The Politics of Bi-nationality in Couple Relationships: A Case Study of European Bi-national Couples in Manchester
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the debordering of Europe and the development of intra-European mobility, the number of bi-national couples formed by European nationals is on the rise. This phenomenon is particularly noticeable in large European cities such as Manchester (UK) where the qualitative study underpinning this article took place. Whilst, research has hitherto focused on mixed-raced and/or interreligious couples, other types of mixed relationships such as European bi-national couples remain relatively understudied. Based on in-depth interviews with a sample of forty-two individuals either involved in a bi-national couple formed by one European national and one British national (E/B couples) or a bi-national couple formed by two European migrants movers of different nationalities (E/E couples), this article explores the politics of binationality both between partners and in their relationships with their families of orientation and procreation. On the one hand, the perception of the bi-national component evolves through time and according to the different stages of the couple's life-course. Whilst the bi-national component is a focal point in the early days of the partners' relationship, it progressively becomes normalised and integrated into couples' everyday lives. The experience of otherness as constructed on the basis of national boundaries evolves as couples' practices and perceptions become increasingly hybridised. Nonetheless, this process of normalisation is not linear and can be disrupted by the persistence of imbalances between partners or when significant decisions have to be made. On the other hand, the significance given to the bi-national component is negotiated and reinterpreted according to the situation and its protagonists. Beyond the couple relationship itself, co-presence with both sets of ascending families leads to the resurgence of the bi-national component. Its reinterpretation by family members as a source of constraints rather than opportunities often leads partners to engage in strategies of minimisation and repression of the bi-national component. By contrast, when starting a family of their own, bi-national couples rediscover, celebrate and ultimately engineer their bi-nationality, seeking to seize what they perceive as an opportunity to move beyond binationality to realise mixedness.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".