Patterns of Homogamy and the Field of Eligibles

Using retrospective reporting as a source of "longitudinal" data, an analysis is presented of the varying degrees of homogamy between a homogeneous sample of engaged girls and three men with whom each had had a serious relationship. Evidence is presented which suggests that (a) there is a general tendency to become more homogamous through the mate selection period on some dimensions (e.g., education) but to become less so on other dimensions (e.g., urbanity); (b) some of the patterns more easily fit a theory based on variations in opportunities to meet different kinds of partners, others more easily fit a normative theory; (c) social changes during the selection period (geographical or social mobility) influence the level and pattern of homogamy. T he principle of homogamy in the mate selection process is well established in the sociological literature. Numerous studies have supported the general proposition that the dominant pattern in our society, even within the framework of "freedom of choice," is for marital partners to come from similar social categories. However, in spite of the wealth of empirical evidence of this kind, we have not yet gone much beyond the rather simple generalization that choices are usually made within broad social categories. We have stopped raising questions about the social bases of mate selection seemingly because we assume that the important sociological analysis has already been carried out by demonstrating homogamous patterns. In contrast, the major thesis of this paper is that studies of homogamy have only begun to examine the sociological aspects of mate selection. They have only posed the problem, not solved it. There is nothing new in the idea that problems remain in this area of inquiry. At least a decade ago Burgess and Locke' suggested that "the actual factors determining assortative mating have not been studied," and they proceeded to list six possible explanations of the empirical findings. Most of these explanations are of two types. The first type views the patterns of mate selection as a function of opportunities. It explains similarities of mates on the basis of residential segregation and differences in activity patterns of various social categories which limit the range of contacts of any person to encounters with persons like himself. The second explanation is a normative one. It views the patterns of similarity as the result of preferences on the part of the chooser for persons like himself and/or the enforcement of such homogamous choices through social sanctions. A recent treatment of some of the issues by Katz and Hill attempts to combine the two under a general "norm-interaction" theory.2 Although such a combination may have theoretic value, it makes even more apparent the fact that the same behavior may be the result of very different antecedents. Conformity with the pattern of homogamy, when At occurs, may be due to either limited opportunities or adherence to a norm. Simple reporting of the pattern will not determine which is the case.3 * The research was supported by a Faculty Research Grant from the Duke University Research Council. I am indebted to Joel Smith and George Maddox for their helpful critique of an earlier version of this paper. 1 Ernest W. Burgess and Harvey J. Locke, The Family (New York: The American Book Company, 1953), p. 370. 2 Alvin M. Katz and Reuben Hill, "Residential Propinquity and Marital Selection: A Review of Theory, Method, and Fact," Marriage and Family Living, 20 (1958), pp. 27-35. The first two assumptions of this theory are: "1. That marriage is normative. 2. That, within normative fields of eligibles, the probability of marriage varies directly with the probability of interaction." (p. 33) 3 These two factors occupy different positions in the logic of explication of patterns of homogamy This content downloaded from 207.46.13.86 on Sat, 15 Oct 2016 04:25:02 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms