Title

非關婚姻:同居生活的家庭與家人之未來展演

Translated Titles

Beyond Marriage: Exploring the Emerging Images of Cohabitation and Family

DOI

10.6846/TKU.2008.00666

Authors

裴于雯

Key Words

同居 ; 家人 ; 家庭 ; 婚姻 ; 未來 ; cohabitation ; family ; marriage ; future

PublicationName

淡江大學未來學研究所碩士班學位論文

Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication

2008年

Academic Degree Category

碩士

Advisor

陳國華

Content Language

繁體中文

Chinese Abstract

當教育水準的提升、結婚年齡普遍地延後,以及不婚或未婚率的逐漸增加;個人面對自我實現與追求更甚於對婚姻的憧憬時,現代人對於婚姻的想像亦開始產生變化,進而影響傳統家庭的本質與意涵,非傳統家庭型態也因此漸次展開。本研究透過文獻的蒐集與彙整,了解婚姻與家庭各面向的論述與發展脈絡,以及台灣目前多元家庭型態的現況和家意義的相關資料,並藉由過去研究整理各學者所提出的論點,反省與思考其真正涵義並提出個人的想法及意見,進而和理論產生對話。 另一方面,非傳統家庭型態當中涵括了各式各樣的類型;決定以同居生活作為本研究的觀察重點,主要是因為同居的模式和步入婚姻一樣雙方有著實質的共同生活,但卻少了婚姻契約的規範。研究者嘗試以半結構式的訪談法,透過同居生活的面向與視角,從個人的生活經驗與社會互動下所產生的感知與行動,探討現代人對於家的想像以及家人的定義,並從中發現婚姻與血緣等關係在家的建構與家人的形塑當中,是否依舊扮演著重要的角色,或者已被其他條件所取而代之;並進一步剖析現今普羅大眾的婚姻觀念,以及目前與未來可能因為價值觀的改變,所衍生而出的非傳統家庭型態。 然而,不可否認的是婚姻與家庭兩者之間有著密切的相關性;透過婚姻關係的維持得以成立一個家庭,而家庭成員各司其職地扮演好自己的角色,亦是社會主流價值中對家庭的普遍想像。本研究發現在現代社會當中,個人對於生活的要求逐漸提高,在心理與情感上的需求也更為濃厚;進而對家庭與婚姻的要求也有所不同。研究者試圖闡明「家庭」在現今社會所遭遇到的質疑與挑戰;並說明廣義的家與家人新定義與新詮釋,從而發現與比較兩者之間的差別。

English Abstract

With the rising levels of education, the average age for marriage tends to increase along with the phenomenon of staying single. The traditional expectation for marriage at certain age has gradually been replaced by the pursuit of self realization. As a consequence, images of marriage begin to change and affect the vitality and meaning of traditional family. This research conducts a thorough examination of the context and discourses on marriage and family. In addition, the presence of multiple family structures in Taiwan and the literature on meanings of home were analyzed. Furthermore, non-traditional families include all types of possible structures were under discussion by this research. Cohabitation was chosen as the as the focus of observation, mainly because that men and women who cohabit substantially live together as married couples. However, their relationship is free from marital duties or law. Adopting semi-structural interviews, the study aims at exploring the emerging imaginations and definitions of family from people who cohabitate. The study means to find out whether the traditional structure of family built by marriage and sanguinity still stands. If not, what replaces it? Further, the researcher analyzes the concept of marriage for the masses and the types of non-traditional families possibly resulted from the current or changing values of the future. Nonetheless, the intertwined relationship between marriage and family are undeniable. The mainstream values of family and marriage will still play a vital role in the near term future. This research found a new phenomenon that individual has started to seek higher quality of life in Taiwanese society. Their emotional and physical well-being becomes more pronounced resulting in different quest for marriage and family. The analysis also attempts to clarify the doubts and challenges family of nowadays confront. The result also suggests that the meaning of home and family deserves to be refined and re-interpreted within a broad societal context.

Topic Category 教育學院 > 未來學研究所碩士班
社會科學 > 社會學
Reference
  1. Light, Donald, Jr. and Keller, Suzanne, 1987,《社會學》。林義男譯。台北:巨流。
    連結:
  2. Ritzer, George, 1995,《社會學理論》。馬康莊、陳信木譯。台北:巨流。
    連結:
  3. 王應棠,2000,〈家的認同與意義重建:魯凱族好茶的案例〉。《應用心理研究》8: 149-169。
    連結:
  4. 江宜倩,2002,〈未婚男性婚姻觀之研究〉。《復中學報》1: 49-75。
    連結:
  5. 伊慶春、簡文吟,2000,〈已婚婦女的持續就業:家庭制度與勞動市場的妥協〉。《台灣社會學》1: 149-182。
    連結:
  6. 呂玉瑕、伊慶春,2005,〈社會變遷中的夫妻資源與家庭分工:台灣七Ο年代與九Ο年代社會文化脈絡的比較〉。《台灣社會學》10: 41-94。
    連結:
  7. 沈瓊桃、陳姿勳,2004,〈家庭生命週期與婚姻滿意度關係之探討〉。《社會政策與社會工作學刊》8(1): 133-170。
    連結:
  8. 吳瑾嫣,2000,〈女性遊民研究:家的另類意涵〉。《應用心理研究》8: 83-120。
    連結:
  9. 畢恆達,2000,〈家的意義〉。《應用心理研究》8: 55-56。
    連結:
  10. 畢恆達、吳昱廷,2000,〈男同志同居伴侶的住宅空間體驗:四個個案〉。《應用心理研究》8: 121-147。
    連結:
  11. 張思嘉,2001,〈婚姻早期的適應過程:新婚夫妻的質性研究〉。《本土心理學研究》16: 91-133。
    連結:
  12. 許嘉家、林姿論、盧玟伶,2007,〈我國隔代教養的現況及學校的因應策略-參以美國隔代教養方案〉。《學校行政》47: 335-347。
    連結:
  13. 黃宗堅,2006,〈符號互動論在家人關係歷程中的意涵與應用〉。《諮商與輔導》249: 15-20。
    連結:
  14. 彭淑華,2006,〈台灣女性單親家庭生活處境之研究〉。《東吳社會工作學報》14: 25-62。
    連結:
  15. 楊靜利,2004,〈同居的生育意涵與台灣同居人數估計〉。《臺灣社會學刊》32: 189-213。
    連結:
  16. 楊靜利、劉一龍,2002,〈台灣的家庭生活歷程〉。《臺灣社會學刊》27: 77-105。
    連結:
  17. 趙淑珠,2003,〈未婚單身女性生活經驗之研究:婚姻意義的反思〉。《教育心理學報》34(2): 221-246。
    連結:
  18. 趙淑珠、蔡素妙,2002,〈家庭的意義:大學生的家庭概念調查研究〉。《中華輔導學報》11: 167-189。
    連結:
  19. 蕭阿勤,2005,〈世代認同與歷史敘事:台灣一九七0年代「回歸現實」世代的形成〉。《台灣社會學》9: 1-58。
    連結:
  20. Anderson, Benedict, 1991, Imagined Communities: Reflection on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.
    連結:
  21. Bahloul, J., 1992, The Architecture of Memory: A Jewish-Muslim Household in Colonial Algeria, 1937-1962. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    連結:
  22. Dalton, S. T., 1992, “Lived Experience of Never-Married Women.” Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 13:69-80.
    連結:
  23. Despres, C., 1991, “The Meaning of Home: Literature Review and Directions for Future Research and Theoretical Development.” The Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 8(2): 96-115.
    連結:
  24. Dixon, Ruth, 1971, “Explaining Cross-Cultural Variation in Age at Marriage and Proportions Never Marrying.” Population Studies, 4(2): 215-233.
    連結:
  25. Doherty, W. J. , Boss, P. G. , LaRossa, R. , Schumm, W. R. , & Steinmetz S. K.,1993, Sourcebook of Family Theories and Methods:A Contextual Approach. New York: Plenum Press.
    連結:
  26. Erickson, E., 1998, “Re-Visioning the Family Life Cycle Theory and Paradigm in Marriage and Family Therapy.” The American Journal of Family Therapy, 26: 341-356.
    連結:
  27. Gallin, R., 1984, “The Entry of Chinese Women into the Rural Labor Force: A Case Study from Taiwan.” Signs, 9(3): 383-397.
    連結:
  28. Giddens, Anthony, 1998, Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. California: Stanford University Press.
    連結:
  29. Gittins, D., 1985, The Family in Questions: Changing Households and Familiar Ideologies. London: Macmillan.
    連結:
  30. Glendon, M. A., 1989, The Transformation of Family Law. State, Law and Family in the United States and Western Europe. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    連結:
