Intercultural Negotiations Over a Newborn: The Case of Persians in the United Kingdom

  • Ali Amirmoayed
Part of the Palgrave Macmillan Studies in Family and Intimate Life book series (PSFL)


This chapter is based on research that investigated partnering relationships across cultures, involving Persian immigrants to the UK and non-Persians. It is driven by a critical account of the theory of reflexive modernization. The chapter provides an intersectional analysis of negotiations over the main challenges participants faced at the birth of a child. I argue that religion is the most significant factor that shapes practices such as naming, baptizing, and circumcising a newborn. These negotiations are intergenerational, so that grandparental interventions were challenging in these unions. I then discuss how these practices may operate under the conditions of detraditionalization and individualization.


  1. Andersen, M.L. 2005. Thinking About Women a Quarter Century’s View. Gender & Society 19 (4): 437–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson, Q.D., and H. Whitehouse. 2011. The Cultural Morphospace of Ritual Form: Examining Modes of Religiosity Cross-Culturally. Evolution and Human Behavior 32 (1): 50–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becher, H. 2008. Family Practices in South Asian Muslim Families: Parenting in Multi-Faith Britain. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beck, U. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Trans. [from the German] by Mark Ritter. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Beck, U., and E. Beck-Gernsheim. 1995. The Normal Chaos of Love. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 2002. Individualization. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. ———. 2014. Distant Love. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  8. Beck, U., W. Bonss, and C. Lau. 2003. The Theory of Reflexive Modernization Problematic, Hypotheses and Research Programme. Theory, Culture & Society 20 (2): 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beck, U., A. Giddens, and S. Lash. 1994. Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. Beck-Gernsheim, E. 2002. Reinventing the Family: In Search of New Lifestyles. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  11. Benson, S. 1981. Ambiguous Ethnicity: Interracial Families in London. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Charsley, K. 2013. Transnational Pakistani Connections: Marrying ‘Back Home’. Oxon/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Denniston, G.C., F.M. Hodges, and M.F. Milos, eds. 2010. Genital Autonomy: Protecting Personal Choice. Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  14. Giddens, A. 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  15. ———. 1992. The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Society. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  16. Gross, N. 2005. The Detraditionalizaion of Intimacy Reconsidered. Sociological Theory 23 (3): 286–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jamieson, L. 1998. Intimacy. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  18. ———. 1999. Intimacy Transformed? A Critical Look at the Pure Relationship. Sociology 33 (3): 477–494.Google Scholar
  19. Kyambi, S. 2005. Beyond Black and White: Mapping New Immigrant Communities. London: Institute for Public Policy.Google Scholar
  20. Pasura, D. 2008. Gendering the Diaspora: Zimbabwean Migrants in Britain. African Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Africa in a Global World 1 (1–2): 86–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Phoenix, A., and C. Owen. 2000. From Miscegenation to Hybridity: Mixed Relationships and Mixed Parentage in Profile. In Hybridity and Its Discontents: Politics, Science, Culture, ed. A. Brah and A. Coombes. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Risman, B.J. 2004. Gender as a Social Structure Theory Wrestling with Activism. Gender & Society 18 (4): 429–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shaw A., and K. Charsley. 2006a. Special Issue: ‘South Asian Transnational Marriages in Comparative Perspective’. Global Networks 6: 331–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shaw, A., and K. Charsley. 2006b. Rishtas: Adding Emotion to Strategy in Understanding British Pakistani Transnational Marriages. Global Networks 6: 405–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Smart, C. 2007. Personal Life: New Directions in Sociological Thinking. Cambridge: Policy.Google Scholar
  26. Smart, C., and B. Shipman. 2004. Visions in Monochrome: Marriage and the Individualization Thesis. Sociology 55 (4): 491–509.Google Scholar
  27. Smooth, W. 2010. Intersectionalities of Race and Gender and Leadership. In Gender and Women’s Leadership: A Reference Handbook, ed. K. O’Connor, 31–41. Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Spellman, K. 2004. Religion and Nation: Iranian Local and Transnational Networks in Britain. New York/Oxford: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
  29. Whitehouse, H. 2002. Modes of Religiosity: Towards a Cognitive Explanation of the Sociopolitical Dynamics of Religion. Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 14 (3/4): 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Young, R.C. 1995. Colonial Desire: Hybridity in Theory, Culture and Race. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ali Amirmoayed
    • 1
  1. 1.University of BirminghamBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations