Marriage Migration from Turkey to Germany: Risks and Coping Strategies of Transnational Couples

  • Can M. Aybek
  • Gaby Straßburger
  • İlknur Yüksel-Kaptanoğlu
Chapter

Abstract

This paper presents selected results from a research project on the dynamics of marriage migration from Turkey to Germany. In terms of its design, the project represents a multi-sited research endeavour with a dyadic sample consisting of couples for whom, at the beginning of the data collection, one partner was living in Turkey and the other in Germany. The main data consist of series of interviews with transnational couples over a time period of eight months covering the pre- and post-migration phases. The aim was to develop a thorough understanding of the conditions of the joining partner before migration, the methods by which the couple facilitates its relationship within a transnational social space, and the receiving context in which the resident partner lives. From this broader perspective, here we focus on two questions: How are events and rituals concerning marriages altered in the context of transnational marriages? And what are the perceived risks and the coping strategies adopted by transnational couples? Our results indicate that the temporal order of events differs from local marriage processes, in that organizing a transnational marriage tends to be characterized by long periods of waiting during which minor steps are taken and short periods of accelerated activities in which rituals are performed in a condensed manner. A transnational relationship, furthermore, is perceived to carry specific risks. Those perceived risks vary not only by gender and education, but also differ for the migrating and resident spouses.

