Generations, social homogamy and stratification in Finland, 1700–1910

Abstract

This study analyses social heterogamy in western and southern Finland during the early stages of industrialisation, from 1700 to 1910. Marriage patterns are examined by comparing the social classes of spouses' parents, which can be understood as the social origin of the spouse. The rate of heterogamy within the freeholder class was only 19.8%, whereas it was 71.1% in the upper classes, 59.7% in the tenant class and 76.5% in the labour class. In addition, only roughly 20-30% of grooms whose fathers were landowners married brides from lower social classes. Certain individual-and family-level characteristics increased the odds of a heterogamous marriage: remarrying, age difference, being an illegitimate child or a single mother, and the first marriages of those in the labour class. Regarding macro-level variables, we found that higher rates of emigration and poor-relief recipients, along with having a larger Finnish-speaking population, led to higher levels of heterogamy. Other issues increasing the odds of heterogamy included living in the more urbanised or industrialised regions and moving to different regions. This study identified strict marriage patterns, which did not significantly change with respect to heterogamy. Nevertheless, indications exist that industrialisation and urbanisation began eroding the prevailing traditions.

Educational heterogamy during the early phase of the educational expansion: Results from the university town of Tartu, Estonia in the late 19th century

“…The finding that educational heterogamy in Tartu correlated with heterogamy by ethnicity or origin is not surprising. Earlier studies have found that the migratory background of individuals is associated with their partner's status origin (Zijdeman and Maas 2010;Roikonen and Häkkinen 2019). Other studies have pointed out that age heterogamy was more likely if one of the spouses was a migrant (Van de Putte et al 2009;Dribe and Stanfors 2017).…”

“…On the other hand, in France, parental status homogamy remained the same during the 19 th century (Maas et al 2011). In some countries, industrialisation may have started a decline in social homogamy among the rural population, but the economic pressure of societal change supported the tendency to protect against resource dilution and thus marry homogamously by social class, as in Norway (Bull 2005) and Finland (Roikonen and Häkkinen 2019). Such somewhat contradictory effects of modernisation are probably expected among rural populations, since they generally had more limited access to education and new occupations than those living in towns.…”

“…The urban setting of the modernisation period was influenced by an influx of migrants from rural areas and in many cases also from abroad, and this affected partner choice and family formation (Moreels and Matthijs 2010;Schumacher, Matthijs, and Moreels 2013). In Finland, the more urbanised or industrialised regions were more likely to have higher levels of heterogamy (Roikonen and Häkkinen 2019). Similarly, in France, partner formation in cities was less homogamous by parental status (Maas et al 2011).…”

Väistyvien perillisten elämänkulku ja lounaissuomalaisten maatilojen perinnönjakostrategia 1700–1900

“…Suomessa 1700-luvun alussa jopa 90 prosenttia tilallisista avioitui toisten tilallisten kanssa, ja 1800-luvun lopullakin osuus oli yli 70 prosenttia. 18 Avioliittoja käytettiin strategisesti perinnönjakojen järjestelemiseen. Tutkituissa kylissä solmittiin lukuisia vastavuoroisia avioliittoja, joissa kahden tilan sisarukset avioituivat keskenään.…”

Marriage patterns in a black Utopia: Evidence from early nineteenth-century colonial Sierra Leone

“…Some authors claim that modernization weakens kin relations and foster migrations, reducing the impact of social and familial influences and leading to a shift in preferences . Modern societies are more likely to record homogamy of achieved characteristics, whereas pre-modern societies tend to show higher levels of ascribed status homogamy (Schwartz, 2013; see also Lippényi et al, 2019;Roikonen & Häkkinen, 2019).…”