doing family across borders: the role of routine practices, traditions and festivities in lithuania

Contemporary life, marked by constant change, globalization and migration, dispels family members more and more often. During the last few decades, they have not necessarily been living under one roof anymore; living in different countries has not been an infrequent phenomenon either. The functions of childrearing and upbringing, material provision, protection from external forces and other functions, which for many centuries had been an almost exclusive competence of the family, are being increasingly taken over by educational establishments (kindergartens, schools, extracurricular activities), social protection and care institutions, banks, nongovernmental institutions, etc. Part of those functions are increasingly carried out by the members of personal networks who are not related by blood or marriage. Thus, family and extended family links have lost their functional relevance in comparison with those that existed a century or more ago. On the other hand, social research has shown that people still prioritize family relations over other relations (Pahl and Spencer, 2004). The efforts to maintain and foster relations between the members of the nuclear family are especially evident: they involve the development of family traditions, special rituals, celebration of festivities, etc. Apart from that, the same practices also involve people who do not belong to the ‘traditional’ family. In the long run, these people may be assigned to the socalled ‘fictitious’ family (Glendon, 1981; Stacey, 1990). When a relation of such type becomes extremely close, it may replace broken or non-existent ‘traditional’ family relations. The cases discussed above introduce some variety into family relations. The extreme spread of this variety during the recent decades has made it difficult to determine, within the set norms and by applying only traditional research methods, family borders, i.e. who is a family member and who is not. Sociologists started especially intensively analyzing the concept, composition and the formation of the family in

1970s when a gap between the family concept and family statistics became apparent (Bernardes, 1985;Trost, 1988;and others).
In Lithuania, research on family relations and doing them started more than three decades ago (Česnuitytė, 2014b;2014b;Juozeliūnienė, 1992;Maslauskaitė, 2002a;2002b;2005;2009a;2009b;and others). Research results confirm that Lithuanians tend to focus on the nuclear family (Česnuitytė, 2012;Maslauskaitė, 2005;Wall et al., 2018). On the other hand, people not related by blood or marriage are increasingly often included into the network of family members (Česnuitytė, 2013). Although such people are not numerous in family networks, this trend is obvious, especially when, in response to the question about one's family members, respondents indicate the individuals not related by blood or marriage as the first ones among most important to them people (Česnuitytė, 2012). In the families with migration experience, family relations and functions are very often substituted by the individuals beyond the nuclear or extended family (Juozeliūnienė and Leonavičiūtė, 2008;Maslauskaitė and Stankūnienė, 2007). People residing in Lithuania but willing to maintain relationship with emigrant family members plan the events of their lives respectively (Mikulionienė, 2013;2014). Other aspects of Lithuanian families related to migration have also been researched: Maslauskaitė (2009c) revealed the genesis and development prospects of the family living across borders; Juozeliūnienė et al. (2008) analyzed the methodological specificities of research on such families, etc. However, there is still little data on the activities (practices) important for doing family in the context of mass migration, and how family practices are related to personal networks.
This chapter presents the results of the research on doing family in the context of migration. The relevance of the subject is determined by a few circumstances: (a) the lack of knowledge about Lithuanian families whose members reside across borders; (b) the variety of the forms of doing family at the beginning of 21 century, urging to search for new research methods in order to reveal the relationship with reality; (c) theoreticalmethodological approaches existing in the global scientific context which are still too rarely applied when researching the Lithuanian family. The research raises the following main questions: What family practices are typical of doing the Lithuanian family? How do these practices change when family members emigrate?
The object of the research is family practices relevant for doing the Lithuanian family. The research aim is to identify family practices which mobilize the members of a personal network of Lithuanian residents into The hypotheses were tested against the empirical data collected in Lithuania in 2018 by way of a representative sample survey and a quota sample survey.
The chapter consists of an introduction, two main sections and conclusions. A list of literature referred to is given at the end of the chapter. The first section consists of the presentation of the theoretical basis of the research and reveals that the analysis is based on the theoretical approaches to family practices (Morgan, 1996;2011) and doing family (Smart, 2007). The characteristics of empirical data sources and analysis methods are presented at the beginning of the second section. It is stated there that an open family concept was applied during the selection and analysis of data (Bernardes, 1985). Further down in the section, there is a description of identified practices of doing family and their changes after the emigration of family members. The chapter ends with conclusions on family practices which are important for doing the Lithuanian family irrespective of its members' blood and marriage relations and their places of residence.

