Social psychiatry

, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp 72–80 | Cite as

Aspects psychiatriques du mariage interéthnique

Etude pilote
  • Jean-François Saucier
Travaux Originaux

Résumé

Quinze couples maritauxhétérogames (un époux canadien-français catholique, l'autre époux canadien-irlandais catholique), dont au moins un membre est malade psychiatrique (névrotique ou psychotique), sont systématiquement comparés à quinze couples homogames (les deux époux canadien-français catholiques) sélectionnés de la même façon. — Contrairement à l'opinion de plusieurs auteurs qui n'ont observé aucune différence psychologique importante entre sujets homogames et hétérogames, nous avons détecté les différences suivantes, qui nous semblent significatives: 1. Plus de couples hétérogames ontles deux époux malades psychiatriques. — 2. L'échantillon hétérogame comprend le même nombre de patients psychiatriques masculins que l'échantillon homogame, mais il comprend beaucoup plus depatients féminins. - 3. On observe plus de dépression (névrotique et psychotique) dans le groupe hétérogame, et parallèlement plus de schizophrénie paranoide dans le groupe homogame. — 4. Une constellation typique du pouvoir (une mère franchement dominante et un père faible, en ce qui concerne les décisions à prendre au foyer, et la discipline des enfants) est observée beaucoup plus souvent dans la famille d'orientation des sujets hétérogames. — 5. La fréquence des troubles graves avec les enfants est plus élevée dans l'échantillon hétérogame. — Une généralisation de ces résultats à des couples hétérogames normaux n'est pas admissible sans exploration précise: cette recherche présente quelques hypothèses qui pourraient orienter cette exploration.

Summary

Fifteenheterogamic (“intermarried”) marital couples (Catholic French-Canadian — Catholic Irish-Canadian) of which at least one member had been diagnosed as mentally disturbed, neurotics and psychotics, were systematically compared to fifteen homogamic couples (both spouses French-Canadian) selected in the same way. — Contrary to many authors who do not see any important psychological differences between homogamic and heterogamic subjects, we have observed the following significant qualitative and quantitative differences: 1. More heterogamic couples haveboth spouses psychiatrically ill. — 2. The heterogamic sample has the same number of male patients, but has much morefemale patients than the homogamic one. — 3. There is more neurotic and psychotic depression in the heterogamic group, compared to more paranoid schizophrenia in the homogamic one. — 4. A typical power constellation (a frankly domineering mother and a weak father in matters concerning household decisions and discipline of children) was found much more frequently in the family of orientation of the heterogamic subjects. — 5. The frequency of severe difficulties with children is higher in the heterogamic group. — Generalization of these findings to emotionally well adjusted individuals does not appear permissible without specific exploration.

Zusammenfassung

Fünfzehnheterogame (in Mischehe lebende) Ehepaare (katholische Frankokanadier und katholische Irokanadier), von denen mindestens ein Partner als geistig gestört (neurotisch und psychopathisch) diagnostiziert worden war, wurden systematisch mit 15 homogamen Ehepaaren (beide Ehepartner Frankokanadier) verglichen, welche auf dieselbe Weise ausgewählt worden waren. — Im Gegensatz zu vielen Autoren, die keine wichtigen psychologischen Unterschiede zwischen homogamen und heterogamen Versuchspersonen sehen, haben wir folgende beträchtliche qualitative und quantitative Unterschiede festgestellt: 1. In mehr heterogamen Ehepaaren sindbeide Ehepartner psychiatrische Fälle. — 2. Die heterogame Gruppe hat dieselbe Anzahl von männlichen Patienten, hat aber viel mehrweibliche Patienten als die homogame Gruppe. — 3. Neurotische und psychopathische Depression ist häufiger in der heterogamen Gruppe, während in der homogamen Gruppe die paranoide Schizophrenie vorherrscht. — 4. Eine typische Machtkonstellation (eine offensichtlich dominierende Mutter und ein schwacher Vater in Sachen, die Haushaltsentscheidungen und Kindererziehung betreffen) wurde viel häufiger in einer Familie mit heterogamer Ausrichtung gefunden. — 5. Die Häufigkeit von ernsthaften Schwierigkeiten mit Kindern ist in der heterogamen Gruppe größer. — Verallgemeinerung dieser Ergebnisse in bezug auf gefühlsmäßig gut angepaßte (normale) Personen scheint ohne besondere Untersuchung nicht gerechtfertigt.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliographie

  1. 1.
    Ackerman, N. W., andN. Jahoda: Antisemitism and emotional disorder. New York: Harper 1950.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benoit, J.: Professeur d'Anthropologie Physique — Département d'Anthropologie, Université de Montréal: Communication personnelle, Avril 1966.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bronfenbrenner, U.: Toward a theoretical model for the analysis of parent-child relationships in a social context. InGlidewell, J. C.: Parental attitudes and child behavior. Springfield: C. C. Thomas 1961.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cavallin, H.: Incestuous fathers: A clinical report. Amer. J. Psychiat.122 (10), 1132–1138 (1966).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Druss, Capt.R. G.: Foreign marriages in the military. Psychiat. Quart.39, 220–226 (1965).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ellsworth, J. S.: The relationship of population density to residential propinquity as a factor in marriage selection. Amer. Spciol. Rev.13, 444–448 (1948).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fay, E. A.: Marriages of the deaf in America. Washington (Volta Bureau) 1898.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frenkel-Brunswick, E.: Parents and childhood as seen through the interviews. InAdorno, T. W. et al.: The authoritarian personality. Chap. X, Harper & Row 1950.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gorer, G.: The American people: A study of national character. New York: Norton 1948.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harris, I. A.: Assortative mating in man. Popular Science Monthly80, 476–492 (1912).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hartley, E. L.: Problems in prejudice. New York: King's Crown Press 1946.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Henry, A. F.: Family role structure and self-blame. Social Forces25, 34–38 (1956).Google Scholar
  13. 12a.
    Kagan, J.: Acquisition and significance of sex typing and sex role identity. InHoffman, M. L., andL. W. Hoffman (Eds.): Review of child development research, I, Chap. III. New York: Russell Sage Foundation 1964.Google Scholar
  14. 13.
    Kluckhohn, C.: Mirror for man. New York: McGraw Hill 1949.Google Scholar
  15. 14.
    Kohn, M., andJ. A. Clausen: Parental authority, behavior and schizophrenia. Amer. J. Orthopsychiat.26, 297 to 313 (1956).Google Scholar
  16. 15.
    Kraus, A. S., andA. M. Lilienfeld: Some epidemiological aspects of the high mortality rate in the young widowed group. J. Chron. Dis.10, 207–217 (1959).Google Scholar
  17. 16.
    Landis, J. T.: Marriages of mixed and non-mixed religious faith. Amer. Sociol. Rev.14, 401–407 (1949).Google Scholar
  18. 17.
    Langner, T. S., andS. T. Michael: Life stress and mental health, p. 328. Glencoe: Free Press 1963.Google Scholar
  19. 18.
    Levi-Strauss, C.: The family, Chap. XII. InShapiro, H. L. (Ed.): Man, culture and society. Galaxy Books. New York: Oxford Univ. Press 1960.Google Scholar
  20. 19.
    Levinson, M. H.: Psychological ill health in relation to potential fascism: A study of psychiatric clinic patients. InAdorno, T. W. et al.: The authoritarian personality, Chap. XXII. Harper & Row 1950.Google Scholar
  21. 20.
    Lutz, F. E.: Assortative mating in man. Science N.S.22, 249–250 (1905).Google Scholar
  22. 20a.
    Lynn, D., andW. L. Sawrey: The effects of father-absence on Norwegian boys and girls. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol.59, 258–262 (1959).Google Scholar
  23. 21.
    Maquet, J. J., Professeur visiteur — Département d'Anthropologie, Université de Montréal: Communication personnelle, Décembre 1966.Google Scholar
  24. 22.
    Murdock, G. P.: Social structure, p. 265 et 305. New York: MacMillan 1949.Google Scholar
  25. 23.
    —: Public lecture at University of Illinois, 1962; quoted in Farber, B.: Family: organization and interaction, p. 181. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co. 1964.Google Scholar
  26. 24.
    Nielsen, J.: Mental disorders in married couples (assortative mating). Brit. J. Psychiat.110, 683–697 (1964).Google Scholar
  27. 25.
    Pearson, K., andA. Lee: On the laws of inheritance in man. Biometrika2, 372–377 (1903).Google Scholar
  28. 26.
    Peters, E. L.: Aspects of the family among the Bedouin on Cyrenaica, Chap. VII. InNimkoff, M. F. (Ed.): Comparative family systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. 1965.Google Scholar
  29. 27.
    Richardson, H. M.: Studies of mental resemblance between husbands and wives, and between friends. Psychol. Bull.36, 104–120 (1939).Google Scholar
  30. 28.
    Saarbourg, E. A.: Frustration und Autoritarismus. Doctoral dissertation, University of Köln, 1958; quoted byTriandis, H. C., and L. M.Triandis: A cross-cultural study of social distance. Psychological Monographs76, 21 (1962).Google Scholar
  31. 29.
    Schellenberg, J. A., andL. S. Bee: A reexamination of the theory of complementary needs in mate selection. Marr. Fam. Liv.22, 227–232 (1960).Google Scholar
  32. 30.
    Schiller, B.: A quantitative analysis of marriage selection in a small group. J. Soc. Psychol.3, 297–319 (1932).Google Scholar
  33. 31.
    Schooley, M.: Personality resemblances among married couples. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol.31, 340–347 (1936).Google Scholar
  34. 32.
    Smith, M.: A research note on homogamy of marriage partners in selected physical characteristics. Amer. Sociol. Rev.11, 226–228 (1946).Google Scholar
  35. 33.
    Sumner, W. G.: Folkways. Boston: Ginn 1906.Google Scholar
  36. 34.
    —,A. G. Keller, andM. R. Davie: The science of society. New Haven: Yale University Press 1927.Google Scholar
  37. 35.
    Terman, L. M., andP. Buttenwieser: Personality factors in marital compatibility. J. Soc. Psychol.6, 267–289 (1935).Google Scholar
  38. 36.
    Triandis, H. C., andL. M. Triandis: A cross-cultural study of social distance. Psychological Monographs26, 21 (1962).Google Scholar
  39. 37.
    Warren, L., K. Pearson, S. Lutz, andJ. Lee: Assortative mating in man: A cooperative study. Biometrika2, 481–498 (1903).Google Scholar
  40. 38.
    Weinberg, S. K.: Incest behavior. New York: Citadel Press 1955.Google Scholar
  41. 39.
    Winch, R. F.: The theory of complementary needs in mate-selection: Final results on the test of the general hypothesis. Amer. Sociol. Rev.20, 552–555 (1955).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1967

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean-François Saucier
    • 1
  1. 1.Département de PsychiatrieUniversité McGillMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations