Sociation Today Spring/Summer 2014

Making an Intercontinental Move:
Difficulty of Visits and Relocation in International Long-Distance Relationships

by

Orsolya Kolozsvari

College of Coastal Georgia

Introduction

    Globalization, fast travel, the Internet, and modern communication technology have opened novel avenues for people to find a significant other and extended the pool of potential mates to choose from. Long-distance relationships have become possible and more common not only among partners within short distances, but across different countries, as well. Thus, concepts of geographical unavailability or undesirability are waning.

    However, despite all the new possibilities of long-distance romances, crossing borders, acquiring visas, and moving to a foreign country still pose unique challenges. International, and especially intercontinental, travel tends to be more costly and generally requires more preparation and documents than domestic travel. Relocation by immigration to a different country is usually even more complicated than travel. When planning on closing the distance, international long-distance couples might run into insurmountable difficulties or might have to fundamentally alter their future plans to be able to live in the same country as their partner.

    Through in-depth interviews with 20 heterosexual couples in a long-distance relationship (40 individuals total), this study compares international long-distance relationships and marriages with domestic ones and highlights the challenges of long-distance relationships and marriages in a global context.

Theory and Literature Review

    Long-distance relationships (LDRs) have always existed. Married or unmarried couples have been regularly separated for a number of reasons other than discord or the death of a partner, such as war, being in the military or navy, migration, incarceration, or having a job that requires extensive year-round or seasonal travel. Therefore, LDRs are not a novel phenomenon. However, in the last few decades both the numbers of LDRs and the reasons for separation have grown.

    About 5-10 percent of married people live apart from a spouse for a reason other than marital discord (Binstock and Thornton 2003:434). This equals approximately 2.8 million married Americans (Stafford 2005:38). Nonmarried couples have rates of living apart that are 1.6 times as high as those of the married (Binstock and Thornton 2003:450). The number of dual-career, dual-residence married couples is around 700,000 in the United States (Stafford 2005:39; Winfield 1985:13), and more than 70 percent of all dual-career couples face separation for the sake of career advancement (Bunker et al. 1992:400). Researchers stressed that the number of LDRs has been increasing (Cameron and Ross 2007; Gerstel and Gross 1984; Knox et al. 2002; Pistole, Roberts, and Chapman 2010; Sahlstein 2004). This proliferation alone suggests that LDRs need more attention, especially because they are still relatively understudied (Sahlstein 2004).

    One difference between the LDRs of the past and today is that the reasons for separation tend to be somewhat more varied than they used to be. In the past married or unmarried couples were most often separated because of war, military service, migration, incarceration, or the husband's or male partner's job. Two common denominators of these past LDRs were involuntary separation in the majority of cases and the fact that the separation was almost always related to the male partner. Immigrants to the United States and migrant workers are good illustrations of this point: until the last few decades U.S. immigrant history was driven by men who came to the United States to work either temporarily or permanently, often leaving wives and children or romantic partners behind in the homeland. This practice was common, for example, among Chinese, Japanese, Eastern European migrants, such as the Polish, or Mexicans, especially those involved in the bracero (guest worker) program (Calavita 2010; Cohen 2011; Daniels 1990; Galarza 1964; Lee 2003; Lyman 1968; Takaki 1998; Thomas and Znaniecki 1918; Zhao 2002). Most migrant worker men had to come alone due to immigration regulations, plans to eventually return home, or a lack of financial resources.

    Migration still separates many families. People in transnational families tend to have family members who live in different countries, move back and forth between those two countries (unless they cannot do so because of undocumented status), and maintain strong ties with family members despite the distance. Research on transnational families has mainly focused on the effects temporary or permanent migration across borders has on the nuclear family, especially on children and transmigrant parents (Aranda 2003; Dreby 2006, 2010; Hirsch 2000, 2003; Hondagneu-Sotelo and Avila 1997; Mahler 2003; Parrenas 2005; Schmalzbauer 2004; Smith 2006). While most of these studies have touched on the relationship between transnational wives and husbands, hardly any of them placed the marital relationship in the center of their analysis (for exceptions see Hirsch 2000, 2003 and Mahler 2003), and virtually none of them focused on transnational romantic relationships between unmarried partners. This research aims to fill this gap by seeking out participants who are involved in transnational romantic relationships.

Data and Methods

This study included a nonrandom sample of 20 heterosexual couples in a long-distance romantic relationship, a total of 40 respondents. By a long-distance romantic relationship (LDR) I mean a romantic involvement where the partners maintain separate residences, live at least 100 miles apart, and meet face-to-face no more than once every week. Some studies define LDRs by physical distance only (Johnson et al. 2007, 2008; Knox et al. 2002; Lyndon, Pierce, and O'Regan 1997), but I decided against that because couples with an abundance of resources and free time are likely to be able to meet more often even if they are far away, while couples with more limited resources might see each other less frequently even if the distance between them is not vast. My definition approximates those most frequently used in LDR research, where LDRs are described as relationships where it is difficult or even impossible for the partners to see each other on a daily or even weekly basis (Dainton and Aylor 2001; Gerstel and Gross 1984; Guldner 1996; Guldner and Swensen 1995; Hill et al. 2009; Maguire 2007; Maguire and Kinney 2010; Stafford and Merolla 2007), but takes it one step further by focusing both on frequency of contact and distance.

Driven by theoretical considerations I purposely divided the sample by marital status, country of residence, nationality, and past versus current LDR status. Out of the 20 couples, eight were international (see Table 1). Five were in an international long-distance relationship at the time of the interview (Couples 1-5 in Table 1), and three used to be in an intercontinental one with each other (Couples 6-8 in Table 1), but had closed the distance by the time I met them. Out of the eight, seven met online, which highlights how technology and modern communication devices have opened the door to intercontinental intimate relationships. Living in the same country versus two different countries had theoretical significance in this study because it helped me explore the salience of pervasive boundaries, such as borders, and their impact on relationships. Borders are very beneficial in studying boundaries because border crossings tend to pose several bureaucratic and logistical challenges that traveling within the same country does not (e.g., having to possess a passport and possibly even a visa, going through customs, possibly needing vaccinations, proof of residence and a job in the country of origin, etc.). I assumed that LDR couples living in two different countries might find it more difficult to move from an LDR to a geographically close relationship due to bureaucratic barriers (such as needing a work visa, not speaking the native language, etc.).

    I recruited subjects in four ways. The first one was by word of mouth. Second, I placed an ad on two Internet sites that cater to long-distance partners. Third, I posted the study flyer on my Facebook page and asked my friends to disseminate it among their Facebook friends. Lastly, I passed around flyers in the classes I taught and some of my colleagues' classes.

    As I was interviewing people in LDRs, some respondents lived far away, even in a different country, and limited financial resources did not allow me to interview everyone face-to-face. In addition, time constraints prevented me from waiting until both respondents were in the same town to be able to interview them both in person. Therefore, I interviewed some respondents through Skype, and others by telephone, depending on whether a respondent had a Skype account or simply preferred the phone.

    The interviews were conducted between September 2011 and February 2012. Twenty-two people were interviewed in the last months of 2011, and the other 18 in early 2012. There were five instances where I interviewed both partners in the course of the same day, and in other cases I endeavored to talk to partners as close to each other as possible. In most cases the difference was less than a week. I always discouraged respondents from talking about the interview with their partner because this might have distorted the results and compromised confidentiality. In my analysis I used grounded theory methods and relied on its three stages: open, axial, and selective coding.

Throughout this article, I use pseudonyms to preserve my participants' anonymity and confidentiality. For the same purpose, I avoid naming any particular country that my international interviewees are from (other than the United States) because this data could be identifiable information.

Table 1
International Couples

	Pseudonym and world region or continent of origin of male partner	Pseudonym and world region or continent of origin of male partner
Couple 1	Zachary, United States	Vanessa, North America
Couple 2	Daniel, Europe	Lindsey, United States
Couple 3	Craig, United States	Charlotte, Oceania
Couple 4	Gabriel, Europe	Jamie, United States
Couple 5	Bryce, United States	Chloe, Europe
Couple 6	Jasper, Asia	Paige, United States
Couple 7	Tim, originally from Asia, but living in the U.S. at the time of LDR	Julianna, Europe
Couple 8	Adrian, originally from Europe, but living in the U.S. at the time of LDR	Emilia, Europe

Findings

Financial and Bureaucratic Obstacles

    Finances play an immeasurable role in LDRs. The cost of maintaining an LDR is often cited as one of the main disadvantages of such arrangements (Binstock and Thornton 2003; Bunker et al. 1992; Gerstel and Gross 1984; Gross 1980; Rindfuss and Stephen 1990; Winfield 1985). I found that the importance of finances in LDRs became apparent in my study as well. My respondents frequently complained about the cost of travel. Living further apart tended to equal pricier travel, as well as longer travel time, and these were the main reasons why international couples could see each other less often than most domestic ones. International, and especially intercontinental, couples were more likely to point out travel expenses as one of the major pitfalls of LDRs. As Bryce described it, "A cheap ticket to [her country] is $500-700. In America you can get a ticket to California for $100 if you look good enough. So that's seven trips right there." Craig expressed a similar sentiment: "Looking at the distance realistically, it's probably only gonna be once or twice a year that we'll be able to make it happen. It's not only the distance, but the cost of travel. It's not an inexpensive trip to make."