Theoretical Background
The sociological studies of the last several decades have revealed that the increasing variety of the forms of family organization has expanded the familial relations beyond blood or marriage relations and has involved the given and chosen systems of relatives (Donati;2010;Cherlin, 1999). People tend to choose the members of their personal networks with whom they are related by friendship, love, mutual respect, care, etc. Adults increasingly involve friends (Pahl and Spencer, 2004;Spencer and Pahl, 2006) and other non-kin, i.e. individuals not related by blood or marriage, in their personal networks. Relationships in personal networks become more structurally and functionally diverse. Sometimes, friends and other non-kin can even replace one's family. According to Allan (2006), in the contemporary society non-family members sometimes take over such family functions as support, proximity, leisure activities, etc. The families of alternative composition provide to their members welfare, psychological and material support which is related to interdependence and responsibility sharing rather than family structure (Lansford et al., 2001). On the other hand, when choosing between non-family and the family, the latter is preferred by most people, even by young and lonely ones (Pahl and Spencer, 2004). The authors note that the nature of family relations is shaped by the expectations that the relationship will last long: affection, knowledge that the family relation will continue create the feeling of trust and identification with others, therefore it is considered as a value. Therefore, in respect of the members of the traditional family, big efforts to maintain the existing relationships are made even in the cases of disagreements or conflicts, just because the individuals are related by blood or marriage. Such a trend becomes especially evident in extraordinary cases, e.g. during an economic crisis, in case of emergency, emigration of family members, etc. The choice between a family and non-family is determined by the acquired social norms related with family responsibilities, therefore most people prefer to spend time with family or relatives even if they are spiritually or geographically distant (Ibid).
A question of family boundaries arises in the pluralism of the personal network. The boundary between family and non-family ties is waning, family boundaries are increasingly becoming blurred (Jamieson et al., 2006). The authors searching for an answer on family boundaries emphasize different criteria of their identification: care (Bengtson, 2001;Donati, 2010), love and voluntary commitment (Giddens, 1992;Smart, 2007;and others), friendship (Pahl and Spencer, 2004), etc. In this context, Morgan (1996) has proposed a concept of family practices. Morgan (1996) sees a family as a dynamic and constantly changing phenomenon, and its members as an active creators: people create interpersonal relationships through participating in joint activities which can potentially become family relations in the long run. Morgan (2011) believes that family practices include a variety of routine and non-routine family events and relationships and this variety draws the line between the actual family life and a constructed institute of the family. Smart (2007) has extended the concept: emphasizing that the creation of a family is an active process, she proposed the approach of doing family. The author believes that family ties do not get formed on their own, on the contrary, the creation and maintenance of strong interpersonal relationships require traditions, rituals, social and other actions, otherwise they will remain merely formal. Similarly, Bengtson (2001) asserts that the family is an entirety of things done together by family members. In the latter case, however, the practices are related to the functions of the family rather than to doing family, i.e. the family is created by a purposeful process rather than family ties.
The ideas of family practices and doing family have gained ground in the academic community and are being widely applied when analyzing fatherhood, motherhood, friendship, intimate life and other phenomena. The author of the chapter supports Morgan (1996) and Smart's (2007) ideas about the mobilizing power of family practices and doing family, therefore these two theoretical approaches have been chosen as the main ones in this research. Morgan (2004;2011) believes that the sense of communion among people is created not only by festivities, but also by daily communication and routine actions. In Morgan's (1996) terms, family practices have no direct relation to space. Family practices can be performed in various spaces: at home, at work, at a restaurant, at a club as well as in Lithuania and abroad. In this respect, the approach of family practices is especially suitable for research on doing migration-related families.
Family practices are not directly linked with time (Ibid). They may be both constant and variable, they tend to recur periodically. Various family practices may take place on a daily, weekly, monthly or yearly basis or at other time slots. On the other hand, the practices important for doing family depend on the historical period, the stage of family life, family composition and on other circumstances. In any case, inclusiveness is typical of family practices, while joint activities create interpersonal relationships among the participants.
Due to the similarities in the content of the concepts, Morgan (1996;2011) compared family practices with the habitus concept proposed by Bourdieu (1977;. Routine is important for both the practices of doing family and habitus. For instance, it is important whether family members eat together, at home or somewhere else, how they do it, etc. Nevertheless, Bourdieu (1998) analyses family practices as collective norms and values internalized by individuals, while Morgan (2011) focuses on their mobilizing power. Morgan (2011) determined common features between family practices and the theoretical methodological approach of family configurations (Widmer, 2016). In both approaches, the family is defined by applying an open family concept where the feeling of togetherness subjectively conceived by individuals plays an important role, or, in other words, where the feeling of 'we' (Bernardes, 1988;Levin, 1999) is important.
What belongs to family practices? The typology of family practices proposed by Wolin and Bennett (1984) is among the most influential ones and includes the following: festivities, traditions and routine practices. Festivities include cultural celebrations dominating in a certain society, e.g. Christmas, Easter, etc. They may also include consecration rituals, like marriage, baptism, etc. Traditions are less related to the culture dominating in the society and are secular. They may include birthdays, anniversaries, extended family gatherings, holidays, meals, etc. Routine practices include daily communication, childcare, domestic chores, etc. These practices are frequent and indispensably periodical. Differently from traditions and festivities, routine practices involve instrumental communication, shortterm not binding relationships among participants, while traditions and festivities are related with emotions and continuity (Fiese, 2006;Fiese et al., 2002). The practices of traditions and festivities may be passed down from generation to generation, may involve long-term commitments and responsibilities which may require one's efforts, time, funds and other resources. Due to these qualities, traditions and festivities are particularly important for family sustainability. In this research, for the purposes of operationalization of family practices, we have adapted namely the typology proposed by Wolin and Bennett (1984) as it is comprehensive and goes in line with the research objective.

Research Methodology
Hypothesis H1 (see 'Introduction') formulated in this research was tested against the data of the quantitative representative sociological survey. The data of quota survey were used to reveal the links of doing family with migration processes and to test hypothesis H2 (see 'Introduction'). The data of the latter survey are not representative, therefore it is not possible to extend the results of this survey to the national scale; nevertheless, these results supplement the research results obtained from the data of the representative survey and provide information on how migration affects the experience of doing family.
Both mentioned surveys were conducted and empirical data were collected while implementing the scientific research project 'Global Migration and Lithuanian Family: Family Practices, Circulation of Care and Return Strategies' 101 .
Sampling. The fieldwork of the quantitative representative sampling of Lithuanian residents was carried out and empirical data were collected in June-July 2018. The surveyed general sample was 2.370 million country residents aged 18 and above irrespective of their ethnicity, nationality, language and legal status in the country. The survey sample was formed by applying multi-stage random stratified sampling, at first by applying the sampling criteria of the size of the county and the location of residence and later by applying random route sampling. 1005 adult Lithuanian residents were interviewed during the survey.
The fieldwork of the quota sampling was carried out and data were collected in August-September 2018. 406 adults with direct migration experience were interviewed during the survey. They were living in Lithuania at the moment of the research; however, they had gone abroad previously due to various reasons.
Survey instruments and operationalization. Standardized questionnaires consisting of over 100 questions were used in both surveys. In order to achieve the research objective presented in this chapter, selected questions from the questionnaire were used, the questions being related to the following aspects: (a) identification of personal and family networks; (b) analysis of family practices; (c) respondents' social demographic characteristics.
