The Transformation of Partnerships: Canada, the Netherlands, and the Russian Federation in the Age of Modernity & the Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better off Financially. (Review Essay/Revue Critique)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Melinda Mills, The Transformation of Partnerships: Canada, The Netherlands, and the Russian Federation in the Age of Modernity. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Thela Thesis Population Studies Series, 2000, 278 pp. Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage: Why Married People are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially. New York: Doubleday, 2000, 260pp. Books about marriage and relationships weigh heavily on the shelves of popular bookstores, as well as of sociologists. These two volumes bookend longstanding debates on marriage and intimate partnerships, changes in recent decades, and implications for lives/identities, taking profoundly different stances which lead to contrasting conclusions. The Transformation of Partnerships is an innovative sociological framing of a research question: what has changed or remained stable in union behaviours over time in three very different societies? The answers are found through pushing-of-the-art international comparative analyses, ground-breaking in themselves, contextualized by equally sophisticated theorization of intimate relations in late modernity. Previous studies of changing close relations, lean toward life course analysis or the changing contexts of women's life choices or opportunities. Mills asks how the constituents of modernity (increased insecurity, democracy, capitalism and individualization) in Canada, The Netherlands and the Russian Federation influence relationships, what contemporary social theory can add to what the data tell, and what interdependencies exist among disparate events or realms of life. Mills' book is set out in three major sections: explorations of theory (chapters 2 & 3), data and methodological approaches (chapters 4 & 5) , and empirical analyses and discussion (chapters 6-8). Chapter 9 summarizes the central findings of the study, assesses the usefulness of the theory and methodology, and concludes with discussion of the relevance of the study for research, policy and public understanding. Mills' findings are as intricate as her sociologically framed questions, and resonant with the complexities of intimate relations in modernity. In asking about transformations in partnerships over time and across cultural boundaries, her analysis is given a temporality and texture not often found in empirical studies of marriage or unions. The dynamic, and at times contentious, interrelationships of signification structures, meanings given to cohabitation and to marriage, and reified and reinforced by state policies and social practices come under her sharp gaze. She looks at the reflexive building of identities and monitoring of actions, both individual and structural. In unpeeling these layers of the social, she tells a tale of transforming partnerships not usually audible. Including all unions, for example, rather than only marriages, or marriages in comparison to cohabiting unions, she leads the reader to discover that the overall tendency to form intimate unions has been stable in the post-war period. It is the constellation of risks, social practices and reflexively built social identities that shape the forms intimate partnerships take. She adds further insight (and irony) by considering that unions form in the context of their own dissolution (for more on this, see Hackstaff, 1999). It is not only whether a union is legally binding that matters, but the levels of constraint and acceptability in dissolving the union in cultural, social and policy contexts. The ways in which partnerships form and dissolve in the three countries constructs structures of caregiving, of gender, of consumerism and of individualization. Marrying younger in the Russian Federation, for example, means more divorcees and widows at a time in life when Dutch and Canadian women are forming new partnerships. The weave of the tapestry of these approaches to unions crosstextures all other aspects of these societies. The Case for Marriage is Waite and Gallagher's large case title, but also an unequivocal stance that they argue with idealistic zeal. …
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".