Journal of Family Theory & Review最新文献

Structural racism is central for understanding Black families, but structural racism has not been central to quantitative research on Black families. Instead, research on Black families has disproportionately used deficit frameworks and race-neutral explanations that misrepresent the reality of Black families. For the current commentary, I begin with a straightforward question: why are scholars still grappling with the role of White supremacy in family science? To address this question, I contend that family science needs a more nuanced theoretical perspective on Black families that adequately addresses the association between racism and race. I offer a novel conceptual model for the study of Black family inequality. I take racism and the social construction of race seriously by focusing on the making, the maintenance, and the manifestation of racial stratification. My hope is that family scholars will employ theoretical frameworks that center racism and highlight the social construction of race.

Guided by Allen's (2023) call for developing a critical consciousness, this paper applies feminist reflexive practice to uncover the personal curiosities and contradictions that have motivated my research program on diverse romantic relationships. Specifically, I examine faith, race, and heterosexism as the root of an unresolved collision of privilege and oppression that undergird my burgeoning research program. I begin by reviewing my own positionality before sharing how my personal experiences with family and identity collided with my profession. Finally, I discuss how the personal and professional have motivated praxis, or the leveraging of research as a pathway toward social justice. In doing so, I unveil how personal motivations and complacency in oppression shaped the development of my research program in hopes of spurring innovative theorizing and empirical research rooted in the authenticity of lived experiences.

The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine whether relationship self-regulation (changing aspects of the self for the sake of the relationship) or partner regulation (changing the partner for the sake of the self/relationship) was more strongly associated with romantic relationship quality. Twenty studies (5 on relationship self-regulation, 15 on partner regulation; N = 15,563) were included. A moderate positive association was found between relationship self-regulation and relationship quality (r = .42). A weak positive association was found between positive partner regulation and relationship quality (r = .14). A negative association was found between negative partner regulation strategies and relationship quality (r = −.22). Partner regulation strategies were unlikely to be successful in prompting change in targeted partners. A weak positive association was found between positive strategies and regulation success (r = .10), and a weak negative association was found between negative strategies and regulation success (r = −.09). Thus, relationship self-regulation is more strongly associated with relationship quality than partner regulation.

In this article, I urge family scholars to anchor their race work on the structural racism perspective. First, I provide some limitations of the prejudice problematic used by most family scholars. Second, I discuss the basic components of my structural theory, which I call the racialized social system approach. Third, I bolster my original theorization with a new conceptual map to make the structure intelligible—to account for why actors, for the most part, behave in ways that reproduce the racial order. In this discussion, I highlight the importance of the “white habitus” in shaping the lives and behaviors of White people. Lastly, I conclude by summarizing my claims and asking family scholars to continue deepening their work on structural racism and families, as well as on fighting how it shapes their own fields and lives.

Long-established studies and scales have advanced understandings of family function, marital satisfaction, and couple relationship quality. The underpinning constructs nevertheless remain under-conceptualized and largely removed from the heuristic of everyday life and the dynamic of contemporary coupledom. We propose that a paradigm shift is required to sufficiently engage with the digital worlds of 21st century intimacies. Ideas in feminist new materialism revitalize the epistemology and ontology of relationship science. This enables a new look at how relationship quality is manifest in and created through human–technology intra–actions. The research tools of feminist new materialism are, however, typically creative and intentionally exploratory. We demonstrate how using a practices approach, which focuses on everyday lived experience, facilitates investigation of multidimensional public–private worlds. We deploy this to build a feminist new materialist analysis of a digital couple intervention. Through this, we develop the concept of more–than–relationship quality.

The term single is limited as it is defined as the absence of a romantic partner, which places one's relationship status within a binary, assumes availability for romantic partnership, and implies single is a transitory state preceding union formation. These perceptions of singlehood serve to maintain hegemonic structures of marriage and nuclear family. However, the implications associated with the term single do not represent the experiences of all singles. This paper proposes an alternative framework for classifying singles based on their approach to romantic relationships that considers both openness to and desire for romantic partnership. I provide a typology of singles that defy the assumptions of singlehood and situate these categories within my theoretical framework. Finally, I demonstrate how this framework highlights the potential stability of singlehood, and I conclude by examining how social scientists can use this theory to better understand heterogeneity in singles' experiences.

The practice of critically reflexive feminist autoethnography—or connecting one's personal experiences and beliefs to professional and political processes—can be a challenging and often invisible process. Nonetheless, it is a method worthy of engagement, given the impact one's positionality often has on one's scholarship. In this article, I reflect on how I understand myself as an intersectional Black, bisexual woman. Furthermore, I discuss the ways in which the personal relates to my professional and political academic life. In making broader connections to larger societal forces, I discuss how I came to study diverse individuals and families with intersecting identities and outline my struggles with my own academic growth and scholastic improvement. I also unpack the uncertainties I have faced in attempting to find my place in academia. Finally, for other intersectional scholars, I offer some suggestions for self-reflection on research and practice within the academy.

Researchers often assume that close interracial relationships, especially intermarriage, simultaneously reflect and cause a weakening of racial and ethnic boundaries and inequality between groups. In fact, interracial marriage is often used as a measure of social distance. We question those assumptions, noting the salient boundaries and durable inequalities that remain despite decades of increases in interracial relationships. We begin with historical examples, showing how, for much of US history, there was no expectation that interracial sexual encounters would reduce racial inequality or weaken boundaries. Incorporating critical race theory and intersectional perspectives, we describe how the impact of interracial intimate relationships is both gendered and classed. We argue that research on contemporary intimate interracial relationships (friendships, dating, and marriage) explains why such relationships may have little impact on attitudes, inequality, and the rigidity of boundaries and call for future research to consider dynamics within the family as well.