The open family concept (Bernardes, 1986;Levin, 1999) is used to identify respondents' personal and family networks, when the researcher does not pre-define the categories of family and non-family members and their identification criteria. Instead, the respondent is given the freedom to indicate himself/ herself which members of their personal network they consider as family members and which ones they do not. The process consists of several steps (Widmer, 2016): (1) the respondent is asked to name the members of their personal network that are important for him/ her (by using the following question: 'Who were the important individuals for you during the last 12 months?'), and the researcher makes a list of these persons; (2) the respondent is asked questions about the social demographic characteristics of every listed important person (gender, age, place of residence); (3) the respondent is asked the following question about every listed important person: 'Do you consider this person as your family member?'; this allows to identify the subjectively conceived family members in one's personal network; (4) the respondent is asked the following question about every listed important person: 'Please specify how these individuals are related to you'; this allows to identify formal family members in one's personal network. During the last step of this survey, each respondent was given an auxiliary card with a list of possible relationships with important persons. An authors of this survey drafted in advance the list of 21 categories and left the last category open, thus allowing the respondents to name, at their discretion, the categories of family relations which had not been included in the list. In total, 36 categories were identified. For the purposes of optimizing the analysis, they have been classified into four groups: family of procreation (which covers the following categories: spouse, partner, daughter, son), family of orientation (which covers the following categories: mother, father, sister, brother, stepmother, stepfather), other kin (which covers the following categories: grandmother, granddaughter, grandson, great-granddaughter, daughter-in-law, son-in-law, mother-in-law, fatherin-law, mother of the daughter-in-law, father of the daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, aunt, uncle, nephew, niece, other kin related by blood or marriage; a former spouse was also assigned to the category) and non-kin (which covers the following categories: female friend, male friend, neighbor, etc.). In order to make it more concise, in the analysis text and in the pictures the respondents are sometimes called 'Ego' and the members of their personal and family networks are called ' Alter' .
For the purposes of identifying family practices, the questions in line with the typology proposed by Wolin and Bennett (1984;Bennett et al., 1988) were included in the instrument. The questionnaires of both surveys include respective questions starting with the following phrase: 'With whom from important persons do you usually... '. For the purposes of identifying routine practices, three questions were formulated relating with people's emotional, instrumental and financial support to each other (respective questions R9, R10 and R11, see Figure 2).
For the purposes of identifying traditions, two questions were formulated regarding joint meals and holidays (respective questions R12 and R21, see Figure 2). Families usually have more traditions, however the limited scope of the research allowed us to include only the ones which are more or less typical of every family.
For the purposes of the questions on festivities, the researcher chose the most popular and significant occasions celebrated by most residents of the country. Moreover, account was taken of the fact that there are religious and non-religious festivities; therefore, religious and secular festivities were considered separately. In order to identify the practices related to religious festivals, questions on Christmas Eve, Christmas, Easter and All Saints' Day were formulated (respective questions R13, R14, R16 and R19, see Figure  2). In order to identify secular festivities, the questions on the following occasions were formulated: the Mother's Day, celebrated on the first Sunday of every May, the Father's Day, celebrated on the first Sunday of every June, New Year's Eve and the respondent's birthday (respective questions R17, R18, R15, and R20, see Figure 2).
In the questionnaire of the quota survey, side by side with every question related above described to family practices, an additional question was formulated on the same family practices performed in a different context, i.e. when the respondent temporarily lived abroad. All those questions start with the wording 'While you lived abroad, with which of these important persons did you... '.
Research methods. In the analysis of empirical data and when testing the hypotheses, the methods of descriptive statistics and multivariate statistical analysis were applied. Frequencies (in absolute numbers and per cent) and the t-test were used from the first type of method, while the Binary Logistic Regression analysis and Factor analysis were used from the methods of multivariate statistical analysis. Empirical data were processed by the tools of the SPSS program.

Description of family practices
Thirteen family practices are being analyzed in the research. According to the data of the representative survey, only 8% of all important persons listed by respondents do not participate in any joint family practice, while 12% participate in all studied family practices (see Figure 1). One member of the personal network participates on average in 7 family practices together with the respondents.
Of all family practices analyzed in the representative survey, birthdays have the biggest mobilizing power for the members of the personal network: 73% of important persons normally participate in respondents' birthdays (see Figure 2). Religious festivals -Christmas Eve, Christmas, Easter -are of equal importance. 68-69% of personal network members normally participate in these festivities together with the respondents. Somewhat fewer, but anyway more than half of important persons (53%) meet with the respondents on All Saint's Day when Lithuanian residents visit their ancestors' graves irrespective of the distance from their place of residence. About two thirds of listed important persons (59%) normally exchange emotional support with the respondent. A similar share of personal network members (58%) usually participate, together with the respondents, in the Mother's Day festivity. It is noteworthy here that only half (51%) of personal network members meet with the respondents on the Father's Day. In respect of other joint activities, less than half of the respondents' important persons participate in the following occasions: celebrating New Year's Eve (46%), having breakfast, lunch or dinner together at least once a week (45%), helping each other with daily chores (36%), manage their finance together (32%), have a holiday together at least once a year (30%). It is noteworthy that around one third of the persons important to the respondents normally participate even in those family practices which attract the least number of important persons. Such results imply an assumption about a close relationship between family practices and personal and family networks.
The attempt to group family practices by means of the Factor analysis produced no results: various family practices were significant for several factors at the same time, irrespective of the number of studied factorstwo, three, four or more. Therefore, it may be stated that there is no clear distribution among the activities, when certain important persons  normally participate in certain activities only, and others participate in only other types of activities. Instead, most of the listed important persons participate, together with the respondents, in several and sometimes in all studied family practices (see Figure 1). Therefore, further in the research family practices are analyzed according to the preliminary formal typology: routine practices, traditions, religious festivals and secular festivities.

The power of family practices in doing personal networks and family
This section presents the test results of hypothesis H1. First, we shall briefly describe the characteristics of personal networks and the distribution of personal network members in family practices; later, by means of the Logistic Regression analysis, we shall identify the family practices which draw the line between family and non-family members irrespective of the existence of blood or marriage relationship among them or the proximity between their places of residence.
According to the data of the representative survey, 1005 interviewed Lithuanian residents listed 3893 persons important to them, these persons  being members of their personal networks. That is, one respondent indicated on average 3.9 persons. They include: members of the family of procreation -40%, members of the family of orientation -29%, other kin -40%, non-kin -11%. The respondents did not specify the type of relationship with 6 important persons; therefore, the further analysis is based on the data on 3887 important persons.
According to the data of the representative survey, the respondents specified that 85% of the members of their personal networks are their family members, while 15% are non-family members. As may be expected, the individuals related to the respondents by blood or marriage dominate among those who were specified as family members, including, primarily, the members of the family of procreation (46%) and the family of orientation (32%). It is noteworthy that an ex-wife was also indicated as a family member, although at the time of the survey she was neither related to the respondent by marriage nor by blood. In total, 2% of important persons not related to the respondents by blood or marriage, friends, neighbors and others were also indicated as family members. As may be expected, non-kin (67%) dominate among those who were specified as non-family members, i.e. the individuals not related to the respondents by blood or marriage. The remaining one third (33%) of important persons who were identified as non-family members were nevertheless related to the respondents by blood or marriage. The latter include the members of the family of procreation and of the family of orientation (3% and 10% respectively), including spouses, partners, fathers, mothers, etc. Therefore, it may be stated that certain family practices distinguish family members from non-family members irrespective of the existence or non-existence of blood or marriage relationship.
According to the geographic proximity among the places of residence of the respondent and the members of their personal network, those living in separate households 15 minutes walking distance away from the respondent's place of residence are the dominating group. They account for 56%, as per the data of the representative survey. Almost two fifths of personal network members (36%) live together with the respondents or in the neighborhood (not further than 15 minutes walking distance). Only 8% of the personal network members live abroad.
According to the empirical data, the participation of personal network members in family practices varies (see Table 1). The main trend is for the members of the family of procreation to participate in all family practices more actively than for other members; the members of the family of orientation are in the second place in this respect. The members of the family of procreation dominate in such family practices as support to each other in household chores, financial management and joint holidays at least once a year. They account for approximately three fifths of all the participants in each of the mentioned family practices. In respect of all other family practices, the members of the family of procreation account for approximately one half of all the participants.
The members of the family of orientation are especially frequent participants of such activities as meetings on All Saints' Day which take place on November the 1st each year: they account for two fifths of all the participating personal network members (Table 1). With regard to some other family practices, like the Mother's Day, the Father's Day, Christmas Eve, Christmas, Easter, birthdays, exchange of emotional support, support in household chores, joint financial management, the members of the family of orientation account for approximately one third of all the participants. The members of the family of orientation account for one fourth of all the participants in the celebration of New Year's Eve. In respect of the personal network members who spend holidays together with the respondents, the members of the family of orientation account for approximately one fifth of all the participants.
Normally, other kin and non-kin are the least active in the respondent's family practices (see Table 1). On the other hand, other kin get involved in the celebration of religious festivals (Christmas Eve, Christmas, Easter, All Saints' Day), the Mother's Day, the Father's Day and respondents' birthdays more often than in other activities. Under normal circumstances, other kin get involved least in providing support in household chores, financial management, joint meals and holidays as well as the celebration of New Year's Eve. They account for up to 10% of all participating members of one's personal network in these activities.
Non-kin members of the personal network more actively than in other activities participate in the celebration of New Year's Eve and respondents' birthdays and in the exchange of emotional support. Non-kin participate the least frequently in the celebration of the Mother's Day, the Father's Day, All Saint's Day and financial management: they account for only 1-2% in these activities.
In order to answer the question which family practices draw the line between family and non-family members in personal networks, a representative survey was used to make calculations with eight models of Regression analysis (see Table 2). In each of the models, the dependent variable means a subjective assignment or non-assignment of personal network members to family members. The independent variables mean family practices. Additional calculations were made by introducing into the Regression analysis models a control variable expressing the proximity among the places of residence of the respondent and the members of their personal networks (see Table 2 Models 2, 4, 6, and 8).  Based on the regression analysis, it may be statistically significantly stated that the members of the family of procreation are mobilized into a family by the provision of reciprocal emotional support and joint celebration of Christmas Eve and birthday festivities (see Table 2 Model 1). The members of the family of procreation residing abroad remain family members if they celebrate Christmas Eve together (see Table 2 Model 2).
The members of the family of orientation are identified as family members if they not only exchange emotional support and celebrate Christmas Eve together, but also celebrate the Mother's Day, the Father's Day and New Year's Eve together (see Table 2 Model 3). Identical, though somewhat less expressed, trends remain valid when the members of the family of orientation live abroad (see Table 2 Model 4).
Other kin are called family members if they celebrate religious festivals together with others: Christmas Eve and Christmas (see Table 2 Model 5). Other kin living abroad are assigned to family members if they celebrate Christmas Eve together with respondents (see Table 2 Model 6). Meanwhile, the celebration of Christmas is not the activity which ensures the possibility for other kin living abroad to be assigned to family members.
As has been mentioned, individuals not related by blood or marriage, i.e. formally non-kin, may also be assigned to family members. In this respect, the most important family practice from the analyzed ones is being involved in financial management when network members support each other financially, buy goods and products together, etc. (see Table 2 Model 7). At the same time, it is noteworthy that, differently from the cases with the members of the families of procreation and orientation and with other kin, the exchange of emotional support and joint celebration of New Year's Eve and birthdays does not contribute to doing family relations with nonkin. Unfortunately, it is not possible to say anything statistically significant about the inclusion of non-kin living abroad in the circle of family members (see Table 2 Model 8).
In summary, the individuals assigned to family members dominate in the personal networks of Lithuanian residents, although these individuals include both the ones related by blood or marriage and those not related by these relations as well as the individuals living in separate households. Under usual circumstances, family practices involve personal network members in joint activities, however different family practices have a different effect on doing family. The members of the family of procreation dominate in all family practices, while non-kin participate in family practices the least frequently. However, there are exceptions when non-kin are involved in family practices more often than other kin, e.g. when providing emotional support, celebrating birthdays and New Year's Eve.
Routine practices and joint festivities play an important role so that personal network members related by blood or marriage are included in the family. Christmas Eve becomes the most important festivity in this context: in order to remain a family member, it is important that even those living abroad participate in joint celebration of this festivity. In order to consider the individuals not related by blood or marriage as family members, it is important that they get involved in joint financial management, while participation in festivities and traditional practices does not normally ensure that they will be considered as family.
The trends described above also apply to the important persons (personal network members) living abroad in respect of their inclusion in the family network. The latter results will be specified by the analysis continued in the next section where we shall be referring to the data of the quota survey.

