Understandings of family among wives and husbands: reconciling emotional closeness and cultural expectations

References

• Aeby, G., Widmer, E. and De Carlo, I. (2014) ‘Bonding and bridging social capital in step- and first-time families and the issue of family boundaries’, Interpersona: An International Journal on Personal Relationships 8(1): 51–69. doi: 10.5964/ijpr.v8i1.149
   Google Scholar
• Becker, B. and Charles, N. (2006) ‘Layered meanings. The construction of “the family” in the interview’, Community, Work and Family 9(2): 101–22. doi: 10.1080/13668800600586894
   Google Scholar
• Ben-Ari, A. (2012) ‘Rethinking closeness and distance in intimate relationships: Are they really two opposites?’, Journal of Family Issues 33(3): 391–412. doi: 10.1177/0192513X11415357
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carsten, J. (2004) After Kinship, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Castrén, A.-M. (2008) ‘Post-divorce family configurations’, in E. Widmer and R. Jallinoja (eds), Beyond the Nuclear Family: Families in a Configurational Perspective, Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 233–54.
   Google Scholar
• Castrén, A.-M. (2017) ‘Rebuilding family? Continuity and change in family membership and relationship closeness in post-separation situations’, in V. Cesnuityte, D. Lück and E. Widmer (eds), Family Continuity and Change: European Perspectives, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 165–86.
   Google Scholar
• Castrén, A.-M. and Ketokivi, K. (2015) ‘Studying the complex dynamics of family relationships: A figurational approach’, Sociological Research Online 20(1), http://www.socresonline.org.uk/20/1/3.html. doi:10.5153/sro.3539.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castrén, A.-M. and Lonkila, M. (2004) ‘Friendship in Finland and Russia from a micro perspective’, in A.-M. Castrén, M. Lonkila and M. Peltonen (eds), Between Sociology and History. Essays on Microhistory, Collective Action, and Nation–Building, Helsinki: The Finnish Literature Society, pp. 162–74.
   Google Scholar
• Castrén, A.-M. and Maillochon, F. (2009) ‘Who chooses the wedding guests, the couple or the family? Individual preferences and relational constraints in France and Finland’, European Societies 11(3): 369–89. doi: 10.1080/14616690902764724
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castrén, A-M. and Widmer, E. (2015) ‘Insiders and outsiders in stepfamilies: Adults’ and children’s views on family boundaries’, Current Sociology 63(1): 35–56. doi: 10.1177/0011392114551650
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Church, E. (1999) ‘Who are the people in your family? Stepmothers’ diverse notions on kinship’, Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 31(1): 83–105. doi: 10.1300/J087v31n01_05
   Google Scholar
• Déchaux, J.-H. (2002) ‘Paradoxes of affiliation in the contemporary society’, Current Sociology 50(2): 229–42. doi: 10.1177/0011392102050002619
   Google Scholar
• Déchaux, J.-H. (2008) ‘Kinship studies: Neoclassicism and new wave. A critical review’, Revue Française de Sociologie 49: 215–43. doi: 10.3917/rfs.495.0215
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeVault, M. L. (1994) Feeding the Family. The Social Organization of Caring as Gendered Work, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Elias, N. (1978) What is Sociology?, London: Hutchinson.
   Google Scholar
• Eriksen, T. (2001) Small Places, Large Issues, London: Pluto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forsberg, H. (2005) ‘Finland’s families’, in J. Trost and B.N. Adams (eds), Handbook of World Families, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 262–82.
   Google Scholar
• Gabb, J. (2011) ‘Family lives and relational living: Taking account of otherness’, Sociological Research Online 16(4), http://www.socresonline.org.uk/16/4/10.html. doi:10.5153/sro.2443.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holy, L. (1996) Anthropological Perspectives on Kinship, London: Pluto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jamieson, L. (2005) ‘Boundaries of intimacy’, in L. McKie and S. Cunningham-Burley (eds), Families in Society: Boundaries and Relationships, Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 189–206.
   Google Scholar
• Jokinen, K. and Kuronen, M. (2011) ‘Research on families and family policies in Europe – major trends’, in U. Uhlendorff, M. Rupp and M. Euteneuer (eds) Wellbeing of Families in Future Europe. Challenges for Research and Policy, Brussels: Familyplatform, European Commission, pp. 13–118.
   Google Scholar
• Ketokivi, K. (2012) ‘The intimate couple, family and the relational organization of close relationships’, Sociology 46(3): 473–89. doi: 10.1177/0038038511422552
   Google Scholar
• Krackhardt, D. (1987) ‘Cognitive social structures’, Social Networks 9: 109–34. doi: 10.1016/0378-8733(87)90009-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maillochon, F. and Castrén, A.-M. (2011) ‘Making family at wedding: Bilateral kinship and equality’, in R. Jallinoja and E. Widmer (eds), Families and Kinship in Contemporary Europe. Rules and Practices of Relatedness, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 31–44.
   Google Scholar
• Mason, J. (2011) ‘What it means to be related’, in V. May (ed.), Sociology of Personal Life, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 59–71.
   Google Scholar
• May, V. (2011a) ‘Changing notions of lone motherhood in twentieth-century Finland’, Women's History Review, 20(1): 127–43. doi: 10.1080/09612025.2011.536395
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• May, V. (2011b) ‘Introducing a sociology of personal life’, in V. May (ed.), Sociology of Personal Life, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, D. H. J. (2011) Rethinking Family Practices, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
   Google Scholar
• Official Statistics of Finland (OSF) (2016a) Changes in marital status [e-publication]. ISSN=1797-643X. 2015. Helsinki: Statistics Finland [referred: 20.2.2017], http://www.stat.fi/til/ssaaty/2015/ssaaty_2015_2016-04-21_tie_001_en.html.
   Google Scholar
• Official Statistics of Finland (OSF) (2016b) Births [e-publication]. ISSN=1798-2413. 02 2015. Helsinki: Statistics Finland [referred: 15.3.2017], http://www.stat.fi/til/synt/2015/02/synt_2015_02_2016-12-08_tie_001_en.html.
   Google Scholar
• Perelli-Harris, B., Isupova, O., Mynarska, M., Keizer, R., Berrington, A., Klärner, A., Berghammer, C., Lappegård, T., Evans, A. and Vignoli, D. (2014) ‘Towards a new understanding of cohabitation: Insights from focus group research across Europe and Australia’, Demographic Research, 31(34): 1043–78. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2014.31.34
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rands, M. (1988) ‘Changes in social networks following marital separation and divorce’, in R. Milardo (ed.), Families and Social Networks, London: Sage, pp. 127–46.
   Google Scholar
• Ritala-Koskinen, A. (1997) ‘Stepfamilies from the child’s perspective: from stepfamily to close relationships’, Marriage & Family Review 26(1): 135–51. doi: 10.1300/J002v26n01_09
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roseneil, S. and Budgeon, S. (2004) ‘Cultures of intimacy and care beyond “the family”: Personal life and social change in the early 21st century’, Current Sociology 52(2): 135–59. doi: 10.1177/0011392104041798
   Google Scholar
• Schneider, D. M. (1980 [1968]) American Kinship. A Cultural Account, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, J. (2013) Social Network Analysis. A Handbook, London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Smart, C. (2007) Personal Life, Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Spencer, L. and Pahl, R. (2006) Rethinking Friendship. Hidden Solidarities Today, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stewart, S.D. (2005) ‘Boundary ambiguity in stepfamilies’, Journal of Family Issues, 26: 1002–29. doi: 10.1177/0192513X04273591
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, C. (2001) ‘Strategic naturalizing: Kinship in an infertility clinic’, in S. Franklin and S. McKinnon (eds), Relative Values. Reconfiguring Kinship Studies, Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 175–222.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, K.N. and Messinger, L. (1979) ‘Remarriage after divorce: dissolutions and reconstruction of family boundaries’, Family Process 18(2): 185–92. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.1979.00185.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wall, K. and Gouveia, R. (2014) ‘Changing meanings of family in personal relationships’, Current Sociology 62(3): 352–73. doi: 10.1177/0011392113518779
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weber, F. (2013) Penser la parenté aujourd'hui. La force du quotidian, Paris: Éditions Rue d'Ulm.
   Google Scholar
• Weeks, J., Heaphy, B. and Donovan, C. (2001) Same Sex Intimacies: Families of Choice and other Life Experiments, London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Widmer, E.D. (2006) ‘Who are my family members? Bridging and binding social capital in family configurations’, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 23(6): 979–98. doi: 10.1177/0265407506070482
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Widmer, E.D. (2010) Family Configurations: A Structural Approach to Family Diversity, Farnham: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Widmer, E.D., Castrén, A.-M., Jallinoja, R. and Ketokivi, K. (2008) ‘Introduction’, in E.D. Widmer and R. Jallinoja (eds), Beyond the Nuclear Family. Families in a Configurational Perspective, Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Yanigasako, S. (1977) ‘Women-centered kinship networks in urban bilateral kinship’, American Ethnologist 4(2): 207–26. doi: 10.1525/ae.1977.4.2.02a00010
   Google Scholar
• Yesilova, K. (2009) Ydinperheen politiikka (Politics of nuclear family), Helsinki: Gaudeamus.
   Google Scholar
• Yuval-Davis, N. (2006) ‘Belonging and the politics of belonging’, Patterns of Prejudice 40(3): 197–214. doi: 10.1080/00313220600769331
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar