Göç Amaçlı Yapılan Uluslararası Evliliklerde Aile-Akraba İlişkisi: Türk-Danimarkalı Evlilikleri Üzerine Bir Araştırma

Öz

Gelişmiş ülkelere göç etmeyi hedefleyen bazı göçmenler, bu amaç doğrultusunda evliliği bir araç olarak kullanarak gelişmiş ülke vatandaşlarıyla evlenme yolunu tercih etmektedir. Evliliğin bu şekilde araç olarak kullanılması uluslararası evliliklerle kurulan aile ve akraba ilişkilerini de sorunla hale getirebilmektedir. Bu minvalde araştırmanın amacı Danimarkalı kadınlarla evlenip uluslararası evlilik göçüyle Danimarka’ya göç eden Türk erkeklerin Danimarkalı kadınlarla yaptıkları evliliklerde aile-akraba ilişkilerinin niteliğini ortaya koymaktır. 15’i erkek evlilik göçmeni ve beşi Danimarkalı kadın olmak üzere toplamda 20 kişi ile derinlemesine görüşme yapılmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda, çiftlerin Türkiye’deki aileden uzakta yaşamaları, aile ziyaretlerinin sınırlı olması, eşlerin birbirlerini ve birbirlerinin ailesini kabullenmede zorluk yaşamaları gibi etkenlerin, akrabalık bağlarının gelişmesini engellediği belirlenmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular, katılımcıların büyük çoğunluğunun eşinin ailesiyle güçlü bir akrabalık ilişkisi kuramadığını, çiftlerin aileleri arasında ise hiçbir şekilde akrabalık ilişkisi kurulamadığını ortaya koymuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• : aile göçü
• aile birleşimi
• evlilik göçü
• uluslararası evlilik göçü

Family and Kinship Relationships in International Marriages for Migration Purposes: A Study on Turkish-Danish Marriages

Öz

Some migrants aiming to relocate to developed countries, particularly in Europe, choose to use marriage as a means to achieve this goal by marrying citizens of those countries. However, the instrumentalization of marriage in this manner may lead to challenges in the formation and maintenance of familial and kinship relations established through such unions. In this context, the aim of this study is to explore the nature of family and kinship relations in marriages between Turkish men who migrated to Denmark through international marriage migration and their Danish spouses. In-depth interviews were conducted with a total of 20 participants, including 15 Turkish male marriage migrants and 5 Danish women. The findings indicate that factors such as living far from families in Turkey, limited family visits, and difficulties in mutual acceptance of spouses and their families hinder the development of kinship ties. The majority of participants reported weak relationships with their spouse’s family, and no kinship ties were established between the families of the spouses.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• family migration
• family reunification
• marriage migration
• international marriage migration

Kaynakça

1. Abdul-Rida, C., & Baykara-Krumme, H. (2016). Staying in Turkey or Marrying to Europe? Understanding Transnational Marriages from the Country-Of-Origin Perspective. European Sociological Review, 32(6), s. 704-715.
2. Adelia, T., Maulana, A. (2014). Engendering Family Policy: Lessons Learned from Scandinavian Countries. New Opportunıtıes And Impasses: Theorızıng And Experıencıng Polıtıcs, Polıtscı '14, s. 110-118.
3. Ahn, S. Y. (2022). Matching Across Markets: An Economic Analysis of Cross-Border Marriage. University of Illinois mimeo.
4. Ahsan Ullah, A. K. M., & Chattoraj, D. (2023). International Marriage Migration: The Predicament of Culture and Its Negotiations. International Migration, 61(6), s. 262-278.
5. Aktaş, G. (2015). Türkiye'de Aile Sosyolojisi Çalışmalarına Genel Bir Bakış. Sosyoloji Konferansları, (52), s. 419- 441.
6. An, S., Lim, S. S., & Lee, H. (2020). Marriage migrants’ use of social media. Asian Journal of Communication, 30(2), s. 83-99.
7. Andrikopoulos, A. (2023). Love, Money and Papers in The Affective Circuits of Cross-Border Marriages: Beyond The ‘Sham’/‘Genuine’dichotomy. In Cross-Border Marriages (pp. 19-36). Routledge.
8. Ballard, R. (2004). Riste and Ristedari: The Significance of Marriage in The Dynamics of Transnational Kinship Networks.

9. Barshack, L. (2006). Transformations of Kinship and The Acceleration of History Thesis. Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 8(1), s. 191-220.
10. Bartik, E. (2021). Marriage migration from Russia since the early 1990s. Lambert Academic Publishing.
11. Batalova, J. (2022). Top Statistics on Global Migration and Migrants. Migration Policy Institute: Washington.
12. Bélanger, D., & Flynn, A. (2018). Gender and Migration: Evidence from Transnational Marriage Migration. International Handbook on gender and demographic processes, s. 183-201.
13. Benson, M., & Charsley, K. (2015). From genuine to sham marriage: moral panic and the ‘authenticity’of relationships. In Revisiting Moral Panics (pp. 221 230). Policy Press.
14. Berglund & Hedin (2014). Transnational Couples: Looking At Cultural Differences from Within A Relationship. Independent thesis Basic level (degree of Bachelor).
15. Canatan, K. (2018). A Sociological Approach on Kin Marriages In Turkey. Akademik İncelemeler Dergisi, 13(1), s. 1-22.
16. Canatan, K. (2020). Geleneksel ve Modern Ailelerde Çocuk Yetiştirme Tutumları. İstanbul Sabahattin Zaim Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8(16), s. 151-165.
17. Celero, J. O. (2023). International Marriage, Migration, and Transnational Family Life in Asia: Japanese-Filipino Families. Handbook of transnational families around the world, s. 131-145.
18. Charsley, K., Bolognani, M., Ersanilli, E., & Spencer, S. (2020). Marriage Migration and Integration. Springer Nature.
19. Chaudhuri, S., Morash, M., & Yingling, J. (2014). Marriage Migration, Patriarchal Bargains, and Wife Abuse: A Study of South Asian Women. Violence Against Women, 20(2), s. 141-161. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801214521326
20. Cheng, X. (2023). Study On the Ancient System of Concealment Between Relatives and Its Modern Value. Journal of Research in Social Science and Humanities, 2(4), s. 102-110.
21. Cheung, A. K. L., & Chiu, T. Y. (2021). Husband-To-Wife Sexual Coercion in Cross-Border Marriage: A Relationship Power Perspective. Current sociology, 69(1), s. 77-98.
22. Cheung, A. K. L., & Park, H. (2021). Parental Academic Involvement in Cross-Border Marriage, Native and Immigrant Families: The Roles of Family Resources and Parental Expectations. Journal of Family Issues, 42(9), s. 2133-2158.
23. Coşkun, E., & Rittersberger-Tılıç, H. (2024, July). Crossborder Marriages as a Path to “Upward” Social Mobility: The case of Kyrgyz Women in Türkiye. In Women's Studies International Forum (Vol. 105, p. 102949). Pergamon.
24. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Nitel Araştirma Yöntemleri. M. Bütün & SB Demir, Trans.(Eds.). İstanbul: Siyasal Kitapevi.
25. d'Aoust, A. M. (2013). In the name of love: Marriage Migration, Governmentality, And Technologies of Love. International Political Sociology, 7(3), s. 258-274.
26. Deniz, A., & Özgür, E. M. (2021). Mixed Marriage And Transnational Marriage Migration in The Grip of Political Economy: Russian-Turkish Case. Turkish Studies, 22(3), s. 437-461.
27. Dewdney, J. C. & Yapp, M. E. (2025). Marriage and Family Life in Turkey in Cultural Life. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/place/Turkey
28. Dommaraju, P., & Jones, G. (2011). Divorce Trends in Asia. Asian Journal of Social Science, 39(6), s. 725‑750.
29. Eggebø, H. (2013). A Real Marriage? Applying For Marriage Migration to Norway. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 39(5), s. 773–789.
30. European Institute for Gender Equality (2024). Gender Equality Index. https://eige.europa.eu/gender- equality-index/2024/DK Erişim tarihi: 05.01.2025
31. Fernandez, N. T. (2019). Tourist Brides and Migrant Grooms: Cuban–Danish Couples and Family Reunification Policies. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 45(16), s. 3141–3156. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2018.1547025
32. Fresnoza-Flot, A. & Ricordeau G. (eds.) (2017). International marriages and marital citizenship. Southeast Asian women on the move. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.
33. Friedman, S. L. (2017). Men Who ‘Marry Out’: Unsettling Masculinity, Kinship, And Nation Through Migration Across the Taiwan Strait. Gender, Place & Culture, 24(9), s. 1243-1262.
34. Frieman, C. J., & Brück, J. (2021). Making Kin: The Archaeology and Genetics of Human Relationships. TATuP- Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis/Journal for Technology Assessment in Theory and Practice, 30(2), s. 47-52.
35. Gitnux Marketdata Report (2023). Interracial Divorce Statistics. https://gitnux.org/interracial-divorce- statistics/ Erişim tarihi: 24.04.2024
36. Guind, F. E. (2018). Properties of Kinship Structure: Transformational Dynamics of Suckling, Adoption and Incest. In W. SHAPIRO (Ed.), Focality and Extension in Kinship: Essays in Memory of Harold W. Scheffler (pp. 177– 202). ANU Press.
37. Hannaford, D. (2015). Technologies Of the Spouse: Intimate Surveillance in Senegalese Transnational Marriages. Global Networks, 15(1), s. 43-59
38. Hedberg, C., & Haandrikman, K. (2014). Repopulation of the Swedish Countryside: Globalisation by International Migration. Journal of Rural Studies, 34, s. 128-138.
39. Höllinger, F., & Haller, M. (1990). Kinship And Social Networks in Modern Societies: A Cross-Cultural Comparison Among Seven Nations. European sociological review, 6(2), s. 103-124.
40. Infantino, F. (2014). Bordering «fake» marriages? The everyday practices of control at the consulates of Belgium, France and Italy in Casablanca. Etnografia e ricerca qualitativa, 7(1), 27-48.
41. International Organization for Migration (2019). Glossary on Migration. Geneva: IOM.
42. Jones, D. (2018). Kinship in mind: Three Approaches. In W. SHAPIRO (Ed.), Focality and Extension in Kinship: Essays in Memory of Harold W. Scheffler (pp. 343–368). ANU Press.
43. Jordan, P. (2018). Family and Kinship in Turkey. In Windows into Turkish Culture. Pressbooks. https://ohiostate.pressbooks.pub/windowsintoturkishculture/chapter/chapter-9-family-and-kinship-in- turkey/
44. Judge, N. A., & Walton-Roberts, M. (2023). Transnational Marriage Migration: Agency, Structures and Intimate Gendered Governmentality. In Handbook on Migration and the Family (pp. 33-50). Edward Elgar Publishing.
45. Kalmijn, M., De Graaf, P. M., & Janssen, J. P. (2005). Intermarriage and the risk of divorce in the Netherlands: The effects of differences in religion and in nationality, 1974–94. Population studies, 59(1), 71-85.
46. Kalmijn, M. (2007). Explaining cross-national differences in marriage, cohabitation, and divorce in Europe, 1990–2000. Population studies, 61(3), 243-263.
47. Kim, H. M. (2011). What are" Fake" and" Real" Marriages?: The experiences of Korean-Chinese Marriage Migrants in Contemporary Korea. In International marriages in the time of globalization (pp. 1-18). Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
48. Kim, J., Park, S. H., Kim, M., & Kim, S. Y. (2017). Exploring Issues and Strengths of Cross-Cultural Marriage Among Korean Immigrants. Health care for women international, 38(10), s. 1095-1114.
49. Kim, M. (2010). Gender and International Marriage Migration. Sociology compass, 4(9), s. 718-731.
50. Kim, H. M. (2011). What are" Fake" and" Real" marriages?: The experiences of Korean-Chinese marriage migrants in contemporary Korea. In International marriages in the time of globalization (pp. 1-18). Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
51. Kim, K. (2017). Cross‐border marriages in South Korea and the challenges of rising multiculturalism. International Migration, 55(3), 74-88.
52. Kim, V., & Yem, N. (2023). Integration of international marriage migrants: Russian-speaking female marriage migrants in Japan and South Korea. Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, 32(3), 426-451. https://doi.org/10.1177/01171968231208031
53. Kofman, E. (2007). Family‐related migration: a critial review of European Studies. Journal of Ethnic and Migration studies, 30(2), 243-262.
54. Lee, H., Williams, L., & Arguillas, F. (2016). Adapting To Marriage Markets: International Marriage Migration from Vietnam To South Korea. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 47(2), s. 267-288.
55. Leopold, T., Raab, M., Becker, C. C., Buyukkececi, Z., & Çineli, B. (2024). Mapping Modern Kinship Networks: First Results from the KINMATRIX Survey. Journal of Marriage and Family, s. 789-808.
56. Levine, N. E. (2008). Alternative Kinship, Marriage, and Reproduction. Annual Review of Anthropology, 37(1), s. 375-389.
57. Mayowa, I. O., & Ekiti, A. (2019). Family Institution and Modernization: A Sociological Perspective. International Journal of Humanities and Sciences, 9(8), s. 99-105.
58. Merriam, S. B. (2013). Nitel Araştırma (Desen ve Uygulama İçin Bir Rehber) (Çev. S. Turan). Ankara: Nobel Yayınları.
59. Moret, J., Andrikopoulos, A., & Dahinden, J. (2021). Contesting Categories: Cross-Border Marriages from The Perspectives of the State, Spouses and Researchers. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 47(2), s. 325- 342.
60. Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological Research Methods. London: Sage publications.
61. Neuman, W. L. (2016). Toplumsal araştırma yöntemleri I (Çev. S. Özge). Ankara: Yayın Odası.
62. Ocak, E. Ü. (2018). A Descriptive Overview of Kinship Organizations: The Case of Turkey. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (40), s. 349-368.
63. OECD (2020). Share of Births Outside of Marriage. https://www.oecd.org/els/family/SF_2_4_Share_births_outside_marriage.pdf
64. OECD (2022). International Migration Outlook 2022: Migration Flows Bounced Back in 2021. https://www.oecd- ilibrary.org/sites/30fe16d2-en/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/30fe16d2-en s.
65. OECD (2024). Society at a Glance 2024: OECD Social Indicators. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2024/06/society-at-a-glance- 2024_08001b73/918d8db3-en.pdf
66. Oliver, C., & Jayaweera, H. (2013). The Impacts of Restrictions and Entitlements on the Integration of Family Migrants: A Comparative Report. COMPAS.
67. Parsons, T. (1943). The Kinship System of the Contemporary United States. American Anthropologist, 45, s. 22– 38.
68. Petreska, V. (2005). Urban-Rural Relationships in Kinship Relations (Examples of Migrating Macedonian Families). EthnoAnthropoZoom/ЕтноАнтропоЗум, (5), s. 286-325.
69. Piper, N., & Lee, S. (2016). Marriage Migration, Migrant Precarity, and Social Reproduction in Asia: An Overview. Critical Asian Studies, 48(4), s. 473-493.
70. Read, D. W. (2007). Kinship Theory: A Paradigm Shift. Ethnology, s. 329-364.
71. Robinson, K. (2007). Marriage Migration, Gender Transformations, and Family Values in the ‘Global Ecumene’. Gender, Place & Culture, 14(4), s. 483-497. https://doi.org/10.1080/09663690701439793
72. Ryabov, I. (2016). Post-Migration Experiences of Female Immigrant Spouses From the Former Soviet Union. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 37(3), s. 286–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/07256868.2016.1163531
73. Ryabov, I., & Zhang, Y. (2019). Entry and Stability of Cross-National Marriages in the United States. Journal of Family Issues, 40(18), s. 2687-2706.
74. Rytter, M. (2010). ‘The Family of Denmark’ and ‘The Aliens’: Kinship Images in Danish Integration Politics. Ethnos, 75(3), s. 301–322.
75. Sacramento, O. (2024). From Tourists to (Im) Migrants: Intimacy Mobility Chains Between Europe and Brazil. Mobilities, s. 1-18.
76. Schapendonk, J. (2015). What If Networks Move? Dynamic Social Networking in the Context of African Migration to Europe. Population, Space and Place, 21(8), s. 809-819.
77. Sportel, I. (2016). Divorce in Transnational Families: Marriage, Migration and Family Law. Göttingen: Palgrave Macmillan.
78. Sportel, I. (2022). Stories of Conflict: Ethnicity, Social Class, and Difference in Transnational Divorce Narratives. Population, Space and Place, 28(5), e2427.
79. Stevens, G., Ishizawa, H., & Escandell, X. (2012). Marrying into the American population: Pathways into cross-nativity marriages. International Migration Review, 46(3), 740-759.
80. Strathern, M. (2014). Kinship as a Relation. L’Homme, 210, 43–61.
81. Tezel Şahin, F., & Cevher Kalburan, F. N. (2007). Türk Toplumunda Aile Çocuk İlişkilerine Genel Bir Bakış. Uluslararası Asya ve Kuzey Afrika Çalışmaları Kongresi 38. ICANAS, Ankara, Türkiye, 2007 (pp. 775-790).
82. Thomson, E. (2017). Family Complexity and Kinship. Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, s. 1-14. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0437
83. Tikka, R. M. (2021). Exploitative Sham Marriages as a Form of Human Trafficking in the European Union. Master dissertation, Universidade Fernando Pessoa, Portugal.
84. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (2021). Türkiye Aile Yapısı Araştırması, 2021. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index? p=Turkiye-Aile-Yapisi-Arastirmasi-2021-45813
85. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (2022). Evlenme ve Boşanma İstatistikleri, 2022. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index? p=Evlenme-ve-Bo%C5%9Fanma-%C4%B0statistikleri-2022-49437
86. Van Manen, M. (2016). Phenomenology of Practice: Meaning-Giving Methods in Phenomenological Research and Writing. New York: Routledge.
87. Viuhko, M., Lietonen, A., Jokinen, A., & Joutsen, M. (2016). Exploitative sham marriages: exploring the links between human trafficking and sham marriages in Estonia, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia. Heuni Press.
88. Wemyss, G., Yuval-Davis, N., & Cassidy, K. (2018). ‘Beauty and the Beast’: Everyday Bordering and ‘Sham Marriage’ Discourse. Political Geography, 66, s. 151-160.
89. Wijerathna, M. P., & Hewapathirana, G. I. (2022). “Hidden Stories Behind Global Love”: Acculturative and Social Integration Challenges of Marriage Migrant Women in South Korea. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 89, s. 111-123.
90. Williams, L. (2010). Global marriage: Cross-border marriage migration in global context. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
91. Yanagisako, S. (2015). Kinship: Still at the Core. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 5(1), 489-494.
92. Yeung, W. J. J., & Mu, Z. (2020). Migration and Marriage in Asian Contexts. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 46(14), s. 2863-2879.
93. Yılmaz, H. (2018). Türk, Kırgız ve Rus Ebeveynlerin Çocuk Yetiştirme Tutumları: Kültürler Arası Karşılaştırma. Manas Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 7(3).
94. Zani, B. (2021). Digital Entrepreneurship: E-Commerce Among Chinese Marriage-Migrant Women in Taiwan. Journal of Chinese Overseas, 17(2), s. 265-292.