Who Partners With Whom in Diverse Societies? A Multigroup Perspective on Union Formation and Religious Boundaries in the Netherlands.

IF 3.5 1区 社会学 Q1 DEMOGRAPHY Demography Pub Date : 2025-12-01 DOI:10.1215/00703370-12349287
Kasimir Dederichs, Frank van Tubergen
{"title":"Who Partners With Whom in Diverse Societies? A Multigroup Perspective on Union Formation and Religious Boundaries in the Netherlands.","authors":"Kasimir Dederichs, Frank van Tubergen","doi":"10.1215/00703370-12349287","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The presence of exogamous consensual unions (marriages and cohabitations) is an important indicator of social closeness between groups. European research on intermarriage has focused on unions between minority groups and the native majority population, highlighting that religion, especially Islam, constitutes a bright boundary. In diversifying societies, however, opportunities for union formation between minority groups with distinct national origins are increasing. Yet, we know little about partnership patterns among these groups, particularly whether different Muslim groups coalesce through intergroup unions. Using full-population register data from the Netherlands (1999‒2023), we analyze union formation across any combination of the 21 largest national origin groups present on the partnership market. Our findings reveal that unions involving partners from Muslim groups originating from different countries remain strikingly rare overall compared with endogamy within national origin groups, indicating the persistence of national legacies rather than exclusively religious closure. Boundaries for union formation between Muslim groups do not weaken meaningfully across immigrant generations and time. Among non-Muslim groups, by contrast, unions are more commonly formed within broader panethnic \"melting pots.\" Overall, these results underscore the need for a more nuanced understanding of religious boundaries and panethnicity in union formation in Europe.</p>","PeriodicalId":48394,"journal":{"name":"Demography","volume":" ","pages":"2125-2149"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Demography","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/00703370-12349287","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The presence of exogamous consensual unions (marriages and cohabitations) is an important indicator of social closeness between groups. European research on intermarriage has focused on unions between minority groups and the native majority population, highlighting that religion, especially Islam, constitutes a bright boundary. In diversifying societies, however, opportunities for union formation between minority groups with distinct national origins are increasing. Yet, we know little about partnership patterns among these groups, particularly whether different Muslim groups coalesce through intergroup unions. Using full-population register data from the Netherlands (1999‒2023), we analyze union formation across any combination of the 21 largest national origin groups present on the partnership market. Our findings reveal that unions involving partners from Muslim groups originating from different countries remain strikingly rare overall compared with endogamy within national origin groups, indicating the persistence of national legacies rather than exclusively religious closure. Boundaries for union formation between Muslim groups do not weaken meaningfully across immigrant generations and time. Among non-Muslim groups, by contrast, unions are more commonly formed within broader panethnic "melting pots." Overall, these results underscore the need for a more nuanced understanding of religious boundaries and panethnicity in union formation in Europe.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在不同的社会中谁与谁合作?从多族群视角看荷兰的联盟形成与宗教边界。
异族通婚(婚姻和同居)的存在是群体之间社会亲密程度的重要指标。欧洲对异族通婚的研究主要集中在少数群体与本地多数人口之间的结合,强调宗教,特别是伊斯兰教,构成了一个明确的界限。然而,在多样化的社会中,具有不同民族血统的少数群体之间形成联盟的机会正在增加。然而,我们对这些群体之间的伙伴关系模式知之甚少,特别是不同的穆斯林群体是否通过群体间联盟联合起来。使用荷兰(1999-2023)的全人口登记数据,我们分析了在伙伴关系市场上存在的21个最大的原籍群体的任何组合的联盟形成情况。我们的研究结果表明,与原国籍群体中的内婚制相比,来自不同国家的穆斯林群体的伴侣组成的婚姻总体上仍然非常罕见,这表明民族遗产的持久性,而不仅仅是宗教封闭。穆斯林群体之间形成联盟的界限不会随着移民的世代和时间而有意义地减弱。相比之下,在非穆斯林群体中,工会通常是在更广泛的泛民族“大熔炉”中形成的。总的来说,这些结果强调了对欧洲联盟形成中的宗教界限和泛民族有更细致入微的理解的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Demography
Demography DEMOGRAPHY-
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
2.90%
发文量
82
期刊介绍: Since its founding in 1964, the journal Demography has mirrored the vitality, diversity, high intellectual standard and wide impact of the field on which it reports. Demography presents the highest quality original research of scholars in a broad range of disciplines, including anthropology, biology, economics, geography, history, psychology, public health, sociology, and statistics. The journal encompasses a wide variety of methodological approaches to population research. Its geographic focus is global, with articles addressing demographic matters from around the planet. Its temporal scope is broad, as represented by research that explores demographic phenomena spanning the ages from the past to the present, and reaching toward the future. Authors whose work is published in Demography benefit from the wide audience of population scientists their research will reach. Also in 2011 Demography remains the most cited journal among population studies and demographic periodicals. Published bimonthly, Demography is the flagship journal of the Population Association of America, reaching the membership of one of the largest professional demographic associations in the world.
期刊最新文献
U.S. State Policy Contexts, County Economic Contexts, and Working-Age Mortality. Research Note on the Role of Infertility and Medically Assisted Reproduction on the Realization of Ideal Family Size in Japan. Assortative Mating, the Division of Labor in Marriage, and Analytic Choices: A Reply. Assortative Agreement: A Reply to Gonalons-Pons and Schwartz. To See or Not to See: Another Look at the Mechanisms Behind Growing Earnings Homogamy in the United States.
wanfang
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1