Intercultural Marriage, a Social Indicator of Adaptation in Sino-African Civil Union: Case of Guangzhou People’s Republic of China


Intercultural Marriage, a Social Indicator of Adaptation in Sino-African Civil Union: Case of Guangzhou People’s Republic of China


TANO Kouassi Joseph and SUN Qiu Yun

Department of sociology, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, China


American journal of educational research and reviewsMarriage is the union of two peoples and consequently of two families and two cultures. In traditional Chinese society, everybody gets married for the sake of family continuity. This is because bringing forth a child is seen as a contribution to perpetuate family name. It is meant for two as families to seal stronger bonds together. It’s therefore observed that, marriage in Chinese Society is conceived for the families rather than for the sharing love. Consequently, the marriage becomes a social construction. The only credible unions with the eyes of the society were those which linked two individuals presenting some similarities from the social, ethnic, racial, cultural and/or religious. The concept of adaptation and the notion of entropy will be employed the theoretical level to show that mixed marriages are the result of complex processes tending to homogenize populations who are from different cultures but who live in permanent contact. To collect the qualitative, we have used the methods of data-gathering, such as documentary review, individual and institutional interview using the guides of interview.


Keywords:Intercultural Marriage, Social Indicator, Adaptation, Sino-African Civil Union, Guangzhou


Free Full-text PDF


How to cite this article:
TANO Kouassi Joseph and SUN Qiu Yun. Intercultural Marriage, a Social Indicator of Adaptation in Sino-African Civil Union: Case of Guangzhou People’s Republic of China. American Journal of Educational Research and Reviews, 2018,3:22. DOI: 10.28933/ajerr-2018-05-0301


References:

1. BARBARA, A., (1994).Mixed marriages. one key questions’. International Migrations/Migrations Internationals 32 (4): 571-584.
2. BARBARA Augustin (1985) Marriages without borders, Paris, the Centurion, 274 p.
3. BERGER Peter, KELLNER Hansfried (1988) the marriage and the construction of reality, Dialogs, n°102, 1988, pp. 6-23.
4. BERRINGTON, A., (1996). ‘Marriage patterns and inter-ethnic unions’, in D. Coleman and J. Salt (eds), Ethnicity in the 1991 Census, Volume 1: Demographic Characteristics of the Ethnic Minority Populations. HMSO, London.
5. BOZON Michel, HERAN François (1988) La découverte du conjoint, Population, n°6, 1987, pp. 943- 985 et n°1, 1988, pp. 121-149.
6. COLEMAN, D. A., 1994. ‘Trends in fertility and intermarriage among immigrant populations in Western Europe as measures of integration’. Journal of Biosocial Science 26: 107-136.
7. DEBROISE Armelle (1998) La construction conjugale à l’intérieur de couples mixtes, Dialogue, n°139, pp. 51-63. FITZPATRICK, K. M. and Hwang, S. S., 1992. ‘The effects of community structure on opportunities for interracial contact: Extending Blau’s macro structural theory’. Sociological Quarterly 33(1): 51-61.
8. HWANG, S. S., Saenz, R. and Aguirre, B. E., (1994) ‘Structural and individual determinants of out marriage among Chinese-, Filipino-, and Japanese-Americans in California’. Sociological Inquiry 64(4): 396-414.
9. HAMMOUCHE Abdelhafid (1990) Choix du conjoint, relations familiales et intégration sociale chez les jeunes maghrébins, Revue Européenne des Migrations Internationales, 6 (1), pp. 175-187.
10. MICHAEL, Billington (2011). “Mixed Marriage – review | Stage”. London: The Guardian.
11. MUÑOZ-PEREZ Franscico, Tribalat Michele (1996) mixed unions in France, Space, Populations, companies, 2-3, pp. 393-403.
12. RUDE-ANTOINE Edwige (1997) Of the lives and the families. Immigrants, the law and the habit, Paris, Editions Odile Jacob, 327 p.
13. SAD SAOUD Hadjila (1985) The choice of the spouse: tradition and change, European Review of the International Migrations, 1 (2), pp. 118-130.
14. VARRO Gabrielle (2001) For a sociology of “co-education”. Co-educations matrimonial, family, personal, school, social and cultural, Accreditation to supervise research, University Saint-Quentinen Yvelines, vol. 1,144 p. v