当前位置：和泉文库 > 社会科学 > 《性别、亲密关系与社会》课程教学资源（相亲角文献）INTERMARRIAGE AND HOMOGAMY：Causes, Patterns, Trends

《性别、亲密关系与社会》课程教学资源（相亲角文献）INTERMARRIAGE AND HOMOGAMY：Causes, Patterns, Trends

文件格式：PDF，文件大小：133.45KB，售价：7.86元

文档详细内容（约27页）

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1998. 24:395–421 Copyright 1998 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved INTERMARRIAGE AND HOMOGAMY: Causes, Patterns, Trends Matthijs Kalmijn Department of Sociology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands; e-mail: m.kalmijn@fsw.ruu.nl KEY WORDS: marriage markets, marriage, mate selection, assortative mating, endogamy ABSTRACT People have a tendency to marry within their social group or to marry a person who is close to them in status. Although many characteristics play a role in the choice of a spouse, sociologists have most often examined endogamy and homogamy with respect to race/ethnicity, religion, and socioeconomic status. I first give an overview of hypotheses on the causes of endogamy and homogamy. The various hypotheses that have been suggested in the literature can be distinguished as arguments about three more general factors: (a) the preferences of marriage candidates for certain characteristics in a spouse, (b) the interference of “third parties” in the selection process, and (c) the constraints of the marriage market in which candidates are searching for a spouse. Second, I summarize empirical research by answering four questions: (a) To what extent are groups endogamous and how do groups differ in this respect? (b) How has endogamy changed over time? (c) Which factors are related to endogamy? (d) How do various dimensions of partner choice coincide? Third, I discuss strengths and weaknesses of past research. Strengths include the mass of descriptive work that has been done and the development of a multifaceted theoretical perspective which gives sociological theorizing an edge over psychological and economic theories of partner choice. Weaknesses include the lack of standardization of methods in describing patterns and trends and the relatively weak integration of empirical and theoretical work. 0360-0572/98/0815-0395$08.00 395 Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1998.24:395-421. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by Shanghai Jiaotong University on 09/27/16. For personal use only

396 KALMIJN INTRODUCTION Since the beginning of this century,sociologists have described patterns of part- ner choice and have tried to explain why people marry within their group(en- dogamy)and why people marry persons close in status(homogamy).The re- search literature can be divided into three traditions,depending on which type of characteristic is considered.Research on ethnic and racial intermarriage originated in immigrant countries such as the United States and is motivated by the question of whether the various nationality groups would integrate with one another and with the original population(Drachsler 1920;Wirth Gold- hamer 1944).Research on religious intermarriage has been done both in and outside the United States and has been concerned with the extent to which churches control the life choices of their members and the degree to which re- ligious involvement translates into the membership of"communal groups" 'MA wo poppouMo1-6:8661010S (Kennedy 1944).Research on socioeconomic homogamy was developed by stratification researchers who used marriage patterns in conjunction with mo- bility patterns to describe how open stratification systems are(Glass 1954). Although the underlying issues are diverse,one common theme is that all traditions characterize social differentiation by describing patterns of social interaction.Building on the Weberian notion of status group closure,students have argued that interaction between social groups provides a fundamental way to describe the group boundaries that make up the social structure.Be- cause marriage is an intimate and often long-term relationship,intermarriage or heterogamy not only reveals the existence of interaction across group boundaries,it also shows that members of different groups accept each other as social equals.Intermarriage can thus be regarded as an intimate link between reyaueys q pop social groups;conversely,endogamy or homogamy can be regarded as a form of group closure. Another common theme lies in the consequences ofintermarriage.First,in- termarriage decreases the salience of cultural distinctions in future generations because the children of mixed marriages are less likely to identify themselves 具量 with a single group.Although mixed couples may socialize their children into the culture of a single group,these children are less likely to identify with that group when intermarriage in society is common.Second,by intermarrying,in- dividuals may lose the negative attitudes they have toward other groups.Al- though personal interaction between groups sometimes fosters conflicts by making economic and cultural differences more apparent,if the relationship is intimate,interaction gives people an opportunity to realize the individual vari- ety among the members of another group and,in doing so,may ultimately weaken their prejudices and stereotypes.Because intermarriage often con- nects the social networks of the two spouses,this applies to a range of outgroup members and not just to the immediate partners

INTRODUCTION Since the beginning of this century, sociologists have described patterns of partner choice and have tried to explain why people marry within their group (endogamy) and why people marry persons close in status (homogamy). The research literature can be divided into three traditions, depending on which type of characteristic is considered. Research on ethnic and racial intermarriage originated in immigrant countries such as the United States and is motivated by the question of whether the various nationality groups would integrate with one another and with the original population (Drachsler 1920; Wirth & Goldhamer 1944). Research on religious intermarriage has been done both in and outside the United States and has been concerned with the extent to which churches control the life choices of their members and the degree to which religious involvement translates into the membership of “communal groups” (Kennedy 1944). Research on socioeconomic homogamy was developed by stratification researchers who used marriage patterns in conjunction with mobility patterns to describe how open stratification systems are (Glass 1954). Although the underlying issues are diverse, one common theme is that all traditions characterize social differentiation by describing patterns of social interaction. Building on the Weberian notion of status group closure, students have argued that interaction between social groups provides a fundamental way to describe the group boundaries that make up the social structure. Because marriage is an intimate and often long-term relationship, intermarriage or heterogamy not only reveals the existence of interaction across group boundaries, it also shows that members of different groups accept each other as social equals. Intermarriage can thus be regarded as an intimate link between social groups; conversely, endogamy or homogamy can be regarded as a form of group closure. Another common theme lies in the consequences of intermarriage. First, intermarriage decreases the salience of cultural distinctions in future generations because the children of mixed marriages are less likely to identify themselves with a single group. Although mixed couples may socialize their children into the culture of a single group, these children are less likely to identify with that group when intermarriage in society is common. Second, by intermarrying, individuals may lose the negative attitudes they have toward other groups. Although personal interaction between groups sometimes fosters conflicts by making economic and cultural differences more apparent, if the relationship is intimate, interaction gives people an opportunity to realize the individual variety among the members of another group and, in doing so, may ultimately weaken their prejudices and stereotypes. Because intermarriage often connects the social networks of the two spouses, this applies to a range of outgroup members and not just to the immediate partners. 396 KALMIJN Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1998.24:395-421. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by Shanghai Jiaotong University on 09/27/16. For personal use only

INTERMARRIAGE AND HOMOGAMY 397 In short,what makes intermarriage sociologically relevant lies in its inher- ent dynamic:It is not just a reflection of the boundaries that currently separate groups in society,it also bears the potential of cultural and socioeconomic change.While marriage patterns are in this sense telling social indicators,they do not tell us everything.First,if members of two groups do not marry one an- other,it does not necessarily mean that both groups are closed.It takes two to marry,and if one group is closed while the other is open,endogamy may still prevail.Research on marriage is less informative in this respect than,for in- stance,research on individual racial prejudice.In a similar vein,homogamy tells a somewhat ambiguous story about the preferences and prejudices of status groups.Homogamy will occur if people prefer to marry into high-status groups,but it will also occur when people prefer to marry status-equals.In high-status groups,preferences for high-status spouses and preferences for status-equals are similar,but in lower-status groups,these are different. Second,marriage patterns result from both preference and opportunity.Op- portunity to marry within the group depends on many factors,such as residen- 9/LZ/60 tial segregation,the composition of local marriage markets,group size,and so on.As a result,endogamy does not necessarily point to a personally felt social distance toward a certain outgroup.Such preferences play a role,but to what extent they determine the actual choices people make is an empirical question. Marriage patterns simply tell us which groups interact with whom,and while this is an important piece of information,they do not tell us why. A third and final limitation of marriage patterns lies in demographic trends Declining marriage rates,the rise of cohabitation,and the increase in divorce 1-S6E:8661 1010S suggest that it is not always valid to treat marriage patterns as indicators of dif- ferentiation in society as a whole.Some of these problems can be solved more easily than others.The rise of cohabitation poses no real problem because one can often include cohabiting couples in the analysis.Declining marriage rates are also less of a problem because they are largely the result of marriage de- 2 lays;the vast majority of a given birth cohort eventually marries.The rise of divorce is more problematic,because intermarriage and divorce are often posi- 具量 tively related.A high rate of ethnic intermarriage may point to open social groups,but if mixed marriages are more likely to break up,such a conclusion would need further study. In the past decades,researchers have described patterns of intermarriage, examined individual variations in intermarriage,and assessed changes in in- termarriage over time.In addition,both theoretical and empirical studies have developed hypotheses about why people marry within their group and why some do while others do not.Because such hypotheses are often not tested di- rectly,I divide my review into a theoretical and an empirical section.The goal of the theoretical section is to review micro-and macro-level hypotheses about the causes of intermarriage and homogamy and to put these into a general theo-

In short, what makes intermarriage sociologically relevant lies in its inherent dynamic: It is not just a reflection of the boundaries that currently separate groups in society, it also bears the potential of cultural and socioeconomic change. While marriage patterns are in this sense telling social indicators, they do not tell us everything. First, if members of two groups do not marry one another, it does not necessarily mean that both groups are closed. It takes two to marry, and if one group is closed while the other is open, endogamy may still prevail. Research on marriage is less informative in this respect than, for instance, research on individual racial prejudice. In a similar vein, homogamy tells a somewhat ambiguous story about the preferences and prejudices of status groups. Homogamy will occur if people prefer to marry into high-status groups, but it will also occur when people prefer to marry status-equals. In high-status groups, preferences for high-status spouses and preferences for status-equals are similar, but in lower-status groups, these are different. Second, marriage patterns result from both preference and opportunity. Opportunity to marry within the group depends on many factors, such as residential segregation, the composition of local marriage markets, group size, and so on. As a result, endogamy does not necessarily point to a personally felt social distance toward a certain outgroup. Such preferences play a role, but to what extent they determine the actual choices people make is an empirical question. Marriage patterns simply tell us which groups interact with whom, and while this is an important piece of information, they do not tell us why. A third and final limitation of marriage patterns lies in demographic trends. Declining marriage rates, the rise of cohabitation, and the increase in divorce suggest that it is not always valid to treat marriage patterns as indicators of differentiation in society as a whole. Some of these problems can be solved more easily than others. The rise of cohabitation poses no real problem because one can often include cohabiting couples in the analysis. Declining marriage rates are also less of a problem because they are largely the result of marriage delays; the vast majority of a given birth cohort eventually marries. The rise of divorce is more problematic, because intermarriage and divorce are often positively related. A high rate of ethnic intermarriage may point to open social groups, but if mixed marriages are more likely to break up, such a conclusion would need further study. In the past decades, researchers have described patterns of intermarriage, examined individual variations in intermarriage, and assessed changes in intermarriage over time. In addition, both theoretical and empirical studies have developed hypotheses about why people marry within their group and why some do while others do not. Because such hypotheses are often not tested directly, I divide my review into a theoretical and an empirical section. The goal of the theoretical section is to review micro- and macro-level hypotheses about the causes of intermarriage and homogamy and to put these into a general theoINTERMARRIAGE AND HOMOGAMY 397 Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1998.24:395-421. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by Shanghai Jiaotong University on 09/27/16. For personal use only

398 KALMIJN retical framework.The goal of the empirical section is to summarize patterns variations,and trends in intermarriage.I focus on the three main sociological group characteristics (i.e.race and ethnicity,religion,and socioeconomic status),I limit myself to Western societies,and I discuss studies conducted in the last decade. THEORETICAL WORK ON INTERMARRIAGE AND HOMOGAMY Marriage patterns arise from the interplay between three social forces:the preferences of individuals for certain characteristics in a spouse,the influence of the social group of which they are members,and the constraints of the mar- 8J0'SMOIAJI enuue'MMM wog riage market in which they are searching for a spouse (Kalmijn 1991b).Al- though these factors represent analytically distinct hypotheses,they have most often been regarded as complementary elements of a single theory,and that is what distinguishes the sociological perspective from economic or psychologi- cal theories on partner choice (e.g.Winch 1958). Preferences of Marriage Candidates 含 To understand aggregate patterns of marriage selection,researchers use the concept of a marriage market.Unmarried men and women operate within a marriage market where each individual considers a set of potential spouses. Potential spouses are evaluated on the basis of the resources they have to offer and individuals compete with each other for the spouse they want most by of- fering their own resources in return.Several kinds of resources obviously play a role in the choice of a spouse,but sociologists have mostly focused on socio- economic and cultural resources.When married,spouses pool these resources to produce family goods,such as economic well-being,status,social confir- mation,and affection. SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES Socioeconomic resources are defined as re- sources that produce economic well-being and status.Economic well-being is 具量 shared by the family members and status is granted to the family as a unit rather than to its individual members.As a result,the income and status of one spouse contribute to the income and status of the other by raising the income and status of the family.People maximize their income and status by searching for a spouse with attractive socioeconomic resources.The outcome of this competition is that the most attractive candidates select among themselves while the least attractive candidates have to rely on one another.Competition for socioeconomic resources on the marriage market thus leads to an aggregate pattern of homogamy. The nature of this competition varies with the role women play in society When marriage is based on the benefits that stem from the division of paid and

retical framework. The goal of the empirical section is to summarize patterns, variations, and trends in intermarriage. I focus on the three main sociological group characteristics (i.e. race and ethnicity, religion, and socioeconomic status), I limit myself to Western societies, and I discuss studies conducted in the last decade. THEORETICAL WORK ON INTERMARRIAGE AND HOMOGAMY Marriage patterns arise from the interplay between three social forces: the preferences of individuals for certain characteristics in a spouse, the influence of the social group of which they are members, and the constraints of the marriage market in which they are searching for a spouse (Kalmijn 1991b). Although these factors represent analytically distinct hypotheses, they have most often been regarded as complementary elements of a single theory, and that is what distinguishes the sociological perspective from economic or psychological theories on partner choice (e.g. Winch 1958). Preferences of Marriage Candidates To understand aggregate patterns of marriage selection, researchers use the concept of a marriage market. Unmarried men and women operate within a marriage market where each individual considers a set of potential spouses. Potential spouses are evaluated on the basis of the resources they have to offer and individuals compete with each other for the spouse they want most by offering their own resources in return. Several kinds of resources obviously play a role in the choice of a spouse, but sociologists have mostly focused on socioeconomic and cultural resources. When married, spouses pool these resources to produce family goods, such as economic well-being, status, social confirmation, and affection. SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES Socioeconomic resources are defined as resources that produce economic well-being and status. Economic well-being is shared by the family members and status is granted to the family as a unit rather than to its individual members. As a result, the income and status of one spouse contribute to the income and status of the other by raising the income and status of the family. People maximize their income and status by searching for a spouse with attractive socioeconomic resources. The outcome of this competition is that the most attractive candidates select among themselves while the least attractive candidates have to rely on one another. Competition for socioeconomic resources on the marriage market thus leads to an aggregate pattern of homogamy. The nature of this competition varies with the role women play in society. When marriage is based on the benefits that stem from the division of paid and 398 KALMIJN Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1998.24:395-421. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by Shanghai Jiaotong University on 09/27/16. For personal use only

INTERMARRIAGE AND HOMOGAMY 399 domestic labor in the household,prevailing gender differences in earnings give men a comparative advantage in productive labor so that the wife's time is used more productively when it is spent on household labor.As a result,men and women exchange paid and domestic labor resources.Similar arguments have been made with regard to status and prestige.When the status of the fam- ily depends primarily on the occupation of the husband,there will be an ex- change of male prestige and female qualities in other respects,such as class background,physical attractiveness,and cultural participation (Jacobs Fur- stenberg 1986;Stevens et al 1990;Uunk 1996). Both types of exchange suggest that men,unlike women,do not compete among themselves for female socioeconomic resources in the marriage mar- ket.There are good reasons to believe that this has changed.An increasing number of married women participate in the labor market and married women's work is now less often motivated by temporary economic needs of 0'SMOIAIenu MA wo popeojuMod'I-S6E:8661 o1oS the family.Several authors believe that these changes have made women's so- cioeconomic resources increasingly attractive to men.The wife's human capi- 9922/60 tal may facilitate the husband's access to networks that are helpful in his ca- reer,her earnings may subsidize his human capital investments,and the eco- nomic security she provides may lessen his need to settle for short-term career benefits,thus increasing his opportunity to choose more attractive,long-term career objectives.Because female labor is now often the reflection of women's desire to work outside the home,rather than a reflection of the economic needs of the family,the wife's socioeconomic resources may also become increas- ingly important for the status of the family (Davis 1984). CULTURAL RESOURCES While the importance of socioeconomic resources is reyaueys q pop based on a preference to marry a resourceful spouse,independent of one's own resources,the role of cultural resources is based on a preference to marry someone who is similar.Preferences for cultural similarity have been ad- 2 dressed most extensively in the social psychological literature on personal at- traction(Byrne 1971).Similarity of values and opinions leads to mutual con- 具量 firmation ofeach other's behavior and worldviews,similarity of taste is attrac- tive because it enlarges opportunities to participate in joint activities,and simi- larity of knowledge creates a common basis for conversation,which enhances mutual understanding. Although originally developed to explain attraction between strangers in day-to-day interaction,these notions have also been applied to marriage(Di- Maggio Mohr 1985;Kalmijn 1994).Because cultural similarity leads to per- sonal attraction,it is a prerequisite for getting involved with someone.Because of its instrumental effects,cultural similarity also encourages people to estab- lish a long-term relationship.Since many activities in marriage are joint,such as the raising of children,the purchase of a house and other consumer durables

domestic labor in the household, prevailing gender differences in earnings give men a comparative advantage in productive labor so that the wife’s time is used more productively when it is spent on household labor. As a result, men and women exchange paid and domestic labor resources. Similar arguments have been made with regard to status and prestige. When the status of the family depends primarily on the occupation of the husband, there will be an exchange of male prestige and female qualities in other respects, such as class background, physical attractiveness, and cultural participation (Jacobs & Furstenberg 1986; Stevens et al 1990; Uunk 1996). Both types of exchange suggest that men, unlike women, do not compete among themselves for female socioeconomic resources in the marriage market. There are good reasons to believe that this has changed. An increasing number of married women participate in the labor market and married women’s work is now less often motivated by temporary economic needs of the family. Several authors believe that these changes have made women’s socioeconomic resources increasingly attractive to men. The wife’s human capital may facilitate the husband’s access to networks that are helpful in his career, her earnings may subsidize his human capital investments, and the economic security she provides may lessen his need to settle for short-term career benefits, thus increasing his opportunity to choose more attractive, long-term career objectives. Because female labor is now often the reflection of women’s desire to work outside the home, rather than a reflection of the economic needs of the family, the wife’s socioeconomic resources may also become increasingly important for the status of the family (Davis 1984). CULTURAL RESOURCES While the importance of socioeconomic resources is based on a preference to marry a resourceful spouse, independent of one’s own resources, the role of cultural resources is based on a preference to marry someone who is similar. Preferences for cultural similarity have been addressed most extensively in the social psychological literature on personal attraction (Byrne 1971). Similarity of values and opinions leads to mutual confirmation of each other’s behavior and worldviews, similarity of taste is attractive because it enlarges opportunities to participate in joint activities, and similarity of knowledge creates a common basis for conversation, which enhances mutual understanding. Although originally developed to explain attraction between strangers in day-to-day interaction, these notions have also been applied to marriage (DiMaggio & Mohr 1985; Kalmijn 1994). Because cultural similarity leads to personal attraction, it is a prerequisite for getting involved with someone. Because of its instrumental effects, cultural similarity also encourages people to establish a long-term relationship. Since many activities in marriage are joint, such as the raising of children, the purchase of a house and other consumer durables, INTERMARRIAGE AND HOMOGAMY 399 Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1998.24:395-421. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by Shanghai Jiaotong University on 09/27/16. For personal use only

点击进入文档下载页（PDF格式）

共27页，可试读9页，点击继续阅读 ↓↓

您可能感兴趣的文档

点击购买下载（PDF）

下载及服务说明

购买前请先查看本文档预览页，确认内容后再进行支付；
如遇文件无法下载、无法访问或其它任何问题，可发送电子邮件反馈，核实后将进行文件补发或退款等其它相关操作；
邮箱：

文档浏览记录