Marriage exists in virtually every human society, but no single definition fits all its forms. Early definitions by Westermarck, Malinowski, Radcliffe-Brown, Notes and Queries and Murdock break down against cases such as Nuer woman-to-woman and ghost marriage and the Nayar of Kerala. Kathleen Gough redefined marriage around the legitimacy of children to cover the Nayar. Edmund Leach concluded that marriage is a "bundle of rights" and that every universal definition is in vain.
This note traces the debate on the universal definition of marriage, with the Nayar case in detail, for the UPSC Anthropology Optional. It falls under Paper I, topic 2.3 (marriage: definition and universality) of the Anthropology Optional syllabus.
The problem of a universal definition
- The institution is universal. Some form of marriage is found in every known society.
- Its meaning varies. Who may marry, how many spouses, where they live, and what rights the union creates differ from one society to another.
- The question. Given this variation, can anything general be said about marriage that holds for all societies? This is the crux of the problem, and it is as puzzling today as it was at the beginning of anthropology.
Definitions of marriage at a glance
| Scholar | Core of the definition | Cases it cannot cover |
|---|---|---|
| Edward Westermarck | A relation of one or more men with one or more women, recognised by custom or law, with rights and duties for the partners and their children | Nuer woman-to-woman marriage; Azande marriages between men; Kwakiutl "sham" marriages |
| Malinowski; Radcliffe-Brown; Notes and Queries (1951) | A union of a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are the legitimate offspring of both | Woman-to-woman marriage in Dahomey and among the Nuer; Nuer ghost marriage; societies where legitimacy does not depend on marriage |
| G. P. Murdock | Sexual and economic functions united in one relationship, with common residence, forming a nuclear family | The Nayar; the Israeli kibbutz; matrifocal households in the Caribbean |
| Kathleen Gough | A relationship between a woman and one or more persons that gives her children full birth-status rights | Societies where marriage is not needed for legitimacy; unions that produce no children |
| W. N. Stephens | A socially legitimate sexual union, publicly announced, meant to be permanent, with a contract of reciprocal obligations | By his own cross-cultural test: Nayar, kibbutz and several others |
| Edmund Leach | A "bundle of rights"; no universal definition is possible | Not a definition, so it gives no test of what counts as marriage |
Early definitions
Westermarck
The most frequently quoted early definition is Edward Westermarck's: marriage is a relation of one or more men with one or more women, recognised by custom or law, involving certain rights and duties both for the parties entering the union and for the children born of it.
It allows for polygamy, but it assumes that the partners are of opposite sex and living. It therefore cannot accommodate woman-to-woman marriage among the Nuer, marriages between men reported among the Azande, or the so-called sham marriages of the Kwakiutl, in which a marriage was contracted to transfer privileges.
The legitimacy definitions
Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown defined marriage as a union of a man and a woman in which they are the jural father and mother of the children born to the woman. Notes and Queries on Anthropology (1951) put it similarly: a union between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are the recognised legitimate offspring of both parents.
- What they stress. Marriage licenses parenthood, not sexual intercourse. It gives a jural basis to a group of a man, a woman and their children.
- Where they fail. In Dahomey a woman could marry another woman and become the legal parent of the children. Among the Nuer a man could marry a wife in the name of a dead kinsman. In some societies of Micronesia, such as Onotoa and Truk, marriage was not required for a child to be legitimate.
Murdock
G. P. Murdock held that marriage exists only when the economic and the sexual functions are united in one relationship. It involves common residence, economic cooperation and, where children are born, the formation of a nuclear family.
- The Nayar. Husband and wife did not live together or cooperate economically, and there was no nuclear family. By Murdock's definition the Nayar had no marriage.
- The kibbutz. In the Israeli kibbutz the couple did not form a separate economic unit.
- Matrifocal households. In parts of the Caribbean, households centred on the mother, with partners in visiting or consensual unions, did not form nuclear families.
The Nayar of Kerala: the test case
Kathleen Gough studied the Nayar and reconstructed their traditional system as it was before the changes of the late 19th century.
The traditional system
| Element | Description |
|---|---|
| Taravad | The matrilineal joint family in which the Nayar lived, headed by the eldest male, the karanavan. A smaller matrilineal segment was the tavari. |
| Talikettu kalyanam | A rite held before puberty, usually for a group of girls together every few years. A ritual husband of appropriate status tied a tali (marriage badge) round each girl's neck. At the end a cloth was torn in two, marking the separation of the pair. A girl who came of age without this rite brought disgrace on the taravad. |
| Sambandham | After coming of age the woman could receive visiting husbands, who were Nayar men of suitable rank or Nambudiri Brahmins. The relationship was opened with the karanavan's consent and a gift of cloth. The men visited at night and had no duty to maintain the woman or her children. |
| Acknowledgement of paternity | When a child was born, one or more of the visiting husbands acknowledged it by paying the expenses of the delivery. Without this the child's status was in doubt. |
| Mourning | The woman and her children observed death pollution for the ritual husband, which Gough took as evidence that the first bond was never dissolved. |
What Gough concluded
- Marriage among the Nayar involved a woman and several men.
- The legitimacy of a child required two things: that the mother had been ritually married to a man of appropriate rank, and that paternity was acknowledged by one or more visiting husbands of appropriate rank.
- Without both, a child could not take its place in the mother's caste and descent group.
- She treated the talikettu kalyanam as the primary marriage and sambandham as secondary marriage, a view shared by Louis Dumont.
Gough's definition
Marriage is a relationship established between a woman and one or more other persons, which provides that a child born to the woman under circumstances not prohibited by the rules of the relationship is accorded full birth-status rights common to normal members of his society or social stratum. (Kathleen Gough)
In simple terms, marriage is a customary transaction that establishes the legitimacy of newborn children as acceptable members of society. Two features make the definition wide: "one or more other persons" covers polyandry and woman-to-woman marriage, and nothing is said about residence, sex or economic cooperation.
Criticism of Gough
- Prince Peter of Greece. The notion of marriage is absent from sambandham. The Nambudiri themselves regarded it as concubinage. He saw it as the means by which a matrilineal caste existed within a patrilineal Nambudiri setting.
- Edmund Leach. The notion of fatherhood is weak in both rites. Leach drew attention to the kinship terms children used for the ritual husband and for a Nambudiri visiting husband, and argued that neither man was a father in the ordinary sense. The ritual husband, unless he later became a visiting husband, had no part in acknowledging the children.
- Legitimacy without marriage. In societies such as Onotoa and Truk, a child could be a full member of society without the mother being married.
- Childless and same-sex unions. A definition built on the status of children says little about unions that are not concerned with children.
Later attempts
- W. N. Stephens (1963) defined marriage as a socially legitimate sexual union, begun with a public announcement, undertaken with some idea of permanence, and assumed with a more or less explicit contract setting out reciprocal obligations between spouses and between them and their future children. Testing it cross-culturally, he found that the Nayar, the kibbutz and several other cases did not fit, and concluded that a universal definition is very difficult to reach.
- Levy and Fallers (1959) judged the existing definitions unworkable.
- M. F. Nimkoff held that definitions stressing co-residence, coitus and economic cooperation are incomplete for cross-cultural purposes.
- Robin Fox (1967) dealt with the considerations underlying marriage in all human groups, without offering a final definition.
Leach: marriage as a bundle of rights
Borrowing a phrase from Henry Maine, Leach described marriage as "a bundle of rights". He listed ten classes of rights that marriage may establish. They concern:
- the legal paternity and maternity of the children;
- each partner's monopoly over the other's sexuality;
- rights over each other's labour and domestic services;
- rights over each other's property, and a joint fund for the children;
- a socially significant relationship of affinity between the husband and his wife's brothers.
His conclusion was that no one of these rights is found in every society, and no society has all of them. To lay down a definition that suits all societies is therefore an exercise in futility.
Where the debate stands
- The institution of marriage is universal, or very nearly so.
- A definition with universal applicability has not yet been framed.
- Legitimacy of children is the element that comes closest to being general, which is why Gough's definition remains the most cited.
- For practical work, anthropologists follow Leach: they ask which rights a particular union transfers, instead of asking whether it "is" a marriage.
See also our notes on marriage and mating and on why marriage is universal, which take up the functions of the institution. For Indian scholars on kinship, see Indian anthropologists.
Using this topic in a UPSC answer
- State the problem in one line: the institution is universal, its definition is not.
- Move in order: Westermarck, Notes and Queries, Murdock, each with one case that defeats it.
- Describe the Nayar system in four terms: taravad, talikettu kalyanam, sambandham, acknowledgement of paternity.
- Give Gough's definition and two criticisms.
- End with Leach's bundle of rights as the settled position.
For presentation, see our guide to anthropology answer writing with diagrams, thinkers and case studies.
Frequently asked questions
Why is it difficult to give a universal definition of marriage?
Marriage takes very different forms across societies, including polygamy, woman-to-woman marriage, ghost marriage and unions without common residence. Any definition built on one feature, such as cohabitation or legitimacy, fails for some society.
What is the Notes and Queries definition of marriage?
Notes and Queries on Anthropology (1951) defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are the recognised legitimate offspring of both parents.
How did Murdock define marriage?
G. P. Murdock held that marriage exists only when the economic and sexual functions are united in one relationship, involving common residence and economic cooperation and leading to a nuclear family.
How did Kathleen Gough define marriage?
Gough defined marriage as a relationship between a woman and one or more other persons which ensures that a child born to her, in circumstances not prohibited by the rules of the relationship, receives full birth-status rights in its society.
What were talikettu kalyanam and sambandham among the Nayar?
Talikettu kalyanam was a rite before puberty in which a ritual husband tied a tali round the girl's neck. Sambandham was the later visiting relationship between a Nayar woman and one or more men, who did not live with her or maintain her children.
What did Leach mean by marriage as a bundle of rights?
Leach meant that marriage is not one thing but a set of separable rights, over sexuality, labour, property and children. Different societies combine them differently, so no single definition fits all.
Is marriage universal?
The institution of marriage is found in virtually all known societies. What has not been achieved is a definition that applies to every one of them.