    Time tended to become more significant in LDRs than distance, per se. If a long trip suddenly took a much shorter time period to complete, participants would not have cared about the distance. It is similar with money and distance. If money is abundant, distance can be easily conquered. As Anthony highlighted, "If I had endless money I would go all the time, but that limited me from seeing her as often as I wanted." Vanessa pointed out a similar issue with Zachary: "I'm not rich, he's not rich, so it's not like we can get plane tickets for like two days or something." For Lindsey and Daniel, who lived thousands of miles apart, it took two and a half years to save up and finally meet. As Lindsey explained it, "That's why we didn't meet sooner. It was mostly financial trouble."

    While distance, per se, might not have created an insurmountable barrier in the minds of most of my respondents, borders were sometimes seen as greater and more significant obstacles. Borders can be seen as symbolic boundaries between two realms. Borders divide up continuous space into discrete chunks (Zerubavel 1991). Borders between countries also served as cognitive boundaries for some of my respondents, especially those in a domestic LDR. Felix was one of them: "If she lived in another country, I don't think I'd even bother. It's just too far." Of course, this depends on the country. For example, San Diego, California and Tijuana, Mexico are much closer to each other than, say, San Diego and Bangor, Maine. This illustrates the social construction of spatial categories. In most cases, San Diego and Bangor would be viewed as similar and lumped together in one category (U.S. cities), whereas San Diego and Tijuana would be seen as two dissimilar, split categories (a U.S. city and a Mexican city), regardless of the actual spatial distance between them (Zerubavel 1991). Borders do not necessarily signify great spatial distances, but tend to be associated with vast cognitive distances. That is why Felix equated "another country" with "too far."

    Adam attributed significance to borders as well. He would not have been willing to do long-distance across borders: "I think if one of us really wanted to leave the country, I think we wouldn't have an LDR." Sarah, Ben's partner, confirmed it, "I don't even think we would be talking at this point if we lived in two different countries." Ben concurred, "I just don't think it's feasible. I would say no." Participants in domestic LDRs were generally hesitant about the possibility of an international LDR. Most of them would have preferred to avoid it. This demonstrates that they tended to see borders as mental fences (Zerubavel 1991) and two different countries as two segmented realms that might require arduous literal, mental, and symbolic border crossings (Nippert-Eng 1996).

    Most couples in international LDRs considered borders at least semi-fluid boundaries. However, there were a few exceptions, such as Vanessa. As she explained it:

[In two U.S. states] I know I'm in the same country. At least it's the same country. Even if I know I can't go visit, I know I'm in the same country. Now let's pretend it's 1,000 miles, but it's another country. That's a huge difference. It's not just far away or near, it's a whole different country, different culture. We're really far just because there is a line, there's a border right there, between us. . . . So the two different countries is like, "Wow, we're really apart." Even if it's not that much of a distance.

Vanessa's rigid mindset drew a sharp distinction between the United States and her country, resulting in an almost incomprehensible mental gap between the two that she could not jump over. This enormous mental gap inflated the actual distance between her and her boyfriend. She might have amplified the significance of the border because she and Zachary met in the United States, and later she returned to her own country. She literally crossed the border, and she was aware of the obstacles she would have to overcome to cross it from the other side to reenter the United States, whereas Zachary, as a U.S. citizen, had an easier time going back and forth. Probably this is why he could mentally transcend the boundary Vanessa viewed as almost impregnable. As he stated, "To me there is no difference. To me living two states away is not really different than two different countries. . . . She'd told me otherwise, but for me it's not that much of a difference." As he had been widely traveled and had freedom to travel both within the United States and to Vanessa's homeland, he could afford neglecting distance and borders.

Besides great expenses, as well as exaggerated perceptions of distance when borders were involved, bureaucratic obstacles also affected international LDRs. First and foremost, a passport is essential for international travel. Lindsey, for instance, did not own a passport, and that was the main reason why Daniel came to visit her instead of the other way around. As she explained it, "Well, he already had his passport, and he had already been on a plane before. I had never been on a plane, and I don't have my passport at all." This further underscores that being widely traveled is an advantage in LDRs. As Lindsey did not have a passport, visiting Daniel was impossible for her. Emilia did not have a passport at the time she met Adrian online either, so she had to get one before she could travel, which took some time. She could not travel on a moment's notice. If anything happened to Daniel, Lindsey could not have traveled to see him at all.

Objects often symbolize crossing literal or mental borders (Nippert-Eng 1996). A passport is a symbolic object that signifies transition from one realm to another that is artificially separated from the first. Visas serve the same purpose. Visas posed bureaucratic obstacles for several participants and delayed or even precluded their meeting. Paige and Jasper ran into immense difficulties with visa to the United States. As Paige described it:

The chances of him getting a visa to come to the United States were really, really slim. . . . We knew from the beginning it wasn't gonna be a relationship where we'd both be going back and forth visiting each other. We knew there's no chance he could just come and stay in the U.S. for a while. . . . If he were from practically any other country… Most countries, people can easily come here and get a tourist visa.

Jasper shared his take on the situation: "We did not have any options because I am a [name of country] citizen, and it was absolutely impossible for me to get a visa to visit America. I'd have loved to go to America and see her first, but that was impossible." As he could not obtain a visa, Paige ended up visiting him during their LDR. Luckily, at the time he lived at a third, neutral country where Paige could easily travel. If he had been in his homeland, Paige might have had some difficulty visiting him, which could have made their LDR impossible, or purely virtual.

    Even when a visa was not so arduous to acquire, it took some time and difficulty. As Gabriel asserted, "If it wasn't the visa thing, I would be there. Tomorrow." Waiting for a visa prevented him from seeing Jamie as soon as he wanted. This was the case for other international participants who needed a visa even to visit their partner. This a considerable difference between domestic and international LDRs: international couples have to cross even more boundaries to get together than those who are in the same country. Increasing globalization and a potential decline in the significance of borders could alleviate the difficulties above. The hardships international couples encountered in visiting each other demonstrate that physical spaces tend to be more structured and rigid than cyberspace or cognitive, sociomental spaces. International couples could meet, establish a relationship, interact with each other, create and maintain solidarity and intimacy easier in cyberspace or cognitive, sociomental spaces than in a physical space.

    Not only did bureaucratic issues arise in terms of visiting each other, they were even more prevalent regarding a potential move. Deciding on relocation in an LDR is seldom easy, and there are many factors to consider. However, international couples face even more challenges than domestic ones. They cannot just pick up and move. For some people even obtaining a tourist visa can be complicated. Acquiring an immigrant visa is even more difficult. Charlotte, for instance, was well-aware of this: "You know, for me, if I decided to move to the U.S., or vice versa, for Craig to come here, it would be quite a process to go through with all the visa applications and everything like that."

    Immigrant visas to the United States and numerous other countries are difficult to obtain, and there are relatively few avenues to eligibility. Marriage is one of them. The international couples that had had a past LDR and were married at the time of the interview closed the distance by getting married, which allowed them to move to their partner's country and live together. Due to bureaucratic barriers cohabitation for an extended period of time without marriage was not an option. Marriage was an end goal for these respondents anyway, but the immigrant visa issue sometimes sped up this process. This was the case with Adrian and Emilia, for instance. As Adrian elucidated:

We probably would not have got married this fast. We might have followed a more normal path. We wanted her to have a green card too, and that could only happen if we got married. If we had waited for me to get a green card first, it would have been a long wait for her to get it, up to 5-7 years. So we wanted to get married before I applied for my green card. If one person already has a green card, the other person has to wait 5-7 years, and they cannot even stay in the country. So that's why we got married so fast so that we could be together.

Adrian's references to a "normal path" indicated his sociotemporal socialization: he knew that people did not usually get married within less than a year, and under different circumstances he might have adhered to those norms. However, his desire to be together with Emilia finally overwrote social regulations about the temporal sequence couples were expected to follow. He realized that they would either get married within a year, or they would have to wait 5-7 years to live together.

Paige and Jasper ended up getting married, too, so that Jasper could hopefully move to the United States. They wanted to get married, but bureaucratic obstacles accelerated their trajectory. As Paige explained it, "The visa stuff was complicated, and while we wanted to get married, nobody wants to feel like that's our only option. I mean, it was the option we wanted, but it would've been nice not to feel like that's the only thing we can do to close the distance." Her comment illustrates how free will can be curtailed by bureaucratic regulations. Jasper was very concerned that his free will might completely be taken away. He admitted, "We were nervous. . . . There was a possibility of the Embassy of America rejecting the whole thing. . . . We could end up being in love and wanting to get married, but technically, according to our governments, I'm not even allowed to be with her."

It was very difficult for Julianna and Tim, too, to find a way to be together and get married. It turned out that they could not get married in Julianna's homeland, which was her dream. As she explained it:

I really wanted to get married in [my homeland], to have my family there, my friends, the church. I had always dreamt of getting married in the church where I used to go. So we tried to work towards that. But what happened is that bureaucracy is too high, and the papers required for a foreigner were just impossible to get. Unfortunately, [my homeland] dropped off the list. The next option was the U.S.

Julianna's husband, Tim had a similar recollection: "It was literally impossible to get married in [her country]. The kind of documents and things like that, . . . it was crazy. . . . The only option left was for Julianna to come to the U.S. and get married."

Other couples were still in an LDR, but they were cognizant of the challenges closing the distance would involve, and that marriage would likely be a part of the equation. Vanessa was aware of this too:

It's not like a normal couple because it's like I'm from [country], he's from the U.S. If we want to get married, we have to talk about the visa. We've actually talked about that and decided we cannot get married in [my country]. It's gonna be really complicated to get married here and try to go to the States. If you wanna take your spouse to the U.S., and you're a citizen, which he is, it's really complicated and takes more than a year instead of the fiancee visa when you get married there within the first three months you got there.

Similar to Adrian, Vanessa also contrasted her path with Zachary with a "normal" one. She might have wanted to follow sociotemporal conventions about the length and spatial location of courtship, engagement, and marriage, but being from two different countries left them limited options. These examples demonstrate that international LDRs may overthrow sociotemporal relationship expectations even more than do domestic LDRs, and they often require an even more serious and swift commitment than domestic LDRs or close-distance relationships.

Visa regulations also highlight the rigidity of marriage as a social norm. Governments recognize marriage as one of the few ways to obtain an immigrant visa. Although emotional commitment can be and is as high in many cohabiting relationships as in numerous marriages, marriage signifies an institutionalized and socially sanctioned commitment that is typically ranked higher and awarded more privileges than cohabitation. In many societies, including the United States, there is still a legal and bureaucratic boundary between marriage and cohabitation.

Cultural and Linguistic Differences: Obstacles or Not?

    Similar to how domestic and international couples have not been compared in LDR studies, the role of ethnicity or nationality has not been explored either (Hill et al. 2009). Being two different nationalities, per se, did not make a difference for my participants. When I asked those who were the same nationality whether being two different nationalities would change anything in their LDR, most of them did not believe so. As Keith put it, "No, it wouldn't [make a difference]. I just, you know, don't judge a person by what country they were born in, what language they used to speak." When participants would have been reluctant to have an LDR with someone from a different country, it was not related to their nationality; it was associated more with the distance and bureaucratic obstacles I have discussed.

    International couples usually did not set a boundary in terms of nationality, per se, either. As Julianna highlighted, "It didn't matter that he was a different nationality . . . the person himself mattered." Objections about a partner's nationality came more from family members of couples in international LDRs. However, even this was not common; it only occurred in a few cases. For instance, parents did not support Julianna and Tim's relationship because they were different nationalities. As Tim described it, "As we were so different, the families weren't so comfortable with us seeing each other. . . . It had more to do with being from two different countries. It had nothing to do with the distance. . . . We got it from both families because of fear of the unknown." Julianna went into even more detail about what happened and how strong the resistance was, especially from Tim's family: "The family didn't support it . . . for them I was a Westerner with no family values, no religion. At least that was the perception. They didn't know me particularly, so they weren't refusing me, they were refusing the whole idea of marrying a foreigner." Julianna might have transcended nationality boundaries herself, but Tim's family had a more rigid mindset. They drew a sharp line between the two nationalities, between "us" and "them," and were concerned that if the two were not kept separate, one might contaminate the other (Zerubavel 1991). Eventually they came around, and after Julianna and Tim got married and had a child, they reluctantly accepted their union.

    Partners from different cultures tended to minimize cultural differences. Several of them insisted they did not experience any differences. Chloe was one of them: "In our contact, how we act, the culture hasn't really affected us, really." Several others reported the same, especially the ones that both came from Western cultures, such as Chloe and Bryce, Craig and Charlotte, and Jamie and Gabriel. In a few cases even between two Western cultures there was some cultural difference. Lindsey provided an example: "Different customs, like they have the little angel thing instead of Santa Claus. . . . They don't have Santa Claus, and I'm like, 'What am I supposed to teach my children?'" She was upset because Santa Claus was an integral part of her sociocultural upbringing and framework, and she found the possibility of a cognitive re-socialization and the loss of important cultural symbols disturbing. Her comment also highlights the difficulties of the fusion of two cultures for the next generation.

    As I have already pointed out, most international couples did not find any, or at least not significant, cultural differences, and even those could generally be reconciled. As mentioned before, Tim and Julianna's family was concerned about and exaggerated the distance between the couple's backgrounds, but they themselves did not perceive it as unbridgeable. As Tim contended, "We know the differences on paper in our background. . . . We talked about it, and we were comfortable."

    Vanessa was not absolutely certain that Zachary had got to the point of completely accepting her culture, but as she was aware of the importance of this issue, she pressed it. As she explained it, "I'm accepting your culture, and I'm not saying you need to love my culture, but at least I need to know you accept it. . . . I need to know you accept it because this is who I am, and it's not gonna change. This is where I grew up." While Vanessa emphasized differences, Zachary was more prone to trivializing them: "She doesn't act like [she's from another country]. You wouldn't know unless she told you." For him, similarity was more important, for Vanessa it was more about compatibility while preserving her national heritage. He wanted to entirely obliterate any potential boundaries, whereas she strove to preserve national and cultural boundaries while making literal and sociomental border crossings smoother between them.

    Cultural difference was more pronounced when one respondent was from the Western hemisphere and the other one from the Eastern hemisphere, such as Tim and Julianna, as well as Paige and Jasper. Tim and Julianna could easily reconcile differences. Their parents, however, had a much harder time with it. Jasper and Paige discussed cultural differences the most. As Jasper highlighted, "Tons of differences. There are so many things she would say, and it might not be really serious, but it makes me upset, or the other way around." Paige found cultural differences too:

Where to begin? There's so many. [People of his nationality] are so different from us. Just the level of hospitality is a big one. They're much more formal, we're much more casual. All the food differences are tough. . . . They are more private. . . . Like when we got engaged, he didn't tell anybody. He didn't even tell his parents. It's cultural. They don't like to share good news until they are certain of it. Whereas I told everybody, my professors, my friends, my family, my co-workers. I was so excited. It was hurtful to me that he wasn't sharing that.

While Paige offered a relatively long list of differences, and some that led to disagreements between them, she still enjoyed the advantages of those differences too: "I think they are fun, though. That's the most fun part of a multicultural relationship. It's fascinating to learn about another culture." For Paige Jasper's culture was entirely unfamiliar in the beginning. However, for non-American participants American culture was more familiar through popular culture. Therefore, in some ways they had less to learn and had an easier time adapting to their partner's culture. Increasing globalization is also a reason why cultural boundaries have become more permeable, and as U.S. culture is largely exported to countries across the globe, it has a significant impact on global culture.

    While nationality and cultural differences in most cases were transcended, language posed a more significant barrier. For example, Lindsey admitted, "I'm scared of the language." She was fine about other aspects of her potential move to Daniel's European homeland, but the language terrified her. Vanessa insisted that Zachary needed to learn her native language so that he could communicate with her family, and the prospect slightly intimidated him. Jamie and Gabriel pointed out issues related to language as well. Jamie asserted, "That happens sometimes. I'm asking him a question, and he might not understand it right away. Then I might ask it a different way, and he still might not understand it. Sometimes I might settle even though I don't get the answer, or I don't even know if he understood my question." This might have been frustrating to Jamie, but the fact that they spoke in her first language still gave her the upper hand. As Gabriel contended, "[Language is an issue] when you've got an argument. She could get you in something because it's her first language."

    These language barriers are not entirely independent of globalization either. English is one of the most widely spoken languages on the globe; therefore, those whose native language was English or were fluent in English sensed a language boundary much less than others. When respondents had different first languages, and the native language of one of them was English, they spoke in English with one another. That is why Lindsey and Zachary might have felt so uncomfortable at the thought of learning their partners' first language. They were so used to being able to communicate in English. In a globalized world the wide use of English can transcend language barriers, but, at the same time, it can create potential power differentials between partners when one partner speaks another first language. For example, Gabriel had a disadvantage in arguments because English was not his native tongue.

    While the couples I interviewed might have experienced some linguistic differences, they all spoke fluent English, whether it was their native language or not. Besides a few misunderstandings, they could communicate with each other. With globalization, more and more people speak two languages, and many people in the world speak at least some English. This facilitates the establishment and maintenance of international LDRs, but people who do not speak each other's language (or where at least one of them does not) cannot engage in successful and long-lasting LDRs. Communication is crucial in all relationships, and especially so in LDRs, therefore, significant language barriers can cut an LDR short.

Conclusion

    As international, and especially intercontinental, travel tends to cost more than domestic, I found that international long-distance couples mentioned finances as more of a potential obstacle to their visits than domestic partners. Some even had to delay seeing each other for months or, in a few cases, years, and others met less frequently because the burden of travel cost would have been insurmountable. Globalization and modern communication devices make it possible for people from all over the world to meet in cyberspace, which opens up new possibilities and broadens horizons for international couples. At the same time, international couples with underprivileged socioeconomic backgrounds run into immense difficulties trying to meet or relocate. Future studies could explore such hardships and economic inequality in long-distance relationships further.

    Bureaucratic obstacles in visits and relocation (passports, travel and immigrant visas) served as relatively rigid boundaries for international long-distance partners. Many had to modify or accelerate the trajectories of their relationship to be able to live in the same country. This highlights that marriage is still mostly an expected, socially and legally sanctioned norm. While my (heterosexual) respondents ultimately did not mind getting married somewhat sooner than they had planned, this is not possible for all international couples. For instance, as marriage between same-sex partners is not universally recognized in the United States and several other countries, an immigrant visa through marriage is not an option for gay and lesbian international couples. The scope of my research did not allow me to include gay and lesbian couples in my sample, but future studies should examine any additional challenges that gay and lesbian partners face in an international long-distance relationship.

    My participants did not report vast cultural differences between each other, especially if they were from the same world region. Future research could target long-distance partners with widely dissimilar cultural backgrounds to shed light on how much cultural differences might matter (or not matter) in international long-distance relationships. My interviewees encountered some linguistic differences, which were observed more and sometimes seen as more of a disadvantage by those who communicated with their partner in the partner's first language. This issue and any potential resulting subtle inequalities in relationship dynamics could be explored further in future studies, which could make comparisons between long-distance partners who share the same first language, those who have different first languages, and communicate in the first language of one of them, as well as couples who have different first languages, and speak with each other in a third language that is not a native language for either one of them.

References

Aranda, Elizabeth M. 2003. "Global Care Work and Gendered Constraints: The Case of Puerto Rican Transmigrants." Gender & Society 17:609-626.

Binstock, Georgina and Arland Thornton. 2003. "Separations, Reconciliations, and Living Apart in Cohabiting and Marital Unions." Journal of Marriage and Family 65:432-443.

Bunker, Barbara B., Josephine M. Zubek, Virginia J. Vanderslice, and Robert W. Rice. 1992. "Quality of Life in Dual-Career Families: Commuting versus Single-Residence Couples." Journal of Marriage and the Family 54:399-407.

Cameron, Jessica and Michael Ross. 2007. "In Times of Uncertainty: Predicting the Survival of Long-Distance Relationships." The Journal of Social Psychology 147 (6):581-606.

Dainton, Marianne and Brooks Aylor. 2001. "A Relational Uncertainty Analysis of Jealousy, Trust, and Maintenance in Long-Distance versus Geographically Close Relationships." Communication Quarterly 49 (2):172-188.

Dreby, Joanna. 2006. "Honor and Virtue: Mexican Parenting in the Transnational Context." Gender & Society 20:32-59.

______. 2010. Divided by Borders: Mexican Migrants and Their Children. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Galarza, Ernesto. 1964. Merchants of Labor: The Mexican Bracero Story: An Account of the Managed Migration of Mexican Farm Workers in California 1942-1960. New York: McNelly & Loftin.

Gerstel, Naomi and Harriet Gross. 1984. Commuter Marriage: A Study of Work and Family. New York: The Guilford Press.

Gross, Harriet Engel. 1980. "Dual-Career Couples Who Live Apart: Two Types." Journal of Marriage and the Family 42:567-576.

Guldner, Gregory T. 1996. "Long-Distance Romantic Relationships: Prevalence and Separation-Related Symptoms in College Students." Journal of College Student Development 37:289-296.

Guldner, Gregory T. and Clifford H. Swensen. 1995. "Time Spent Together and Relationship Quality: Long-Distance Relationships as a Test Case." Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 13:313-320.

Hill, Susan, Kai Redalen, Samantha Davison, and Carley Mondloh. 2009. "Comparing Intimacy Levels of Long Distance and Geographically Close Dating Relationships." Presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Aug 8, San Francisco, CA.

Hirsch, Jennifer S. 2000. "En El Norte La Mujer Manda: Gender, Generation, and Geography in a Mexican Transnational Community." Pp. 369-389 in Immigration Research for a New Century, edited by N. Foner, R. Rumbaut, and S. Gold. New York: Russell Sage.

______. 2003. A Courtship After Marriage: Sexuality and Love in Mexican Transnational Families. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Johnson, Amy, Michel Haigh, Jennifer Becker, Elizabeth Craig, and Shelley Wigley. 2007. "College Students' Use of Email to Maintain Long Distance and Geographically Close Interpersonal Relationships." Presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, May 23, San Francisco, CA.

______. 2008. "College Students' Use of Relational Management Strategies in Email in Long-Distance and Geographically Close Relationships." Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13:381-404.

Knox, David E., Marty E. Zusman, Vivian Daniels, and Angel Brantley. 2002. "Absence Makes the Heart Grow Fonder?: Long Distance Dating Relationships Among College Students." College Student Journal 36 (3). Retrieved March 16, 2011 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCR/is_3_36/ai_95356586/)

Lee, Erika. 2003. At America's Gates: Chinese Immigration during the Exclusion Era, 1882-1943. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Lyman, Stanford M. 1968. "Marriage and the Family Among Chinese Immigrants to America, 1850-1960." Phylon 29:321-330.

Lyndon, John, Tamarha Pierce, and Shannon O'Regan. 1997. "Coping With Moral Commitment to Long-Distance Dating Relationships." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73:104-113.

Maguire, Katheryn C. 2007. "'Will It Ever End?': A (Re)examination of Uncertainty in College Student Long-Distance Dating Relationships." Communication Quarterly 55 (4):415-432.

Maguire, Katheryn C. and Terry A. Kinney. 2010. "When Distance is Problematic: Communication, Coping, and Relational Satisfaction in Female College Students' Long-Distance Dating Relationships." Journal of Applied Communication Research 38:27-46.

Mahler, Sarah J. 2003. "Engendering Transnational Migration: A Case Study of Salvadorans." Pp. 287-316 in Gender and U.S. Immigration, edited by P. Hondagneu-Sotelo. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Nippert-Eng, Christena E. 1996. Home and Work: Negotiating Boundaries Through Everyday Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Parrenas, Rhacel Salazar. 2005. Children of Global Migration: Transnational Families and Gendered Woes. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Pistole, M. Carole, Amber Roberts, and Jonathan E. Mosko. 2010. "Commitment Predictors: Long-Distance Versus Geographically Close Relationships." Journal of Counseling and Development 88 (2):146-153.

Rindfuss, Ronald R. and Elizabeth Hervey Stephen. 1990. "Marital Noncohabitation: Separation Does Not Make the Heart Grow Fonder." Journal of Marriage and the Family 52:259-270.

Sahlstein, Erin M. 2004. "Relating at a Distance: Negotiating Being Together and Being Apart in Long-Distance Relationships." Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 21:689-710.

Schmalzbauer, Leah. 2004. "Searching for Wages and Mothering from Afar: The Case of Honduran Transnational Families." Journal of Marriage and Family 66:1317-1331.

Stafford, Laura. 2005. Maintaining Long-Distance and Cross-Residential Relationships. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Elbaum Associates.

Stafford, Laura and Andy J. Merolla. 2007. "Idealization, Reunions, and Stability in Long-Distance Dating Relationships." Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 24:37-54.

Takaki, Ronald. 1998. Strangers from a Different Shore: A History of Asian Americans, Updated and Revised Edition. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Winfield, Fairlee E. 1985. Commuter Marriage: Living Together, Apart. New York: Columbia University Press.

Zerubavel, Eviatar. 1991. The Fine Line: Making Distinctions in Everyday Life. New York: Free Press.

Zhao, Xiaojian. 2002. Remaking Chinese America: Immigration, Family, and Community, 1940-1965. New Brunswick,NJ: Rutgers University Press.