  31. Glenn, N. D., 1998, “The Course of Marital Success and Failure in Five American 10 Year Marriage Cohorts.” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60: 569-576.
    連結:
  32. Hoem, J. and Hoem, B., 1988, “The Swedish Family: Aspects of Contemporary Development.” Journal of Family Issues, 9: 397-424.
    連結:
  33. Korosec-Serfaty, P. and Bolitt, D., 1996, “Dwelling and the Experience of Burglary.” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 6: 329-344.
    連結:
  34. Lu, Yu-Hsia, 2003, “Attitudes toward Gender Role: Changes in Taiwan, 1991-2001.” Paper presented at the International Conference on Intergenerational Relation in
    連結:
  35. Marks, N. F., 1996, “Flying Solo at Midlife: Gender, Marital Status, and Psychological Well-Being.” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58: 917-932.
    連結:
  36. Nedelson, C. C. and Notman, M. T., 1981, “To Marry or Not to Marry: A Choice.” American Journal of Psychiatry, 138: 1352-1356.
    連結:
  37. Peake, Amy and Harris, Karen L., 2002, “Young Adults’ Attitudes toward Multiple Role Planning: The Influence of Gender, Career Traditionality, and Marriage Plans.” Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60: 405-421.
    連結:
  38. Stein, P. J., 1981, Single Life: Unmarried Adults in Social Context. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
    連結:
  39. Thornton, Arland, 2005, Reading History Sideways: The Fallacy and Enduring Impact of the Developmental Paradigm on Family Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    連結:
  40. Tsai, Y. M. and Yi, C. C., 1997, “Persistence and Changes in Chinese Family Values.” Pp. 123-170, 收錄於張苙雲、呂玉瑕、王甫昌主編,《90年代的台灣社會(下)》。台北:中央研究院社會學研究所。
    連結:
  41. Zhan, M. and Sherraden, M., 2003, “Assets, Expectations, and Children’s Educational Achievement in Female-Headed Households.” Social Service Review, 77(2): 191-211.
    連結:
  42. 一. 中文部份
  43. Abbott, Pamela and Wallace, Claire, 1995,《女性主義觀點的社會學》。俞智敏、陳光達、陳素梅、張君玫譯。台北:巨流。
  44. Ahern, Susan and Bailey, Kent G., 1997,《另類家庭》。鄭清榮、諶悠文譯。台北:天下文化。
  45. Babbie, Earl, 2004,《社會科學研究方法〈上〉》。李美華等譯。台北:時英。
  46. Babbie, Earl, 2005,《社會科學研究方法》。陳文俊譯。台北:雙葉。
  47. Berger, Brigitte and Berger, Peter, L., 1990,《現代化與家庭制度》。蕭新煌譯。台北:巨流。
  48. Bonnewitz, Patric, 2002,《布赫迪厄社會學的第一課》。孫智綺譯。台北:麥田。
  49. Cochrane, Allan, 2003,《家庭社會學》。洪惠芬、胡志強、陳素秋譯。台北:韋伯文化。
  50. Cooper, Marcus, C., 2000,《家屋,自我的一面鏡子》。徐詩思譯。台北:張老師文化。
  51. Dewevre-Fourcade, Mireille, 1991,《同居》。許連高譯。台北:遠流。
  52. Goffman, Eriving, 1992,《日常生活中的自我表演》。徐江敏、李姚軍譯。台北:桂冠。
  53. Goodman, Norman, 1995,《婚姻與家庭》。陽琪、陽婉譯。台北:桂冠。
  54. Gudgel, David, 2005,《同居物語》。張斌譯。台北:雅歌。
  55. 王文科,1994,《質的教育研究法》。台北:師大書苑。
  56. 王君琳,2002,《流動的家:大陸台商女性配偶的家生活與認同》。台灣大學建築與城鄉研究所碩士論文。
  57. 內政部統計處,2006,《內政統計年報》。台北:內政部。
  58. 內政部統計處,2007,《內政統計年報》。台北:內政部。
  59. 行政院主計處,2006,《社會指標系統理論》。台北:行政院。
  60. 呂玉瑕,1996,〈兩性的角色分工與家庭發展〉。《基督書院學報》3: 91-100。
  61. 李信志,2004,《空房間》。淡江大學建築學研究所碩士論文。
  62. 邱天柱,2002。《布爾迪厄文化再製理論》。台北:桂冠。
  63. 周麗端等,1999,《婚姻與家人關係》。台北:國立空中大學。
