Local Homogamy in Finland
by Elina Haavio-Mannila
Historical background
Residential propinquity is an important factor in mate selection even in the
modern industrial society.1) In the old Finnish agrarian society the mate was almost invariably chosen from the near neighborhood — from the same village or
rural commune. The proportion of local marriages of all marriages shows a rather
uniform pattern, though the dates and the areas studied are quite different from
each other, and the number of cases in some of the studies is sma11.2) A little less
than half of the marriages are inside the same village and about four fifths inside
the same rural commune.
There might have been some endogamous tendencies in favour of local marriages
in the agrarian society. For example, village fights were often caused by the intrusion of boys from another village or rural commune to propose to the girls
of the home community.3) Old proverbs, too, indicate the favourable attitude
towards local endogamy. "The good are married to the neighborhood, the bad
must go far away." Endogamy may have increased group solidarity in village
society, because "out-marriage means either losing one's group-member to another
group or incorporation into one's group of persons who have not been throughly
socialized in the values, sentiments and practises of the in-group".4)
There were, however, no severe sanctions against out-group marriages; on the
contrary, it was often pointed out that too close marriage-relationships in the
community may cause mental or physical abnormalities.5) But it was easier to
suggest out-group marriage than to accomplish it because of the limited possibilities
to get in contact with people from other localities. This was partly due to the
-poor transportation facilities but also to some characteristics of the social system
which made the rural commune and the village suitable units for in-group marriage.
The rural commune and the parish were almost always identical. The weekly
gathering to the church offered an opportunity for boys and girls to get acquainted.
No similar social events united different communes. The village was a social
unit, too; there was plenty of economic cooperation among villagers so that young
people had many opportunities to meet each other even during the daily routine.
Selection of mate inside the same area seems to be a characteristic of an old155
fashioned society. According to my study on Carelian joint families, the frequency
of marriages inside the same village and rural commune was highest in the most
Eastern Carelian districts, among Greek-orthodox (compared with Lutherans) and
in the largest joint families, which represent an "ancient" type of family organization.
The data collected in 1962 by Joseph Himes, too, show that local marriages
belong to the old times — they are much rarer in the opinion of the young people
than in the opinion of the old.
The Central Statistical Office of Finland has since 1951 published data on
some geographical characteristics in mate selection in the Statistical Yearbook of
Finland. The following figures show the proportion of local marriages of all
marriages. The commune is a local administrative unit — there were 481 rural
communes and 67 towns in Finland in 1961.
Table 1. Mate selected inside same commune in Finland 1951-61.
Year
1951
1952
1953
1954
1951-55 mean
1956-60 mean
1961
Mate selected inside
same commune
Number of marriages
72
71
70
68
69
65
64
32,986
31,889
31,375
31,952
31,801
31,448
33,576
The proportion of geographically homogamous marriages is declining at a rate
of approximately one per cent per year. Intermarriages between communes are
constantly increasing.
Marriages inside and between communes in different areas and
social groups in 1961
The amount of local homogamy differs in different parts of the country, and in
different social groups.
Is was possible to get unanalyzed data on this subject for the year 1961
from the Central Statistical Office of Finland. The number of marriages
inside and between communes had been tabulated separately for eight social
classes, for Swedish and Finnish speaking population, and for each individual
commune. So it became possible to combine some other characteristics of the
commune to the number of marriages inside and between communes.
156
The larger the number of inhabitants in one commune, the more possible marriage partners there are and the greater is the probability of finding a suitable wife
or husband inside the same commune. The tendency to marry inside same commune
goes down with the size of the comune.
The size of the commune is so important a factor in the number of marriages inside same commune that it will, whenever the data allow, be included
in the following tabulations.
Geographical and social characteristics of the commune
Finland is administratively divided into twelve provinces. The provinces in the
Western and Southern parts of the country are industrialized and economically
developed, whereas the areas in the Eastern and Northern parts are predominantly
rural and economically backward. On the basis of previous results concerning
historical development of marriages inside and between communes, one may
assume that the proportion of marriages inside same commune is largest in the
undeveloped areas and the proportion of intermarriages between communes highest
in the developed areas. Such is not the case, however, when we look at the bare
percentages of all marriages inside same commune (table 2). But when we take
the cities with 100,000 and more inhabitants apart, we can see that the hypothesis
holds rather well true.
Table 2. Mate selected inside same commune, by size of commune and province,
1961 marriages.
Mate selected inside same commune
Size of commune,
inhabitants
Provinces of
Southern and
Eastern and
Western
Northern
Finland
Finland
100,000 —
50,000-99,999
20,000-49,999
10,000-19,999
5,000— 9,999
— 4,999
81
67
67
58
51
44
(7,155)
(1,938)
(2,248)
(3,440)
(3,550)
61
51
Ali
63
(22,435)
64
(4,104)
74
69
67
All
—
(600)
(2,339)
(3,502)
(3,306)
81
68
68
62
55
(7,155)
(2,538)
(4,587)
(6,942)
(7,410)
(1,391)
49
(4,941)
(11,138)
64
(33,573)
Intermarriages between communes are most frequent in Southern and Western
Finland, in the most industrialized, densely populated and economically developed
parts of the country.
157
We can get more interesting and general results about the relationship between
local homogamy and the nature of the commune by applying some more general
measures of social development of communes than merely their geographical
location. Olavi Riihinen has made a factor analysis on the areal differentation
of the Finnish communes.6) The first factor has high loadings on variables of
communication (such as: number of telephones per inhabitant, radios per household), standard of living( e.g. size and facilities of dwellings), rationality (birth
control), and the amount of formal organizations (e.g. proportion of non-agrarian
population). He calls it the factor of tendency to or striving for effectiveners.
The second factor is called the integration factor. It has high loadings on mobility
(persons born outside the commune), radicalism (voting for left-wing parties),
divorces, population density, and the like. The number of variables with high
loadings on these factors is fairly large (15 and 16 with loadings above .40).
The data are mainly from the year 1950. The time interval between 1950 and
1961 is, of course, a handicap to the use of this classification, but in the absence
of more recent data, it serves a useful purpose.
There is a relatively high correlation between local homogamy, low effectiveness
and old fashioned integration.7) The rule does not, however, apply to the largest
communes. Apparently the possibilities to find a suitable marriage partner in the
same commune are so good in large communes that the special characteristics of
the commune have no influence on the large amount of locally homogamous
marriages. In the small communes, on the contrary, social development makes a
difference. Intermarriages between communes can there be regarded as a result
of communication and contacts with outsiders — which are easier when the standard
of living is high and internal integration weak — and of liberal and favourable
attitudes towards out-group members.
-
makes
Intermarriages between communes are most common in the upper, marriages
inside same commune in the lower, social classes. 8 ) In several studies it has been
found out that upper class people travel more and have a wider range of social
participation and contacts than lower class people. That is why it is easier for them
to get in contact with people from other localities; they are not as tied with their
place of residence as lower class people. Thus they more often are able to marry
people outside their own commune. Perhaps the endogamous rules inside social
classes also make it more difficult for upper class people to find an eligible
marriage partner inside same commune because of the limited amount of people
in their social class inside same commune.
There is a Swedish speaking minority of 8 percent in Finland. The rest of the
Social characteristics of the
15 8
4.5 million people speak Finnish. Tor Hartman has found a marked tendency
towards endogamy within the two language groups. People from different
language groups do not marry each other as often as could be expected by random
choice. 9 ) When intermarriages between language groups emerge, there thus ought
to be specific reasons for them. One such reason is probably the residential
propinquity of the mates. People living near each other tend to marry even across
the language barrier. This can be seen from table 3.
Table 3. Mate selected inside same commune, by main language of husband and wife,
and by year.
Mate selected inside same commune
Main language of
1956-60
1951-56
Annual means
wife
husband
Finnish
Finnish
Swedish
Swedish
Swedish
Finnish
Finnish
Swedish
Main language of either of the
spouses some other
All
66 (28,698)
(1,569)
60
(460)
68
(642)
72
70
66
72
74
(28,789)
(1,795)
(437)
(681)
80
(90)
78
(79)
69 (31,792)
65
(31,448)
The figures can be summarized in the following way (annual mean of the years
1951-60) :
Table 4. Linguistic and local homogamy in Finland 1951-60.
Local
Linguistic
homogamy1 )
Total
heterogamy
n
homogamy
heterogamy
Total
1)
65 (20,542)
31
(9,888)
3
(847)
1
343)
96 (30,430)
(1,190)
4
68
(21,389)
32
(10,231)
100 (31,620)
Per cent of the total number of marriages.
Local homogamy is frequent when linguistic heterogamy prevails. One difference
between the spouses seems to be enough: the difference in language is substituted
by the similarity of residence. Even this detail can be said to strengthen the old
theory of tendency towards homogamy in social respects which is generally agreed
1 59
upon. The social distance between the spouses is not generally great. If there
are differences in one respect, there is, according to this study, similarity in other
respects. This proposition holds true even when we look at the social class of the
spouses.lo) When there is a large discrepancy between social status of husband
and wife, local homogamy is frequent. That is the case when, for instance, an
upper class man marries a lower working class woman — the spouses then come
from extreme social classes or when the wife is from a higher social class than
the husband. The social distance between the spouses in the last-mentioned case
can be regarded to be wider than is the case when the wife belongs to a lower
social class than the husband. That is because there are some more or less general
societal values according to which it is good that the man is socially above the
woman. The following percentages show the amount of locally homogamous
marriages in the cases where social distance between mates is large (table 5).
Table 5. Local homogamy in marriages heterogamous in terms of social class, 1961 marriages,
Social class of
husband
upper class
middle class
upper working class
lower working class
lower working class
wife
lower working class
upper class
upper class
upper class
middle class
Mate selected inside
same commmune
72
66
78
75
77
(7)
(88)
(23)
(4)
(153)
The percentages are considerably higher than the average, 64 per cent.
