Managing and Dealing Differences in Intercultural Marriages - Research Paper Example

Managing and Dealing Differences in Intercultural Marriages Introduction There is an increasing number of intercultural marriages according to the data of the U.S. Census Bureau (qtd. in Crippen). The growing rate of intercultural marriages, one way or the other, reflects in the growing social acceptance to these type of relationship (qtd. in Bratter and King). Also, global travel in the modern world paved the way for people -- of different race and faith -- to mingle and interact; eventually, some of them will “put down roots in foreign soil” (Barbara). This paper explores the studies conducted on intercultural marriages. Also, this paper examines the ways on how to manage and deal the problems peculiar to intercultural marriages. Challenges and Methodologies However, intercultural couples face the problems inherent in interracial marriages. For one, families that cross racial lines deviate from the old-age norms of endogamous marriage (qtd. in Bratter et al.). Crossing racial lines questions the racial-hierarchy structure by probing the possibilities of “moving across and between racial lines in family formation and individual identity” (Bratter and King). The enduring censure of who should and should not marry whom remains to be prevalent in certain society. Also, intercultural-married couples encounter much deeper-rooted problems when they have children on their own (Barbara). Furthermore, it was found out in one study that the rate of divorce for intercultural couples married for 10 years reach to 41 percent while same-race couples only amount to 31 percent (qtd. in Bratter and King). The common causes for divorce, according to Amato and Previti, are the former couples’ incompatibility or little in common, unresolved conflicts or disagreements, and different goals or interests in life (qtd. in Clarkwest). Data and Methodology used by Bratter and King. Bratter and King utilized Cycle VI from the 2002 NSFG data. They confined their study to ever-married respondents, ages 15 to 44, numbering from 1,606 males and 4,070 females. Other background variables such as, but not limited to, age at marriage are included for analysis. Lastly, they compared the ages at marriage of the respondent and spouse. Kang Fu’s Data and Method. Kang Fu used the information gathered from 5% Public Use Microdata Sample of the 1990 U.S. Census. The researcher’s analysis includes only the “native-born” couples, under age 35 (Kang Fu). Kang Fu employed the log-linear models. Also, he used the methods of analysis that control for the effects of population. Information and Method used by Booth, Johnson, Branaman, and Sica. Booth et al. used the data from a 12-year study of a national sample of 2,033 married individuals (excluding couples), ages 55 and younger. Data are drawn from the 1988 and 1992 waves for their analysis. Booth et al. not only utilized the structural equation panel model, they also accounted for the measurement error in the indicators. The models were estimated with LISREL 8. Concerning Race High rates of divorce among intercultural couples occur not because of the couple-level racial dissimilarity but rather because of the couples’ characteristics (Bratter and King). Contrary to racial differences, the characteristics of people who intermarry are one of the aspects that trigger marriage dissolution. Without considering these characteristics, merely exploring the incidence of intercultural marriage will fail to provide a complete narrative of the nature of group boundaries (Kang Fu). These characteristics are identified as age at marriage and educational attainment (qtd. in Bratter and King.). Specific attributes have steadily increased the risk of marital dissolution, which can be generally categorized as: age/cohort-specific influences, premarital experiences, socioeconomic resources, and couple-level characteristics (Bratter and King). Discarding racial dissimilarity, intercultural marriages could follow the normal framework of endogamous married life. Marriages between Japanese Americans and Whites, for instance, follow the same norm for same-race marriages (Kang Fu). On the opposite side, racial stratification remains prevalent, particularly -- but not limited --  to Blacks and Mexican Americans (Kang Fu). Race is the basic component of self-identity and stratifies one’s bodily, psychological, and economic well-being (qtd. in Bratter and King). Moreover, racial boundaries play an integral role in choosing spouse (Kang Fu). Although intercultural marriage has increased in frequency, the idea of same-race marriage as common and interracial marriage as uncommon prevails (qtd. in Bratter and King). Matters of Creed The notion that an active participation in religious activities of both interfaith couples leads to a healthy marital relations is quite weak. An active religious life has little effect on the quality relation between these couples. Moreover, a wide range of marital-quality-related behavior is not altered by an increased involvement in religious activities (Booth et al.). On the contrary, marital happiness affects religiosity. An increase in marital-quality relation slightly increases the two dimensions of religiosity: church attendance and religion’s influence (Booth et al.). An increase in religiosity may decrease the chance for the couples to opt for divorce, however, it does not improve the happiness