality which these statistics describe: when jobless against their will or in spite of their needs, they could at least fall back on their housewifely status, a prerogative without any counterpart in the masculine population. Regarding the number of positions held by an individual in his or her lifetime, more than 50 percent of the females had held only two or three jobs; 52 percent of the males had held four—or many more jobs; only 21 percent of the females had held so many. This imbalance was not related to age, for the men were not, on the whole, older. Rather, women were more often confined to their homes. Even when single, they were generally less pressured to find occupations, whereas the attitude toward males was exactly the opposite. In addition, because of the sampling procedure, more females were employed by sheltered workshops (nine versus three men), which contributed to the stability of their employment records. Sex was thus the most important variable related to number of jobs held. The relevance of sex in the area of employment was reflected in yet another set of results, namely, the reasons that the individuals gave for

164

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

having left previous positions. In spite of the fact that data were obtained from only forty-nine persons, there were definite trends according to the sex-role norms of our society. Only one female stated that desire for a higher salary motivated her to look for another job, as opposed to five males. On the other hand, four women left jobs because of impending marriages or pregnancies. From another perspective, while 20 percent of the males had been fired, only 13 percent of the females had. Women had more often been laid off: 21 percent versus 8 percent. This latter datum might have resulted from the more unstable character of the females' jobs, which were immediately eliminated when business was slow.3 It is obviously difficult to assess whether or not members of one sex were more responsible workers. Very little was said by women about liking their jobs, and, in fact, they responded much more negatively to this question than men did (17% versus 7%). Most women viewed their occupation as a prelude to marraige or as a temporary necessity, an aid in making ends meet in the family budget, whereas men saw their vocations as part of their role.4 Therefore, males seemed to invest more of themselves in their work and consequently received more gratification from it. It may not be too farfetched to add that trying to impose positive work attitudes, other than punctuality and discipline, on these female retardates would have been very much a waste of time, for society, probably unwittingly, had offered them only self-defeating experiences. The women sensed that their jobs were only temporary, that they could easily be laid off, that marriage might deliver them from drudgery, and, above all, that the labor market was male territory. They knew they would generally remain on the lowest rung of the ladder, no matter how well they performed. The reader may wonder how the possibility of promotion, for instance, can be related to sex bias for this sample, since the subjects were so minimally qualified that not even the men could have expected advancement. However, male respondents who hoped to get raises and promotions were not rare. No female ever expressed such a yearning. It is not surprising that, when women said they preferred to be women, their reason was that females did not 3

Margaret Benston called women "a surplus labor force," that is, welcome when jobs are plentiful and sent home "when there is less demand for labor," in the entire economy or within certain sectors, in "The Political Economy of Women's Liberation," Monthly Review (1969). In this context, it is interesting to note that retardates are at times discussed within the concept of a "surplus population." See Bernard Farber, Mental Retardation, pp. 9-14. 4 For a similar observation, see Leonard Benson, Fatherhood, pp. 244-295.

MEN AND WOMEN

165

have to work or shoulder all the related male burdens which they obviously had not had to internalize as a part of their own role.5 We have a lot of responsibilities, too. But they [men] have a lot more than we do most of the time. They have to be the ones to support their families and support their wives. They have to be the ones that work whether they feel sick or not. Boys can climb trees and they can lift heavy things and stuff like that. They can ask you to marry them. [If Maria were a man . . . . ] Then when I come home, well, all I have to do is sit down, relax, have my supper ready. Shave, take a bath, sit down and enjoy TV till it's time to go to bed. We then asked the subjects how they had obtained their present or latest positions and if anybody had helped them. Parents or siblings assisted 34 percent of the males, whereas no woman made mention of such aid. As observed in a previous chapter, such aid through the kin system was even more prevalent among Mexican American families, even though in neither ethnic group did parents worry about their unemployed daughters. Forty-seven percent of the latter received help from advisers of various sorts, but for men such assistance accounted for only 24 percent of the jobs located. In short, sex was the most important of the three major variables with respect to employment. Family of Origin Since parental socioeconomic differences were examined in a previous section, we will not delve into this topic again. There was no marked difference between the sexes in terms of parents' marital status or number of siblings. Sex-related trends surfaced when we inquired into the parents' reaction to the subjects' matrimonial intentions. The families of female subjects were reported to have responded either very positively or very negatively, never in between. Reactions of relatives of male subjects were primarily positive; some were in between; and, finally, on rare occasions, some were negative. If these reports were accurate perceptions of the parents' reactions, they could indicate that parents were much more worried about the outcome of a daughter's marriage, perhaps because matrimony is considered the apex of feminine achievement and also 5 However, many other women also admitted that manhood had advantages and quite a few would have preferred to be men.

166

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

because a woman shoulders the burdens of child bearing and rearing. However, these reports could merely reflect the subjects' own biases. Leisure and Social Activities For a discussion of leisure activities, the chapters on marital status and, in particular, on ethnicity should be referred to. To further elaborate, let us add that women, whether married or single, Anglo or Chicano, were more limited in this area, particularly as to hobbies, as few women had any. Compounding this disparity, single males were accorded more freedom than females: some males were routinely able to roam the stores, cruise around in cars at will, and fraternize with other men. Single women were not granted such prerogatives. In the first place, none had a car of her own or drove. This drastically curtailed mobility and choice of leisure activities. In addition, they went out with friends less often than males did. In fact, only relatives or dates offered them opportunities to get out of the house. Married females were more deprived than married males, especially in the case of Chicano women, as transportation could be obtained solely at their husbands' convenience. Nevertheless, such dependency, in this context, was still better than having no spouse at all, especially perhaps for Anglos, who were more solitary and lonelier than the Chicano women. What often constrained married females, in addition to household chores and child care, was that their husbands had little desire to go out, after work, or, among Chicano subjects, that, following the norms of their subculture, they preferred to go out in the company of their male comrades. In fact, more than one Mexican American wife regretted her loss of youthful freedom. "When I used to be a girl, I used to go out to dances, to the movies .. . but then I got married, and it's always the same, you know. Now I always have to ask him. It's not the same. That's what happens, your husband doesn't let you go out." Thus, the interaction of sex and ethnicity was the dominant factor dictating the kind and quantity of leisure opportunities, although important variations occurred along marital-status lines. In spite of this greater limitation, more females professed to have friends (92% versus 77%). But a review of the case material clearly revealed that women participated in fewer activities with their companions than men did. When the friends' ages were examined, it became obvious that, while the disparity was not pronounced, more males had companions their own age or older, whereas women tended to have younger friends. Although we believe that sex was crucial with regard to leisure opportunities,

MEN AND WOMEN

167

ethnicity was more important in the realm of sociability itself, for there the difference between the two ethnic groups was incomparably greater than that which existed between the sexes—this, in spite of the fact that even within the gregarious Chicano group, females still had fewer chances than males to experience pleasurable pastimes. Another source of distraction for single individuals—and for a few married males—was dating. No difference was discernible between the sexes: 30 percent of the females dated, versus 27 percent of the males. In other words, as was observed in an earlier chapter, relatively few singles dated. Furthermore, half of the Chícanos of both sexes dated, whereas only 12 percent of the Anglo males and 22 percent of the females did so. So, while sex was of little consequence in this context among Mexican Americans, perhaps a greater proportion of Anglo women than men dated. But this female advantage existed in only one leisure area, and in only one ethnic group at that; it was not sufficient to offset the disadvantages generally experienced by women in the realm of leisure and social activities. In view of their limited opportunities, it can be concluded that the women in the study, the Anglos in particular, definitely needed more support from various agencies, as well as from their families, with regard to the leisure aspect of their lives. Certainly, we are not saying that males should be ignored, for retardates of both sexes, especially Anglos, were obviously very lonely. Consonant with the fact that females reported more friends, they also more often reported knowing their neighbors and having frequent contacts with them. For instance, while five women mentioned having extensive contacts with their neighbors, only one male made a similar statement. However, it soon became evident that neither men nor women, particularly singles, had much to do with nearby residents, nor did they consider them a source of distraction. Relations with Outsiders Eighty-two percent of each group had access to a regular family doctor; thus no difference between the sexes was discernible, in spite of the fact that fewer women had been ill. With respect to contacts with law-enforcement agencies, not unexpectedly more males than females had been involved with the police. Of the fifty-seven subjects from whom data were gathered, two females and eight males had had such encounters. Regarding traffic violations, only three fe-

168

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

males (all married subjects) drove and each had received traffic tickets or warnings, as opposed to eleven out of sixteen subject male drivers. However, none had ever been involved in accidents while driving, in contrast to at least six males, two of whom had been party to several collisions in the space of a few years. We found women to be more frequent churchgoers than men. Fiftyeight percent of the females attended services regularly (every other week at least) as against 38 percent of the males. But even more interesting were the sex differences within and across each ethnic group. More Chicano females refrained totally from going to church: 50 percent, as compared to 22 percent of their Anglo counterparts. The trend was reversed among males: only 17 percent of the Chícanos never went to church as against 29 percent of the Anglos. Although ethnicity did not make that much difference among males in terms of regular worship, it definitely did among females: 78 percent of the Anglo women were regular churchgoers, in contrast to only 13 percent of the Chicano females-the latter unexpectedly being the lowest percentage of all. Very few women (7%) had ever voted, whereas there was a surprising 33 percent turnout among male respondents. While parents took their sons to the polls with them, for some reason they did not include their daughters. We thought at first that this might be related to the sex of the voting parent-a predominance of voting fathers over mothers. However, such a possibility had to be eliminated, as we encountered too many mothers who had themselves voted, at times in the company of their sons. In terms of our relationships with the subjects, we were more readily accepted by females. More men refused second or third interviews. Of the men who always agreed to the sessions, 25 percent exhibited considerable preinterview reticence; the rate diminished to 15 percent at the second encounter, to only 9 percent at the third. Although there were numerous exceptions, we could never predict what kind of response we would receive from the men when we contacted them. Such was not the case with the women, who were generally eager to converse with us, perhaps because they would have liked to have more opportunities to talk to someone than their daily lives offered; also, they were less assertive and thus could refuse us only with great difficulty. (However, once the interviews were in progress, though males did not become increasingly recalcitrant, females became progressively more cooperative, not only as we reestablished contact, but also as each session progressed.) Therefore, it could easily be surmised that counselors wishing to keep in touch with their rehabilitation clients

MEN AND WOMEN

169

would probably find their task easier with women. To assign a counselor to a client of the opposite sex might be a solution: for instance, the Chicano female field worker was more successful than was her male counterpart at interviewing the men. The male subjects more willingly confided in her and told her personal things which they would not have told the other interviewer. However, the crucial factor might have been the personality rather than the sex of the field worker. Another facet of our relationship with the subjects emerged when we considered the length of time the respondents talked with us. Although the sexes were almost equally distributed at the "least talkative" level, proportionally more females talked at greater length. One of the reasons: mothers always discussed their children in detail, but the fathers had very little to say on the same topic. Thus the fathers' interviews were not longer than those of the single males. As specific relationships between field workers and subjects have only been discussed fleetingly, some descriptive summaries of respondent-field worker relationships are presented below: Relatively calm, Eva Zarcano was very friendly and extremely cooperative throughout all sessions. She used the interviewer as a source of information. For instance, she wanted to find out how she could get her birth certificate and, then, how she should word the necessary letter to the clerk of her home county. When the interviewer arrived for the third session, Sandra Hopper exploded, "Oh, my God, what are you doing here?" Then she apologized, resignedly commenting, "Let's get it over with." Yet Sandra talked for two hours—for once the interviewer was on her wavelength, everything was fine and she was quite cordial and open. She never inquired very penetratingly into our purposes, hence always called her companion "that lady from welfare." Initially, Anna Garcia was ill at ease with the interviewer: "When I first saw you, you know, I didn't, you know what, really know what to say." Still, she was, from the very beginning, extremely courteous and friendly. By the third session, she had relaxed considerably as if she were finally enjoying the situation. When the field worker was about to leave, Anna commented, "It's been nice meeting you and I enjoyed the interview very much." Although mechanically friendly in the sense that he accepted the field

170

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

worker's presence and never procrastinated or avoided the situation, Bill Lehmann very rarely offered anything except yes, no, or a shrug; most of the time he stared into space or watched his children play. He never looked the interviewer in the eye, and, as if to embarrass him, described himself as a person who does not "even have very much to say." Although Joe Anderson was not overly friendly, he cooperated fully, even inviting the field worker to use his own room for one meeting in order that they might escape from the noise of the living room. He spoke rather easily and was very calm and relaxed. When the field worker appeared for the third session, his greeting was quite blase: "Oh, you again?" To some extent, he treated the session as a mutual exchange: for instance, when the interviewer asked if he had found a job, Joe gave his answer with a quick rejoinder, "And you?" Another time he displayed an interest in the field worker, inquiring, "What do you do for a living?" And at the third session he graciously gave him advice on repairing a damaged floor. Ross Young, although initially very friendly and helpful, refused both subsequent sessions. When contacted by phone for the third interview, he seemed hesitant, but he eventually agreed to be questioned; as the interviewer approached the house the following day, Ross simply walked out onto the porch, closing the front door behind him. The field worker's renewed "sales pitch" was in vain—he could only ask a few questions before Ross turned away, sauntered back to the screen door, opened it, and disappeared, as if yesterday's phone conversation had never occurred. Claude Maxwell was one of the field worker's favorite respondents. He made it quite clear that any question was permissible and also offered his new acquaintance cigarettes and drinks; he inquired about the interviewer's personal life, his car, his own likes and dislikes. The study interested him: "If I may ask, how did you get my name?" He concluded the first session by saying, "If I can help you out in any way I can, pleased to help you." At one point, when the field worker was hesitant to interrogate him on a particular matter, Claude said, "If you want to ask me any other question on that, go ahead. . . . You can ask me anything you like, I mean, it ain't going to bother me none. I've had people ask me worse questions than you have. If I can't answer them, I can't answer them; if I can answer them, I'll answer them." At that second session, he suddenly stated, "Now, my mother told me you wanted to ask me a few things about school. Going to school. Anything you want [to] ask me about that? Anything I've done in school?"

MEN AND WOMEN

171

It is interesting to note that only male subjects inquired into the purpose of the study—several individuals who manifested such interest are not included in the examples quoted. Again, this is very much in line with the differential socialization both sexes receive. Conclusion This presentation of the findings comparing male and female subjects can be appropriately concluded by stressing that practically all the relationships observed in this chapter were a function of sex-role norms as defined in our society. Certainly the subjects had very adequately internalized these norms in spite of the obvious dearth of conventional achievement exhibited by many. The male respondents were definitely "men," the females, "women." It is thus not surprising, for instance, that the women's employment pattern was different, that few drove, that most led relatively sheltered lives, and finally, that they were more successful on the marriage market than their male counterparts. The latter finding seemed to derive from the fact that their attractiveness, rather than their intelligence and performance, was important, whereas the reverse was generally the rule for men. It has been noted earlier that the women were less assertive and more easily persuaded to participate in our research; they would probably be more receptive to the services of a noninstitutional rehabilitation agency. But there are pitfalls: while more acquiescent, these women may not be in a position to benefit fully from rehabilitation services, for such services often focus on one area—employment—at a time when females, retarded or normal, have been socialized into believing that the role which ultimately counts for them is that of wife and mother—and that this role is natural and therefore does not require preparation. Successful rehabilitation of a retarded female is probably a more complex process than has heretofore been assumed, although, on the surface, it appears so well delineated.

CHAPTER

SEVEN

Marriage

Most studies on retardates' marriages have approached the topic primarily from a demographic perspective; as a consequence, practically no detailed research focusing on the subjects' feelings and perceptions concerning their conjugal lives has been conducted. The ensuing discussion will be a modest attempt to contribute to filling this gap. The first two sections of this chapter will introduce the subjects' spouses. Subjects' dating and engagement patterns will then be examined, followed by insights into the conjugal relationship proper. Any information available on reproduction will also be presented, including details on the prevalence of retardation among the sample's offspring. The last section will be devoted to the findings pertaining to the subjects as parents. Normal and Retarded Spouses First, a look at the sex-and-ethnicity distribution of the thirty spouses. There were seventeen married Anglo subjects but only thirteen Anglo spouses, because one female and three male Anglo subjects had Chicano mates. These four interethnic marriages had been contracted after

MARRIAGE

173

the partners had met at sheltered workshops, halfway houses, or, in one instance, at a state school. In other words, their paths had crossed in institutionalized settings only. It is therefore not surprising that each of these four Chicano spouses had also been diagnosed as retarded. One-third (6) of the Mexican American spouses were retarded, as opposed to only one-sixth (2) of the Anglos. This does not mean that proportionately more Mexican American retardates married others so labeled; if we take into consideration the fact that four of these Chicano retarded spouses were married to Anglo subjects, then one-third (6) of the married Anglo subjects had retarded mates. Since the four Mexican American spouses in the interethnic unions were also retarded, it can be concluded that retardates of both ethnic groups (subjects and spouses) were equally likely to marry others so labeled. An overwhelming proportion of spouses was normal, at least in terms of recorded IQ, although very few appeared to be exceptionally well endowed intellectually.1 To be more precise, only three spouses, all female, were extremely competent in that respect. Now two questions arise: (a) Were these intellectually normal spouses totally without handicaps? In other words, were they normal from all points of view? (b) How did the couples composed of a retardate and a normal compare with unions of two retardates? Did the former fare better? To reply: (a) It should be noted that the sample really included two types of normal spouses: the most prominent numerically were those spouses who had never been diagnosed as retardates but who functioned at a level similar to that of the subjects. Then there were those spouses who were definitely of above average intelligence, and who performed far more adequately than did the retardates in the sample. The cases belonging to the latter category come to mind most readily, since, interestingly enough, each pair was composed of a retarded husband and a fairly intelligent woman. One Anglo couple and two Mexican American couples were involved. Two of the three wives, an Anglo and a Chicano, were physically 1

Edgerton had 30 married subjects in his study. Of these, 18 were wed to normal spouses (16 were women married to normal men), as against a total of 22 in our study. A considerably higher percentage of normal spouses was found by Reed and Reed (Elisabeth W. Reed and Sheldon C. Reed, Mental Retardation, p. 39)-only 9.4 percent of 758 retardates* known spouses were also retarded. However, Reed and Reed did not have any knowledge of the mentality of 471 of the spouses-some of those could also have been retarded. In our sample, in 26 percent (8) of the unions both were retardates.

174

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

handicapped. As a result of polio, one of liza Escamilla's legs was smaller than the other, a minor affliction in comparison with those which plagued Jane Rode: she was half blind and she had flat feet, a spinal defect, and diabetes. A fourth couple, the Posts, should perhaps be mentioned again here, but June was so emotionally unstable and her behavior was so appallingly childish that finding a niche for her anywhere would be a difficult task. Although she was definitely intelligent, her ability to cope had been impaired by her emotional problems and her odd appearance, which repelled those who came in contact with her. Thus, in spite of her potential, she functioned on her husband's level.2 This was therefore another case of a retarded husband with a "normal" wife who was multiply handicapped. Only one female subject was married to a fairly intelligent man. However, he had been institutionalized twice for emotional disorders, and, while he was a most attractive and charming young man, his attempt at college had failed because of his problems. In an intermediate category, three other female subjects can also be said to have found husbands who coped well socially and vocationally, although none had much education or shone intellectually. In all three cases, the wives themselves could easily have "passed." Then there is the most numerous category of normal spouses, those who were functioning at a level very close to that of the subjects; most had deprived educational backgrounds or were less intelligent than the normal population at large. These mates were usually not plagued by physical or emotional handicaps as were those women of superior intellect wed to retarded men. Rather, they were, on the whole, fairly well matched with their retarded mates in every respect. Thus, in categorizing normal spouses, we had to consider two variables: the range of intellectual performance and the sex of the mate. In accordance with the norms of our society, no special problem arose when the husband was more competent, relatively speaking, but matters were quite different when it was the wife who was more competent, as taken up in the reply to (b): How did couples composed of a retardate and a normal compare with unions of two retardates? While it cannot be said that the subjects whose spouses were retarded were less or even more successful than the others in our sample, it can, nevertheless, be stated that the couples which functioned best, in the realms of employment, finances, hous2

For a complete description of the couple, see chapter 3.

MARRIAGE

175

ing, and leisure activities, included one normal, fairly intelligent spouse. Their marital happiness, however, was another story, as will be discussed later. But being married to a more competent person is not necessarily the crucial factor which makes the life of a subject more successful, socially or materially. There is another consideration: most of the subjects married to normals happened to be functioning more successfully than those subjects married to retardates-and this was true of both sexes. They seemed to be dependable employees, they often demonstrated tremendous initiative in several areas, and they were devoted spouses. Possibly, therefore, these unions, or—we might say-these lives, were superior because the individuals themselves would have excelled no matter to whom they had been married. From the point of view of conjugal satisfaction, the intelligence of the spouse made very little difference, on the whole, for we encountered unhappy couples composed both of two retardates and of a normal and a retardate. However, as pointed out earlier, when a woman had an obviously less competent husband, though the marriage went well for all practical purposes, the woman felt cheated, and, at times, despised her spouse. Society dictates that males should be better educated and show more initiative than their female counterparts; the wives adhered to those mores and expected such ideals to materialize within their own lives. These expectations had unfortunate consequences, for, as a result, men who otherwise functioned very competently in several areas were hardly favored with wifely esteem and could not help but feel inferior (witness Miguel Soto's situation, described in chapter 3). In addition, the more competent women often had responsibilities with which they would not have been burdened had they married normals. Some of the husbands shared the household and marital encumbrances equally, but, in other cases, the wives were actually saddled with more work than they could handle, both in and outside the home. Stephen and Jane Rode, for instance, had been married for over ten years. She had a baccalaureate degree and Stephen was a truck maintenance man. He was highly knowledgeable in many ways, he demonstrated a great deal of initiative, and he had a wonderfully warm personality. Yet Jane had a better job, earned more money, and definitely knew she was smarter-a fact she did not hide from Stephen. Fortunately, he was too devoted to his wife to realize fully the pervasiveness of her dissatisfaction. He acknowledged only that she "wants a job [for him] that pays more

176

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

money." Jane said much the same thing, but more vehemently: "Well, I wish he had more initiative to do something more because I feel like once in a while I'd like to quit a year, you know, but if I did, we'd lose everything we had. Because he doesn't even make enough to pay rent much less incidentals." Stephen felt out of place and ill at ease with Jane's friends, as they had more education and money than he. Still, Jane's complaints were more numerous. "Well, I have been reared with the idea that the man is supposed to take the responsibilities. And I found out that I had to take it. And really I resent it. And I still do. But if I didn't do it, there wouldn't be anyone to do it." (It should be noted that Jane exhibited more vehemence concerning her plight than did Diana Soto, who was discussed in chapter 3.) However, when the wife was the retardate, no such reaction occurred. Typically, the husband shrugged off her limitations, either because he did not attach any importance to them or because her inadequacies gave him more freedom to make his own decisions. In fact, her very difficulties may have been a godsend as far as he was concerned, allowing him to maintain his male dominance more easily and more flagrantly, especially when he would not otherwise have exhibited an overabundance of masculine prowess. Were we to draw guidelines on the basis of this study, we would perhaps be more inclined to encourage retardates to marry among themselves, especially when they do not blend in easily with the normal population. Those who are strikingly different in terms of appearance or general potential, might, in the long run, be happier with those more like themselves. Then, from a rehabilitation agency's point of view, it would probably be easier to remain in touch with them, for their unions would reduce the number of retarded units', each couple could be serviced as one unit rather than as two individuals assimilated within the population at large. Spouses: As Compared to Married Subjects Do retardates marry people who resemble them? In order to answer this question, a few of the spouses' characteristics will be delineated, and, when appropriate, compared with those of married subjects. Because of the very small sample at hand, only a few of the variables analyzed in the three previous chapters will be covered.

