缺失的部分:对强迫婚姻研究的批判性回顾,以及呼吁家庭科学家研究强迫婚姻

IF 3.2 1区 社会学 Q1 FAMILY STUDIES
Jessie V. Ford, Aarushi Shah, Fraidy Reiss, Jennifer S. Hirsch
{"title":"缺失的部分:对强迫婚姻研究的批判性回顾,以及呼吁家庭科学家研究强迫婚姻","authors":"Jessie V. Ford, Aarushi Shah, Fraidy Reiss, Jennifer S. Hirsch","doi":"10.1111/jftr.12605","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In recent decades, there has been increased attention paid to the phenomenon of forced marriage. However, much of this work positions forced marriage as a problem of “backwards” culture or religion. This scoping review synthesizes and critiques research on forced marriage, showing that extant research has focused on individual circumstances of vulnerability, forced entrance to marriage, and cisgendered heterosexual women. These narrow framings eclipse the structural drivers, forces that prevent exit, and experiences of heterosexual men, queer individuals, and those with disabilities. Overall, the reviewed literature demonstrates the opportunity of applying new methodological (e.g., social autopsy), conceptual (e.g., post‐carceral approaches), and descriptive (e.g., gender and sexual minority people) approaches to this social problem. We urge family scientists to pay more attention to forced marriage, as they are uniquely positioned to parse out distinctions in the range of experiences that constitute forced marriage and to consider strategies to support marital self‐determination.","PeriodicalId":47446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Family Theory & Review","volume":"62 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Missing pieces: A critical review of research on forced marriage and a call for family scientists to study forced marriage\",\"authors\":\"Jessie V. Ford, Aarushi Shah, Fraidy Reiss, Jennifer S. Hirsch\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jftr.12605\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In recent decades, there has been increased attention paid to the phenomenon of forced marriage. However, much of this work positions forced marriage as a problem of “backwards” culture or religion. This scoping review synthesizes and critiques research on forced marriage, showing that extant research has focused on individual circumstances of vulnerability, forced entrance to marriage, and cisgendered heterosexual women. These narrow framings eclipse the structural drivers, forces that prevent exit, and experiences of heterosexual men, queer individuals, and those with disabilities. Overall, the reviewed literature demonstrates the opportunity of applying new methodological (e.g., social autopsy), conceptual (e.g., post‐carceral approaches), and descriptive (e.g., gender and sexual minority people) approaches to this social problem. We urge family scientists to pay more attention to forced marriage, as they are uniquely positioned to parse out distinctions in the range of experiences that constitute forced marriage and to consider strategies to support marital self‐determination.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47446,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Family Theory & Review\",\"volume\":\"62 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-22\",\"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.12605\",\"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.12605","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

近几十年来,人们越来越关注强迫婚姻的现象。然而,这些工作中的大部分将强迫婚姻定位为“落后”的文化或宗教问题。这篇范围综述综合并批评了关于强迫婚姻的研究,表明现有的研究主要集中在脆弱性的个人情况、强迫进入婚姻和异性恋女性的顺性别。这些狭隘的框架掩盖了结构性的驱动因素,阻止退出的力量,以及异性恋男性,酷儿个体和残疾人的经历。总的来说,回顾的文献展示了应用新方法(例如,社会解剖),概念(例如,后癌症方法)和描述性(例如,性别和性少数群体)方法来解决这一社会问题的机会。我们敦促家庭科学家更多地关注强迫婚姻,因为他们处于独特的地位,可以分析出构成强迫婚姻的各种经历的区别,并考虑支持婚姻自决的策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Missing pieces: A critical review of research on forced marriage and a call for family scientists to study forced marriage
In recent decades, there has been increased attention paid to the phenomenon of forced marriage. However, much of this work positions forced marriage as a problem of “backwards” culture or religion. This scoping review synthesizes and critiques research on forced marriage, showing that extant research has focused on individual circumstances of vulnerability, forced entrance to marriage, and cisgendered heterosexual women. These narrow framings eclipse the structural drivers, forces that prevent exit, and experiences of heterosexual men, queer individuals, and those with disabilities. Overall, the reviewed literature demonstrates the opportunity of applying new methodological (e.g., social autopsy), conceptual (e.g., post‐carceral approaches), and descriptive (e.g., gender and sexual minority people) approaches to this social problem. We urge family scientists to pay more attention to forced marriage, as they are uniquely positioned to parse out distinctions in the range of experiences that constitute forced marriage and to consider strategies to support marital self‐determination.
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