International labour migration processes of the last decades saw increasing numbers of solo female migrants employed primarily in the domestic care sector of developed countries. Many of these women were mothers who left their children in the sending countries and thus gave rise to a controversial phenomenon of transnational motherhood. The present thesis is based on the first empirical study of intergenerational narratives of mothers, Georgian labour migrants to Italy, and
their children, left behind in Georgia, who shared their experiences of separation and transnational motherhood.
Considering the complexity of international migration, a single discipline cannot explain it thoroughly. Four theoretical insights are employed in the present thesis to understand experiences of transnational motherhood: sociology of international migration, sociology of the family, gender studies and sociology of emotions. The following approaches are of particular importance: an analytic perspective of transnational migration and theories of self-selection of international labour
migrants with close ties with their communities of origin; different migration experiences of males and females, and recent trends of feminization of labour migration; traditional and “alternative” ideologies of motherhood and changing motherhood practices in transnational families, that are of
central interest to the present research project. When studying transnational motherhood, it is impossible to avoid very close attention to emotional aspects accompanying transnational family life, which, so far, have been largely overlooked by migration scholars.
The very fact of mothers’ international labour migration is a challenge to the traditional, deeply rooted ideology of motherhood. Often unconsciously, migrant mothers adhere to “alternative”, “rational”, future-oriented model(s) of parenting prioritizing “long-term projects of care” (Leifsen & Tymczuk, 2012), although they often continue to live their experiences considering traditional understandings of motherhood. This is the first of a series of “dualities” that accompany experiences of transnational motherhood. The traditional ideology of motherhood appears to be
unequipped to “frame” transnational motherhood as, within its framework, mothers’ choice to leave their children is reprehensible, yet transnational mothers’ physical absence is not an equivalent of “leaving” their children.
Informants’ narratives strongly suggest that long periods of physical separation did not jeopardize bonds between mothers and children in transnational families. While informants’ selection bias is probable, the mother-child bond was not “broken” and the very essence of motherhood remained intact. Thanks to constant communication and involvement in joint family projects mothers and children were present in each other’s lives and cared about each other’s feelings; in many families,
certain “distant affective” motherhood practices were created. Some children noted that during their mothers’ emigration – and, to a certain extent, thanks to it – they grew closer to their mothers as, paradoxically, they were managing to communicate more, and had more quality communication.
Thus, while physically absent, migrant mothers maintained a strong presence in their families both mentally and emotionally (not to speak economically). Many forms of mothers’ and children’s online co-presence were documented during the interviews. Its importance notwithstanding, interviews also prove that the Internet cannot be considered a solution to the problem of family separation. It may reduce the pain caused by separation, but cannot be a complete substitute for
mothers’ physical absence from their families.
Two profound and, at the same time, highly mismatched sentiments strongly featured in interviews with migrant mothers. On the one hand, mothers were consciously sacrificing their years in emigration, to the extent that, often, their lifestyle was, de-facto, self-denial filled almost exclusively with hard work. At the same time, they reported strong feelings of guilt, repeating over and over again that they hoped their children would eventually forgive them for this separation. In
fact, mothers felt guilty for full devotion to their children who, in their turn, saw no guilt in mothers’ actions – on the contrary, were grateful to them. This paradox seems impossible to understand and explain rationally as it appears to be based chiefly on migrant mothers’ emotional reactions.
Separation was experienced painfully by both mothers and children. However, when informants’ feelings were contrasted with a rationalization of separation as a consequence of a calculated choice made for the good of the family, mothers’ emigration appeared to be the right decision despite the pain it caused. All but one interviewed mothers said they would not change their migration decision if they could go back in time. Moreover, they almost univocally reported readiness to “keep going on”, and continue working in emigration to help their children (and, often, newly arrived grandchildren) until they were physically able to do so, because, as they put it, “motherhood never ends”.