In the figures of table 6 the social distance between the spouses is small, or
to the "right" direction (and the frequency of marriages high, which indicates
that these marriages are socially well approved).
There is generally a large amount of local heterogamy, when the spouses belong
to the same social class, or their difference is in the approved direction. There are,
however, some exceptions to this general rule. First, the rule does not apply to the
lower working class, where local homogamy always is common. Second, the rule
does not apply to students, who always seem to be locally heterogamous.
Farmers have been totally left out of this discussion. That is because there
are no data about their social status. The group includes as well wealthy
landowners as poor peasants. Thus it would be futile to apply the way of
thinking used here to this heterogeneous group.
We can conclude by pointing out that residential propinquity seems to be such
an important factor in mate selection that it often influences people even from
160
Table 6. Local homogamy in marriages homogamous in ternzs of social class, 1961 marriages.
Social class of
husband
upper class
middle class
upper working class
wife
upper class
middle class
upper working class
trainee
student
Mate selected inside
same commune
58
58
23
28
(257)
(487)
(109)
(22)
(139)
47
middle class
upper working class
lower working class
trainee
student
60
(2,304)
63
64
47
44
(1,428)
(253)
(85)
(242)
upper working class
lower working class
trainee
student
67
72
67
58
(1,699)
(301)
(219)
lower working class
trainee
student
76
(8,412)
62
(679)
(24)
50
(10)
different language and "inappropriate" social classes to marry each other. This
result can, perhaps, also be tied to the summation theory of Gunnar Boalt.1 1 )
He combines the theories of homogamy and heterogamy by saying that the main
principle in mate selection is that the final result is the equality of partners.
Negative characteristic in one respect are compensated by positive characteristics
in the others. We may regard differences in some central social characteristics
— language, social class, place of residence — as negative, similarities as positive
attributes of the mates. A negative trait is compensated by a positive one when a
linguistically or socially heterogamous couple is locally homogamous.
Summary
Local homogamy, as measured by the amount of marriages inside same commune,
is declining in Finland. Local marriages were characteristic to the old-fashioned,
agrarian society. Improved opportunities for communication and contacts between
people from different localities have made intermarriages between communes
more and more frequent.
There still now exist considerable differences in the amount of local homogamy
in different areas and social groups. Marriages inside the same commune are
161
frequent in communes where the standard of living is low and social integration
high, and in the lower social classes. They are especially frequent when the spouses
are heterogamous in other respects — for instance have a different main language
or belong to socially distant classes. In there cases we may assume that residential
propinquity was an especially important reason for the contact and marriage of
the partners. This finding has, with reservations, been tied to Gunnar Boalt's
summation theory. When there is a difference in one central social characteristic
— for instance language or social class — it is compensated by the similarity in the
other — place of residence. Too many social differences between husband and
wife are not tolerated. There is thus a tendency towards equality of the mates.
NOTES:
1) See e.g. ALVIN N. KATZ and REUBEN HILL, Residential Propinquity and Marital
Selection: a Review of Theory, Method, and Fact, Marriage and Family Living, Vol.
XX. No. 1, February 1958, pp. 27-35.
2) ESKO AALTONEN, Muutoksia maaseudun oloissa suuren murroksen ajoilta, Turun
Historiallinen Arkisto XI, Turku 1951; PILTTI HEISKANEN, The Marriages of Kanneljärvians, unpublished Master's thesis, School of Social Sciences, Tampere 1949;
JOSEPH HIMES,Courtship Behavior in Rural and Urban Finland, unpublished study
report, University of Helsinki, 1962; ELINA HAAVIO-MANNILA, unpublished data
on Carelian joint families.
3) ELINA HAAVIO-MANNILA, Village Fights, Publication No. 3 of the Institute of
Sociology, University of Helsinki, 1958, p. 209.
4) M. ROBERT K. MERTON, Social Theory and Social Structure, 2nd ed. Glencoe, III.,
1951, p. 18.
J.
5) LUKKARINEN, Suomalaisia naimatapoja, Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran Toimituksia 186, Helsinki 1933, pp. 25-26.
6) OLAVI RIIHINEN, Alueellinen erilaistuminen, unpublished Licentiate's thesis, University of Helsinki, 1963.
7) ELINA HAAVIO-MANNILA, Local Homogamy in Finland, Research Reports from the
Institute of Sociology, University of Helsinki, No. 26, 1963 (mimeograph), p. 6.
8) HAAVIO-MANNILA, op. cit. p. 10.
9) TOR HARTMAN, Nuptiality and Social Structure, Transactions of the Westermarck
Society IV, Turku 1958, p. 32.
10) HAAVIO-MANNILA, op. cit. p. 10.
11) GUNNAR BOALT, Familjesociologi, Stockholm 1959, and Familjeproblem, Stockholm
1962.
16 2