MARRIAGE

177

In the realm of personal attributes, the IQ cannot be discussed meaningfully, as scores for only three spouses were available. But the scores of these three were above 70, which again corroborates the findings in chapter 5: in order to marry, the retardates had to demonstrate a certain superiority relative to those who remained single. The next personal characteristic is that of physical attractiveness. Spouses tended to be predominantly average looking (59%), but more married subjects were attractive: 30 percent versus only 7 percent of the spouses. When those average and above in appearance were grouped together, the subject group was still somewhat better looking. It is also relevant to note that five of the eight spouses who were retarded were relatively good looking, a ratio which closely approaches that of the retarded subjects. In other words, had all the married retardates (spouses and subjects) in the sample been grouped together, the retardates would have been, on the whole, better looking than the normal spouses. Taking the sexes into consideration, we found that, while 80 percent of the male spouses were of average appearance or better, only 50 percent of the female spouses fell within the same category. In other words, the male spouses were more attractive than the females. When a similar comparison was made within the married subject sample, no difference between the sexes surfaced in terms of below-average versus all other categories of appearance. Sixty percent of the males and 58 percent of the females were situated at the average or better levels. This means that, among wedded subjects, female retardates often married relatively good-looking men, whereas male retardates married women in an appearance category more like their own, or those who were less comely. This finding held for both ethnic groups, although it was less obvious among the Chícanos, where the partners were more equally matched. Evidently, the competition for good-looking partners was suffer among male retardates: they could not be too choosy, as their relatively low level of functioning rendered them less desirable partners. Matters were somewhat different for females, who did not have to look intelligent to "make it." Very closely related to the above is the fact that male subjects were at a disadvantage with respect to the age of their wives. It is a generally accepted norm in our society that a man marries a woman who is either younger than he or close to his age. This custom is related to assumptions of male superiority and, also, to our emphasis on the physical charms of a woman in terms of youthfulness. Nine couples included wives who were older by more than two years and, in all nine cases, the husband was the

178

THE F O R G O T T E N ONES

subject, although in two the wife was also retarded. Thus, 60 percent of the married male subjects had wives who were their seniors by, on the average, 4.4 years.3 Again, it can be inferred that male retardates were handicapped on the marriage market, hence had to be satisfied with older spouses, in contradiction to the prevailing norms. In the realm of health, 89 percent of the married subjects were healthy versus 74 percent of their partners. Again, as we found when considering appearance, six of the eight retarded spouses were very healthy, which means that they more closely resembled the other married retardates (the subjects) than did the normal spouses. But, while ethnicity made no difference among subjects, the opposite was true for spouses. Fifty-eight percent of the Anglo spouses were in good health, in contrast to a striking 88 percent of the Mexican American spouses.4 This difference was maintained when we used as indicator the incidence of illness during the past year. However, three of the Chicano spouses whose health was rated good were married to Anglos, which brought the percentage of healthy spouses married to Chicano subjects down to 70 percent and that of healthy spouses married to Anglo subjects to 82 percent. Thus, Chicano retardates tended to marry frail persons more frequently than did Anglos-even though the latter had, on the whole, weaker constitutions than Chícanos. Second, female retardates of both ethnic groups tended to have healthier husbands, whereas more retarded males' wives were sickly—a further corroboration of the disadvantaged situation of male retardates on the marriage market. In terms of family, the overall contrasts between the subjects and their spouses were few. With regard to their fathers' schooling, the greatest concentration of married subjects and their mates had fathers who were almost totally uneducated—a finding related to the large number of married Mexican Americans, spouses and subjects. Not unexpectedly, since four more spouses than married subjects were Chicano, a higher percentage of spouses' fathers (50%) had had no education as compared to married subjects' fathers (33%). A greater percentage of spouses' fathers had highschool diplomas only. But, in contrast to the fact that 17 percent of the 3 Still, in eleven couples the two spouses were the same age, plus or minus two years; in twelve, they were three to five years apart in age; in six, six to ten years apart, and in only one, more than ten years apart. 4 This difference was not related to sex.

MARRIAGE

179

fathers of married subjects had some college credit and positions commensurate with that background, no father of a spouse was so fortunate. The extent of their mothers' education followed exactly the same pattern. The married subjects, as a whole, came from families of a somewhat higher socioeconomic status, although the reverse was the case for two Mexican American spouses. In short, retardates, especially Anglos, often married beneath the level of their parental background—because of their limited capacities, most of the married Anglo subjects were downwardly mobile as compared to their parents, whereas this was not the case for their spouse whose parents' socioeconomic level was on the whole lower. In another area, while there was no difference between the married subjects and their spouses in terms of involvement with the police, the spouses were definitely less successful in the matter of traffic violations. Five (45%) of the eleven married respondents who drove had been given traffic tickets, against ten spouses (66%) out of the fifteen who drove. In regard to voting, only three married subjects exercised this prerogative versus five spouses: little difference. Nine subjects and seven spouses went to church regularly: again no marked difference. In their attitudes toward us, however, the spouses were somewhat distinctive. On the whole, those who were reticent were much more strongly so than the subjects themselves. Three normal spouses (one female, two males) even prevented us from completing sessions with their retarded partners. In addition, three spouses, all males, responded to us with nothing but yes, no, and shrugs. These exceptions aside, the more competent partner usually talked at greater length, whether or not he was the subject. But, it was noticeable that all spouses who showed extensive reticence were normals. Those variables for which we had relatively sufficient statistical data on the spouses have now been exhausted. Thus, in the context of certain items, the subjects had apparently married people similar to themselves (in church attendance, voting), whereas in terms of other more basic characteristics (health, appearance, parental socioeconomic status), the subjects, especially the males, were often superior to their spouses. These findings, especially true of male retardates, and more true of Anglos than of Chícanos, suggest that, as far as marriage was concerned, retardates were at a decided disadvantage, hence they were often likely to wed individuals who might not have been highly eligible within the normal population.

180

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

Dating and Engagement The respondents left us with the feeling that many of them, especially the Mexican Americans, had simply drifted into marriage. They had slipped into it haphazardly, sometimes randomly. Matrimony was the natural outcome of reaching adulthood, an important status that happened. We often had the impression that the personalities involved mattered little. Because a boy met a girl under certain circumstances, marriage was at the end of the journey and each had to follow the direction of the road no matter who the co-traveler was. That pattern was especially evident among Chícanos, although sometimes a dabble of romanticism surfaced during the courtship period. This same configuration of attitude was also apparent among some Anglos, although the latter were generally more amorously involved, consciously attempting to follow mass-mediaidealized relationship styles. Feelings, as illustrated by the oft-repeated phrase, "We fell head over heels in love," were discussed. Personalities mattered a little more. Yet even with Anglos, once this romantic syndrome highly characteristic of the American population at large had been discarded, we were left with a nagging impression of drifting,5 of marriage for its own sake, or because of circumstances, even among those who placed a high priority on feelings after the wedding. The subjects were asked if they were in love when they married. At least half of the Anglos responded effusively and positively. Only a few gave other reasons for getting married, said they could not remember, or were negative. But we could tell that almost all subscribed to the romantic ideal, even those who had initially transgressed by marrying with nonamorous motives. They, too, expounded at great length on the topic. The same question asked of the Mexican American sample produced entirely different results. In the first place, there was no outpouring of verbiage—very few words were wasted. The usual answer was yes, an affirmation not necessarily entailing the same practical meaning as the identical Anglo response—although all knew what the query meant. Obviously "love" was not a requisite for matrimony, at least, not the romantic love ideal with which Anglos are bombarded. But many did not have any answer to offer and, after further probing, said no. It is also possible that the Chícanos interviewed considered this line of interrogation too personal and the question one that a stranger, even within their own ethnic 5

For a similar impression, see Lee Rainwater, And the Poor Get Children, pp. 62-63.

MARRIAGE

181

group, would not usually ask. This may have been one reason for their lack of verbal effusion. With this possibility in mind, conclusions on the topic were drawn from observation and from the entire interview material, as well as from specific answers. Among Mexican Americans, the lack of romantic attachment and, at times, of companionship during courtship continued into marriage. It was often magnified after the wedding, the woman's place being at home, especially in the evening, the man's, with his friends. Any past romantic love then succumbed to this cultural pattern, as the children and the status of being a married man and a father took center stage. At times, the same occurred among Anglos, although the reverse, too, was encountered among them, and we met more than one couple who shared little affection initially but later sustained a flourishing emotional relationship. Anglos attach much more importance to companionship and love within marriage, as will be observed later. Perhaps related to this configuration is the fact that 53 percent of the Chícanos were married less than one year after courtship began, versus 39 percent of the Anglos. Thirty-three percent of the Anglos had dated for two years or more, as opposed to 20 percent of the Chícanos. This higher incidence of prolonged courtship among Anglos was often a result of their living in halfway houses; there they were required either to obtain their parents' consent to marry or to wait until they were discharged. And yet several Anglos pointed out that their lengthened romantic apprenticeships had been extremely fortuitous, having given them the opportunity to become better acquainted and to settle down before taking that all-tooimportant step. Every Thursday night they'd . . . let us call our boyfriends and we would talk over the telephone and, uh, uh, he said, uh, uh, I, I would like to wait for about three years. And I agreed too, because we need to get to know one another more, better, and everything. . . . That's why I think we're going to have a successful marriage. I went with her for four and a half years. . . . Most couples nowadays that you hear of only go together one and a half, maybe two years. But me, I knew what I was doing. In such comments we could often hear echoes of the lessons taught them by their counselors and, especially, by the halfway house directors we knew. These well-learned rationales were, in some ways, measures of the institutions' success in inculcating some important beliefs and practices.

182

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

Apparently the long delays imposed on the couples had been more than timely, allowing quite a few to mature, to be slowly socialized toward marriage, and, finally, to build sound employment records. As only two Mexican Americans (both females) had been residents of halfway houses, Chícanos were never forced to follow that pattern, but, on the other hand, they were therefore not able to benefit from the advice which others were fortunate enough to receive. How did the respondents meet their spouses? As will be observed later, Chicano respondents seemed to adhere to patterns typical of their ethnic group. Matters were different among married Anglos. In fact, seven of them, including all four of the interethnic pairs, met at sheltered workshops, at halfway houses, or at state schools. The halfway house for girls held weekly dances at which at least two married couples had gotten acquainted and where one female, single at the time of the study, had met her fiancé. Had they not been provided with such opportunities, how many would have been able to find companions somewhere else? Many individuals in the sample were often far from attractive by normal standards. Left to themselves amid the tumult of the outside world, several might never have met persons who would even have accepted them, much less cared for them. But, in these relatively more supportive and sheltered environments, with less external competition, several were able to do so. While Anglos often met their future spouses at halfway houses and sheltered workshops, Mexican Americans usually proceeded by means of their extensive network of relatives and friends. Because their leisure activities were more frequently social in nature, they had many more opportunities to form attachments within a noninstitutionalized environment. Finally, as was pointed out earlier, Chícanos blended in more easily with those on their socioeconomic level, hence did not stand out because of their poverty and their dearth of formal education. In other words, they were more readily accepted than the Anglos were in their own milieu. What were the primary dating activities of the individuals in the sample? Here we are including those singles who were courting at the time of the study. Except in halfway houses, there seemed to be little difference between the respondents' pastimes and those of the general population at their socioeconomic level. Even individuals who courted while at the halfway house, although they had fewer opportunities to date, experienced the usual gamut of movies, dances (for Anglos, at the halfway house, for Chícanos, on their own), and visits with parents; unlike Anglos, Mexican Americans spent a great deal of their dating time with relatives.

MARRIAGE

183

With respect to premarital sex, practically no information exists in this study, as we made a point of avoiding the topic of sex entirely, unless someone volunteered such information. However, it was our impression that single females then dating had little to do with sex; the same could be said of most single Anglo males. But the few unattached Mexican American men in the sample were not so sheltered. Their lives were definitely much spicier than those of the rest of the singles. With one exception, they were also more likely eventually to get married—but not to the women they hung around with, whom they labeled "bad." Quite a few married individuals of both ethnic groups had experienced premarital sex, at least with their spouses. Four confirmed (and one suspected-an Anglo man and a Chicano female) cases of premarital pregnancies or sex surfaced. These four couples were two Anglo-male/Chicano-female combinations (both wives had had extensive state-school sojourns), one Anglo pair, and one Chicano pair. And five subjects had simply entered into common-law relationships or the equivalent after a few weeks of acquaintance. The latter were, however, all Mexican Americans, with the exception of the one mixed couple just alluded to, composed of an Anglo man and a Chicano. Then there was Luiza Gonzalez, unmarried and with two children by different fathers, and divorced Sylvia Ramirez who was used as a prostitute by at least one man and probably two. Again, more premarital sex surfaced among Chícanos. How did the nondating singles feel about their relative deprivation? Obviously, most realized that, for young adults, especially females, fun in this culture is centered around the couple. Most exciting pastimes, such as eating out, going to movies, parties, and dances, are usually enjoyed by heterosexual pairs. Only a very few subjects—perhaps two or three—were so detached from reality that they had not internalized this pattern, hence hardly noticed their isolation. Most were cognizant of their situation, and this awareness was reflected in a wide range of responses. Some acutely missed closeness with the opposite sex, although few completely ruled out the possibility of ever having such a relationship. Of those who expressed a feeling of deprivation, a few wondered what was wrong with them—often the only context within which such a thought became explicit. Is it my attitude? Is it my hair falling out? Or is it my arm? Or what? Is it I don't express myself well or is it I say the wrong things at the wrong time? I don't, they [the girls] don't think I'm nice enough, you know, pleasant enough to go out with.

184

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

Others simply sensed a lack, resignedly, without feeling abnormal. Still others either hardly missed such companionship, or, if they did, attached very little importance to their plight. It don't make no difference to me whether I date or not. I, I, I, still got my mother. Now I'm not pressed for such a matter! [dating and marrying] I asked two [girls to go out], but they said they was married. They told me for a week that they weren't married, so I asked one for a date, and she told me she was married. [But Joe did not seem unhappy with this situation; grinning, he told us that he did not intend to get married for quite a while, for] . . . I'm not making enough to be married. Some viewed their isolation as a stage to be gone through. But several had decided that they would never marry, and, as is the case among some normals who more or less willingly choose this status, they were relatively content with their bachelorhood. We felt that if more singles had been free from parental supervision and thrown into a heterosexual world of contemporaries, many highly superior to them and thus inaccessible, their feeling of deprivation would have been much more acute. But, because of the solitary nature of the leisure activities of so many individuals, they sensed that particular lack less than others would. In fact, some were more concerned about the humdrum monotony of their lives than with the absence of heterosexual relationships. On the other hand, two subjects who led totally empty lives were involved in vividly imaginary and highly unrealistic romances; one of these, Penny Russell, was discussed in chapter 2. Ella Edwards, thirty-five, IQ 74, had woven an incredible romantic shroud for herself. She announced to the interviewer that she was planning a trip to California to "get a man." The man in question was a singer she had seen on television. She said that he was her boyfriend and saw nothing peculiar in adding, "Oh, I haven't met him yet." When we returned for the third interview, another fabricated lover had entered her life. This was singer Glen Campbell, also seen on television. Ella had bought some of his record albums and various portraits as well. She even stated that Glen loved her; she was never fazed by our counterarguments. Displaying several pictures of her favorite singers and actors, she caressed them as if in complete sexual ecstasy. What were the factors that prevented the occurrence of heterosexual companionships? Predominating were isolation and the concomitant lack of opportunity, especially among singles who lived with their parents, were

MARRIAGE

185

fairly dependent on them, and, most importantly, were employed in sheltered workshops. They went to their jobs and returned home, to remain there until the next workday began. Coupled with these factors or viewed separately, was the fact that many were simply not sufficiently competent or comely to meet a member of the opposite sex unless he or she were at least equally handicapped. Several also admitted not knowing how to behave in the presence of a date. This lack of heterosexual contact was partially a product of the fact that many singles were overprotected by their parents. A few admitted that, even if they found someone, they would not be allowed to date. These were relatively limited individuals and parental control was understandable in their cases. Their parents anxiously contemplated the problem-ridden possibility of a marriage between two such inept individuals. They also feared that the subjects would be emotionally cheated by others, an additional reason to cloister them at home. Still, there were some singles who might definitely have been given more latitude, for they would have made solicitous and responsible spouses, although in some cases not very attractive ones. Conjugal Relationships and Feelings For those who see retardates as vegetative errors of nature, without human feelings or any emotional identities of their own, the married sample certainly attests to the contrary. Most were living examples of the fact that sufficiently compatible retardates can become successful spouses. The mutual feelings they expressed probably ran the whole gamut of emotions usually found among the rest of the population of their socioeconomic status. In order to illustrate the entire range of conjugal adaptation and feelings encountered among the couples, a short summary of the marital relationship of each couple included in this study will be presented. In order to avoid repetition, the four cases discussed in chapter 3 have been omitted. We will begin with those couples whom we felt to be the happiest and gradually move downward, but the reader should not look for a consistent deterioration of marital satisfaction from one case to the next, as this did not always occur. The Chícanos are presented first. Irene (MR) and Ray Reyes; 25, 25; one year; one child about to be born.6 6

The subject's name is first, then the spouse's, followed by their respective ages, number of years married, and number of children. Unless otherwise indicated, off-

186

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

Irene and Ray's common-law union is characterized by considerable companionship and verbal displays of mutual attachment. Irene has three children from a previous marriage and Ray helps her take care of them. He believes that Irene is a good mother: "She treats them [the children] real good. She's too nice to them." They take turns tucking the youngsters in at night, depending on which spouse is free. "He is nice . . . He has learned to accept staying with the kids [when she goes out for groceries]. On Fridays, he gives me the whole check . . . " And Ray does more. He often takes Irene out. They have no fights and few arguments. It is obvious that they are mutually satisfied and they are more romantically attached than any other Chicano couple in the sample. "He always tells me that he likes me a lot, well, loves me a lot [chuckles] . . . that he wouldn't leave me for anything." Andrew (MR) and Liza Escamilla; 21, 23; 3 years; one child. In spite of the fact that Andrew and liza have their disagreements and that liza realizes that she is intellectually superior to her husband, the two get along fairly well and are satisfied with their relationship. Liza does not use her superiority to put Andrew down; she firmly believes that his intellectual growth will continue, and she supports his recent move to complete his high-school education. She tries to avoid, as much as possible, those topics which might hurt Andrew's pride and feelings, thus allowing him to maintain his manly image within the family. Andrew helps liza quite a lot around the house, a fact both spouses readily pointed out. Whenever Liza is busy, Andrew puts their little daughter to bed at night. They also share all leisure activities and never go out without each other. Pete (MR) and Andrea Lara; 29, 23; 4 years; 2 children and one expected. Pete Lara recently sustained a brain injury in a car accident, and, since then, Andrea has done everything in her power to make life easier for him. He fully realizes and is very concerned about the hardships which his physical condition has heaped upon her. She used to worry about his drinking, but he has totally abstained since the near-fatal wreck. They admit that they sometimes have small disagreements, a result of Pete's exhaustion at the end of a workday, which prompts him to become irritated with Andrea. Pete never goes out without his wife. Both are very satisfied with their marriage, and Andrea believes that Pete loves her. She spring from a previous marriage are not included. Only those women who were still pregnant upon termination of the field work are included as pregnant.

MARRIAGE

187

holds him in high esteem: "When he was working . . . he always gave me the whole check. [This was recorded at the time of the first interview when Pete was unemployed.] He's very good with the girls." She admits still being attracted to him physically, especially to "his big dark eyes." Andrés (MR) and Josephine Castro; 48, 38; 13 years; 9 children: 5 his, 1 hers, 3 theirs. Andrés and Josephine share all pastimes except on rare occasions when each spouse visits with friends of his or her own sex. Andrés helps his working wife around the house, although his own labors at his place of employment are exceedingly demanding. But he believes this sharing is only fair and emphasizes that Josephine is an excellent wife and mother. His only complaint: "She spends too much." Even this was said very amiably. They are too busy at work and too concerned about their numerous offspring to be very romantically involved. Their conjugal life is swallowed up by the brood, although Andrés does take his wife out, at times, to a restaurant; for example, on such occasions as Mother's Day. Alva (MR) and Manuel Luna; 38,43; 22 years; 9 children. In the past, before the Lunas' oldest son was gunned down two years ago, Manuel was a heavy drinker, which made Alva very unhappy. Now, because the boy was murdered in a bar, among habitués of such places, Manuel no longer imbibes. Alva's only other dissatisfaction is the authoritarian manner in which he orders the children around. For his part, Manuel sometimes good-naturedly teases strong-willed Alva: "It's because you have lots of smarts, but it's for the best that you didn't study . . . that God didn't give you a chance 'cause otherwise you'd really have a big mouth." The two spouses always consult each other as equals, but Manuel does not help with the household chores. Alva admits that they have their ups and downs and occasionally fight. But, because Manuel gives her a great deal of freedom, she believes he is a very good husband. Manuel is also content: "We both understand each other very well. And she is a good cook and she has my clothes ready and food." Still, in his laconic way, he claimed ignorance of his wife's feelings for him: "She hasn't told me anything." Santos (MR) and Delfina Ortega; 26, 31 ; 5 years; 2 children. Santos is a conscientious husband. He helps around the house, especially with yard work, and he is handy with appliances. Moreover, he is always willing to do his part as a babysitter. Clearly, he is the mainstay of his family and Delfina's support. It is difficult to say to what extent their leisure activities are shared, for they have little opportunity to enjoy any

188

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

at the moment. Their satisfaction is mutual, and they voiced very few complaints. Their infrequent quarrels are never serious and they do not attach any importance to them, viewing altercations simply as part of the marital routine. They seem very attached to each other, although not romantically. Gilberto (MR) and Claudia Orneias; 21, 28; 3 years; no children. Gilberto and Claudia do everything together and seem satisfied with each other. Each praised the other's attributes, and he is her ideal husband: "He is a very, very good husband . . . he doesn't make me go to work . . . he gives me things I need. He trusts me too. I have everything that some girls doesn't have." Taciturn Gilberto divulged little about his feelings for Claudia to us. His only complaint about marriage: "I can't go out too much." Claudia, who is so much older, is, without a doubt, the dominant force in their relationship. Fernando (MR) and Isbele Santiago; 26, 30; 5 years; 3 children. The Santiagos share most pastimes, except for Fernando's biweekly jaunts with his friends to "shoot pool." Both spouses seem pleased with each other and have a placid relationship. She, however, fusses when he comes home late, complaints which he says he ignores. To us, he professed sharing very little emotional companionship with Isbele, who rather implied otherwise: "Well, he likes, I mean he loves me, I think. Sometimes, he tells me." Together they are making vague plans for the future: "We talk about when we'll have a house of our own and a farm so we can raise chickens." On the whole, they seem to move through their days together very matter-of-factly. Steve (MR) and Adrienne (MR) Ponce; 21, 20; one year; newborn baby. (The Ponces' is an interethnic marriage, and Adrienne is the Anglo spouse.) Most of Steve's leisure activities are spent in the company of people other than his wife, although he occasionally takes her to a movie. Steve has grown long hair and all the trimmings, severely curtailing his employability at a time when the family is in dire financial straits. This is Adrienne's chief disappointment. That she wishes Steve were different in some other ways is also obvious when she describes her image of the ideal husband. He would be a man who would stay home more, would refrain from arguing, and would be more understanding. In addition, she deplores the fact that Steve never helps her with the household chores. She also frets over his whereabouts, especially in the evenings: "And I don't know what he's doing. But I can trust him. He don't date no other girls." But

MARRIAGE

189

Steve has told us that he sees other women at least twice a week, "to get it [sex] better once in a while. [But] I am a fair man. I wouldn't marry some other girl. I wouldn't dump her." Finally, "Even though I run around with other women, I'm still in love with her. She's a good wife." He made it clear that he is the dominant spouse at home, although this is by no means obvious: "I do what I want. Do you think I do what she tells me?" Olivia (MR) and David Campos; 25, 30; 7 years; 2 children. Olivia married David because, for quite a while, she had not heard from her beloved fiancé. Since then, she has not ceased mentally comparing David to the latter, always negatively. The two wed after an ultrabrief acquaintance, hence knew very little about each other. Her gripes are as follows: David never takes her out any more and she feels "stuck" at home. He is extremely miserly when it comes to making room in the budget for Olivia's own purchases. She feels that he is not "lovable," that is, he rarely makes love to her, much less gives her any affection: "When I try to hug him, he puts up his hands." Further, David seeks to dominate, hence limit, every aspect of Olivia's life. He does not approve of her going out with women friends and therefore does not give her permission to do so. Even the interviewer was not allowed to return after the first session. He does not turn his paycheck over to her any longer as he used to when they were newlyweds. Until last year, he drank excessively and then would "treat me bad." She threatened to leave him for good, so he promised to stop imbibing. However, even David acknowledges that the other girl he had been going out with before he "dated" Olivia would not have put up with him for more than one week. Angelita (MR) and Domingo Orozco; 20, 22; 2 years; a baby. The Orozcos' is a stormy common-law union. Except for watching television and playing with the baby, they experience very little companionship. Each goes his own way with a separate set of friends. In addition, they constantly quarrel and engage in fisticuffs. Their lives—private and public—are engulfed in violence. Angelita is frequently beaten by Domingo, but, though she gets angry, she accepts this as a normal part of marital routine. Once, however, she resorted to calling the police after an especially brutal fight. She has left Domingo a few times, only to return two or three days later because she fears he may kill her if he finds her; while away, she lives with her friend, Eva Zarcano. Domingo is so jealous that he does not even approve of Angelita talking to his brothers. Al-

190

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

though he does not feel that she is a good mother, in some ways he is satisfied with her; for Angelita's part, only habit and fear keep her at home, as her attachment to Domingo is almost nil. Eva (MR) and Jesse Zarcano; 23, unknown; one year; a baby. The Zarcanos' relationship is highly unstable, with the male almost totally out of the picture. We do not even know if their union could be called a common-law marriage. Eva does not hide her unhappiness, and she adds that Jesse "always told me that one time he's going to leave me." Before the birth of their little girl-she believes he is disappointed because he wanted a boy—he used to take her out quite a bit, but now he rarely visits her. Still, he helps with the rent and other bills. Jesse goes out with other women, including his ex-wife, and Eva has seen him several times in their company. In her own way, she used to love him, an admission which almost produced tears. She left him, but he brought her back. He once implied that he wanted her to become a prostitute so that he could make more money—she could not understand the motive behind his request. Later during our acquaintance with her, Eva found a new boyfriend while still cohabiting off and on with Jesse when he happened to drop in. This new relationship means that her life has definitely taken a turn for the better. Although she does not rule out marriage, she is in no hurry: "I don't want just any guy . . . 'cause I'm afraid they might not be good to her [the baby]." In classifying the interethnic marriages, the couple composed of a Mexican American male and an Anglo female (the Ponces) is listed above, and those composed of an Anglo male and a Mexican American female (the Nettles and the Peters) below, because the marital configuration appeared to be patterned more forcefully according to the ethnic origin of the males rather than the females. The individual male was the representative of the determining subculture which was adhered to within each marriage—whether the man was Anglo or Chicano was irrelevant. Sharon (MR) and Alvin Wooster; 21, 23; one year; no children. Sharon Wooster is totally devoted to her husband, and they are the most romantically involved couple we interviewed. To Sharon, the best part of marriage is "being with my husband." What does she like least? "When I'm not with my husband." Unlike most married individuals, she constantly made references to overt expression of mutual affection. For instance, when they quarrel, "we kiss and make up." As soon as her own

MARRIAGE

191

interview was completed, she would run to her husband, becoming totally absorbed in effusive gestures of affection for him. Alvin accepts her devotion very naturally and sums up his feelings: "I like to see my wife a lot. And I'm glad I married this girl." Janice (MR) and Walter Holt; 29, 38; two years; no children. The Holts' two years together are ample proof that they are maximally beneficial to each other: Janice is concerned about Walter's alcoholism and poor health; Walter is anxious about her obesity and crippled condition. They give each other quite a bit of support. He helps her around the house and, occasionally, even cooks for her, in spite of the fact that she herself is a most accomplished cook. They function virtually as a mutual admiration society, although Walter sometimes teases Janice gently. Throughout our conversations with them they extolled their closeness and shared understanding. They are together constantly, discussing all their problems. Janice sums up their life: "We are happy just like we are." Bill (MR) and Connie Lehmann; 35, 35; 10 years; 6 children. Connie Lehmann is a supportive wife, even in the face of her husband's unemployment: "Well, if he's able to, I'd like for him to work, and if he's not, well, it's all right.. ." He helps her considerably around the house and is a good babysitter for the children. She prods him along, always very gently, as she is by far the more competent of the two, although she does not seem to realize it. Whatever leisure time they have, they spend together. They are satisfied with each other, and Connie definitely is still very romantically involved with Bill. Nevertheless, she was somewhat flustered when asked to describe her feelings, and bashfully uttered: "He feels, I guess all right about me and I feel the same about him." Lena (MR) and Kenneth Pounds; 26, 28; 2 years; no children. Lena and Kenneth Pounds seem well on the way toward a stable, giveand-take relationship. His physical appearance is still at the top of her list of his appealing attributes, and "he is so nice to me, he's nice to me." They always spend their free time together, and each is very concerned about the other's well-being and feelings. For instance, Kenneth would like to live in the country, but "my wife likes it here, which I don't blame her, she was raised in the city . . . I am not going to deprive her of that." For her part, Lena said that sometimes Kenneth is difficult to deal with when he returns home, exhausted after a hard day's work. Her remedy: "I usually tell him that I love him or something like that. Anyway, it calms him down." Both spouses admit that they sometimes have minor quarrels.

192

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

Lena explained that most of their disagreements are brought about by "my housework or my supper or something like that." Whenever they have a small argument, they are "pretty quick about making up." Kenneth surely has the upper hand in their marriage; he would like very much to have his wife learn a trade and go to work. As Lena's comments indicate, he also seems concerned about the cleanliness of their apartment, but we saw no reason for such a preoccupation in view of the utter spotlessness of their home. Kathy (MR) and Dick Roberts; 23, 23; newlyweds; no children. They share most pastimes but want to be able to do so even more— Kathy's night shift is an obstacle. They are interested in each other's work and tend to discuss most of their personal problems. Still, Dick seemed slightly perturbed about their marital beginnings: he asked the interviewer whether things might get better as married life progressed. "I just wonder about what happens after a while." Then, "She gets upset sometimes and she gets mad sometimes." He hopes that their quarreling will diminish shortly. "I try real hard to please her." Kathy is very pleased with her marriage: "I'm happier now than I was beforehand. Of course, I think marriage has something to do with that too." (Laughs) Jim (MR) and Glenna (MR) Olson; 22, 26; newlyweds; no children. A complete sharing of activities prevails and Glenna is very romantically involved with Jim: "I love h i m . . . . He always honors me and respects me." She, however, recognizes that he has two faults: "He likes to spend money too much," and he is antisocial. Jim appreciates marriage more than he treasures his wife, and he exhibits a certain authoritarian attitude toward her. While he has no particular gripes about the connubial state, he does have specific complaints to make about Glenna and he glories in being the official giver of advice in their household. Yet he helps her considerably at home. In addition, they talk together a great deal: Glenna can enumerate every detail of his work and accurately describe his duties, all the while using Jim's terminology. She feels guilty because she is not employed, and she would like to help her husband by carrying her share of the burden. As our relationship with the Olsons progressed, she became more and more defensive about her marriage, and there is a possibility that Jim's domineering attitude may have precipitated her latest state hospitalization. However, Jim frequently visited Glenna while she was institutionalized, and he even bought her a few gifts. This had greatly pleased her, for he usually spent money solely on himself or the house.

MARRIAGE

193

Wanda (MR) and Elliott Miller; 33, 38; 2 years; no children. This is the second marriage, certainly a better one, for both spouses. Wanda says that Elliott is "loving, he's full of kindness, he tries to understand me even though I know it is hard to do." Elliott is also "pretty well satisfied" and believes that their marriage will fail only if he catches her running around with other men, as his first wife did. The two are not romantically attached; rather, they are more like brother and sister. They usually discuss their problems, which center primarily around money or their constant lack of it. In spite of her sterilization, they would like to have a child, and they often discuss the possibility of adopting one, while remaining aware of the fact that their tenuous financial situation makes their prospects dim. Since they are so poor, they can afford few outside activities and thus spend most of their time busying themselves with their dream store and attending church frequently. Mandy (MR) and Tom Payne; 27, 35; 10 years; 5 children and one expected. Because of the Paynes' big family and heavy work schedule, their pastimes are limited primarily to the home. They seem to enjoy a fair amount of companionship, often discussing Tom's work. The two communicate freely and continuously, although Mandy admits that he does not always understand her problems. Thus, her confidante is a female cousin of theirs. The Paynes do not seem to be romantically involved, but they are basically pleased with each other: "Like if I want to go to my mother's at night, he'll keep the kids." Nevertheless, Tom has the upper hand in the family. He is apparently only dissatisfied with the fact that Mandy is not "too hot on housekeeping," a trait he attributes to her Syrian origin. Stephen (MR) and Jane Rode; 35, 33; 11 years; no children. Stephen is very knowledgeable concerning all aspects of his wife's work—teaching high school. In sharp contrast, she knows little of his and is dissatisfied with his low salary. She resents the fact that she was, once upon a time, the sole breadwinner and wishes he had more initiative. She does not hide her dissatisfaction from Stephen, yet, because of his devotion to her, he does not realize the full extent of it. She feels he does not help her enough with housework, and "I don't think he has as clean of personal habits as I think he should have." She was not in love when they married, and, if she had it to do over again, "I'd pick somebody rich." They both know she is superior to him intellectually. They also admit that they quarrel and she obviously bosses him around. Nevertheless, they share

194

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

all leisure activities and obviously spend considerable time conversing together since, despite her college education and professional status, they have similar interests, especially their religious beliefs and church-centered activities. Candy (MR) and Morton Lee; 23, 27; 6 years; 2 children. Candy and Morton were not in love when they married: "We had just broken up with another engagement... . You know, I got pregnant with her [older child] and we kinda realized we loved each other He's a pretty good husband... I wouldn't trade him for anybody else." On the whole, Candy gives the impression of being a person who is unconsciously dissatisfied with, but essentially resigned to, her marital life. Morton is too shallow to notice these ambiguities. After a long, cliché-ridden dissertation on his marriage, he closed with: "This must be love." They share most pastimes, although Morton is at odds with some of Candy's preferences. He freely discusses all aspects of his job with her. Candy is happy that he remembers their anniversaries and is a good provider. What pleases Morton most about marriage? "I mean, mainly, I'd guess I'm a domineering type person, mainly, I would have to say, Candy, she enjoys what I enjoy." Janet (MR) and John Curtis; 23, 28; 5 years; no children. Janet is embarrassed when discussing her Special Education background in John's presence because "he thinks everybody over there was crazy." He is the dominant member of their little family, evidently with a temperament to sustain this stance. They are not very involved, romantically, but Janet seems content with her husband: "Anything you ask for, he gives me . . . I may have to beg for a while, but I get it." [Laughs] They share all their numerous pastimes, and he is happy with her immaculate housekeeping, a sentiment he openly expresses to Janet. Recently she found a job, but this new development does not please John very much: after work he comes home to an empty house, and his supper is not yet ready. Eddie (MR) and Evelyn (MR) Hickman; 24, 28; one year; no children. Because Evelyn displays greater competence than Eddie, she is the dominant spouse, and we often observed his submissive acquiescence to her directions. In spite of this, they spend all their leisure time together and usually seem pleasantly content with each other. Evelyn does not have any complaints about Eddie, describing him as "a good husband and a faithful husband." Both agree that they rarely quarrel. Her concept of the ideal husband strongly resembles Eddie. For his part: "When I come home, she

MARRIAGE

195

throws her arms around me and kiss me and all that and has my supper ready." However, the relationship always appeared very superficial, perhaps due to Eddie's seeming incapacity to form deep attachments. Finally, we were unable to contact Evelyn for the last interview: she and Eddie had had a falling out, and she was spending several weeks with her in-laws. Carla (MR) and Erwin Mansfield; 21, 24; 2 years; no children. Although the Mansfields spend most of their free time together, with the exception of Erwin's frequent drinking bouts with pals, they do not seem overly attached to each other. Carla is especially dissatisfied. They drifted into marriage: " . . . most guys, you might as well stick with the first one . . . 'cause all husbands are alike." They have a warm physical relationship, however, and he helps her considerably around the house, an aid she readily acknowledges. Carla confessed to being the initial instigator of their frequent arguments [We fight too much] while Erwin apparently is the first to relax and make up. She is consistently very lonely: "I wish he'd be with me everywhere I go and everywhere he goes I wish I could be with him." Erwin's only comment on marriage: "It gives you someone to come home to." Kay (MR) and Bruce Leonard; 21, 24; 4 years; one child. The Leonards have frequent quarrels in the course of which Kay may leave to stay with her parents until Bruce comes to take her back. Or [Bruce], "Generally, I stay home till we have an argument or something. Then I go get drunk with somebody. Try to solve it." Bruce's drinking, as he admits, upsets Kay. Candid about their bickering, they are neither remorseful nor alarmed over the ill effects of their constant arguments. He cited a recent incident: "Got all messed up, got home late, she jumped on me." He also tries to make her jealous by commenting on other women. But Kay has decided to use "psychology" on him: she ignores his behavior "and it really bugs him." Even though they share all leisure activities, she misses a certain empathetic emotional feeling in his personality. They call each other "honey," but little real warmth radiates from their relationship. Gene (MR) and Carmelita (MR) Nettle; 30, 33; 11 years. The Nettles gave up their son for adoption at birth. He said, "To tell you the truth, I married her because I felt sorry for her. Nobody would ever want to talk to her." Carmelita Nettle constantly laments the loss of their son whom Gene gave away under pressure from his family. She was sterilized at the child's birth: "Now that she can't have kids, I feel sorry

196

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

about that." Besides her constant recriminations about the past, Gene is dissatisfied with Carmelita because she is hard of hearing, and she bores him: "You just get tired of the same old thing . . . I should have stayed single.... I was just lonesome for a companion, so I got married." In spite of this, according to Gene, it is good to have someone at home who will prepare supper. And he still can find a few good points in his wife: "I like her cooking, that's one thing. I have hit her once or twice, b u t . . . I feel sorry for it now . . . I think I'm a pretty fair husband." Nevertheless, Carmelita left him during the study, because "he found a young girl. He never came home." Gene's explanation for the split was somewhat different, so it is difficult to say who spoke truthfully. At any rate, Carmelita was terribly hurt, but she now hopes that "he don't leave me." Paul (MR) and Maria (MR) Peters; 27, 35; 7 years; 3 children. Maria Peters was pregnant when they married, after which Paul had a vasectomy. Later on, Maria became pregnant again. Paul left her but eventually returned, and she has recently given birth to a third child. Neither spouse seemed embarrassed and Paul accepted the new baby just as he had the others. He even stayed home and helped her, as she was still weak from a Caesarian; Maria readily acknowledges this assistance. But she has never cared much for Paul, and neither spouse is in love with the other. Paul said that, at first, he had fallen "head over heels" in love with her, but "later on things changed.... I just don't feel the same." Sometimes he considers leaving her, but he refrains from doing so because of the little ones. They admit to frequent quarreling and Paul is tired of all their fighting and "raising Cain." Moreover, he feels guilty about his own lack of ardor. "She's been good to me; why the hell don't I do good to her?" They do not share many leisure activities, even though they have mutual friends: their acute poverty offers them pitifully few pleasures to begin with. Mexican American couples, especially the younger ones, generally had little companionship as the Anglo culture defines the concept—a sharing of various aspects of life, especially leisure activities. More strikingly, they were rarely romantically involved. While half of the Chicano pairs enjoyed a certain degree of companionship, perhaps only one was truly amorously involved. The existent sentiments were primarily a result of long, habitual association with each other, of acceptance of matrimony as an institution, and of mutual fondness for the children. Mexican American unions were based on the institution of marriage rather than upon its personal aspects. This cultural pattern accounted for the differences between Anglo and

197

MARRIAGE

Chicano unions, and was concomitantly related to the fact that Mexican American males in the sample seemed, at times, to define themselves as a separate species, different from their women. This was borne out in the area of leisure, for instance, as fully half of the Chicano husbands excluded their wives from their pastimes, banding together with male companions instead. The specific role of each sex was usually clearly delineated, which prevented the spouses from coming into contact with each other in mutually experienced recreation. This segregation was most striking in the realm of romantic feelings.7 In contrast, most Anglo marriages were characterized by considerable companionship, and there was also a reasonable amount of attention paid to the interpersonal aspects of the conjugal relationship—how one spouse gets along with the other, concern for the partner's feelings and well-being, and so forth. Anglo respondents were definitely more amorously oriented; the ideological trend was apparent even among those whose own marital relationships were totally lacking in warmth and who were either very matter-of-fact or antagonistic. But, most significantly, at least six couples were truly romantically involved, as compared to only one Chicano couple. TABLE 17 Ethnicity and Expressed Marital Satisfaction Anglos Expressed Marital Satisfaction Low Average High Totals

Chícanos

Ν

%

Ν

%

4 2 10

25.0 13.0 62.0

3 8 3

21.5 57.0 21.5

16 100.0

14 100.0

It is striking that Anglo marriages were usually felt to be above average by the spouses in question, whereas more than half of the Chícanos believed that their unions were simply average, that is, neither low nor high on the marital-happiness continuum (see Table 17), and relatively few 7

Tharp found a similar pattern among Mexican American couples who were the least acculturated in his sample, that is, when the wife did not speak English. Companionship was low, little importance was accorded to sexual intimacy, and the sexes

198

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

felt that they were participants in exceptionally happy unions. Perhaps here, the absence of amorous companionship was an important factor.8 By the same token, several of the Anglo couples actively espoused the companionship-romantic complex of sentiments, and many more also happened to show greater fervor for their marriages. In terms of sexual involvement, while it was obvious that more single Chicano males than Anglos had sexual relations, the married couples could not be compared as unequivocally. Very few individuals volunteered any information on the topic in spite of the fact that the conversation was often on the verge of entering this sanctum. Two Qiicano wives alluded to their husbands' lack of physical warmth, indicating that something was wanting in their sexual life. I don't like him to touch me. Makes me nervous. I . . . I have enough with these three. [She lets him] touch me not too often, not much. When I try to hug him, he puts up his hands, you know, and I get mad, and I say how come when I try to hug him he puts up his hands, like he don't want me to touch him. And then when he's like that I turn around and when he tries to hug me I do the same thing to him. Like I was telling him, I got feelings too like you got feelings. And I get mad and I start crying. I feel so bad I go to sleep. I think that's why I don't like him. At times, the sexual encounters among Chicano couples seemed even more limited or infrequent than those of Anglos, but we could not substantiate this impression. Brief extramarital affairs had taken place within three (perhaps four) unions, all interethnic marriages. (In the case of one Mexican American couple, the Zarcanos, both were involved in extramarital affairs.) It is interesting to note that, from the perspective of monogamous sex, all the mixed unions were characterized by less extramarital restraint. These interethnic couples also ranked in the bottom half in terms of marital happiness. Most notably, they seemed to be products of haphazard were segregated. These women, "spend more time per week within speaking range of their husbands but apparently without necessarily interacting with them—probably each pursuing work in a kind of parallel togetherness" (Roland G. Tharp et al., "Changes in Marriage Roles Accompanying the Acculturation of the Mexican American Wife," in Journal of Marriage and the Family 30, [1968] : 404-412). 8 Along this line, it has been found that personal involvement, as opposed to commitment to the situational aspects of marriage, is positively related to marital happiness. Gerald Gurin, Joseph Veroff, and Sheila Feld, Americans View Their Mental Health, p. 98.

MARRIAGE

199

matches, even though all pairs save one had had a relatively long period of time in which to get acquainted. In every case, the Anglo family had strongly objected to the alliance, certainly not a factor contributing to the partners' peace of mind. However, the explanation for their relative lack of marital satisfaction did not center around parental attitudes, although, admittedly, we do not know what the main factors were, aside from personalities; there were only four such interethnic unions in the sample, not a sufficient number from which to draw conclusions. One may ask whether the sample's couples were better or worse off than the normal population of the same socioeconomic status. This question is difficult to answer, for there have not been many studies done on working-class marriages, especially on those which are impoverished.9 In addition, two ethnic groups are involved here, and we do not know of any large-scale study focusing on the marriages of working-class Chícanos. Turning to Rainwater et al. and to Komarovsky, for the purpose of comparison with regard to Anglos, we did not sense any great difference between their subjects and ours. 10 On the whole, the respondents' marriages seemed fairly similar to other working-class unions. Nevertheless, for an authoritative conclusion, the working-class couples used as a means of comparison would have to be as poorly educated as our sample, with jobs offering as little prestige; the authors alluded to above did not necessarily reach such an underprivileged sample. On the general level of shared leisure activities, there appeared to be a definite similarity between the subjects' marriages and those of the rest of the population; in fact, there may have been a greater degree of companionship among Anglo spouses than has usually been found in blue-collar unions. The realm of emotions is more difficult to assess, as it is more complex. While what was discussed was certainly not comparable to the middle-class ideal of romantic involvement with such key concepts as love, feelings, sex, and communication, the number of couples trying to live by these amorous standards was not negligible. According to Komarovsky, 9 A recent survey of the studies published in The Journal of Marriage and the Family between 1959 and 1968 indicates that no research was reported that had as its main focus the examination of marital adjustment of lower-class couples. See Veronica Stolte Heiskanen, "The Myth of the Middle-Class Family in American Family Sociology " American Sociologist 6 (1971): 14-18. 10 Lee Rainwater, Richard P. Coleman, and Gerald Handel, Workingman's Wife; and Mirra Komarovsky, Blue-Collar Marriage. However, these authors' grasp of the marital relationships was more complete, as they had paid considerable attention to sexual adjustment, a factor not systematically investigated in this study.

200

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

"one of every three marriages [in her study] falls short of the prevailing American ideal of psychological intimacy between married partners."11 By this criterion, it could be stated that this sample's Anglo couples were more estranged than Komarovsky's, as fully half had relationships which were not characterized by great involvement, nor by any at all, for that matter. On the other hand, Rainwater found that working-class wives viewed themselves as "isolated from their husbands in many ways." 12 We did not probe so deeply into marital intimacy, but, although such a conclusion in reference to many Chicano wives could be readily accepted, comparatively fewer Anglo wives could be so characterized. In fact, we encountered a much greater exchange of feelings than the literature's findings and our prejudices had led us to expect. But we also noticed that the subjects attached far less importance to the marital relationship itself than they did to children-unless one spouse was terribly dissatisfied with the other. While studying working-class wives, Rainwater, Coleman, and Handel noted that "a central characteristic of the working-class wife is her underlying conviction that most significant action originates from the world external to herself rather than from within herself."13 This proposition, if applied to our sample, is related to the pervasive impression of randomness in regard to the subjects' entrance into marriage. The personalities involved were of little consequence, as has been observed previously. This external orientation could partially explain why personal needs, especially at the psychoaffective level, were not clearly perceived by the subjects. This imperception, in turn, was reflected in the relative lack of exteriorization of the couples' most intimate longings within the marital relationship. True, the individuals did speak of their mates, of their feelings, of what they liked and disliked about marriage-but these comments only led us to wonder how two unique selves might have come together through the conscious actions of the respondents involved. While the women discussed more openly the marital topics just mentioned, the men usually had very little to say about their feelings for their wives;14 their comments, when they offered any, often took the form of moralistic oraisons or popularly stylized clichés. One certainly cannot say that the sample was exceptional from that point of view. The husbands 11

Komarovsky, Blue-Collar Marriage, p. 148. Lee Rainwater, And the Poor Get Children, p. 72. 13 Rainwater et al., Workingman's Wife, p. 44. 14 For a similar observation, see Komarovsky, Blue-Collar Marriage, p. 13.

12

MARRIAGE

201

most assuredly adhered to the norms of the manly role, which dictate that emotions and their ilk belong to the feminine realm, a point of view especially evident among the working class. For the husbands, marriage was usually an institutional rather than a personal arrangement, a matterof-fact situation rather than an opportunity for the exploration of feelings. At any rate, they, and especially the Chícanos, were consistently less verbose when responding to such questions as: What do you like best about your wife [husband] ? What do you like best about marriage? What do you like least about your wife [husband] ? What do you like least about marriage? With respect to the wives' answers to these particular questions, few distinctions could be found between the two ethnic groups; two Chicano wives complained that their husbands did not take them out enough and rejoiced that they did not beat them, but no Anglo woman made such comments. More Spanish-speaking wives mentioned "the work" as what they liked least about marriage; this is very understandable, for they were more often employed outside. Anglo females were also slightly more oriented toward expressing themselves in terms of such psychological concepts as understanding, consideration, and patience. But the difference was not very noticeable. Still, in regard to these questions, there were a few distinctions between males and females in general, all of which again were obviously related to the structure of the marital institution, or, if one wishes, to this society's sex roles. For instance, wives discoursed upon the fact that their husbands helped them, whereas the latter never alluded to their wives' help. Housekeeping was considered to be a woman's lot and, thus, whenever a husband offered assistance, it was acknowledged with gratitude and considered a generous act rather than simply part of the married male's duties. The wives had a monopoly on disapproving of their spouses' drinking and flirting; but more females used such concepts as understanding, kindness, and consideration when describing their spouses. It is often said that women are more sociable than men, 15 and thus attach more importance to areas involving interpersonal communication.16 Additionally, in other studies, it 15

Several studies on values show women to be more socially oriented than their m a s c u l i n e p e e r s . See, for instance, Morris Rosenberg, Occupations and Values. 16 Marriages in which the wife's needs for communication are met and in which her problems are understood by her husband are much more successful than those in which "she is unable to communicate her troubles to him or is rejected for doing so" (R. O. Blood, Jr., and D. M. Wolfe, Husbands and Wives, p. 261). Komarovsky found a similar trend. See her Blue-Collar Marriage, p. 143.

202

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

has been discovered that women invest a greater part of themselves in their marriage.17 Because of these factors, they need the qualities they praise in their husbands, whereas the latter either take these attributes for granted or, comparatively speaking, are so minimally immersed in their marriage that these traits matter less. In summation, differences with regard to likes and dislikes about one's spouse and one's marriage existed primarily between males and females rather than between ethnic groups—except for the fact that Anglo males were more verbose than their Chicano counterparts. Answers to the question "What kind of wife [husband] do you think you are?" were studied next. A selection of quotes from both partners, when both answered the question, are offered below, in the order adhered to when vignettes were presented earlier in this chapter, in the context of marital satisfaction. The wife's answer comes first, immediately followed by her husband's. Let us hear from the Spanish-speaking individuals first. I am good to him and everything. I don't neglect him in any way. Always have his meals . . . always have clothes for him to wear. He doesn't have that problem, a lot of men have that problem. . . . I try to do my best for him, for the baby, too. I keep wondering why I stick to him. [Laughs] Well, I'm good. I never hit her. [Laughs] Or none of that. Well, I treat her right. I think, I, ah, I'm a good husband. Liza and Andrew (MR) Escamilla Sometimes I'm good and sometimes I'm mean . . . when he makes me mad, I get very mad and I won't even want to talk to him. Sometimes I stay a week or two weeks with [out] talking to him. And not him because he gets mad and then right away he starts talking to me, and I get mad when he starts talking to me right away. 17 Certain studies indicate that the wife is usually the one who makes the greater adjustment if the marriage is to succeed and, also, the one who pays more attention to the spouse's self-perceived emotional needs. Examples of such studies are: Bernard I. Murstein and Vincent Glaudin, "The Relationship of Marital Adjustment to Personality," Journal of Marriage and the Family 28 (1966), 37-43; and Eleanore B. Luckey, "Marital Satisfaction and Congruent Self-Spouse Concepts," Social Forces, 39 (1960): 153-157. Blood and Wolfe, in Husbands and Wives, p. 23, also give support to the contention that it is the wife who is more likely to do the adapting by letting the husband have his way in times of differences of opinion. For further evidence and discussion on the topic, see Jessie Bernard, "The Adjustment of Married Mates," pp. 680-682; also, Jessie Bernard, "The Paradox of the Happy Marriage," pp. 86-88.

MARRIAGE

203

Well, I think so [that he is a good husband]. We've been married twentytwo years. [Laughs] Alva (MR) and Manuel Luna Oh, I guess there are things but I really do—I don't think every-any woman would do what I'm doing and uh, keep it going. It's very hard, I don't know whether you can imagine how hard it is but if you were married and you worked and raised a child and tried to see that all your bills are paid and that there's money coming in and that there's food here and that the clothes are washed and the house is kept clean, you're, well, and all the bills are paid and the car is running in good condition and everything—I'm in charge of everything and, of course, everything comes in with billing and stuff like that so I take care of everything and it's hard for me, uh, I think I do pretty well. No, I don't think I'm a good husband to her. . . . I think if I knew how to read and write, I think I could find a better job so I could really give her what she wants. Diana and Miguel (MR) Soto Yes [I have been a good wife] except that what's wrong with me is that I get mad all alone, you know, by myself but never with my husband. Well, I think I'm a good husband; I don't know what she thinks of that. . . . She doesn't complain. [Laughs] . . . don't drink, don't smoke . . . Delfina and Santos (MR) Ortega I try to be a good wife. Well, I don't really know about that 'cause, ah, I just do what anybody is supposed to do when they get married. Isbele and Fernando (MR) Santiago My husband says I'm a good wife. [Why?] I do everything he wants me to. Lousy one. . . . Because I'm always going out, not with her, but with other women. Adrienne (MR) and Steve (MR) Ponce I don't know. [Laughs] Sometimes when I cook for him and he says "I don't want to eat it 'cause it might have poison." Lazy bum. [Laughs]

Angelita (MR) and Domingo Orozco

The Anglos' responses follow. Again, only when both spouses offered an answer is a couple included.

204

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

Well, I've had a lot of people tell me I did [was a good wife] but I try to, let's put it that way. She feels like I'm a doctor to her . . . I feel like she's a nurse to me . . . we're too close knit. . . . Because one without the other ain't worth a plug nickel. Janice (MR) and Walter Holt . . . the only way that anybody could answer that would be for him. . . . I try to be a good wife. I try to do every little thing I think I should do, like providing, keeping the place clean, most anything she wants . . . I try to get it—as long as I can get it honest. Wanda (MR) and Elliott Miller I don't think I make a good one, but I don't plan to change. . . . If I wouldn't be so impatient; if I were a good wife and person . . . I might ask him for his opinion more than I do, which I don't. She would say I have been lousy and I probably have to a certain extent. . . . Well, not a husband itself, just as . . . I just hate to come in and do any work in the house. Outside, I would do anything. Jane and Stephen (MR) Rode Well, I have, maybe I am. I certainly think I am. Eh, I try to make him happy. I try to look nice for him when he comes home. . . . I try to get my rollers out of my head before he comes in, to look nice for him. And have dinner on the table when he first walks in, and have the kids look nice when he walks in. And eh, I try, I'm pretty good to be a good wife. . . . He takes me out to one of those expensive restaurants on our anniversary. So I guess I make a pretty good wife. He takes me out like that and eh, he give me a card every anniversary, so that proves he's a good husband. As far as a father and a husband, I'm the best. That's that. And I'm not afraid to tell anybody. I'm the best. Candy (MR) and Morton Lee Well, I'm not that good of a wife. I, I'm not a perfect wife, but I'm not a lazy one but I try to do best I can. Well, she's got a nice house, got everything nice, so I guess I'm okay. Kay (MR) and Bruce Leonard More Mexican American than Anglo women elaborated extensively on the above topic—perhaps because the Chicano interviewer pursued the

MARRIAGE

205

question more systematically.18 There was no difference between males of the two ethnic groups with respect to the length of their answer, but only Chicano husbands mentioned such items as going out with other women, or "I never hit her," and I "don't drink, don't smoke." This variance was coincidental with the fact that more Chicano wives identified these areas as problems within their marriage. More importantly, a distinction could sometimes be discerned between the answers of those spouses who were satisfied with each other and those who were less so. Witness, for instance, the shallow, cliche-ridden responses of Morton Lee and Bruce Leonard, two spouses whose wives were not among the most contented. Answers given by the Ponces and the Orozcos were similarly revealing—these two unions were also characterized by discontent. It is additionally interesting that the answers of the two Anglos just mentioned did not directly reflect their wives' unhappiness—whereas the two Chicano males clearly admitted that they were not good spouses. Their self-appraisals seemed to be corroborated by our observations and by their wives' interviews. These quotes also revealed clearly that, while quite a few persons gave scanty replies of the noncommittal variety, many subjects, in spite of their retardation, were quite capable of forming judgments about themselves in relation to a role or to another human being, in this instance a spouse. In doing so, they often tried to see the point of view of their mate, more or less perceiving themselves through the other's eyes. By all indications, they were definitely aware of the rules encompassed by their role at their socioeconomic level, and they used these rules as a gauge with which to assess themselves. In fact, the statements made by the subjects often appeared to be more to the point than those made by their normal spouse. The subjects often exhibited considerable depth of insight; at times, it was obvious that their mate had given them, directly or indirectly, an opinion of their worth as partners. Witness the self-revelations, vis-à-vis their marital roles, of Stephen Rode and Miguel Soto, two competent subjects married to intellectually superior women who were both, in some ways, dissatisfied with their lot-their husbands. In another attempt to ferret out the partners' feelings for each other and to assess their conjugal needs and desires, such questions as What is the ideal wife? or What would be an ideal husband if you had your life to live 18

It should be kept in mind that, for the sake of brevity, these quotes represent only a portion of all the comments made on this topic. Conclusions, however, are based upon the entirety of the material.

206

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

over? were asked. Responding to such queries required that an individual be able to formulate abstractions, to confront his or her dreams with the reality at hand. The married subjects certainly did not seem at a loss when faced with these tacit demands. Clearly, they were far from "retarded" at the interpersonal level. Again, a series of quotes are presented, starting with those statements made by the Spanish-speaking subsample. The Anglos' responses will immediately follow. The wife's answer comes first. I guess, one just perfect. I guess, doesn't have any defects or anything like that. [Could you elaborate a little more?] You mean like him who doesn't have such a bad temper? I'm scared we'll get in a fight or something because of it . . . You have to know because it's rare to find a, a real decent girl, you know, nowadays, you can't find them anymore . . . you have to study them . . . if they come from nice families or bad families. Liza and Andrew (MR) Escamilla I'd look for the most mature . . . because I always say that the pretty ones don't last. But a homely one, I can have him, I can turn him loose and there is no one to look at him. [But your husband isn't so homely looking.] No, he's not homely, he's not too homely. He has his eyes, like hers [one of their daughters], big. Well, I'd first see what type of woman she is, because if she was a woman, well, like many that the state is helping, they take the check and go spend it on foolishness or something. Andrea and Pete (MR) Lara I would like one that wouldn't be a drinker, that would work hard, and that wouldn't be a lady's man all the time. Oh, a woman that . . . [pause] well that's mild tempered, the ones that's most peaceful because one of those that goes to all the dances surely the day that she doesn't see him there's always another, right? And one that doesn't go out too much, that's more mild tempered, well that's, like when there's someone she has to see, like if he treats her and tells her, "Well, I'm going to the dance or this place, can you go?" "Well, yes if my father lets me and I'll telephone you or we'll see one another if I do go." Alva (MR) and Manuel Luna I always wanted my husband to be dark complected and chubby. And that's why when I saw him I fell in love right away. And so if I hadn't found him I would have looked for one just like him—dark, chubby, short, you see?

MARRIAGE

207

Well, a nice girl. . . . Well, doesn't go around or run around, cook good. And can understand your troubles. Delfina and Santos (MR) Ortega He has to be good and dependable and wanting to work and, uh, being a good husband to me. [What do you mean being a good husband?] Well, I don't like arguments . . . and staying home more . . . and being understanding and all. [A wife] in his own race. I had to learn it the hard way. Adrienne (MR) and Steve (MR) Ponce I don't know because all the men, they're the same. They go drink, they're the same way. One that doesn't get after you so much. Angelita (MR) and Domingo Orozco Just like Jim, really. Just like him. The only thing I'm displeased is because he doesn't handle his money very well. It's kind of rough to say . . . well. . . there's only one main reason why I wanted to get married, and that was to have somebody to help me with my problems, share my problems with, and to have somebody that I could help as well as myself. Glenna (MR) and Jim (MR) Olson I don't know. I think the man should spend a little more time with his children and his wife and, you know, give out a little bit more. Can't always work for the rest of your life, the children will grow up someday and he'll go back someday and wish he spent more with them. I don't know.

Mandy (MR) and Tom Payne

Before we were married I used to go to his mother's house. His mother was a Tupperware dealer. And his father had a garage—or step-dad. And he kept his house-did the washing and ironing and cooking. And I expected him to help me out on these and he didn't. . . . And he'd do the dishes and he kept-he'd straighten up the house, you know. And really all she had to do was school work and that's exactly what I expected of a husband, you know. Oh, that's very simple, it's hard to explain in a way but I knew what I wanted. I wanted a person, I wanted one that didn't go out and run around, one that didn't drink, smoke and I wanted one that if I didn't go to church would go to church. I mean, I'm not a real religious person . . . I

208

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

mean I wasn't going to go out and find someone who didn't believe in church at all, or wouldn't even want to go. And that was my biggest one, I wanted someone who wanted to do what I wanted to do. That's one thing, she doesn't do all the things I like to do. . . . She got, one thing she does do, if I ask her to do, and really want her to go, she'll go along, not every time, but once in a while. Jane and Stephen (MR) Rode Sweet, gentle, come into the door and tell me Hi, kiss me, how was your day. You look pretty, Evelyn. I love you. [ P a u s e ] I don't know . . . [pause] nice looking, pretty, fine shape. [Laughs] Evelyn (MR) and Eddie (MR) Hickman One t h a t w o u l d take the trash out and behave with dignity and pride. . . . Well, mine's all right. It's just that he just sometimes forgets to just, you know, but I still think that he is all right. One that puts no fuss. Good looking . . . Well, I guess mine is. Kay (MR) and Bruce Leonard My ideal husband? I don't know but if I can change him I guess I can change him into something else . . . guess I'm satisfied with him. I don't think I could live with anybody that lives in a different way; when you live with a person so long, you get to know their ways and understand them . . . you gradually fall into the way they do. Before, when I met her she was all right. There was nothing wrong with her at all. . . as far as she was going along with everything I wanted to do, wasn't no fussing or nothing. . . . I'd say that she was the kind of wife I wanted. . . . Then after you get married, one thing leads to another. Maria (MR) and Paul (MR) Peters Without a single exception, the ideal spouse described was representative of either the perceived picture of the mate in question (e.g., the Laras and the Ortegas) or, more often, the image of what the speaker wished the mate could be (e.g., Mandy Payne and the Leonards); the latter response revealed certain aspects of the spouse's personality and behavior which were disappointing. Or, the answer might have reflected a general dissatisfaction with, perhaps a resignation to, one's marriage (e.g., Angelita Orozco). In fact, answers to the ideal-spouse question often depicted much more accurately than any others the subjects' feelings about their marriage and, especially, their partner. For example, it is interesting to note that, of the men who answered this question, the three husbands who were the most

209

MARRIAGE

dissatisfied (Paul Peters, Steve Ponce, and Domingo Orozco) plainly expressed their true feelings. The same could be said of the five unhappiest wives: Angelíta Orozco and Jane Rode were fully aware of their discontent and never concealed it; Adrienne Ponce, Mandy Payne, and Kay Leonard were subconsciously displeased, in the sense that their interviews were saturated with their conjugal misery, but they never directly expressed such sentiments, except perhaps in this set of answers. The content of the interview material on all married individuals was analyzed, and each partner was rated on a five-point scale in terms of expressed marital happiness. Before investigating the factors related to satisfaction with one's spouse, let us mention that, when married persons were compared along sex lines in this respect, more females tended to feel happy or unhappy about their marriages while more men responded neutrally (42% versus 28% of the women). Although such findings could be related to several factors, they may, perhaps, be used as supportive data for our earlier contention that women were generally more involved in their marital relationships. T A B L E 18 Expressed Marital Satisfaction and Length of Courtship Low

Average

High

Length of Courtship

Ν

%

Ν

%

Ν

%

Up to 6 months 6-12 months 13-24 months 25 months or more

3 2 1 0

50 33 17 0

1 2 4 2

12 22 44 22

3 1 3 6

23 8 23 46

Totals

6

100

9

100

13

100

Substantial literature on marriage has demonstrated that partners who are engaged or acquainted only briefly before their wedding have a lesser probability of being successful maritally.19 As shown in Table 18, this study's results strongly support that contention. It is most striking that 19

In reviewing the literature on greater or lesser inclination to divorce, Goode lists "short acquaintance before marriage" on the greater-inclination side and "acquaintance of two years or more prior to marriage" on the other side (William J. Goode, "Family Disorganization," in Contemporary Social Problems, edited by R. K. Merton and R. A. Nisbet, pp. 479-552).

210

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

nearly all subjects who had dated two years or more laid claim to very gratifying marriages. Extreme dissatisfaction appeared at less than two years and increased to reach a peak at the briefest acquaintance period, less than six months. Two unhappy common-law unions began very haphazardly after a few weeks of familiarization and are included in this category. But three happily married couples, one of which began as a common-law marriage, had also been acquainted for only a few weeks; in these cases, the men were searching for stability rather than adventure when they married. Along similar lines, when the family of the bride or groom had reacted negatively to the marriage, 42 percent of the couples were unhappy about their alliances, versus 29 percent who were contented; only 9 percent of those couples whose parents had been pleased with the unions were themselves unhappy with their marriages, as against 55 percent who were happy. It is difficult to ascertain if the subjects' views concerning their union influenced their memory of those fateful days, especially their parents' attitudes. Some ex post facto projection might have occurred. However, some literature already exists corroborating these results in normal populations.20 It is also noticeable that more Anglo parents were reported to have responded to the marriages positively (60% versus 33% who responded negatively). The attitudes of Mexican American parents covered a wider spectrum: 44 percent negative, 33 percent average-neutral, and only 22 percent positive. Interestingly enough, a respondent's self-satisfaction might have been related to apparent marital happiness-how, is a more complex matter. Only 14 percent of those who were deficient in self-esteem expressed great conjugal satisfaction, whereas 67 percent of those who were basically self-satisfied were happily married. If marital contentment "caused" self-esteem to blossom, then one would expect this to occur even more among women, since marriage is more important to them. However this prediction never materialized—quite the contrary, self-esteem was even more closely related to marital happiness among males. This finding may be related to the fact that married men have been reported to show higher psychological adjustment than married women.21 20 "Disapproval by kin and friends of the marriage" is one more factor that is listed by William J. Goode as being associated with a greater frequency of divorce (Ibid., p. 517). 21 See Jessie Bernard, "The Paradox of the Happy Marriage," in Woman in Sexist Society, edited by V. Gornick and B. Moran, pp. 90-95.

211

MARRIAGE

Another factor which entered into the profile of marital satisfaction at the time of the study was the duration of the subjects' unions. Again, the individuals in the sample followed the trend of some findings concerning normal populations, where marital satisfaction was inversely related to

TABLE 19 Number of Children and Ethnicity of Subjects Number of Subjects Number of Children 0 (for the couples only) 1 2 3 4 5 6 or more Cases of children taken away Total: subjects who have had children Total: children Total: pregnancies

Chícanos 1 5 3 3 1 0 2** 0

14 42 3

Anglos

Total

10*** 3 2* 1* 0 1 1 2**

11 8 5 4 1 1 3 2

10 24 2

24 66 5

Each * indicates a known case of sterilization. The pregnancies listed were those of women who had not given birth to their babies by the end of the study. All these women already had other children.

length of time married.22 Accordingly, 64 percent of those respondents who felt truly happy (versus 33% of those who were unhappy) had been married for three years or less, whereas only 35 percent of those who felt truly happy (versus 66% of those who were very unhappy) had been married for four years or more. 22

For instance, in a normal population, Luckey found that the longer a couple was married, the less favorably each partner assessed the personal characteristics of the other (E. B. Luckey, "Number of Years Married as Related to Personality Perception and Marital Satisfaction," Journal of Marriage and the Family 28 [1966] : 44-48).

212

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

Fertility and Birth Control Twenty-four subjects (10 Anglos and 14 Chícanos) had had one or more children.23 Of these twenty-four, two were divorced women and one was an unmarried mother. The distribution of the number of offspring in the population is shown in Table 19. One salient feature is that the average number of children born to the subjects was relatively close for the two ethnic groups: 2.4 for Anglos, 3.0 for Chícanos. However, this similarity camouflaged two very interesting differences. First, when the entire sample, fifty-two Anglos and twenty-seven Mexican Americans was used as a basis, the means were very different: 0.4 for the Anglos, 1.6 for the Chícanos. Second, it is striking that ten Anglo couples did not have any children at all, whereas only one Chicano pair was childless. If we consider that there were thirty-one married subjects-eighteen Anglos and thirteen Mexican Americans-then 56 percent of the Anglo couples versus only 8 percent of the Chícanos had no progeny.24 Moreover, of these ten childless Anglo couples, perhaps only two or three would reproduce in the future. Not included among these ten couples were two married subjects whose offspring had been taken away from them. These two have since been sterilized-thus augmenting the proportion of childlessness among Anglo pairs. In addition, only two cases of sterilization—after the birth of several children-were discovered among Chícanos; apparently surgery had been advised for medical rather than eugenic reasons. But there were at least seven Anglos who were sterilized, although, for four, the operations had not been performed until after one or more births. This state of affairs seems consonant with the difference between the two groups in regard to ideology: family life was definitely more important among the Chicano sample. (Still, among those who did have offspring, as noted earlier, the rate of reproduction was relatively close in both groups.) Furthermore, unlike Anglos, few Mexican Americans had lived in halfway houses—one of the main agents acquainting the subjects 23

This is a much lower frequency than that quoted in Reed and Reed {Mental Retardation, p. 38); in that study, 56 percent of 630 retardates had reproduced. 24 The Anglo percentage was much lower than those found in Charles's study, where 75 percent of the married males and 85 percent of the married females had had children (D.C. Charles, "Ability and Accomplishment of Persons Earlier Judged Mentally Deficient," Genetic Psychology Monographs 47 [1953], 3-71). The Anglo sample was not included earlier as they married at the end of the study.

MARRIAGE

213

with the possibility of sterilization. Perhaps most important, Anglo parents were often the ones who insisted that such operations be performed, as they were quite concerned about the prospect of having defective grandchildren and the possibility that their children would not be able to cope with the responsibilities parenthood would bring. We must also consider that three couples had had their children taken away from them-by relatives, in two cases, and by a public adoption agency in the other—two were Anglo subjects and one was a retarded Anglo spouse, the wife of an Anglo subject. In each instance, excessive pressure was brought to bear on the unfortunate mother by relatives who felt that she could not take care of the baby properly. But not a single case of this sort was found among Mexican American couples. A third interesting finding was that many Anglos who had children wanted more; in contrast, two-thirds of the Mexican American pairs were not so inclined. Also, this datum indicates that Chicano subjects exhibited a tendency toward adherence to a smaller-family pattern. Sterilization aside, no differentiation could be made between the two groups in terms of birth-control methods practiced; we were very surprised to find that a seemingly high proportion of both Anglo and Chicano women were taking contraceptive pills. And it was initially somewhat reassuring that most of these women went to gynecologists; however, the youngest ones, especially the two who were involved in common-law marriages, obviously did not understand how to take the pills. "I used to take them when I used to be in a, when I used to go to date, you know, I used to take three or four. [Laughs] They told me that those control pills are making—making disease . . . they told me that [if] you don't want no baby, drink hot tea. There I go, hot tea." Nor did these or other women visit their doctors very promptly once they had confused their medication schedule. Thus there were five unwanted pregnancies at the time of the study, a rather high rate for so few couples. (Three of the mothers-to-be were Chícanos, two were Anglos.) Retardation among the Children How many respondents had given birth to handicapped children? Twenty-four subjects had offspring and eight had produced one or more handicapped children—33 percent of the fertile subjects had become parents of handicapped offspring. In addition, as was mentioned earlier, two subjects (plus one spouse) had had children taken away from them; we acquired no pertinent information concerning the children of

214

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

two of these three. In all, fifteen out of a total of sixty-six offspring were involved; thus 23 percent of all the children born to our subjects were somehow abnormal; all were retarded, with perhaps two exceptions, and most had additional handicaps. Two other handicapped children, so far not included, should be mentioned—they are Evelyn Hickman's, who were adopted by relatives. (Evelyn is a retardate, but her husband, not she, is the subject in this study.) With the addition of her two children, seventeen out of sixty-eight, or 25 percent of the sample's offspring are known to have defects.25 The proportions across ethnic lines are as follows: four of the fourteen Chicano subjects (or 29%) who have reproduced gave birth to handicapped children. Four of the ten Anglos (or 40%) with children had at least one handicapped youngster. Again, were Evelyn Hickman to be included, five of eleven Anglos (or 45%) would fall in this category. The percentage is higher for Anglos, but even a Chicano rate of 29 percent is overwhelming. It must be added that two of the four interethnic couples had produced handicapped children (although one of these offspring was only slightly retarded)—the Chicano retarded spouse was not included in the above proportions, for the Anglo father, being the subject, was. Were we to include the two mothers, counting them as subjects, instead of their husbands, six Chicano subjects out of sixteen, or 37 percent, would have had handicapped offspring. Let us now examine the specific data in our possession, case by case. 1. George (MR) and Yolanda (MR) McCoy's two sons were slow and did not always understand comments addressed to them. One of our consultants was thoroughly familiar with their case and confirmed the retardation diagnosis. 2. Paul (MR) and Maria (MR) Peters's oldest, although he appeared normal, was in a Special Education class. Paul explained that the child had a learning problem "just like me." Rather, it seemed to us that this little boy, who had a good vocabulary, was hyperactive and probably had a short attention span. 3. Mandy (MR) and Tom Payne's second of five children, a girl, was retarded and had a lisp, a vestige of a cleft palate that had been operated on. 4. Bill (MR) and Connie Lehmann produced five seriously handicapped 25

Reed and Reed have quoted figures of 40 percent of the children who are retarded when both parents are subnormal, 8 percent when only the father is subnormal and 20 percent when only the mother is subnormal.

MARRIAGE

215

children out of six. Only the oldest had escaped that fate, yet he had a reading problem, even though he appeared to be of normal intelligence. The two oldest girls, aged about seven and eight, were in Special Education and had severe speech impediments. It was nearly impossible to communicate with them, as their verbalizations were almost incoherent. The six-year-old boy spoke haltingly, as if the effort were almost physically painful; however, he was not in Special Education. We are not certain as to how he should be classified. The four-year-old boy was skinny, did not speak, and was just learning how to crawl; his head was always strangely tilted to the side. The two-year-old girl was abnormally quiet, detached, and unresponsive to whatever happened around her. She did not walk. 5. Irma (MR) and Santiago Ledesma's oldest of three uttered only guttural sounds, looked retarded, and, like his siblings, was emaciated. 6. Luisa Gonzalez's (MR) daughter was born deaf, with a heart defect that will eventually require surgery. At five years of age, she used only a few words and had been attending a school for deaf children. Luisa had measles when pregnant. 7. Santos (MR) and Delfina Ortega's oldest, a three-year-old, dull-looking boy, was a slow learner who could barely form a few words. He was not toilet trained and was treated very leniently by both parents because he did not "know any better." 8. All three of Andrés (MR) and Josephine Castro's young teen-agers were in Special Education, although, like many of the subjects in the sample, they looked normal and had no physical handicaps. Another Castro, Andres's sixteen-year-old unmarried daughter, who had a baby, may have been a retardate. She lived with the Castros, but we never saw her, as she spent all her time alone in her room. She is not, however, included among the retarded offspring. 9. Evelyn Hickman's (MR) children by her previous marriage had been taken away from her. While we did not learn anything about the little girl, except that she was becoming progressively blind, the boy was born deaf with several "ruptures." From what Evelyn told us, we gathered, in addition, that he was not in very good shape intellectually. Although prepared by a review of the literature, we were sadly surprised once the information just presented had been analyzed. We had, at times, noticed children with defects but thought that they were exceptions, and, in fact, at one point rejoiced that so few abnormal children had been encountered. But let us stress again that two or three of the offspring

216

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

just depicted would probably be taken out of the retarded category were they living in a more education-oriented family setting. It was impossible to determine very conclusively if there were more instances of retardation occurring when both parents were retarded, for the frequencies were too small. However, there were strong indications that, as already seen in footnote 25, the retardation of a mother might have been a more crucial factor than that of a father: of the nine retarded cases (including Evelyn Hickman's child) seven were progeny of retarded mothers, although in two of these cases the fathers were also retarded. No comparable census of retardation among subjects' parents and siblings could be obtained. We will examine those cases that came to our attention among relatives, but the reader should always keep in mind that no question bearing on that topic was ever asked during the interviews. Such problems were revealed only when individuals volunteered unsolicited information, or because the relatives in question were present. Retarded kinsmen of those subjects with handicapped youngsters will be enumerated first. 1. Paul Peters had two sisters in a state school, their home since childhood. (In addition, his wife's father may also have been a retardate.) 2. Mandy Payne implied that she had a retarded brother: married, he lived in a house near that of his parents and worked in his father's grocery store. This case is only tentatively presented, as we never saw him. 3. Irma Ledesma's seventeen-year-old brother attended Special Education classes and looked retarded. A four-year-old cousin of Irma's also exhibited all the characteristics of retardation, and he could barely speak. 4. Luisa Gonzalez's niece was a mongoloid. Her two youngest brothers attended Special Education classes; the one we saw appeared very retarded. Thus, at least three, and perhaps, four (for we have reservations about Mandy Payne's brother), of the nine persons who had retarded children had one or more seriously retarded close relatives. Additional families with handicapped members also came to our attention: 5. Eddie Hickman's parents had adopted his little cousin, who was a basket case, a vegetable. We saw this unfortunate girl. 6. Olivia Campos's thirteen-year-old brother had recently been sent to a state school for retardates. 7. Angelita Orozco's brother was a state-school resident. This was confirmed by one of our consultants.

MARRIAGE

217

8. At least one of Roman Villegas's sisters was retarded. She possessed all the stereotypical physical and behavioral characteristics. 9. Cathy Wallace's mother was described as a retardate in the Rehabilitation Commission files. So was Cathy's brother, a cripple. Like Cathy, he was employed by a sheltered workshop. 10. At least one of Linda Cushing's brothers was in Special Education because of retardation. 11. Kay Leonard's sister was registered in the Rehabilitation Commission files as a retardate. However, like Kay, she appeared normal and was very attractive. 12. Gilberto Ornelas's father seemed at least to be dull, but, by virtue of his age and acquired competence, he might have developed a more normal mode of behavior than his potential seemed to indicate; this, however, may be mere speculation. 13. Although Rocky Presley's mother looked like the stereotypical retardate, our observations were the only available cues. In addition, his little sister exhibited bizarre, if not distraught, behavior for a girl her age. 14. Ross Young's mother could have passed for an inmate of an institution. She also had a strong speech defect due to the fact that she could not control the muscles in her tongue. It is interesting to note that fewer cases, comparatively, of mental or physical handicaps were encountered among the families of those subjects who had no abnormal children or who had not reproduced. But we are still haunted by all the possible deficiencies never mentioned, the people we never had an opportunity to see. Nevertheless, it is notable that those individuals who had given birth to retarded children often revealed instances of retardation in their families even though they were not always aware of the fact that their own offspring were identically labeled. (However, very few subjects' parents whom we met were themselves retardates—perhaps only three or four.) The subjects were amazingly tolerant of their children's problems. We could not help but compare these parents' reactions with those we could imagine encountering in the average middle-class family. Parents of handicapped children never hid these difficulties from us, when they were aware of them. In fact, some parents explained the situation even before we saw the children. They neither rationalized their children's problems nor camouflaged them. Most of them, however, seemed unaware of the magnitude of the defects in terms of long-range consequences for the youngsters' happiness and future adjustment. Some regarded these severe

218

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

limitations as a phase the children would eventually outgrow. Others did not seem to link Special Education with the obvious implication that their offspring would never be able to function very well in school—in fact, they often stated that they wanted their children to have as much education as possible. They did not seem to realize that receiving a Special Education high-school diploma was hardly the equivalent of graduating from a prep school. At the time, we wondered whether these parents were simply refusing to accept reality and its probable consequences. Perhaps that was so—but only temporarily—when they were forced to compare their children to others. Otherwise, it seemed they truly did not realize the complete ramifications of the handicaps. These parents could see their children live and, often, function adequately for communication. They watched them grow and make relative progress. They loved them. So, for their own purposes, these little ones were more than capable of giving and receiving love, affection, and devotion; hence, overlooking the rest or simply becoming accustomed to it was easy. Furthermore, not even the normal children we saw—Mike Soto excluded—were very educationoriented or extremely well developed mentally, which prevented the parents from comparing one youngster with their others. We cannot say that we observed a single child who was intellectually alert according to middle-class standards. This means that the parents' realization of their offspring's shortcomings was, relatively speaking, less pronounced than it would have been had they, like middle-class parents, been surrounded by school and college achievers. When asked if they experienced special problems with their children, most parents spoke in terms of the offspring's complaints, the fights they got into, the noise they made in the house, the bills, and sometimes, illness. But no parent ever mentioned a child's handicap as a specific difficulty and only one alluded to failure in school as a problem. These latter considerations would probably have been paramount in the mind of a middle-class father or mother with a retarded youngster. However, this does not mean that they refrained from attaching any importance to the children's behavior and success at school. Quite a few, for instance, mentioned education as a sought-after aim for their children's future. But such hopes were somewhat vague, and most of these parents did not have the intellectual means to attempt, by themselves, to attain this goal. It was obvious, as already pointed out, that they did not know what "getting an education" entailed. Nevertheless, two or three sets of parents were fully aware of what was involved, and they were teaching their children how to

MARRIAGE

219

read and count, even though the youngsters were not yet in school. Others were very proud of the smallest indication of achievement manifested by their children, while not necessarily understanding the implications of that particular type of success. Take, for example, the McCoys, who were so proud of the alleged 40 IQ of their younger son. They "couldn't believe a child could have that much IQ." And George would pat the youngster on the head, telling him, "You're smart, aren't you? You don't show it, but you're smart"—an amusing but sad commentary on their seeming lack of comprehension. These parents wanted success, for themselves and for their children, but their own background had not equipped them to focus on the appropriate cues and to be properly concerned about those which indicated that their goals might not be attainable. The subjects were extremely vulnerable because few knew any better, and, like all human beings, they valued self-esteem. Anybody could have expounded upon their child's remarkable talents, and they would have religiously followed and believed every word. Probably the most touching example of parental devotion and security in the midst of her progeny's towering handicaps was Connie Lehmann, the wife of an unemployed retardate who, to us, appeared to be the most withdrawn husband interviewed. Eternally matter-of-fact, Connie accepted her children as they were, problems and all, with no embarrassment. She followed their progress closely, viewing their defects as phases they were going through and would outgrow. None of her children performed very well in school, but her oldest son seemed to have the most potential. An affectionate child, he teased his mother gently, staying at her feet during most of the third session. Very talkative and commanding a good vocabulary, he nevertheless had difficulty reading and spelling; Connie was trying valiantly to teach him to read and, especially, to spell, and he was going to be placed in a small classroom where he would receive more individual attention. She did not seem to believe that this was a Special Education program, as his defect was one of reading rather than of speaking—the problem area of two of his sisters. His teacher had asked Connie's opinion before this decision was reached: "I said, well, I don't want to push him too much but if it's good for him, it's okay with me." Fortunately for the children, Connie was the kind of mother who did not concentrate on punishment but lavished rewards in order to encourage them to do better. Her parents helped her out with this sometimes arduous and expensive task. "Oh, yeah, I'm always bragging on 'em what they're doing, how they're doing you know, and it works out pretty good too

220

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

because you have to, sometimes you have to give 'em credit. Now the little girl, ah, both little girls, she makes good in school you know and my mother said whoever makes good in school, she would give 'em a dollar you know." Although she was very concerned about her children's future, Connie remained open-minded: "I'm not going to tell 'em, it's up to 'em." At this point, the oldest boy, who was sitting at her feet, explained that he wanted to be a "fire truck-no, I mean a fireman." And then there were her two oldest daughters. "The two girls have trouble, uh, talking a little bit. One of 'em—the youngest—has, she stutters quite a bit, and they have helped her quite a bit. And I, she, she, I notice when she get real excited, well, she stutters more than she does at other times, you know. .. . They been going there [Special Education] I think ever since November and it really increases 'em, you know. They can talk much better then they did here before they started over there, you know." "Who suggested it to you?" "The school counselor and then the state caseworker from the state. I told him about it and then he worked with u s . . . . They just transferred from this school over to there. And they like it and the principal over there at this Special Ed. school he said that they could go there a long time, you know, if they really needed it. If they started learning better, you know, well, they would go to, you know, to a public school. Well it's a public school but I mean, so many rooms and for children that's retarded and all of that, you know. But they're learning real good." "How do the girls feel about switching schools?" "Oh, they was real proud, you know, and they like the teachers over there." Connie very touchingly explained the psychological problems of one of these two daughters. "She couldn't understand, you know, why that I couldn't stay with her, and then the counselors told me, you know, to work out something, not to put her aside, you know, love her more. Well, she said to love the other children too but love her more and give her a little more attention . . . and she said to take her to the store and, you know, not to put her to side, you know, to love, you know, kinda put a lot more attention to her, and she's been working out pretty good thataway, and the counselor asked me a couple of weeks ago how I was

MARRIAGE

221

coming out with 'em and I told her okay. She got to where she stays at school now It's worked out, you know, I didn't realize that .until, you know. I tried everything, you know, whipping her and that didn't work . . . and I have sit down and talked to her a lot and it has worked o u t . . . . I kinda got her out of it, you know, by sitting down and talking to her and explaining to her that I couldn't stay with her at school, t h a t . . . I had to come back . . . to take care of her brothers and sisters . . . and I said, 'When you come home, I'll take you to the store . . . ' and it worked out all right." Worst off of all was the four-year-old boy. His parents and the other children pushed him around in a cart. Yet Connie was able to handle even his severe handicaps realistically. She felt that, by using the exercises the doctors had given her, the child would eventually "fill out," meaning that he would put on some weight, as he was pitifully wasted at the time. Because of this prescribed workout, he had, she believed, improved a lot recently, for he was finally learning how to crawl. She understood and followed his problems and those of the other children with phenomenally devoted attention. Obviously, the children were a very important part of Connie's marital satisfaction, and it was very touching to see how well she accepted them and how much they satisfied her in spite of their handicaps: "Well, I think we're happy, I think we're happy being married and everything like that, and we're happy 'cause we got the children, they're lots of company to us, and we enjoy 'em, and we take care of 'em like we're supposed to." Another case study sheds considerable light on the discussion of these parents' serene acceptance of their retarded offspring as compared to the probable attitudes of more educated people. Liza Escamilla was a very intelligent young woman married to a diagnosed retardate, Andrew, who demonstrated a great deal of initiative. Nevertheless, it was obvious to us, as well as to them, that Liza was superior to Andrew, both intellectually and professionally. She faced these facts good-naturedly enough and made the best of the situation. While discussing Andrew's intellect, Liza suddenly referred to a film she had seen a long time ago that had registered vividly in her mind. It concerned two couples, each of which had a retarded child. The pair who were college educated "went to pieces because they couldn't stand the idea of having a retarded child," whereas the other couple "was colored and they were, you know, from lower-standard family. They were so happy and the little boy was such a

222

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

happy child . . . " That is what made her stop "to think about, to think, because like Andrew, well, he doesn't know too much about the books and all this. He's not stupid or anything because he knows there are smarter people. I know he would never do that to a child." She then went on to compare her husband—who, in her mind, was obviously of a "lower mentality"—to his intelligent brother who constantly whipped his child. Parental Role What was most obvious in our conversations with the respondents was that a child was only an incidental-if a powerful one—in the life of the father but was the most important part of the mother's existence. That in our society the motherly role is the most highly valued for women who have children, as compared, say, to their wifely and professional roles, has been discussed more than once in the literature. The female respondents certainly reflected these norms. While their husbands were definitely important in their lives—more so than they were in their husbands'—the children often required all the energy, time, and will to live each woman could muster. In addition, particularly for some of these women, it was very important that they prove themselves to be fit mothers, since some people had, in the past, been highly skeptical of their ability to manage, even minimally, with such burdens. This was especially true of two mothers (subjects' spouses) who were once state-school residents: they were particularly afraid that their children might be taken from them, and, perhaps, that they themselves might be returned to the institution. As a general rule, fathers talked very little about their children, while mothers expounded on this, their favorite topic, at great length. (On the other hand, when both parents were gainfully employed, the male had a great deal to say about his work and the woman comparatively little—again, a reflection of sex-role norms.) The more children there were in the family, the longer the mothers talked about them, which, again, was not true of the fathers. It was striking indeed to observe how avidly these women discussed their offspring when they had two or more. If a couple had produced only one child, the conjugal relationship still had priority in our conversations, but it was definitely relegated to second place when there were more children. And this occurred no matter how long a pair had been married. One long-term but very noticeable consequence of parenthood was that, while a few fathers mentioned the cost of raising children as a problem,

MARRIAGE

223

the mothers most often focused their complaints upon their loss of freedom. Several women felt trapped by their maternal duties. Some wanted a little respite from child care and household chores, but, above all, they craved the chance to go out and, often, to be gainfully employed. The latter alternative seemed impractical, as they were fully aware of the cost of babysitters and of the necessity of finding reliable ones. They could not help but conclude that outside employment was "not worth it" under the circumstances. In this sample, the burdens—and we use the term "burden" advisedly-definitely fell heavily on female shoulders. They received little help from their mates, even when they were themselves employed. However, a few husbands, the rare exceptions, thoughtfully acknowledged that child rearing was harder on their wives than on themselves. The mother was clearly the more important parent in another respect: ten couples indicated that she was the main disciplinarian, thus the agent of socialization—although the two are not necessarily equivalent—for children of both sexes. (The child's sex made no difference.) Only three named the father, and four indifferently mentioned both parents, but, even in all these cases, fathers did not spend as much of their time parceling out punishment: upon examining the matter closely we realized that the mother had recourse to the father only when her own efforts had failed; often, in spite of the fact that she was still the primary agent of punishment, it was the man who had "the big voice in the family. That's one thing. I don't try to bully them, but if they're doing wrong, they find out. If Mama can't do anything with them, all she has to do is wait till Daddy gets home. They straighten out pretty quick." [Morton Lee, a normal spouse] What was the most common disciplinary technique used by parents? Ten mentioned spanking, three, verbal scolding, one, isolation, and three said they did nothing.26 This information was obtained by asking each spouse how he or she reacted when the children behaved objectionably. Similar responses were garnered in another interview when we inquired about reactions to the children's yelling in the house. From these and 26

Here, again, these parents' methods of chastisement, especially the emphasis on corporal punishment, very much resembled the methods of normal working-class parents. For a brief review of the literature on the topic, see Wesley C. Becker, "Consequences of Different Kinds of Parental Discipline," p. 171, in Review of Child Development Research, edited by Martin L. Hoffman and Lois W. Hoffman, pp. 166-208.

224

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

other answers, we could not fail to take note of the "whip 'em" trend encountered throughout the interviews. It also seemed, through our own observations, that the parents used threats of spanking even more than they actually spanked. The tape-recorded sessions were littered with such intimidations-and the children's reactions, which indicated how little they cared about that prospect by then. One other commonly observed parental pattern was punishing a youngster for something one minute and ignoring the same infraction five minutes later. Exceptional were the parents who never mentioned corporal punishment. We can recall only three such couples, two wonderfully gentle Chicano pairs and one Anglo. "Pobrecitos!" said Delfina Ortega, "I don't know why, but I've never been able to spank them... . Well, I love them so much I guess I can't hit them. I can't stand it." So, when the oldest was "naughty," she sat by him and cried, "'Oh, honey, why can't you understand!' And so I just don't hit him." 27 Let us listen to a few more comments made by parents regarding punishment. "If they're bad, I whip them, and make them go to the bedroom. And the oldest one I restrict from playing with the kids or make her stay in the house" [Mandy Payne]. Fernando and Isbele Santiago were very patient with their offspring, telling them to be quiet when "they holler inside the house," then spanking them slightly if they disobeyed. Like the Ortegas, they lived in a small town, and both sets of parents were very lenient and affectionate. On the other hand, these were Bruce Leonard's comments concerning his little daughter: "[She] don't mind her [his MR wife], but she minds me good. She lets her get away with too much." We also observed that, whenever little Claudia would get out of hand, Kay would summon authoritarian Bruce who would come in and administer a couple of unannounced slaps. Still, Kay felt that Bruce was too strict with their daughter, and she especially objected to his sudden and often harsh actions. George McCoy's methods were discussed at great length in chapter 3 above. George thought that the hardest part of having children was "keeping them under control." In our presence, Yolanda had to remind the oldest not to "sass" George, and we observed George harshly and indiscriminately hitting the child, although we also saw the child retaliating in kind. Then, there were the McCoys' friends, the Peterses, both retardates. What did Maria do when the children misbehaved? "I whip them and make them go upstairs. I have to whip them most of the time 'cause they don't stay up there when I tell them to." But it was all virtually useless: "I could beat them all day 27

That child was retarded.

MARRIAGE

225

and it still don't seem like it'll hurt them. They do the same things." However, she admitted that this method was usually effective when applied by her husband. Very few parents shared warm relationships with their children, in terms of physical affection and usage of endearments. Actually, only three mothers used the word "love" when speaking of their children, and a mere four were obviously close to their youngsters. It must be emphasized, however, that these parents were very concerned about their progeny and loved them in their own way. Also, their children were obviously not living under what they perceived as a reign of terror, for they were, as a rule, noisy and bratty. The often erratic child-rearing patterns we observed indubitably contributed to the little ones' hyperactivity and unruliness.28 It was no coincidence that the most disciplined and calm children were those of parents who had reported deemphasizing physical punishment and, seemingly, related to their offspring in an openly affectionate way. 29 The children—other than those who were disciplined and calm—tyrannically dominated every session. They were show-offs; talked constantly; ran in and out; pestered their parents; demanded candy, fruit, and ice cream; and often disrupted the sessions by unplugging the tape recorder, pushing the wrong button, or snatching the interviewer's purse. They talked back to their parents, or, rather, yelled back, often screaming their lungs out. A few descriptive instances: During the conversations, the Paynes' children were bundles of agitated energy, constantly badgering their parents, climbing on their father's lap, rifling his pockets, asking incessant questions. They were often belligerent, especially toward their mother, an observation that both spouses had verbally confirmed earlier. One of their favorite expressions often directed 28

The combination of a warm parental (especially maternal) relationship with the child, and the use of such a psychological disciplining technique as the expression of disappointment, instead of corporal punishment, has been found to be positively related to conscience development in children. (See Sears et al., Patterns of Child Rearing.) On the other hand, "power-assertive techniques . . . tend to promote aggression in young children, resistance to authority, power assertion to other children, and externalized reactions to transgression (fear of punishment, projected hostility)." (See Wesley C. Becker, "Consequences of Different Kinds of Parental Discipline," p. 189.) 29 This was not self-fulfilling theorizing on our part. The protocols were coded independently of the interviewers' (who were not child-development experts) personal observations, which were added to the data only later on.

226

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

at their parents was "Shut your fat mouth." Although younger, the Leonards' little girl showed some potential in this field: she threw several fits during each session, frequently compelling her father to slap her. An obviously precocious toddler, she held her ground against older youngsters, and, when confronted by another child her age, she screamed at the top of her voice and then said "Don't, don't" to the other. We mentioned earlier that George McCoy unpredictably went "clang" on his older son's head. In addition, he definitely showed flagrant favoritism toward the younger son. This might well explain the older son's resentment of his father. The poor little McCoys were the only set of children disliked by both interviewers, usually highly tolerant souls. These children can be sharply contrasted with the quieter offspring of more even-tempered and openly loving parents. The more fortunate little ones exhibited a seemingly superior and rather precocious taste for school-related activities, even though they were, in some cases, retarded themselves. Mike Soto, described in chapter 3, was normal, well-trained, and obedient. His mother was always very warm, calling him "darling," and treating him like a respected individual. As another example of a warm mother-child relationship and of obedient and considerate children, we can include the unfortunate little Lehmanns, nearly all six of whom were handicapped in some way. Being more numerous, they were noisier and more agitated. Yet they were neither bratty nor impolite and clearly enjoyed their mother's company as she did theirs. The oldest boy, aged nine, sat at Connie's feet throughout an entire session, and the mother-son interaction was warm and mutually respectful. Those subjects who had children could often verbalize the problems which they perceived as associated with parenthood, talk of child-rearing practices, and of the future they wanted for their little ones. Here, they most frequently mentioned the completion of their offspring's education, probably a reflection of dissatisfaction with their own situation: nearly all expressed regret at not having pursued their schooling further. When they talked of child rearing in general, it was mainly to condemn present practices and to compare them with the manner in which they themselves had been brought up. I don't understand the, you know, the teen-agers nowadays, you know, you tell them something and they just blow their tops and tell you anything, you know, and it was kind of different, you know, and . . . and it's kind of hard, you know, to bring, you know, children up like you was brought up. I was telling mother that yesterday on the phone, we was

MARRIAGE

227

talking about it. I told her it's kind of hard, you know, because so many kids give so many good kids, you know, bad ideas and them sometimes they follow and you have to, you have to kind of really watch them. In the same vein, we heard Andrés Castro, who had older children, mourn the good old days when it was easier to raise a family, and when violence was not the rule. He deplored the fact that "after they are seventeen they start to work and I can't tell them what to do," for, when he was young, elders were treated with greater respect. Because Andrés was having so much trouble with his bachelor son, he was convinced that, if he were able to start all over again, he would be stricter. Similarly, Diana Soto felt that rearing a child was definitely more difficult than giving birth. Said she, "It is bringing up the child the way you were brought up, especially in this day and age, things are changing so much that it is hard to teach your child what's wrong and what's right, because you don't know if what you tell them, they'll do." In spite of the fact that several parents wished that their children could become well educated in order that they might secure stable employment, they were open-minded in the sense that they certainly did not intend to force anything on them. Adrienne Ponce said of her newborn daughter: "I'm not going to make her go to college if she don't want to." Another, a father, mentioned that he would make the tools of learning available to them, but then "it'll be up to them [to decide]." Other parents had only a vague idea of what they wanted for their children. Maria Peters said that she did not care "as long as they be something good, something, as long as they don't be outlaws or crooks or something like that." The eldest, however, had already informed his parents that he wanted to be a "robber": as he put it, to "steal money." Some parents alluded to college as a possibility, and those who did were, interestingly enough, the ones who had the most realistic goals for their offspring, for, like Adrienne Ponce, they usually knew that they probably would not be able to afford it, so they either lowered their expectations or drew up contingency plans. For instance, Adrienne was sure that her daughter would have to work to defray tuition costs. At the time of our study, the McCoys were about to start a trust fund for their sons' schooling, an idea that had originated in George's educated father's mind but that George, nevertheless, enthusiastically supported. Others were somewhat skeptical about college, for a variety of reasons. "Well, what I want, and him also, is for the children to finish school, even it's only high school because it's impossible with such a large family to give them a col-

228

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

lege education and all that. And nowadays the colleges, they give the kids a college education because I've seen, it didn't happen to me, but I've seen my friends, they've given them college and as soon as they've finished one or two years they get married and don't give their parents a nickel." Thus spoke Alva Luna, who had several teen-agers. Her desires for her children included the hope that they would, above all, grow up "to be responsible," a unique yearning within the context of the sample, perhaps reflecting Alva's own very responsible personality. Conclusion Brought to our attention most forcefully during the study were, among other things, the impression of randomness regarding the choice of spouse and the decision to marry; the similarities between the subjects' marital relationships and child-rearing practices and those of normal working-class families described in other studies; the contrasts between Chicano and Anglo couples in terms of romantic attachment and companionship; the large number of handicapped children produced by the respondents; the parents' moving acceptance of their offspring's defects; the women's greater involvement in child rearing; the respondents' reliance on corporal punishment as their main disciplinary technique and, concomitantly, the children's usually hyperactive personalities. There is so much more that could be added concerning the conjugal and familial lives of the respondents. Nevertheless, we have tried to present the facets which seemed particularly pertinent during our encounters with the sample and analysis of the data. Thus, the choice of material itself has been influenced by our own perception of what we considered to be interesting. Other researchers, while not necessarily coming to different conclusions with respect to the same information, might have chosen initially to examine other phenomena.

CHAPTER

EIGHT

Conclusions and Recommendations

Individuals are usually classified as retardates on the basis of their IQ's. In the context of this study, however, intelligence, as measured by IQ tests, was not among the most important variables operative in the respondents' lives. In fact, ethnicity, marital status, and sex were factors of much greater relevance. IQ's were related to differences among the subjects only at the very lowest levels—below 60 or even below 55-a minimal section of the sample. It is therefore not surprising that much analytical emphasis has been placed here upon the other variables and the topic of intelligence relegated to the end. In this last chapter, we will examine it only cursorily before presenting conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the entirety of the study. The comparative lack of relevance of the intelligence quotient in the present study derives probably from three factors. First, the spectrum, 45 to 80, was narrow; only seven scores were below 55, fourteen above 75. Had severely retarded individuals and dull normals been included, a wider range of differences between the various intellectual subcategories would probably have surfaced. Second, several of the scores were out-of-date; many had been obtained when the respondents were in their teens. Since

230

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

the IQ may vary as a person changes, it is quite possible that, had we had more recent scores, these would have been somewhat more relevant. Here, the main difficulty lies in our having no way to predict accurately which individuals would have scored differently had they been tested at the time of the study. Third, it has been noted several times, especially in chapter 4, that some of the IQ's in the files did not, in our opinion, accurately reflect the behavior of the subjects.1 As a point of illustration, we observed that some Chícanos with given IQ's were functioning far better than their Anglo counterparts who had similar scores. It was concluded that, in a number of cases, IQ's did not do justice to the respondents' abilities, especially those of minority group members. To compound these limitations, while complete information was available on all the subjects with regard to ethnicity, marital status, and sex, only fifty-four IQ scores were obtained. However, a careful examination of the case studies convinced us that those individuals on whom no such data existed were not substantially, if at all, different from the others. We are fairly certain that, if their recorded IQ's were obtained, they would be very similar to those in our possession. Thus, it is unlikely that having the recorded intelligence of all individuals studied would have evidenced greater differences between the various IQ subgroups, although one can only speculate. Chapter 1 contains a full distribution of all scores, with an overall mean of 67. In terms of demographic variables, the Chicano average was lower than that of Anglos, 67 versus 62, as seen in chapter 4. The second demographic variable was that of marital status, and the relationship between a higher IQ and marriageability was discussed in chapter 5. Marital status and ethnicity appeared to be related to recorded intelligence in the following ways: ethnicity may be considered a "causative" factor and marital status "derivative." As for the first, Chícanos' IQ's in our study were lower than those of Anglos as a direct result of ethnicity— or because of all the implications of this sociocultural variable. On the other hand, while a subject was born into an ethnic group, that same person married or remained single in conjunction to his or her individual assets and liabilities, innate or acquired. Therefore, the retardates married 1 Examination of the case studies indicated that an IQ of 55 and under seemed to relate to the individual's behavior more accurately; numerous traits were shared by low-scoring subjects, whereas such resemblances were rarer at the highest levels, where refined differentiations had not been so successfully interpreted by the tests.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

231

because they possessed certain situational or personal advantages, such as a modicum of intelligence. The third demographic variable was sex and there was no differential pattern for males and females. Age, however, was related to IQ in the following way. The scores of subjects younger than twenty-five were more often found to be 70 and above, in comparison with those of subjects twenty-five and older (50% versus 34%). The IQ's of the latter were largely concentrated at the 60-69 level, the population's mean. (All the respondents over twenty-four were grouped together, as they all followed the same pattern with respect to IQ distribution.) Since more scores for Anglos than for Chícanos were available-a reflection of the larger number of Anglos in the sample—this concentration of IQ's in the 70-and-above range was a derivative of the Anglo, not the Chicano, situation. Indeed, 50 percent (9) of the young Anglos scored 70 or above as against only one of the young Chícanos, a reflection of the generally lower IQ level of Chícanos in the sample. (There were no important age-related differences among Mexican Americans.) It is very difficult to explain why the very young Anglos clustered in the higher-scoring range while the older Anglos were at more diversified levels and had lower IQ's. In previous chapters, we have seen that there was a reasonably substantial relationship between IQ and visible signs of retardation. Only two of the twenty-seven individuals whose scores were above 65 looked retarded, whereas people with IQ's lower than 65 tended to exhibit visible retardation characteristics. The almost steady increase in the proportion of normal-looking persons as we ascend the IQ scale is noticeable. It is interesting to place this relationship in the context of our finding that some IQ's did not do justice to the individuals involved. In a way, the results just quoted would seem to contradict that conclusion. But let us note that a retarded appearance did not necessarily imply that the person behaved, and, especially, talked like a stereotypical retardate. In fact, more than one subject looked extraordinarily dull but turned out to be an interesting conversationalist. Similarly, a few normal-looking individuals surprised us with their immaturity and inadequacy, after only a brief exchange. Thus, neither a retarded nor a normal appearance in itself necessarily reflected the subject's true capabilities and behavior. In other words, the dictum that a book should not be judged by its cover applied here, and the relationship between looks and performance does not unavoidably contradict the surmised inaccuracy of some scores. Health (general health, morbidity, hospitalization, incidence of head-

232

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

aches), attractiveness, self-perception, Special Education attendance, and satisfaction with one's educational achievement were not systematically related to IQ. However, none of the low-IQ individuals harbored negative attitudes toward school; a majority of the negative responses expressed came from the highest-scoring subjects; in the context of positive attitudes, on the other hand, IQ did not make any difference. It is possible that the more intelligent pupils realized their handicaps more acutely, especially when comparing themselves with normal children, while the lower-scoring pupils may have failed to realize the full impact of their predicament. They may have suffered less within the shelter of their Special Education programs, but we cannot substantiate this. If we infer such an assumption from the complaints voiced by certain respondents who had used normals as their reference group, we may accept it as a realistic hypothesis. The only other personal characteristic related to IQ was whether or not the subjects were living alone. This was primarily relevant to singles: no unmarried individual living alone had scored below 65. Again, independence from others for food and shelter, even more than marriage, seemed to requite a relatively high level of recorded intelligence. In the realm of material conditions, no substantial difference existed with regard to IQ. Employment was not a derivative of higher IQ, nor was unemployment related to a lower score. However, there was an important relationship between IQ and one aspect of vocation: of the twelve subjects hired by sheltered workshops, only two had scored above 60. The jobs of these twelve, like their IQ's, indicated their lesser degree of independence and also corroborated the fact that a lower test score reflected the individual's capacity more adequately than did a higher one. An examination of the case studies of these sheltered-workshop individuals indeed confirmed their comparative lack of competence. As pointed out in an earlier section, IQ was not related to the socioeconomic level of the subjects' parents, or to that of the subjects themselves. Another aspect of familial life explored was the extent to which the individuals were helped by their mothers. Of the nine who benefited from extensive maternal assistance and whose IQ's were available, eight had scored below 60. On the other hand, all three individuals who received no aid at all had rated above 70. No subject with an IQ below 60 had ever had contacts with the police, as against 40 percent of those with IQ's above 75. While a higher IQ was certainly not related to an ability to avoid undesirable contacts with law-

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

233

enforcement agencies, a low score may simply have shielded the subjects in the sense that the very retarded were often closely supervised by their parents, hence did not have enough freedom or initiative to confront the outside world and its hazards. To summarize, IQ, unlike marital status, ethnicity, and even sex, was related to very few variables in this study. In fact, some of the relationships briefly enumerated involved IQ only indirectly-for example, through marital status. Thus, even though at the basis of our research is the fact that, because of subnormal IQ's, people have been labeled retardates, these ratings were of relatively little significance in determining the life pattern of individuals who had scored above a certain level, usually 60. However, since some of the discernible differences were functions of marital status and since marriage was in itself closely related to higher scores, IQ may therefore be said to have been of considerable derivative importance. Along with the IQ's relative lack of significance, one of the most unsettling findings of this research was that, while this study was in part a follow-up of people who had been serviced by the Texas Rehabilitation Commission, we were unable to obtain much information from the subjects themselves concerning their contact with that agency. Few remembered it at all, although well over half had once been regular clients (not merely diagnosed or contacted). Obviously, they perceived the organization to be just another one of those placement agencies which they had encountered over the years. No subject remembered a counselor in a very precise way nor was he (or she) able to say much about the interaction that had taken place. (Whatever the respondents did recall was usually negative—gripes are more easily nurtured by all of us.) How explain this finding? It was thought at first that the individuals did not want to talk about these experiences because they wished to avoid presenting evidence of their incompetence. But this hypothesis soon withered away when additional data were examined: why, for instance, would the subjects not talk about something as innocuous and impersonal as the Rehabilitation Commission, when at least half of those who had attended Special Education classes volunteered the information, and when nearly everyone queried on the topic expounded at some length? The subjects exhibited this willingness in spite of the fact that Special Education has really "bad" connotations, of which they were well aware, and that they had often felt stigmatized as a result of their placement in such classes. (They also discussed their sojourns at halfway houses and sheltered workshops freely, and a few

234

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

even mentioned their mental retardation.) On the other hand, "vocational rehabilitation" applies to a great variety of handicaps; therefore, the subjects were not so readily and necessarily stigmatized while in the process of receiving TRC's services as they had been, or felt they had been, while in Special Education where their visibility was high and constant. Even those who discussed their retardation remembered very little about the Rehabilitation Commission. Thus, we can no longer believe that if the subjects repressed their past interaction with this agency it was because they feared delving into its shameful connotations. Nor was this inability to recollect a function of poor memory, as had been suggested to us. At times, poor memory was, of course, a factor, but, on the whole, their being able to remember having seen placement officials at various employment offices meant that they could have recalled their vocational rehabilitation counselors also. Younger subjects, who had been serviced more recently, frequently remembered their associations with the Rehabilitation Commission—although they, too, had dismally little to say. But it is unlikely that this was a matter of recollection: the older subjects could remember seeing placement counselors at other agencies ten years before. Rather, the Rehabilitation Commission services have been improving over the years; hence, the counselors within the more recent administrative structures have higher professional standards, better training, and more enlightened supervision. This means that they probably have had more contacts—as they should—with their clients than was the rule a few years ago. Thus, the younger subjects probably benefited from more extensive services and a closer communication with their counselors. Aside from a Special Education program and halfway houses, the Rehabilitation Commission was really the only agency that could have greatly affected the retardates' lives. But this latter organization did not exert such influence, except in the significant area of employment. Although the respondents had obviously internalized some of the training they had received when in Special Education, they were not in an ideal position to benefit from such exposure, as they were still too young to recognize its implications. Never having been employed or unemployed, for example, they could less clearly perceive the relevance of the vocational training offered them. Special Education was offered to the respondents at a period in their lives when they were not obligated to face responsibilities as workers, citizens, spouses, parents. Finally, there was the halfway house; its influence was certainly the most forceful of the three in regard to ability to mold the individual's attitudes—for the relatively few who had

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

235

been exposed to that experience. It was often obvious that this institution's teachings had truly been absorbed by the subjects. It is indeed unfortunate that the noninstitutionalized adult retardate is not more frequently offered the services of an agency which takes his or her total personality and life circumstances into account, just as the halfway house can do via an institutionalized setting. Two points have just been emphasized: total life and adulthood. First, in order to offer worthwhile services, a counselor must become familiar with the total personality and life circumstances of each client. This does not mean, however, that all retardates should be "treated" or counseled concerning each and every aspect of their lives. Most of the subjects need some help in only one or two specific areas, such as family planning and budgeting. Second, we stress the importance of an agency's concerning itself with adults, preferably those who no longer reside in state schools or halfway houses. Children and teen-agers are offered Special Education programs, yet they often benefit relatively little from them. In fact, many of the subjects had not even completed the entire Special Education program, and all strongly regretted having quit and felt that they would like to obtain more education, since by then they knew what work and adult life were all about. Age, and especially the experience that comes with it, makes a tremendous difference with regard to the maturity, receptivity, and motivation of individuals. In their twenties, for instance, the respondents were finally ready to internalize and thus be retaught some of that training offered to them in the past, when, at fourteen and eighteen, they had not been able to grasp the relevance of what they were forced to learn. At twenty-six, Paul was married, periodically unemployed, had two children. At twenty-six, Ann had a husband to please, children to feed and supervise, a household to manage, obesity to control, and she was sometimes gainfully employed. Paul was finally ready to learn a trade, to be taught how to use the bus system for getting to work, how to help his wife plan the budget, how best to collaborate with her on bringing up their children, and so on. On her part, Ann desperately needed to find out how to buy better food at lower prices—and she recognized this lacuna—how to lose weight, what to do about her hair and teeth, how to help the children develop their vocabulary. Before Paul and Ann were adults, they had been taught much of this, but, in their youth, they could see little use for such knowledge—they were, at the time, primarily interested in the present. The here and now of their adulthood was another matter, and all this much-needed advice applied to it. The time was ripe for learning, or

236

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

relearning. It is pertinent here to quote Sarason and Doris's analysis of the long-term results of the World War II Special Training Units: (1) The curriculum was obviously relevant to (and in a very concrete manner) the everyday problems which confronted the trainees. What they were expected to learn they needed to learn if they were to cope with the problems of living in the army. (2) The relationship between trainee and teacher was close and continuous, and apparently involved interactions not ordinarily occurring between teacher and student. (3) A point not emphasized by Ginzberg and Bray, but clearly one that comes out in the trainees' replies, is that these adults were highly motivated to take advantage of the educational opportunity. It was as if their prewar experience had made them acutely aware of their educational and intellectual inadequacies and they seized upon the Special Training Unit as a means of making up for some of their inadequacies. It may have been true that motivation did not need to be engendered but rather reinforced and rewarded.2 In a way, this puts Special Education and similar programs for youth, normal and handicapped alike, somewhat in a dilemma: it is a problem that the school system as a whole will have to face some day. Indeed, children are given a good dose of information they cannot assimilate, do not know what to do with, and feel very little inclined or motivated to learn. The main problem may center around the schools' lack of relevance in terms of curricula, or the inadequate ways in which they pinpoint relevance when it exists. With respect to retardates, if the curriculum cannot be altered substantially-and this is very difficult to do-they should at least be given the opportunity for a new start or a "recycling" after they have finally been exposed to what life is all about. The following recommendations focus on some possible ways in which opportunities might be offered to such individuals as our subjects. This will involve discussion of a program of comprehensive adult education for retardates. First let us note that Special Education was often a self-defeating experience for those pupils who sensed that they were different from normal students—its format should certainly not be reintroduced in an adult program; instead, the second attempt should center around tutoring 2

Seymour B. Sarason and John Daris, Psychological Problems in Mental Deficiency, p. 106. The authors refer to the study by Eli Ginzberg and Douglas W. Bray: The Uneducated.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

237

and individual or small-group counseling. Retardates often learn much better in the context of a one-to-one relationship: there the teacher can supervise them step by step, be ready to reexplain when they stop understanding, and allow them to ask questions. They can assimilate not only what the teacher believes they should know but also what they themselves feel the need to know. The latter is an important consideration, for it is our impression, based on conversations with the sample studied, that, as educable retardates become adults, they themselves can diagnose several of their problem areas. From the educational as well as the humane point of view, it is far more profitable for them to pinpoint their own limitations than to have someone force an opinion, often unflattering, upon them. For instance, most of the subjects were convinced that they needed more extensive schooling. They felt that, had they learned more, earlier, they could now have better jobs. Others wished they knew how to dress, how to diet, how to cook, how to drive, how to behave with members of the opposite sex. This was a very important first step: to recognize their own limitations, something they surely could not have done five years earlier. They were nearly always right in their self-analyses. A counselor could therefore begin with the subject's self-diagnosis and build a short program around it. The student would be given ample time and sustained encouragement in order that he or she might put the training or knowledge into practice. Not only would this be a first step based upon the individual's own motivation and recognition of need, but, as the program progressed and the subject was helped or guided into seeing new shortcomings he had never perceived before, the counselor could add to this foundation. A great deal of information which the counselor felt would be helpful to one particular person could then be casually passed on, along with the student's self-prescribed format. This approach, focusing on the subject's self-diagnosed inadequacies, would have the advantages of motivating him, thus accelerating the learning process and, also, of imparting a feeling of human worth. At the same time, the subject would naturally gain confidence in agencies structured according to such humane procedures. It is very important to give each retardate a sense of participation in the decisions which determine the course of his or her own life. Not only is the feeling of powerlessness a very common malaise in technological and mass-oriented societies, but it was especially acute—although not always consciously felt or recognized—among the subjects in this study; all their lives they had been told what to do, often without any explanation, and

238

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

they had at times been rudely pushed around. If they could finally be given a chance to feel that they could have a greater voice in their own destiny, perhaps they would become more responsible and competent.3 One other aspect of the retardates' continuing adult education is that, when they need help, they usually do not know where to turn—except to relatives—and, even when they do know, there are obstacles preventing them from reaching the agencies involved: they cannot afford the bus fare; there is no public transportation to their destination, and they do not know their way around; they do not feel wanted or at ease with the people who might assist them; the agency's name repels them, and so on. In other words, the organizations themselves should make it their policy to seek out potential clients by means of an approach in harmony with the individuals' needs and mentality. The agencies really must take the initiative if they are to reach all those who could utilize their programs. In this venture, several crucial factors should be taken into consideration; the name of an agency is of paramount importance; it is one of the first stimuli to strike the individual. For instance, the respondents were obviously repelled by any title that had the words "mental retardation" in it. "Adult education" or some other label might be less stigmatizing, more socially acceptable, and thus contribute to attracting and retaining the individuals. The subjects were intimidated by hectic downtown areas, by large buildings in which they were afraid of getting lost, by too many receptionists and miscellaneous clerks who processed them before they had reached the proper adviser, by formal counselors' quarters—by any formal atmosphere, for that matter. They did not want to be taken for bungling idiots, yet such situations as those just enumerated often made them appear to be exactly that: they were forced to call attention to their ineffectiveness by nervously asking directions and searching for those to whom they had been told to speak; at last at their destination, they were queried about various personal matters, still with no counselor in sight. An agency which sustains itself with such procedures will never achieve its goals, assuming its aims take the client's self-respect into consideration. Also of utmost importance is that the agency should deemphasize its organizational approach when dealing with the client and, instead, emphasize the person-to-person relationship. As we have already seen, our 3

The result of such an approach should be put to a test by comparing the two groups of retardates: one, which had been advised in the traditional fashion, the other, in the way recommended above.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

239

subjects were intimidated by bureaucracy. In addition, it was obvious that they resented being constantly questioned and incessantly advised by social workers and counselors. In their opinion, any person who came into contact with them would inevitably be formal, admonishing, even threatening-when welfare funds might have been cut, for instance. An agency should therefore center its operations around a crew of counselors who are chosen in part because they have very warm and supportive personalities, can listen, and are willing to listen for long periods of time before they begin dispensing advice. Indeed, the individuals in the sample needed to be heard before they were advised. To further remove themselves from the bureaucratic approach, the counselors should try to see their client at his home or in some other informal setting. The advantages are numerous from the subject's point of view, in spite of the fact that such a tactic is time-consuming and costly. The counselors become more readily accessible to the subject who does not have to make the trip to a downtown office. It is easier for the "confidante" to "drop in," adopting a casual and friendly attitude; behind a desk, surrounded by all the paraphernalia of obtrusive red tape, the counselor would find such a stance well-nigh impossible. For instance, we discovered that it was very easy to establish warm relationships with the majority of the subjects interviewed at home. It was as if we were paying them a social call. On the other hand, we had to interview a few in the workshop supervisor's office, an atmosphere which gave decidedly different results. Another advantage to the home visit is that the service worker can chat informally with other family members and thus gain further insight into the individual's immediate situation. The domestic setting also gives the counselor an opportunity to steer the conversation casually toward such a troublesome area as, for example, proper nutrition for the children, overcrowding, or cleanliness-topics that might otherwise be offensive and difficult to bring up in an official setting without an accompanying lapse into the traditional counselor-client approach. We have mentioned that it is very important for retardates to be listened to occasionally by a sympathetic person without fear of being reprimanded, laughed at, brushed aside, or snowed under by patronizing advice. It is important that they be allowed to gain or to retain a dose of selfrespect and some faith in their fellow human beings. If it is to be recommended that the counselor-client relationship remain a human one, full of spontaneity, attention, and interest, it has to be recognized that, in order to get along, people need to have something in common, something they

240

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

can share. And this is where some problems arise between adviser and retarded client, if the relationship is to be successfully sustained over the years: the counselor will feel that he has very little to hope tor in mutual experience with the subject in the long run. This situation becomes even worse when there are linguistic and ethnic barriers. (Matters are different in a brief relationship, of the kind usually experienced in everyday social work.) In view of this, an agency could have recourse to paracounselors for purposes of continued interaction with those persons who would need help and guidance very frequently over a long period of time. This suggestion is not original, for similar programs have already been instituted in the United States. In certain cities well-functioning welfare clients are paid to assist other people in the same predicament, people plagued by many additional problems and exhibiting a relatively lower degree of competence. Sarason et al., for instance, mention a homemaker service, involving low-income, competent women who assist beleaguered families in times of crisis, helping them with budgeting, child care, food preparation, and other activities essential to the survival of a familial unit.4 Even capable retardates could be recruited to help their less successful congeners. In fact, we encountered several subjects, especially among the females, who could fill this paracounselor role well. These were all poor people, so the remuneration would have been welcome and, at times, crucially needed. Such an arrangement would simultaneously serve several purposes. First, the aforementioned problem of communication would be eased, as the paracounselor and the client might be next-door neighbors living in very similar circumstances, perhaps with children growing up together. These people would have a great deal in common, so much that the paracounselor could be minimally trained so as to avoid becoming the prototype of the usual case worker and could interact with the client on a personal and equal basis. Second, this arrangement would provide earned income (rather than the traditional handout) for the paracounselor, if he or she is on welfare; this could even become regular employment, hence a replacement for welfare. Third, it would be extremely desirable employment for mothers who must wholly or partially support small children and who find it difficult to leave home to go to work. Within such a program, they could even gather up their offspring and walk a distance of three or four blocks once a day to meet with various clients. In addition, they 4

Seymour B. Sarason et al., Psychology in Community Settings: Clinical, Educational, Vocational, Social Aspects, pp. 579-583.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

241

would be given a chance to put some of their skills, such as cooking, budgeting, and child rearing, into practice. This approach would also free regular counselors to a considerable extent, as their tasks would become more supervisory in nature; they would still visit with clients, but at a more leisurely pace. 5 In order to insure that its counseling objectives have been achieved, to ascertain whether or not those being advised have developed new needs, and to keep in touch with the individuals serviced, even if only by being continually supportive, an agency must follow up on past contacts. A biannual visit after a case has been "closed" would serve that purpose. In reality, consultation should never be completely terminated for most retardates.6 A specific program for an individual should be ended as soon as he has utilized it effectively, but the case itself should remain open, and the individual should be monitored throughout the years, preferably by the same counselor, if the relationship has been beneficial and circumstances are favorable. An organization should not wait for a crisis to justify reactivating a client's case; rather, the crisis might be prevented by the maintenance of periodic contacts with the people involved. An independent evaluative institution could be used from time to time, if the only goal of the follow-up is to assess the efficacy of the agency's program. Indeed, it is the general belief of both critics and friends of the various "welfare" agencies that periodic checkups should be carried out in order that failings may be detected and success measured. With the best of intentions, certain groups bring social pressure to bear to create organizations on the basis of these groups' ideologies. Frequently, it is perceived only after several years that very little is being accomplished along the lines of the purposes stated—or that these purposes were inappropriate. In addition to verifying how well an agency is implementing its goals, the goals themselves must be periodically assessed—given the rapid social changes in society. Because the organizations are so involved with their daily routine, it may be preferable that such an assessment, usually in the form of a follow-up of the clientele, be conducted by an independent investigator. In order to move on to other aspects of the comprehensive counseling program that should ideally be established, we return to the role of the 5 We are not brushing aside the problems involved in training and supervising paracounselors, nor are we ignoring the difficulties frequently arising out of role conflicts between the "real" counselors and the "others." 6 Some individuals in the sample were highly successful, considering their

242

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

paracounselor. His duties could be broadened to include the social life of his clients, especially of single retardates, whose main problem is their utter solitude. Not only could the paracounselor lend a helping hand to some singles, but he could also offer sorely needed companionship. We are now slowly drifting into the realm of socializing. In view of the loneliness of many of the singles, it is certain that quite a few parents would be very happy if their son or daughter had a small network of friends to see occasionally or at least talk to over the phone. In certain cases it may be feasible to locate relatively compatible individuals within a five to eight block area, so as to minimize the need for transportation by parents or counselors in order to facilitate friendship. Also related to socializing are the parties organized for retardates by various benevolent groups and agencies. Some of the respondents spoke of attending such gatherings, which obviously constituted their only chance for real distraction, their only opportunity to establish social contacts with other human beings. Naturally they awaited such rare windfalls eagerly. However, only a few of the most retarded individuals attended these affairs, since, as employees of sheltered workshops, they alone were still in touch with rehabilitation agencies. Those retardates who had "disappeared" into the rest of the population were not aware that such a possibility for socializing existed. One of our respondents could be quoted for illustrative purposes here. George McCoy had been contacted by an Austin representative of the Mental Retardation Counseling Service who sought to acquaint him with the agency's social program. George reported that he did not care to have "anything to do with retardates"—because he was not one himself, period. Had it not been for the MR label, he would probably have joined eagerly, taking his wife with him. Closely related to this obstacle is the obvious fact that such gatherings would generate little long-term enthusiasm if they were not restricted to a particular type of retardate on each occasion: those who act and look normal, or nearly so, do not usually want to be surrounded by a large group of blatantly handicapped individuals—they have internalized popularly espoused prejudices against retardates only too well. Recall for a moment how some of our subjects talked about "state-school people," how eagerly they wanted to dissociate themselves from them. (This does not mean, however, that less retarded persons could not be used handicaps. Yet most of these could have benefited greatly from a biannual or an annual counseling session, as new problems arose.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

243

to help the more severely deficient. The purpose of social interaction at this juncture is different.) In order to relieve the isolation of the marrieds as well as of the singles, child-care services could occasionally be offered, especially to those couples always tied up at home because they can neither afford babysitters nor find very reliable ones. In view of our experience with the respondents, we believe that such outings would particularly benefit the wives; many were cloistered at home all day with even fewer leisure opportunities than their husbands. Now let us consider family planning and birth control. In chapter 7 we saw that 33 percent of all subjects who had been fertile had given birth to one or more handicapped children. As we also observed, many of these respondents with retarded children had, in addition, some retarded relatives, usually siblings. The research literature clearly demonstrates that retarded parents have normal offspring more often than not. In fact, quite a few youngsters become retarded simply because of the milieu in which their fetal development takes place or in which they are brought up, rather than as a result of having inherited their parents' deficiencies. Nevertheless, in those cases of families containing several members who are retarded, individuals should be offered family-planning counseling if we want to consider the children they risk giving birth to, even though environment alone may be the culprit. In addition to their own misfortune, these children are a considerable burden to society—both socially and financially. On the other hand, it is obvious that many persons who have been talked into being sterilized become very unhappy later on and want to have children in order to be like everyone else. Such a desire would be even more acute among Chícanos, who value familial life highly. (However, in the sample, none was sterilized for birth-control purposes.) We thus have two conflicting situations: the individuals sterilized would be very miserable in their childlessness.7 Still, their yet-unborn offspring could well be a tremendous weight for society to bear. Then there is the added fact that some of these parents could not be entrusted with the care of their own children. More importantly, those little ones, plagued with mul7 We talk in terms of sterilization because, so far, this is the only preventive method that is foolproof: as seen in chapter 7, our respondents were not very successful with birth-control pills, for instance. In addition, the news media have recently presented a new, although still experimental, breakthrough in the area of female sterilization that bypasses the need for major surgery and can be accomplished with local anesthesia.

244

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

tiple handicaps, could have only the faintest hope of leading even minimally pleasurable lives. How to solve this dilemma depends to a great extent on the goals and values of society. Obviously, sterilization may be a terrible blow to an individual, especially to a woman who is presently often defined and given a place in society primarily in terms of her maternal role. It is cruel for society to ask such a woman to forsake her right to reproduce, her passport to psychological citizenship. Such sociologists as Judith B. Davis and Alice S. Rossi have argued cogently that, as the maternal role becomes less essential for the perpetuation of humanity and may even threaten it, women should be encouraged to participate more fully in society at large, through meaningful outside employment, for instance, so that they may be given raisons d'etre other than motherhood. But such a radical change will not arrive tomorrow, and, in the meantime, we are faced with the terrible problem of stigmatizing women by sterilizing them or their husbands, as the female's mainstays in life are procreation and child rearing. In the context of our own values and, especially, after having studied people whose lives were so often lonely, incomplete, and full of misery because their handicaps set them apart, we believe that for those families in which retardation and physical deformities run rampant, sterilization is strongly indicated. Sterilization should be carefully considered also when a family is preyed upon by retardation alone, even though the deficiency may have been fostered solely by environmental factors.8 For there is always a chance that it was hereditary. Besides, if these people are oppressed and deprived by life's circumstances, who will help them break out of their own crippling milieu so that they may have normal children? (Here, it is assumed that the limitations are not genetic.) We do not yet have enough facilities to play a more important role in the lives of those people and their children to insure that the latter do not absorb the parental handicap. It would mean giving extensive attention to tens of thousands of youngsters, not counting their parents, for an indeterminable number of years. The problem is indeed almost insurmountable. Even if societal priorities were more welfare oriented than material and such services could easily be offered, prevention of the problem would still be a more sensible approach. 8 By "retardation," we do not imply merely an IQ of say 65 or 55, but, rather, a low level of general functioning accompanying such a low score. Attention should be devoted first of all to the individual's performance, and only afterward should IQ be considered. This may be contrasted with that practice which consists of inferring behaviour from a score already known.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

245

However, the magnitude of the psychological harm inflicted by sterilization should not be exaggerated. We were, for example, impressed by the fact that, when we accidently talked to some women about this birthcontrol method, at least three were enthusiastic. For instance, one said that she wished she could be sterilized right away, and another asserted that she was so glad someone had told her about this operation. (All had had unwanted children after they had failed to take their contraceptive pills on schedule.) Their receptivity indicates that a discussion could easily be initiated with women who have had their planned quota of offspring; sterilization could then be suggested. This is especially pertinent for those couples who have already had an unwanted child, and it is even more to be encouraged when cooperation of the husband can be enlisted—so that he may be sterilized instead. In addition, countless women who have little inclination to procreate could probably be approached. Unfortunately, the husbands in the sample did not appear to be receptive to such ideas. But, if many men do not even want to hear of a vasectomy and the like, it is because they have never been properly instructed on the how, why, and where. Doubtless some fear castration and impotence to be the end products of the operation. Two couples who had been sterilized hoped to be able to adopt children some day. Yet, in both cases, adoption was out of the question, for their emotional stability, not to mention their financial situation, was too tenuous. However, a few of the other childless couples who want to become parents could be allowed to adopt or perhaps serve as foster parents for a small child. If regulations for such procedures were more flexible, and assuming a tight adoption market, these people could certainly be given a youngster whom more competent couples would not be likely to want: a handicapped infant, a child of retarded parents, an ethnically mixed child, or one past the most popular age for adoption, but preferably not a teen-ager. These new parents could then be followed up and instructed in child-rearing practices, especially when they are given a child with a background of retardation. Techniques of proper nourishment, muscular development, and vocabulary training could be imparted to these couples, who would in all likelihood be greatly motivated to acquire such skills. Here adoption would serve three purposes: it would give a stable home to a child who otherwise might never have one, grant substitute parenthood to the barren couple, making it easier for them to accept sterilization, and, finally, eliminate one possible source of defective genes. Related to the total prevention of fertility is the question of simple birth control: to eliminate oversized families, and to allow children to be

246

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

born when the parents wish them. As was noted in chapter 7, we were pleasantly surprised by the number of women who had tried to practice birth control, usually with contraceptive pills. On the other hand, we were appalled by the many failures encountered: as we were conducting the interviews, five women were in various stages of pregnancy, none of them willingly. Also, of three children who had been born recently, only one was planned. At least three women did not know how properly to utilize their contraceptive pills; they could not seem to remember when they should take them. They would forget them for several days, then gobble them down like candies, and nausea would inevitably ensue. This, to make the vicious circle complete, strengthened their conviction that they did not like the pills or that the pills did not agree with them. We felt that these women should -be carefully instructed—with diagrams, if possible—and that the teaching process should be repeated periodically. But it is doubtful that physicians could or would be willing to invest much of their time in this enterprise; moreover, many simply do not empathize sufficiently to understand and relate fruitfully to impoverished and uneducated patients. Birth-control instruction should therefore be part of the curricula of the agencies serving retardates—with the cooperation of gynecologists. From family planning we move on to marriage itself. There are two oft-debated questions with regard to retardates' marrying that we wish to discuss here in the context of our data. The first question is: should some retardates be discouraged from getting married and denied opportunities to find mates? The assumption underlying this question is that unsuccessful or seriously handicapped retardates cannot assume the responsibilities that matrimony brings, especially the children. Nobody will deny that marriage and the company of members of the opposite sex are highly valued goals in our society. Most studies, including this one, clearly indicate that the subjects themselves share this conviction and want to marry. It was, in fact, the secret wish of many of the singles, some of whom were, unfortunately, too immature and malfunctioning ever to attain the overpublicized nirvana. Others would never achieve this goal because of parental overprotection, although several could obviously be good spouses of similarly retarded persons. Nearly all the unmarried individuals in the sample could, in our opinion, eventually marry, if they were allowed to meet potential companions and were placed in an environment that would foster conjugal success; a number of subjects could manage if they were regularly but only rarely

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

247

supervised by counselors. Others would function well if they could live in apartments especially designed for them, with advisers living nearby. It would be relatively easy to build small units accommodating anywhere from four to twenty such couples. These units could be linked to the sheltered workshops by which the subjects would be employed. It is even possible that, after a few years of living within such a supportive environment and with the added maturity that age often brings, several of these couples could be allowed to function on their own in the community at large. Another kind of setting is suggested by the Israeli kibbutzim: transplanted, these would become communal living facilities containing, in addition to shared dining and living areas, a series of large rooms, one for each pair, where the couples would still retain their identity and some form of privacy but would be more closely supervised and, most importantly, would be shielded from responsibilities that they could not cope with even in the apartment setting. We do not see why state schools could not have such quarters, even for the client who is unlikely ever to be discharged but who nevertheless longs to marry. Retardates are people, and once they have been given the chance to internalize some of the most visible and highly valued goals of their society, they should be offered an equivalent opportunity to experience the kinds of lives other more fortunate individuals lead. There is, needless to say, a certain financial requirement involved, but ultimately it would not be excessive, for the majority of these persons are eventually included in some organization's budget sooner or later. However, the happiness, or the chance for happiness, proffered these people through such an arrangement would be well worth the expense. It is possible that normal citizens are prejudiced against obviously retarded people and do not believe that they have a right to claim what we possess. It is also possible that we, at times, believe them incapable of true happiness or genuine joy. But contentment and sorrow are relative and our own attitude should not be used as a yardstick with which to measure the value of everybody else's feelings. Although many individuals in the study did not fully grasp the depth of their own misery, this does not mean that we should conclude that they have no right to companionship or sensual pleasure. The second question often discussed with regard to the marriage of retardates is: whom should they be encouraged to wed? In certain Special Education programs, we are told, they are encouraged to marry a normal for it has been found that such unions are more successful, especially from the point of view of welfare agencies and vocational rehabilitation. Al-

248

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

though this assumption is certainly sound, the issue is more complex. First, there is the question of the sex of the retarded person. If normal spouses enter the picture, the best possible match probably occurs when a retarded woman and a normal, but not intellectual, man wed. The wife will be well taken care of according to the mores of this society, which dictate that the role of the male is that of a provider. The matching process has to proceed more carefully in the case of a retarded male. If he is successfully employed and functioning well—except from a scholastic point of view—he can easily search the ranks of normal women. But if he chooses a wife who is far superior to himself, though they may manage well materially, conjugal and personal happiness can hardly be guaranteed. In fact, such unions shower great psychological misery upon both partners. The wife feels frustrated by the relative incompetence of the man; she is bitter because she must shoulder so many responsibilities as compared to those she would have assumed if she had married a normal male; and she cannot help but compare her husband unfavorably, not only to herself but to other males. In turn, the husband cannot help but feel that his wife is superior to him, that others notice it, and that he cannot provide for her in the manner she would expect. This is exactly the pattern experienced, although to a varying extent, by the three such couples in our sample. In short, we do not believe that a retarded but well-functioning male should be encouraged to marry an obviously superior woman. The personal cost is too high. On the other hand, marriage between a retarded man and a nonintellectual normal woman who functioned well was observed during the course of the study. Such couples were usually happy, in addition to being competent, for there was little competition between the two spouses; the man could still be the head of the house, since his wife was not so superior to him. Given these points of caution, it is probably correct to assume that marriage would be more successful between a retardate and a normal than between two retardates. However, there is an additional drawback: if two retardates marry, while their chance of having a retarded child is greater, at least these odds are confined to one marital unit. When two retardates marry two normals, the risk, either hereditary or environmental, is spread to two conjugal units. In conclusion, to summarize the main suggestions presented here in light of the knowledge acquired through our study of the sample: it has been recommended that some agency be responsible for the total development and adjustment of adult retardates living in the community; that

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

249

such an agency be structured according to the needs and the mentality of its clients; that it deemphasize its bureaucratic aspects and foster truly human relationships between counselors and subjects. In order to accomplish this, it has been suggested that paracounselors be assigned to those clients requiring extensive and continued assistance and that the subjects be allowed to express their own needs before any other rehabilitation curriculum is imposed upon them. Paracounselors could also seek to influence the social life of retardates who are so often very lonely people. More extensive family-planning services have been advocated, especially for those families which abound with handicapped individuals. When sterilization seems to be the appropriate solution, it is recommended that those couples who are truly unhappy without offspring be allowed to adopt a child, provided they are capable of assuming such responsibilities and are offered special assistance. Finally, we have encouraged retardates to marry, and we have discussed various arrangements that could be made to assist and supervise the severely retarded who wish to wed. It has also been suggested that, when a retardate contemplates marrying a normal, the sex of the subject and the extent of his or her intellectual development, as compared to that of the potential spouse, be seriously considered in terms of marital satisfaction. These recommendations are made, not from the point of view of our expertise—far from it; rather, they have developed out of our perception of certain problem areas detected in the Uves of the subjects. These problem areas, experienced by all too many respondents, could be divided into the following categories: the individuals' need for self-respect and thus for the respect of others; their utter solitude and loneliness; their poverty and all the accompanying ills; the high percentage of retarded children the subjects have and all the future misery such statistics portend. The delineation of these and other problems, together with selected suggestions, was formulated in the context of our belief that the individuals studied should be given, or be allowed to earn, their rightful place within the human community.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

APPENDIX QUESTIONNAIRES

Questionnaire for First Interview Married Men A. Work If employed: 1. Type of work or present position. Describe. How long has he been working there? 2. His feelings toward this position. 3. What else would he like to do? 4. Types of positions held in past five years. Approximate duration of each. Author's Note. For space considerations, only three questionnaires are included here, one for each of the three interviews. Actually, we had four questionnaires for each interview: one for married men, one for married women, one for single men, and one for single women. The content of these questionnaires was the same except for the gender and for the fact that, for single individuals, topics related to marital life were excluded and replaced by topics on dating activities. It should also be noted that the queries were phrased as instructions for the interviewers who were told to word them as the situation demanded. When there were subsections within a major section, only the subsection relevant to the subject's present life was used in the interview.

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

252

5. Ask why he left previous position. His feelings about the circumstances surrounding his departure. 6. How does he think his wife feels about his work? 7. When he took his last job (or present one) did he make the decision himself or did he discuss it with her? 8. If wife works, what are his feelings toward her work and toward the fact that she is employed. (For your own information, ask him what she does.) 9. If she works, did she decide to, by herself? 10. If wife does not work, would he like her to work? 11. Has anyone else helped him find a job? 12. Does he talk to his wife about his work? 13. If she works, does he talk to her about her work? 14. Do they discuss plans for future? If unemployed: 15. Explore reasons for this. Discuss his feelings toward his unemployment. 16. What hope has he of finding a job soon? 17. What would he like to do? 18. What does he do to find a job? 19. Does someone help him? 20. How does he think his wife feels about this? (Especially important if she is employed) If both 21. 22. 23. 24.

unemployed: Explore his feelings about this. How do they live? Explore initiative. What do they do? Should his wife work? Who helps them?

B. Residence and anybody living with them (except children) 1. Where have they lived since they got married, or in past five years? Approximate length of stay at each place. 2. Would they like to move? 3. Ask how he feels about each person living with them: Does he like them? Do they bother him? Would he like to see them go? 4. Do they help him? 5. How does his wife get along with these people? 6. What do the people in question think of his wife? Do they like her?

APPENDIX

253

C. Relatives in general 1. Do they see his parents? How often? (If not often, ask why.) 2. Do they see her parents? How often? (If not often, ask why.) 3. How does he feel about his parents? About her parents? 4. Do they help them? 5. Where do his siblings live? What do they do? 6. Do they see relatives, such as brothers and cousins? How often? What are his feelings about such people? D. Children 1. Get names and ages. 2. What do their children most like to do for fun? 3. Do they watch television a lot? 4. What does he think of the way his wife treats the children? 5. Do they have problems with any one of their children now? In rearing? In school? And so forth. E. Dating and Engagement 1. Where did they meet? 2. How long had they known each other before they got married? How long did they date? 3. Was he "in love"? 4. Does he think she was in love with him at the time of their wedding? 5. What did her family think of their marriage? 6. What did they do when on dates? F. Marital Process 1. What does he like best about his wife? 2. What does he like least about her? 3. Does he think she is a good wife? Is he satisfied with her cooking, house care, and so forth? 4. What kind of husband does he think he is? 5. What is his biggest problem as a person? As a couple, what is their biggest problem? 6. Do they ever discuss their problem(s)? If not, why not? 7. Would he like to talk to his wife about their problem(s)? If so, do they agree? Does talking help?

254

THE FORGOTTEN ONES 8. What does he like to do for fun? What would he most like to do? 9. What would his ideal type of wife be like? (Or if he had it to do over again, what type of woman would he seek?)

G. Closing 1. Ask him to describe his activities the day before the interview. Today. 2. Will they be moving soon? If so, when? 3. Any change of job in the offing? 4. Any birth? Any prospect of separation? 5. Any family member sick? See if he is concerned. Questionnaire for Second Interview Married Women A. Work If still at the same job as at time of first interview: 1. How does she feel about it? 2. Follow any problem she might have mentioned in the first interview: see individual sheet for this. 3. How does she feel about her employer or her supervisor? 4. How does she feel about the people she works with? 5. Does her employer do things for her? Does he help her? If so, how? 6. Do the people she works with help her? If so, how? 7. What is her salary? If changed job since first interview: 8. Ask what she does now and where she works. Ask her to describe her work. 9. When did she get her new job? 10. Why did she change jobs? Explore her reasons for leaving. (Probe: Was she fired? etc.) 11. Explore her feelings about leaving her position (in general). 12. Explore her feelings concerning the reason she left. 13. Explore any previous problem she may have mentioned in the first interview with regard to her former position: see individual sheet. 14. Did anyone help her find this new job? 15. How does her husband feel about her new job? 16. How does she feel about her new job? 17. How does she feel about her new employer? 18. How does she feel about the people she works with?

APPENDIX

255

19. How does she feel about her former employer? 20. How does she feel about the people she used to work with? 21. Does she still see any of those people? If so, under what circumstances? 22. What did her husband say when she left her other job? (Look for signs of disapproval, of coercion, etc.) 23. Salary. 24. What was her salary at her previous job? If unemployed at time of first interview and now working: 25. What does she do and where does she work? Ask her to describe her work. 26. When did she get her job? 27. Did anyone help her find it? 28. What has changed in her life since she began working? 29. How does she feel about her job? 30. How does her husband feel about it? 31. Would she rather do something else? If so, what? 32. How does she feel about her employer? 33. How does she feel about the people she works with? 34. What is her salary? If unemployed sincefirstinterview: 35. When did she leave her job? 36. Why did she leave her job? Explore her reasons for leaving. (Probe: Was she fired? etc.) 37. Explore her feelings about leaving her position (in general). 38. Explore her feelings concerning her reasons for leaving. 39. Explore any previous problem she may have mentioned in the first interview with regard to former position which might have led to her leaving: see individual sheet. 40. What did her husband say when she left her job? 41. How does her husband feel about the fact that she is unemployed? 42. How does she feel about her former employer? 43. How does she feel about the people she used to work with? 44. Does she still see any of these people? If so, under what circumstances? 45. Does she hope to find another job soon? Does she want to find another job? 46. What does she do to find a job? (Has she really looked for one?) 47. Does anyone help her in this? 48. What would she like to do?

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

256

If unemployed at time of first interview and still unemployed: 49. 50. 51. 52. 53.

Explore reasons for this. Ask her if she would like to work. Ask her if her husband would like her to work. What would she like to do? What does she do to find a job? (Has she looked for one?) Does anyone help her in this?

B. Housing If they have moved since last interview: 1. Explore their reasons for moving. (Were they evicted because they did not pay the rent? etc.) 2. Explore their feelings about the move. 3. Explore their feelings about present housing. C. Relatives and anybody living with them (except children) For those who were living alone with spouse (and children) at time of first interview: 1. Check if this is still the case. If so, go to section D. If now living with someone but alone with spouse (and children) at time of first interview: 2. Ask how this change happened. Under what circumstances? 3. Who are the people they now live with? (Friends, relatives, parents? Hers or his?) 4. If friends, how and where did they meet them? 5. How does she feel about these people? 6. Do they bother her? 7. Would she rather be alone with her husband (and children) again? 8. Do they help her? If so, what do they do for her? 9. What does she like best about living with someone else? 10. What does she like least about living with someone else? For those who were living with someone (besides spouse and children) at time of first interview: 11. Check whether or not it is still the same people. (If different people, go back to previous questions.) 12. Would she rather live alone with husband (and children)? 13. Follow up on any problem that might have been mentioned in the first interview: see individual sheet.

APPENDIX

257

D. Relatives in general 1. If any special problem was mentioned in the first interview, follow up on this: see individual sheet. E. Children 1. Follow up on any problem she may have mentioned in first interview: see individual sheet. 2. What does she do when the children yell in the house? 3. Who tells them when it is time to go to bed at night? (She or her husband?) 4. Who puts them to bed? 5. What does she do when they do not obey? 6. Who usually punishes them? She or her husband? (Check if she punishes the girls and if he might punish the boys.) 7. What kinds of things do the children do that she does not like? 8. What kinds of things do they do that she thinks her husband does not like? 9. How often do the children make her angry? 10. At what time do the children go to bed at night (on week days)? 11. Does she want more children? 12. Does her husband want more children? 13. Does she think she might have any more? 14. What do they do to prevent this? (What method of contraception?) F. Friends Ask if she has any friends. If she has friends, ask: 1. How many? 2. Are they about her age? Younger? Older? 3. What do they do for a living? 4. Where do they live? How far are their homes from respondent's home? (Try to figure out the type of neighborhood they live in.) 5. Where did she meet them? 6. How often does she see them? 7. Does she see them alone or with her husband? 8. Which ones does she see by herself and which ones does she see with her husband? 9. Where does she see her (their) friends? 10. What do they do together? 11. What do they talk about when she is with friends?

258

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

12. Do her friends help her in any way? If so, what kinds of things do they do for her? 13. Does she help her friends? If so, what does she do for them? 14. If her husband has friends of his own, how does she feel about those friends? G. Marital Process If she was already married at time of first interview: 1. Follow up on any problem that may have been mentioned by her in the first interview: see individual sheet. 2. If husband mentioned another problem, bring it up without implicating him. 3. Any new problem? 4. Have they quarreled recently? 5. What does she like best about being married? 6. What does she like least about being married? 7. What did they eat tonight (or last night) at dinner? If subject married since first interview: 8. Was there any wedding celebration? Any religious ceremony? Date of wedding? 9. What did her family think of her marriage? 10. What do they think of her husband? 11. What does she like best about her husband? 12. What does she like least about him? 13. Does she think she is a good wife? 14. What did they eat tonight (or last night) for dinner? 15. What is her biggest problem now? 16. Does she ever discuss it with her husband? If not, why not? Would she like to? If so, do they agree? Does talking help? 17. What does she like best about being married? 18. What does she like least about being married? H. Neighbors 1. Does she know the neighbors? Which ones? How close do they live? 2. Does she know what they do for a living? 3. Does she see them often? Talk to them? 4. Does she help them? If so, what does she do for them? 5. Do they help her? If so, what do they do for her?

APPENDIX

259

I. Health 1. Ask how her health is. 2. What types of illnesses has she had in the past? 3. What types of illnesses has she had in the past year? 4. Who takes care of her when she is sick? 5. Does she have a regular family doctor? 6. Does she have health insurance? 7. Has she ever been in a hospital? If so, explore reasons. Also explore her feelings: how does she think she was treated when in hospital? 8. Does she ever have headaches? Stomach pains? 9. If she were to get sick now, what would she do? To whom would she turn for help? J. Leisure Activities 1. Does she watch television? How often? What kinds of programs does she like? 2. Does she go to the movies? How often? What kinds of movies does she like? With whom does she go to movies? 3. Does she have any special hobby? 4. Does she belong to a club or to any organization? 5. Does she go to church? 6. What does she usually do in the evenings? 7. What does she usually do on weekends? K. School 1. Where did she go to school? What was the name of the last school she went to? 2. What grade has she completed? 3. Try to find out if it was a Special Education class. L. Benefactor 1. Who is the person she turns to when she needs help? (Who helps her most?) 2. Find out what that person does for a living. (What is his or her age?) 3. What feelings has she toward that person? M. Closing 1. Ask her to describe the day before the interview. 2. Ask her to describe today.

260

THE FORGOTTEN ONES 3. Ask the usual closing questions when applicable: will she move soon? Any change in the offing?

Questionnaire for Third Interview Married Men A. Work If still at the same job as at time of second interview: 1. Follow up on any problem he may have mentioned earlier: see individual sheet. 2. Ask him if there is any new development in regard to his job. Take it from there. If changed job since second interview: 3. Ask what he does now and where he works. Ask him to describe his work. 4. When did he get his new job? 5. Why did he change jobs? Explore his reasons for leaving. (Probe: Was he fired? etc.) 6. Explore his feelings about leaving his position (in general). 7. Explore his feelings concerning the reason he left. 8. Explore any previous problem he may have mentioned in first interview with regard to his former position: see individual sheet. 9. Did anyone help him find this new job? 10. How does his wife feel about his new job? 11. How does he feel about his new job in general? 12. How does he feel about his new employer? 13. How does he feel about the people he works with? 14. How does he feel about his former employer? 15. How does he feel about the people he used to work with? 16. Does he still see any of those people? If so, under what circumstances? 17. What did his wife say when he left his other job? (Look for signs of disapproval or coercion, etc.) 18. Salary. If unemployed at time of second interview and now working: 19. What does he do and where does he work? Ask him to describe his work. 20. When did he get his job? 21. Did anyone help him find it? 22. What has changed in his life since he began working? 23. How does he feel about his job? How does his wife feel about it?

APPENDIX 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.

261

Would he rather do something else? If so, what? How does he feel about his new job in general? How does he feel about his employer? How does he feel about the people he works with? What is his salary?

If unemployed

since second interview:

29. When did he leave his job? 30. Why did he leave his job? Explore his reasons for leaving. (Probe: Was he fired? etc.) 31. Explore his feelings about leaving his position (in general). 32. Explore his feelings concerning his reasons for leaving. 33. Explore any previous problem he may have mentioned in the first interview with regard to former position which might have led to his leaving: see individual sheet. 34. What did his wife say when he left his job? 35. How does his wife feel about the fact that he is unemployed? 36. How does he feel about his former employer? 37. How does he feel about the people he used to work with? 38. Does he still see any of these people? If so, under what circumstances? 39. Does he hope to find a job soon? Does he want to find another job? 40. What does he do to find a job? (Has he really looked for one?) 41. Does anyone help him in this? 42. What would he like to do? B. Housing If he has moved since last interview: 1. Explore his reasons for moving. (Were they evicted because they did not pay the rent? etc.) 2. Explore his feelings about the move. 3. Explore his feelings about present housing. C. Relatives and anybody living with them For those who were living alone with spouse (and children) at time of second interview: 1. Check if this is still the case. If so, go to section D. If now living with someone but alone with spouse (and children) at time of second interview: 2. Ask how this change occurred. Under what circumstances?

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

262

3. Who are the people they now live with? (Friends, relatives, parents? His or hers?) 4. If friends, how and where did they meet them? 5. How does he feel about these people? 6. Do they bother him? 7. Would he rather be alone with his wife (and children) again? 8. Do they help him? If so, what do they do for him? 9. What does he like best about living with someone else? 10. What does he like least about living with someone else? For those who were living with someone (besides spouse and children) at time of second interview: 11. Check whether or not it is still the same people. (If different people, go back to previous questions.) 12. Follow up on any problem that might have been mentioned in the second interview: see individual sheet. D. Parents 1. If any special problem was mentioned in the second interview, follow up on this: see individual sheet. 2. How does he think his father feels about him? (If his father is deceased, put question in the past.). 3. How does he think his mother feels about him? (If his mother is deceased, put question in the past.) 4. Find out marital status of his parents. (If divorced, how old was he? If deceased, what was their last marital status?) E. Children 1. Follow up on any problem he may have mentioned in second interview: see individual sheet. 2. If children go to school, ask for the name of each child's school. 3. What does he consider the hardest part about having children? 4. If children are above five, ask him if they have friends. If so, do these little friends come to the house, or do his children go to their friends' house? 5. When the children do things he does not want them to do, what does he do? (If he does not answer, say "How do you punish them?") 6. What does he want his children to be when they grow up? F. Friends 1. Follow up on any problem mentioned earlier: see individual sheet for this.

APPENDIX

263

G. Marital Process If he was already married at time of second interview: 1. Follow up on any problem that may have been mentioned earlier: see individual sheet. 2. Any problem now? 3. How does he think his wife feels about him? 4. What is the thing they most often argue about? 5. What is the thing they most often quarrel about? 6. What do they often talk about together? If subject has married since second interview: 7. Was there any wedding celebration? Any religious ceremony? 8. What did his family think of his marriage? 9. What do they think of his wife? 10. What does he like best about his wife? 11. What does he like least about her? 12. Does he think he is a good husband? 13. What is his biggest problem now? 14. Does he ever discuss it with his wife? If not, why not? Would he like to? If so, do they agree? Does talking help? 15. What does he like best about being married? 16. What does he like least about being married? 17. How does he think his wife feels about him? 18. What did they eat tonight (or last night) for dinner? H. Personal Data 1. Birth order. 2. How would he describe himself? 3. What does he think about himself? 4. What would he most like to change in his life? 5. What is he most dissatisfied or unhappy with? 6. If he could be somebody else, what kind of person would he like to be? 7. Has he ever been given traffic-violation tickets? If so, how many? 8. Has he ever had anything to do with the police or the law? 9. Did he like school? 10. What did he like best in school? 11. Does he think he was doing well when in school? 12. Did he vote in the last presidential election? 13. Has he any savings? 14. Has he ever been on welfare? 15. Does he think he would like to have somebody he could count on

264

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

when he needs help? If so, what would he want such a person to do for him? 16. If he has not already mentioned the Rehabilitation Commission, ask him if he remembers having talked to these people at any time. 17. What does he think he has learned from the experience? 18. (When applicable) What does he think he learned from his stay in the halfway house? 19. What would he have liked the agencies to teach him?

REFERENCES

Anastasi, Anne. "Intelligence and Family Size." Psychological Bulletin 53 (1956): 183-209. Axelrad, Sidney. "Negro and White Male Institutionalized Delinquents." American Journal of Sociology 57 (1952): 569-574. Bailer, Warren R. "A Study of the Present Social Status of a Group of Adults Who, When They Were in Elementary Schools, Were Classified as M e n t a l l y Deficient." Genetic Psychology Monographs 18 (1936): 164-244. Becker, Wesley C. "Consequences of Different Kinds of Parental Discipline." In Review of Child Development Research, edited by Martin L. Hoffman and Lois W. Hoffman, I, 169-208. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1964. Benson, Leonard. Fatherhood: A Sociological Perspective. New York: Random House, 1968. Benston, Margaret. "The Political Economy of Women's Liberation." Monthly Review, September, 1969. Bernard, Jessie, "The Adjustment of Married Mates." In Handbook of Marriage and the Family, edited by Harold T. Christensen, pp. 675-740. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1964. . "The Paradox of the Happy Marriage." In Woman in Sexist

266

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

Society, edited by Vivian Gornick and Barbara K. Moran, pp. 85-98. New York: Basic Books, 1971. Blood, Robert O., Jr., and Donald M. Wolfe. Husbands and Wives: The Dynamics of Married Living. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1960. Charles, Don C. "Ability and Accomplishment of Persons Earlier Judged Mentally Deficient." Genetic Psychology Monographs 47 (1953): 3-71. Clark, Margaret. Health in the Mexican-American Culture. 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970. Conn, Lane K., et al. "Perception of Emotion and Response to Teacher's Expectancy by Elementary School Children." Psychological Reports 22 (1968): 27-34. Cressey, Donald R., and David A. Ward, eds. Delinquency, Crime, and Social Process. New York: Harper and Row, 1969. Douglas, James William Bruce. The Home and the School: A Study of Ability and Attainment in the Primary School. London: MacGibbon and Kee, 1964. Edgerton, Robert B. The Cloak of Competence: Stigma in the Lives of the Mentally Retarded. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967. Farber, Bernard. Mental Retardation: Its Social Context and Social Consequences. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1968. Ginzberg, Eli, and Douglas W. Bray. The Uneducated. New York: Columbia University Press, 1953. Goode, William J. "Family Disorganization." In Contemporary Social Problems, edited by Robert K. Merton and Robert A. Nisbet. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1966. Gurin, Gerald, Joseph Veroff, and Sheila Feld. Americans View Their Mental Health. New York: Basic Books, 1960. Hartmann, George W. "Sex Differences in Valuational Attitudes." Journal of Social Psychology 5 (1934): 106-112. Heiskanen, Veronica Stolte. "The Myth of the Middle-Class Family in American Family Sociology." American Sociologist 6 (1971): 14-18. Heller, Celia S. Mexican American Youth: Forgotten Youth at the Crossroads. New York: Random House, 1966. Henshel, Anne-Marie. "The Forgotten Ones: Case Studies of Anglo and Chicano Retardates." Mimeographed. Austin: The University of Texas, 1971. Hunt, J. McVicker. Intelligence and Experience. New York: Ronald Press, 1961. Komarovsky, Mirra. Blue-Collar Marriage. New York: Random House, 1962. Lemert, Edwin M., and Judy Rosberg. "The Administration of Justice to Minority Groups in Los Angeles County." University of California Publications in Culture and Society 2 (1948): 1-28.

REFERENCES

267

Luckey, Eleanore B. "Marital Satisfaction and Congruent Self-Spouse Concepts." Social Forces 39 (1960): 153-157. . "Number of Years Married as Related to Personality Perception and Marital Satisfaction." Journal of Marriage and the Family 28 (1966): 44-48. Moore, Joan W., with Alfred Cuellar. Mexican Americans. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1970. Moustafa, A. Taher, and Gertrude Weiss. Health Status and Practices of Mexican Americans. Advance Report II. Los Angeles: University of California, Mexican American Study Project, 1968. Murstein, Bernard I., and Vincent Glaudin. "The Relationship of Marital Adjustment to Personality: A Factor Analysis of the Interpersonal Checklist." Journal of Marriage and the Family 28 (1966): 37-43. Pasamanick, Benjamin, and Hilda Knobloch. "Early Language Behavior in Negro Children and the Testing of Intelligence." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 50 (1955): 401-402. Peck, John R., and Will B. Stephens. "Marriage of Young Adult Male R e t a r d a t e s . " American Journal of Mental Deficiency 69 (1965): 818-827. Pettigrew, Thomas F. A Profile of the Negro American. New York: Van Nostrand, 1964. Rainwater, Lee. And the Poor Get Children. Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1960. Rainwater, Lee, Richard P. Coleman, and Gerald Handel. Workingman's Wife: Her Personality, World and Life Style. New York: Oceana, 1959. Reed, Elizabeth W., and Sheldon C. Reed. Mental Retardation: A Family Study. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1965. Rosenberg, Morris, et al. Occupations and Values. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1957. Rosenthal, Robert, and Lenore Jacobson. Pygmalion in the Classroom: Teacher Expectation and Pupils' Intellectual Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1968. Rubel, Arthur J. Across the Tracks: Mexican Americans in a Texas City. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1966. Sarason, Seymour B., and John Doris. Psychological Problems in Mental Deficiency. 4th ed. New York: Harper and Row, 1969. Sarason, Seymour B., M. Levine, I. I. Goldenberg, D. L. Cherlin, and Ε. Μ. Bennett. Psychology in Community Settings: Clinical, Educational, Vocational, Social Aspects. New York: Wiley, 1966. Sears, Robert R., Eleanor E. Maccoby, and Harry Levin. Patterns of Child Rearing. Evanston, 111.: Row, Peterson, 1957. Selltiz, Claire, et al. Research Methods in Social Relations. Rev. ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1962.

268

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

Skeels, Harold M. "Adult Status of Children with Contrasting Early Life Experiences," Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 31, no. 105 (1966). Steiner, Stan. La Raza: The Mexican Americans. New York: Harper and Row, 1969. Tharp, Roland G., et al. "Changes in Marriage Roles Accompanying the Acculturation of the Mexican American Wife." Journal of Marriage and the Family 30 (1968): 404-412. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Mexican-Americans and the Administration of Justice in the Southwest. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1970.

INDEX

adoption: by retardates, 245 age: and health, 143; and IQ, 231 Anglo. See ethnicity appearance: comparison of, of Chícanos and Anglos, 104-106; and IQ, 105, 231; value placed on, 106; and marriage, 140-142; and comparison of, of men and women, 159 birth control and marriage, 212-213; problems of, 243-246 Chicano. See ethnicity children: handicaps of, 213-222; and education, 217-221, 227-228; and behavior, 218; and mother's role, 222-223; and father's role, 222-223; and discipline, 223-227; and child-care services, 243. See also marriage courtship. See marriage data processing: guidelines of, 10-11

dating. See marriage dwellings: and mobility, 145-146; of m a r r i e d s and singles, 145-147; comparison of, of men and women, 162. See also material possessions Edgerton, Robert B.: reference to Cloak of Competence by, vii-viii, 7 and n. education: comparison of, of Chícanos and Anglos, 107-109; and dropout rate, 1 0 8 ; and marriage, 144; comparison of, of men and women, 1 6 1 - 1 6 2 ; r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s for improvement of, 235-243. See also Special Education employment: ethnicity and (table), 116; comparison of, of Chícanos and Anglos, 116-118; types of, 117; reasons for changes in, 117; feelings toward, 117-118; search for, 118; and marriage, 147-149; comparison of, of men and women, 148, 162-165; of

270 singles and marrieds, 148-149; relevance of sex to status in (table), 163; and IQ, 232 environment: assessment of respondent's, by interviewer, 9 ethnicity: and Anglos and Chícanos, 100-135; effects of differences in, 1 3 5 ; and IQ, 230. See also employment, household cleanliness, marriage, neighborhood family: size of (table), 120; reactions of, 165-167; handicaps of, 216-217. See also parents family origins: study of, 8 finances: and marriage, 146-147. See also material possessions halfway houses: xii; Anglos and Chícanos in, compared, 129; social contacts in, 172-173; and marriage, 181-182; and retardates, 234-235 health: comparison of, of Chícanos and Anglos, 109-111, 110 and n.;and diet, 110; and marriage, 142-143, 154, 178; and age, 143; care of, by singles and marrieds, 154; comparison of, of men and women, 159-160. See also under individual names Horton, Ron: dwelling of, 41; IQ of, 42; age of, 42; education of, 42; family of, 42; work history of, 42-43; leisure activities of, 43 household cleanliness: ethnicity and (table), 115; comparison of, of singles and marrieds, 146 interviewers: types of, 9-10. See also interviewing interviewing: purpose of, 3; methods and questions used in, 3-6, 9, 10; of married subjects, 4, 5 ; vocabulary for, 5; problems in, 5-6; uses of ethnicity in, 6; difficulties in locating respondents for, 6-7, 14-18; and the first interview, 7-8; attitude in, toward

THE FORGOTTEN ONES interviewer, 156; relationship in, with interviewer, 168-171 interviews: transcription of, 10-11 IQ: average, 18-20; ethnicity and (table), 101; comparison of, of Chícanos and Anglos, 102 passim ; and factors affecting testing, 102-104; and appearance, 105; and marital status, 139-141, 177; relevance of, 229-230; and age, 231; and singles, 232; and employment, 232; significance of, 232-234 Komarovsky, Mirra: and marriage, 199 and n. ; quoted, 200 law-enforcement officials: contacts of subjects with, 129-132, 155, 167-168, 179; and IQ of subjects, 232-233 Ledesma, Irma and Santiago: ages of, 79; cooperation of, with interviewers, 79-80; vocabulary of, 80; appearance of, 80-81; and children, 81-82, 215; and other members of household, 82; parents of, 82; education of, 83; work history of, 83; financial problems of, 83-84; social life of, 84-85; courtship of, 85; marital problems of, 85-87; and self-evaluation, 8 7 ; and retardation in family, 216 leisure activities: uses of time for, 8-9, 122-128, 184; comparison of, of singles and marrieds, 151-153, 166-167; and marriage, 199. See also social life McCoy, George and Yolanda: ages of, 59; IQ of, 59-60; appearance of, 59-60; and children, 59, 76-78, 214, 219, 224, 226-228; financial problems of, 60-61; work history of, 60-62; family of, 61; dwelling of, 62-63; and neighborhood, 63; former residences of, 63-64; and automobiles, 64; social life of, 64-65; cooperation of, 65; and George's childhood, 66-67; and

INDEX George's education, 66-67; and Yolanda's childhood, 67-70; and Yolanda's education, 68-69; courtship of, 71 ; relationships of, with relatives, 72-73; feelings of, for each other, 73-74; marital problems of, 74-79; s t e r i l i z a t i o n of George, 7 6 ; self-evaluation of, 78-79; law-enforcement officials and, 130; and government agencies, 242 marriage: discussion of subtopics of, 8; and ethnicity and sex (table), 137; study sample on, 137; reasons for, 138; and IQ (table), 139; levels of IQ and, 139-141, 230-231, 232; and appearance, 140-142; and attractiveness (table), 141; and inhibiting physical drawbacks, 142; and health, 142-143, 178; and illness incidence (table), 143; and education, 144; and living conditions, 144-145; and neighborhood (table), 145; and mobility of dwelling, 145-146; and material possessions, 146; and cleanliness, 146; and financial security, 146-147; and employment, 147-149; health care and, 154; and interviews, 155; parental views on, 165-166, 210; and social activities, 166-167; of normal and retarded spouses, 172-176; happiness in, 1 7 5 - 1 7 6 ; and characteristics of spouses, 177; and age of spouses, 177-178; and education of parents, 1 7 8 - 1 7 9 ; and law-enforcement contacts, 1 7 9 ; and courtship, 180-183; and premarital sex, 183; anticipation of, 183-184; relationships in, 185-197; ethnicity and, 196; ethnicity and expressed satisfaction in (table), 197; and sex, 198-199; comments on, by males and females, compared, 200-202; and s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s by Chicano respondents, quoted, 202-203; and self-evaluations by Anglo respondents,

271 quoted, 204; and comparison of self-evaluations of respondents, 204-206; and ideal mate, respondents quoted on, 206-209; satisfaction in, and length of courtship (table), 209; length of courtship and, 209-210; self-satisfaction in, 210; and number of children and ethnicity of subjects (table), 211; satisfaction in, and length of union, 211; and birth control, 212-213; and children, 213-222; and retardates, 246-249 material possessions: and dwellings, 111-113, 162; comparison of, of respondents, 111-116; financial status and, 114-115; and welfare, 115-116; and marital status, 146 Moore, Joan W: quoted, 100; on automobile accidents, quoted, 132 neighborhood: ethnicity and (table), 113. See also material possessions Ojeda, Elisa: age of, 27; vocabulary of, 27; home life of, 27; appearance of, 27-28; dwelling of, 28; family of, 28-29; and family relationship, 29; education of, 30; work history of, 30-31; leisure activities of, 31; social life of, 31-33 Olivarez, Joe: IQ of, 33; appearance of, 33; vocabulary of, 33; family of, 33; dwelling of, 34; education of, 34; employment of, 34-35; and driving, 35-36; social life of, 36 outsiders: doctors as, 128, 167; welfare agencies as, 128-129; Rehabilitation Commission representatives as, 129; law-enforcement officials as, 129-132, 167-168; relationship with, 154-156, 168-171 parents: educational comparison of, of Chícanos and Anglos, 118-119; work history of, 119; ethnicity of, and number of siblings (table), 120; and

272

THE FORGOTTEN ONES

size of family, 120; and marital status, Chícanos employed in, 117; 120-121, 165-166, 210; subjects living unmarried subjects in, 154; social with, 121; and maternal aid, 121; and contacts in, 173, 242; and IQ of mother's occupation, 121-122; and subjects in, 232 father's occupation, 122; Chícanos social life: and taste in entertainment, and, 127; socioeconomic level of, 122; and TV, 122, 151; movies as, 149-150; attitudes of respondents 123; dances as, 123; and musical toward, 150-151. See also marriage abilities, 124; and travel, 124; and Post, Alan and June: IQ of, 48; ages of, hobbies, 124-125; ethnicity and 48; vocabulary of, 48-49; appearance dating as (table), 125; and dating of, 48-49; health problems of, 49-50; patterns, 125-126, 167; and friends, sterilization of, 50; domestic relations 126-127, 151-153; and family visits, of, 50-51; and religion, 51, 56-57; 127; and contacts with neighbors, courtship of, 52; families of, 52-53; 127-128; and automobiles, 151; and dwelling of, 54; education of, 54; effects of marriage on, 166-167 work history of, 54-55 ; and financial Soto, Miguel and Diana: marital problems, 55; transportation problems problems of, 87-88, 89-92; ages of, of, 55; social life of, 56; 88; IQ of, 88; vocabulary of, 88; child self-evaluation of, 57-58; and special of, 88; work history of, 88, 96-98; problems caused interviewers by, 58; possessions of, 88, 92-93; dwelling of, contacts of, with law-enforcement 88; courtship of, 88-89; health of, 92; officials, 130 families of, 93-95; child-rearing by, 95-96; education of, 96-98; social life Rainwater, Lee: on marriage, 199 and n.; of, 98-99; and automobiles, 99; and quoted, 200 self-evaluation, 99, 203 religion: ethnicity and, and church Spangler, Clark: IQ of, 22; age of, 22; attendance (table), 132; attitudes appearance of, 22; vocabulary of, 22; toward, 133-134, 155-156, 168 cooperation of, 22; dweling of, 22; Russell, Penny: family life of, 43-44; IQ possessions of, 22; family life of, 23; of, 44; age of, 44; dwelling of, 44; education of, 23; employment of, political preference of, 44; appearance 23-24; spending habits of, 24-25; and of, 44; personality of, 44-45; automobiles, 25; social life of, 25-27 education of, 45 ; leisure activities of, Special Education: 217-218; and IQ, 45; social life of, 45-46 232; and subjects, 233-235; format of, 236 sample: description of, 11-13; sterilization. See birth control representativeness of, 18-20 subjects: choice of, for interviews, self-evaluation: coding of, 10; 11-13; distribution of (table), 13; comparison of, of Chícanos and location of, 14-18; and use of Anglos, 107; comparison of, of men professional tracer, 17; IQ of, 18-20; and women, 160-161; of respondents, cooperation of, 134 quoted, 202-208 sex: as variable, 158; relation of IQ to Texas Rehabilitation Commission: use of study by, 5; as source of subjects, difference in, 158; and marital status, 11-12; and Chicano and Anglo 1 5 9 ; and health, 159; and subjects, 129; and married subjects, employment, 162-163 154-155; clients of, 233-234 sheltered workshops: xii; Anglos and

INDEX voters: comparison of Anglos and Chícanos as, 134; marrieds and singles as, 156; male and female respondents as, 168 Walker, Helen: age of, 36; vocabulary of, 36-37; appearance of, 37; dwelling of,

273 37; family of, 37; education of, 37-39; social life of, 40; work history of, 40-41; humor of, 41 welfare: comparison of Anglos and Mexican Americans on caseloads of, 128-129; and marriage, 154. See also material possessions