Since 2011, Jordan has seen a significant increase of Syrian refugees. This paper examines cross-border marriages between Syrian refugee women and Jordanian men in Mafraq, drawing on interviews with ten Jordanian men and women from Mughayyir, Raba’, and Zaatari. The study offers insights into these marriages within the context of South-South migration, contrasting with the dominant focus on South-to-North migration within migration studies. Using Ken Plummer’s concept of “intimate citizenship,” the study explores how personal lives intersect with global political discourses, reinforcing nation-based privileges. The study emphasizes the vulnerability of displaced Syrian women and the connection between economic factors and intimate citizenship. Introducing the concepts of “heterosexual capital” and “compensatory masculinity,” this research shows how societal benefits linked to (normative) heterosexual relationships depend on recognition, shaping the legitimacy of certain couples and the respectability of specific femininities and masculinities. It also examines societal judgments and patriarchal norms that regulate these intimate relationships, revealing the complex interplay of race, class, age, ethnicity, and citizenship.

The above quotes exemplify the interconnected gendered realities of refugee immigration within the Jordanian context, which also serves as the contextual focus of this paper. The first quote, which was articulated by a government official, emphasises the imagined collective (masculine) hospitable reception of refugees. The second quote, which was shared by a research participant, elucidates perceptions regarding the shaping and assessment of marriage and sexuality within the hostile, xenophobic, and gendered patriarchal hosting society in which Syrian women reside. To analyse these parallel realities within the framework of global forced displacements, this paper draws on the discourse surrounding marriages between Jordanian men and Syrian women, aiming to address gender dynamics through the following questions:

By drawing on Ken Plummer’s (2003) concept of ‘intimate citizenship’, we aim to explore the intersecting gender dynamics within global and glocal forced displacement, including race, class, and age. In our study, citizenship is viewed as a lived, intimate practice rather than a mere sociolegal contract, particularly within the context of global mobility and displacement (Pratt & Rosner 2012). Within the framework of racialised gendered dynamics, our analysis focuses on how non-hegemonic and ‘compensatory masculinities’ (Ezzell 2012) among Jordanian men emerge and manifest through the positioning of Syrian women as ‘vulnerable and disempowered’. Drawing on narratives from research participants and public debates, our analysis resonates with Plummer’s (2001) concept of ‘the square of intimate citizenship’, which involves four key public spheres: culture wars, the necessity for dialogue, narration and moral stories, and globalisation and glocalisation (Plummer 2001: 241)—all of which are highly significant for this study. We pay particular attention to discussions surrounding ‘private’ matters such as marriage, family, parenting, (un)desirable femininity and masculinity, and sexuality, providing a nuanced understanding of citizenship and the simultaneous construction of hospitality and hostility (Farahani 2021) narratives on Syrian women.

Unlike studies that concentrate on ‘cross-border marriages’, ‘transnational marriages’ and ‘mixed couples’ and explore alliances between individuals not only from the Global South, who are often women, but also from/or located in the Global North, who are mostly men (Williams 2010; Charsley 2012), this study focuses on how marital relations between women and men within the Global South (Satake 2004) are perceived by a hosting society in the Global South context. The focus on South–South migration, as Fiddian-Qasmiyeh (2020) suggests, contributes to recentring the South in studies of displacement and migration. By drawing attention to the hosting practices of the Global South, as well as the gendered and intimate aspects of displacement through mixed marriages, we offer new insights into the study of migration in general and South–South migration in particular.

Following scholarly studies that challenge the distinction between race and ethnicity (Grosfoguel 2004) and despite the common religious background and similar phenotypes of Syrians and Jordanians, herein, we choose to use the concepts of ‘mixed raced intimacy’ and ‘racialisation’ to elucidate the stigmatising and marginalising experiences of Syrian immigrants in Jordan. We argue that focusing solely on colour overlooks how individuals, despite not being phenotypically distinct from dominant groups, can face discrimination and othering in their everyday lives (Grosfoguel 2004). As Grosfoguel illustrates through the racialisation of the Irish in the UK, racialization extends beyond skin colour to include intersecting political, sociocultural and colonial relationships. Corporeal othering encompassing dress codes, accents, names, and spatial coordinates, as argued by Muñoz (2018), highlights how individuals’ right to residency is contested by those making false claims to nativity. For displaced Syrians in Jordan, the transition from pursuing a normative national and social status to embracing a racialised minority status is ongoing and in flux.

The 2011 uprising, which locked Syria in a civil war, contributed significantly to an estimated total of 1.3 million refugees fleeing to its southern neighbour of Jordan since 2011 (MOPIC 2019). Although Jordan had officially recorded 753,376 refugees as of June 2019, the estimated number is nearly double, with Syrian refugees comprising the most at-risk nationality at 662,569 individuals (MOPIC 2019). Predominantly residing in urban areas such as Amman, Mafraq and Irbid, more than half of the Syrian refugees are women, and more than 80% are younger than 35 years of age (Relief web 2017-2018; Jordan Fact Sheet 2019). Given the challenging circumstances that lead Syrians to flee and the global reluctance to open borders, numerous agencies in Jordan provide assistance to refugees. However, importantly, the implementation of aid efforts may be contradictory. For instance, the Jordan Response Plan for 2017–2019 (2019) was enacted during a period when many Jordanians viewed Syrian refugees as the primary cause of their economic hardships.

This study focuses on qualitative interviews conducted with five women and five men from Jordan who were living in the villages of Mughayyir, Rabba, and Zaatari, which are situated near Mafraq, a city that hosts many Syrians from Dar’a, which is a city close to the Syrian-Jordanian border. The Syrians in Mafraq are integrated with the cultural and social fabric shared with the Jordanian Bedouins in the area, thereby aligning with tribal social structures prevalent in east Jordan and the aforementioned villages. In Mafraq, there is a sense of ease and moral obligation among Jordanians to support their Syrian relatives, which is rooted in familial ties and shared cultural backgrounds. In contrast, Syrians in the capital city of Amman encounter varied experiences and perceptions. Those residing in Amman are often viewed as more financially stable and urban-oriented. The participants in this study generally expressed sympathy and compassion towards the Syrians, with no explicit instances of racism or discrimination being reported. However, some participants noted a discrepancy between the official narrative portraying refugees as guests and the experienced realities.

To explore the (de)valuation and assessment of public debates surrounding the intimate aspects of transborder marriage between Syrian women and Jordanian men, we conducted ten in-depth interviews with Jordanian research participants (five women and five men) who were living in three villages (Mughayyir, Rabba, and Za’atri) located near the Syrian border. This region is part of the Northeastern Badia region in the Al-Mafraq governorate, where the presence of displaced Syrians has significantly altered the social dynamics. Individual interviews, which were conducted by Amani Al-Serhan, lasted between 60 and 90 minutes. The participants represented various occupations, such as housewives, teachers, the head of a woman’s association overseeing small projects for both Jordanian and Syrian women, a former military officer deployed on the Syrian-Jordanian border, a civil servant collecting medical data about Jordanian and Syrian refugees in Mafraq, an interpreter working in refugee camps, and local residents. All participants had some level of involvement with Syrians due to the large number of displaced individuals in the area. Interviews with individuals involved with Syrian refugees can offer valuable insights into the narratives surrounding marriages between Syrian women and Jordanian men, shedding light on inclusionary and exclusionary practices within diverse communities, particularly regarding intimate aspects of individual lives. Understanding the perceptions and treatment of such unions within the societal framework is crucial for comprehending the limiting norms and practices of intimate citizenship. By examining the discussions, values, devaluations, or dismissals of these intimate connections in public discourses, we can gain deeper insights into the intersecting factors shaping the experiences of those involved.

The familiarity and contextual understanding of Jordanian culture played a crucial role in shaping the research process. While avoiding claims of authenticity or the “native researcher” label (Narayan 2003), we emphasise the role of Al-Serhan, who was in charge of data collection. Her ability to navigate between her shifting insider and outsider positions, coupled with language proficiency, cultural and political insights, played a crucial role in contextualising the study, influencing access to research data and participants, as well as the interpretations and outcomes of the research (Farahani 2010). Al-Serhan’s Bedouin background and ties to a well-known tribe in Mafraq influenced participant selection, and family connections within the village of Mafraq facilitated access to participants through family and friendship bonds. Tribal affiliations acted as a gatekeeping function, streamlining access to participants and resources. Living in a region populated by Syrians provided Al-Serhan with personal everyday experiences, exposing her to first-hand narratives beyond the scope of interviews and offering insights into the consequences of the refugee crisis and the topic of cross-national marriage. Despite residing in Amman and speaking an urbanised dialect of Arabic, Al-Serhan was positioned as an insider during the interviews, with participants frequently using the phrase ‘ma enti ghashima’ (as you already know) to suggest her familiarity with the context. Throughout the interviews, participants often constructed a collective ‘we’ (Mulinari 2005) by referring to common national (we Jordanians) and ethnic identities, religious affiliation (we Muslims), family/kinship familiarity, or gender (we women). In so doing, a variety of (un)shared historical discursive grounds and experiences were communicated either implicitly or explicitly between the researcher and research participants (Farahani 2010).

However, Al-Serhan’s residence in the capital, Western education, modern clothing and dialect sometimes set her apart as an outsider, impacting her reception among research participants. The ways in which the research participants (dis)identified with Al-Serhan had an impact on how she was welcomed and how and what people chose to share with her; this is a contested claim because as researchers, we can never know what people choose to share with us or decide to keep to themselves. The dichotomisation of ‘we’ (Jordanian) and ‘them’ (Syrians) in participants’ accounts reveal the prejudices against Syrian women and the use of certain tropes to differentiate Jordanian women from Syrian women. The interactions during the interviews were influenced differently by Al-Serhan’s female gender. Male participants welcomed her with formality, treating her as a guest, while female participants welcomed her into more casual, private spaces such as living rooms. Sobh and Belk (2011) make arguments about segregated hosting spaces and how they are relational and complementary by drawing on the concept of hurma (honour and shame). In contrast to traditional demarcations, these distinctions in hosting space were challenging. In discussions about sexuality, clear gender dynamics emerged, as female participants were more willing to delve into details about Syrian women’s sexuality, while male participants were reserved and uncomfortable, providing general accounts without explicit details.

Patriarchy, as a system of male domination, varies in influence due to men’s different access to power (Connell 1987; Farahani & Thapar-Björkert 2020). Masculine subjectivities and dominance are influenced by intersecting factors such as class, race, age, faith, ability, and sexuality. These factors shape behaviours and personalities, and impact masculine capital (Bourdieu 2001, 1986; de Visser 2009; Ashall 2004). The power dynamics within patriarchy are (de)stabilised by factors affecting performativity and the recognition of masculine capital (Ashall 2004). Subordinate groups of men, such as racial, sexual, or faith minorities and those with health conditions or economic disadvantages, may adopt compensatory strategies to undermine the stigma and stereotypes associated with their identities (Chen 1999; Ezzell 2012; Kim 2014; Sumerau 2012). These strategies might involve exaggerated displays of ‘masculine’ characteristics, such as the use of violence, the exhibition of wealth, potency, and access to (younger) women, aiming to signify their masculine capital to conform to normative ideals of masculinity (Ezzell 2012). In the face of global influences shaping local gender practices (Connell 1998; Broughton 2008), disadvantaged and subaltern men with less socioeconomic status and heterosexual desirability may adopt various strategies, including cross-border marriages, to reclaim gender-based privileges (Kim 2014). However, these compensatory ‘manhood acts’, as Ezzell argues, can either intentionally or unintentionally reinforce dominant ideologies and perpetuate inequality.

The literature on cross-border marriages primarily emphasises the experience of the displaced female partner (Ask 2006; Williams 2010; Fernandez 2018; Joëlle, Andrikopoulos & Dahinden 2021), leaving a notable gap in understanding the experiences of nonmigrant husbands in such unions. As Yi’En (2012) highlights, the experiences of these men are often overlooked, resembling a missing piece of the puzzle. Given the limited scholarly attention given to nonmigrant husbands in cross-border marriages, it remains unclear whether these men face social stigmatisation before or after entering such unions. This aspect necessitates reflection on whether stigmatised men seek to compensate for perceived failed masculine status by marrying younger foreign women (Charsley 2012; Yi’En 2015) or whether they were already labelled failed masculine subjects before entering these marriages; this question remains unexplored. Both possibilities could be valid given these circumstances.

Citizenship seems to enable men with a lower level of desirability in the local marriage market—due to factors such as class, age, financial means, and appearance—to engage in cross-border marriages. According to Yi’En, Yeoh and Zhang (2015), marrying foreign spouses allows these men, who are perceived as unsuccessful, to distance themselves from the notion of ‘failed masculinity’ and assume the roles of protector and provider, thus potentially bolstering their masculine capital in such marriages. In our study on the (dis)approval of intimate relations between Jordanian men and displaced Syrian women, research participants consistently viewed Jordanian men marrying Syrian women as being unsuccessful in the local marriage market. Marrying young Syrian women is seen as a compensatory act, i.e., an attempt to reclaim an enhanced masculine status within the patriarchal system.

The realm of marriage and intimacy extends beyond personal decisions, intertwining with conditioning political, social, and religious landscapes. Marriage and family have grown to be major focuses in migration studies (Bonizzoni 2018; Farahani 2018), with a growing focus on mixed and nonmixed citizenship families (Bonjour & de Hart 2020). The vast literature on transnational intimacy and intimate ties among people across the world (Bloch 2017; Williams 2010; Charsley 2012) suggests what Plummer terms a ‘globalisation of intimacies’ (2001). This expression draws attention to how such marriages are publicly recognised or contested in political debates and everyday social interactions. It elucidates how individuals navigate their transnational/cross-border intimate lives within the institutional constraints of the societies that they inhabit. Cross-border marriages involve the movement of at least one person who is not considered an indisputable part of an imagined national or ethnic community, to use Benedict Anderson’s well-cited words (1991). Quantifying the number of global cross-border marriages poses challenges, partly due to the ambiguity in defining marriage migration and the undertheorisation of family migration (Williams 2010). As Williams points out, some conceptualise cross-border marriages as ‘strategic marriages’, indicating a calculated consideration of potential gains in settling marriage contracts (2010: 70). These gains encompass not only improved migration options, residency rights, access to labour markets, economic advantages, enhanced social capital but also the development and consolidation of family and community-based resources (ibid). Unpacking the notion of ‘strategic marriage’, Williams notes that marriage is always strategic, involving decisions that balance possibilities of ‘for better and for worse’ (to paraphrase Christian marriage vows) (2010: 71). Individuals’ ambitions and strategies are continually in play, often involving different intersecting social mobilities even within the same national framework.

In migration studies, cross-border marriages involve different categories, such as ‘sham’, ‘forced’, and ‘mixed’ marriages, and are influenced by the way in which state concerns and priorities (dis)qualify acceptable and unacceptable marital relations (Williams 2010). Following these categories, researchers unintentionally perpetuate methodological nationalism (Wimmer & Glick Schiller 2002), which views the nation-state as the sole unit of analysis or as a container for social processes, reinforcing state-informed hierarchies and exclusion, even when critiquing state policies (Moret & Dahinden 2019). The politicisation and stigma surrounding cross-border marriages, especially between the Global North and Global South, create divisions between ‘us’ and ‘them’, thereby distinguishing between accepted and good families that foster an image of a national community (Bonjour & De Hart 2013) and citizens who disrupt the imagined community by marrying an outsider. Terminology, such as ‘cross-border marriages’, ‘transnational marriages’, and ‘mixed couples’, not only defines a research field—based on national boundaries—but is also influenced by political debates on marriage and migration regulation (Moret & Dahinden 2019). Acknowledging the limitations of terminology and for the purpose of consistency, we refer to cross-border marriage when discussing cohabiting relationships between Syrian women and Jordanian men.

Citizenship is a contested concept that has been subject to a variety of scholarly and political examinations. A series of notable debates on the concept emerged after Marshall’s definition was put forth, which is based on people’s entitlement to rights and privileges in civil, social and political spheres of life (1950). Marshall’s oversight in considering factors such as institutionalised privilege (Richardson 2000), reproductive rights (De Graeve 2010), gender and sexuality (Richardson 2000; Weeks 1998), ableism (Goodley 2014), and the impact of class, race, and migration (Abu-Laban 1988; Muchoki 2017; Ellermann 2019) has prompted critiques. These critiques reveal the gendered, raced and classed dimensions of citizenship. Feminist scholarship, highlighting the neglect of ‘private’ matters within citizenship theories, emphasises the role of family, marriage, sexuality, and parenting in shaping social relations (Okin 1989; Weeks 1998). Building on the feminist focus on private spheres, Plummer (2003) introduces the concept of ‘intimate citizenship’ to examine citizenship rights in relation to bodies and relationships, i.e., how individuals do gender, how they are sexual beings and how they may (dis)claim identity. Intimate citizenship reveals the intertwining of personal decisions with public institutions and collective (de)evaluations, carrying contradictory emotions and tensions (Plummer 2003).

While existing studies on intimate citizenship focus on exclusionary consequences for (sexually) marginalised groups, less attention is given to how marginalisation and stigmatisation operate through hierarchies such as race, class, age, ability and nationality/citizenship, even within seemingly heterosexual relations that are not necessarily heteronormative (Farahani 2012, 2018). Choosing the ‘correct’ person to marry not only signifies how to do gender, sexuality, and family ‘properly’ but also seeks recognition within dominant social relations. Recognition and support for personal choices, which are discursively linked to intimate citizenship, play a crucial role in broader social and political contexts. This support is essential for fostering inclusion, building social networks, gaining acceptability, achieving success, and attaining overall recognition. For example, Plummer’s work demonstrates how dominant heteronormative settings not only marginalise homosexualities but also offer a limited and limiting definition of heterosexual practices that are governed not only by the attraction between the ‘right’ sexes. What is less apparent is how heteronormativity is also constantly constructed through and with other social differences, such as class, race, age, ability, and national and citizen status (Farahani 2012). In studying marital relations between Syrian women and Jordanian men within a specific social setting, we apply Plummer’s concept of intimate citizenship (2003) to examine the construction, discussion, and challenges surrounding (un)desirable forms of intimacy and family relations. Our analysis explores how ideas of desirability within Syrian women’s femininities and Jordanian men’s masculinities are influenced by migration trajectories, as well as by gender, racial/ethnic, and national logics.

The examples above illustrate how the relationships between Syrian women and Jordanian men were perceived by research participants, revealing the attribution of gendered characteristics. Syrian women are portrayed as more desirable, efficient and skilful homemakers in Jordanians’ imaginaries, as Dareen and other research participants seemed to suggest. Their narratives echo tropes of gender, race, and ethnicity (Constable 2005; Farahani 2007, 2018). Even supposedly ‘positive’ female characteristics are used to ascribe a feminine strategy and seductive attributes to racialised Jordanian women. For instance, Jasmin, a 30-year-old woman from Mughayyir, presented a nuanced image of Syrian women. She viewed them as ‘strong, independent, hard workers who will/can work practically anywhere’ while also emphasising their devotion to their husbands and ability to create a comforting atmosphere at home—such as decorating their houses with plants, flowers, and making good coffee—contrasting them with working Jordanian women. Jasmin asserted that the welcoming atmosphere created by Syrian women is entirely different and suggests that their perceived traits of being less demanding pose a threat to Jordanian women. While portraying Syrian women with characteristics such as being less demanding, more accessible, and less expensive to marry, female participants presented themselves (Jordanian women) as a different category of hard-working women with high demands and standards. They emphasised time shortages or a lack of interest in prioritising home decorating and making themselves desirable for their husbands. This differentiation between Jordanian and Syrian women allowed female participants to assert their desire to be selected as a first choice, emphasising their own respectability (Skeggs 1997) and high status in contrast to Syrian women’s perceived failure to be recognised as respectable. These dynamics of intimacy, defined by Stoler (2001: 829) as ‘intimate domains—sex sentiment, domestic arrangement, and child rearing’, underscore the connectedness of the politics of belonging and the politics of intimacy.

Undesirable widowers or divorced men, as mentioned by Omar, are often perceived as failures in the context of transnational marriages (Charsley 2012; Yi’En 2012). The devaluation and labelling of nonimmigrant husbands appear to take place prior to their involvement in transnational marriages, resembling the othering process experienced by displaced Syrian refugee women. These women are associated with the Global South in distinct ways, differing from Jordanian women and men or Syrian men. This process involves a gendered and sexed colonial history in which sexuality serves as a crucial signifier in constructing otherness (Stoler 1999; Farahani 2018; Farahani & Thapar-Björkert 2020). Citizenship can provide an avenue for men with a lower level of desirability in the local marriage market (due to factors such as class background, age, former relationships, financial means, and physical appearance) to engage in cross-border marriages. Seeking foreign spouses allows these men, who are considered unsuccessful by normative social standards, to dislodge themselves, ‘compensate’ for their perceived ‘failed masculine’ positioning, and assume roles as protectors and providers. This transformation might enhance their masculine capital in cross-border marriages or empower them in the eyes of vulnerable displaced women, as argued elsewhere by Yi’En, Yeoh and Zhang (2015). Judgemental attitudes towards marriage and the (un)desirability of displaced wives and nonimmigrant husbands underline how private decisions and practices, reinforced by patriarchal rules and values, lead to differential capital and entitlements (Plummer 2003). For instance, the consequences for the status of Jordanian men and young Syrian women differ significantly, with displaced young Syrian women disproportionately bearing social and physical security costs.

Information on cross-national marriage between Syrians and Jordanians is noticeably absent from the official state narrative, as such information only surfaces in public political discussions related to nationality rights. Notably, ongoing political debates centre on permitting Jordanian women who are married to non-Jordanians to pass on their nationality to their children. Despite the official silence, participants extensively discussed the impact of the increase in refugees in the city of Mafraq, shedding light on the rise in cross-border (child) marriage and polygamy. The relationships among early marriage, war and forced displacement are highly complex and context dependent and can cause both increasing and decreasing pressure on the rate of early marriage. Economic hardship, the desire to reduce living costs, and the desire to protect young girls from sexual violence have contributed to an increase in early marriage rates (Neal, Stone & Ingham 2016). Conversely, factors such as marriage expenses, limited job opportunities, a reduced pool of available and eligible spouses (Khawaja, Assaf & Jarallah 2009), and adoption of the custom of the host community (Abbasi-Shavazi, Mahmoudian & Sadeghi 2018) have, led to the postponement of marriage. Research participants, however, predominantly highlighted Syrian families’ desire to marry off their young daughters, emphasising the attractiveness of young girls due to the lower marriage cost. According to 41-year-old Hani, ‘personal status law is not followed regarding marriage from Syrians; therefore, some girls as young as 15 are married off’. According to him, ‘some Syrian women are married according to customary norms without official documentation until they reach the legal age of marriage’. Khalil, a retired 55-year-old army officer, used the topic of child marriage to differentiate between the Jordanian and Syrian cultures:

Highlighting the struggles of displaced families in seeking existential security by arranging marriages for their young daughters amid challenging economic circumstances, the research participants not only emphasised the entanglement of economic features and intimate citizenship (see Le Feuvre & Roseneil 2014) but also established a social distinction between Jordanians and Syrians manifested through intimate spheres. According to the research participants, the precarious refugee status of Syrian women, as primary victims of the Syrian crisis, contrasts with that of certain Jordanian men who, due to having low economic capital, seek to regain perceived failed masculinity by marrying young girls. Given the harsh economic circumstances, Syrian families may eagerly pursue marriages for their young daughters. Consequently, despite being illegal in Jordan, child marriage has recently emerged as a phenomenon (El Arab & Sagbakken 2019; Sieverding et al. 2020). Misyar marriages, which is the term used to describe the unions of young girls based on binding documents, have become widespread. Wives within such marriages often face abandonment after becoming pregnant. Under Jordanian law, they are considered unmarried, and their children are deemed illegal, which means that they are denied access to maternal and other related health and welfare services (Welchman 2007).

Across all schools of Islamic doctrines, the regulation of sexuality is rationalised as a strategy for managing social relations and promoting civility (Farahani 2007, 2018). Marriage and its (hetero)sexual norms serve as a civilising marker that restrains and controls sexuality (Farahani 2007, 2018; Karlsson Minganti 2016). The exclusive right of sexual practices within marriage, in all schools of Islamic laws and regulations, further emphasises the imperative nature of ‘marrying on time’ (ibid). In view of this, women who marry ‘behind schedule’ or too late—which is a context-dependent and shifting notion—grow less desirable within the existing patriarchal heterosexual settings. Despite variations across culture, class, ethnicity and age—among other factors—the heterosexual matrix is an apparatus that defines the intelligibility of sexual norms and identities. The young age of displaced females contributes to their precarious and vulnerable position, adding an additional layer to the expected marriage schedule that pushes them to marry ‘on time’. This gendered temporal aspect, coupled with the economic and citizenship precarities of young displaced females, places them in vulnerable positions that undervalue their intimate lives. While their younger age enhances their desirability within the existing patriarchal heterosexual matrix, it subjects them to gendered social devaluation and stigmatisation; this experience was articulated by many research participants, such as Hani, who is cited in the following epigram of this paper:

The frequent theme of low dowries for (young) Syrian women, with expressions such as ‘Syrian women are cheaper than Jordanian ones’, was emphasised by several research participants. This places Syrian women at an advantage, particularly for Jordanian men, amid the growing economic crisis, making it challenging for young men to afford marriage due to the high costs. Consequently, some Jordanian women in Mafraq observe a threat from the perceived ease of access to Syrian women, who, facing harsh living conditions, are willing to make significant compromises in marriage. While the concept of intimate citizenship underlines merging concerns over ‘the right to “choose” what we do with our bodies, our feeling, our identities, our relationships, our genders, our eroticisms and our representations’ (Plummer 1995: 17), its apparent connection with economic circumstances and migratory status renders the realisation and recognition of the intimate sphere nearly inaccessible for displaced Syrian women and Jordanian men. The intersections of the institutionalised discriminatory practices in migration laws and circulating stereotypes, along with judgemental attitudes within the intimate spheres of displaced young migratory subjects and marginalised men, establish a regulatory mechanism, even among the community of professionals, volunteers and activities who work with migrant communities.

The rationalisations expressed by research participants regarding marriage reveal how perceptions of a ‘normative’ family, sexuality and intimacies are entangled with race, class, age, ethnicity, and national/citizenship status. This analysis underscores how moral imperatives presuppose the normality of heterosexuality and patriarchal ethics, simultaneously discouraging certain heterosexual intimacies and implicitly associating citizenship across national settings. This finding reinforces Linda Bosniak’s critique of the conventional perception of citizenship as being ‘hard on the outside and soft on the inside’ (2006: 4), i.e., inclusive for insiders and exclusive for outsiders. Previous studies of intimate relationships indicate how colonial gendered imaginations, fantasies, and the desire to find a woman committed to traditional family values have characterised transnational marriages between men from the Global North (or those who were born in the Global South and reside in the Global North) and women from the Global South (Constable 2005; Farahani 2007, 2018). However, the accounts provided by interviewees indicate that the decisions regarding cross-border intimate marriages within the Global South context (Syrian women and Jordanian men) and those who have different gendered and classed citizenship rights are, to some extent, driven by similar (although not identical) particularities.

This observation highlights how motivations and aspirations tied to marital relationships transcend the dichotomies of the Global North and Global South and are significantly influenced by the privileges individuals embody based on their social, gender, racial, and class locations, as well as their positioning within various social contexts (Anthias 2020). This does not imply uniform privileges for all men residing in the Global North (or South); however, national citizenship provides certain, albeit not identical, privileges to its citizens. In our study, Jordanian citizenship, coupled with existing patriarchal norms, confers specific privileges to the working class, elderly people, and divorced men, enabling them to select young displaced Syrian women. However, the logics of transborder marriage are complex and multifaceted, resisting analytical reduction solely to material or economic explanations. They necessitate ethnographic studies and contextual framing for each milieu. As Lapanun (2012: 24) asserts:

Dareen, who witnessed her daughter’s despair and anger after her husband married a Syrian woman, shared her family’s misery in the aftermath of the Syrian crisis. When asked about her thoughts on Syrian refugees, she expressed a negative view, stating, ‘Syrians are the ones who are greedy; this is part of their nature. They will only benefit themselves and will never help others’. Dareen described how Syrians, in her perception, exploit opportunities from Jordanians in the labour market, leading to employment crises. She protested the lower wages of Syrian workers compared to Jordanians, despite receiving public funds. Dareen passionately discussed how the Syrian presence increases the practice of polygamy due to the perceived lower cost of marrying a Syrian woman. She emphasised that marriage for Syrian women is viewed as a necessity, regardless of the age of the groom, with the most important factor being the presence of a man. Additionally, Dareen suggested that the presence of Syrian women poses a challenge to Jordanian women.

Hani from Rabba highlighted the impact of the refugee crisis on Jordanian families, commenting, ‘Syrian society is disconnected. It is morally bankrupt’. When discussing Syrian women, he remarked, ‘Syrian women are better than Jordanian women: sexually, in taking care of the house, and in terms of cooking delicious food’. He concluded by stating that the Syrian crisis contributed to the breakdown of Jordanian families. Several participants also mentioned how the Syrian dialect and Syrian food are factors of seduction for Jordanian men.

By portraying Syrian women as greedy, seductive, and needy and framing the Jordanian men who marry them as failed masculine subjects with no better options, these intimacies are labelled as fake and lacking in desirable and effective heterosexual capital. Drawing inspiration from Bourdieu’s (1986) definition of capital as a recognised social asset, we conceptualise heterosexual capital as the binary gender identities enacted within a dominant social order (Bourdieu 1986, 2001). For each gender, specific attributes serve as symbolic capital, which is exchangeable for various economic, social, and cultural privileges, as well as societal acceptance and acknowledgement. The recognition of certain positionalities or relationships as assets is contingent on societal acknowledgement. For example, as long as specific positionalities or relationships are not recognised by society as an asset, they will not be recognised as such, such as the heterosexual position of a middle-aged single person living alone, the heterosexual position of a single mother/father, or a heterosexual union. While not intending a comprehensive Bourdieusian analysis, we employ the notion of capital related to the privileged positions that a heteronormative setting furnishes for (some) heterosexual couples. Thus, the concept of ‘heterosexual capital’ functions as a relational and empirical tool rather than not an all-encompassing conceptual frame. By viewing heterosexuality as a form of capital, we aim to illustrate how it entails shifting social benefits and privileges depending on its combination with other forms of capital and how its value is contingent on confirmation by the existing heteronormative setting. In the case of a vulnerable displaced woman and a marginalised man, their heterosexual relationship fails to gain social recognition and acceptance.

As Kiran Grewal (2020) aptly argues, for a heterosexual person, not conforming to a heteronormative nuclear family structure within the norms of sexual organisation can lead to isolation and increased vulnerabilities. Consequently, with less heterosexual capital, the intimacy and marriage of young displaced Syrian women to Jordanian men struggle to gain social acceptance and recognition. This lack of acknowledgement prevents these individuals from being regarded as legitimate and respectable couples. The negative gendered devaluation of Syrian women and Jordanian men, coupled with the cultural and social deficits within society, makes their choices seemingly the only available option for them. Therefore, our emphasis is on the reproduction of the gendered otherness of Syrian women, the intimate relationships of Jordanian men with them, and the subsequent absence of recognition as a respectable ‘correct’ family within Jordanian society at large. As Young (1989: 257) remarks:

By examining how othered femininities and masculinities are articulated, we not only highlight the expression of differences but also underscore the legitimation of xenophobic ideas. The current study shows a range of defensive discourses aimed at delegitimising couples consisting of Syrian women and Jordanian men as proper family units and characterising their unions as marriages of convenience. By demonstrating the entanglement of Syrian women’s and Jordanian men’s choices in the prevailing material and sociocultural conditions, our empirical material reflects the assertion made by interviewees regarding their autonomy in making choices.

This study provides a nuanced exploration of the complex dynamics surrounding cross-border marriages between Syrian refugee women and Jordanian men, situated in the context of South–South migration; it also contributes to the South re-entering displacement and migration studies. Through an exploration of the perceptions, discourses, and practices of intimate relationships, this research elucidates the complex interplay of gendered, racialised, and sociopolitical forces within the host society. The analysis underscores how nonhegemonic masculinities among Jordanian men position Syrian women as ‘vulnerable and disempowered’, indicating that they resort to compensatory strategies. Drawing upon Ken Plummer’s concept of ‘intimate citizenship’, the current study reveals the intimate entanglements of personal lives with globalised political discourses, thereby reinforcing and perpetuating nation-based privileges.

The application of ‘intimate citizenship’ as a theoretical framework illuminates the construction, discussion, and challenges surrounding desirable and undesirable intimate unions among displaced Syrian women and Jordanian men. The analysis also explores the challenges of ‘intimate citizenship’ rights within the migration context, shedding light on the politicisation and stigma associated with cross-border marriages. Furthermore, by recognising the inadvertent reinforcement of state-informed hierarchies through the use of terms such as ‘cross-border marriage’, the current study underscores how these terms unintentionally contribute to the solidification of state categories, reinforcing existing societal hierarchies. Furthermore, it demonstrates the profound impact of economic circumstances, citizenship status, and entrenched patriarchal norms on the choices and recognition of these intimate relationships.

Additionally, this study draws attention to the vulnerability of young displaced Syrian women, emphasising the interconnectedness of economic factors and intimate citizenship. By examining societal judgements, moral imperatives, and patriarchal norms that regulate the intimate lives of displaced migratory subjects and marginalised men, this research contributes to the understanding of the multifaceted challenges faced by these individuals. The examination of perceptions of marriage reveals the complex entanglement of normative family structures with race, class, age, ethnicity, and citizenship status. By introducing the concepts of ‘heterosexual capital’ and ‘compensatory masculinity’, this study demonstrates how societal benefits and privileges linked to heterosexual relationships depend on acknowledgement, hereby shaping the recognition of specific femininities and masculinities as respectable and influencing the (il)legitimacy of certain couples.

In summary, this research not only enriches our understanding of the complex dynamics of South–South migration but also challenges prevailing narratives in migration studies. The current study stands out as one of the few to address intimate citizenship, including the judgemental viewpoints and comments of the normative society, rather than focusing solely on marginalised and devalued communities. By weaving together threads of gender, citizenship, and intimate relationships, the current study invites a re-evaluation of existing frameworks and opens avenues for a more inclusive and nuanced discourse on migration and displacement that considers the conditions of the hosting society and even nonmigrant partners.