Pushkinskaya st. 43. office 10
Rostov-on-Don, Russia
344082
e-mail: info@hjournal.ru 
tel. +7(863) 269-88-14

cubsEN (2)

Russian Constitutional Conversion in the Context of Deinstitutionalization of Marriage in the USA

Russian Constitutional Conversion in the Context of Deinstitutionalization of Marriage in the USA

Journal of Institutional Studies, , Vol. 12 (no. 2),

The global trends in the transformation of the institution of the family and the attempts to normatively convert the status of the traditional family have raised a number of long-researched issues that were considered mainly in foreign literature. Is it advisable to determine the social function of marriage through procreation and the accumulation of specific marriage capital? Is marriage a guarantee of growth in the level of individual well-being, in particular due to the division of family responsibilities and costs? The discussion among leading researchers continues, but there are undeniable trends that characterize the process of deinstitutionalization of marriage. The transition to companionate marriage from institutional marriage is noted, where the latter is more and more distinguished by its symbolic value (including as the Veblen effect), rather than practical. In this regard, it is quite difficult to clearly define the social function of marriage and regulate it within the institutional framework. This statement reveals a significant challenge to social policies supporting marriage and procreation in developed countries. In the Russian Federation, constitutional amendments have been submitted to a popular vote, which in particular propose a legislative definition of marriage by analogy with the 1996 American DOMA directive. The article provides a description of this process in terms of institutional change.


Keywords: deinstitutionalization of marriage; conversion of institutions; institutional changes; marriage rate; cohabitation

References:
  • Beckert, J. (2010). Institutional isomorphism revisited: Convergence and divergence in institutional change. Sociological theory, 28(2), 150–166.
  • Bellou, A. (2015). The impact of Internet diffusion on marriage rates: evidence from the broadband market. Journal of Population Economics, 28(2), 265–297.
  • Brewster, K. L., Rindfuss, R. R. (2000). Fertility and women’s employment in industrialized nations. Annual review of sociology, 26(1), 271–296.
  • Brown, S. L. (2004). Family structure and child well-being: The significance of parental cohabitation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(2), 351–367.
  • Brown, S. L. (2010). Marriage and child well-being: Research and policy perspectives. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(5), 1059–1077.
  • Bumpass, L. L., Raley, R. K. (1995). Redefining single-parent families: Cohabitation and changing family reality. Demography, 32(1), 97–109.
  • Bumpass, L. L., Sweet, J. A. (1989). National estimates of cohabitation. Demography, 26(4), 615–625.
  • Burgess, E. W. (1939). Predictive factors in the success or failure of marriage. Living, 1(1), 1–3.
  • Cherlin, A. J. (2004). The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of marriage and family, 66(4), 848–861.
  • Cherlin, A. J. (2020). Degrees of change: An assessment of the deinstitutionalization of marriage thesis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 62–80.
  • Crawford, S. E., Ostrom, E. (1995). A grammar of institutions. American political science review, 89(3), 582–600.
  • DiMaggio, P. J., Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
  • Farrington, D. P. (2011). Families and crime. Crime and public policy, 130–157.
  • Goldin, C., Katz, L. F. (2002). The power of the pill: Oral contraceptives and women’s career and marriage decisions. Journal of Political Economy, 110(4), 730–770.
  • Goldscheider, F. K., Kaufman, G. (1996). Fertility and commitment: Bringing men back in. Population and Development Review, 22, 87–99.
  • Grossbard-Shechtman, S. (1993). On the Economics of Marriage: A Theory of Marriage. Labor, and Divorce, Boulder: Westview Press.
  • Hao, L., Astone, N. M., Cherlin, A. J. (2007). Effects of child support and welfare policies on nonmarital teenage childbearing and motherhood. Population Research and Policy Review, 26(3), 235–257.
  • Hequembourg, A. (2004). Unscripted motherhood: Lesbian mothers negotiating incompletely institutionalized family relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(6), 739–762.
  • Kapoguzov, E. A., Chupin, R. I., Kharlamova, M. S. (2019). Institutionalized arenas of marriage games. Journal of Institutional Studies, 11(4), 26–39. (In Russian).
  • Kelly Raley, R., Wildsmith, E. (2004). Cohabitation and children’s family instability. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(1), 210–219.
  • Kennedy, S., Fitch, C. A. (2012). Measuring cohabitation and family structure in the United States: Assessing the impact of new data from the Current Population Survey. Demography, 49(4), 1479–1498.
  • Knapp, S. J., Wurm, G. (2019). Theorizing family change: A review and reconceptualization. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 11(2), 212–229.
  • Lauer, S., Yodanis, C. (2010). The deinstitutionalization of marriage revisited: A new institutional approach to marriage. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2(1), 58–72.
  • Mahoney, J., Thelen, K. (2010). A theory of gradual institutional change. Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power, 1, 1–37.
  • Mathews, T. J., Hamilton, B. E. (2002). Mean age of mother, 1970–2000. National vital statistics reports, 51(1), 1–14.
  • McLanahan, S. (2004). Diverging destinies: How children are faring under the second demographic transition. Demography, 41(4), 607–627.
  • Mikheeva, A. R. (2012). A person in the field of private life: vectors of transformation of family relationships. Novosibirsk: IEIE SB RAS. (In Russian).
  • Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2071 (2015).
  • Pollak, R. A. (1985). A Transactional Cost Approach to Families and Households. Journal of Economic Literature, 23(2), 581–605.
  • Popenoe, D. (2009). Cohabitation, marriage, and child wellbeing: A cross-national perspective. Society, 46(5), 429–436.
  • Porter, J. R. (2012). A Simplified Indicator of Social Well-Being in the United States: Examining the Ecological Impact of Family Formation within a County Level Framework. Social indicators research, 108(3), 421–440.
  • Qian, Z., Lichter, D. T. (2011). Changing patterns of interracial marriage in a multiracial society. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73(5), 1065–1084.
  • Ruskay-Kidd, S. (1997). The defense of marriage act and the overextension of congressional authority. Columbia Law Review, 48(2), 1435–1482.
  • Schoen, R., Cheng, Y. H. A. (2006). Partner choice and the differential retreat from marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(1), 1–10.
  • Schwede, L. (2003). Complex households and relationships in the decennial census and in ethno- graphic studies of six race/ethnic groups Census 2000 Testing and Experimentation Program. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/pred/ www/rpts/Complex Households Final Report.pdf
  • Scott, W. R. (2013). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. Sage publications.
  • South, S. J., Tolnay, S. (2019). The changing American family: Sociological and demographic perspectives. Routledge.
  • Stacey, J. (1993). Good riddance to “the family”: A response to David Popenoe. Journal of Marriage and Family, 55(3), 545–547.
  • Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
  • Waite, L. J. (1995). Does marriage matter?. Demography, 32(4), 483–507.
Publisher: Ltd. "Humanitarian perspectives"
Founder: Ltd. "Humanitarian perspectives"
Online-ISSN: 2412-6039
ISSN: 2076-6297