Page 116

AD ALTA

JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH

4.7 Advantages and disadvantages of a mixed marriage

A relatively large variability of responses is recorded in relation
to the declared advantages and disadvantages of a mixed
marriage. In terms of content and frequency, these statements
can be categorized into several categories. The most frequently
cited positives are:

1.

enriching of partners - culture, habits, traditions,
knowledge (it was declared by 43 respondents out of 177
who answered the question),

the opportunity of partners to learn or improve in a foreign
language, bilingualism in the education of children (23
respondents),

improvement or testing of psychological qualities -
openness, tolerance, range of knowledge, respondents also
refer to them as “open mind” (19 respondents).

The claim that mixed marriage has no advantages, was found in
22 answers. Moreover, travelling and the fact that the partners
are not bored were frequently declared advantages. The same or
similar categories are found in the statements describing the
disadvantages of a mixed marriage. 162 respondents who
answered the question most often agree with the following
points when describing the negatives:

1.

differences in culture in general (31 responses)

differences in religion (15 responses)

language barrier (11 responses)

misunderstandings, conflicts (10 responses)

the need to conform to a different culture (10 responses)

Respondents also expressed the problem of distance and
separation of partners, racial disparities, different mentality,
negative attitude of the neighbourhood and disfavour of the
partner's family, differences in children's education and office
complications (marriage ceremony, divorce) as well as
kidnappings.

4.8 Recommendations in relation to the marriage preferences
of the descendants

The last studied topic was the attitude towards a partner from a
different or the same group, but this time we focused on the
attitude towards the partner of the respondents' children. In most
cases, respondents' evaluation and recommendations were the
same as the ideas about their own partner. From the point of
view of the studied topic, it is interesting to observe the
formulation of these statements, in which we can study naming
of acceptable and unacceptable partners for children, and also
the occasional signs of activity / passivity or concrete action in
such situation. The most frequent responses in this sense were
responses which:

1.

simply named the groups that would be acceptable or
unacceptable for their children.

declared that the selection and evaluation of a child's
partner is not their decision, they leave the decision to the
children themselves, and accept it even if they disagree
with it. “My acceptance would not be important.”, “I
accept all son's decisions.”

strongly expressed disapproval of certain groups or they
clearly (even imperatively) defined the group which the
partner of a child would have to come from. “I would not
accept Roma.”, “I would not be in favour of anybody
Asian or Muslim.”, “He must be a Christian.”, “I would
never agree with that.”, “He must be white – that I will
accept, nothing else.”

Rare answers were:

1.

They indicated the procedures which would direct the child
when choosing a partner. “She tried to convince her to
consider it.”, “I would dissuade him from it.”

They indicated sanction procedures against a child whose
decision would not be in line with parents' opinions. “I

would not accept it, I would throw her out of the house,
and disinherit her.”

5 Conclusions and discussion

Perception of the difference between a marriage within a group
and a marriage with a partner from a different group is directly
related to group identity and cohesion and it is a measure of the
permeability of the group's boundaries and the ability of the
group to communicate or to be closed towards other groups.
Endo-exogamous rules act as group norms by which the
community expresses its relation to particular groups and their
application is ensured through social pressure on the individual.

The existence of such attitudes or patterns of behaviour in
relation to marital preferences were confirmed in our empirical
research. It is clear that respondents prefer partners from the
same or similar groups. In their responses, they express their
group identity as “Slovaks”, “Christians”, “Slovak nationality”,
“Causacians”, “speaking Slovak”, “Europeans” and “Slavs”.
Their own groups, as well as their values, are referred to by
respondents in some of their statements as “better” or
“normal”. “We are the best.”, “I think we have the best religion
and it should be the only one in the world.”, “It contrasts with
the traditional Slovak marriage.” The choice of partners within
these circles is then perceived as optimal and recommended.
Partners from nearby or similar groups are considered to be
acceptable. "Proximity" is in their statements perceived as a
spatial category - neighbouring and nearby states (Czech
Republic, European countries) or cultural similarity (Czech,
Christian European culture, Slavic).

On the other hand, respondents are unwilling to cross the
boundaries by a mixed marriage with a partner from "distant"
groups. In this context, they name partners who come from
different religious, ethnic and racial groups. They are rather
strictly opposed to Muslims, Roma, Arabs, Blacks, and Africans.
The language difference between the partners is perceived as the
least problematic. Respondents perceive the linguistic difference
of a partner as certain enrichment for them and their
descendants.

Respondents' testimonies show a strong stereotyping and
categorization of others into groups. We note the tendency to
ethnize the issue of mixed marriages, i.e. to focus on the ethnic
origin of the potential partner, as well as his religious confession.
Content analysis of the testimonies points to the fact that the
categories of difference specified by us (ethnicity, religiosity,
citizenship or linguistic identity, race) are intertwined in the
minds of respondents and that respondents create their own
subcategories of wanted and unwanted marriage partners. An
example of this is the category “Muslim” and further
subcategories derived from it: “Muslim states”, “Muslim
languages” and “Muslim religion” that resonate in all types of
responses. Relatively significant binary oppositions that are
perceived in the sense "we-they" when choosing a partner are
represented by these opposites:

„we“

„they“

Christians/Europe/Caucasian

Muslims/Africa/Black/Roma

Unequivocal conditionality of responses with the social
characteristics of the respondents (gender, age, education) was
not confirmed. Certain specifics have been demonstrated in
partial findings. Respondents with university education are more
open to accept a partner of another language and a partner from a
distant country; the oldest generation is mainly oriented to a
partner speaking Slovak and Czech languages and ethnically and
religiously similar partner; the youngest age group is open to the
linguistic difference of the partner, more oriented to the
Christian partner; a partner of Christian religion is preferred by
Christians as well as people without religious confession. It can
be deduced from the testimonies that respondents in their mixed
marriage assessments rely on their own experience to a
minimum extent, but are mostly influenced by mediated images

- 116 -