Changes in family practices caused by the emigration of personal network members
This section presents the testing results of hypothesis H2 which states that the emigration of a family member determines the changes in his/ her personal network and the practices important for doing their family. Quota survey results were used during the test. 406 individuals were interviewed in this survey who had previously temporarily lived abroad while their family members (spouses, children and/ or parents) had remained in Lithuania. The respondents indicated 2012 persons important to them who were members of their personal network. That is, one respondent indicated on average 5.2 persons. The latter fact demonstrates that individuals with migration experience have wider personal networks in comparison with all residents of the country (see section 'The power of family practices in doing personal networks and family'). However, the difference between the composition of personal networks in both cases is only minor. The personal networks of the individuals with migration experience on average consist of the following: 41% are members of the family of procreation, 34% are members of the family of orientation, 18% are other kin and 7% are non-kin (in comparison with the representative survey: 40%, 29%, 20% and 11% respectively, see section 'The power of family practices in doing personal networks and family'). It is obvious that there is a slight increase of the members of the families of procreation and orientation in the personal networks of individuals with migration experience, and a decrease of other kin and non-kin. The respondents stated that 89% of their personal network members were their family members and 11% were non-family. Consequently, the personal networks of the individuals with migration experience include more family members than the personal networks of all residents of the country (85% and 15% respectively, see section 'The power of family practices in doing personal networks and family').
Further on, the section analyses the relationship of family practices with personal networks in migration context. According to the data of the quota survey, personal network members are more frequently involved in all analyzed family practices during their usual periods of life than during the periods of their migration to a foreign country (see Figure 3). In respect of family practices under analysis, except for traditions, the t-test shows statistically significant differences.
In the case of migration, the least changes happen among those involved in financial management: normally, around a quarter of personal network members get involved in this activity, in comparison with the migration period when around one fifth of personal network members get involved in this activity (t-test = 5.588). The biggest changes are related to such family practices as the celebration of Easter and birthdays as well as meeting on All Saints' Day. The share of participants -personal network members -in Easter festivities declines from 73% to 18% (t-test = 44.273). The number of personal network members participating in respondents' birthdays declines from 67% to 15% (t-test = 43.817), while the number of personal network members meeting each other on All Saints' Day declines from 54% to 6% (t-test = 42.012).
When analyzing which personal network members participate in the family practices of the respondents with migration experience, a trend was observed that the members of the family of procreation and non-kin replace the members of the family of orientation and other kin in many practices (see Table 3). However, the members of the family of orientation remain important during migration periods when a migrant individual wants to share concerns, needs advice or other emotional support (their share among all the participants increases by 5 percentage points). Apart from that, they spend holidays together with respondents more often than usual (their share increases by 3 percentage points). However, the members of the family of orientation participate less frequently in the celebration of religious and secular festivities (their share decreases from 9 to 24 percentage points), in having joint meals (a decrease of 10 percentage points), in financial management (a decrease of 3 percentage points), and in support with household chores (a decrease of 2 percentage points).
During emigration, the role of other kin decreases even more. This is especially obvious during the celebration of festivities -their share decreases from 2 to 9 percentage points (see Table 3). On the other hand, during emigration periods other kin remain important and even more active than usual (their share increases by 3 percentage points) in the areas of cleaning the housing, doing the laundry and ironing clothes, cooking, doing the dishes and other cases related to household chores.
According to the quota survey data, the members of the family of procreation distance themselves from household chores during emigration periods, especially the ones performed daily: cooking, cleaning the housing, etc. (their share decreases by 16 percentage points) (see Table 3). They become extremely rare participants of joint meals (their share decreases by 19 percentage points). Apart from that, they less frequently spend a holiday together with the respondents, provide reciprocal emotional support, manage finance together (their shares decrease by 9, 8 and 3 percentage points respectively) as well as celebrate birthdays and New Year's Eve (their shares decrease by 3 and 2 percentage points respectively). However, the members of the family of procreation start more actively participating, together with the respondents, in religious   festivities (their share increases by 5 percentage points in respect of the participation in Christmas Eve, Christmas and Easter festivities and by 18 percentage points in respect of All Saints' Day), and in such secular festivities as the Mother's Day and the Father's Day (their share increases by 16 and 14 percentage points respectively). As has been mentioned, non-kin become alternative participants of respondents' family practices during emigration periods. Their role particularly increases in the cases of joint meals: a third of joint breakfasts, lunches and dinners are attended by non-kin, while in usual life situations their share accounts for merely less than 2% (see Table 3). The share of non-kin participating in the respondent's birthday parties increases by 24 percentage points of all the participants, their share in household chores increases by 15 percentage points and in the festivities under analysis by 10 or more percentage points. The importance of non-kin in the areas of provision of reciprocal emotional support, financial management, spending holidays together declines a little, but nevertheless they remain important persons to respondents (their share increases by less than 10 percentage points).
In summary, it may be stated that personal networks expand during emigration in comparison with the networks under usual conditions. Moreover, the composition of the participants of family practices of the individuals with emigration experience undergoes significant changes: the members of the family of orientation and other kin become less numerous at the practices, while in many cases the members of the family of procreation become more active and non-kin get more involved in daily chores, traditions and festivities.

Conclusions
The main aim of the chapter was to discover the family practices which mobilize the members of a personal network of Lithuanian residents into a family irrespective of the (non-)existence of blood or marriage relations and the members' place of residence (in Lithuania or abroad). The research analyses thirteen family practices classified into four formal groups: routine practices, traditions, religious festivals and secular festivities. Two hypotheses were formulated in respect of them which were tested on the basis of data of representative and quota surveys.
Hypothesis H1 was confirmed on the basis of the representative survey data and states that the family practices important to doing the Lithuanian family draw the line between family and non-family members irrespective of (non-)existence of blood or marriage relations among them and the proximity of their places of residence. In the subjective opinion of the residents, family members account for 85% of all personal network members and the rest are non-family members. The latter division does not necessarily correspond to the formal typology where family members are related by blood or marriage. Under usual conditions, in the case of the family of procreation, the line between family and non-family members is mainly drawn by Christmas Eve and birthday parties. As regards the members of the family of procreation living abroad, the possibility for them to remain family members may be guaranteed by the joint celebration of Christmas Eve. In the case of the family of orientation, the line between family and non-family members is also drawn by Christmas Eve as well as the exchange of emotional support, joint celebration of the Mother's Day, the Father's Day and of New Year's Eve. The same family practices are important to the members of the family of orientation living abroad. In respect of other kin, even those living abroad, the line between family and non-family members is drawn by Christmas Eve as well. Another religious festival, Christmas, is of equal importance, however only to other kin not living abroad. Non-kin become family members if they get involved in joint financial management, i.e. if personal network members support each other financially, buy goods and products together, etc. However, the exchange of emotional support is not the activity which would assign non-kin to the group of family members.
Hypothesis H2 was confirmed on the basis of quota survey data and states that the emigration of a family member causes changes in their personal network as well as in the practices of doing family. Moreover, empirical data reveal that under emigration conditions personal networks expand in comparison with the networks of the same individuals under usual conditions. The number of the members of families of procreation and orientation increases in such enlarged personal networks, while the number of other kin and non-kin declines; apart from that, the number of family members increases and the number of non-family members decreases. In the case of emigration, the members of the family of orientation and other kin are replaced in many family practices by the members of the family of procreation and non-kin. The members of the family of orientation remain important in case of the need to express concerns, give advice or other emotional support. Other kin remain important in dealing with household and daily chores such as cooking, doing the dishes, cleaning the housing, doing the laundry, ironing etc. At the same time, the share of non-kin involved in household and daily chores increases by as much as 15 percentage points. The share of non-kin increases from 2% under usual life conditions to 30% in case of joint meals: they become extremely frequent participants of joint breakfasts, lunches and dinners. Non-kin also become frequent participants in the respondent's birthday parties and religious festivities, their role grows when providing emotional support, managing finance, spending holidays together.
In summary, it may be stated that the emigration of a family member makes a personal network more open to individuals not related to them by blood or marriage. At the same time, the members of the family of procreation distance themselves from household chores, especially the ones performed on daily basis: cooking, cleaning the housing, etc. They are less frequent participants in the practices of shared meals, joint holidays, birthdays or New Year's Eve celebrations. The latter practices are especially important for doing family and personal network; therefore, it is obvious that the emigration of a family member causes danger to the stability of the family or personal network and even to its survival. On the other hand, the members of the family of procreation become more active participants of religious festivities and the Mother and Father's Day celebrations, which is a promising phenomenon. The latter festivities are universal and are public holidays in many countries, therefore emigrants have a possibility to spend more time participating in theses festivities, maybe even to return to Lithuania and participate in the festivities directly rather than remotely, which strengthens their personal and family relationships.