制度权力与婚姻的非制度化

IF 3.2 1区 社会学 Q1 FAMILY STUDIES
Rhys James Herden
{"title":"制度权力与婚姻的非制度化","authors":"Rhys James Herden","doi":"10.1111/jftr.12583","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article, I revisit the debate surrounding the deinstitutionalization of marriage. I identify the divergent methodologies used to evaluate deinstitutionalization and argue that institutional power requires greater definition. I develop the concept of institutional power by applying a Lukesian lens to new institutionalist theories of institutional activities. I define deinstitutionalization as the loss of connection between institutions and their sources of institutional power which constitutes their institutionality. Further, I argue that the indicators used to assess deinstitutionalization must recognize (a) the formal and informal aspects of marriage's institutionality and (b) the regulatory, normative, and cultural‐cognitive bases of marriage's institutional power. I argue that discursive processes drive developments in the discursive field of intimacy yet the emphasis on individualization in existing scholarship struggles to adequately explain developments such as same‐sex marriage. I propose that the personal life thesis offers a more cogent explanation of these changes.","PeriodicalId":47446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Family Theory & Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Institutional power and the deinstitutionalization of marriage\",\"authors\":\"Rhys James Herden\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jftr.12583\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this article, I revisit the debate surrounding the deinstitutionalization of marriage. I identify the divergent methodologies used to evaluate deinstitutionalization and argue that institutional power requires greater definition. I develop the concept of institutional power by applying a Lukesian lens to new institutionalist theories of institutional activities. I define deinstitutionalization as the loss of connection between institutions and their sources of institutional power which constitutes their institutionality. Further, I argue that the indicators used to assess deinstitutionalization must recognize (a) the formal and informal aspects of marriage's institutionality and (b) the regulatory, normative, and cultural‐cognitive bases of marriage's institutional power. I argue that discursive processes drive developments in the discursive field of intimacy yet the emphasis on individualization in existing scholarship struggles to adequately explain developments such as same‐sex marriage. I propose that the personal life thesis offers a more cogent explanation of these changes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47446,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Family Theory & Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Family Theory & Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12583\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"FAMILY STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Family Theory & Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12583","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在本文中,我重新审视了围绕婚姻非制度化的争论。我指出了用于评估非制度化的不同方法,并认为制度权力需要更明确的定义。我将卢克莱修的视角运用到新制度主义的制度活动理论中,从而发展了制度权力的概念。我将非制度化定义为制度与其构成制度性的制度权力来源之间失去联系。此外,我认为用于评估非制度化的指标必须承认(a)婚姻制度性的正式和非正式方面,以及(b)婚姻制度权力的监管、规范和文化认知基础。我认为,话语过程推动了亲密关系话语领域的发展,但现有学术研究对个体化的强调却难以充分解释同性婚姻等发展。我认为,个人生活论为这些变化提供了更有说服力的解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Institutional power and the deinstitutionalization of marriage
In this article, I revisit the debate surrounding the deinstitutionalization of marriage. I identify the divergent methodologies used to evaluate deinstitutionalization and argue that institutional power requires greater definition. I develop the concept of institutional power by applying a Lukesian lens to new institutionalist theories of institutional activities. I define deinstitutionalization as the loss of connection between institutions and their sources of institutional power which constitutes their institutionality. Further, I argue that the indicators used to assess deinstitutionalization must recognize (a) the formal and informal aspects of marriage's institutionality and (b) the regulatory, normative, and cultural‐cognitive bases of marriage's institutional power. I argue that discursive processes drive developments in the discursive field of intimacy yet the emphasis on individualization in existing scholarship struggles to adequately explain developments such as same‐sex marriage. I propose that the personal life thesis offers a more cogent explanation of these changes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
42
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信