{"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":"129 1","pages":""},"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\":\"129 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"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}
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.