References

  1. Barnard, A., & Spencer, J. (Eds.). (2010). Encyclopedia of social and cultural anthropology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Baykara-Krumme, H., & Fuß, D. (2009). Heiratsmigration nach Deutschland: Determinanten der transnationalen Partnerwahl türkeistämmiger Migranten. Zeitschrift für Bevölkerungswissenschaft, 34(1–2), 135–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Corden, A., & Millar, J. (2007). Time and change: A review of the qualitative longitudinal research literature for social policy. Social Policy and Society, 6(4), 583–592.Google Scholar
  4. Deutscher Bundestag. (2010). Unterrichtung durch die Bundesregierung. Bericht über die Evaluierung des Nachweises einfacher Deutschkenntnisse beim Ehegattennachzug nach dem Aufenthaltsgesetz – Sprachlern- und Sprachtestangebote, Visumverfahren, Drucksache 17/3090//17. Wahlperiode, Berlin. http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/030/1703090.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2012.
  5. Deutscher Bundestag. (2011). Antwort der Bundesregierung auf die Kleine Anfrage der Abgeordneten Sevim Dağdelen, Ulla Jelpke, Frank Tempel, Katrin Werner und der Fraktion DIE LINKE, Drucksache 17/7012//17. Wahlperiode, Berlin. http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/070/1707012.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2012.
  6. Ergöçmen, B. A., Eryurt, M. A., Adalı, T. (2009). Other proximate determinants of fertility. Demographic and health survey 2008. Ankara: Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies, Ministry of Health General Directorate of Mother and Child Health and Family Planning, T.R., Prime Ministry Undersecretary of State Planning Organisation and TUBITAK.Google Scholar
  7. Fortunato, L. (2011). Reconstructing the history of residence strategies in Indo-European-speaking societies: Neo-uxori-, and virilocality. Human Biology, 83(1), 107–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. George, S. M. (2005). When women come first: Gender and class in transnational migration. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  9. Joppke, C. (2001). The legal-domestic sources of immigrant rights. Comparative Political Studies, 34(4), 339–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kalter, F., & Schroedter, J. H. (2010). Transnational marriage among former labour migrants in Germany. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung – Journal of Family Research, 22(1), 11–36.Google Scholar
  11. Kıray, M. (1990). The family of the migrant worker. In F. Özbay (Ed.), Women, family and social change in Turkey (pp. 70–90). Bangkok: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  12. Koç, İ., Özgören, A., & Şirin, E. (2010). Türkiye’de YaşlıƖarın Yaşam Kalitesi ve Aile Yapısının Yaşlıların Yaşam Kalitesine Etkisi. In Hacettepe University – Institute for Population Studies, Turkish Ministry of Health, Turkish State Planning Organization, TÜBİTAK (Ed.), Türkiye Nüfus ve Sağlık Araştırması 2008 İleri Analiz Çalışması: Türkiye’de Doğurganlık, Üreme Sağlığı ve Yaşlılık (pp. 231–283). Ankara: TÜBİTAK.Google Scholar
  13. Kofman, E. (2004). Family-related migration: A critical review of European studies. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 30(2), 243–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kraler, A. (2010). Civic stratification, gender and family migration policies in Europe. Final report (revised and updated public version), BMWF/ICMPD, Vienna. http://research.icmpd.org/fileadmin/Research-Website/Test_content/FINAL_Report_Family_Migration_Policies_Online_FINAL.pdf. Accessed 1 Oct 2011.
  15. Kraler, A., & Kofman, E. (2009). Family migration in Europe: Policies vs. reality. (IMISCOE Policy Brief, No. 16), Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  16. Kreienbrink, A., & Rühl, S. (2007). Familiennachzug in Deutschland. Kleinstudie IV im Rahmen des Europäischen Migrationsnetzwerks, Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge, Nürnberg. http://www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/Anlagen/DE/Publikationen/WorkingPapers/wp10-deutsch-familiennachzug-in-deutschland.html. Accessed 12 Sept 2011.
  17. Lewis, J. (2007). Analysing qualitative longitudinal research in evaluations. Social Policy and Society, 6(4), 545–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1996). Qualitative data analysis. An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Murdock, G. P. (1967). Ethnographic atlas. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  20. Neale, B., & Flowerdew, J. (2003). Time, texture and childhood: The contours of longitudinal qualitative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6(3), 189–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rosenthal, G. (2004). Biographical research. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. F. Gubrium, & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 48–64). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Schroedter, J. (2006). Binationale Ehen in Deutschland. Wirtschaft und Statistik, 4, 419–431.Google Scholar
  23. Stirling, P. (1965). Turkish village. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Google Scholar
  24. Strasser, E., Kraler, A., Bonjour, S., & Bilger, V. (2009). Doing family: Responses to the constructions of ‘the migrant family’ across Europe. The History of the Family, 14(2), 165–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Straßburger, G. (2000). Das Heiratsverhalten von Personen ausländischer Nationalität oder Herkunft in Deutschland. In Sachverständigenkommission 6. Familienbericht (Ed.), Materialien zum 6. Familienbericht: Familien ausländischer Herkunft in Deutschland (pp. 9–48). Opladen: Leske + Budrich.Google Scholar
  26. Straßburger, G. (2003). Heiratsverhalten und Partnerwahl im Einwanderungskontext: Eheschließungen der zweiten Migrantengeneration türkischer Herkunft. Würzburg: Ergon-Verlag.Google Scholar
  27. Straßburger, G. (2004). Transnational ties of the second generation: Marriages of Turks in Germany. In T. Faist & E. Özveren (Eds.), Transnational social spaces: Agents, networks and institutions (pp. 211–231). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  28. SVR – Sachverständigenrat deutscher Stiftungen für Integration und Migration (Ed.). (2011). Migrationsland 2011: Jahresgutachten 2011 mit Migrationsbarometer, Sachverständigenrat deutscher Stiftungen für Integration und Migration, Berlin. http://www.svr-migration.de/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/jg_2011.pdf. Accessed 13 Sept 2011.
  29. Tekҫe, B. (2004). Paths of marriage in Istanbul: Arranging choices and choice in arrangements. Ethnography, 5(2), 173–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Thomson, R., & Holland, J. (2003). Hindsight, foresight and insight: The challenges of longitudinal qualitative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6(3), 233–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Timur, S. (1972). Türkiye’de Aile Yapısı. Hacettepe University Publication D-15. Ankara: Hacettepe University.Google Scholar
  32. Timur, S. (1979). Türkiye’de Aile Yapısının Belirleyicileri. In N. Abadan-Unat (Ed.), Türk Toplumunda Kadın (pp. 117–132). Ankara: Türk Sosyal Bilimler Derneği.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Can M. Aybek
    • 1
  • Gaby Straßburger
    • 2
  • İlknur Yüksel-Kaptanoğlu
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Social SciencesBremen University of Applied SciencesBremenGermany
  2. 2.Catholic University of Applied Sciences Berlin (KHSB)BerlinGermany
  3. 3.Institute of Population StudiesHacettepe UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations