JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Saturday, May 17, 2025

Marriage and Other Arrangements

by

20130630

Last week the US Supreme Court found the 1996 De­fense of Mar­riage Act (DO­MA) to be un­con­sti­tu­tion­al.An­tic­i­pat­ing the need for facts and ev­i­dence about mar­riage and its many forms, the Amer­i­can An­thro­pol­o­gist As­so­ci­a­tion (AAA) re­leased a spe­cial, open-ac­cess jour­nal pulling to­geth­er ethno­graph­ic ev­i­dence about mar­riage and its cul­tur­al­ly di­verse forms. For those in­ter­est­ed, the free is­sue can be found here www.aaaopenan­thro.org

An­thro­pol­o­gy stud­ies the breadth of hu­man­i­ty across time and cul­tures. In this sense it of­ten prob­lema­tis­es peo­ple's be­liefs. Put sim­ply, an­thro­pol­o­gy has found that just be­cause peo­ple or cul­tures be­lieve some­thing to be nat­ur­al or nor­mal this is rarely ev­i­dence that it is across every cul­ture.The "tra­di­tion­al" idea of mar­riage–one man and one woman in a monog­a­mous con­tract–is most com­mon in T&T. But through­out the world many vari­a­tions to this type of mar­riage con­tract ex­ist.

Polygamy or plur­al mar­riage is found in many so­ci­eties to­day and even more so in the past. Polyg­y­ny (the mar­riage of one man to many women) is the most com­mon form of polygamy en­coun­tered by an­thro­pol­o­gists and fea­tures in the Old Tes­ta­ment and the Ko­ran. any oth­er forms of polyg­y­ny ex­ist too. Soro­ral polyg­y­ny, doc­u­ment­ed among 40 Na­tive Amer­i­can tribes, is when sev­er­al sis­ters be­come co-wives of a man.

The re­verse arrange­ment–where one wife has mul­ti­ple hus­bands–is called polyandry and, while far less com­mon, has been doc­u­ment­ed among var­i­ous cul­tures in­clud­ing some South Amer­i­can tribes. When mul­ti­ple hus­bands are broth­ers this is called fra­ter­nal polyandry and where the hus­bands aren't broth­ers it is called non-fra­ter­nal polyandry.

An­oth­er vari­a­tion of polygamy is plur­al mar­riage where the many spous­es are of both sex­es. This form of group mar­riage in­volves mul­ti­ple men mar­ried to mul­ti­ple women at the same time and is called polyg­y­nandry. While very rare, one group who prac­tised this is the Cain­gan of Brazil.

Clos­er to home it's easy to for­get that monogamy as a mar­riage con­tract it­self has vari­a­tions. Ro­man Catholics, for ex­am­ple, prac­tise strict monogamy, while main­stream USA is well known for prac­tis­ing se­r­i­al monogamy. Just as many peo­ple take aim at same-sex mar­riage as be­ing some­thing they could nev­er recog­nise, some who prac­tise strict monogamy do not recog­nise the re­mar­ry­ing of se­r­i­al monogamists.

To put the idea of se­r­i­al or strict monogamy in­to fo­cus, it is not as tra­di­tion­al as many west­ern­ers be­lieve. In 1967 an­thro­pol­o­gist George Mur­dock demon­strat­ed that of al­most 850 so­ci­eties ethno­graph­i­cal­ly doc­u­ment­ed, on­ly 16 per cent were monog­a­mous while 83 per cent were polyg­a­mous. All mar­riage forms are hu­man in­ven­tions.

That it takes a lot of work to be suc­cess­ful at a monog­a­mous mar­riage arrange­ment is more ac­cu­rate than say­ing monogamy is a "nat­ur­al" fit for all hu­mans. Mar­riage sys­tems across time are hu­man cul­tur­al re­spons­es, and of­ten so­lu­tions, to par­tic­u­lar so­cial, po­lit­i­cal and eco­nom­ic con­di­tions. As such, for most of hu­man his­to­ry mar­riage was an eco­nom­ic and po­lit­i­cal re­la­tion­ship not be­tween in­di­vid­u­als but groups.

To­day, in some cul­tures, peo­ple en­ter in­to a monog­a­mous mar­riage con­tract be­cause of love and per­son­al at­trac­tion. That is a fair­ly re­cent, west­ern, 20th-cen­tu­ry norm. In times gone by, many monog­a­mous mar­riage pair­ings were se­lect­ed by par­ents and el­ders, of­ten when the prospec­tive bride and groom were chil­dren.

This does not mean such mar­riages were or are void of love. Rather, it sug­gests that mar­ry­ing for love was a priv­i­lege be­cause in many cul­tures the emo­tion­al con­nec­tion, if it comes, ar­rives af­ter mar­riage, not be­fore it.

Which brings us back to same-sex mar­riage. This too has ex­ist­ed across time and so­ci­eties. It does not be­gin and end in the US. So­ci­eties where an­thro­pol­o­gists have doc­u­ment­ed same-sex mar­riage in­clude west­ern Egypt, the Nuer of East Africa, and among the berdache of Na­tive Amer­i­can In­di­ans.

Clear­ly, then, mar­riage con­tracts and arrange­ments come in dif­fer­ent shapes and forms across cul­tures. In gen­er­al, how­ev­er, an­thro­pol­o­gists agree that no mat­ter their form, most mar­riages seem to share some ba­sics. Across the world, mar­riages shape and de­scribe the re­spon­si­bil­i­ty for chil­dren, the or­gan­i­sa­tion of fam­i­ly and al­liances, taboos, the rules of in­her­i­tance, peo­ple's so­cial sta­tus, moral­i­ty, and more.

An­thro­po­log­i­cal ev­i­dence sug­gests mar­riage is about a lot more than sex­u­al­i­ty. And as the AAA point­ed out in 2004:

"The re­sults of more than a cen­tu­ry of an­thro­po­log­i­cal re­search on house­holds, kin­ship re­la­tion­ships, and fam­i­lies, across cul­tures and through time, pro­vide no sup­port what­so­ev­er for the view that ei­ther civil­i­sa­tion or vi­able so­cial or­ders de­pend up­on mar­riage as an ex­clu­sive­ly het­ero­sex­u­al in­sti­tu­tion. Rather, an­thro­po­log­i­cal re­search sup­ports the con­clu­sion that a vast ar­ray of fam­i­ly types, in­clud­ing fam­i­lies built up­on same-sex part­ner­ships, can con­tribute to sta­ble and hu­mane so­ci­eties."

�2 Dr Dy­lan Ker­ri­g­an is an an­thro­pol­o­gist at UWI, St Au­gus­tine


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored