VI. MEXICAN AMERICAN IMMIGRANTS IN THE CENTERVILLE REGION: TEACHERS, CHILDREN, AND PARENTS

VI. MEXICAN AMERICAN IMMIGRANTS IN THECENTERVILLE REGION: TEACHERS, CHILDREN,

AND PARENTSIsabel T.Guti!errez,Karl S.Rosengren, andPeggy J.Miller

The word “death” is not pronounced in New York, in Paris, in London,because it burns the lips… The Mexican, in contrast, is familiar with death,jokes about it, caresses it, sleeps with it, celebrates it; it is one of his favorite toysand his most steadfast love.

Octavio Paz (1961)

Latinos comprise the fastest growing ethnic group in Centerville,accounting for roughly 4% of the population at the time of our study.Within this group, immigrants from Mexico were by far the most numerous.This pattern reflects changing demographics more generally; individuals ofMexican descent are the largest group of Latinos in the United States(US Census Bureau, 2000). However, there have been relatively few studies ofMexican Americans (Tenenbaum & Callanan, 2008). These demographiccontingencies, in conjunction with the distinctive elaboration of death that isa prominent aspect of Mexican culture, led us to undertake a preliminarystudy of Mexican American immigrants.

DEATH IN MEXICAN CULTURE

As the opening quote suggests, death is verymuch a part of life inMexicanculture, not something to be avoided. Some have even suggested that death isthe cultural symbol of Mexico (Brandes, 2003; Lomnitz, 2005). Attitudes

Corresponding author: Isabel T. Guti!errez, Humanities, Social Sciences & EducationDepartment, Raritan Valley Community College, 118 Lamington Road, Branchburg, NJ08876, email: [email protected]

97

toward death are perhaps best exemplified by the annual dı́a de los muertoscelebration in which a wide range of images of death are presented (seeFigure 5). These include pictures and models of human skulls, as well asskeletons adorned in colorful and festive outfits performing everydayactivities, such as teaching a class, getting married, or playing in a band.From an outsider’s perspective, these imagesmay seemmacabre, morbid, andscary. However, in Mexican culture these images are associated withworshipful remembrance of relatives and loved ones, and are prevalent inhomes, schools, and market places.

Dı́a de los muertos traditionally begins on October 31st and continues untilNovember 2nd. The original celebration had roots in Aztec rituals thatbecame intertwined with the Catholic commemoration of All Souls’ Day andAll Saints’ Day. The ceremony itself occurs outside of the auspices of theCatholic Church and priests are generally not incorporated into the festivities(Guti!errez, 2009). Aspects of the celebration vary slightly from region toregion in Mexico, but a number of customs are commonly practiced across

FIGURE 5.—Artwork with skulls and skeletons commonly found around Mexico duringthe celebration for dı́a de los muertos (from the personal collection of Isabel T. Guti!errez).Photo: NU/Isabel T. Guti!errez.

98

regions. Dı́a de los muertos is a national holiday, and teachers are expected tospend time in school focusing on the celebration.

One of the most central practices in this celebration is making anelaborate altar (ofrenda) to welcome the spirits of departed relatives. Theofrendas contain photographs of relatives, food for spirits, and decorations,including images of skulls and skeletons. El pan de muertos (bread of the dead),which is usually baked in the shape of skulls and bones, is often placed on theofrenda. Celebrations and vigils are also held in cemeteries, with children inattendance (Guti!errez, 2009). The overall goal of the ceremony is to welcomethe deceased and to celebrate death as the continuation of life.

Many of these cultural traditions remain strong in Mexican immigrantfamilies and are supported by local cultural institutions. For example, theNational Museum of Mexican Art in Chicago has an annual exhibit ofofrendas. Mexican American immigrant communities in large cities nearCenterville mark dı́a de los muertos with various activities for childrenand their families, including a popular dı́a de los muertos parade. Thus, wereasoned that a study of Mexican American immigrant families was not onlyimportant in its own right but would also offer an illuminating vantage pointon the socializing practices described in earlier chapters. In parallel withthose chapters on European Americans, this chapter explores the socializa-tion of death for Mexican Americans, identifying relevant socializingcontexts, and examines children’s affective and cognitive understandingsof death.

MEXICAN AMERICAN IMMIGRANTS IN AND AROUND CENTERVILLE

Although the Mexican American immigrant community in and aroundCenterville continues to grow rapidly, it numbered only about 4,000 at thetime of our study. Families came to Centerville in search of employment,especially in the agricultural and service sectors. Some had been migrantworkers and chose to stay. With the exception of a small number of Mexicansand Mexican Americans who were students or faculty at the university,Mexican American families were concentrated in four census tracts. Theseenclaves consisted of mobile homes and other very modest rental properties.Although we attempted to recruit Mexican American children and parentsprimarily from the Centerville community, due to difficulty with recruitmentwe expanded our recruitment to include a nearby major metropolitan areawith a large percentage of Mexican Americans (18.3%). Children and parentsrecruited from this location varied in legal status and worked in a variety ofjobs including factory work, construction, cashiers, and teachers’ aides. Thesefamilies were drawn from a single neighborhood that consisted predomi-nantly of families of Mexican descent.

99

MEXICAN AMERICAN IMMIGRANTS IN THE CENTERVILLE REGION

FOCUS GROUP WITH PRESCHOOL TEACHERS

As an initial step in understanding how Mexican American families viewdeath, we conducted a focus group with teachers from a small multiculturalpreschool in Centerville that served families from different ethnic back-grounds, but that included a number of Mexican American families. Thehead teacher in this school previously taught at the laboratory preschoolmentioned in Chapter II and was known by the researchers. Four otherteachers were invited to participate through personal communication withthe head teacher. The head teacher was bilingual in English and Spanish, andthe rest of the teachers spoke mostly Spanish. The teachers were interviewedon school premises at a time that was convenient for them (at the end of theschool day). Paralleling the focus group with teachers from the laboratorypreschool (Chapter II), the participating teachers were asked to discuss thechallenges they experienced when working with young children, includingsituations when they had to deal with the death of a child’s loved one. Indeference to the teachers’ language preferences the focus groupwas conductedprimarily in Spanish by bilingual members of our research team and lastedabout an hour. Audio tapes were transcribed, translated into English, andchecked for accuracy in the same manner as described in Chapter II.

The teachers expressed quite different sentiments from those expressedby the teachers at the laboratory preschool. They said that death should bediscussed openly with children and did not endorse shielding children fromdeath. One teacher said that children should be allowed to “continue talking[about death] because you need to get these feelings out. You know for thechild it is more important because he doesn’t have the coping skills.” Theyalso endorsed different ways of staying connected to the deceased personbecause “it comforts the child, where you can remember your loved ones ifyou think about them. If you have pictures of them around and theirbelongings, don’t close the room.” They also advocated discussing a spiritualconnection between the child and the deceased: “I think parents and adultsshould help the kids to be aware that even if the person is no longer physicallywith them, that they are still in their hearts, in their thoughts and in spirit.”Their view was that adults can help young children cope with death not byavoiding the topic but by encouraging them to remember the loved one andby cultivating their awareness of the abiding psychological and spiritualconnection to the deceased.

MEXICAN AMERICAN CHILDREN AND PARENTS

We next conducted a parallel investigation of Mexican Americanchildren and parents similar to that described in the other chapters.

100

Spanish-speaking members of our research team recruited first generationimmigrant families with parents born in Mexico and children born in eitherMexico or the United States. Most participants were recruited from personalcontacts in the Mexican American communities in Centerville and nearbyMexican American communities in the region. We begin by describing thechild interviews and results, and then discuss the results of interviews withMexican American parents.

Mexican American Child Interviews

Child ParticipantsTwenty-seven Mexican American children participated in this study

(Mage¼ 5 years, 5 months; SD¼ 11 months; range¼ 42–78 months). Thesample included 17 males and 10 females. Families lived primarily in rentedhousing. Because of the sensitivity of the issue, we did not ask parents abouttheir immigration status. Attendance at religious services wasmixed across thesample with parents reporting that their families attended a few times perweek (n¼ 1), once a week (n¼ 5), a few times a month (n¼ 1), once a month(n¼ 5), and only once or twice a year (n¼ 4). All families spoke Spanish astheir primary language.

Materials and ProceduresThe book that was used in the interviews with European American

children was modified to make it culturally appropriate for the MexicanAmerican children. We substituted photographs of Latina/Latino childrenand adults, and used photographs that matched the participating child inage and gender. In discussions with Mexican American colleagues and thetwo Mexican American student members of our research team, it wassuggested that birds weremore common pets than dogs inMexican Americanfamilies. For this reason, we replaced the dog with a bird. Although it could beargued that individuals are more likely to become emotionally attached todogs than birds, and to perceive dogs as perceptually more similarly tohumans than birds, we switched the items in order to be sensitive to commonpractices in the local Mexican American communities. Any differences inresponses to the pet item between European American and MexicanAmerican samples may be attributed to our use of different animals. However,different religions common among our European American families holdvery different beliefs about whether only humans or humans and animals havesouls. Families were paid $20 for completing both the child and parentinterviews.

The child interview protocol was translated into Spanish and then back-translated into English by two individuals fluent in both languages. Only a fewdiscrepancies were found and these were resolved through discussion. The

101


one-to-one interviews were conducted by researchers fluent in Spanish andEnglish. Spanish interviews were translated back into English, with a secondreader confirming the translation. We used this procedure, rather thancoding interviews in Spanish, as the majority of our research team was notbilingual.

Children's Affective Responses to Death

Similar to the European American sample, we asked the MexicanAmerican children how Terry might feel after the death of a relative, pet, andplant. Like themiddle-class European American sample, most of the childrenresponded that they would feel sad, bad, or cry following the death of a closerelative (56%), pet (56%), and plant (48%), although the comparable figureswere considerably higher for the European American children. Again, inparallel with their European American counterparts, a few children said thatTerry would feel good following the death of a relative, pet, or plant.

Themajority (74%) of the children said that they thought Terry’s parentsshould tell him or her about the death of the relative. A chi-square analysisrevealed the pattern of responses for the Mexican American children wassignificantly different from that of the European American children(x2(122)¼ 13.8, p< .001). More than 50% of the European Americansample, even 5-year-olds, did not respond or answered “don’t know” whenasked what they thought Terry’s parents should tell him or her about thedeath. The Mexican American children responded that the parents shouldtell Terry that the relative is “dead,” “not coming back,” and not to be sad.Only four children said they should not tell her, and only three children didnot respond or said: “don’t know.” Two of the children mentioned someform of causality stating that Terry’s parents should tell her that: “if a knife orbullet enters she will die” or that the relative died because “she did not takecare of her.”

These results reveal that compared to our European American sample,the Mexican American immigrant children responded very differently tothe question of what Terry’s parents should tell him or her about death.The majority of the Mexican American children said that Terry’s parentsshould tell him or her about the death of the aunt/uncle, pet, and theplant. For the aunt/uncle, only 11% said “don’t know” or gave no response.By contrast, 40% of their European American counterparts gave the “don’tknow” response to this question. Further, many of the MexicanAmerican children offered straightforward descriptions such as the relativeis “dead” and “not coming back” of what the parent should say. This isconsistent with the Mexican American parental beliefs and practices,described earlier, of familiarizing children with death instead of shieldingthem from it.

102

Children's Life and Death Reasoning and Subconcepts of Death

To explore group differences in children’s reasoning about life anddeath properties, we conducted a 2 (group: Mexican American, EuropeanAmerican)" 2 (gender: male, female)" 2 (life status: live, dead)" 2(property: biological, psychological)" 3 (item: human, dog, plant) repeatedmeasures analysis of variance. The dependent variable was the number ofresponses that were strictly biologically correct. Life status, property, and itemwere repeated measures. No main effect or interactions were obtained forgender, so this factor was dropped from the analysis.

Overall the Mexican American children responded to our questions in amanner similar to that of our European American children with two mainexceptions. As revealed in a significant main effect of group [F(1, 50)¼ 5.1,p¼ .03, h2p ¼ :09], the Mexican American children (M¼ 1.5, SE¼ .13) weremore likely to attribute biological and psychological properties to both livingand dead things than the European American children (M¼ 1.1, SE¼ .13).However, a significant life status by group interaction [F(1,50)¼ 18.4, p< .01,h2p ¼ :27] revealed that the two groups differed primarily in their attributionsfor dead things. Generally, Mexican American children were more likely toattribute biological and psychological properties to humans, animals, or plantsthan European American children (see Figure 6, Table 5a and Table 5b).

Subconcepts of DeathWe next explored potential differences in children’s understanding of

the subconcepts of death. For this comparison, we conducted a 2 (group:

FIGURE 6.—Attributions of properties for living anddead things forMexicanAmerican andEuropean American children.

103


Mexican American, European American)" 4 (subconcept: causality, univer-sality, finality, non-functionality)" 3 (item: human, dog, plant) repeatedmeasures analysis of variance on the composite scores for each of thesubconcepts. Subconcept and item were repeated measures.

Overall, Mexican American children (M¼ 1.10, SE¼ .08) appeared torespond to the biological subconcepts of death differently than EuropeanAmerican children; (M¼ 1.47, SE¼ .08, F(1,50)¼ 12.9, p< .01, h2p ¼ :21). Asignificant interaction between subconcept and group [F(3,48)¼ 9.4, p< .01,h2p ¼ :37] indicated that the primary differences in understanding were forthe subconcepts of universality and non-functionality. As can be seen inTable 6, the Mexican American children showed a significantly differentunderstanding of both of these concepts compared to the EuropeanAmerican children. Finally, a significant interaction of group with subconceptand item [F(6,45)¼ 4.32, p¼ .002, h2p ¼ :365] revealed more specific differ-ences between the two groups. European American children and MexicanAmerican children looked fairly similar on both causality and finalityfor humans, pets, and plants. However, although Mexican Americanchildren showed a relatively low rate of responding based on a biologicalperspective for universality, the European American children respondedbased on a consistent biological understanding of this subconcept. For

TABLE 5A

MEANS (SE) FOR ATTRIBUTION OF PROPERTIES BY GROUP, LIFE STATUS, AND ITEM

Human Dog Plant

Mexican AmericanLiving 2.39 (0.14) 2.05 (0.17) 1.4 (0.18)Dead 1.00 (0.17) 1.29 (0.21) 1.10 (0.19)

European AmericanLiving 2.69 (0.14) 2.50 (0.17) 0.95 (0.18)Dead 0.25 (0.18) 0.28 (0.21) 0.15 (0.19)

TABLE 5B

MEANS (SE) FOR ATTRIBUTIONS OF BIOLOGICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL PROPERTIES BY LIFE STATUS FOR

MEXICAN AMERICAN AND EUROPEAN AMERICAN CHILDREN

Biological Psychological

Mexican AmericanLiving 1.99 (0.11) 1.89 (0.14)Dead 1.15 (0.18) 1.12 (0.19)

European AmericanLiving 2.32 (0.11) 1.77 (0.14)Dead 0.14 (0.18) 0.32 (0.19)

104

non-functionality, European American children also were more likely torespond from a biological perspective than Mexican American children foreach of the three item types (see Table 6).

Noncorporeal ContinuityWe asked the same questions of theMexican American children as we did

of the European American children, concerning whether a special part ofTerry’s relative, pet, and plant remained after death. Generally, the MexicanAmerican children responded affirmatively (63% for the relative, 70% for thepet, and 56% for the plant). In contrast to the European American sample, veryfew of these responses involved mention of spirituality or afterlife beliefs. Twochildren (7%)mentioned that Terry’s relative “left withGod” or was “withGod,”one child mentioned that “Jesus was taking care of [the pet],” and one childmentioned that the plant was in “Heaven.” Only two of the children (7%)mentioned that the relative’s body or body parts remained after death. Fourchildren (15%) responded this way for the pet and four children (15%)mentioned parts of the plants remaining after death. Two of the children (7%)mentioned that Terry would remain after eachof the different entities had died.

As stated in Chapter V, previous research has found that the majority ofchildren and adults believe in some sort of continuation of functionality afterthe death of the physical body (Faulkner, 2001). Consistent with this line ofresearch, we found that a significant portion of children in our EuropeanAmerican sample provided some sort of explanation related to noncorporealcontinuity for Terry’s relative and pet. For example, many of the middle-classEuropean American children mentioned the body, bones, body parts, or thespirit or soul remaining after death. In contrast, very few of the MexicanAmerican children we interviewed spontaneously mentioned the body, or aspirit or soul remaining after death. Given our other results for the Mexican

TABLE 6

MEANS (SE) OF SUBCONCEPT UNDERSTANDING BY ITEM FOR THE TWO GROUPS

Causality Universality Finality Non-Functionality

Mexican AmericanHuman 1.04 (0.13) 0.55 (0.13) 1.58 (0.12) 1.34 (0.12)Bird 1.10 (0.14) 0.46 (0.13) 1.46 (0.14) 1.14 (0.14)Plant 1.11 (0.14) 0.66 (0.15) 1.45 (0.14) 1.27 (0.14)Overall 1.08 (0.12) 0.56 (0.11) 1.50 (0.11) 1.25 (0.12)

European AmericanHuman 1.15 (0.13) 1.43 (0.13) 1.71 (0.12) 1.79 (0.12)Dog 1.29 (0.14) 1.36 (0.13) 1.45 (0.14) 1.81 (0.14)Plant 1.40 (0.14) 0.85 (0.15) 1.57 (0.14) 1.90 (0.13)Overall 1.28 (0.12) 1.21 (0.11) 1.58 (0.10) 1.83 (0.12)

105


American children, perhaps they simply took continuity of the body and spiritfor granted.

CHILDREN'S COGNITIVE MODELS OF DEATH

The same two researchers who coded the middle-class EuropeanAmerican interviews for cognitive models coded the Mexican Americaninterviews for cognitive models. This coding was conducted using an Englishtranslation of the transcripts. Only four of the 27 (15%) children madereference to any religious entities (e.g., God, Heaven, Jesus) and thesecomments were made only in response to the questions asking whether aspecial part remained after death. These children were coded as having atarget-dependent coexistent model of death. By default, all other childrenwere coded as having a natural biological model of death.

Mexican American Parental Interviews

Parent ParticipantsSeventeen parents agreed to participate in an interview. They were

somewhat younger than themiddle-class EuropeanAmerican parents, rangingin age from 24 to 46 years with a mean age of 34.2 years (SD¼ 7.3 years), andhad less education.Oneparent had a college degree andonehad some collegeexperience. Six graduated from high school and four attended but did notcomplete high school. Five parents did not provide this information. All butone of the parents was raised Catholic or was currently practicing Catholicism.The remaining individual did not cite any religious affiliation.

Materials and ProceduresMexican American parents were interviewed rather than asked to

complete a questionnaire. The parent interview contained the same questionsthat were used with the European American parents. The interview wastranslated into Spanish and then back-translated into English by twoindividuals fluent in both languages. Discrepancies were resolved throughdiscussion. We added a number of questions to the interview that focusedon knowledge and practices related to wakes and funeral services as well asdı́a de los muertos. We used the same procedures for the parent interviews as wedid with the child interviews.

Mexican American Parent Interviews: Results

Parent Self-RatingsThe Mexican American parents were asked to rate themselves on the

same dimensions as the European American parents (e.g., scientific,

106

religious). We compared these self-ratings with those reported in Chapter IVfor the European American sample by using nonparametric approaches(Independent sample Median Test, Kruskal–Wallis Test). The median valuesand distribution of scores for the Mexican American parents weresignificantly different for both scientific and skeptical (Medians¼ 2, slightlyaccurate), when compared to the European American sample (Median¼ 4,very accurate for scientific, and Median¼ 3, somewhat accurate for skeptical,p< .001), but not for any of the other scales (mystical, rational, emotional,religious, spiritual). Thus, it appears that the Mexican American parentsdiffered from European American parents primarily in terms of theirattitudes toward science.

Family Traditions Related to DeathAll parents were familiar with the celebration for dı́a de los muertos and all

but one celebrated this event as a child. Nine parents (53%) stated that theycurrently celebrate dı́a de los muertos with their families, but most describedcelebrating it in a less elaborate manner than is traditionally done in Mexico.The most commonly reported practices related to dı́a de los muertos werepraying and going to mass. Three families (18%) mentioned that theyconstructed ofrendas and left food offerings for dead relatives. Parentsdescribed dı́a de los muertos as a time to remember and honor those who weredead. One parent responded: “[it is] the day that you remember your lovedones that have died. [You serve them] the food they liked when they werealive. Because their spirits will come that day and take the essence of the foodand leave the rest.”

Parents' Folk Theories: Familiarize Children With DeathIn contrast to European American adults’ dominant folk belief that

children should be shielded from death, a major theme from the interviewswith Mexican American parents was that children should be exposed todeath. Several Mexican American parents stated that it is important tofamiliarize children with death. One supported this statement by saying:“because I think death is inevitable and it’s for them to learn why we die.”Another stated: “I think that they need to learn that everything has its time.”One parent reported that in response to the death of a relative theirchild commented: “death is bad.” They responded by saying “no death isgood.” It is hard to imagine any of our European American parents makingthis comment.

About half of Mexican American parents (47%) said they did not shieldtheir children from death inmovies. One parent explained doing so “becauseI think death is inevitable and it’s better for them to learn why we die.” Thoseparents who responded that they did shield their children from death inmovies gave the following reasons: the content was not age appropriate, theywere concerned about their children’s emotions, and they would have

107


difficulty explaining the death to their child. These minority views aresimilar to the dominant folk theory voiced by middle-class EuropeanAmerican parents and teachers in Centerville (see Chapter III). A fewparents also responded that they would shield their children from deathportrayed in books, though only one provided a reason, saying it was not ageappropriate.

To be clear, parents’ responses about death were quite different thantheir responses about images of violence. For example, whereas most parentsresponded that they do not shield their children from death in movies, all ofthe parents stated that they shield their children from movies containinggraphic violence and all but one responded that they would shield theirchildren from books containing graphic violent images. The majority ofparents were worried that their children might imitate the violent behavior(“Because if they watch violence on television then they will learn what theysaw.” “Because I believe if they see violence, then they will become violent.”).Thus, these parents made a distinction between exposure to death andexposure to graphic violence.

Children's Exposure to DeathWe also asked parents questions regarding their children’s real-life

experiences with death. Only four parents (24%) reported that their childrenhad experienced the death of a close friend or relative. The individuals whodied were grandparents and a cousin. Five parents also reported that a familypet had died. Two of the children in these families had also experienced thedeath of a close friend or relative. One parent reported that her child had anumber of pets that had died, including rabbits, fish, birds, and a dog. A fewparents stated that the children were upset and cried when either the friend orrelative died or when pets died. Four parents reported that their children hadattended a funeral or memorial service. All of these children had alsoexperienced the death of a close friend or relative. None of the parents in theMexican American sample had used any books as sources of information tohelp their children cope with death.

Mexican American Children's Questions About Death/Parents' AnswersIn Chapter IV we explored European American parents’ retrospective

reports of children’s questions about death and parents’ own responses. Herewe examine the same reports from Mexican American families.

Mexican American parents reported 33 questions regarding death(M¼ 1.9 per parent). Based on parental reports, Mexican American childrenasked more questions about death (M¼ 1.9) compared to EuropeanAmerican children (M¼ 1.2, t(92)¼ 4.4, p< .001). All parents reportedthat their children asked questions about dı́a de los muertos. Five parents (29%)stated that their children had asked questions about the death of a closerelative or friend. This same percentage asked questions about a funeral,

108

wake, or memorial service. Six children (35%) asked questions about thedeath of the pet. We examined the content of children’s questions in terms oftraditions and the subconcepts of death. The majority of the questions aboutdeath focused on the subconcepts of death (91%), with two death relatedquestions focusing on prayer or burial practices and one about emotions(“why do people cry [when someone dies]?”).Children's questions/adult responses about death traditions. Over half of the parents(59%) reported that their children asked specific questions about traditionsassociated with death.

Examples of these questions included: “Why do we go to the cemetery?”“Why do we pray for a man I do not know?” Other questions focused ongeneral or specific aspects of dı́a de los muertos. For example, two childrenasked general questions: “What is dı́a de los muertos?”; “Why is dı́a de los muertoscelebrated that way?” In response, one of the parents responded that “it is aday of festivities for the dead that we, those that are alive, celebrate with a lot ofrespect and love.” The other parent explained that dı́a de los muertos iscelebrated the way it is because it is a “tradition of Mexican Catholics.” Otherquestions from children concerned specific aspects of the ritual itself. Twoquestions pertained to why certain items (e.g., food, pictures) were placed onthe ofrendas (“Why do I put food and pictures?”; “Mom, why do you put all ofthat and the pictures?”). The parents of these children responded that itemswere placed on the ofrenda to remember the dead (“Well we remember themand it’s a tradition in our family.”) and also to provide nourishment when thedead “visited.” For example, one parent said the items were placed on theofrenda “because God gives them permission to come down to eat what theyused to like to eat.” Overall, parents responded to children’s questions abouttraditions either by explaining that certain practices were done out oftradition (33%) or used these questions as an opportunity to talk aboutaspects of noncorporeal continuity (67%).Children's questions/adult responses about subconcepts. The majority of questionsconcerning the subconcepts of death (77%) dealt with the subconceptcausality. Most of these questions asked “why do people die?” or why a specificperson died. Themajority of parents’ responses (61%) to questions of causalityprovided natural/biological causes for death (e.g., “people die due to accidents,illness, or because they are old,” “because they were sick or had an accident,”“there are sometimes accidents, and some people die before others; age doesnot matter”). The remaining responses (21%) focused on noncorporealcontinuity in response to the why question (“He went to a beautiful place andone day we will reunite with him,” “because God made us, but when [He]decides, we will die to be with him,” “they went to heaven”) or referred touniversality (14%) to elaborate their initial response (e.g., “We are all going todie, it’s something that is normal,” “because everyone will die some day”).

109


Seventeen percent of the children’s questions focused on finality (e.g.,“are we ever going to see him again?” “Where do dead people go? Will I seethem again?”) with parents’ responses focusing mostly on aspects of life afterdeath or noncorporeal continuity (e.g., “yes, we will see them again,” “they goto heaven”). One child asked if his mother was going to die (universality) towhich the parent responded, “Yes, we are all going to die.”

Parental Cognitive Models

We used the same approach, procedures, and coders as reported inChapter V to examine the cognitive models held by the Mexican Americanparents. The most common model was the target dependent model (59%)with three parents coded as having a blendedmodel (18%) and three holdinga religious model of death (18%). Only one of theMexican American parentswas coded as holding a scientific model of death. A chi-square analysisrevealed no difference in the distribution of cognitive models across thesamples.

DISCUSSION

In this chapter we explored the socialization of death for young MexicanAmerican children. Like their European American counterparts, thesechildren had experienced few deaths of loved ones. However, the folktheories held by their parents and by preschool teachers stood in markedcontrast to the dominant folk theory of shielding described in Chapter II;these adults believed that it is beneficial for young children to be familiar withdeath because death is inevitable. They also believed that it is comforting toyoungsters to remember the deceased and to be conscious of the abidingpsychological and spiritual connection to the dead. These beliefs are similarto those expressed by Mexican parents (Guti!errez, 2009) and may reflectimmigrant parents’ experiences of participating in dı́a de los muertos when theywere growing up. Half of the parents reported that their children hadparticipated in dı́a de los muertos, and all said that their children askedquestions about this festival.

Although the folk theory that structured Mexican American children’sexperience contradicted a key premise of the dominant European Americanversion, both folk theories recognized that death is affectively charged. Themost intriguing finding pertaining to affect, however, centered on theMexican American children’s responses when asked what a hypotheticalchild’s parents should tell him or her about specific deaths. The majority ofthe children not only said that the parents should tell the child about thedeath but also offered straightforward descriptions of what the parents should

110

say. Only 11% of the Mexican American children gave no response or said,“don’t know,” in contrast to 40% of the European American children. Inother words, a question that was apparently difficult for the EuropeanAmerican children was not difficult for the Mexican American children. Thissuggests that these differencesmay be attributable to differences in socializingcontext—specifically, folk theories that familiarize versus shield childrenfrom death.

Differences in the socialization of death also emerged from our analysesof the cognitive dimensions of children’s understanding of death. In general,Mexican American children were significantly more likely than middle-classEuropean American children to attribute both biological and psychologicalproperties of living things to dead humans, pets, and plants. This is consistentwith the celebration for dı́a de los muertos, in which the dead are thought tocome back to the realm of the living, where they eat the food provided forthem. In addition, Mexican American children were significantly more likelythan middle-class European American children to respond that not allhumans or pets die and that some could live forever. Mexican Americanchildren were also more likely to ask questions about death than EuropeanAmerican children, and their parents were more likely to providestraightforward, clear messages about the causes of death and to say thatdeath is universal. We found none of the avoidant or evasive responses in thissample that we found in the European American sample. The MexicanAmerican parents also provided numerous comments or responses toquestions that suggested that biological and psychological processes continueafter death (e.g., “[You serve them] the food they liked when they were alive.Because their spirits will come that day and take the essence of the food andleave the rest,” “[the food on the ofrenda] provide[d] nourishment when thedead “visited.” “[the items were placed on the ofrenda] becauseGod gives thempermission to come down to eat what they used to like to eat.”).

Taken together, the results reported in this chapter suggest thatsocialization practices play a significant role in shaping children’s under-standing of death. For example, most Mexican American parents reportednot shielding their children from death, and the children seemed to reflectthis same attitude in responses to the hypothetical scenario involving Terry.The higher rate of questions about death on the part of Mexican Americanchildrenmay also reflect their parents’ greater openness to the topic of death,in keeping with their belief that it is best for children to become familiar withdeath. Similarly, exposure toMexican culture, such as the celebrations for dı́ade los muertos, may have played a role in Mexican American childrenattributing biological and psychological properties to the dead, as well asbelieving that some things could live forever.

Before concluding this chapter, several considerations need to beaddressed. According to our data, a major portion of Mexican American

111


parents identified as Catholic, whereas a large portion of middle-classEuropeanAmerican parents identified as Protestant. Although it is not knownwhat (if any) influence this difference might have on our data regardingchildren’s responses, it is possible that religious differences played a role inour findings. Similar to our interviews with the European American children,we did not prime the Mexican American children with any religious context.To explore more closely how religion influences children’s reasoning aboutdeath it may be important to explicitly provide a religious context. Further,there are social class differences in the two samples. It is possible that the lowerself-ratings for science among theMexican American parents, compared withthe European American parents, reflected differences in educational levelbetween the two groups.

112

VI. MEXICAN AMERICAN IMMIGRANTS IN THE CENTERVILLE REGION: TEACHERS, CHILDREN, AND PARENTS

Documents