  64. 吳明燁、伊慶春,2003,〈婚姻其實不只是婚姻:家庭因素對於婚姻滿意度的影響〉。《人口學刊》26: 71-95。
  65. 孫治本,2001,〈生活風格與社會結構的研究〉。《東吳社會學報》11: 79-111。
  66. 高淑貴,1996,《家庭社會學》。台北:黎明。
  67. 畢恆達,2001,《空間就是權力》。台北:心靈工坊文化。
  68. 陳向明,2002,《社會科學質的研究》。台北:五南。
  69. 黃秀如,2005,《我窩故我在》。台北:網路與書。
  70. 黃瑞琴,1994,《質的教育研究方法》。台北:心理出版社。
  71. 彭懷真,1996,《婚姻與家庭》。台北:巨流。
  72. 楊美慧,1991。《單身女性之婚姻觀-現象學方法的研究》。台灣師範大學心理與輔導研究所碩士論文。
  73. 蔡文輝,1993,《社會學》。台北:三民。
  74. 蔡錦昌,2005,《涂爾幹社會學方法論正義》。台北:唐山。
  75. 薛承泰,2003,〈台灣地區婚姻的變遷與社會衝擊〉。《國家政策論壇》92(秋): 245-259。
  76. 薛承泰、王嘉寧,2001,〈臺灣「頂客族」的形成與特質〉。《人口學刊》22: 19-48。
  77. 藍采風,1996,《婚姻與家庭》。台北:幼獅。
  78. 二. 英文部分
  79. Axinn, W. G. and Thornton A., 2000, “The Transformation in the Meaning of Marriage.” Pp. 147-165, in The Ties that Binds, edited by Linda Waite et al. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
  80. Bachelard, G., 1969, The Poetics of Space. Boston: Beacon Press.
  81. Blumstein, Philip and Schwartz, Pepper, 1983, American Couples: Money, Work, Sex. New York: William Morrow.
  82. Bradley, D., 1996, Family Law and Political Culture: Scandinavian Laws in Comparative Perspective. London: Sweet and Maxwell.
  83. Broderick, C., 1984, Marriage and the family. Englewood Cliffs, New Jeresy: Prentice-Hall.
  84. Burr, W. R., 1995, “Using Theories in Family Science.” Pp.73-90, in Research and Theory in Family Science, edited by R. Day, K. Gilbert, B. Settles, and W. R. Burr. Pacific Grove, California: Brooks/Cole.
  85. Carter, E. A., and McGoldrick, M., 1988, “Overview: the Changing Family Life Cycle: A Framework for Family Therapy.” Pp. 3-28, in The Changing Family Life: A Framework for Family Therapy, edited by B. Carter and M. McGoldrick. New York: Allen and Bacon.
  86. Dovey, K., 1985, “Home and Homelessness.” Pp. 33-64, in Home Environments, edited by I. Altman and C. M. Werner. New York: Plenum Press.
  87. Giddens, Anthony, 1993, Sociology. Polity Press.
  88. Kiernan, Kathleen, 2002, “Unmarried Cohabitation and Parenthood: Here to Stay?” Paper presented at Conference on Public and the Future of the Family, October 25th.
  89. Lewicki, R.J.& B.B.Bunker, 1996, “Development and Maintaining Trust in Work Relationships.” Pp.114-165, in Trust in Organization: Frontiers of Theory and Research, edited by R.M. Kramer and T.R. Tyler. Sage Publications, Inc.
  90. Families’ Life Course. Taipei, Taiwan: Institute of Sociology, Academia Sinica, March 12-14.
  91. Pearce, W. B. and Cronen, V. E., 1980, Communication, Action and Meaning. New York: Praeger.
  92. Saxton, L., 1990, The Individual, Marriage, and the Family. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
  93. Shostak, A. B., 1987, “Singlehood.” Pp. 355-367, in Handbook of Marriage and the Family, edited by M. B. Sussman and S. K. Steinmetz. New York: Plenum Press.
  94. Stephens, William N., 1963, The Family in Cross-Cultural Perspective. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  95. Tajfel, H., 1972, “Social Categorization.” Pp.272-302, in Introduction a la Psychologie Sociale, edited by S. Moscovici. Paris: Larousse.