of the couples. In addition, religiosity does not decrease the conflicts commonly associated to the cause of divorce. The link between religion and marital happiness is both “reciprocal and weak” (Booth et al.). Managing Dissimilarities Few intercultural-marriage researchers offered significant points and ways on how to manage and deal the challenges and differences embedded in interracial and interfaith relationships. They are as follow: Government assistance and support. It has been observed that alleviating the marriage condition has become a public-policy priority (Bratter and King). Most of these policies are crafted to promote positive communication or interaction between divorce-prone couples. It is noteworthy that few of these policies aim for the amelioration of families within racial communities. Unfortunately, these policies fail to address a “healthy marriage” for interracial families (Bratter and King). School curricula. To design school curricula -- relevant to the development and health of specific racial groups -- is important. Noticeably, many of the public policies craft curricula that are vital to these specific groups. However, there’s a gap that needs to be address in the present curricula concerning “healthy marriage” (Bratter and King). Scientific study and research. Studies and researches are necessary to fully understand the quirks and nature of intercultural marriage (Bratter and King). Although much has been written on differences in intercultural marriages, still much less has been written, for one, on how parenting amplifies differences due to dynamism within a bi-cultural or multi-cultural family (Crippen 107). In addition, intercultural-marriage phenomenon may have garnered a high degree of scholarly interest, nonetheless, only a small number of studies have explored and examined whether these relationships are more divorce prone. Indeed, there are numerous areas in the study of intercultural marriages that require more attention (Bratter and King). Social acceptance. Although interracial and interfaith marriages are increasing in number and popularity, nonetheless, such marriages explicitly violate the enduring norm of endogamous marriage. In other studies, for instance, Non-Hispanic Black and White couples tend to participate in fewer outdoor or leisure activities to “buffer against negative experiences” (Bratter and King). Most of them tend to, if not isolate themselves to social contact, move away from their hometown communities. Religious institutions nurturance. Instead of attempting to inculcate conservative perceptions of marital roles and responsibilities, organized religion ought to reinforce acceptance and support for the “patterns of family as they currently exist” (Booth et al.). However, religious institutions fail to give nurturance and support to intercultural families in coping with the challenges of contemporary life (Booth et al.). The willingness of the individual spouse. Give-and-take relationship, as a form of negotiation, is necessary for any marriage to flourish (Romano xv). However, this give-and-take is more complicated for intercultural relationship because they don’t know on what, how much, and why they should give and take. On the other hand, there are three typifications the intercultural couples drew on in their accounts: open individualized, mix collective and single collective (Edwards, Caballero, and Puthussery). The role played by these typifications in how intercultural couples negotiate their understandings or perceptions with their partner is quite important. By and large, couples’ perceptions are created and contextualized in varied contexts that shape -- not determine -- their understandings and negotiations (Edwards, Caballero, and Puthussery). Conclusion The increase in number and frequency of intercultural marriages do not account for its social acceptance. Interracial and interfaith couples, as a consequence, encounter challenges inherent to the nature of their marriage. To solve these complexities, external (e.g., social) and internal (e.g., open individualized) aspects of these marriage should be address. As a whole, the intercultural couples play the essential part in resolving conflicts within their home. Works Cited Barbara, Augustin. “Mixed Marriages: Some Key Questions.” International Migration 32:4 (2009): 571-586. Web. 8 July 2010. . Booth, Alan, David R. Johnson, Ann Branaman, and Alan Sica. “Belief and Behavior: Does Religion Matter in Today’s Marriage?” Journal of Marriage and Family 57.3 (1995): 661+. Print. Bratter, Jenifer L., and Rosalind B. King. “But Will It Last?: Marital Instability among Interracial and Same-Race Couples.” Family Relations 57.2 (2008): 160+. Print. Clarkwest, Andrew. “Spousal Dissimilarity, Race and Marital Dissolution.” Journal of Marriage and Family 69.3 (2007): 639+. Print. Crippen, Cheryl. "Intercultural Parenting and the Transcultural Family: A Literature Review." The Family Journal 15.2 (2007): 107-115. Web. 7 July 2010. . Edwards, Rosalind, Chamion Caballero, Shuby Puthussery. “Parenting Children from ‘Mixed’ Racial, Ethnic and Faith Backgrounds: Typifications of Difference and Belonging.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 33.6 (2010): 949-967. Web. 8 July 2010. . Kang Fu, Vincent. “Racial Intermarriage Pairings.” Demography 38.2 (2001): 147+. Print. Romano, Dugan. Intercultural Marriage: Promises and Pitfalls. Boston: Nicholas Brealey, 2008. Print. Read More